So I've heard of a previous post from which reminded me of this article from Red Sails...
So far, only a few people have mentioned Red Sails in that previous post, though with a different, but relevant article, but none have mentioned there its most famous article "Masses, Elites, and Rebels"
(Note: this has been posted a bunch of times on this community, you better read it, it's a short one)
I will let a few excerpts speak for themselves
“Brainwashing” as a political theory breaks society down into three mutually-exclusive camps: 1) a group of elite manipulators, 2) vast masses under their control, 3) a rebellious group of enlightened critics (to which the person launching the accusation of “brainwashing” implicitly always belongs, since they are neither unaware of it nor abetting it). An unstated premise of this political theory is that what determines which of these camps any individual belongs to is a mixture of intellectual enlightenment and moral purity.
{...}
I am going to argue that this narrative is nonsense. It tries to pass off as universal and eternal something that in reality is particular and ephemeral. 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.
{...}
The prevailing populist narrative grants the People (of the West) moral innocence by attributing to them utter stupidity and naivety; I invert the equation and demand a Marxist narrative instead: 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.
Admittedly I am 
about this....
But pls, make this a primer on the side bar of this comm, many ppl need to see this
i take issue with
saying anyone instinctively understands anything about geopolitics seems incredibly sus
It's a poor choice of words, but it's them reacting to their material conditions, it's not sus, on some level they understand that the imperialism is the thing that gives them their treats.
Yeah, on second thoughts, I kinda should've rephrased myself instead of answering quickly here...
I have had conversations within my friends group where more then one person says or agrees with this statement "If there is a new global conflict I'll be rooting for America, because America has been good to me."
It's not only an acknowledgment that their position in life is afforded to them by the work of the empire but also them projecting the notion that "our adversaries are so much worse."
It's clear that they understand that American imperialism is bad and it's the only way they maintain their material conditions. To stand against the empire is to attack ones own well being. That's how they see it.
When the only take on Gaza, from one of them, is "let them fight" it's because the alternative, Palestinian liberation, comes with it further delegitimation of the America Empire, weakening it's global position, and thus impacting their material conditions.
It's not lost on any of them and the levels of apathy are generally high. Accusations of brainwashing are not uncommon. Their willingness perform self critique is nonexistent.
Obviously this is anecdotal but I can't help but see this display being performed within my own circles.
I agree with what was said that this is just a poor choice of words for speaking about material conditions and seeing the pattern almost passively of Western benefit from imperialism. But I'd encourage you to just email or DM Roderic about this critique of the phrasing. I can almost guarantee he'd change it to improve it or add context/a footnote
deleted by creator