Entryism

Letters from O'Brien #33

Dear Mr Smith,

Recently I have noticed an emergence of a term I was unfamiliar with; ‘entryism’. I thought you and your readers might be interested in what I found.

After researching the origins and utility of the tactics associated with entryism, I believe it accurately describes one of the predominant tactics of the socialist left. Although the tactic behind the term itself may not come as a surprise, it will at least help to clarify intrusion and subversion techniques under a single term, rather than having to describe the process every time.

MOVING THE FOUNDATION

Entryism can be described as a method of replacing the members of, and reorienting the direction of a movement, organisation, party, or so forth. I recently heard this exemplified as the slow process of replacement of university staff, in order to bring about ‘transformative change’ within the university itself. This is just one example, but it can be applied to practically anything.

The method of operation seems to rely upon an initial group of trained activists who slowly begin to occupy positions of power or authority within a given organisation or institution. From there, these individuals can work in unison to make conditions harder for the ‘reactionaries’ (anyone they see as a threat) within the organisation, in order to force them out. Simultaneously, the activists within can begin pressuring change on the structure, leading to these same ‘reactionary’ positions being filled by other activists. Once it reaches a critical mass, the organisations direction can be changed, through methods such as setting up prerequisites to employment which filter out reactionaries, and encourage others within the public who happen to align ideologically to join. All of this works similarly to the Marxist tactic of sending workers into the labour force, who move from job to job stirring up union movements and disruptions.

Entryism relies on pressure being exerted in order to bring about change. This means that much of the woke ‘change’ one can see around them - be it in the business world, the education sector, etc. - has not happened by chance, but by deliberate movements to force this change to occur.

Once the organisation has been captured, it is transformed into an ideological platform under the guise of what it once was. Universities which have been subverted and captured are no longer true universities, but places of indoctrination. Police forces which have been subverted are no longer true police forces serving the public, but armed tools used to enforce the ideological bottom line. Businesses are no longer merely ‘doing business’ by creating what the market demands, but are instead planting ideological bait. The last point has been consistently noticeable for the past few years, and can be identified when corporations act against their own best interest (fulfilling market demand) in order to push ideology. It is not a business, it is a loudspeaker within the free market which will be used and then discarded. Oh yeah, that last point is important to remember as well; the ideologues who have taken control of these corporations do not care if they crash and burn after spreading propaganda, since their goal is the destruction of the free market and culture, and its assimilation into the centralised state. Disney is a good example of this.

ORIGINS

Entryism is not a modern tactic. After researching its history, it appears to have been used continually by socialist groups in order to subvert competition. During the 1920s, the CCP sent members to join the Kuomintang Nationalist Party, with the goal of subverting its aims and realigning its policies with those of the CCP. This eventually failed when the Kuomintang expelled communists from its ranks. This resulted in the Chinese Civil War.

Likewise, entryism was used extensively across Europe by radical socialist groups during the 20^th century. In many cases the goal was to subvert the larger, moderate left leaning parties, shifting their aims in order to align with a revolutionary worldview. While many of the early attempts by the Trotskyists failed, the push to normalise revolutionary thought within leftist circles appears to have paid of after nearly a century of planning.

This process has continually been used throughout the world. In more recent years, socialist contingents operated in this manner in Latin America, and saw success. The same has also been occurring in Western Europe and the United States. It is a process which has been proven to work so long as the goal does not become too obvious. It seems as though the technique here is to avoid visible unification within the target body until power has been properly consolidated.

AMERICA

This technique has proven very beneficial for these revolutionaries, purely because it allows for the subversion of culture without having to openly admit it. For example - as is currently the case - the United States federal government has been subverted using this technique (which has taken several decades), and now exists as a replica (or simulacrum) of its original form. It looks and sounds like the US government, but it is actually a socialist (or fascisto-communist) power centre which upholds the illusion of being the United States government. I don’t believe this just a theory, but evidently the case.

For example, those who uphold the founding documents of the United States are labelled as public enemies. Those who provide evidence that the state does not adhere to the founding documents (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) are labelled as enemies. Those who uphold American values are considered enemies. Those who realise that the state no longer supports the American idea and must be replaced (as explicitly stated in the US Declaration) are considered enemies. If these people are considered enemies, then that is proof that the US government is not the US government at all, but rather a foreign element. It would not be too much of a stretch to claim that there is an active coup in the United States, now advancing at astonishing speed, thanks to practically no realisation by the public.

CONCLUSION

In most cases, these attempts internal subversion were stopped by identifying and then expelling those who were ideologically driven. Many organisations in the modern age fail to do this, either out of fear, or because of a lack of understanding. Parties or organisations which care about their future should be cautious of this. Identifying members who stand against common values is a good start. It is also crucially important to actually understand what an organisations values are, so that any shift away can be quickly identified and addressed.

Thank you once again Mr Smith for your attention.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien

From the Archive:

2043