Despite the evidences of the last few years, many people remain skeptical of conspiracy theory-sounding explanations for social movements. Like, are they really centrally controlled, or are they organic? Well, let me ask you this: do you believe in venture capitalism?🧵
The venture capitalist model pretty neatly explains how you can have quasi-coordinated social engineering that isn't centrally manufactured. Think of large NGOs and such as operating like venture capitalists for cultural activism and you pretty much have the model.
The NGOs themselves do have agendas and, in some cases, large-scale orchestrated plans, but they aren't manufacturing most of the social movements that advance their goals. They're finding them, marketing them, and pouring gasoline (lots of money) on them.
In other words, the relevant activism usually likely starts out as an organic phenomenon, and donors who act like venture capitalists for social change keep their eyes open and dump money on the ones that might move the ball in the directions of their goals.
This is generally how donors work, so there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing that, but it's important to understand that many of the biggest donors are networked in donor groups that seek large-scale social change fitting certain profiles and agendas.
The point, though, is that the movements that are made big that can really derail a country, for example, start off and often develop in rather organic ways that then has growth encouraged by the selective dumping and withholding of huge cash.
I hope this has been helpful in leading you to understand how you can have large-scale, quasi-orchestrated activist movements that aren't necessarily centrally planned and directed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
