This is not very smart political thinking, but great for making an entertaining argument on the Internet. Other than ISIS, none of the movements you listed could be considered revolutionary in terms of actually changing forms of government.<p>1. Occupy Wall Street was about the financial crisis in &#x27;08. People were angry that the banks got bailed out and everyone else just got (arguably) left out. It went away when the economy finally improved, though there is still enough anger to fuel at least one Presidential campaign.<p>2. Feminism is about equal jobs and rights for women (including in politics). While I&#x27;m sure some of the men had ulterior motives, alot more of them probably just <i>listened</i> to what the women were <i>actually saying</i> and realized that they had a point. Why should half the population be treated worse than the other half? All of your other complaints about a &quot;pro-victim&quot; academic curriculum, or whatever you&#x27;re trying to say here, are just nonsense. Academics have always been weird. The politics behind universities are also weird, but ultimately small stakes and hardly &quot;revolutionary&quot;. People don&#x27;t face down the police and the army because their college doesn&#x27;t have the right sort of Women&#x27;s studies program.<p>3. BLM is about one segment of the population being prosecuted, hurt, and killed by police more than any other group of people. &quot;Stop shooting us&quot; is a powerful message, especially when it&#x27;s backed up by numbers and video, but it&#x27;s not revolutionary. I would also add that the problem has been made worse by the Drug war and the prison-industrial complex so what&#x27;s surprising is that it hasn&#x27;t happened sooner and with more people backing it.<p>4. Trump just wants to be President. His supporters are basically the anti-Occupy Wall Street crowd. They&#x27;re angry about job prospects (especially since 2008), but they blame immigrants and Democrats (+ NAFTA, GATT, etc.) rather than rich bankers. It&#x27;s not something we&#x27;ve seen at this level since the 1900s or earlier, but it&#x27;s not new and they don&#x27;t really seem to want to change anything politically with the way government works.<p>TL;DR: your thesis doesn&#x27;t seem to hold up once you examine why each movement exists and what it&#x27;s trying to do. Other than ISIS, but basically they&#x27;re just Saddam Hussein&#x27;s old posse with some new faces.