Enrico Ferri, who was a socialist from Italy, was one of the first to figure out how to seamlessly make this happen. Here's what was said at a Socialist International in 1901:
THE PROPAGANDA WITHIN THE UNIVERSITIES.
Jean Longuet outlined in a few words the significant history of the Group of Collectivist Students of Paris. The delegate of the socialist students of Budapest presented a thoughtful report analyzing the reasons why, contrary to what might have been expected from their past, and in spite of their liberal phraseology, most of the Hungarian students have allowed themselves to be carried away by their low nationalist passions.
The congress then opened for discussion the question of how and by what methods we might bring into socialism the greatest possible number of students. Three currents of opinion on this subject took shape.
1. Some delegates, especially Belgians and Hollanders, supported to some extent by Tarbouniech, maintained that it was useless to try to gain over to socialism the purely bourgeois students. Supporting their arguments by the example of their own countries, they showed that there can be no socialist students except where there exists - and to the extent that there exists - an intellectual proletariat. It is then upon the economic interests of the intellectual proletariat that our propaganda must exclusively - or almost exclusively - rest.
This is actually a quite interesting piece of commentary. So at this time at the late 1800s, early 1900s, the socialists believed their best way forward was to preach to the choir and extend outward from there. The exchange continued:
2. Ferri, relying on his personal experience as a professor, maintained that the best method of propaganda was science. If so many young men who are socialists in the university become reactionaries later, it is perhaps because nothing has been awakened in them but the enthusiasm of youth, which disappears quickly. We should, on the contrary, introduce socialism into their minds as a part of science, as the logical and necessary culmination of the biological and sociological sciences. No need of making a direct propaganda, which, on the other hand, would frighten many of the listeners, - enough to explain the whole of science, without the mutilations inflicted on it by the bourgeois orthodoxy, of their own accord the listeners will draw socialist conclusions. "Without pronouncing the word socialism once a year," said Ferri, "I make two thirds of our students conscious socialists." Among workingmen, it is necessary to add the socialist conclusions to the scientific premises, because the workingman's psychology permits it, and indeed requires it; before an audience of bourgeois intellectuals, it is necessary to give the scientific premises alone, and let each mind draw its own conclusions.
3. To this scientific or rational propaganda, Lagardelle adds a propaganda sentimental or moral in its character. In fact almost all the socialist students have come into socialism through moral motives - It is not till later that their readings and studies confirms their spontaneous feelings by scientific reasons.
I want to stop right here. Now isn't this interesting, that moral motives top the list of effectiveness for student indoctrination. We see that today, don't we? If you don't support the "correct" initiatives, the words "bigot", "hater", "sexist", and etc etc are thrown around. Just think..... they perfected this formula 120 years ago! Ferri is reporting this in 1901, which means he perfected it prior to the 1900s.
What Ferri says about letting his class "draw their own conclusions" is classic. Ask leading questions and let the students discover all on their own the incorrect answers. But that process of discovery allows the student to believe that they have in fact discovered the correct answer. Is it no wonder that university indoctrination is so effective?
Continuing with the exchange:
The following resolution, presented by Lagardelle, was adopted by a unanimous vote of the nationalities except that Holland and Bulgaria dissented.
"The Congress holds that while appealing to the class interests of the future intellectual proletarians, the socialist propaganda in university circles should be addressed more particularly to the scientific spirit, to the moral sentiments, and to the democratic aspirations of the students."
And that's where we are today. Why is America regarded, taught as a democracy in the colleges? Because of a resolution adopted nearly unanimously back in 1901. America is not a democracy, it is a republic. But this line is necessary so as to appeal to future student socialists, and thoroughly indoctrinate them.
Last section of the exchange. This is critical, since the invitation is for graduating students to become professors themselves, and repeat the bloody process all over again so that it never ends:
Boucher, in a report presented in the name of the Group of Collectivist Students of Paris, contrasted with the old socialist method, which required nothing but disciplined sharpshooters, the socialism of to-day, which calls for intelligent men. He attempted to trace a course of study for the socialists of the people's universities, insisting upon the necessity of a unified programme and of the co-ordination of the efforts of the professors. He concluded by inviting the socialist students to enter the people's universities, either as professors or as voluntary critics; there is, apparently, the real battle-field for the socialist students, there is the role which is most suitable to them in the whole range of the movement; that which will excite the least antagonism, and where they will be the most useful.
Do not overlook this. It is important to understand how this machine works, and also important to understand when the machine was built. Here it is.