You literally asked this before like it was a serious question:

Who is more revolutionary: the Chinese billionaire defending the CPC or the white trailer parker family who supported Trump/Biden?

And have not addressed the problems with it at all. Going beyond “simple dynamism of rich and poor” does not mean defending the rich and characterizing them as more revolutionary than somebody living in a trailer park because they live in a non-settler country.

It is about understanding the science of who may be revolutionary domestically so we can spend most of our limited resources on them.

But that’s not what you’ve been talking about.

You didn’t say, “Here is where you should focus your energies domestically.” You compared Chinese billionaire and white Yankee in a trailer park.

Don’t say one thing, act like you’re saying another, and then throw reading material at me when I don’t agree, as if this will clarify.

BTW, I have read the redsails article on brainwashing before, probably multiple times by now. And it is incredibly overrated as an analysis. Here’s a part that stands out to me:

In short: Westerners aren’t helpless innocents whose minds are injected with atrocity propaganda, science fiction-style; they’re generally smug bourgeois proletarians who intelligently seek out as much racist propaganda as they can get their hands on. This is because it fundamentally makes them feel better about who they are and how they live. The psychic and material costs are rationally worth the benefits.

As for those anti-imperialists who don’t participate in this festival of xenophobia — and here I include myself — we have our own elitist consolation: we accept the tragedy of masses of gullible sheeple falling for cunning propaganda because having overcome it flatters our own intelligence. The more we condemn society’s stupidity, the smarter we feel in comparison.

But am I not just worsening the problem, aggravating our hopelessness, by criticizing the critics in a way that suggests that no one escapes ideological self-flattery? I don’t think so. Paradoxically, it brings us all back to a more even and possibility-rich playing field.

The author almost realizes their own mistake, but then skips on by it and says nah, I’m not making that mistake. But they are. They are being incredibly reductionist in relation to hundreds of millions of people. They go on to double down on the reductionist rhetoric even more:

Westerners are willingly complicit in crimes because they instinctively and correctly understand that they benefit as a class (as a global bourgeois proletariat) from the exploitation enabled by their military and their propaganda — organs of coercion and consent. [6] We’re not as stupid as we’re made out to be. This means that we can be reasoned with, that there is a way out.

This is a nonsense argument. First, via no evidenced investigation, the author supposes that hundreds of millions of people, some of which are non-white peoples with a much more complicated history than this kind of rhetoric gives them any recognition of, share essentially the same point of view. This point of view is something they implicitly know, yet hide from. So now we have shifted from “they are brainwashed and this explains their lack of movement” to implying “they are a hyper intelligent hive mind who knows exactly what’s going on and pretends not to because it feels good to pretend.”

It’s the kind of article that reeks of academic marxism. Of trying to “cudgel one’s brains and develop an idea” without going out and investigating. The author encountered a problem, that sometimes people will reject the evidence you give them that challenges their existing worldview, and extrapolated a massive honker of a speculative generalization out of trying to answer why.