This might literally be the oldest trick in the book. I'm thinking powerful people have been doing this to protesters and activists since the days when getting gored by a mammoth was a leading cause of death. It plays out like this:

A) A certain group has a complaint -- they're being discriminated against, had their benefits cut, whatever -- but they are not the majority.

B) Because the majority is not affected, they are largely ignorant and uninterested in what is going on with the complainers. The news media does not cover their issue, because it's bad for ratings.

C) To get the majority's attention, the group with the complaint will gather in large numbers to chant and block traffic, etc. This forces the media to cover the demonstration (since huge, loud groups of people make for good photos and video) and cover the issue in the process (since part of covering the protest involves explaining what is being protested). In America we've seen this tactic used by everyone from impoverished war veterans, to women seeking the right to vote, to the protests about police violence you're seeing all over the news right now.

D) To counter this, all you need to do is simply wait for a member of the activist group -- any member -- to commit a crime. Then the media will focus on the crime, because riots and broken glass make for even more exciting photos and videos than the demonstrations. The majority -- who fears crime and instability above all else -- will then hopefully associate the movement with violence from then on.

E) You, in your quest to keep the system from changing, can now reframe the issue not as oppressors vs. the oppressed but as citizens vs. criminals -- supporting their cause means supporting violence. The TV will be full of images of burning convenience stores and looted storefronts, at which point the majority will then smirkingly say, "I would never protest government oppression by mindlessly destroying someone's private property!"

"I mean, why can't they protest within the law? You know, like Martin Luther King? That's why he was universally respected in his day!"

"And let's face it, the fact that they're resorting to violence and petty destruction of property proves that they're really just criminals looking for an excuse to misbehave!"

Now, keep in mind, not even the people repeating this will actually believe it -- America's pop culture and actual history are both full of heroes who broke the law and destroyed s*** when the system failed them (you know Batman ain't got no permit to fly that plane). To this day we applaud when oppressed peoples in other countries do it. So when someone says we should ignore a movement because they're a bunch of "thugs" and their bleeding heart friend points out that the same could be said of the Founding Fathers, they'll shift gears immediately. "Are you honestly comparing the protesters in Ferguson with brave imprisoned heroes like Thomas Paine? He campaigned for freedom!"

In other words, they'll quickly admit that the legality of the tactics actually doesn't have any impact on whether or not the cause is just -- disabled veterans and Neo-Nazis alike have gotten tossed in jail for protests that turned ugly. Unruly members don't automatically make a cause wrong any more than they automatically make it right. Everyone will agree this is true and logical, but then five minutes later they will again dismiss an entire cause the moment they see a single burning police car. The success rate of this technique is very high -- today, the only thing most people in China remember about the Tiananmen Square massacre is that it restored stability and order.

One advantage you have in your role as Secret Ruler is that your citizens are drowning in information. They have s*** flying in from all directions, lots of voices demanding their attention or action on a daily basis. These well-meaning people each have lots of problems in their own lives, so they have to choose carefully when deciding what "issues" to worry about and which ones to ignore. Most of them will make this decision very quickly, based on whatever information is most readily available to them. Your job, then, is to make sure that they are exposed only to the most ridiculous or obnoxious examples of the issue or group you want to make go away.

Which is to say, you'll probably want to turn to cable news.

In the interest of balance (since I mentioned GamerGate above) let me pick a recent example where this was used against men's rights activists. There was a minor furor on the Internet when the movie Mad Max: Fury Road debuted, resulting in headlines like "Mad Max: Fury Road draws the ire of men's rights activists," with the articles talking about how the "the community" of men's rights types was up in arms over the film and organizing a boycott due to the fact that it contained some supposedly feminist messages among the constant stream of deformed people getting obliterated in car crashes (hint: Mad Max is actually not the main character).

I laughed when I saw those headlines and retweeted the articles. Ha, these MRA dips***s will get mad about anything! But a few days later, a slight amount of digging revealed that, despite the fact that those headlines implied a massive nationwide movement, the "boycott" was actually one single crazy person complaining about the movie in a blog post at a fringe men's rights website. The guy is not prominent in the movement in any way -- he spends his time posting YouTube videos that struggle to surpass 2,000 views. So why did the blogosphere trumpet his ramblings as if he was the most prominent spokesperson for the movement? Because he made the movement look ridiculous.

See, by highlighting the silliest of complaints from a group, you inoculate the audience against any real complaints that might come along later, creating a knee-jerk dismissal any time, say, a male reasonably complains about how even men get screwed by gender roles or when another has a legitimately f***ing horrible story to tell. "Ha," the people will say, "these are the same guys who cried over Mad Max having a female hero!" No, they're not, unless we're literally talking about Aaron Clarey. "Who?" Exactly.

Likewise, there are lots of groups out there looking out for the welfare of animals, but I bet the only one you can name is PETA, because they're the ones doing stupid s*** like insisting people call fish "sea kittens" and staging naked protests that convey no useful information whatsoever. This way, when anyone challenges actual horrific practices in big-money industries (like factory farming or pet stores selling animals from cruel puppy mills) you'll roll your eyes and say, "It's probably those PETA freaks, at it again!"

Because they're ridiculous, they get all the coverage and become the face of the movement. And, as a result, no meaningful change will occur.

Once again I don't need to go on and on about why this is illogical -- the existence of a frivolous complaint doesn't automatically mean there are no more serious ones to be found in that direction. A person dying from cancer can still complain about their favorite TV show getting canceled; that doesn't mean that their cancer must not be a big deal and that it can safely go untreated.

Also, notice how we're always making it personal -- as demonstrated above, you don't talk about global warming, you talk about Al Gore. You don't talk about systemic racism, you talk about Al Sharpton's unpaid taxes. Don't talk about income inequality, talk about how Occupy Wall Street kids all have iPhones.

This is the "love it or leave it" fallacy, and boy does it work. As the Secret Ruler in charge of making sure no meaningful change ever happens, this is your trump card.

Remember, humans are naturally risk-averse -- people will stay in bad jobs and relationships and keep destructive habits, for fear that trying to fix the bad s*** will result in losing everything. This is why people are afraid to take anti-depression meds ("Sure, it might make the depression go away, but what if I also lose the cool, edgy parts of my personality?". So in order to tap into that fear, all you have to do is portray any criticism of the current system as an attack on everything we hold dear:

"You're criticizing police for excessive use of force? Well let's see how you like it when the cops don't show up at all!"

"You say you want to cut the size of government? Then why don't you see what it's like to live in Somalia, where they have no government!"

"You've got problems with the current economic system? Then you must be a communist!"

"Oh, you're worried about pollution? Then you must want a world without electricity!"

It's a pretty simple trick -- just ignore every possibility that involves simply improving the current system and imply that in order to reap its benefits we must accept every single aspect of the status quo, including the parts that grind people into hamburger. It won't matter that you can't actually spell out why improvements are impossible, since the fear centers of the brain are inherently irrational. "Gay marriage proponents secretly want to destroy all marriage? Sure, makes sense to me!"

And now you can see how this can be combined with the techniques above. Violence during the protests just proves that what these people really want is the destruction of civilized society! And you, the powerful majority, are actually the brave last line of defense of all that is good against the massive hordes of irrational freaks! And so on.