Once they take the position of being citizens of the world, they know longer see it in this baby-brained good vs bad shit, where the good is the US (they’re all americans) or the general western empire. Once they’re internationalists they stop this shit and they gain intellectual curiosity to learn.

There are a lot of anarcho-bidenist types (like @boredtortoise@lemm.ee ) who consider themselves to oppose all the evil states including their own, declaring that they cannot be chauvinists because they disavow the US, while uncritically parroting State Department views on its enemies. That doesn’t matter to them because they are calling all entities involved “bad,” while some nebulous people are what is “good,” and these people must exist as a third camp to the feuds between the bad empires (don’t think too hard about what constitutes an empire, btw).

Perhaps I am just free-associating, but I remember Engels talking about the Enlightenment (from the viewpoint of a liberal):

Every form of society and government then existing, every old traditional notion, was flung into the lumber-room as irrational; the world had hitherto allowed itself to be led solely by prejudices; everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt. Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, the kingdom of reason; henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality based on Nature and the inalienable rights of man.

Engels is speaking in a somewhat different context, but you can see over and over a refusal to examine these “bad” entities more closely, to understand how they work and why they have survived except by the most generic gestures towards tyranny.