Useful Idiots

privileged white roasties are the most bored people on earth so they made destroying civilization into a hobby to pass the time

Hippies and their liberal fellows actually were "weaponized" against Communism. They were about as useful to Russians as a double edged axe.

How did they harm communism?

You can say all kinds of stupid, pro-totalitarian shit under the first amendment. This isn't exactly a revelation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring
For example.

'Useful idiot' is just a term people use when they want to make it look like someone is dangerous just for disagreeing with them.

An idiot is completely harmless. A useful idiot is somehow a huge threat.

During the 1970s you had radical leftists committing actual domestic terrorism with homemade bombs in hopes of overthrowing the American government in favor of some alleged socialist utopia. They were also supported by slightly less radical leftist lawyers and rich parents by and large. Useful idiots are dangerous in large numbers. Useful True Believers are dangerous no matter what.

this privileged jackoff

youtube.com/watch?v=ucY7JOfg6G4

How long before Americans wake up and realize they were the legitimately bad guys in this conflict?

Dangerous enough to hand China to the commies and get dozens of millions killed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Mission

>Dixie Mission participants such as John Service were criticized for viewing the CPC leadership as socialist agrarian reformers, who claimed that China under their rule would not follow the violent path of Russia under the Bolsheviks. Instead, socialism would come to China only after economic reforms that preserved capitalism, so as to mature the society to a point where it would be prepared for a peaceful transition to a communist society. This belief was disseminated to the American people prior to and during the war by the popular authors Edgar Snow and Agnes Smedley. In his 3 August 1944, report, "The Communist Policy Towards the Kuomintang," Service underlined his opinion of the Communists as such and stated: And the impressive personal qualities of the Communist leaders, their seeming sincerity, and the coherence and logical nature of their program leads me, at least, toward general acceptance of the first explanation – that the Communists base their policy toward the Kuomintang on a real desire for democracy in China under which there can be orderly economic growth through a stage of private enterprise to eventual socialism without the need of violent social upheaval and revolution.

> but american public opinion was more swayed by inaccurate reporting and straight-up lies by the Mainstream Media.

FTFY.

The Tet Offensive in 1968 for example, was an utter disaster for the Communists and resulted in the almost complete destruction of the Viet Cong in S.Vietnam, yet the American media presented as the U.S. losing control of Vietnam and being on the verge of losing the entire war.

I didn't mean that the american high command were actively losing the war, but there was a lot of wasteful shit going on, like the fact that only like 10% of american personnel deployed to vietnam were actually out in combat areas at any given time. Also, the US army was kinda crap at communicating with the press, which, although fucking annoying, is a nescecary skill. For example, after the tet offensive, we abandoned khe sanh, which made absolutely no sense to the american public considering the amount of effort we put into holding it. The command never explained that pretty much the only reason the base existed was to get the gooks to attack it so we could kill as many of them as possible.

Shifted the left's focus on class warfare to impotent pursuits

>A bunch of White Jackoffs lost Nationalists the civil war and not the fact that Nationalist China was a fucking mess of loosely unified warlords and a weak republic which endeared them to only a few.

If there's one thing we learned from Vietnam, its to keep reporters on the tightest leash possible.

The US government had spent the year leading up to Tet telling the US public that the war was won and victory was around the corner.

Tet demonstrated clearly that victory was not, in fact, around the corner.

Ahhh, the classic invader drum-beating. Just love it.

How much does it hurt to know you forever lost Vietnamese Cletus McBurgerfat?

This

The right wing was and is doing the same thing.

useful idiots are just proxies for ideology; they are political action.

She lived in a bubble and her sycophants were contacted by agents and paid to expose her to commie propaganda, she was told it will make her special and edgy to reach out to these people even though their leadership regularly murders and tortures people who do not accept the regime or are suspected of resistance, she was told it is a US invasion of Vietnam, not an invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam.

Any "commoners" she talked to were terrified of the regime or just as misinformed as she was.

It was plain preferring to be told what you want to hear versus being told what you need to hear.

>ALWAYS
to be fair men fall into a similar trap where they get angry and reject society and in doing so reject criticism along with it, you see it in /pol/ where there is a race to be as edgy as possible and BTFO normies without regard for what the reality actually is

ironically realism would probably BTFO normies/daddy more since it rob them of their morally righteous facade instead of just fueling an endless back and forth shit slinging contest, however the truth is usually boring

Left/right terrorism in America is different in it's nature and implementation.
Right wing will be small groups ( under 15 or 20 people) or just a single person, they tend to lack financial backing and support after the fact. Their attacks while sometimes symbolic tend to be directed toward the "practical" targets of their rage or generating large body counts.
Left wing twist tend to be more highly organised (yet more prone to schism) and have dedicated backers and institutions that will support them even after their acts ( several bombers from the 60s/70s are now enjoying life as college professors). Attacks tend to be more geared towards sending a message than disrupting function or generating body counts.
Both ends of the swing produce dangerous people willing to murder for their ideal.

not even useful, sad.

so who's funding the """leftists""", and why are """right wingers""" so angry about it?

In the period when leftwing terrorism was at its height, the 70's, they were most likely self funded, either through private donations, or hrough criminal enterprise.

Generally well to do people in law and academia supported groups like the weather underground. I don't really follow the second part of your question though, it's not like right wing terror groups targeted left wing ones ( sounds like an awesome movie plot though). But you are either a /pol/ster or think I'm a /pol/ack so I'll give you the answer you're expecting...... DA JOOS!

is it unreasonable to assume they could have been acting as agent provocateurs on the behalf of a foreign state entity interested in American instability?

Late 60s early 70s far left terror was Jewish to its core don't you dare even try to tap dance around this one Moshe.

no, but they could just as easily fund right wing groups, Israel did this

I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least a couple left wing terrorists who had contact with Soviet intelligence agents.

>they could just as easily fund right wing groups

but it seems as if right wingers weren't as well funded as the leftists, as was pointed out in
This suggests to me a variance in organicity.

(((Conservative))) Media

Many of those pretty much got away free. Light prison sentences at worst. Most of the Weather Underground works in academia. One of them mentored Obama. None of them are really repentant over what they did, maybe a little sad some people died but they truly believe they were doing the right thing.

If I recall, the only time the Weather Underground actually managed to kill anyone was when one of their dipshit girlfriends managed to blow herself, her radical friends, and their parents apartment to kingdom come.

There's a quote that goes something like this.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

The danger is extreme enough to warranty comparison to malice. Not only can stupid infect other people, it can also ruin people.

It becomes very dangerous when they're supported by major population and government. They're the main reason we got Obango and all those degenerated dramas, they're even responsible for the rise of Trump and right wing forces, because it represents society's back lash to those degenerates.

depends if its ego based or not

To be fair the Vietnam war was literally retarded.

>call themselves the rebel media
>are a bunch of traditionalist conservatives

The left has a history of being organized and self funded (see trade unions) so that is to be expected.

The war will be done by Christmas!