The error of “entryism”

Originally published: Miguel Quesada

***

With the consolidation of revolutionary ideologies, the longing for the restoration of the Catholic City seems to fade more and more. In this context, the siren songs of “political” “participation” – electoral in fact – seem to seduce many who are convinced of the effective impossibility of a restoration. Thus, anti-abortionists settle for presumptive laws, which we all know how they end, parents succumb to communitarian anti-politics as a way to “save” their children, or patriots buy into broken constitutionalism as a remedy for the evils it has caused.

Within this fragmentation in the Catholic world, a reflection of the ideological infection that overwhelms us, I would like to refer briefly to the error of “entryism”.

“Entryism” is not a doctrine, but above all an existential attitude; a pessimistic attitude that, convinced of the failure of the struggle for the Kingdom of Christ, decides to enter the system and its structures in order to influence its interests. The ideal scheme is to use the enemy’s weapons against him, a kind of tactic that pretends to emulate the Trojans or various sectarians who disguise themselves in secrecy or disguise in order to influence according to their interests. But “entryism,” perhaps unconsciously, thus enters a dead end. In the balance between the defense of the Catholic City – our mission – and the triumph of some element that they imitate with their interests, they choose the second option.

The first difficulty encountered by the “entrists ” is the very form of the structures they seek to control. Modern social and political entities do not respond to a mere neutrality, but this apparent neutrality is a symptom of an anti-theistic and naturalistic attitude, of the institutionalized heresy that Jean Ousset affirms. Thus, they participate in an entity that works evil, but they silence their conscience by convincing themselves that their time will soon come. The first phase of “entrism” is therefore self-deception.

As time passes, they see that, as logic dictates, matter is ordered to form, and structures respond to their spirits, so that their actions cooperate in the consolidation of evil. The incongruities become more and more apparent, and this is where the second difficulty arises. The conviction that it is only there that it is possible to “do something” leads the “entrists” to defend themselves against those who denounce the incoherence, shielding themselves behind the accusation that it is the denouncers who are incoherent because they do not support the “entrists”; let us remember that possible good and particular interest are one and the same reality in the “entrist” mentality. Thus, the effectiveness of their pretensions leads them to defend the structure at all costs in the face of external criticism, because if they become aware of the duality of the “entrist” inside the structure, he can say goodbye to the influence he imagines he has. The second phase is therefore the deception, the simulation that the structure allows him to develop his interests and that the criticism is unfounded.

Finally, the “entrist” realizes that all the times he has tried to influence the structure, the latter has reacted according to its form, repressing the part that does not conform to the whole. When the “entrist” looks back and contemplates the reasons that led him to choose “entryism”, the people he persuaded, the sacrifices he made, the vile causes he defended, etc., we enter the third and last phase: disillusionment. This can be of two kinds, but usually leads to the same end. The first disillusionment refers to the renunciation of the little that was to be defended – when the wickedness of the system is recognized – opting to remain in the structure and live at its expense. The second disillusionment leads to total resignation, to the abandonment of any cause other than individual salvation. In both cases, the reality is the same: the years of damage done, their sterility, and the castration of any cooperation in the good fight.

If so many who chose to join influential parties or associations, believing that they were influencing something that was found to be nothing, had struggled for the Catholic City from the beginning, where would we be? This reflection is alien to any acrimony, because the battle is fought independently of the fruits that belong to the King of Kings; I raise the question in the hope of sowing reflection in some. We already know the opposite; moreover, we have centuries of experience of “entryism”. We also know the result: the unfounded illusion of believing that we are fighting under the banners of Christ with the weapons, uniforms and guidelines of the banners of the prince of this world.

Miguel Quesada, Círculo Hispalense

Translated by the San Jerónimo’s Translator’s Guild