How the West Builds Consent & Silences Debate
Oliver Stone’s comments are not dramatic. They are a reflection of something many people have sensed but few in the public space are willing to say. Over the past few years, the line between journalism and propaganda in the West has become harder to see. Governments, media outlets, and tech platforms have increasingly acted as one voice when it comes to foreign policy. They repeat the same messages about Russia, China, Iran, and others without allowing space for a broader discussion. The effect is a population that doesn’t question what it’s told, and often can’t even see that there are other sides to the story.
Stone points out something real when he talks about the personalization of Russia as “Putin.” This is not just about one man. It’s about collapsing the identity of a whole country, its people, and its history into a single individual who can then be turned into a villain. It simplifies complex issues into a cartoon version of good versus evil. That allows for easy headlines and emotional reactions, but it also shuts down critical thinking. No one asks what Russia’s security concerns are. No one asks why the West has expanded military alliances right up to its borders. The focus is always on the man, not the system or the history.
The West used to claim that it valued free speech, open debate, and democratic process. But when it comes to foreign policy, those values are often thrown aside. Dissent is labeled as disinformation. Skepticism is treated as treason. People who ask questions are painted as sympathetic to dictators or hostile to democracy. That’s not democracy. That’s not critical thinking. That’s dogma.
From a policy perspective, this shift is dangerous. If leaders and citizens only hear one side of the story, decisions are made in a vacuum. That’s how wars start. That’s how diplomacy breaks down. The idea that Russia or China are permanent enemies is not only wrong, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you treat someone like an enemy long enough, they will eventually act like one. This narrative is being used to justify massive military budgets, expanded surveillance powers, and economic warfare in the name of defending democracy. But what is being defended when debate itself is treated as a threat?
The old Cold War had its flaws, but it also had boundaries. It had channels of communication. It had mutual respect at some level, even between rivals. Today, the discussion has collapsed into slogans and accusations. The idea of diplomacy is often mocked. The idea of restraint is seen as weakness. It’s not just Orwellian. It’s reckless.
This isn’t about supporting any foreign government. It’s about questioning whether the West is being honest with its own people. Are we being told the truth? Are we being given enough information to make informed decisions? Or are we just being pushed to think a certain way, to accept a permanent state of hostility as normal?
If the answer is the latter, then the West is not acting out of strength. It’s acting out of fear, fear of other systems, fear of losing control, fear of facing its own contradictions. And that fear is driving policy that could have real, long-term consequences not just abroad, but at home.
All my analyses are free to read, thanks to the generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link:
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Leave a comment