It certainly invites that level of meta-commentary on its own structure, though I agree it's inadvertent. And I know at some point someone is going invoke that point in full sincerity as if its an answer, and whatever that is, the satisfied meta-commentary that makes too much of irony as if its a sincere insight, I feel like is just looming as a possible and frustratingly shallow justification of the book. There's an interesting question there of the scales of abstraction at which anti-memes could function, and that's fascinating but as you noted in this instance not necessarily intentional.

It makes me think of the movie Doubt, where I remember being sincerely confused as to the central accusation at the center of the movie (though retrospectively its obvious and I knew it was at least one possibility but I wasn't sure if there was perhaps a different interpretation), and was told that not being sure was the point and by expecting an answer I was missing the point since the whole movie is about "doubt". I felt this explanation was, frankly, just stupid. Just because you're going meta doesn't mean any point coherently registered in the form of meta-analysis is insightful. But anyway, I'm off the rails a bit now going after imaginary adversaries, but agree with everything you've said.