Board Thread:Character Discussion/@comment-25205238-20190107161129/@comment-27794543-20190108054347

Kane has been working against Wonkru since "Shifting Sands" (if not "Pandora's Box" when he escaped them). E.g. In "Shifting Sands", he volunteers to give Diyoza information on how many fighters & how many guns Wonkru had. In "Exit Wounds", based on his discussion with Diyoza, he partook in planning of the food drop (and perhaps was the one who suggested it), which was intended to destabilize Wonkru and to sow descent within their ranks. Even in "The Dark Year" & "Damocles (Part 1)", he was acting against Wonkru – he gave McCreary Wonkru's battle plans and told him how to defeat Wonkru.

No, Kane didn't want a genocide, he did not want to kill everyone. I question if he even wanted Octavia dead, though it was clear he wanted to end her rule. However, Kane did want Wonkru and what it represented gone – he didn't want the ruthlessness, the authoritarianism, the violence, and everything else that went with Wonkru. He didn't want the fights to the deaths, that all crimes are capital crimes, the lack of mercy, that children trained to fight, and the whole if you step out of line then you're an enemy of Wonkru thing. He did NOT like Wonkru, and he DID want Wonkru to lose the Battle for Eden.

His goal was for Wonkru to lose. He didn't want people to die – he wanted them saved & assimilated into Shallow Valley – and he felt guilty over the deaths in "Damocles (Part 1)". But that doesn't change that he was acting against Wonkru. He didn't go to McCreary with the suggestion on how to assassinate Octavia, he went with battle plans to tell him how to defeat Wonkru.

You can't claim he was pro-Wonkru when he was against what Wonkru represented and he actively worked to make them lose. It wasn't just Octavia alone in the gorge, it was Wonkru as a whole, and Kane worked to defeat them.