Trotsky Punishing Subordinates

Trotskyite Entryism, Terrorism and Obama

Many slightly illegitimate political causes have gone from being non-

violent, legal processes, to violent acts of terrorism. The only essential

ingredient is a leader who is well trained, charismatic and dedicated to

replacing the current situation completely with a tyrannical politically correct

situation. Many treasonous people with bad intentions have been self-
seduced by popular leftist and Marxist movements that soon have turned

out to be the opposite thing of which in fact they wished. The later era to

World War II produced a great number of leftist/Marxist radical causes,

political wars of liberation, and alliances run from Moscow. Working with

traitorous left wing media “journalists” they successfully created a romantic

attraction towards the revolutionary delinquents, treating them like

champions of the popular causes. However, their success was limited only

to ignorant and impressionable college students. (The leading Marxist-

capitalists of today, from Soros and Ayers down to the officers of various

corporations and military units are middle aged and elderly products of

Marxist indoctrination in American college class rooms.

Along with the dark Marxist romantics, anti-Semites and black racists, the

movements also attracted a great number of professional, avenging

radicals, criminals and also subversive agents. Scattered through their

ranks are numerous Soviet infiltrators or sleeper agents who never went

home after the USSR supposedly collapsed. Many more were “red diaper

babies” whose parents, like the Hollywood Baldwin brothers, were hard

core communists who lived and breathed communism. They passed on

their communist values and hate to their children by indoctrinating them

from infants to adults. They are the adult influential persons who take a
“...critical view of their own society, sympathize with the communist view in

some way or put their own economic interests before the political interests

of their country." Lenin referred to such people as “useful idiots,” and they

can be counted on to assist leftist/Marxist agents of influence in their

continuous influence operations.

The Leftist student revolts of the 60's and 70's, led by red diaper babies,

leftist Jews and Soviet sleeper agents, produced a great number of radicals

and idealists, some of which remained in dissident movements and

Barack Obama’s Close Friend/Associate W.C. Ayers, Weather

Underground
changed from one movement to another. Others, who felt sympathy

towards their movement were integrated into normal life, in their respective

societies, where they worked until reaching superior positions of

responsibility, or levels within the same government. Some of these people,

in the present, form the base for the peripheral support of these terrorist

organizations.

Recent Photograph of W.C. Ayers (on left), Weather Underground,

Now a US College Professor and still Hater of US. (He is standing on a
USA Flag) To the Righ is US Presidential Contender, also a Marxist,
Barack Obama demonstrating how he feels about the USA. The two
are close associates in 2008 and work closely together.

Entryism

Entryism (or entrism or enterism) is a political tactic by which an

organisation encourages members to infiltrate another organization in an

attempt to gain recruits, or take over entirely.

 In situations where the organisation being "entered" is hostile to

entryism, the entryists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the

fact that they are, in fact, an organisation in their own right. In the case of

the Militant tendency, this was done by claiming that the tendency was in

fact simply a newspaper, Militant, its editorial board and readers. Militant

was open about its support for Trotskyism and revolutionary socialism.

Other entryist groups have gone to the extent of hiding both their political

views and their organisational existence.

Entryism does not involve dissolving the small organisation into the

larger one. Entryism is often (but not always) done secretly and often in

organisations run on democratic centralist lines. Entryism is seen by some

as a logical conclusion from Leninist political theory which postulates that a

"revolutionary vanguard" can successfully foment a revolution within a

larger capitalist society, but according to some, the strategy of entryism is

as old as politics itself

Trotsky's "French Turn"

The “French Turn” refers to the classic form of entryism advocated by

Leon Trotsky in his essays on "the French Turn": In June 1934, he

proposed that the French Trotskyists dissolve their Communist League to

join the French Socialist Party (the SFIO) and that it also dissolve its youth
section to join more easily with revolutionary elements. The tactic was

adopted in August 1934, despite some opposition. The turn successfully

raised the group's membership to 300 activists.

Proponents of the tactic advocated that the Trotskyists should enter

the social democratic parties to connect with revolutionary socialist currents

within them, and steer those currents toward Leninism. However, entry

lasted only for a brief period: the leadership of the SFIO started to expel the

Trotskyists. The Trotskyists of Workers Party of the United States also

successfully used their entry into the Socialist Party of America to recruit

their youth group and other members. Similar tactics were also used by

Trotskyist organisations in other countries, including The Netherlands,

Belgium, Switzerland and Poland. Entrism was used to connect with and

recruit leftward moving political currents inside radical parties.

Following is an extract from a communist document which gives

context to the word entryism. Although the document alludes to entryism in

Great Britain, it means the same thing for the USA. In fact communist

entryism, stolen from Trotsky is victorious within the USA to a greater

extent than in England because the English leaders are usually far more

sophisticated in the ways of revolutionary warfare.

 “Permit me to begin, Comrade General Secretary, with the briefest

description of the background of the British Labour Party and of its steady

penetration and successful eventual domination by the Hard Left over the

past fourteen years.

The Party was originally founded by the trade union movement as the

political arm of the recently organized British working class. From the

outset it espoused the cause of moderate bourgeois socialism—of reform

rather than revolution. The home of the true Marxist-Leninist was then in

the Communist Party.

Even though the bedrock of Marxism-Leninism in Britain has always

been in the trade union movement, true believers were excluded from the

Labour Party itself. From the 1930s onward, a few of our pro-Soviet Hard

Left friends in Britain managed to infiltrate the Parry by subterfuge, but they

had, once inside it, to maintain an extremely low profile. Other friends of

Moscow, perceived as they sought to enter the Labour Party, were refused

admission or, if spotted inside the Party, were expelled.

The reason our true friends in Britain were for so many years

excluded from the mass-support Labour Party can be described in two

words: “proscribed list.” This was a list of banned organizations; it

prohibited all fraternal contact between the Labour Party and those much-
smaller groups inhabited by the true revolutionary socialists—that is, the

Marxist-Leninists.

Further, no member of a Hard Left group was permitted membership

in the Labour Party under the terms of the proscribed list, which were

staunchly maintained

by successive Labour Party leaders for fifty years.

As the Labour Party was the only mass-support party of the Left with

a hope of acceding to government of Britain, infiltration and domination of it

by our friends, following the classic Leninist teaching of “entryism,” was for

all those years an elusive dream. Nevertheless, our friends within the Party,

few though they were, worked tirelessly and covertly; in 1973 their efforts

were finally crowned with success.

In that year, when the Party was under the weak and vacillating

leadership of Harold Wilson, they achieved a wafer-thin majority on the all-

important Party National Executive Committee, and used it to pass a

resolution abolishing the proscribed list. The outcome was beyond their

dreams. With the floodgates open, shoals of Hard Left young activists of

the post-1945 generation swarmed into

the Labour Party and were at once able to offer themselves for office at

every level of the Party organization. The road to entryism, influence, and

eventual takeover was open, and that takeover has now been achieved.

Since 1973 the absolutely vital National Executive Committee has

seldom been out of the hands of a Hard Left majority, and it has been

through the skillful use of this tool that the constitution of the Party and its

composition at the higher levels have been changed out of all recognition.

A brief word of digression, Comrade General Secretary, to explain

precisely whom I mean by “our friends” within the British Labour Party and

trade union movement. They fall into two categories: the deliberate and the

unwilling. With the first category I am referring to people not of the so-called

Soft Left or of the Trotskyite aberration, both of whom abhor Moscow,

albeit for different reasons. I refer to those of the Hard Left with, at their

core, the Ultra-Hard Left. These are dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool Marxist-

Leninists, who would not appreciate being called Communists since this

implies membership in the quite useless British communist Party. They

are, nevertheless, staunch friends of Moscow and in nine

cases out often will act in accordance with Moscow’s wishes, even though

those wishes may remain unexpressed and even though the person
concerned would stoutly claim he was acting for “conscientious” or “British”

reasons.

The second group of friends inside, and now dominating, the British

Labour Party can be characterized as follows: those persons with a deep

political and emotional commitment to a form of socialism so far left as to

qualify as Marxism-Leninism; persons who will, in any given set of

circumstances or in any contingency, almost invariably react quite

spontaneously in a manner completely parallel to, or convergent with, the

desires of Soviet foreign policyvis-à-vis Britain and/or the Western Alliance;

persons who need no briefing or instructions whatsoever, and who would

probably be offended if such were proposed; persons who, wittingly or

unwittingly, whether impelled by personal conviction, a warped patriotism, a

desire to destroy, a craving for self-advancement, a fear of intimidatory

pressure, a sense of their own self-importance, or a desire to move with the

herd, will conduct themselves in a manner that suits our Soviet interests

perfectly. They all constitute agents of influence to our benefit.

They all, of course, claim to be seekers after democracy. Happily, the

overwhelming majority of Britishers today still understand by the word

democracy a pluralist (multiparty) state, whose governing body shall be

chosen at periodic intervals by universal adult suffrage based upon the

secret ballot.

Obviously, our Hard Left friends over there, being people who eat, drink,

breathe, sleep, dream, and work at left-wing politics every waking hour of

every day, mean by the word democracy a “democracy of the committed,”

with its controlling roles performed by themselves and like-thinkers.

Fortunately, the British press takes few steps to correct this

misapprehension…”

France, Russia and Cuba demonstrate that terrorism is an important

part in the beginnings certain movements. In many cases terrorist tactics

were used to obtain arms, ammunition and explosives. In most of these

cases, like in the War of Vietnam, terrorism performance is a vital part from

the beginning.

The terrorist infrastructure that harassed and terrified the population,

in Vietnam, was successful in separating the population of the government,

and helped to destabilize the population. This was the powerful weapon of

the insurgents. Unfortunately, in most of cases, the terror that reigned

during the insurgency was replaced later by institutional terror (terror by the

government), creating more oppression than the one of the previous

regime. Also it is worth mentioning that with few exceptions most of the
terrorists were eliminated of their position, once the insurrection was

finalized. Terrorists such as Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Guevara, Marighella and

others, left a violence legacy that, in the name of the masses, causes

shaking to the world.

The Bankruptcy of Winning Hearts and Minds

The control of masses of people by terror illustrates the bankruptcy of

the leftist anti-terror sabotage principal of ”winning hearts and minds.” That

winning of submission to government political correctness has worked in

America by the use of conditioning and psychological terror.

The invention of international and transnational terrorism has resulted

in numerous groups of revenge and hatred, in countries of the third world,

ideological mercenaries, that have lent their experience, knowledge, and

armaments to their political and ideological allies, anywhere in the world.

Most of the terrorist organizations differ from one other by ideology.

However, Leftist /Marxist and/or Islamic terror is the norm in all successful

population control, everywhere in the world. The least successful and most

dogmatic attempt to control masses is the US leftist concept of “winning

hearts and minds.” Trillions of dollars in bribes, handouts and “nation

building” for America’s enemies continues as a colossal failure to this day.

If you seek the truth visit: www.quikmaneuvers.com