While she presents some interesting things, she seems to be somewhat of an intellectual alchemist.

More malevolence. More fear tactics.

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

Since it may be true that what we are essentially trying to destroy are certain types of "memes" then memetics is a developing science that may come in handy. As a bonus, this science is probably not as useful for misandric feminist ideologies since they are hostile towards any notions of truth, reality, or objectivity.

Quote from RedRooster

she seems to be somewhat of an intellectual alchemist.

How so?

BTW, I think we should stop using the word "malevolence", because it looks too much like male violence. [malevolence=taboo word]. That could be a useful meme.

Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic to memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic.[2]
Another scientific critique comes from semiotics, (e.g., Deacon[3], Kull[4]) stating that the concept of meme is a primitivized concept of sign. Meme is thus described in memetics as a sign without its triadic nature. In other words, meme is a degenerate sign, which includes only its ability of being copied. Accordingly, the objects of copying are memes, whereas the objects of translation (sensu lato) and interpretation are signs.

That is part right. Memetics is a threat to the well established traditions in cultural studies of hermeneutics and semiotics. But, it is premature to call memetics a psuedo-scientific dogma. On the otherhand semiotics and hermeneutics are clearly pseudo-scientific.
Lack of a "code script" that resembles DNA is not a problem, since the principle of replication is the bottom line, and the details of the process of replication may vary without consequence. Remember, memes are not ideas (the quote presents a misleading confound). Also there is no reason to think that signs have a "triadic nature". Even if memetics does not bear fruit and ends up as just another psuedo-scientific dogma, then this would just mean that one such dogma would replace another such dogma. Anyhow even if the processes of memetic evolution are more chaotic than genetic evolution, and different in many ways. That doesnt mean that the same basic principles of variation, selection and replication/heredity are not at work.

Lack of a "code script" that resembles DNA is not a problem, since the principle of replication is the bottom line, and the details of the process of replication may vary without consequence.

Ahha! You show your colours as a philosopher, Sir.

I tend to agree with the first part of the quote, up to the last 'and'. I would posit that there would be consequences, just as DNA transmission and mutation have, and they would be variable.

Mechanism is important. Without a mechanism, there is no explanatory variable and the 'theory' remains faux/pseudo, a conjecture.