100,000 mostly normal people traveled to Quebec City to protest the FTAA in April 2001.
By the end of that year that kind of thing was anti-patriotic, and very much a taboo subject, at least in the mainstream culture.
Disney’s Incredibles had allusions to Kafka
Monster’s Inc. is a commentary on corporate vampirism.
Kingdom of Heaven was if not a commentary on the Global War on Terror at least a bold film to have released 4 years after 9/11.
The second Pirates of the Caribbean film was a (childish) commentary on global empire and rationalization eliminating places for the human person to live freely.
The Corporation, Capitalism: A Love Story, and Supersize Me were all released post-9/11. They screened Supersize Me in elementary and high schools when it was released.
Anti-globalization as a movement completely collapsed during the Occupy Wall Street protests. These movements had attitudes towards international mobility rights that completely undermined organized labor. Most of them recognized what impacts illegals were having on these industries but took the position that labor solidarity would somehow make everyone better off. This could have worked in theory except that they had no operational plan to enact this solidarity and the illegals were never interested in it to begin with.
Once the bankers realized that they could just pay off the OWS leadership with fake email jobs, you started to see the conventional partisan divide on globalism that we observe today, with liberals being in favor of it and conservatives opposed to it.
Not quite. Anti-globalization as a movement completely collapsed during the Obama administration and it's more accurate to call those protests the dying gasp.
The blame for taking the momentum away from the anticorporate left has to come most directly from the corporate and neoliberal left.
If you want to pick one thing to zero in on, as an example, pick the complete lack of consequences for the bankers and other architects of the great financial collapse, which was a direct decision by the Obama administration.
It's the direct antecedent of the culture of complete and total elite impunity that has poisoned American politics today.
Occupy occurred in 2011; Obama was in office from 2009 to 2017. If anti-globalization sentiment had completely collapsed at some preceding point during the Obama years, there wouldn’t have been a dying breath.
> The blame for taking the momentum away from the anticorporate left has to come most directly from the corporate and neoliberal left.
Hence “realized that they could just pay off the OWS leadership with fake email jobs.” The neoliberals were openly in favor of globalization. People left of the neoliberals were nominally opposed to it up until they got paid off. This has shifted in recent years; most neoliberals are starting to realize they need to pump the breaks, whereas most left of them are saying things like “No one is illegal.”
I agree that impunity has its origins during the Obama era, but I’m not sure how much you can blame the administration for that. If financial crimes had occurred, they would have been handled by the judiciary, not the executive.
MAGA is a Right wing response to corporates - they put all their faith into someone who they thought was going to take to the "elites" who they believed were responsible for the corporates being able to r*pe and pillage through society.
The Left wing response was Occupy Wall street and such.
On a similar note skinheads had a far left branch and a far right branch (the far right is what skinheads are now primarily seen as)
No, it's a cynical marketing exercise designed to make people think that.
They're just selling hats. Hats that are costing way, way more than the sticker price, especially for the people who buy them.
The grandparent comment is referring to MAGA the demographic, not MAGA the political machine. How could the political machine have sold hats (or immigration policy, or tariffs) if no one in the broader movement wanted to buy them?
Otherwise how would a serial failed businessman get so much traction? It's all marketing.
I'm talking about one groups (apparent) motivations, you're talking about your perspective of the groups leadership.
Bourdain is much more Hunter S Thompson than Chuck, and while Bourdain used a wry sense of humor his fundamental message was always that humans are pretty much the same everywhere and can connect on more than what separates us.
That fundamentally is not Fight Club style whatever, and I just don't see how you could lump the two together unless you're so reflexively contrarian and anti-establishment you missed Bourdain was actually about something not that even if his rhetoric parallels it at times.
Bourdain is closer to Chuck age wise and content wise. And Chuck is not just what some people think Fight Club was (after also having misread it, which is like 1/15th of his literary output anyway, or just saw the movie and only got the big quotes and talking points, not the whole sentiment).
>nless you're so reflexively contrarian and anti-establishment you missed Bourdain was actually about something
And Chuck wasn't? Or you conflate Chuck with Tyler? And maybe Bourdain with just the food show host? Read his books and memoirs? Could just as well be from Chuck's Portland's recollections and late 80s/early 90s sentiments.
For those of us that grew up in the punk-rock anti-corporate adbusters rage against the machine WTO protest era the current culture around commerce and wealth is a disorienting hellscape.
The boomers and their children, the millennials, were wrong in their belief that fashion choices and good vibe thinking by the affluent set would lead to a better culture.
Should have listened to the Nirvana generation a little more. Turns out the cynicism was justified.