she literally worked for the nazis and benefitted from jewish shareholders in chanel being sent off to concentration camps when their share came into her possession
parisian consumers actually refused to buy a lot from her own ranges after 1940 because she was an infamous collaborator but british and american consumers kept on buying them and continue to glorify her
“Gabrielle Chanel — better known as Coco — was a wretched human being. Anti-Semitic, homophobic, social climbing, opportunistic, ridiculously snobbish and given to sins of phrase-making like “If blonde, use blue perfume,” she was addicted to morphine and actively collaborated with the Germans during the Nazi occupation of Paris. And yet, her clean, modern, kinetic designs, which brought a high-society look to low-regarded fabrics, revolutionized women’s fashion, and to this day have kept her name synonymous with the most glorious notions of French taste and élan.”
And she’s still hailed as a “Feminist icon” by white women.
Shit… File this under: “shit I didn’t know but does not surprise me in the least”
WAIT there’s a good ending to this–Coco Chanel originally was business partners with a Jewish family, the Wertheimers. She tried to screw them over, but they were too damn smart for that, so they gave their shares to a dude named Amiot, went to NYC in 1940, and then came back later. Today the company is still owned by the Wertheimer family.
This Jewish family now owns the entire legacy of Coco Chanel plus all the money from the company and if that isn’t one of the best revenge stories I don’t know what is.
Ayyyyyyyyy <3
At least now when you buy chanel its funding a jewish family’s revenge against a nazi.
We
should be loud and clear in the coming weeks like we’ve been before: net
neutrality is crucial to helping everyone, regardless of where they
live or how much money they make, get online.
But there’s another way we can fight for an open internet.
Last week, 19 towns across Colorado voted to allow the exploration of creating a local, public alternative to expensive private providers.
Fort
Collins voters went the furthest, passing a measure to finance an
assessment of starting a city-owned broadband utility, which would aim
to provide faster service at a cheaper price. That means residents could
have a say in whether a new public network maintains the principle of
net neutrality, whatever the FCC decides in the future.
“People
who don’t normally get excited or vote actually turned out this time
and actually got energized,” said one resident who had campaigned for
the measure.
Not everyone was excited. Industry groups spent more than $450,000
campaigning against the measure. In fact, the very reason Colorado
towns had to vote “yes” before even exploring public broadband is
because of an industry-backed state law requiring municipalities to jump
through hoops to take control of their internet infrastructure. (The
industry has successfully pushed similar legislation in over 20 states.)
Comcast
and the like are quaking in their boots about a public option, and they
should be. Cities like Chattanooga, Tennessee, which became the first
U.S. city to offer gigabit internet speed after going public, are
outperforming private providers and even forcing them to innovate to
play catch up.
Why
shouldn’t internet access be a public good? The web should be like the
Postal Service, which, because it’s public, provides affordable mail
service to everyone, rich or poor, in all areas of the country.
And why
should a handful of corporate executives and investors get rich while
providing expensive, slow access and unbearable customer service?
Comcast’s CEO, billionaire Brian Roberts, pocketed $33 million last year alone while running America’s most hated corporation.
People
need the internet for life in the 21st century, to communicate, apply
for jobs, and access crucial resources. Everyone should have affordable
access.
These journalists know what they’re doing. They remember that the last time the British press hyper-focused on a single trans woman she took her own life (cw #suicide #transmisogyny). So when they put pen to paper week after week to attack a trans woman who has committed no crime except to attempt to involve herself in public life, there is only one goal they can possibly have:
55 Labour activists involved in the Jo Cox Women in Leadership scheme wrote to the newspaper to defend Ms Madigan in response.
The Times declined to publish the letter, in spite of extensive coverage criticising the student.
The Times can publish weeks upon weeks of deeply personal attacks on a teenager, but when people call them out and prove them wrong, the Times ignores it.
The Stanford prison experiment tapes were so stupid when I watched them in AP psych and so stupid when I watch this film about them. Literally they could’ve all sat and played cards and got $15 a day to tell ghost stories all day and be best friends. But masculinity and whiteness and power created this violent irrationality that positioned young ass men to be met with brutality and trauma and disrespect even when it was obviously taken too far. and it makes no sense. If someone put me in a room with Black girls and said I would get paid $90 a day (that’s the equivalent apparently) to be a prison guard, do you know how fast I’d be sitting with them and learning about them and exchanging Instagrams and like.. sleeping.. like what the fuck was the point of any of that…
My psych teacher introduced us to this study and literally before she showed us was like “don’t ever confuse a study based on one type of person (white men/boys) to be an example of an Everyman situation. There is strong evidence that if this was recreated with diversity, or even just with girls, that the results would have been drastically different. This is an example of bias and sexism in the medical research community.”
“Other, more subtle factors also shaped the experiment. It’s often said that the study participants were ordinary guys—and they were, indeed, determined to be “normal” and healthy by a battery of tests. But they were also a self-selected group who responded to a newspaper advertisement seeking volunteers for “a psychological study of prison life.” In a 2007 study, the psychologists Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland asked whether that wording itself may have stacked the odds. They recreated the original ad, and then ran a separate ad omitting the phrase “prison life.” They found that the people who responded to the two ads scored differently on a set of psychological tests. Those who thought that they would be participating in a prison study had significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism.”
The thing about this study is that whether or not it’s generalizable to the public is debatable at best.
But it’s certainly generalizable to the population of people who tend to be drawn to prison system and law enforcement jobs because that’s exactly the demographics that tend to show up in those positions.
1. Call Out The U.N., make sure they direct their efforts toward this cause
2. Support the International Organization For Migration (IOM).
3. Fight the “root causes” of slavery and trafficking
4. Hold social media companies accountable
According to the IOM, smugglers have previously used Facebook Live to broadcast videos of imprisoned migrants in
Libya to send these videos to migrants’ family members as a way of
extorting money for their release. The IOM is asking social media
companies to ban the use of their services for the sharing of these
types of videos. You can also write to Facebook, and have this stopped.
5. Donate to global anti-slavery companies
6. Help raise awareness!
7. Shop slave free
Atlanta is in the top 3 across the world for sex trafficking. Sad but true
