Did I miss something, or are none of the examples both Straussian and memetic/memes? I feel like if this were a real thing, one could imagine one example. Also, that's not how churches generally work.
I suspect that the use of incredibly bad examples is some sort of intentional Straussian joke, and that the entire article itself, and not the examples in it, is supposed to be the real example of a Straussian meme.
And maybe that's the higher reading.
The article itself is an example of something that overlaps to some extent with its subject without being an example of the subject, like all the examples in it. It's an intriguing idea, like "things you can't say" but without examples it falls flat but that won't bother the rationalists anymore than they are bothered by Aella's "experiments" or allegedly profound fanfics or adding different people's utility functions or reasoning about the future without discounting. It's a hugbox.
Or maybe it is something they can't find any examples of it because humans can't make them, only hypothetical superhuman AI.
you absolutely need to turn the "insider-outsider" idea into a paragraph that will attract downvotes (EDIT- without reading like colloquial schizo ;)
Ps: to what extent is your lack of engagement coming from a fear of counter-transferrence (/mirroring)
That said, I'm not impressed with the notion of Straussian memes and agree that way better examples are needed to give the idea some validity.