On one hand the red scare stuff is kind of scary, but on the other hand the fact that they came out with this "new cold war" line just as major orgs were exposed to a wider audience to taking millions of one billionaire's money is a very convient spin, when your group is the one that got millions from this guy and never publicly acknowledged it until the NYT called you out. And now it's public that your group magically has way more money than the DSA despire having orders of magnitude less members and then do almost nothing with the money except put out some newsletters and youtube videos.
I have seen zero accountability taken for not being transparent about having a billionaire patron (I know he thinks of himself as a socialist) or sitting on these giant piles of cash they got and doing almost nothing with it. And I have to assume that is because it's very embaressing and inconvenient to them to have the funding exposed like this.
Obviously AIPAC etc. will never get the same scruitiny, but I'm not overly concerned with the hypocrisy angle, like what doesn't do that's not a hypocracy, there's no way this wouldn't have made it main stream eventually and I don't get why these orgs weren't more transparent to their members, I would imagine the DSA has never gotten a donation of a million or over before, you would think that would be significant enough to warrant being open about it