Analysis
I randomly grabbed articles from friends who lean left. Some of them are from friends, while others are reposts of some kind by others. Each one was pasted without any reference to who it was in a text document. I separated them by number, and genuinely don't know who was what. I followed sources as well, and copied articles from these sources so I could see what was going on. The text file was given to ChatGPT to analyze and come up with conclusions.
This is the response.
Although the 16 articles from Lefty Rants were selected at random, they exhibit a remarkably consistent writing style. Clustering analysis suggests at least two primary authorial voices, supported by occasional guest or curated content. Despite stylistic differences, the pieces share a common ideological lens, rhetorical tone (urgent, sarcastic, morally charged), and cultural references, which contribute to their uniformity. This consistency may result from shared community norms, editorial shaping, or AI-assisted drafting, rather than a single author.
ChatGPT found three styles. The first was:
Recap: Style-Based Groups
-
Group 1: Technical / Anecdotal
-
Group 2: Emotional / Advocacy
-
Group 3: Journalistic / Historical
So, it was consistent even though there were several different authors. Some were obviously different people, while most fit within two categories. Either they were technical or emotional.
When I asked how this was possible, I received this response
The consistency across the Lefty Rants articles likely stems from a shared ideological framework and rhetorical style common within certain online progressive or activist communities. Even if written by different individuals, the use of similar emotional tones (urgency, outrage, sarcasm), cultural references, and moral arguments creates a uniform voice. This effect can be further amplified by editorial curation, where contributors adopt a house style, or by the use of AI-assisted drafting tools guided by prompts within the same worldview. As a result, the articles feel like they come from a single authorial voice—even when sourced independently.
I went in wondering if there could be AI used, and it's possible, but it would be heavily controlled. The people are in a box of some kind and ranting, but not AI directly.
While looking at the sources I found that most were authors. They had several rants posted on their feed about everything. Also, a few had links to blog posts or other sources that might bring revenue to the author. So this appears to be promotional writing. The rants are similar, because they are reading each other's articles. They also seem to believe that their readers are lefty leaning as well. Some are trans or gay and use their experience as a source for their writing.
It also explains the length. Writers tend to be writing and editing a lot anyway. This could be used as a break, and a chance to promote. Some of them could be using AI as well, but that would be a start, followed by heavy editing.
I started to ask questions because my lefty friends regularly posted these rants back and forth. When I noticed that it seemed to be the same authors over and over again I asked some more questions. The conclusion was to do literary analysis to see what else was going on.
Currentyear lefty politics are monolithic and you only need to sample them being vocal on a single topic to immediately know where they stand on all the others like vaxx, immigration, Ukraine, Israel, metoo, BLM, muh tariffs etc. Although they might repeat and repost stuff thinking the sentiments are genuinely all their own, they've arrived at their positions through a uniform and formulaic narrative-crafting effort by the Powers That Be.
So it's no surprise you can feed all their posts to a robot and it will tell you that this shit all smells the same. The consistent denial of reality which prevails over these people can only be arrived at by pulling on very similar levers: either you co-opt a moral authority and feed them conclusions through that, eg. in the form of an emotional anecdote about trans genocide or whatever, or you co-opt a technical authority and feed them conclusions in the form of facts from a bought-out 'expert' source. In the absence of any other guiding principles, it's very easy to go to the root of all their decision-forming and control the entirety of their outlook. All the types who would have been sucking off Chomsky years ago don't particularly care how their own consent is manufactured, apparently.
This is also why they're so aggressive in attacking what they identify as the equivalent sources on the right: Tate, Brand, Alex Jones, Grummz, whoever... Because they think all opinions on the opposing side are formed in the same way that theirs are, so if they can just block up the source, the river will stop flowing.
Past a certain point it stops mattering if the things they're reposting are genuinely held opinions or calculated attempts at manipulation. The manipulated soon become the enthusiastic manipulators of eachother inside their feedback-looped cliques. The substack authors, or whatever they are, might just be other progressives in an earlier section of the loop. This is why 'mind virus' is an accurate term because it takes on a momentum of its own, although that term still doesn't tell anyone very much about what to do to counter it.
What do we do to stop real viruses? Immunization, using the viral material as a weapon against itself. In the mental space that takes the form of Humor, Mockery, Memes. The Left has done this for years with their stupid comedy shows. If you take a real idea and flip it to a ridiculous extreme, mock it, and through repetition and forced collective laughter reinforce the idea that it's a subject of ridicule, you create a thought terminator in the NPC mind which automatically "laughs off" any attempt at consideration when the idea comes up. The humor is a form of inoculation.
The Right excels in this with the various meme formats that better encapsulate reality than words ever could. We can use this to make sure all leftist ideas are mocked incessantly in culture, cultivating in future generations the basic laugh response when they hear silly ideas like labor theory of value, equity, or disparate impact. It's not the only solution but it's part of the solution already starting to take shape.
Or in other words, the AI LLM saw their thoughts, their beliefs in written form, and literally accused them of being NPCs, that AI had influence in the drafting of their beliefs.
It would be very poetic for LLMs to be trained on a bunch of Leftist trash, which these writers then use to ask for feedback on their own articles, ultimately reinforcing the ideology and becoming literal NPC programming, all the while getting them stuck in a permanent loop of feeding more Leftist articles to the same machine.
you forgot the 4th group, fake / gay
and yes not only could LLMs be used(ai) they are already in use and have been for years, from every thing from news articles to cooking blogs, if they get paid per word they can just use an LLMs to generate filler around a few key points
I think a lot of it is fake, just people posting it are semi real. One of the articles was written by a Chinese.
One underappreciated use of LLM that's been common since GPT2 is foreigners having it rewrite their text for psyops/astroturfing. It's a lot easier to fool people when you don't have bad English and weird grammatical cadence and typos that give away you and all your alts. You can even give them each of them their own personas.