>>514221152
I tried to read your sources on mutational load but the guy just claims something and says it's better explained at [dead link]. When I search the term the academic articles discuss it as a topic over 45,000 years. Applying it to a short time frame without explaining what about modernity causes it is overall pretty weak. His theory could be explained by modern pollution, which is a concern of people who are not empathetic to increasing the value of a capitalist investment as the most important goal.

Many people see media as directing or manipulating people rather than catering to them. Think of the endless /pol/ posts about "jews showing blacks with white women to make race mixing hip" when the real explanation is that women and blacks are impulsive shoppers who are more likely to spend than save.

The post hoc things is lawyer nonsense. In reality we can see that when taking any group of humans, we know that changes to their culture never revert back to previous conditions. Applying Natsoc to totally different environments is low effort compared to new ideas.