The Commodification of "Cool": Left Rebellion as 'Product'

Branding "Cool" (The Anti-Fragility of Consumer Capitalism)

from Google AI:

The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism is a landmark 1997 cultural studies book written by social critic and historian Thomas Frank. [1, 2]

The book argues that the youth counterculture of the 1960s did not merely get "co-opted" or "sold out" to corporate capitalism. Instead, the advertising and men's clothing industries actively anticipated, shaped, and joined the rebellion to break free from their own rigid corporate conformity. [1, 2, 3]

Core Concepts from the Book

• The Transmutation of "Cool": Frank traces how "hipness" mutated from the native language of the alienated and bohemian communities into the official language of corporate advertising. Marketers realized that a rebellious, nonchalant attitude was the ultimate tool to target the massive youth demographic. [1, 2]
• Co-Evolution, Not Theft: Rather than corporate executives subverting a pure revolution, business culture and youth counterculture evolved alongside each other. Capitalism embraced anti-conformity because it was highly effective at driving consumers to constantly replace old goods with new, "revolutionary" products. [1, 2]
• The Illusion of Cultural Radicalism: The book argues that modern consumerism thrives on the appearance of rebellion. Buying a specific brand or flaunting an adversarial aesthetic is often mistaken for a political statement, effectively neutralizing genuine societal critique by turning it into a marketplace choice.

What's YOUR Identity?

Radiohead: "All I Need"... is a little CIA/ USAID/ DoS Funding.

May 1, 2008:

[Verse 1]

I'm the next act waiting in the wings

I'm an animal trapped in your hot car

I am all the days that you choose to ignore

[Chorus]

You are all I need

You're all I need

I'm in the middle of your picture

Lying in the reeds

[Verse 2]

I am a moth who just wants to share your light

I'm just an insect trying to get out of the night

I only stick with you because there are no others

[Chorus]

You are all I need

You're all I need

I'm in the middle of your picture

Lying in the reeds

[Outro]

It's all wrong, it's all wrong, it's all wrong

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright, it's alright, it's alright... etc

from Google AI:

The intersection of Mongolia's copper mining sector and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) (and its local chapter, the Open Society Forum) primarily centers around the massive Oyu Tolgoi copper and gold mine. [1, 2]

The connection involves two main narratives: official advocacy for mining transparency, and viral political commentary regarding the mine's original deal.

1. Transparency Advocacy (The Open Society Forum)

In Mongolia, the Open Society Forum operates as a prominent civil society organization focused on governance and anti-corruption.

Beneficial Ownership: The organization pushes for strict transparency regarding who ultimately owns and profits from mining licenses. Representatives from the Forum actively advocate for Mongolia to adhere to international standards, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), to prevent conflicts of interest and corruption in the resource sector. [1]
Contract Secrecy: The Forum and allied civil society groups have historically pushed for the disclosure of hidden state mining contracts. For many years, Oyu Tolgoi was the only mega-project in the country with a publicly available central government contract. [1]

2. Media Commentary and Viral Claims

A viral narrative popularized by conservative political commentators, such as Tucker Carlson, claims that George Soros and the Open Society Foundation intervened in the early Oyu Tolgoi deal. According to these claims, OSF leveraged local environmental NGOs and parliament members to frame the original deal as predatory toward the Mongolian government. The commentary alleges that the resulting political instability delayed the signing, after which associated funds allegedly bought into the project's ownership structure. [1]

The Status of the Mine

Today, Oyu Tolgoi is one of the world's largest copper operations. It operates as a joint venture: [1]

The Government of Mongolia holds a 34% stake.
Rio Tinto holds the remaining 66% stake and manages operations. [1]

The mine expanded its underground operations, positioning it to become the world's fourth-largest copper mine by 2030. However, the project remains a point of deep political contention in Mongolia. The Mongolian government regularly pushes Rio Tinto to renegotiate the commercial terms, citing lopsided interest rates on shareholder loans and public pressure from resource-nationalist protests demanding a higher return for citizens.

The Intersectional Battle for Woke Moral Supremacy

The Fuel of Neo-Lib/Con Paranoia (TDS)

The Fuel of NATO Paranoia

Feeding the Russophobic Sorelian Myth

White Supremacy? Or Nativism?

Was Arnold Schwarzeneggar a White Supremacist?

Was he White?

from Google AI:

In 18th-century colonial America, prominent figures like Benjamin Franklin questioned whether Germans were truly white, viewing them as having a "swarthy" complexion that threatened the Anglo-Saxon character of the colonies. However, this rhetoric reflected cultural and political anxiety rather than a legal exclusion from whiteness. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Franklin's Views on German Complexion

• In his 1751 essay Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc., Benjamin Franklin claimed that most Europeans—including Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Germans—were "swarthy".
• He asserted that only the English and the Saxons made up the "principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth".
• Franklin worried that Pennsylvania would become "Germanized" and that German settlers would not adopt English customs or language. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Legal Status and Realities of Whiteness

• Despite Franklin's cultural xenophobia and complaints about their "complexion," Germans were never legally classified as non-white.
• They enjoyed the rights of free Europeans, could own property, and were fully eligible for naturalization under early colonial laws and later the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted citizenship to "free white persons".
• The social friction was rooted in language, political power, and cultural assimilation fears rather than a systematic denial of racial privilege. [1, 2, 3, 4]

If you'd like, I can provide more details on:

• How the Naturalization Act of 1790 defined whiteness for European immigrants
• Benjamin Franklin's broader economic and political arguments against German settlement
• How 19th-century nativist movements later targeted other European groups like the Irish or Italians.