Entryism goes public

The SEIU is a far left organization, far far further to the left than any elected Democrat will admit to being.   It is the voice of the state organized as political interest group. It has always been a major force backing “moderate” Republicans.

Entryism consists of a small, secretive, and disciplined organization infiltrating a larger and less disciplined organization, an organization whose goals, motivations, and members the entryists despise, and then taking over that organization and using its funds, assets, and membership list for the entryists own purposes, rather than for the original purposes of the organization.

Entryism is the reason that all organizations tend to turn left, unless they are controlled by rightist ideologues who actively try to keep them right.

Entryism has always been a very secretive profession, immoral though not illegal.  But, under campaign finance law, engaging in electoral politics without registering is illegal.  So the left is routinely and massively committing prohibited acts, which prohibited acts have routinely and massively been ignored by the campaign finance authorities.

Although SEIU never seemed to worry about those laws in the past, they have now formed a Republican Action Committee, so what they are doing is now legal and now visible.

The declared aim of the Action Committee is, truthfully enough, to give us more government.  They neglect to add “And the destruction of the icky reactionary white racist Republican party”, but attitude of the SEIU to republicans is well known.  As with the entryist Dede Scozzafava, they will always give defeating the Republican party higher priority than getting their “Republican” elected.

Tags: ,

6 Responses to “Entryism goes public”

  1. According to Olivia de Havilland, Calvin Trillin, and my father (there was an attempted Communist takeover of the Chemistry Club at Queens College in the 1940s) a common entryist tactic was to extend meetings until everybody else got bored and went home. A similar tactic was used to pass recent finance regulation bills. I don’t think that was a coincidence.

    • jim says:

      I was in the entryist business, until I got disgusted by the level of treachery, and came to realize that agents were regarded as highly expendable. While just waiting out everyone was the most common tactic, we also furtively employed tactics considerably more exciting.

  2. Alrenous says:

    You can do this kind of thing too. You should.



    >such as Brandes’s refutation of feminism, Über die Weiber, published in 1787.

    Independent corroboration, or have you read these guys before?

    Nobody talks explicitly how Progressivism not only hates history, but attempts to claim all things that are good are new. Problem being many of its ideas took hundreds of years of entryism and similar strategies to be accepted, and still ultimately have to be rammed down throats. ‘Progress’ is often neither new nor good.

    I find it incalcuably valuable, every time a Progressive claims new progress, to assume it simply isn’t new, until I have specific evidence to the contrary.

    • jim says:

      You can do this kind of thing too. You should.

      By “this kind of thing” you mean post history as it really was?

      Independent corroboration, or have you read these guys before?

      I have not read these guys before, at least not on this issue. What is it independent corroboration of? That progressivism goes back a long way?

      It was already hazardous to deviate from the progressive version of reality before the French Revolution, and has become steadily more hazardous, and the required degree of pious progressivism ever greater.

      To my considerably surprise however, I have recently seen some counter examples to the trend to ever greater and ever more pious progressivism. Gould and Lewontin have been thrown overboard, which foreshadows a major retreat from affirmative action.

      Similarly, at the beginning of 1949, everyone who was anyone agreed that capitalism had been proven a hopeless foolish obsolete out of date idea, and the future was a centrally planned command economy, and at the end of 1949, they not only did not believe it, but denied ever having believed it. Progressivism continued to become ever more progressive, but changed direction in order to avoid utter disaster.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        The retreat from Gould is remarkable and in a way honest. The specific area of Gould’s dishonesty is the skull volume measurements by race. Seeing as how MRIs give the same results as do autopsies how can progressives possibly explain that away? The answer: distance themselves from Gould (and throw up squid ink on the race and intelligence question).

        What progressive out there hasn’t been embarrassed in an online argument by someone who’s read gnxp? That must get really tiring.

        • jim says:

          While I am pleased whenever progressives retreat, they regard retreats as preparation for better and more effective attacks.

Leave a Reply