There are so many relevant facts that run counter to the mandated narrative for which no space exists now. But it's always the same cycle with wars: it takes weeks, usually months, sometimes years for the mob inebriation to wear off, and only then does sobriety and regret emerge.
It's not as if people are suddenly inventing or dredging up these claims about Zelensky's massive wealth being laundered and hidden throughout the west through his ties to the Ukrainian oligarch funding Azov. Read this, from 2021 on the Pandora Papers:
Just last year, even **the Atlantic Council** was warning about Zelensky's deeply disturbing and seemingly corrupt dependence on this Ukrainian oligarch, under sanctions in the west, and the favors and silencing of dissent done on his behalf:
The US/NATO are flooding this country with very dangerous weapons. It's clear they intend to arm an insurgency for years to keep Russia bogged down. Some journalists have decided their role is activism for Ukraine, but journalism must highlight the risks from this, including Azov
One of the most beloved and influential accounts about the war has been @IAPonomarenko of the "The Kyiv Independent." 40k followers on Feb. 21, now almost 1m. He has ties with Azov, a neo-Nazi group. Maybe you care, maybe not. But journalism should include facts, not boosterism.
All of his utterances go viral as unquestioned fact, often included in major western media outlets, no matter how bereft of evidence they are. Again, maybe you don't care. You like what he says, don't want to know. But journalism isn't about pleasing.
In every war that interests the US, any dissenters of any kind are automatically branded by its corporate media as traitors, on the side of the Enemy, sympathizing with the Evildoers. A WashPost column today maligns a large number of media figures this way. Here's Peter Hitchens:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The belief that Joe Rogan and those like him are just an updated Fox News -- a non-stop messaging of right-wing ideology -- is beyond stupid.
Those podcasts grew organically: in part because they're not ideological or partisan. They're normal conversations: how humans speak.
Depicting Rogan as a far-right ideologue is something only those who never heard his show would say. AOC separated from Bernie's campaign after Bernie touted Rogan's endorsement.
He is a vehement defender of same-sex marriage. He believes in full freedom for adults' personal lives. He frequently argues that corporate power is suffocating the lives of ordinary people, etc. etc.
The most consequential - yet overlooked - Trump era change is many debates are no longer shaped by old left/right divisions, but instead by who loves, respects, and is loyal to institutions of authority (Dems) and who believes they're fundamentally corrupted (Trump supporters).
Today's NYT column by @ezraklein notes obvious exceptions (abortion, gun control), yet argues the key difference between Kamala and Trump voters is how much one likes US ruling institutions.
Hence, Dems love CIA, FBI, DHS, corporate media. Even views of corporate power changed.
@ezraklein Think about key debates. Which is right or left?
- Trust in large media corporations.
- Opposition to BigTech/state internet censorship.
- Opposition to funding endless wars (Ukraine).
- Eagerness to remain tied to NATO and EU-based institutions.
While many people in the West believe that Russia/Putin are "isolated" - because their media tells them that -- 2 dozen world leaders are in Russia now for a 3-day BRICS conference.
BRICS itself includes the 2 most-populous countries and 4 of the top 10 most populous.
Beyond the founding 5 (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), it expanded to 5 more (including key US "partners" Egypt, UAE and maybe Saudi).
They "account for 45% of the global population" and 28% of global economy.
Key goal: a financial system independent of US dollar.
There's Western skepticism and even mockery that this huge confederation of countries -- united over perceived abuses of US/EU sanctions -- could create a non-dollar system. @TheEconomist takes it seriously.
Inacreditável que Alexandre de Moraes esteja constantemente concentrando em si próprio a figura de suposta vítima, investigador policial, promotor e o juiz - em seus próprios interesses.
Não há democracia onde uma pessoa pode investigar criminalmente o jornalismo que a reporta.
@lf_ponde @folha Aqui também: um ótimo artigo de @lygia_maria sobre a visão perturbada e perigosa de Moraes, a marca registrada de uma mentalidade tirana:
Que qualquer crítica ou questionamento feita ele é em si "um ataque à democracia" e, portanto, um crime.
There are few people in the democratic world more powerful or tyrannical than Moraes. He believes he is Brazilian democracy itself, and thus any criticisms of him are a criminal attack on the state.
Brazil's left views him as a deity, since he censors/imprisons their opponents.
On Tuesday, we began reporting in @Folha on a massive archive of data we obtained from his chambers between his top aides (6gb).
After the first day, the left united to defend him because they see him as infallible, and he called our reporting a plot to destroy democracy.
It's hard to explain the cult-like adoration the left has for him. No matter what he does - ban people from the internet or imprison them with no due process or trial - they go online and type "Eu autorizo, Xandão!" (we support you, Great Alexandre!).
Not even herd animals are this flagrant about it. You tell me how and why corporate media constantly speaks from the same exact script this way, verbatim. #KamalaIsJOY