That’s a depressingly binary outlook for an anarchist.
Are you sure you’re an anarchist? Because thinking that there was either the choice to vote for one party or “you’re brainwashed” just doesn’t exactly scream anarchist to me.
You’re overlooking my entire point to make a binary, deterministic point about only one decision being right in this scenario. You’re an anarchist telling people that f they didn’t vote for a political party complicit in a genocide, that they’re just as bad as the genocidal forces? There is legitimately no sense to be found in this.
I’m more of a Chomsky-esque anarchist myself when it comes to voting. And even I don’t see how you could make this claim. Under normal circumstances, I would be with you between trump and Kamala. But there is a fucking genocide happening, in the US’s pocket, and there were two pro genocide candidates on the ticket. Faulting the people against the genocide for the scenario being our reality, and not the people who wouldn’t break with the idea that the genocide was something to support? You’re not an anarchist, you’re a bootlicker.
You’re throwing the people who couldn’t stomach the fact that a genocide would’ve been done in their name had your candidate won under the bus? Not those who wouldn’t listen to the millions of people telling them they’re wrong and blindly kept supporting the slaughter? With historians and the world community and the activists screaming that we are witnessing a Nazi-esque ethnic cleansing, you’re not faulting the politicians who only see the opportunity for influence and government contracts?
You’re faulting…activists and peacemongers. For not voting for your candidate?
I just want to be sure I’m understanding your position here.
Don’t come at me with some binary explanation that “well the other side is worse,” I want you to do your best to shed that two party mentality to think about this in the larger picture, and then reaffirm your point for me, here.