The US foreign policy establishment is not driven by partisan ideology but by strategic interests. It will fund contradictory groups—from right-wing Ukrainian nationalists to progressive artists—if they serve the immediate goal of destabilizing a region to secure economic or military advantages.

Related Insights

Soft power is being deployed through culture. U.S. agencies have funded cultural products, like rap music in Bangladesh, with lyrics explicitly 'designed to get people in the streets.' These anthems are used to mobilize disaffected youth and create social division as part of a larger political destabilization strategy.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was established in 1983 to overtly perform functions that had become too scandalous for the CIA to do covertly. Its founder admitted it was created to fund foreign groups that would be compromised if their funding was traced directly to the CIA.

The academic theory behind 'people-powered' civil resistance has military origins. Seminal research by figures like Gene Sharp was directly funded with $50 million from the Pentagon's psychological operations unit to develop methods for bottom-up, state-sponsored coups under the guise of grassroots movements.

US agencies and NATO fund a network of NGOs that act as a cohesive "swarm." This swarm delivers threats of political instability or economic ruin to foreign leaders, effectively coercing them to align with US interests without direct government intervention.

Non-governmental organizations, originally for relief and charity, were co-opted by intelligence agencies for statecraft. Their philanthropic cover provides deniability for covert operations like running supplies, money, and guns, making them effective fronts for what the speaker terms 'the dirtiest deeds.'

An ideologue, even an anarchist advocating against the state, may support a massive state action if it serves a higher strategic purpose—in this case, disrupting a system they oppose. The perceived hypocrisy is dismissed as irrelevant when compared to the desired outcome, framing it as a solution, not a preferred method of governance.

US agencies and linked NGOs actively recruit from marginalized and radicalized populations. These individuals' higher risk tolerance and perceived grievances make them ideal "frontline muscle" for instigating street protests and revolutions, as they are often more willing to get arrested and create disruption.

Using the 'horseshoe theory,' the analysis posits that the far-left and far-right often meet on extreme issues, such as antisemitism. This convergence serves as a critical litmus test for dangerous ideas. When ideologies from opposite ends of the spectrum align, it signals a significant societal risk.

Sophisticated investors like George Soros operate a triangular model for profit. A hedge fund makes financial bets, an affiliated NGO (like Open Society) creates bottom-up social pressure, and government lobbying ensures top-down policy alignment. This coordinated effort shapes markets to guarantee the hedge fund's returns.

Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.

The US Foreign Policy "Blob" Funds Both Far-Right and Far-Left Groups to Achieve its Goals | RiffOn