Comradeship // Freechat

Ask yourself who is funding this information, what their agenda is, what their bias is, why they're spreading this information, what they could stand to gain from it, and what their sources are then do research to find the answer to these questions.

For example if you read a article about how the DPRK is suppressing religious expression but the article was published by a Christian missionary organization run by a millionaire televangelist, funded by the US government, and cites its sources as South Korean gossip magazines who in turn cite "anonymous sources" you can safely say that this isn't reliable information on religious expression in the DPRK.

Locate the source of the information, no verifiable source no trustworthy. If it says anonymous sources it's state department.

you hit it with a "@grok is this true"

That's why you should always check out the references the video or podcast creators put in their descriptions. For the example of coups, you can go and check the declassified CIA documents including internal memos and whistleblower testimonies. They are all one google ( or whatever search engine you like) search away. The books like the Jakarta method also have mentions of those documents. It's always good to verify the sources even if the info comes from your favorite creator/ online community. It also prevents embarrassing situations such as not being able to cite your sources during an argument. Here are some useful resources for further study/verification.

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/ProleWiki:Main_page

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1029073

Edit: Forgot to mention, Also check where the funding of such information is coming from. If Anti-socialist, anti-China news media outlet is funded/owned by a private corporate or even straight up, a billionaire, then they are always gonna side with the capital in the face of fascism. These outlets tend to be anti-Union as well. Crowdfunded and worker owned media is preferable.

Agree with most comments here, but to add another little point:

I think having a healthy dose of skepticism about everything is healthy. It might be hard to balance that with genuine belief and hope, but it’s possible.

I never 100% believe anything I keep in my mind. I always allow room to completely change my mind if enough evidence allows for it.

What I believe the most at any given time depends on the evidence for it, and the evidence for everything around it that connects to it.

Usually I just come here lol, check around some corners to see if there's an article or something to confirm or deny

Some books (and check their sources):

• Washington Bullets by Prashad,
• Jakarta Method by Bevins,
• Killing Hope by Blum,
• Shock Doctrine by Klein,
• Confessions of an Economic Hitman by Perkins,
• Overthrow by Kinzer
• Legacy of Ashes by Weiner

I'm sure there are youtube videos as well on most of the above books.

There's also on the other side things likes Gene Sharp's works such as from Dictatorship to Democracy which I understand are used by colour revoution movements, may be useful in understanding methodology.

Also, on persuasion: https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

I don't think you can, philosophically, know for certain that something is, without any doubt, Truth.

You can decide, for yourself, by finding the sources, seeing if they match other trustworthy sources, and seeing if they are sources that you find to have been trustworthy in the past.

A news report by the IOF is not likely to be believable to me because it disagrees with sources I find reliable (Middle East Eye or Al Jazeera or whoever), and is often found to have been untruthful.

*edit: there's not a way to bridge the gap and prove your point to a disbelieving liberal. They believe state sources that a Marxist finds untrustworthy, and disbelieve sources we would typically find trustworthy. If they live under an idealist truth, you can't sway them (in my opinion).