There would be a bigger leftist movement if the CIA’s saboteurs weren’t so successful at insulting /alienating liberals - which they do deliberately because they know an honest and educated liberal is most likely to become a leftist.

This is also how to spot a fed in the wild.

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you implying that Communists who insult or otherwise alienate liberals are fed saboteurs?

[–] Xulai@mander.xyz -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I’m saying that attacking the very people most likely to take your side is classic sabotage behavior.

Doing so only makes sense only from the perspective of someone who wants to ensure no large leftist movement in the west.

Then attacking, ridiculing, and dog piling on the real leftists that point this out further sabotages any meaningful leftist movement. As already demonstrated here.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

One problem with that presumptuous line of thinking:, liberals are not most likely to take our side: any cursory breeze though a history book (or look at the news) will show that they just take fascism's side while sanctimoniously lecturing leftists.

This is like when liberals complain about leftists "splitting the movement" by daring to have standards. There is no splitting, you are not in the movement. Fedjacketing people for pointing out that genocide enablers aren't comrades won't magically make you a leftist.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago

But liberals aren't likely to take our side by definition. Who do you think is running those saboteur operation? Monarchists?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

It's more sabotage behavior to call leftists agitating liberals to get them to read theory feds. Rather than trying to provide alternatives to get liberals to read theory, you're defending liberals against leftists while claiming to be a "real leftist." That's wrecker behavior.