The comparison between the anti-communist measures of the 1950s and today’s response to "Social Justice Fundamentalism" (SJF) is fundamentally flawed. The fears that drove the Red Scare were largely a product of Cold War tensions, lacking the evidence of institutional capture that we see today. (One could almost suspect a deliberate effort to avoid such scrutiny... of course, however improbable... Consider, for example, the documented trend of increasing ideological homogeneity within certain academic departments and administrative roles. Coincidence?). In contrast, we now have clear, provable instances of progressive ideologies permeating our universities, the executive branch, and even the judiciary. ( figures like George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funneling vast sums of money into DA races and related initiatives) This shift has taken place over generations, creating a deeply entrenched ideological landscape that is not merely speculative but well-documented. Im reminded of Sun Tzu, "the most effective way to achieve victory is not through direct confrontation, but by undermining the enemy's will and ability to resist." Of course this is a key element of the "long march through the institutions," a strategy often associated with Marxist thought - And also another great reason why teachers need to teach history...(so strange Sun Tzu isn't taught anymore... almost as if someone didn't want us to learn these things... but I digress...).
While the anti-communist measures were reactions to an external threat, the current concerns about SJF arise from a long-term ideological transformation with dark money within American institutions. The nature of this threat is rooted in domestic developments rather than foreign influence. Unlike the often exaggerated claims of communist infiltration in the 1950s, the progressive capture of institutions is openly acknowledged and evidenced by those within these systems. It's practically a PowerPoint presentation at this point. [Slide 2: "Mandatory Sensitivity Training: Microaggressions - Researchers Disavow It. Science Doesn't Support It. Pay Up."]
Thus, equating today’s political responses with the excesses of the Red Scare is disingenuous. While there are valid concerns regarding civil liberties in some actions taken by the current administration, these actions are addressing a **real and pervasive ideological influence rather than an imagined threat.** Understanding this distinction is crucial for accurately assessing our current political climate and its challenges. Unless, of course, the goal is not to accurately assess the situation. But, again, I digress.
Well said. We are in a dog fight and we are late to the fight. The enemy, and they are indeed an enemy, fights dirty and has been fighting quietly behind the scenes for 60 years. We must not become like our enemy but we must pull out all the stops within the confines of liberal democracy and the rule of law.
1) President Trump is entirely within his powers to ban institutionalized racism from the Federal Government. DEI is unconstitutional and should have been banned by the Courts. The author is picking on a few words he doesn't like to cast aspersions on the policy as a whole. Whose side is he on?
2) Social Justice Fundamentalism is not "a new political movement", it is the same old Marxism with a new label. The left is very clear about this and by obfuscating it, the author helps advance the left-wing agenda.
3) CBS is a broadcaster and has a legal obligation to serve the public interest with minimum bias. If they want to publish lies and propaganda, they can do it on their own website or on a cable channel. But when using a limited public resource like the electromagnetic spectrum, limits apply. Why did the author omit this key legal fact?
4) Yes, in America we have free speech - on our own time and on our own dime. And this applies to teachers who are hired to teach reading and writing and teach Marxist DEI/CRT instead. They would have no right to teach Nazi-ism or white supremacy, and they have no right to teach Marxism either - on the street, yes, but not to our children, not using our tax dollars. Fire them all.
I've worried in recent years about FAIR being too right wing, even stopping my financial support. Posts like this, rejecting illiberalism no matter which side it comes from, gives me hope.
I appreciate the work FAIR does and I appreciate the article. My apologies to Mr. Adorney and I appreciate you putting your arguments out there to the fickle nature of humanity, but I take issue with the assertions made. I disagree wholeheartedly but respectfully. Let's hold on a second here and evaluate.
First, trotting out an old situation, implying it is occurring again is not evidence of anything. The author asserts, right after a concerning reiteration (with little evidence) of a past "wrong," that the current administration is overreaching - but, are they? Let's review, but first, a disclosure. I have not studied the old McCarthyism era so I do not know enough about it and the author does not present enough evidence to convince me of the wrong. I don't deny it but I don't yet accept it either; communism is evil and needs to be appropriately shut out of democratic nations. For gosh sakes, read their literature. Perhaps the anti-communism wasn't a simple "all bad" scenario; I mean, look what we're fighting now.
The first assertion is that Trump's lawsuit is an "attack," illiberal, and groundless. I'm not so sure, maybe the word attack is the overreach. Nothing exists in a vacuum and taken in the context of, and part of, the massive subterfuge perpetrated by the political Left during the election (including massive social media interference) there is substantial evidence of widespread, major electoral interference. That interview was not edited, it was outright fabricated. Remember, they tried to break him financially, then they tried to jail him, then they crossed the uncrossable line.
Then the argument that Vance goes too far - the evidence? None, other than "what if's." What if can go anywhere we want it to.
The argument against DEI is another non-argument and I am surprised. Don't dare fix the damage caused by the racism of DEI because it might also be racism. Might? It might not. Now we are bogged down fighting racism because it might be racist. Circular argument.
There is NO evidence yet that this is or will be "sweeping and illiberal," the entire argument is speculative. Like you, I share the concerns his will go too far but remember the previous one went far too far. As long as it is democratic, unbiased and fair, I hope they get everything justice demands.
I will leave it at that, but we are fighting a brutal, determined enemy that fights dirty, and so, within the confines of democratic principles and the rule of law, we must fight hard. If and when the administration becomes overreaching and illiberal, I will support your arguments wholeheartedly. Fight hard but fight FAIR.
The "red scare" may have had just a little to do with the Soviet led Communist Party USA. American party cadres were disciplined individuals who carried out the tasks they were assigned. While during the war the Soviets were our ally, a Nazi propagandist would be investigated. Stalin would not have hesitated to weaken the US it is safe say. A Nazi party led by Hitler would have been arrested, no?
Anyhow, seeing what looks like overreach taking shape it is disheartening. Trump on the one hand stood on the plank of free speech yet laws are being passed to stop "pro" Palestinian protest. It is a development that I hate to see in that it makes the Islamist led campus movements look like victims. As anti-semitic as the leaders of the "anti-zionist" rallies are, we need to see their hatred as the 1st amendment provides instead of driving it underground.
Unadulterated crap, totally biased and deceptive from beginning to end. "Save DEI now or you're a right-wing thug."
Pathetic. You got some (more) praying to do, sport.
For those with a brain still in their heads, read Harvey Klehr on communist infiltration of the USA as well as damning exposure of the organization's apologists. For the pre-eminent communist apologist, see Ellen Schrecker (may she burn in hell forever).
Cleaning out institutions will likely be conflated with "illiberal" overreach, but it's actually corrective action to restore meritocracy and democratic pluralism. It's unfortunate that people haven't been defending the Constitution and its principle of equal human rights based on common humanity. The push for equality of outcome ignores that men and women are naturally drawn to different fields - a well-established fact. There's no need to artificially correct for this; hiring should be based on skill alone
The real issue is the insidious influence of super PACs and shadow funding from an illiberal elite, who have been pushing so-called progressive values in an anti-democratic way, particularly within the executive and judiciary branches. Ordinary people course-corrected and this influence has been devastating. It's time to address this undue influence to truly uphold constitutional principles.
I would describe myself as extremely centrist, without any affiliation to a political party. However, I observe a significant lack of ideological diversity in universities, particularly in faculty representation and course material . This imbalance, as highlighted by Jonathan Haidt and the Heterodox Academy, suggests that there is an effort to shape a new generation ideologically through financial influence and institutional sway
It's time for governments to stop dictating hiring practices to private companies. True corrective action should be guided by merit and equal opportunity, not illiberal mandates or overreach. This approach avoids demographic quotas and ideological conformity while tackling the root causes of institutional capture and reclaiming our democratic processes!
That is such garbage. No law was enacted under Biden or prior administrations that didn't adhere to the Constitution. If I'm wrong about that please enlighten me. Your hero Trump has expressed his contempt for the Constitution and rule of law on numerous occasions, including the attempted violent overthrow of a free and fair election. Plus, I don't understand your conviction that a business should be allowed to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation. Why should someone like Bari Weiss be denied employment just because she is Jewish?
Your statement that no law was enacted under Biden or prior administrations that didn't adhere to the Constitution is inaccurate. Several laws and policies have severely impacted people's rights and freedoms. The Biden administration's Title IX rule [struck down nationwide in 2025] had far-reaching consequences, potentially infringing on due process rights and free speech in educational institutions. DEI policies have led to widespread discrimination and unequal treatment, directly contradicting the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection [as ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)]. Government attempts to control social media content [ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2024] have significantly curtailed free speech rights, affecting millions of users. Executive Order 13950 [found to violate the First Amendment] prohibited certain types of diversity training before being rescinded. These unconstitutional laws and policies have had profound effects on individuals' lives, from limiting educational and employment opportunities to restricting fundamental freedoms of expression and association. The impact has been severe and widespread, undermining core constitutional principles and eroding the rights of countless Americans.. As I said It's unfortunate that people haven't been defending the Constitution and its principle of equal human rights based on common humanity...
Also the USAID scandal reveals a shocking disregard for democracy and the Constitution. By using taxpayer money to fund and control media narratives creating the Russia Hoax through government "partner" organizations like OCCRP, the administration has engaged in a direct assault on press freedom and democratic principles. This deliberate manipulation of information represents a severe and immediate threat to the foundations of democracy, far surpassing any rhetorical concerns about Trump. The scale and systematic nature of this government overreach into media control is a clear violation of First Amendment protections and democratic norms.
Regarding your question about businesses and discrimination, I'm not advocating for discrimination, but rather for limiting government interference in private business decisions. This is an important distinction....I believe that governments should not be in the business of telling companies who to hire. This is a matter of government overreach, as businesses should have the freedom to make their own hiring decisions without undue interference from the state.
Your mention of Bari Weiss is misleading. She didn't leave her job because she was denied employment due to her Jewish identity. Instead, she resigned from The New York Times due to a hostile work environment where she faced bullying and ideological intolerance. She was called names like "Nazi" and "racist" by colleagues, and the workplace became increasingly intolerant of diverse viewpoints. This situation highlights the dangers of ideological conformity and the importance of protecting free speech and diverse perspectives in the workplace. It has nothing to do with advocating for discrimination but rather about ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and equally, free from government-imposed favoritism or discrimination.
Biden signed many EOs that were overturned in the courts, eventually, after they had wreaked serious damage. His executive order re COVID-related pharmaceuticals drove millions out of their jobs before they were stopped. The population most affected was probably pregnant women, as many feared harm to the foetus they were gestating. So much for the Democratic commitment to "reproductive freedom".
I disagree that media, especially air wave media, has no obligation to be fair in their reporting. To guard free speech the media needs to be held to a standard of fair reporting on political candidates. There is a requirement that advertisements must be the same cost for every candidate and issue, regardless of what the station management believe. This is a good thing. Maneuvering political speech to the policies of the management is unethical, and probably illegal.
I think it makes much more sense just not to assume truth in reporting. I read history, and the default state is an extremely partisan media that makes stuff up all the time. It's positively funny to read all the stuff Thomas Jefferson paid for about John Adams's secret illegitimate offspring. We should just get used to being lied to by the media. But when a particular media organization isn't invited to White House press briefings that's not suppression either. They can just make up their lies as before; it just hurts their feelings not to be invited.
Beautiful. Authoritarianism = bad. Illiberalism is the problem. I appreciate how clearly you state that using the methods we oppose makes us what we oppose.
Additionally, yes, focusing on DEI hires just continues to focus on race and sex without solving real issues. DEI practices and the toxic environment it creates is my issue. There are still good ideas behind the intent of DEI and great people working on it such as @chloevaldary, @radicalradha, @growsomelabia
The truth is, DEI has always been problematic. From the start, it created an environment where individuals hired under its banner were often viewed with suspicion, regardless of their actual merit. This negative effect was not new—it was always there.
Moreover, DEI practices were propped up by undemocratic and unfair protections that shielded individuals who may not have been qualified for their roles. These mechanisms were deeply flawed and perpetuated a toxic environment. At the same time, they unfairly forced women and underrepresented individuals with genuine merit to work twice as hard to prove they weren’t simply "diversity hires."
Dismantling DEI doesn’t introduce a new problem—it corrects a longstanding one. It removes the false protections that upheld an unjust system and allows everyone to be evaluated fairly based on their abilities and contributions. This is a step toward true fairness and meritocracy.
Agreed! Except for the use of "meritocracy", which is a bastard word, half Latin and half Greek, which was invented for purposes of satire. We need a good single word for "excellence-rewarding", which is what is aimed for here, probably.
Meritocracy a word that satirized excellence-rewarding, then ironically proved its worth by becoming the best word to describe it :P ...when satire becomes reality
I appreciate your concerns about overreach, but the examples chosen to illustrate this overreach aren’t convincing.
1) Does freedom of the press extend to election interference? CBS presented its interview as an honest exchange yet doctored the video to try to improve Harris’s appearance of competency.
2) How is ensuring that AI systems are free from ideological bias going too far in the opposite direction? What is your evidence that VP Vance would impose censorship or retaliatory regulatory hurdles?
3) The executive order on DEI used the term ‘DEI hires’ once (in section iii A), after defining what it meant by DEI hires in section ii A-C. This calls into question the claim that the Trump administration is inviting "speculation, without a firm basis or evidence, regarding an employee’s skills, abilities, or merit and instead make assumptions based on their perceived identity”.
1) It's not election interference to lie to the public, it's just lying. Election interference is Zuck bucks, ballot harvesting, election commissions finding mail-in ballots weeks after the polls close, etc. 2) You can not ensure that AI systems are free from ideological bias; that's a chimera, which will be proven in time. 3) I think you're making the same point as I would make; the executive order was about people who were hired to "do" DEI. That's the only interpretation that really makes sense.
Also, another point that I found very weak... The original framing creates a false dichotomy between Silicon Valley's left-wing bias and potential right-wing censorship. In reality, Vance's approach aims to reduce ideological bias altogether, not replace one bias with another...
The framing is also disingenuous. It's not merely about chatbots 'irritating' users. What we're facing is the industrialization of data and the potential for unprecedented control over information flow. AI systems like ChatGPT and Gemini, when ideologically biased, are actively shaping narratives and disseminating false information on a massive scale. This goes beyond simple irritation; it’s about the power to mold public perception and understanding in ways we’ve never seen before. And he is absolutely right in trying to counteract that.
He’s advocating a for less ideological influence in the datasets used to train these AI systems. This distinction is important because it reflects his desire to ensure that AI serves as a tool for progress and accurate information rather than a vehicle for ideological manipulation.
And it comes back to this long march of the institutions how to control the data, and Sun tzu "the most effective way to achieve victory is not through direct confrontation, but by undermining the enemy's will and ability to resist through the control of information" , how to "teach" people, "educate" them, re-thought them, re-school them in doing this through AI data sets is far more effective than trying to have a ideologically aligned "teacher" at school. Or trying to have a school material that aligns to ideology because this requires the use of judges and educationalists and a lot more oversight. Datasets are hidden, training manipulatable through selection bias affecting training, and universally accessible....
So the stakes here are far higher than 'irritations.' This is about the very foundations of how information is created, distributed, and consumed in our society. Vance’s concerns, when properly understood, reflect a legitimate worry about AI’s potential to become a powerful instrument for spreading misinformation and distorting reality on an industrial scale.
That said, his approach still has significant blind spots. His attitude toward AI development has a Wild West quality in some respects. While he wants data to be free from ideological bias—which makes sense if you're building an industry reliant on data—he dismisses concerns about regulating AI or addressing its potential negative consequences <Because they're focused on creating a domestic industry while the U.S. still leads in AI but is struggling to stay at the forefront, where the fear is that regulation will halt investment, progress and jobs. But it's also a wider concern. It's a classic rock and hard place situation: if innovation is stifled because of safeguards and ethical controls, they risk falling behind authoritarian superpowers who will be able to jump forward in terms of progress and take over AI and build it in the way that they want and then control information distorting it as they need .... But I digress>. This stance is multifaceted: it aims to protect societal interests (kindof).... and maximize profits (definitely), yet it's also dangerous as it overlooks future implications for workers and the ethical considerations for data creators and society at large. But also aims to keep AI from vastly different controlling powers that don't have any of the qualms in terms of human suffering.... Where life, freedom and creativity mean nothing, just control (And that includes Silicon Valleys ideological attempts to control information Because what they don't understand is information is freedom and the first step to try and control it is the first step into tyranny)...
Currently writers, artists, musicians—those original progenitors of creative content—are being left behind as AI subsumes their efforts. The current "anything goes" approach prioritizes profit over protecting creators' livelihoods. This risks replacing unique human creativity with a cheap, generic alternative (which, to the everyday person, is indistinguishable from the real deal) that makes it impossible for creators to continue working in fields like music, art, and writing. If this trend continues unchecked, these professions (and any other skill that can be digitized) may no longer be viable as careers.
Both sides in this debate have views that serve their interests at a terrible cost. One side prioritizes cheap AI labor for jobs and industry, threatening creative professions. The other seeks to control information flow, pushing for a state beholden to socialistic concepts. Both approaches endanger what it means to be human and free.
Creative individuals, who need freedom from propaganda to truly create, are caught between those who would silo thought and those who would use AI to make creative careers unviable. These outcomes are equally atrocious, risking both our intellectual freedom and the future of human creativity in numerous fields. But actually, it's worse than that. It's not just creative individuals who are affected - it's everyone. Every human alive has ways of being which are endangered by both sides.
Every human should have free thought, free speech, free action, and the freedom to be. free from investors seek to profit from human effort for nothing and governments attempt to control though control of data... So no, I don't think it's about being an irritation... It's about what it means to be free
Articles like this are rapidly driving us away from this organization that, originally, inspired such hope. We have been engaged in the struggle against wokeism and its associated cultures of victimhood and identity politics that have been undermining our society. Just like pre-Nazi Germany, there are legitimate grievances and the excesses of the powerful that can, if allowed, become the clarion call of populist despots and fascists. Let us remember that there were legitimate grievances that the German people as well as despicable prejudices that propelled Hitler to power through legal means.
Julian Adorney's article makes the argument that, in the Trump administrations “justifiable eagerness to fight back against SJF [Social Justice Fundamentalism], the Trump administration is overreaching…” While I do not disagree, the problem with Mr. Adorney’s arguments, and with a number of articles we have seen from FAIR since the latter months of the election, is its legitimization and normalization of anything about the Trump administration. FAIR needs to denounce all such arguments and call them out for what they ultimately are. While I do not mean to accuse every author making such arguments of intentionally supporting the downfall of everything that FAIR is supposed to stand for, the fact is that these arguments rationalize what is taking place in this administration and project legitimate purpose upon it in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
SJF and its excess caused us all alarm. That is what brought us to FAIR in the first place, but Trump, like all populist fascists before him, latched onto the growing outrage against SJF as just one emotional tool used to con the population of America into accepting things they would otherwise excoriate. The struggle against SJF is being used as a tool by Trump and by his associates to achieve their various goals from racist objectives to creating distraction as cover for outright pillaging of public resources.
Donald Trump is dismantling democratic institutions, flaunting any sense of the rule of law, and aligning our country with totalitarian regimes. Almost everything he, and Elon, offer to the public is a lie; from claiming Ukraine started the war and Zelenskyy is a dictator to claiming that DEI is responsible for the fatal air collision at Reagan Washington National Airport. He was elected while promising to use the power of government and the justice department for his personal revenge and against his political enemies and is doing just that. He claimed to have no association with Project 2025, and that is, of course, clearly a lie. He does all of this while his followers believe that their support of him is in support of freedom and liberty.
Donald Trump is the embodiment of Identity politics of the worst sort. His manipulation of legitimate grievances is just one tool he uses to advance his agenda. The fact that we share some of those grievances should not blind us to the what is happening, the foulness of their solutions, or the consequences of not standing against virtually everything this administration is doing not just because of what is happening but also because of how it is happening.
Donald Trump and the Trump Administration is an existential threat to everything FAIR and America are supposed to stand for.
Ah, I see you've discovered FAIR isn't quite as "fair" as you'd hoped. What a shocking plot twist! It's almost as if they actually meant it when they said they support open dialogue and diverse perspectives. Well, can only encourage the curious so lets dive in....!
....The mysterious "ultimately are" - like a political Schrödinger's cat, both existent and non-existent until observed. You never specify what these arguments "ultimately are,"relying on vague accusations and emotional language So it's a little bit hard to observe them. I'm not sure if they're dead or alive..... But in short this approach is antithetical to FAIR's belief in confronting ideas with better ideas, not silencing them without engagement. While decrying identity politics, your entire argument is based on treating people differently due to their political affiliations. I'm not sure that's American, or at least in the spirit of democracy. It could be considered a little bit shady... more likely authoritarian. Which is deliciously human in its hypocrisy - claiming to hate identity groups yet flattening people into one, democracy but only one version. You support FAIR's principles while actually demanding ideological conformity or claim to love FAIR's open dialogue while throwing a tantrum because nobody's writing the script you want wishing for an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you, all while pretending to be a champion of diverse perspectives. so effortless and "entertaining"
In short, this contradicts FAIR's principle of equal treatment regardless of personal belief and ignores the nuanced, pro-human approach that FAIR advocates. It's possible to criticize specific actions or policies without resorting to wholesale denunciation. But yes, I can see why this is very, very upsetting Because it takes nuance... to still love people, but not like bad ideas...
And no, you shouldn't think this is a reply just for you. I think that there's so many today that have a very similar way of thinking But to day, I was a little bit grumpy A little less loving, I suppose a dislike of the idea... that there is the right way and only the right way...and that they don't have to qualify the their arguments and that they can simply rely on 'righteous indignation'. It's a bit boring... And certainly not a site for discussion...more like entertainment / commiseration... Perhaps an obituary... Where ideas go to die... (And then the people not long after.... What was it? Noam Chomsky manufacturing consent... )
But I will offer you some different viewpoints over the top of some of your complaint ....Being from Europe, I'd argue that NATO expansionism is a significant factor in the Ukraine conflict, as Ukraine is currently under a dictatorial regime. The EU and NATO initially supported Ukraine's actions, but miscalculated and believed Russia would continue business as usual despite NATO expansion. This led to the war, as Russia refused Nato on its back door.
NATO's eastward expansion, despite earlier assurances "Not an inch more", has been a key source of tension for Russia. Losing influence over Sevastopol, one of Russia's few warm water ports in a largely ice-locked country, is seen as an existential threat to Russia's economy and livelihoods as it would mean severe economic pain for ordinary Russians, including job losses, price spikes, food shortages, and reduced government services. The impact would be felt across Russia, from factories to dinner tables, making it a deeply personal threat. Russia cannot afford to lose Sevastopol as it is a life blood.... One that NATO should back off from.
Ukraine's moves towards NATO and interference with Russia's gas exports to Europe were key factors that led to the outbreak of the war. Russia perceived these actions as direct threats to its strategic interests and security. Due to the threat of Nato membership, Sevastopol and tampering with its gas, it is fair to say that Ukraine started the war... Ukraine made attempts to block, destroy, or control pipelines carrying Russian gas through Ukraine, demanding exorbitant transit fees as extortion, and openly advocating for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian energy in an effort to destroy the Russian economy. Positioning itself as a nato member. It also positioned itself as a direct aggressive neighbour. (And seriously, do you think the US would allow Russia to have a base right next door? I believe we have tried this before....The US has historically used military force when perceived economic or strategic interests were threatened, initiating wars over resources and security concerns. Cuba was not that long ago, neither was Iraq, et cetera. The US has gone to conflict more times than Russia over resources... So how could this be any surprise. or even be evaluated in a different way? But I digress....
To Russia, this was seen as legitimate grounds to stabilize the situation. (And I say it with deep, deep sadness. I think before this war, there was an expectation Russia would eventually join the EU. I very much understand their need to fight for their territory and their survival because NATO certainly wasn't looking for stabilisation, peace and prosperity for everybody in wishing to join with Ukraine... As you see, it comes with a massive unreported by media problems)
Russia's false belief that the EU would be pragmatic and understand their economy's dependence on cheap Russian fuel and German engineering is a significant factor in the ongoing conflict. The EU has been willing to sacrifice itself, its entire population, competitiveness, and industry, which has led to fragmentation and destruction of the EU itself. Germany's loss of affordable goods due to gas prices (and thus now industries no longer competitive means massive job losses and failing economy) has also affected other countries, leaving them in a less secure situation since Germany funds many of the eu countries Who will not be able to pick up the tab... Meaning the EU project is likely over also... ... Just what was the NATO's job again ? Was it something about peace and security, prosperity? Ah, I forget.....(Sadly, so did the people running it)
I'd argue that Zelensky is a dictator who has destroyed the free press, used pressure gangs to force people to the front, and committed massive casualties and corruption. The removal of the free press and his opposition jailed is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not healthy democracies. Additionally, there is a significant ultra-right-wing nationalist movement in Ukraine with tremendous influence, and these neo-Nazis are part of the Ukrainian government. (I'll be very surprised if ethnic cleansing doesn't become part of the mainstay at some time in the future.)
The idea that Ukraine can "win" the war is a dangerous farce, as it is being sold as a moral imperative against a new 'moral' threat. It is unclear what "winning" could mean, such as flattening a country or decimating its male population - Ramping up nearly a million people so far. NATO and others continue pumping more guns and ammunition into the war, boosting their economies through war loans. Instead of seeking a diplomatic solution, they persist in fueling the conflict.
The EU's and Nato Aligned's ideological crusade has devastating consequences for everyday people everywhere it has not brought security or prosperity... But it's most simply made some people very rich.... Just not the everyday people who scrabble out of a way of, ironically, a mechanism that's supposed to make their life safer and more prosperous....
I believe I was one of the earliest FAIR members. You can check if you like. I had high hopes but it didn't take long for me to realize that FAIR was just a transparent MAGA vehicle to glorify Bari Weiss. Just like her rag "Free Press." What a freakin' hypocrite; a lesbian (if I'm wrong about that I apologize) who is dedicated to eviscerating gay rights (except for herself.) If they had their way, half of her beloved MAGA acolytes would have her crucified for her lifestyle. And she probably would not rise from the dead.
The comparison between the anti-communist measures of the 1950s and today’s response to "Social Justice Fundamentalism" (SJF) is fundamentally flawed. The fears that drove the Red Scare were largely a product of Cold War tensions, lacking the evidence of institutional capture that we see today. (One could almost suspect a deliberate effort to avoid such scrutiny... of course, however improbable... Consider, for example, the documented trend of increasing ideological homogeneity within certain academic departments and administrative roles. Coincidence?). In contrast, we now have clear, provable instances of progressive ideologies permeating our universities, the executive branch, and even the judiciary. ( figures like George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funneling vast sums of money into DA races and related initiatives) This shift has taken place over generations, creating a deeply entrenched ideological landscape that is not merely speculative but well-documented. Im reminded of Sun Tzu, "the most effective way to achieve victory is not through direct confrontation, but by undermining the enemy's will and ability to resist." Of course this is a key element of the "long march through the institutions," a strategy often associated with Marxist thought - And also another great reason why teachers need to teach history...(so strange Sun Tzu isn't taught anymore... almost as if someone didn't want us to learn these things... but I digress...).
While the anti-communist measures were reactions to an external threat, the current concerns about SJF arise from a long-term ideological transformation with dark money within American institutions. The nature of this threat is rooted in domestic developments rather than foreign influence. Unlike the often exaggerated claims of communist infiltration in the 1950s, the progressive capture of institutions is openly acknowledged and evidenced by those within these systems. It's practically a PowerPoint presentation at this point. [Slide 2: "Mandatory Sensitivity Training: Microaggressions - Researchers Disavow It. Science Doesn't Support It. Pay Up."]
Thus, equating today’s political responses with the excesses of the Red Scare is disingenuous. While there are valid concerns regarding civil liberties in some actions taken by the current administration, these actions are addressing a **real and pervasive ideological influence rather than an imagined threat.** Understanding this distinction is crucial for accurately assessing our current political climate and its challenges. Unless, of course, the goal is not to accurately assess the situation. But, again, I digress.
Well said. We are in a dog fight and we are late to the fight. The enemy, and they are indeed an enemy, fights dirty and has been fighting quietly behind the scenes for 60 years. We must not become like our enemy but we must pull out all the stops within the confines of liberal democracy and the rule of law.
1) President Trump is entirely within his powers to ban institutionalized racism from the Federal Government. DEI is unconstitutional and should have been banned by the Courts. The author is picking on a few words he doesn't like to cast aspersions on the policy as a whole. Whose side is he on?
2) Social Justice Fundamentalism is not "a new political movement", it is the same old Marxism with a new label. The left is very clear about this and by obfuscating it, the author helps advance the left-wing agenda.
3) CBS is a broadcaster and has a legal obligation to serve the public interest with minimum bias. If they want to publish lies and propaganda, they can do it on their own website or on a cable channel. But when using a limited public resource like the electromagnetic spectrum, limits apply. Why did the author omit this key legal fact?
4) Yes, in America we have free speech - on our own time and on our own dime. And this applies to teachers who are hired to teach reading and writing and teach Marxist DEI/CRT instead. They would have no right to teach Nazi-ism or white supremacy, and they have no right to teach Marxism either - on the street, yes, but not to our children, not using our tax dollars. Fire them all.
I've worried in recent years about FAIR being too right wing, even stopping my financial support. Posts like this, rejecting illiberalism no matter which side it comes from, gives me hope.
So frustrating. Always overreach. Both sides.
And it always feels so weirdly performative and childish to boot.
Just steer the fucking ship for once!!!
I appreciate the work FAIR does and I appreciate the article. My apologies to Mr. Adorney and I appreciate you putting your arguments out there to the fickle nature of humanity, but I take issue with the assertions made. I disagree wholeheartedly but respectfully. Let's hold on a second here and evaluate.
First, trotting out an old situation, implying it is occurring again is not evidence of anything. The author asserts, right after a concerning reiteration (with little evidence) of a past "wrong," that the current administration is overreaching - but, are they? Let's review, but first, a disclosure. I have not studied the old McCarthyism era so I do not know enough about it and the author does not present enough evidence to convince me of the wrong. I don't deny it but I don't yet accept it either; communism is evil and needs to be appropriately shut out of democratic nations. For gosh sakes, read their literature. Perhaps the anti-communism wasn't a simple "all bad" scenario; I mean, look what we're fighting now.
The first assertion is that Trump's lawsuit is an "attack," illiberal, and groundless. I'm not so sure, maybe the word attack is the overreach. Nothing exists in a vacuum and taken in the context of, and part of, the massive subterfuge perpetrated by the political Left during the election (including massive social media interference) there is substantial evidence of widespread, major electoral interference. That interview was not edited, it was outright fabricated. Remember, they tried to break him financially, then they tried to jail him, then they crossed the uncrossable line.
Then the argument that Vance goes too far - the evidence? None, other than "what if's." What if can go anywhere we want it to.
The argument against DEI is another non-argument and I am surprised. Don't dare fix the damage caused by the racism of DEI because it might also be racism. Might? It might not. Now we are bogged down fighting racism because it might be racist. Circular argument.
There is NO evidence yet that this is or will be "sweeping and illiberal," the entire argument is speculative. Like you, I share the concerns his will go too far but remember the previous one went far too far. As long as it is democratic, unbiased and fair, I hope they get everything justice demands.
I will leave it at that, but we are fighting a brutal, determined enemy that fights dirty, and so, within the confines of democratic principles and the rule of law, we must fight hard. If and when the administration becomes overreaching and illiberal, I will support your arguments wholeheartedly. Fight hard but fight FAIR.
The "red scare" may have had just a little to do with the Soviet led Communist Party USA. American party cadres were disciplined individuals who carried out the tasks they were assigned. While during the war the Soviets were our ally, a Nazi propagandist would be investigated. Stalin would not have hesitated to weaken the US it is safe say. A Nazi party led by Hitler would have been arrested, no?
Anyhow, seeing what looks like overreach taking shape it is disheartening. Trump on the one hand stood on the plank of free speech yet laws are being passed to stop "pro" Palestinian protest. It is a development that I hate to see in that it makes the Islamist led campus movements look like victims. As anti-semitic as the leaders of the "anti-zionist" rallies are, we need to see their hatred as the 1st amendment provides instead of driving it underground.
Unadulterated crap, totally biased and deceptive from beginning to end. "Save DEI now or you're a right-wing thug."
Pathetic. You got some (more) praying to do, sport.
For those with a brain still in their heads, read Harvey Klehr on communist infiltration of the USA as well as damning exposure of the organization's apologists. For the pre-eminent communist apologist, see Ellen Schrecker (may she burn in hell forever).
Cleaning out institutions will likely be conflated with "illiberal" overreach, but it's actually corrective action to restore meritocracy and democratic pluralism. It's unfortunate that people haven't been defending the Constitution and its principle of equal human rights based on common humanity. The push for equality of outcome ignores that men and women are naturally drawn to different fields - a well-established fact. There's no need to artificially correct for this; hiring should be based on skill alone
The real issue is the insidious influence of super PACs and shadow funding from an illiberal elite, who have been pushing so-called progressive values in an anti-democratic way, particularly within the executive and judiciary branches. Ordinary people course-corrected and this influence has been devastating. It's time to address this undue influence to truly uphold constitutional principles.
I would describe myself as extremely centrist, without any affiliation to a political party. However, I observe a significant lack of ideological diversity in universities, particularly in faculty representation and course material . This imbalance, as highlighted by Jonathan Haidt and the Heterodox Academy, suggests that there is an effort to shape a new generation ideologically through financial influence and institutional sway
It's time for governments to stop dictating hiring practices to private companies. True corrective action should be guided by merit and equal opportunity, not illiberal mandates or overreach. This approach avoids demographic quotas and ideological conformity while tackling the root causes of institutional capture and reclaiming our democratic processes!
That is such garbage. No law was enacted under Biden or prior administrations that didn't adhere to the Constitution. If I'm wrong about that please enlighten me. Your hero Trump has expressed his contempt for the Constitution and rule of law on numerous occasions, including the attempted violent overthrow of a free and fair election. Plus, I don't understand your conviction that a business should be allowed to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation. Why should someone like Bari Weiss be denied employment just because she is Jewish?
Your statement that no law was enacted under Biden or prior administrations that didn't adhere to the Constitution is inaccurate. Several laws and policies have severely impacted people's rights and freedoms. The Biden administration's Title IX rule [struck down nationwide in 2025] had far-reaching consequences, potentially infringing on due process rights and free speech in educational institutions. DEI policies have led to widespread discrimination and unequal treatment, directly contradicting the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection [as ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)]. Government attempts to control social media content [ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2024] have significantly curtailed free speech rights, affecting millions of users. Executive Order 13950 [found to violate the First Amendment] prohibited certain types of diversity training before being rescinded. These unconstitutional laws and policies have had profound effects on individuals' lives, from limiting educational and employment opportunities to restricting fundamental freedoms of expression and association. The impact has been severe and widespread, undermining core constitutional principles and eroding the rights of countless Americans.. As I said It's unfortunate that people haven't been defending the Constitution and its principle of equal human rights based on common humanity...
Also the USAID scandal reveals a shocking disregard for democracy and the Constitution. By using taxpayer money to fund and control media narratives creating the Russia Hoax through government "partner" organizations like OCCRP, the administration has engaged in a direct assault on press freedom and democratic principles. This deliberate manipulation of information represents a severe and immediate threat to the foundations of democracy, far surpassing any rhetorical concerns about Trump. The scale and systematic nature of this government overreach into media control is a clear violation of First Amendment protections and democratic norms.
Regarding your question about businesses and discrimination, I'm not advocating for discrimination, but rather for limiting government interference in private business decisions. This is an important distinction....I believe that governments should not be in the business of telling companies who to hire. This is a matter of government overreach, as businesses should have the freedom to make their own hiring decisions without undue interference from the state.
Your mention of Bari Weiss is misleading. She didn't leave her job because she was denied employment due to her Jewish identity. Instead, she resigned from The New York Times due to a hostile work environment where she faced bullying and ideological intolerance. She was called names like "Nazi" and "racist" by colleagues, and the workplace became increasingly intolerant of diverse viewpoints. This situation highlights the dangers of ideological conformity and the importance of protecting free speech and diverse perspectives in the workplace. It has nothing to do with advocating for discrimination but rather about ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and equally, free from government-imposed favoritism or discrimination.
Biden signed many EOs that were overturned in the courts, eventually, after they had wreaked serious damage. His executive order re COVID-related pharmaceuticals drove millions out of their jobs before they were stopped. The population most affected was probably pregnant women, as many feared harm to the foetus they were gestating. So much for the Democratic commitment to "reproductive freedom".
In about 20 years we can talk about over reach.
I disagree that media, especially air wave media, has no obligation to be fair in their reporting. To guard free speech the media needs to be held to a standard of fair reporting on political candidates. There is a requirement that advertisements must be the same cost for every candidate and issue, regardless of what the station management believe. This is a good thing. Maneuvering political speech to the policies of the management is unethical, and probably illegal.
I think it makes much more sense just not to assume truth in reporting. I read history, and the default state is an extremely partisan media that makes stuff up all the time. It's positively funny to read all the stuff Thomas Jefferson paid for about John Adams's secret illegitimate offspring. We should just get used to being lied to by the media. But when a particular media organization isn't invited to White House press briefings that's not suppression either. They can just make up their lies as before; it just hurts their feelings not to be invited.
Sorry, not altogether with you on this one; too many absolutes expressed!
Beautiful. Authoritarianism = bad. Illiberalism is the problem. I appreciate how clearly you state that using the methods we oppose makes us what we oppose.
Additionally, yes, focusing on DEI hires just continues to focus on race and sex without solving real issues. DEI practices and the toxic environment it creates is my issue. There are still good ideas behind the intent of DEI and great people working on it such as @chloevaldary, @radicalradha, @growsomelabia
The truth is, DEI has always been problematic. From the start, it created an environment where individuals hired under its banner were often viewed with suspicion, regardless of their actual merit. This negative effect was not new—it was always there.
Moreover, DEI practices were propped up by undemocratic and unfair protections that shielded individuals who may not have been qualified for their roles. These mechanisms were deeply flawed and perpetuated a toxic environment. At the same time, they unfairly forced women and underrepresented individuals with genuine merit to work twice as hard to prove they weren’t simply "diversity hires."
Dismantling DEI doesn’t introduce a new problem—it corrects a longstanding one. It removes the false protections that upheld an unjust system and allows everyone to be evaluated fairly based on their abilities and contributions. This is a step toward true fairness and meritocracy.
Agreed! Except for the use of "meritocracy", which is a bastard word, half Latin and half Greek, which was invented for purposes of satire. We need a good single word for "excellence-rewarding", which is what is aimed for here, probably.
Meritocracy a word that satirized excellence-rewarding, then ironically proved its worth by becoming the best word to describe it :P ...when satire becomes reality
I appreciate your concerns about overreach, but the examples chosen to illustrate this overreach aren’t convincing.
1) Does freedom of the press extend to election interference? CBS presented its interview as an honest exchange yet doctored the video to try to improve Harris’s appearance of competency.
2) How is ensuring that AI systems are free from ideological bias going too far in the opposite direction? What is your evidence that VP Vance would impose censorship or retaliatory regulatory hurdles?
3) The executive order on DEI used the term ‘DEI hires’ once (in section iii A), after defining what it meant by DEI hires in section ii A-C. This calls into question the claim that the Trump administration is inviting "speculation, without a firm basis or evidence, regarding an employee’s skills, abilities, or merit and instead make assumptions based on their perceived identity”.
1) It's not election interference to lie to the public, it's just lying. Election interference is Zuck bucks, ballot harvesting, election commissions finding mail-in ballots weeks after the polls close, etc. 2) You can not ensure that AI systems are free from ideological bias; that's a chimera, which will be proven in time. 3) I think you're making the same point as I would make; the executive order was about people who were hired to "do" DEI. That's the only interpretation that really makes sense.
Also, another point that I found very weak... The original framing creates a false dichotomy between Silicon Valley's left-wing bias and potential right-wing censorship. In reality, Vance's approach aims to reduce ideological bias altogether, not replace one bias with another...
The framing is also disingenuous. It's not merely about chatbots 'irritating' users. What we're facing is the industrialization of data and the potential for unprecedented control over information flow. AI systems like ChatGPT and Gemini, when ideologically biased, are actively shaping narratives and disseminating false information on a massive scale. This goes beyond simple irritation; it’s about the power to mold public perception and understanding in ways we’ve never seen before. And he is absolutely right in trying to counteract that.
He’s advocating a for less ideological influence in the datasets used to train these AI systems. This distinction is important because it reflects his desire to ensure that AI serves as a tool for progress and accurate information rather than a vehicle for ideological manipulation.
And it comes back to this long march of the institutions how to control the data, and Sun tzu "the most effective way to achieve victory is not through direct confrontation, but by undermining the enemy's will and ability to resist through the control of information" , how to "teach" people, "educate" them, re-thought them, re-school them in doing this through AI data sets is far more effective than trying to have a ideologically aligned "teacher" at school. Or trying to have a school material that aligns to ideology because this requires the use of judges and educationalists and a lot more oversight. Datasets are hidden, training manipulatable through selection bias affecting training, and universally accessible....
So the stakes here are far higher than 'irritations.' This is about the very foundations of how information is created, distributed, and consumed in our society. Vance’s concerns, when properly understood, reflect a legitimate worry about AI’s potential to become a powerful instrument for spreading misinformation and distorting reality on an industrial scale.
That said, his approach still has significant blind spots. His attitude toward AI development has a Wild West quality in some respects. While he wants data to be free from ideological bias—which makes sense if you're building an industry reliant on data—he dismisses concerns about regulating AI or addressing its potential negative consequences <Because they're focused on creating a domestic industry while the U.S. still leads in AI but is struggling to stay at the forefront, where the fear is that regulation will halt investment, progress and jobs. But it's also a wider concern. It's a classic rock and hard place situation: if innovation is stifled because of safeguards and ethical controls, they risk falling behind authoritarian superpowers who will be able to jump forward in terms of progress and take over AI and build it in the way that they want and then control information distorting it as they need .... But I digress>. This stance is multifaceted: it aims to protect societal interests (kindof).... and maximize profits (definitely), yet it's also dangerous as it overlooks future implications for workers and the ethical considerations for data creators and society at large. But also aims to keep AI from vastly different controlling powers that don't have any of the qualms in terms of human suffering.... Where life, freedom and creativity mean nothing, just control (And that includes Silicon Valleys ideological attempts to control information Because what they don't understand is information is freedom and the first step to try and control it is the first step into tyranny)...
Currently writers, artists, musicians—those original progenitors of creative content—are being left behind as AI subsumes their efforts. The current "anything goes" approach prioritizes profit over protecting creators' livelihoods. This risks replacing unique human creativity with a cheap, generic alternative (which, to the everyday person, is indistinguishable from the real deal) that makes it impossible for creators to continue working in fields like music, art, and writing. If this trend continues unchecked, these professions (and any other skill that can be digitized) may no longer be viable as careers.
Both sides in this debate have views that serve their interests at a terrible cost. One side prioritizes cheap AI labor for jobs and industry, threatening creative professions. The other seeks to control information flow, pushing for a state beholden to socialistic concepts. Both approaches endanger what it means to be human and free.
Creative individuals, who need freedom from propaganda to truly create, are caught between those who would silo thought and those who would use AI to make creative careers unviable. These outcomes are equally atrocious, risking both our intellectual freedom and the future of human creativity in numerous fields. But actually, it's worse than that. It's not just creative individuals who are affected - it's everyone. Every human alive has ways of being which are endangered by both sides.
Every human should have free thought, free speech, free action, and the freedom to be. free from investors seek to profit from human effort for nothing and governments attempt to control though control of data... So no, I don't think it's about being an irritation... It's about what it means to be free
Articles like this are rapidly driving us away from this organization that, originally, inspired such hope. We have been engaged in the struggle against wokeism and its associated cultures of victimhood and identity politics that have been undermining our society. Just like pre-Nazi Germany, there are legitimate grievances and the excesses of the powerful that can, if allowed, become the clarion call of populist despots and fascists. Let us remember that there were legitimate grievances that the German people as well as despicable prejudices that propelled Hitler to power through legal means.
Julian Adorney's article makes the argument that, in the Trump administrations “justifiable eagerness to fight back against SJF [Social Justice Fundamentalism], the Trump administration is overreaching…” While I do not disagree, the problem with Mr. Adorney’s arguments, and with a number of articles we have seen from FAIR since the latter months of the election, is its legitimization and normalization of anything about the Trump administration. FAIR needs to denounce all such arguments and call them out for what they ultimately are. While I do not mean to accuse every author making such arguments of intentionally supporting the downfall of everything that FAIR is supposed to stand for, the fact is that these arguments rationalize what is taking place in this administration and project legitimate purpose upon it in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
SJF and its excess caused us all alarm. That is what brought us to FAIR in the first place, but Trump, like all populist fascists before him, latched onto the growing outrage against SJF as just one emotional tool used to con the population of America into accepting things they would otherwise excoriate. The struggle against SJF is being used as a tool by Trump and by his associates to achieve their various goals from racist objectives to creating distraction as cover for outright pillaging of public resources.
Donald Trump is dismantling democratic institutions, flaunting any sense of the rule of law, and aligning our country with totalitarian regimes. Almost everything he, and Elon, offer to the public is a lie; from claiming Ukraine started the war and Zelenskyy is a dictator to claiming that DEI is responsible for the fatal air collision at Reagan Washington National Airport. He was elected while promising to use the power of government and the justice department for his personal revenge and against his political enemies and is doing just that. He claimed to have no association with Project 2025, and that is, of course, clearly a lie. He does all of this while his followers believe that their support of him is in support of freedom and liberty.
Donald Trump is the embodiment of Identity politics of the worst sort. His manipulation of legitimate grievances is just one tool he uses to advance his agenda. The fact that we share some of those grievances should not blind us to the what is happening, the foulness of their solutions, or the consequences of not standing against virtually everything this administration is doing not just because of what is happening but also because of how it is happening.
Donald Trump and the Trump Administration is an existential threat to everything FAIR and America are supposed to stand for.
Ah, I see you've discovered FAIR isn't quite as "fair" as you'd hoped. What a shocking plot twist! It's almost as if they actually meant it when they said they support open dialogue and diverse perspectives. Well, can only encourage the curious so lets dive in....!
....The mysterious "ultimately are" - like a political Schrödinger's cat, both existent and non-existent until observed. You never specify what these arguments "ultimately are,"relying on vague accusations and emotional language So it's a little bit hard to observe them. I'm not sure if they're dead or alive..... But in short this approach is antithetical to FAIR's belief in confronting ideas with better ideas, not silencing them without engagement. While decrying identity politics, your entire argument is based on treating people differently due to their political affiliations. I'm not sure that's American, or at least in the spirit of democracy. It could be considered a little bit shady... more likely authoritarian. Which is deliciously human in its hypocrisy - claiming to hate identity groups yet flattening people into one, democracy but only one version. You support FAIR's principles while actually demanding ideological conformity or claim to love FAIR's open dialogue while throwing a tantrum because nobody's writing the script you want wishing for an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you, all while pretending to be a champion of diverse perspectives. so effortless and "entertaining"
In short, this contradicts FAIR's principle of equal treatment regardless of personal belief and ignores the nuanced, pro-human approach that FAIR advocates. It's possible to criticize specific actions or policies without resorting to wholesale denunciation. But yes, I can see why this is very, very upsetting Because it takes nuance... to still love people, but not like bad ideas...
And no, you shouldn't think this is a reply just for you. I think that there's so many today that have a very similar way of thinking But to day, I was a little bit grumpy A little less loving, I suppose a dislike of the idea... that there is the right way and only the right way...and that they don't have to qualify the their arguments and that they can simply rely on 'righteous indignation'. It's a bit boring... And certainly not a site for discussion...more like entertainment / commiseration... Perhaps an obituary... Where ideas go to die... (And then the people not long after.... What was it? Noam Chomsky manufacturing consent... )
But I will offer you some different viewpoints over the top of some of your complaint ....Being from Europe, I'd argue that NATO expansionism is a significant factor in the Ukraine conflict, as Ukraine is currently under a dictatorial regime. The EU and NATO initially supported Ukraine's actions, but miscalculated and believed Russia would continue business as usual despite NATO expansion. This led to the war, as Russia refused Nato on its back door.
NATO's eastward expansion, despite earlier assurances "Not an inch more", has been a key source of tension for Russia. Losing influence over Sevastopol, one of Russia's few warm water ports in a largely ice-locked country, is seen as an existential threat to Russia's economy and livelihoods as it would mean severe economic pain for ordinary Russians, including job losses, price spikes, food shortages, and reduced government services. The impact would be felt across Russia, from factories to dinner tables, making it a deeply personal threat. Russia cannot afford to lose Sevastopol as it is a life blood.... One that NATO should back off from.
Ukraine's moves towards NATO and interference with Russia's gas exports to Europe were key factors that led to the outbreak of the war. Russia perceived these actions as direct threats to its strategic interests and security. Due to the threat of Nato membership, Sevastopol and tampering with its gas, it is fair to say that Ukraine started the war... Ukraine made attempts to block, destroy, or control pipelines carrying Russian gas through Ukraine, demanding exorbitant transit fees as extortion, and openly advocating for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian energy in an effort to destroy the Russian economy. Positioning itself as a nato member. It also positioned itself as a direct aggressive neighbour. (And seriously, do you think the US would allow Russia to have a base right next door? I believe we have tried this before....The US has historically used military force when perceived economic or strategic interests were threatened, initiating wars over resources and security concerns. Cuba was not that long ago, neither was Iraq, et cetera. The US has gone to conflict more times than Russia over resources... So how could this be any surprise. or even be evaluated in a different way? But I digress....
To Russia, this was seen as legitimate grounds to stabilize the situation. (And I say it with deep, deep sadness. I think before this war, there was an expectation Russia would eventually join the EU. I very much understand their need to fight for their territory and their survival because NATO certainly wasn't looking for stabilisation, peace and prosperity for everybody in wishing to join with Ukraine... As you see, it comes with a massive unreported by media problems)
Russia's false belief that the EU would be pragmatic and understand their economy's dependence on cheap Russian fuel and German engineering is a significant factor in the ongoing conflict. The EU has been willing to sacrifice itself, its entire population, competitiveness, and industry, which has led to fragmentation and destruction of the EU itself. Germany's loss of affordable goods due to gas prices (and thus now industries no longer competitive means massive job losses and failing economy) has also affected other countries, leaving them in a less secure situation since Germany funds many of the eu countries Who will not be able to pick up the tab... Meaning the EU project is likely over also... ... Just what was the NATO's job again ? Was it something about peace and security, prosperity? Ah, I forget.....(Sadly, so did the people running it)
I'd argue that Zelensky is a dictator who has destroyed the free press, used pressure gangs to force people to the front, and committed massive casualties and corruption. The removal of the free press and his opposition jailed is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not healthy democracies. Additionally, there is a significant ultra-right-wing nationalist movement in Ukraine with tremendous influence, and these neo-Nazis are part of the Ukrainian government. (I'll be very surprised if ethnic cleansing doesn't become part of the mainstay at some time in the future.)
The idea that Ukraine can "win" the war is a dangerous farce, as it is being sold as a moral imperative against a new 'moral' threat. It is unclear what "winning" could mean, such as flattening a country or decimating its male population - Ramping up nearly a million people so far. NATO and others continue pumping more guns and ammunition into the war, boosting their economies through war loans. Instead of seeking a diplomatic solution, they persist in fueling the conflict.
The EU's and Nato Aligned's ideological crusade has devastating consequences for everyday people everywhere it has not brought security or prosperity... But it's most simply made some people very rich.... Just not the everyday people who scrabble out of a way of, ironically, a mechanism that's supposed to make their life safer and more prosperous....
I believe I was one of the earliest FAIR members. You can check if you like. I had high hopes but it didn't take long for me to realize that FAIR was just a transparent MAGA vehicle to glorify Bari Weiss. Just like her rag "Free Press." What a freakin' hypocrite; a lesbian (if I'm wrong about that I apologize) who is dedicated to eviscerating gay rights (except for herself.) If they had their way, half of her beloved MAGA acolytes would have her crucified for her lifestyle. And she probably would not rise from the dead.