Perhaps because your exceedingly-vague conspiracy theory is full of holes? For example:
1. Which foreign governments are you accusing? Do you even know, or are you just assuming somebody must be doing the thing?
2. Exactly what mechanism of foreign "grants" is being used to force the hiring of certain staff or educators, and where are they being hired?
3. What makes those individuals "demoralizing" actors, and why do you believe they have a significant effect on "young men"?
4. On what grounds can it be anything but noise, a tiny droplet in the heaving cultural ocean that is "current gender roles and expectations"?
_____
Truly nefarious foes would probably have much better results (for less money) just pumping out catchy songs with demoralizing subtext and hoping one gets popular. Heck, maybe they even spread a dogma of powerlessness by funding US Christian Radio stations, constantly telling people they are nothing without Jesus.
I've yet to encounter a scenario in the last year where filling in that blank with "Russia" wasn't considered an objective fact by most.
Hold up, there's a HUGE difference between these two:
A: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia is a current geopolitical enemy to the US, it does some wacky shit, therefore if a foreign government is committing shenanigans there's a chance it's Russia."
B: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia has been somehow giving educational grants to US institutions with the explicit goal of installing a fifth-column of educators who will demoralize young US men with misandry."
Believing A does not imply B.
The parent-poster isn't being vague because the answer is obvious-and-accepted... they're being vague because they want to push the "foreign enemies in our colleges" meme without giving the audience any handles for critical-thinking.
1. Who is doing the funding?
2. How are they doing the funding?
3. What message are they spreading, and what proof do you have the message has an effect?
Calling it a conspiracy theory does not mean it is instantly wrong, but it is a correct label - the accusation is hidden (or perhaps not, apparently it's obvious) wealthy foreign funders controlling American society. If that doesn't look like a conspiracy theory (which again, does not mean it's wrong immediately!), then I don't know what you expect.
The author had to run his book by the CCP - you get the sense this hints at an accepted strategy in the Chinese mainland. It’s an interesting read.
Also it's complete nonsense because if anything, the CPC is afraid of those trends happening:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-effemina...
I think you misunderstood something here. The links you posted affirm the premise of the book.
It’s no one’s plan but we do need to find the cause and deal with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine
I’ve been reading is a potential candidate. Any opinions?
> Its use was banned in the European Union in 2004
If so this should be something that's possible to control for in studies. I can't find a lot of data from Europe newer than about that date, even suitable for casual discussion.
I read Death's End, and I don't remember that.
The trilogy talks about human society ebbing and flowing between "tough" and "sensitive" over the generations. Mostly, the Trisolarans rely on the Sophon lock. With superior technology, the masculinity of your prey is totally irrelevant. And, in Death's End, everyone's in an Australian penal colony anyway.
People seem to forget that our rivals are ancient compared to us, and carry out strategies on vast timescales that are difficult for any one individual to relate to with their comparatively short lifespan.
The USA is just lucky it has a deep state or special interest groups that continues pushing things ahead regardless of who is in in power. Sadly its mostly driven by corporate greed, it just happens to align with furthering US state power. You can see things like the Qatar-Turkey pipeline and Iraq war breaks out of the 4 year cycle cos they are good money makers.
This is the theory behind authoritarian regimes, but it doesn't actually play out that way. There's too much internal politicking in order to keep power concentrated, so you end up with a state that on paper should be able to execute faster and more coherently than a democratic state, but in practice is so hobbled by the internal conflicts and power games that it doesn't actually have all that much extra energy to solve real problems. An authoritarian regime's primary concern is maintaining its authority, everything else is secondary.
China grew rapidly as it industrialized not because of any strength in the communist regime, but because that's what happens when you have a lot of babies who suddenly stop dying—your working-age population explodes and your economy booms. Then China established the one child policy to try to cap the growth and prevent famine, took too long to repeal it and failed just to change the culture back toward large families, so now they're facing demographic collapse. Some 50-year plan that turned out to be.
> By offering its education institutions large grants if they agree to hire the right ideologists.
Are you referring to the "Thousand Currents" program? Now referred to as United Front Work Program?
Edit: with this comment I'm also nudging HN to escape the narrow and boring boundaries of this discussion.