Modern environmentalism has always been that way. Its main purpose is to distract from the fact that the vast majority of pollution comes from massive companies, and instead blame average citizens. You end up with an industry which capitalizes on the overly emotional and naive and is incentivized to never actually solve what it claims it wants to.
You will also see these kinds of arguments when it comes to overpopulation. The logic is that fewer people leads to less pollution, which doesn't actually work that way. And at the same time they argue to bring in massive numbers of people from the third world and fund those countries with huge amounts of foreign aid which increases how much they impact the environment.
That seems to be the case. Some people end up getting away with a lot because of connections and then get lazy thinking they are totally safe. It's only until somebody high up gets really exposed that the whole thing falls apart, because there's no way to cover for them.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it. And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause, but obviously not totally believe it because of that alone.
In this article they lump together many different conspiracies as well.
I suppose the truth of that claim depends a bit on how you define "current day." But the certainty that international Jewry was plotting to enslave the world and had even boldly transcribed its plan in a book called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion swept the globe 120 years ago and is, even now, popular in Japan and the Middle East. The manic belief that the murder of John F. Kennedy more than half a century back was the sinister centerpiece of a coup by (take your pick) the CIA, the Mafia, Big Oil, or World Communism is still a planetary obsession. Then there are the 9/11 Truthers, the faked moon landing crowd, and of course the cabal of Freemasons who sank the Titanic. And don't get me started on the cover-up of Paul McCartney's death.
Before GamerGate I barely gave these kinds of things the time of day, but you end up with "If they're trying so hard to slander this one thing I know, what else are the media lying about?" becomes a much more compelling thought. I have since gained the belief that many of those things are not to be dismissed so quickly.
Oh right I forgot about that, and the fact that Jewish people accused of sexual crimes in the US can always go back there as well. They need to step up when it comes to interracial marriages then! China's way ahead in that area with the Uighur's, very progressive.
Yeah, they'll say "Oh they don't actually care about this ideology, they're just doing it for the money!" while major companies and governments burn cash at an unprecedented rate to instill out-group biases in advertising and education.
Unions are a parasitical corporation grafted onto something else. They are to be avoided if possible, and any company or industry that lets a union develop is already unhealthy.
I don't think anti-trust will ever be used for the sake of the public. At this point it will only ever be done for the sake of the government. If the government is personally threatened by a business they will use anti-trust to cripple it or install their people in key positions to take it over.
Because if they're smart enough they will lie, subvert, and parasitize the society. When you have many strong individuals they will underestimate the power of working together and undermining powerful institutions. Some key areas are banking, news, and education.
They will act as gatekeepers and prevent those strong individuals from rising to the top, because they do not have a support structure of other people looking out for them. This is how a meritocratic society no longer becomes meritocratic.
Because people that preform worse still want more. And since they lack the ability to preform as individuals. That means they likely will work more in a tribal manner to ensure they get ahead compared to others, even if they don't deserve it as much.
Things that are not equal should not be considered equal. You can give people an equal opportunity, but that's different than believing they are the same inherently. That is equity and it's why people are saying men and women are identical.
Simply don't shy away from stereotypes, especially when they coincide with reliable data.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
If anybody wants to know about how the National Socialists thought of women you can read Goebbels thoughts here. With some key segments:
We do not see the woman as inferior, but as having a different mission, a different value, than that of the man.
No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and breadwinning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is not to disparage women, only to recognise how she best uses her talents and abilities.
Looking back over the past years of Germany’s decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminisation of men always leads to the masculinisation of women.
The first, best, and most suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation’s source of strength, the woman is its core and centre. The best place for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family, in motherhood.
German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more rights but fewer duties.
Yeah I meant artists who are adults, or alternatively who draw adult material (nsfw).