I think you're on to something. Anyone who's serious about criticizing capital and the U.S. (Chomsky definitely counts) at some point wonders if what they're doing with their life is consistent with their beliefs. I don't see how someone so critical about power can be so close to power and not ask themselves what role they're playing.
I do think it's possible he justified his actions in some way (e.g., "I'm changing things from the inside"), but he had to at least have considered the issue.
I'm not so sure it's an online niche thing. My lib friends have brought up in person how wild it is to see (for example) Bill Gates implicated. And then there's the whole talking point that anything Trump does is at least in part to diatract from the Epstein files.
I've also seen it crop up in online spaces like sports forums. Still online, but definitely not niche.
It's the country a lot of people in the U.S. have known, too. "They're executing people in the streets" yeah that's what the whole Black Lives Matter movement was about, dating all the way back to Ferguson.
This shit is going to ring more and more hollow as libs get radicalized by ICE violence. You can't get to the point where libs are talking about protesting while armed (or doing it) and simultaneously punch left because they aren't pacifists.
I'd go with Cuba. Closer, more people know some of the history and speak the language, easier to find credible reporting, there's widespread international condemnation of the embargo, tons of good sources on how bad Batista was and how popular the Revolution was, well known for medicine and education.
It's a much easier starting point, and learning about Cuba reveals a lot of parallels to more propagandized countries like the DPRK.
It should be clearer now than ever before that the Democratic strategy of reaching across the aisle is useless. You can't reason with these people because they didn't reason themselves into their positions to begin with. There's nothing you could do for these people or say to them that won't be outweighed by ten types of brain-poisoned propaganda within a week. If any of them change their politics it will be due to some inscrutable internal calculus, not anything you could reveal in a focus group and target.
Articles like this and the obvious futulity of this approach could be a good radicalization talking point for libs. Goes hand-in-hand with "why aren't Democrats running on any of the stuff that's popular with their own constituents?"
Isn't the whole Season 2 plot about the rebels on Space France getting in over their heads, Stellan Skarsgaard knowing it, and making the case that if they fail and the Empire kills a bunch of civilians that will still be good for the broader movement?
I'm not saying this should be reflexively opposed. I'm saying that if a movement is accepting help from some of the worst people in the world, that movement deserves a great deal of skepticism.
Who here is just pro-revolution independent of context? Violence is a tactic, not an end unto itself.
If your revolution is being propped up by fascist state that wants nothing more than to kill a bunch of your fellow citizens and steal your oil, there are some serious open questions about what your revolution seeks to achieve, and for whom.
I think you're on to something. Anyone who's serious about criticizing capital and the U.S. (Chomsky definitely counts) at some point wonders if what they're doing with their life is consistent with their beliefs. I don't see how someone so critical about power can be so close to power and not ask themselves what role they're playing.
I do think it's possible he justified his actions in some way (e.g., "I'm changing things from the inside"), but he had to at least have considered the issue.