Seeing MLs post anti-left stuff like this makes me think of Monsignor Wicks from Wake Up Dead Man. Alienating the out-group to strengthen the bonds of the in-group.
I think it shows a strange effect about American geography. It's really hard to organize a meaningful, resilient, and camera-worthy resistance because we're so spread out. It's all about congregating at big cities, like LA, Portland or Minneapolis.
Like, if British people wanted to protest and resist in the streets, they go to London. All of them. It's accessible. Americans can't do that with Washington DC.
But I'm in Kansas City, and while our No Kings protests have had not-insignificant turnouts, it's not as easy or impactful because we had three protest sites across two-state suburban area. Can we get that many Kansas Citians to flock to Minneapolis to disrupt ICE ops? No, not really. It's why all the major protest and ICE disruptions happen in the biggest cities of the "blue"-est states.
What's your (or MLs in general) definition of "a liberal"? Real question, genuinely curious. The people (Americans) I know who would call themselves "liberal" don't and wouldn't support a "blood for oil" war like this. The liberals I knew didn't support the Iraq invasion in the 2000s and won't support Venezuela now.
It seems - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that MLs use the term "liberal" very broadly, even in a way that would include American Republicans and MAGA devotees. As in, anyone who lives (whether or not they like it) under a capitalist regime, like a Western neo-liberal. Or even, it seems like MLs call anyone who isn't as far "left" as they are liberal.
The protagonist in Annihilation called it a tower too, even though everyone else thought of it as a tunnel