> The terms right-wing and left-wing come from the French Revolution, when the nobility, who sought to preserve the status quo, sat on the right side of the National Assembly, and the revolutionaries, who wanted democratic change, sat on the left. Those definitions began to fail us a decade ago, when a part of the right, in both Europe and North America, began advocating not caution and conservatism but the destruction of existing democratic institutions.
That's because they weren't advocating caution and conservatism, they were advocating for the rich and powerful and concentrated wealth. Revolution became the only option because they refused to treat the rest of the population fairly and murdered and killed to maintain their position.
As they are now. It's only confusing if you accept their framing. If you accept they are anti-war rather than pro-Russian invasion to give another example mentioned in the article. How confusing! Or how simple and obvious if you apply the slightest skepticism to what they claim.
overu589 2 days ago [-]
> he speaks of “subliminal messages” and thought control,
Say what you will, something or someones may very well be triggering such as these.
Is it not the other way around. A man knowing about chemistry is hard to imprison ..
coldtea 2 days ago [-]
Well, science had a very good run of enabling it. Time to give something else a chance...
thegrim33 2 days ago [-]
Let's count the propaganda as I read through this article:
1) It opens with an anecdote. I personally use this as a signal to instantly close any such article. It's just a huge indicator that they're more interested in painting you a picture, manipulating your emotions, rather than just giving you concrete information.
2) They keep giving supposed quotes from different people, but don't bother to link/provide any sources for the quotes. I don't trust the author farther than an ant could throw a bus, so I'd like to verify that the quotes are actually real, but I can't because apparently writers for the Atlantic don't need to provide any sources for their quotes and claims.
3) The author constantly pushes their ideological beliefs throughout the article, doing everything they can to ridicule and dismiss anyone with different beliefs. They have an agenda for writing this. It's political/social propaganda. They're not an impartial journalist writing an impartial story informing people about something.
4) An American writer for the Atlantic just states as known fact the consequences of what would happen if Russia had a victory in Ukraine, and the effect that would have on Romania. Apparently this Atlantic writer knows what effect this would have on Romania, better than Romanian politicians themselves.
5) The author promotes conspiracy theories such as people secretly paying TikTok to promote someone's videos, Russia hackers interfering with things, etc. Of course, if the conspiracy theories are aligned with the writer's political views, then they're not conspiracy theories, it's just truth. And of course, the writer provides no sources for any of these claims.
6) Typical "far right" propaganda messaging. Anyone that has different beliefs in them is the evil boogeyman "far right", that is evil and must be stopped.
7) Typical "anti-vax" propaganda messaging. If someone had concerns about a first in history mRNA vaccine that means they're an evil anti-vaxer who doesn't believe in vaccines at all, is a moron, etc.
8) Typical "nationalism is bad" propaganda messaging. Spinning it such that if someone wants what's best for their country and their country's people, that's an evil thought.
I'm going to stop there, half way through, because reading this article is like washing my brain with acid and I can't take it anymore.
I did skip to the end though, where the last sentence contains "dread and anxiety are powerful weapons". Which pretty much says it all. An article whos sole purpose is to pump fear and anxiety into the reader about the evil anti-science, anti-vax, far-right, racists, etc., claims that people with different beliefs than the author have a powerful weapon in spreading dread and anxiety. The irony just bashes you in the face.
The author, unsurprisingly, works at a typical (evil) NGO, which has the mission statement of "Strengthening global democracy through powerful civic engagement and informed, inclusive dialogue". Their website looks like a textbook carbon-copy social/political propaganda outlet. They get pumped millions of dollars in funding, and in exchange, produce propaganda like this for government and elites.
Rendered at 17:43:25 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
That's because they weren't advocating caution and conservatism, they were advocating for the rich and powerful and concentrated wealth. Revolution became the only option because they refused to treat the rest of the population fairly and murdered and killed to maintain their position.
As they are now. It's only confusing if you accept their framing. If you accept they are anti-war rather than pro-Russian invasion to give another example mentioned in the article. How confusing! Or how simple and obvious if you apply the slightest skepticism to what they claim.
Say what you will, something or someones may very well be triggering such as these.
1) It opens with an anecdote. I personally use this as a signal to instantly close any such article. It's just a huge indicator that they're more interested in painting you a picture, manipulating your emotions, rather than just giving you concrete information.
2) They keep giving supposed quotes from different people, but don't bother to link/provide any sources for the quotes. I don't trust the author farther than an ant could throw a bus, so I'd like to verify that the quotes are actually real, but I can't because apparently writers for the Atlantic don't need to provide any sources for their quotes and claims.
3) The author constantly pushes their ideological beliefs throughout the article, doing everything they can to ridicule and dismiss anyone with different beliefs. They have an agenda for writing this. It's political/social propaganda. They're not an impartial journalist writing an impartial story informing people about something.
4) An American writer for the Atlantic just states as known fact the consequences of what would happen if Russia had a victory in Ukraine, and the effect that would have on Romania. Apparently this Atlantic writer knows what effect this would have on Romania, better than Romanian politicians themselves.
5) The author promotes conspiracy theories such as people secretly paying TikTok to promote someone's videos, Russia hackers interfering with things, etc. Of course, if the conspiracy theories are aligned with the writer's political views, then they're not conspiracy theories, it's just truth. And of course, the writer provides no sources for any of these claims.
6) Typical "far right" propaganda messaging. Anyone that has different beliefs in them is the evil boogeyman "far right", that is evil and must be stopped.
7) Typical "anti-vax" propaganda messaging. If someone had concerns about a first in history mRNA vaccine that means they're an evil anti-vaxer who doesn't believe in vaccines at all, is a moron, etc.
8) Typical "nationalism is bad" propaganda messaging. Spinning it such that if someone wants what's best for their country and their country's people, that's an evil thought.
I'm going to stop there, half way through, because reading this article is like washing my brain with acid and I can't take it anymore.
I did skip to the end though, where the last sentence contains "dread and anxiety are powerful weapons". Which pretty much says it all. An article whos sole purpose is to pump fear and anxiety into the reader about the evil anti-science, anti-vax, far-right, racists, etc., claims that people with different beliefs than the author have a powerful weapon in spreading dread and anxiety. The irony just bashes you in the face.
The author, unsurprisingly, works at a typical (evil) NGO, which has the mission statement of "Strengthening global democracy through powerful civic engagement and informed, inclusive dialogue". Their website looks like a textbook carbon-copy social/political propaganda outlet. They get pumped millions of dollars in funding, and in exchange, produce propaganda like this for government and elites.