In my Great Reaction concept, where I experience the Left as a lurch back to the past, even to primitivism, I take a high tone with "activists," for I regard
activism [as] a return to revolution, rioting for the ruling class, part medieval knight-errantry, and part activisme, or gentry kids putting on a school play for their parents;
Our modern activists, or activistes, are not really revolutionaries fighting for the powerless against the powerful; they are really fake revolutionaries, the stooges of the ruling class. The tip-off is the remarkable indulgence that our rulers have for left-wing "peaceful protest." Real revolutionaries get roughed up by the police, and sent to jail or exile.
So I say that today's activists are actors, play-acting revolution for the benefit of the ruling class and helping the ruling class advance its agenda with an AstroTurf version of revolution.
It's remarkable really. Your lefty activist gets taught an entire Activism Culture by his professors in college, from the philosophy and religion of activism to its street organization and practice.
Thus, I would argue, the university has really become an activism seminary, training young activists to become the priests of the state church of activism. This is not remarkable. Back in the day, universities were built by states like Britain to train priests in the state church so they would go out and teach ruling class wisdom. And in the United States the marquee colleges like Harvard and Yale were built by the Puritans to evangelize the faith.
It is almost as if there has grown up a literature of activism, like the medieval romances that celebrated the ruling-class knights, rough tough feudal thugs that wanted to be thought of as activists for Jesus Christ. Only now it is ruling-class activists wanting to be thought of as allies of the oppressed.
What’s the difference between an activist and a revolutionary? The activist is building his resume; the revolutionary is burning it.