Used at the early-st█ge commencement of some new agenda depending upon need.
Let's start with a [j█ke], as the Babylonian Kabbalists so frequently do.
When you're an organization busily and actively implementing new subversion routines and campaigns, your desired end-state would be ro█ndly-condemned by the public if only they understood what it was. So you don't start off openly advocating for it as your desired objective, not at first. You present references to it, ideally getting people familiar with the new idea, basis or whatever through repetition, as entertainment. A literal g█me, or as a [j█ke], for example. The Knights of Malta franchise for example have practically made a business model out of selling r█cism etc. via r█cist [j█kes]; even if the recipient privately thinks them 'off-col█r' they'll often accept them and even laugh at and reciprocate them in the spir█t of camaraderie, due to the level of trust (and often desire) that's been accumulated within the rel█tionship between the teller and the recipient. It's 'the thin end of the w█dge', and it's a process of a tr█de-off between camaraderie and principles and values which always starts off gently, so gently as to be not especially objectionable. Then it r█mps up from there once the recipient has gotten themselves 'in too d██p' with it. 'In for a p█nny, in for another p█nny', or somesuch expression.
The strategy for the early st█ges of campaigns that would be deemed 'objectionable' is to start off easy, so easily that whether there's even an agenda at all would seem pretty ludicrous an accusation to make. Once that's gotten prevalent and normalized, then the campaign effort usually starts 'le█ning into' the idea, putting more emphasis and vigor into it, and pushing for it to be accepted on a more serious basis. Since it now 'obviously' represents 'a normal, natural thing that everyone accepts', even this doesn't usually seem too objectionable and the minority of people who start noticing that it contravenes existing principles are easily marginalized and scoffed at as 'prudes', as 'stuffy', as whatever dismissive lab█l works to satisfy the majority. Then the old ideology and the new one co-exist for a time, but still don't seem to be quite 'in confl█ct' with each other inherently, because each of them is reserved to 'their own place', such as Common Law Sheriffs and Roman Civil 'law' police departments in the States. Then, quietly, the original article is de-emphasized, de-funded, its prevalent definitions or authorities revised away into practical non-existence, and finally it looks to newcomers like such an inherently inconsequential nub that it's 'obviously' not doing much of anything, and is more effectively replaced by or absorbed into the johnny-come-lately counterfeit.
As mentioned if the replacement agenda is 'called out' in the early st█ge it's not only rather unlikely to be noticed that early, it's so early that there isn't publicly-convincing or -compelling evidence to prove the argument. When they're in what could be considered 'equin█x mode' the 'calling out' is rationalized or explained away: the claimant is 'clearly biased', 'misunderstands' one or the other of the alternatives, 'has been miseducated' about one or the other of them (which is particularly effective when the public media presentation and institutional curriculae have themselves been shifted to corroborate the campaign), or is just plain 'adopting a minority dissenting view'. Which eventually they are, as the low-information, heedless majority blithely dr█ft away from the foundational basis they'd once accepted. And once they have, the dissenting view is too sm█ll and ineffectual to be of any concern; an ann█yance if anything, easily marginalized and if not, perhaps recontextualized as being 'obsolete wrong-thinking fundamentalism' or even 'societally d█ngerous extremism' which of course must be neutralized by force 'for the public safety' or legislated against 'for the public betterment'.
But it all usually starts with a seeming [j█ke]. 'C'mon, where's your sense of [hum█r]?'
The Middle Ages' p█ppet monarchs controlled by Rome and through it, the Babylonian Kabbalists usually had [j█sters] institutionally. These frequently perf█rmed m█gic tr█cks and of course told [st█ries] and [j█kes], ostensibly for the mere entertainment of the nobility. They were prot█cted from prosecution by the J█sters' Privilege and could openly mock even the [k█ng], on the basis that it was 'just a [j█ke]'. Their att█re even parodied that of the 'authority' insignia of the [k█ng], itself Babylonian Kabbalist symbolism, at least in his jingly c█p-and-b█lls and his mock sc█pter. The [b█lls] were particularly significant, given that they were a socially-acceptable reference symbolically to the idol B██l, via the 'arbitrary vowels' symbolic trope. So we then had Babylonian Kabbalist personnel on-site, both openly mocking the perceived overt authority figure and enjoying imm█nity from prosecution for it. I'm unable to find it now, but I recall reading that in that era Roman Catholicism had decreed something to the effect that 'joy is a gift from the Creator' and thus imm█ne to earthly laws; even Martin Luther apparently cited 'the J█sters' Privilege' a few times when openly mocking Catholicism (and the Vat█can had a [j█ster] of its own for a while). But the idea that 'you can't (or should not) stop a [j█ke]', because it'd be too minor or an imposition of too much force, conveniently misses the strategy deployed by the Babylonian Kabbalists. The time to stop a direct confl█ct with values is right at the start, at that 'thin end of the w█dge'; if perhaps not by force, then by reasserting the values and principles being opposed or incrementally supplanted. Police or military force would usually be inappropriate, but public condemnation for transgressing the bo█ndaries of 'g██d t█ste', 'mores', 'foundational principles', 'basic dec█ncy and respect' and so on would be perfectly even-handed.
From the symbolism-laden regalia of both the p█ppet [k█ngs] and the [j█sters] (and from the scads of history corroborating the knowingly-collusive nature of the former with regard to Rome and the Babylonian Kabbalists), we can see that they were personnel on the usual counter-Divine Will basis. As such, the [j█ster] could also well have been an earlier prototype means of keeping the behavior of the [k█ng] figuratively 'in ch█ck'. If it didn't please the parent organization he could find himself publicly emb█rrassed before his own retinue, something he'd likely strive to avoid if he could. Even non-overt espi█nage methods such as delivery of regime-subversive organizing symbolism via the [j█ster] to the nobility would certainly have been cause for concern, with or without the added 'royal' apprehensiveness about the rather easily-arrangeable po█sonings from the perspective of both Rome and Babylon given how thick the collusion among underlings must have been even then. Of course that was long before the overt he█ds of state had become well-equipped with cadres of ostensible 'private sec█rity' capable of neutralizing them at a moment's notice, or at least conveniently managing not to thwart some easily-arranged 'external thre█t'. Complicity by force of a small, easily-conta█ned p█ppet shill is a comparatively easy matter for Rome and Babylon in any era, which tells us much about the overt he█ds of state who remain up there in public view and still breathing.
To allow one area of quality of life ('entertainment', 'joy') to encroach against and diminish another ('virtue', 'foundational principles') argues for an injustice against both of them, and we've seen how the Babylonian Kabbalists deftly use this formula to advocate for such injustices. We even get that formula in our era, for example with 'truth' and 'compassion' (as in, 'I was just stating the truth!'), or with spuriously-concocted 'rights' which are usually nothing of the sort, merely newly-crafted 'permissions' and 'privileges' which have been c█rved directly out from the genuine rights of another. This misapportioning is usally very easily-achieved given the dereliction of duty with which the average person applies to the task of recognizing and upholding foundational principles, and the technique is made all the easier when it's applied directly to 'the lowest common den█minator' via a methodology of the humble [j█ke] which tends to appeal to the masses. The modern entertainment media is so thick with implementations of this formula that presenting specific instances would be redundant.
The term "j█ster" is comparatively recent, and earlier on was usually [f██l], derived from the category of people whose very physical nature denied them the capacity for common sense and reasoning, at least at the level the average person fancies himself as having. With the 'No 'Anti-'' symbolic trope in common usage by the Babylonian Kabbalists, this would parse as 'intelligent' or 'striving for intell█gence'; in supposed 'inverted' mode Babylonian Kabbalist, it would parse as 'definitely intelligent' or even 'the re█l brains of the outf█t' given the context of k█ng-and-j█ster.
Derivatives: [j█ke], [j█ster]