Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023Liked by Winston Smith
Entryism works both ways. I think H.G. Wells once said that the Fabians had penetrated the British Establishment the way a mouse penetrates a cat.
The skinsuit fashion parade of fakes, Left, Right and Centre that forms politics is a function of the weakening of mass participation. It is easier to take over an existing institution than build one's own movement. Entryism came into its own once the mass politics of the 20th c. had given way to an elite driven politics. When a critical mass forms the fakery becomes obvious to all.
Until then the best way to deal with fakes and opportunists is to disregard labels and claims and focus on concrete actions and their evident effects.
Yes absolutely right - works both ways - and a strategy that I'm sure most people will be familiar with but I appreciate the word O'Brien brings to light here. I have a shorthand now for a concept that's so important in today's politics (in the broadest sense). I have to admit, even with my degrees, I wasn't conscious of the word - at least I don't remember it as part of my ordinary lexicon.
It's a staple of political organising. Trotskyites in particular are obsessive entryists (which makes them ideal as tools for the intelligence agencies that need a degree of intermediation for their controlled oppositions).
Thanks to O'Brien once again for his contribution. I have to apologize for being rather busy this last month and have had 3 other letters from O'Brien which I have yet to publish - the man writes faster than I can think!
Nevertheless, I plan to write more myself very soon and sprinkle O'Brien in between those offerings.
This long march through the institutions has indeed been the favored tactic of the left. It relies on a weak ideological immune system - either by going entirely unnoticed, or by appealing to ideals of open discourse, collegiality, and free thought and speech ... which of course the left abhors.
Vox Day writes extensively about this. He calls it convergence. Once the subversives have consolidated power in an institution, they then direct it towards their ends - the propagation and enforcement of social justice. Whatever the nominal purpose of the institution is, it is subordinated to, and often abandoned in favor of, social justice. The inevitable result is institutional collapse. Social justice is the memetic equivalent of cordyceps.
The answer, as touched on here, is not a long, slow counter-march. The left understands this tactic, and are well-equipped to protect against it. Rightist infiltrators will be detected and ejected. They do not care about 'freedom of conscience'. Therefore there are only two remedies. Either the institution is forcibly purged over a short period, or it is allowed to collapse and a replacement built outside it. Chris Rufo is trying the former with the University of Florida system.
Social justice is like anything with the prefix 'social', which serves to indicate that the meaning of the following word should be interpreted as its opposite.
It's similar to 'x studies' programs, which can be safely assumed to involve no studying, or 'critical x', which demands unquestioning acceptance, or 'x theory', which simply means gobbledygook.
sometimes, not always, some things, not anything. It is not all or nothing. Some are legitimate. Some are exploited forms of psychological manipulation
Me neither. I am an advocate for social justice, also post partisan, along with others many others who are devoting our lives to truth and justice and are hardly enemies of civilization. It is not all or nothing, not black and white.
In the world that actually exists, 'social justice' is the name of an ideology of termites chewing through our institutions as they dismantle everything in the name of diversity, inclusion, and equity. You can say 'oh that's not what it really means though' I suppose, but the fact is, that is all that it means in the current year.
I fear today that the concept of “social justice” has been 100% (always/everything) hijacked by a Marxist agenda to Balkanize, dismantle, and otherwise destroy the fabric of the western political/social system. The phrase sounds noble but it’s doublespeak.
Thanks for this concept. I am interested in language, framing, etc. A few thoughts. Someone commented on one of my Substacks that it is not accurate to say that agencies are "captured" which implies that they are innocent victims. She suggested "corrupted." It occurred to me that a better term is "infected" - which I think is like "Entryism." Individuals enter the agency, like a virus enters the cell and then they replicate and take over. I don't think the left has a monopoly on this or the right/left axis is the only way to frame it, and also that it can be a good thing if people with higher ethical values enter a system and elevate it. Also does it apply to agencies like the CDC and FDA which might have originally protected the public and actually regulated and since were "infected" "entried" by corporate conflicted interests with revolving doors into lucrative industry positions that subsumed original intentions? Also can we say that some parts of the UN have been infected/entried by globalist forces that are exploiting what appear to be noble development goals to for domination and control?
Today I find myself working on personal detoxification. Dr. Kelly Brogan, and now Drs. Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman are emphasizing the importance of me trying to see at which point in the “Villain/Victim/Savior” triangle I have given away my personal sovereignty due to the ongoing, shifting dynamics.
There’s also a certain wariness around “infection/contagion.” My jabbed and clotted friend consistently tells me he “must have caught a bug.”
He’s not a frog, but he’s compromised his health due to the narrative. I find myself self-sabotaging at times. I live in a toxic atmosphere. It’s the small personal victories despite the pervading toxic environment which allows some peace.
For the record, I have spoken only In first person not solely due to narcissism, but trying to allow room for others to see if makes personal sense to them.
Interesting. I have a close friend who works in the tech/marketing world who casually dismisses my warnings of the woke totalitarian world taking shape. To prove my alarmist take is silly he told me about how his workplace held an internal poll about whether personal pronouns ought to be company policy, with the result favouring individual choice. To him, this was clear evidence that the majority of people (including those in his very liberal workplace) aren't interested in the woke revolution. I quickly scoffed at this assertion, and rebutted that he will eventually include his personal pronouns in his bio. Why am I so certain? Because of everything you mentioned in this piece. Enemies will be identified, and coerced into compliance, or forced out entirely.
Entryism works both ways. I think H.G. Wells once said that the Fabians had penetrated the British Establishment the way a mouse penetrates a cat.
The skinsuit fashion parade of fakes, Left, Right and Centre that forms politics is a function of the weakening of mass participation. It is easier to take over an existing institution than build one's own movement. Entryism came into its own once the mass politics of the 20th c. had given way to an elite driven politics. When a critical mass forms the fakery becomes obvious to all.
Until then the best way to deal with fakes and opportunists is to disregard labels and claims and focus on concrete actions and their evident effects.
Yes absolutely right - works both ways - and a strategy that I'm sure most people will be familiar with but I appreciate the word O'Brien brings to light here. I have a shorthand now for a concept that's so important in today's politics (in the broadest sense). I have to admit, even with my degrees, I wasn't conscious of the word - at least I don't remember it as part of my ordinary lexicon.
It's a staple of political organising. Trotskyites in particular are obsessive entryists (which makes them ideal as tools for the intelligence agencies that need a degree of intermediation for their controlled oppositions).
Thanks to O'Brien once again for his contribution. I have to apologize for being rather busy this last month and have had 3 other letters from O'Brien which I have yet to publish - the man writes faster than I can think!
Nevertheless, I plan to write more myself very soon and sprinkle O'Brien in between those offerings.
This long march through the institutions has indeed been the favored tactic of the left. It relies on a weak ideological immune system - either by going entirely unnoticed, or by appealing to ideals of open discourse, collegiality, and free thought and speech ... which of course the left abhors.
Vox Day writes extensively about this. He calls it convergence. Once the subversives have consolidated power in an institution, they then direct it towards their ends - the propagation and enforcement of social justice. Whatever the nominal purpose of the institution is, it is subordinated to, and often abandoned in favor of, social justice. The inevitable result is institutional collapse. Social justice is the memetic equivalent of cordyceps.
The answer, as touched on here, is not a long, slow counter-march. The left understands this tactic, and are well-equipped to protect against it. Rightist infiltrators will be detected and ejected. They do not care about 'freedom of conscience'. Therefore there are only two remedies. Either the institution is forcibly purged over a short period, or it is allowed to collapse and a replacement built outside it. Chris Rufo is trying the former with the University of Florida system.
I thought social justice was a good thing.
Social justice is like anything with the prefix 'social', which serves to indicate that the meaning of the following word should be interpreted as its opposite.
It's similar to 'x studies' programs, which can be safely assumed to involve no studying, or 'critical x', which demands unquestioning acceptance, or 'x theory', which simply means gobbledygook.
sometimes, not always, some things, not anything. It is not all or nothing. Some are legitimate. Some are exploited forms of psychological manipulation
I'm not inclined to grant the enemies of human civilization the benefit of the doubt.
Me neither. I am an advocate for social justice, also post partisan, along with others many others who are devoting our lives to truth and justice and are hardly enemies of civilization. It is not all or nothing, not black and white.
Good for you, boomer lady.
In the world that actually exists, 'social justice' is the name of an ideology of termites chewing through our institutions as they dismantle everything in the name of diversity, inclusion, and equity. You can say 'oh that's not what it really means though' I suppose, but the fact is, that is all that it means in the current year.
I fear today that the concept of “social justice” has been 100% (always/everything) hijacked by a Marxist agenda to Balkanize, dismantle, and otherwise destroy the fabric of the western political/social system. The phrase sounds noble but it’s doublespeak.
Thanks for this concept. I am interested in language, framing, etc. A few thoughts. Someone commented on one of my Substacks that it is not accurate to say that agencies are "captured" which implies that they are innocent victims. She suggested "corrupted." It occurred to me that a better term is "infected" - which I think is like "Entryism." Individuals enter the agency, like a virus enters the cell and then they replicate and take over. I don't think the left has a monopoly on this or the right/left axis is the only way to frame it, and also that it can be a good thing if people with higher ethical values enter a system and elevate it. Also does it apply to agencies like the CDC and FDA which might have originally protected the public and actually regulated and since were "infected" "entried" by corporate conflicted interests with revolving doors into lucrative industry positions that subsumed original intentions? Also can we say that some parts of the UN have been infected/entried by globalist forces that are exploiting what appear to be noble development goals to for domination and control?
Today I find myself working on personal detoxification. Dr. Kelly Brogan, and now Drs. Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman are emphasizing the importance of me trying to see at which point in the “Villain/Victim/Savior” triangle I have given away my personal sovereignty due to the ongoing, shifting dynamics.
There’s also a certain wariness around “infection/contagion.” My jabbed and clotted friend consistently tells me he “must have caught a bug.”
He’s not a frog, but he’s compromised his health due to the narrative. I find myself self-sabotaging at times. I live in a toxic atmosphere. It’s the small personal victories despite the pervading toxic environment which allows some peace.
For the record, I have spoken only In first person not solely due to narcissism, but trying to allow room for others to see if makes personal sense to them.
Interesting. I have a close friend who works in the tech/marketing world who casually dismisses my warnings of the woke totalitarian world taking shape. To prove my alarmist take is silly he told me about how his workplace held an internal poll about whether personal pronouns ought to be company policy, with the result favouring individual choice. To him, this was clear evidence that the majority of people (including those in his very liberal workplace) aren't interested in the woke revolution. I quickly scoffed at this assertion, and rebutted that he will eventually include his personal pronouns in his bio. Why am I so certain? Because of everything you mentioned in this piece. Enemies will be identified, and coerced into compliance, or forced out entirely.
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/reject-digital-enslavement