People newly faced with the precarity of future expectations and the loss of attachments to habitual ways of life tighten their grip on them, no matter how objectively unsustainable, and turn toward blaming the other, the victims, rather than extending empathy and solidarity toward them.

Should something new be experienced, it will be unexpected, may beoverwhelming and may not fit into any meaningful representation or expression at all. The new assuch, the possible source of transformation, regeneration and vision, does not submit to the orderimposed by the personware, it is naturally on a collision course with it and a source to various degreesof cognitive dissonance. As such, it poses a threat that a well-functioning cognitive system mustmediate.

I dislike the metaphor of luck. None of this is luck.

No luck involved

But Queer activism, that pernicious postmodernity, has made it not necessary to debate for certain ideas to be implanted arguing that there are indebatable things and that they are what they have found five years ago. Innovations that would have left the entire history of humanity speechless, by their delirium, are presented as so obvious that they cannot even be debated. They cling to the slogan, because it is not an argument, it is a slogan, that Human Rights are not debated. Implying that Eleanor Roosevelt in the 40s received the visit of Moses who gave her Human Rights and extended them to humanity when in fact they were debated for many months, Russia threatened to get up from the table and many countries alike, until a consensus was reached within the United Nations. But in their candor, when these people talk about rights they are not talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are legal constructions subject to debate, but they think that they spring from human nature. Human Rights are interpreted as natural phenomena, the right to exist, the right to be oneself, which are neoliberal metaphysical constructions of yesterday, invented by McDonalds, which can date these campaigns where these stories appear, I teach about them precisely. And now they live it as the manifestation of an indisputable nature, they are "my rights", the right to be "myself". They would not endure a debate, but the problem is that when you raise the debate, the discussion, they invent that you are moved by hatred and not by your way of reasoning and disavow you to opine. Their only argument is the word "transphobia." They remove you from the debate, they tell you that you are not authorized to comment because you hate and here we can only say those we love.

Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.

Holocaust denial is a subset of genocide denial, which is a form of politically motivated denialism.

The term COVID-19 denialism or new coronavirus denialism[31] (or viral denialism)[32] refers to the thinking of those who deny[33][34][35] the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic [36][37][38][39][40] or, at the very least, deny that deaths are happening in the manner or proportions scientifically recognized by the World Health Organization

Kenner vertritt die Ansicht, dass einige dieser Personen durch ihre überlegenen finanziellen Möglichkeiten die poli-tische Debatte aktiv und erfolgreich beeinflussen und damit indirekt zu einer Verschärfung der Ungleichheit in der Verteilung der CO2-Emissionen beitragen

Hierzulande ist Shellenberger bislang kaum wahrgenommen worden. Eine der wenigen Ausnahmen ist die SPD-nahe Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Ihr Magazin Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft (IPG) hat mit dem umstrittenen Autor ein ausführliches Interview geführt, in dem er unter andere