You’ve probably felt it—that creeping unease when a grassroots movement you deeply believe in suddenly gets massive media backing, corporate sponsorships, and a glossy PR campaign. It feels like a win. But what if it isn’t?
The internet is currently buzzing about a declassified reality: a prominent feminist was a spy. People are arguing over biographies, checking timelines, and demanding to know if one specific activist was secretly a covert operative. But if you’re focusing on whether one person carried a burner phone, you’re missing the entire point.
We like to imagine espionage the way Hollywood taught us. We picture men in trench coats passing microfilm in dark alleys. We think state power looks like James Bond. It doesn’t.
State power doesn’t win by assassinating your heroes; it wins by funding them.
Look at the Cold War. The CIA didn’t need to turn every American activist into a secret agent. They didn’t need to sit them in a smoky room and hand them a dossier. They just needed to find people who already shared their immediate goals. If you are fighting Soviet-style oppression, and the CIA is fighting the Soviet Union, you suddenly have an overlapping interest. You aren’t a spy. You’re just ‘useful.’
This is the uncomfortable reality of how progressive movements get absorbed into the foreign-policy machinery of the state. The CIA doesn’t need to write your manifesto. They just need to fund your magazine, sponsor your conference, or amplify your network. You think you are acting independently. You think you are challenging the establishment. But the establishment is quietly underwriting your entire operation.
You don’t need a secret handshake to become an asset of the state. You just need a shared enemy and a generous grant.
It creates a cognitive dissonance that most advocates refuse to face. Feminism, at its core, claims to challenge patriarchal, institutional power. The CIA embodies institutional, state power. How can a movement fight oppression at home while being deployed as a soft-power asset abroad? The answer is simple: it can’t. When a movement accepts the infrastructure of the empire, the line between genuine conviction and strategic usefulness disappears entirely.
This isn’t just about the 1960s. This is happening right now. Every time you champion a cause, you have to ask yourself: who is funding this? Who is amplifying this? Who benefits from this narrative going viral? The most dangerous threat to a genuine social movement isn’t a counter-protest. It’s the quiet absorption of your cause into the machinery of the state.
Once a movement cashes the state’s check, it stops being a threat to power. It becomes the PR department for power.
Stop debating whether one person was a spy. Start looking at the funding streams. Start tracing the networks. Because the most effective intelligence operation isn’t convincing someone to betray their country. It’s convincing an activist they are changing the world, while they do the state’s bidding for free.
FAQ
Q: Isn't this just a conspiracy theory about the CIA infiltrating everything?
A: No, it's documented public diplomacy. The CIA openly used cultural figures, magazines, and movements during the Cold War as soft-power assets to counter Soviet influence. It wasn't a conspiracy; it was standard foreign policy.
Q: What's the practical implication for activists today?
A: Follow the money. If your advocacy group is suddenly flush with cash, getting elite media amplification, and its goals align perfectly with US foreign policy, your movement is likely being repurposed as a geopolitical tool.
Q: Are you saying activists are just naive puppets of the state?
A: Not necessarily puppets, but useful idiots. The brilliance of this strategy is that the activists don't have to be conscious assets. They can be genuine believers. The state just needs their sincere passion to align with its geopolitical goals.