Purveyor of Hardwood
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 14 Wrz 2025
You could make a good argument for the subversion of educational institutions going back as far as Franz Boaz, but the "Long March through the Institutions" envisioned by post-Marxist figures like Gramsci and Marcuse began in earnest in the late 60s. You can pretty easily draw direct connections to the ideology and membership of leftist organizations at the time.
In particular, SDS related people such as Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorhn, Kathy Boudin and Bob Ross were extremely influential to leftist theory and how it is incorporated directly into university curriculum. Many of them were literally terrorists who planned or perpetrated attacks such as the bombing of the US Capitol Building and the Pentagon, as well as armed robberies and murder, yet became respected members of campus faculty at several universities across the nation after they were released from prison or the cases against them were dropped due to flawed investigational techniques used by the FBI.
This is the period of time in which feminism and intersectionality really became integrated with Marxist revolutionary theory, as well as race-conscious ideas such a White Privilege. From Wikipedia:
It's also the period during which the ideas of speech or even apolitical neutrality being counter-revolutionary violence really became cemented in leftist theory:
These people and their sympathizers were accepted with open arms by the academic elite of the country and many of them were given prestigious positions, as noted earlier.
I think that the integration of feminist ideology, intersectionality, critical race theory and LGBT ideology were instrumental in the widespread adoption of leftist ideology by the institutions, because since they shift the political focus of the left away from economics and foreign policy to more individualistic and divisive social and cultural issues, it makes leftist ideology something that the state and, paradoxically, the corporate apparatus can coopt for their own purposes. Big business interests such as industrial farming and corporate wage labor benefit greatly from competition in the job market and a surplus of labor; hence they benefit from women and mass amounts of legal and illegal immigrants entering the job market.
The US security state has further benefitted from coopting these movements, since they can be spun into campaigns that are damaging to the stability and public reception of its opponents without fundamentality posing any threat to neoliberal interests domestically and abroad. The intelligence community has adapted the playbook of leftist political agitation and organization for use in applying pressure to foreign states, as seen in practice during countless destabilization campaigns in countries such as Egypt, Lybia, Serbia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, among others.
Many words are spent on the influence of people like George Soros in funding these kinds of destabilization and political agitation campaigns through sources like his Open Society Foundation and various NGOs, but what few people mention is that Soros is a stalwart partner of the US Department of State, and is, for the most part, simply acting as a front man to set up NGOs in countries so that the US government can maintain a nominal degree of plausible deniability. The incentive in it for him is that he's able to make what amount to insider trading investments with the full knowledge that the US is going to covertly intervene in particular regions or industries for its own strategic and geopolitical interests. These efforts are further assisted through funding laundered via channels such as the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID, which are widely known to be thinly veiled CIA front operations used to funnel taxpayer money into covert intervention projects.
Ironically, in spite of the general consensus among more alarmist figures on the American right, China fears and is distrustful of these destabilization efforts and political agitation campaigns being used against themselves, rather than the common assumption that they are behind such efforts being practiced in the US. They have published multiple fact sheets and white papers underlining how these operations function, such as the following fact sheet on the National Endowment for Democracy:
It isn't difficult to understand why it seems that elements of the US government have spun up the same kind of color revolution campaigns in its own country, because the US security state (or "deep state") rightly perceives Donald Trump to be a threat to its interests. Incidentally, one of the biggest achievements of Elon Musk while working with the Trump administration was to freeze or cut off large amounts of funding to both USAID and NED, some of which has been bypassed through injunctions anyway. Suffice it to say, however, that things like antifa and blm only seem to pop up when Trump is in office and disappear when Democrats are in office. You could almost say that high-ranking officials and mouthpieces are all but giving away the game by making open threats: "You only get this when Trump is in office..."
In any case, one of the reasons I've been active in this thread with the focus of pointing a light to the Armed Queers of Salt Lake City militia and its direct ties to the US Department of state, as well as clear front NGOs such as Utah Global Diplomacy, is because there's a chance to draw attention to the fact that the US government IS clearly sponsoring far-left revolutionary terror movements within its own borders for the purpose of causing destabilization and resisting any threats to its own security state. If that seems paradoxical to anyone, I promise that it makes perfect sense if you really think about it.
tl;dr The US security state, in the interest of neoliberal globalism, has coopted the political theory and methods of far-left revolutionary and protest movements, sanitized it in a way that poses no threat to itself, and employed it around the world and domestically in order to pressure political opposition into compliance.
