How Leftists/Marxists subvert and take over organizations

[causticus]

Note: this list isn't originally my own creation, rather I adapted it from a post on a libertarian blog and modified some of the wording to fit a more general organization description.

1) Leftist ideas are introduced into a growing organization or movement through a few vocal members. Leftists are able to penetrate and gain influence in the organization according to O’Sullivan’s Law, which states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time.

2) Through heavy use of emotional manipulation and guilt-tripping, more and more members, and eventually entire affiliate groups, and larger networks of interrelated groups become leftist. The founding organizational, aspirational, and ethical principles are no longer applied. Free speech, open discourse, or differences of opinion will not be tolerated. Non-leftists will be labeled and ostracized.

3) Conservative and moderate leadership acts only after leftists begin taking over leadership positions, and the Marxist claim ownership of the organization and call the conservative, moderate, and otherwise insufficiently-leftist members “entryists” or even claiming they are alien or hostile to the original purpose of the group, when in fact this is a clear case of projection.

4) Initial resistance gives way to retreat, as conservative and moderate members decide to cut their losses and leave the organization for a new and smaller splinter group free of the leftist elements they just fled. The general public begins to associate the original (now-subverted) organization with leftism in general.

5) The new splinter group expands and eventually starts to grow and prosper.

6) Meanwhile, the successfully-subverted original organization hemorrhages membership, as there are not enough leftists interested in the founding purpose of the original organization, nor are there enough leftists interested in the founding purpose of the original organization to keep it alive after the conservative and moderate exodus.

7) As the conservatives and moderates re-organize and grow in strength, the newly burgeoning organization becomes the new target for leftist subversion.

8) The cycle repeats.

Comments

[nodrog]

The overt assumption being that collectivist oligarchs can't be stopped or defeated - only fled from as from a rising sealevel, again and again, perhaps turning to shake an impotent fist before heading for the hills.

I do not accept that assumption.  Neither did Eastern Europe.  Freedom can be fought for, and won.

[causticus]

I agree. The subversion is only effective when the leadership of the organization in question is a combination of naive (to the problem) and too weak-willed or impotent to nip the problem in the bud when it first arises. And of course the first step is naming the problem.

[methylethyl]

You can trace this grim march through every mainline Christian church over the last three or more decades.

[causticus]

Indeed. A good portion of Mainline Protestantism now preaches the secular progressive gospel. And even before the Marxists starting infiltrating, the "social gospel" roots were already laid.

[methylethyl]

It has not happened to my current church yet. But I've seen it in the churches I grew up in... you get to where you have an instant urge to punch someone on hearing the word "dialogue". That is what they say when they want to get a foot in the door. We should have a dialogue about this. Next thing you know, they're sixty percent of whatever your national church governing body is (because normal people don't have the time to do that stuff), and it's game over. People realize what's going down about two years too late, the remaining 25% of parishes fracture off into their own new denomination, but they lose all their assets and real estate in the divorce, because the "Let's have a dialogue" folks had lawyers combing through all the church paperwork the day after they were sworn in...

[causticus]

Yep and it's always a one-way "dialogue." Same goes with their mutilation of the word "conversation."

And of course these folks always seem to have the sharpest Lawfare Warriors at their service.

[methylethyl]

After watching that process repeat, in a nearly identical way, in multiple churches, it seems obvious now that it was organized. It was very much a hostile takeover by an actual, formal entity outside the church. The instigators had been trained (they all used the same vocabulary), and were getting support from the outside, in their quest to make disciples and allies in the organization, and then guilt-trip the naysayers into remaining silent.

I still want to know what that outside entity was. Who trained these people? Who was celebrating back at HQ, when the PCA split from the PCUSA? When the Methodists cracked? When the Lutherans were subverted? It was a universally terrible move for the churches involved. It's a very short step from fully embracing progressive ideology, to simply being non-religious. There's nothing terribly special about Christianity, once you ditch all its moral teachings, belief in its scriptures, the last 1500 years or so of church teachings, and decide "aw, you know, you don't really have to believe that he *literally* rose from the dead... he was a really good guy after all". Once you get there, people are only showing up out of habit. And it turns out if you don't actually believe all that archaic "churchy" stuff... you also don't feel obligated to give more than a token financial support. And then the parish becomes financially insolvent. It's very predictable. Many of the remaining churches are only hanging on because they are running a successful private preschool, renting out the beautiful church+hall for events, and hosting public festivals on the church grounds. If your parish didn't have a nice building to start with, good luck! It'll go under the next time the roof needs replacing...

[causticus]

Well, with any subversion activities going on in recent years, it probably wouldn't be hard to do some simple detective work and find out who is networking with whom, considering the fact that so many people share so much of their personal lives and friend/acquaintance connections on social media.

And I wouldn't be surprised if there is a small handful of NGOs which have been coordinating these efforts. Once you know the guilty organizations, then following the money becomes easy.