In case you doubt that anyone who deviates from the mandated consensus instantly gets smeared as a Russian agent or apologist. The DSA statement was reasonable (see below); its crime was that it criticized NATO. Hence it must be "pro-Putin." The WH also attacked DSA.
Here's the @DemSocialists statement. I'm sure many would disagree with some of these claims but it's perfectly reasonable, and if you can't express this minimal dissent without being smeared by top Democrats and the WH as a Kremlin agent, then the climate is toxic and warped.
And again, just to illustrate how much more open and permissive the debate over Ukraine is around the world, here's one of Brazil's most influential YouTubers and commentators, @felipeneto, asking a question which, in the US, would prompt instant "pro-Putin" accusations:
The Huffington Post in 2017 published an article by constitutional scholar Bruce Fein headlined: "he United States Should Withdraw from NATO." You know what that means. cc: @FBI
Frum's career was built on smearing those who disagree with him as being traitors and on the Enemy's side. From Bush's "you're with us or with the terrorists" speech to Frum's 2003 article "Unpatriotic Conservatives" (about Iraq War opponents), it's his specialty. Won't stop now.
Everyone "now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the" Russians.
He's now regarded in many media sectors and establishment liberal politics as the Conscience of the Nation. One key benefit of constantly locating new Hitlers (from Trump to Putin) is that it erases all prior sins, bestows elites with total absolution:
Given all the various claims about what "real leftists" must say and think about Russia/Ukraine, it's worth hearing this two-part answer from Noam Chomsky from February 13, when asked about rising tensions over Ukraine between Moscow and NATO:
The 2nd part. One of the most bizarre claims is now is that his view -- that NATO expansion is genuinely threatening to all Russians, not just Putin -- is some Kremlin propaganda invented last week when, in fact, it's what US officials and scholars have been saying for years.
Here's @PeterBeinart documenting how top US security officials, including the current CIA Director, have been warning for years: NATO expansion will provoke Russian action in Ukraine. You don't have agree, but don't pretend it's some new invention of RT:
Every useful or pleasing claim about the war, no matter how unverified or subsequently debunked, rapidly spreads, including by US news outlets, while dissenters are vilified as traitors or Kremlin agents.
No matter your views, having falsehoods ratified is dangerous and harmful.
Even if you're certain you have apprehended the moral dimensions of this conflict, that only takes you so far - as was true of 9/11 or Saddam. Especially with calls for no-fly zones, regime change and "crippling" sanctions, vital debates remain, which require space to question.
It's impossible to overstate how extreme this has been, worsening daily. Largely due to social media, the level of lockstep messaging and reckless affirming of disinformation is worse now than even after 9/11. Zero attempt to identify pleasing assertions as false, by design.👇
It's indifference over false stories spreading as long as they advance the right side: The Noble Lies. That's how a propagandistic government (and neocons) think, not how journalists or citizens should. Even if you're certain of your moral views, nobody should want to be mislead.
In the US, "the left" means Bernie/AOC. But so often, they're far from the left internationally -- as we see with Corbyn & Mélenchon's opposition to vaccine mandates, or you'll see if you ask Bolivia/Cuba/Venezuela/Ecuador/Lula what they think of Russia, and now with Ukraine:
Here's Varoufakis -- the leftist former Finance Minister of Greece and current member of Parliament -- elaborating on his view that the US should provide Russia its vow never to put Ukraine in NATO or militarily defend Ukraine in exchange for Russia withdrawing its troops:
And here's Varoufakis arguing that the "rules-based international order" wasn't destroyed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine (which he condemns) but by the US attack on Iraq and NATO/Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia with no UN permission, among many other prior lawless Western acts:
At noon EST today, I'll be live on Rumble discussing the war in Ukraine and the debate over what role the U.S. Government should play, if any, in its outcome.
Whenever war breaks out, emotions are extremely high, as are nationalism and tribalism. Especially at the start, there typically is lockstep unity among political/media elites. There's thus no point in using social media to do anything but read from that script. Chomsky on TV:
Here's the second part where Chomsky -- 30 years ago -- explained why the constricting structure of television (requiring "concision": the demand to make all points in 5 minutes between commercials) precludes conventional wisdom from being challenged. Social media is even worse: