The western oligarchic empire is propagandizing and censoring as though it is in a direct hot war with Russia. Officially we're not at war, but the behavior of the empire's propaganda outlets in the news media and narrative management institutions in Silicon Valley say otherwise.
And if you think it's bad now, wait until whatever they're priming us for with this "chemical/biological weapons false flag" thing happens. The way these institutions are setting up their rules, anyone questioning the official narrative on such an event can be purged.
And of course we're all adults here, so we understand that these institutions are in fact propaganda constructs of the empire that are just as crucial an aspect of imperial power as the US war machine. They're not "private companies enforcing their TOS".
When someone brings up bad things the US does in response to outrage over bad things Russia does, it's not to defend Russia. It's to get the US to stop doing bad things.
Bleating "whataboutism" at sincere attempts to get the US empire to stop doing evil things is just defending those evil things.
You're basically just saying "Shut up! Now's not the time to talk about the bad things the US power alliance does, we're on something else right now!" Okay, so when? Nothing has ever been done about the crimes of the empire. No meaningful changes whatsoever were made after Iraq.
Find me two opening paragraphs in any Russian state media outlet that are more brazenly propagandistic and demonstrate lower journalistic standards than this. washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
Third paragraph is arguably even more egregious, because it says this without ever once mentioning Victoria Nuland's admission before the Senate that Ukraine has “biological research facilities” that the US is “quite concerned” might end up “falling into the hands” of Russians.
Everyone seems to get that Russia stands everything to gain by lying about what's happening on the ground in Ukraine. Not many seem to get that Ukraine does too. Kyiv's only chance at victory is drawing NATO powers into direct conflict. Atrocity propaganda facilitates this goal.
Atrocity propaganda has been around to some degree for as long as war and media have coexisted. Its use has a very long and extensively documented history, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe it isn't used copiously today.
The US-centralized empire also has its own agendas that would be greatly facilitated by atrocity propaganda, such as manufacturing consent for unprecedented acts of worldwide economic warfare. This has been underway since before the invasion even began.
"It certainly is interesting that the fight for freedom and democracy requires so much censorship, warmongering, xenophobia, propaganda and bloodlust." caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/umm-are-we-t…
Umm… Are We The Baddies? (Audio)
"Reuters reports that Facebook and Instagram are now allowing calls for the death of Russians and Russian leaders in exemption from the platforms' hate speech terms of service due to the war in Ukraine." soundcloud.com/going_rogue/um…
"Meta Platforms will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion, according to internal emails seen by Reuters on Thursday"
What is the argument here? That in the English-speaking world there's not enough criticism of Putin's invasion and too much criticism of NATO aggression? That if more of us scream about Putin he'll go "Ah shit I pissed off a few fringe westerners, let's cancel the war you guys"?
I don't mean to pick on Jordan specifically, I see this argument everywhere, and it just makes no sense to me. Our voices can do far more good criticizing the actions of our own governments that receive barely any criticism than those of someone else's government which gets tons.
It can't be denied that there's a major propaganda push to manufacture consent for dangerous agendas which pre-date the invasion by many years. Is my voice better used opposing those dangerous agendas, or in helping to facilitate them by saying what everyone else is saying today?
Really not feeling great about how much mainstream western punditry boils down to "What's the maximum amount we can provoke and attack Russia without starting a nuclear war? Some say the line is here, but I think it's probably further back."
I mean, like, what about Putin's recent actions suggests that this is the sort of person you want to take chances with? And not just chances, but *the most consequential chances humanly possible*?
You never quite know who's listening to who; what actual decision maker is listening to what dumbass warmongering thought leader. And just the fact that these ideas are gaining so much mainstream traction can be enough to adjust the other side's calculations in a dangerous way.