trenton

This is a very interesting to me from a spiritual and personal growth standpoint. I have so many memories both good and bad that I could integrate lessons from or release the emotional significance I attach to them. If I released all of the emotional significance, it would almost be like a blank slate. Maybe it would be like transcending time if ego cannot exist without memories of a past or aspirations and fears of the future to give context to "me." I would like to spend about 1 month alone so I could write out all of my memories and meditate on the emotions attached to them. I do a little bit every day and I can tell it is hard to do because I have to go to work, occasionally fight with my family as we play a bunch of power games with each other through emotional manipulation, and I am practicing against strong chess players for my tournaments. If these were not concerns for me, I could get a lot of inner work done and I could be a considerably different person in terms of my consciousness. Currently, my work allows for one week vacation at most. I do my best to stay out of the fights because when I'm angry I'm more likely to say something stupid, yet I also feel harassed. as for my memories, I often have inner conflict regarding my interpretation of past events. This can lead to harsh self judgement, intrusive thoughts, and other limitations. How much do you think this kind of spiritual practice could accomplish? Maybe I should start by writing out all memories good or bad that has a strong emotional charge.

@Knowledge Hoarder that was a very interesting study done on conspiracy theorists. This is probably what more people need to be taught in order to prevent them from subscribing to these theories to begin with. What other studies do you know of?

@Leo Gura that makes perfect since. It is not feasible to reform every child rapist, hence criminal prevention is key to addressing crime. I could apply the same thing to ideology, COVID, education, and more. It is not feasible to heal everybody in the hospital, therefore many are expected to die for a lack of ventilation. This is probably a better approach than convincing conspiracy theorists. I remember another saying that when you learn something wrong once, you have to relearn it 7 times. It would be easier to work with a blank slate because many conspiracy theorists may use the fact that I voted for Biden to discredit anything I say. This would be attacking the messenger, and there would be nothing I could do at that point.

If I were to talk to people who subscribe to one of the many dangerous conspiracy theories, then I would try to redirect their efforts toward something better rather than convince them that they are wrong. In this process I try to be as non-judgemental as possible. For example, if a person subscribed to the theory that the election of 2020 was rigged and Trump won, I don't think I can convince them they are wrong. Instead I would tell them how elections are rigged and what can be done to stop it. This includes the need for a constitutional convention to address term limits and campaign finance reform. Other measures include stopping the abuse of lobbying, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. Many people on supported the for the people act until Republican leaders told them it was the leftists trying to push their agenda. Many of these conspiracy theorists might agree to sign a petition calling for a constitutional convention. Another example are the human trafficking conspiracy theorists. Without necessarily convincing them they are wrong, they might be willing to refocus their efforts to favor measures like ending child marriage or training police officers to better detect the victims of modern slavery. Do you think this approach could work for some of these people?

@Roy solid perspective. I have been reflecting on this and I see that hypocrisy is rarely something serious. It is usually minor things that we overlook in the heat of the moment. I think it is more precise to say that I am not really afraid of hypocrisy, but rather I am afraid of the social consequences of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy itself is really no big deal unless people start using against others in a way that only serves to heat up conflict even more. It is similar to my fear of sexual fantasies because I am not really afraid of the thoughts themself. These thoughts don't kill anybody. The consequences of acting on these thoughts could be terrible. Acting on crazy thoughts hasn't been a problem for me since I was a young child. I hope further clarity on what I am really afraid of helps in future responses. I want to be at ease with myself without the fear of doing something that other people would use against me to hurt me. The fear doesn't seem rational, maybe I will try to think if I ever did something stupid because of these thoughts. Whatever the case, it was always out of love and thus not really evil or wrong.

I notice a common pattern in my behavior and I don't know if this is common or not. It leads to me not socializing with other people in order to avoid looking like a fool. An example goes as follows. When my sister is angry with me I often feel unfairly attacked. If I think her anger is unjust I notice myself getting angry about the fact that she is angry with me. When I notice these thoughts I don't express them because I expect the outcome of expressing such thoughts to only make the situation worse. This leads to me saying nothing or making long pauses in which the messages I try to express are not understood. Many examples appear in my thoughts when I see a behavior in others I dislike. I notice my thoughts beginning to mimic some of the behaviors which if I were to express them it would lead to hypocrisy. An example could be If somebody starts gossiping in order to make me look bad. My thoughts then make me feel like I'm about to start gossiping about the fact that they were gossiping. As a result I don't address others when they act unfairly. This leads to worsened self esteem and isolation. Maybe it happens because of a tendency to catastrophize about the worst outcome automatically. Even if I weren't a hypocrite in my thoughts I am still convinced that I would make a situation worse if I expressed that I were unfairly attacked. This makes me feel trapped and hopeless with the only option being to get as far away from toxic people as possible. If I end up acting on hypocritical thoughts then that would make everything worse.

As for your first two paragraphs, you are right I am not really being a hypocrite. I am describing what my thoughts show me and I don't react by acting on these thoughts. My avoidance of hypocrisy is part of the situation I am describing. I didn't actually gossip or yell in retaliation, but it came up in my thoughts. I have a history of paying my thoughts too much credence. As for the process of releasing, it is very similar to meditation. I sit down as strong memories begin to come up. It can include harsh self judgement which is the flip side of blaming others. Another example is the desire to live and the desire to die which are in conflict with each other when someone hesitates to commit suicide. Instead of calling the desire to kill yourself wrong, you welcome any intense feelings which come up and do the same with your desire to live. As you sit there and allow the emotions and wants to be, you allow them to flow through you while recognizing your rejection of these thoughts and images as well as your attachment. As you do this your thoughts will be fine to pass by without as much power over you and emotional turmoil as there was before. This creates a state of inner clarity. It helps to recognize how your thoughts are a form of love so you don't hate them and fight them.

@mandyjw I watched the video you sent and found the model useful. It reminds me of opposite desires which can conflict with each other. One example is with suicide. One form of love is to end your suffering and the other form of love is to hesitate to commit suicide. In a sense neither of them are wrong or evil if they are both love. This is the desire to live and the desire to die conflicting with each other. When I realize this I release both desires and I found it very effective. To moralize against suicide only leads to suppression which does not fully resolve the desire to die. As a result I had a lot of intense backsliding in the past. This form of suppression is love just like releasing. As for the examples in the video, I notice in my experience how people over compensate for one negative emotion. I saw it in chess club when I was undefeated, won several tournaments, and took home money. The people in chess club felt inadequate or like they did not stand a chance against me. I could tell they were covering this up when they came to me and started boasting about how they are going to crush me. They are feigning overconfidence and it is not hard to see through it. Again, the way in which people attempt to compensate for their emotions is still a form of love if the person thinks that one emotional experience would be better than the other. I notice part of the model applying to myself when I see blame and regret. In a situation involving domestic violence and drug addiction I blamed myself for thinking of killing my step father. When that made me judge myself harshly, I wanted to blame something external. This becomes an act of swinging the pendulum and it makes my thinking very inconsistent and sometimes nonsensical. Now that I understand better ways to approach these emotions, I don't swing the pendulum, instead I meditate and release both desires. I still don't fully understand the nature of thought and how it becomes hypocritical. Maybe in order to have these thoughts, the thoughts must pretend to be something they are not? For example, I feign overconfidence to pretend I am not feeling inadequate. If I am judgemental of myself, then I pretend not to be judgemental of others and vice versa. I experienced this one a lot and it never felt right. Another example is when I have a desire to be separate from others, but also the desire to be part of a group of community. These conflicting desires lead to further emotional turmoil. If I release both sides, I end up peaceful, and the thought that I am peaceful pretends I am not unpeaceful. This creates a sense of uneasiness and inner conflict. It indicates a desire to not be peaceful conflicting with a desire to be peaceful. When I noticed all of these examples in myself, I thought that it was all a consequence of self manipulation and that I was hurting myself on purpose. I felt out of control of the emotional chaos going on in me which eventually lead to suicidal thoughts. I also thought that This condition was unique to myself and not others. After sharing some of my experiences with my brother who has suicidal thoughts, he found many of the angles I looked at the issue from helpful. This helped to ease his emotional problems as well. In one example, morality is problematic if I must be good but not bad. This becomes a mask which is inevitably insincere, and in a sense a deception and therefore immoral. I have many other coping mechanisms others found useful such as acknowledging and accepting destructive, morbid, or sexual curiosity which leads to various fantasies. By recognizing that there is a part of me that wants to have them, they no longer become something to be afraid of, whereas before it became an inner war. Am I in the ballpark in terms of this insight? Is this phenomenon more common than I previously assumed? I'm any case I don't see a reason to be mad at myself for any of these things or how I reacted to these thoughts on the past. I also notice that when criticizing others it becomes very tempting to mimic their behavior, possibly because my thoughts are focused on the behavior. If every thought Is creative, then the logical conclusion is that I will feel an inner war when addressing qualities I don't like in others while denying the part of me that enjoys embodying that behavior. Perhaps an example would be a victim mindset in which somebody thinks "I was hurt, therefore I am justified in hurting others.". This is arbitrary and nonsensical, but people nevertheless think this way. For example, a person could be mistreated and decide to not treat others that way because of how it made them feel. There could be a subtle denial of the unfavorable quality being masked through the "good" actions and this comes from the desire to be separate from what was experienced. In this case the person is acting good but not bad. This insight seems a little tricky to grasp. Am I on the right track? By seeing that everything I did was love, I see no reason to be mad at myself for anything. This includes my desire to be in control which is reinforced by a sense of me doing things and then judging myself for those things. In this sense the entire act of judging myself was part of a massive deception in which I denied my sense of not being in control our of fear. This is what the desire to be in control can do to you if I am not the first one to realize this is happening to me. Because I thought it was unique I thought there was something wrong with me. Really there is no reason to be mad at myself for anything.

This will be a broad and deep discussion regarding the deeper truths underlying every political issue. This includes the metaphysical assumptions and epistemic assumptions we make in our thinking and how addressing these assumptions changes our approach to various issues. I think animal rights is a huge one. There are assumptions like rationality makes us more valuable than animals. One problem is that rationality is being used to make these conclusions and it becomes circular and arbitrary. Not only do we assume that we are more valuable than animals, but we also assume that we are humans. The significance of animal rights is that it challenges the idea that we are humans and that humans exist. A similar example is abortion. If there is no objective point at which a clump of cells becomes a human being, then these positions are arbitrary. It implies that humanity is a collective mental construct. A big one is nationalism vs. Globalism. This is related to COVID. To COVID national borders do not exist. As citizens we believe that we are live in a nation and that we are separated from the rest of the world. As the world becomes more interconnected with the internet, it dissolves the distinction between self and other on a national and global level. This is the illusion of separation. Relativism vs. Absolutism is a common philosophical conflict. It points to the corruption of religious fundamentalism even though the content may be true in sometimes. This is the limitation of belief and it suggest that humans can't believe their way to the truth. This includes moral relativism. Capitalism assumes inherent value. Without this assumption money would be without value. What would happen to the world of everybody just stopped thinking money was valuable? Are there other assumptions aside from this? What other issues have deep underlying metaphysical and epistemic assumptions and implications? How would it change your approach to these issues of you were conscious of these things?

@DocWatts very interesting response. This seems like a decent way to apply concepts of holons to a society. How does this concept apply to international conflict? It seems like China and India would take priority over some countries and isolated tribes deep in forests. In this case these heavily populated nations seem to have a greater depth and greater span.

I was doing some exercises from the life purpose course when I suddenly got an inspiring idea. I did some research on slavery and discovered that there are over 91 billion dollars of electronic products at risk of being produced by slavery being imported into the United States every year. There are sweat shops and factories in which workers are not guaranteed a minimum wage and the lack of business transparency results in child labor. This makes it hard for people to have access to ethical products because even your cell phone could be produced through slavery. I began to wonder about slave free products and how revolutionary it would be for the developing world if they had access to the worker rights we take for granted. This leads to the idea of producing electronics while winning over employees with ground breaking benefits. First, imagine that you were not guaranteed a minimum wage for working 60 hours a week, and even if you did receive one, it would be less than 1 dollar a month and be hard to live off of. Now imagine you are offered a job opportunity in which you are offered even just 1 dollar a day. On top of that there would be health care benefits, no child labor, a 40 hour work week, a month paid vacation like in Europe, a ten cent raise every 6 months, a retirement plan, and the right to unionize and peacefully address your grievances. Finally, instead of throwing away perfectly good food or electronic products like many companies do, they would be given away for free in developing and impoverished nations. A business would inspire people to work for them if they were not so worried about profits. Most electronics could be sold in places like America where it would probably be a net profit anyway. If it were possible to build a business like this in developing nations, it would be ground breaking for workers rights in impoverished nations. It would help enforce business transparency in the global supply chain to stop slavery. It would help other countries develop faster with access to modern technology. It would help women equalize with men by allowing them to work at home on computers while caring for children. And it would be profitable, but it does not need to be that profitable. Only enough to make it work. 1 dollar a day is still not commensurate with the work done and probably they could be paid more. I don't know how much would be workable. I still find it inspiring how much could accomplished with a business strategy that emphasizes worker benefits. It would make everybody want to work for you and achieve this vision. Is this realistic? It sounds like it should be doable. I need to figure out how much it would cost to build factories by each nation. How much would the materials to build electronics cost? How would I transfer them to the United States? Other questions like these need to be answered if this is really a viable option for entrepreneurship. What do you think about business ideas like this and winning workers over with benefits? This comes at a time with union suppression, slavery, financial terrorism, and more. One day businesses would have to learn that in order to survive, they must win workers over with benefits.

@universe going into politics is the plan b in this case. I remember that there was a messenger candidate who did not intend to win, but wanted to introduce us to universal basic income. I think a very effective way to raise public awareness is to get a messenger candidate like him to run on modern slavery. How effective would it be If a messenger candidate ran on issues like child marriage, slave products, and police brutality toward the mentally ill? I am only 22, so I probably can't do such a thing yet, but I would strongly consider it If nobody else would. The United States imports over 91 billion dollars worth of electronic slave products every year and to this day we are still arguing over slavery 200 years ago being a "necessary evil.". Yet many nations are blind to the corruption of the global supply chain and how they still profit off of slavery today. This would grind the white washing of history to halt when we focus on the present. I would contact anti-slavery organizations to ask them about messenger candidates for anti-slavery. It is the next best thing aside from starting a business that might struggle to compete with Apple which is a trillionaire.

I think that humanity will survive the crisis, but not without a lot of suffering. The most concerning issue for me is the water wars because warmer temperatures can cause droughts and worsen wild fires. As a result, if nothing is done about climate change, humanity can expect a lot of bloodshed in the near future. The Rwandan genocide was linked to water conflicts. The countries that will suffer the most will be the impoverished nations that are the least responsible for it. In the developed world we will experience worsening hurricanes and more heat strokes, but we have the most control over water and oil. It is expected that oil wars will transition to water wars soon. If these predictions come true, it will probably be worse than the holocaust with entire nations falling apart for a lack of water and the genocides it inspires. It will be dire, but I think humanity could survive this worst case scenario because we have proven to be a resilient species throughout history. If oil wars transition to water wars, then the developed world will certainly survive as we address national emergencies like flooding, mass displacement, the spread of malaria, and couple of other things. Unfortunately, many impoverished nations may not survive. Of course I would prefer to avoid the water wars somehow and all of this societal collapse, but the corruption and lobbying in the government is powerful and it does not look like there is the political willpower to prevent the societal collapse because of short term profits. I think climate activists are losing and they now feel powerless to the point that some result to environmental terrorism like destroying pipelines and vandalizing factories owned by big corporations.

@Bob Seeker I see what you mean when you distinguish between charities and worker's benefits. What I am aiming for in the process is human rights which is more than just giving money to charities. The point is that if workers had a taste of freedom with all the benefits they could have, it could one day become the law. Conflating this with charity misses the point. Another reason it sounds like it could be done is some businesses use armed guards to protect dumpsters full of perfectly good food from homeless people. This is a terrible image and it could inspire people to support a brand that gives away extra food to homeless people. This is the alternative to worker's benefits where my point is that companies are so caught up on maximizing short term profits that it leads to insanity for even the smallest profit. I am imagining a company for food or electronics that is willing to give away tiny tiny profits to inspire people to support it. This makes it sound like a company should still be profitable. One problem is that I don't fully understand what competition would do to such a business and why it would be hard to survive. Giving away free products that are being thrown away sounds more realistic then worker's benefits.

@Preety_India that is basically what I'm getting at. There are books written on this subject like white fragility. It was discussed in another thread in this forum. Here is the video which expands on the topic. It is very educational, but many conservatives can't sit through it. Videos like these demonstrate that the problem of racism is deeper than surface biases. @Willie your description of racism through U.S. history is pretty accurate. The blatantly racist policies of the past have consequences that don't disappear overnight. This is what leads to the fight over how history should be taught. Some are trying to teach that slavery was a necessary evil while skipping Martin Luther King and his "I have a dream" speech. I thought it was bad enough that King's position on imperialism was skipped, but now he is skipped entirely. Almost nobody even knows about The white supremacist insurrection in 1898 in Wilmington, North Carolina. The corruption of the educational system is what keeps systemic racism in place. If CRT is taught in schools, then the current system would become untenable. As a result there is strong conservative backlash in which CRT is straw manned constantly. They must stir up a moral outrage by telling people that CRT teaches us that all white kids are racist and morally deficient. Books like white fragility describe precisely this gut reaction against things like white privilege. This has nothing to do with the morality of modern white children because this is not their fault. The issue is deeper than just bigotry and prejudices. By understanding this, the United States could more effectively work to correct the systemic issues created by our ancestors. Unfortunately, this is incorrectly framed as anti-white bias which is the close minded called "white fragility."

@Preety_India critical race theory originated in the 1970's. It is the idea that racism is more than just our biases against skin colors. Racism can be embedded in a society through the legal system as well. The current definition of racism is too narrow and it allows white supremacy to survive in other forms. There can be explicit racism, implicit racism, or racism by outcome. Racism by outcome can also be called systemic racism. Implicit racism may also be called unconscious racism. One way to achieve racism by outcome, even in a mostly race blind society, would be to appeal to the conditions of impoverished whites without exploiting stating that blacks are inferior. This can lead to policies that benefit whites at the expense of blacks economically, thereby maintaining white supremacy. Some consequences of systemic racism include, red lining, blacks living near factories where they are susceptible to pollution, higher crime rates caused by poverty, COVID-19 disproportionately affecting blacks, or voter suppression in Texas by moving polling stations away from black neighborhoods. None of these need to explicit condone white supremacy to achieve it. The proof of CRT is the following quote that sums it up very well. You start out in 1954 by saying, “nig***, nig***, nig***.” By 1968, you can’t say “nig***” — that hurts you. It backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

Thanks for the input. It sounded too good to be true, but I wanted to make sure. The reason it sounded doable was because of the profit margin of electronics in the United States. For example, for the Apple IPhone 12 pro, the production cost is 406$ and the retail price is 999$. This leaves a profit margin of about 60% and most of the products have a profit margin between 60 and 70 percent. It looks like if there were a company that made similar products, there would be room to pay employees more. The result would be a lower profit margin but the business sounded possible.

Replacing people with robots sounds more realistic. In that case a better approach to business than the one I mentioned before would come from engineering. I don't know how soon low skill jobs will be replaced with AI.

As of 2018, there are about 600 white supremacist organizations in the United States. Despite being a clearly foolish ideology it continued to be enforced after the civil war, especially in southern states. White supremacist groups were responsible for lynchings with about 70% of the victims being black. A notable example of violence comes from the Wilmington insurrection of 1898. White supremacist democrats killed as many as 400 blacks, forcing them to flee to swaps as the biracial Republican party was forced out of office by him point. I am not clear as to when the democrats and republicans switched sides on systemic racism. Systemic racism was originally used by democrats to maintain power. Currently there is voter suppression by republicans in Texas to prevent black communities from accessing polling stations. There are still statues standing which honor the men who participated in the violence I described. Josephus Daniels was not taken down until 2020 after the murder of Floyd. I'm not sure if there are some white nationalists who are inspired by how these men are depicted. White supremacy is a persistent and sneaky ideology which can survive in many forms. A common tactic is to appeal to impoverished whites in order to pass legislation that would economically benefit whites at the expense of blacks. This is systemic racism and it can cause blacks to live in polluted environments, making them disproportionately affected by sicknesses caused by factories and air pollution. It is a nicer face that more people find appealing, and not everyone realizes that it is racism because a narrow definition of racism only includes people who use the n-word. What else do you think causes white supremacy to be common and persistent? It seems that it can be caused by white poverty, so what would happen if the United States addressed its homelessness crisis? Maybe a lack of understanding history allows white supremacy to continue into the 21st century as history is being white washed by those claiming to protect it for the benefit of white supremacy. I think the main reason is that politicians depend on any means necessary to keep their power and white supremacy is effective at achieving this goal. This results in an absence of political will to correct out history books that tell us "the relationship between a slave and his master was like that of a father and son."

@Terell Kirby it is disappointing, but critical race theory is constantly being straw manned to the point that it is hard to have a coherent discussion with the right about this important theory. It has nothing to do with an attack on your moral character. It is not the fault of white children that the pollution of factories disproportionately affects blacks as a consequence of hidden biases in the legal system. It is no longer made explicit in the law that the goal is to hurt blacks and this makes denial that much more persistent. Without explicit racism, many assume there is no racism, but in fact our definition of racism is too narrow and it does not allow for the possibility of racism by outcome, regardless of your personal biases.

I have some trauma which is contributing to negative values. It is not nearly as serious as it once was, but it can still get better. The scenario I will give you demonstrates the lessons which I have yet to learn and must learn in order to stop unnecessary emotional turmoil. I am looking for a positive and empowering message. This takes place all the way back in elementary school. I was frequently verbally abused by the teachers and my mother noticed that I was more emotionally sensitive than most. It is worth noting that I have autism and it contributes to abnormal behavior often assumed to be bad. In one instance the children were being scolded again despite me being on my best behavior as usual. I was often punished with the group. I then had the thought that I can think what ever I want and nobody can hear me. This leads to stirring ones own emotional state through negative thinking about others while ruminating about how they are mean to you. Later in life I continued to have self esteem issues in which I blamed myself for my uncontrollable emotional conflicts. It is worth noting that it all stayed in my head but the dark thoughts would not stop. Eventually it got to the point of suicidal thoughts. In many situations I ended up feeling hurt and powerless. If I find the appropriate lessons it would solve a significant chunk of emotional trauma experienced through my life. My brother also has suicidal thoughts and he finds it very helpful when I share various coping mechanisms for weakening suicidal thoughts to the point that they don't bother me anymore. We come from parents who beat each other and abused drugs if that is any indication. I think it has to do with taking all of these things personally. I could take verbal abuse, domestic abuse, my own emotional problems, and my sister who keeps attacking my moral character all personally. When I do, I feel powerless, angry and prone to ruminating. It would be liberating if I did not take these things personally. It makes me want revenge when I do. If I could let this all go I would not be stuck in my own world all the time and I would be far more peaceful, almost like that world did not exist.

@Leo Gura I checked your blog and I found the Nazi Bible. I watched the video and it said that the book does not explain why these people hate the Jews. It assumes that you are already in agreement. It looks like Jews are just scapegoat who never actually did anything to them. This might be similar to men getting angry when they can't get a relationship with women at which point they blame women for being sluts. These prejudices are not really true but they make us angry when we treat them like they are. This turns us into victims. You also mentioned that the lack of a life purpose has the default position of a toxic life purpose in which people can derive joy from hurting others. This reminds me a little bit of the religious argument against nihilism because the lack of any sense of purpose can become self destructive and depressing. I did get some good insights from the life purpose course though. I can't really guess why Jews are the scapegoat and not somebody else. Supremacists hate Jews, Muslims, and any race other than white. If they think of other religions as other races, then they pretty much hate all of humanity anyway. It means they also hate atheists and anybody from a different nation. Maybe a good answer for why they hate Jews is because they hate everybody and will turn anyone into a scapegoat to blame everything on. In that case they really would derive joy from hurting others.

@Leo Gura Please expand on this. I would like to understand why people find this appealing. Maybe it is because the undoing of systemic racism feels like the oppression of whites. If whites feel like they are being oppressed, then they might frame an anti-white bias as a white genocide. For example, if somebody believes in the conspiracy theories of white genocide in Africa, then movements like BLM end up being viewed as black supremacists. I still have no idea why white supremacists blame these things on Jews though. Apparently, they think Jews are a different race of humans who are responsible for giving blacks civil rights. Anyway, the reason white supremacy seems obviously toxic is because of the terrorist attacks it inspires based off of conspiracy theories. It is worth noticing that entire nations like Nazi Germany fell for similar conspiracy theories. I guess it wasn't obvious to them, but why?

@Natasha it is probably too late. But anyway, I think a toxic behavior in politics is placing short term profits above human rights. This involves modern slavery, poverty, starvation, and financial terrorism. Big corporations like Apple are responsible for overseas riots in factories because of a failure to pay workers a minimum wage. The United States imports over 91 billion dollars a year In electronic slave products due to the lack of business transparency in the production of these goods. Grocery stores are responsible for throwing away tons of food rather than giving it to the homeless. In fact there are sometimes armed guards hired by companies to protect dumpsters from homeless people through the threat of violence. There is also a repetitive assertion that people are in poverty because they are lazy and morally deficient. Private militaries are not held accountable for war crimes in the middle East or for vandalism in the United States. Private militaries might tamper with cameras in America or shoot civilians in other countries because profit is frequently placed above human rights. This leads to imperialism and the ones profiting from it are also lobbying the government like exon mobile. According to Trump America should bomb the hell out of Iraq in order to pay ourselves back with oil. Sorry it is late, but I hope your essay was good anyways. Demonizing and fear mongering are also good things to focus on. An example would be Ben Shapiro comparing the democrats and the left to terrorists. This was when he was arguing that republicans were only chipping away at the progress made by the left and it results in a net gain for the democrats when they encroach like terrorists with human shields. Other conservatives criticize Shapiro for making his audience scared to death of the left. I find it insane to think that he actually thinks that badly about the left. I would have to dig to find this particular example of fear mongering, but there are other examples anyway.

@Leo Gura I hear this a lot and there was strong support for taxing corporations to pay for infrastructure. I am curious as to how much you think the rich should be taxed and for what purpose. How much could we pay for it a wealth tax were added? How high should the wealth tax be? After all of the taxes are out on the rich, how much money should we plan on having? forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/10/08/top-1-of-us-households-hold-15-times-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-combined/?sh=6aa17d355179I "According to the latest Fed data, the top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion (or 30.4% of all household wealth in the U.S.), while the bottom 50% of the population holds just $2.1 trillion combined (or 1.9% of all wealth)." This is just the top 1%. I think if there were high enough taxes on the rich while closing various loopholes, we could pay for expensive projects like infrastructure and free medical care for all. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez thinks there should be a 70% income tax on anyone worth over 10 million dollars. Currently, it is only 37% and Warren Buffett thinks the rich should be taxed higher. nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/24/business/economy/wealth-tax-rich.html#:~:text=Yes. Raising the top income tax rate is,70 percent tax on earnings above %2410 million.