The Corporate State is created through a five step process:
This is the policy platform of Moderate politicians who make up a third-party coalition between neoliberals and neoconservatives. This third party is a de-facto one which reigns over the two party system of its make up, mobilising its respective flanks to transition Western Democracies into Corporate States.
This article prominently concerns itself with the American landscape. America is a last gasp Empire but its cultural diffusion remains ripe across the globe, and so the most appropriate to extrapolate across it.
I refer to the corporation in this piece as a vague entity seemingly controlled by no particular interest than the markets. Who actually control corporations is a different topic and have addressed this as its own here: Seperation of Control from Ownership
The modern political spectrum is not in fact divided into two factions, but three. The third faction is the unification of the moderate left and right into a solidified block acting as a de facto third party, which remains in power perpetually.
In the American Primary and General election system the Moderates remain in power through electing candidates from both of its wings during the primary election as candidates in the general.
For the Moderates, primary elections are far more important than generals, and where the most amount of blantant interference can be observed. The 2020 Democratic Primary is a good example of the lengths this party will go in securing controlled oppositon for itself.
In a Parliamentary system the third party rule over a two party reign generally applies but to a lesser degree and is functionally different because the political parties elect their own leaders internally through a cabinet and the population gets no say. This system is much more sophisticated and as a result does slow the diffusion of incorporated segregation spewed forth from Americanised media into for example, the Commonwealth nations. For this I am thankful to it because the Moderates in these countries are much less extreme, and in many cases would be considered extremists themselves within the American political landscape.
Moderates are usually distinguished as two separate interest groups: Neoliberals and Neoconservatives. This is true to an extent when it comes to the means of achieving foreign policy, but not foreign policy ends.
Moderate moderation of Foreign Policy
Neocons expedite the privatisation of foreign resources from tribute nations using direct military action, while Neolibs prefer a more passive weaponization of debt traps and subsequent foreclosures on foreign owned assets using international financial institutions like the IMF. Both share the the same goal, which is to secure access to foreign resources for multi-national corporations. Which is used depends on the status of the tribute nation.
For example, in non-allied non-Anglo nations the blunt tool of direct military action is used to break open economies because their political systems are foreign and difficult to navigate as an outsider. If an allied Anglo nation steps out of line; as Australia did briefly when, thanks to its Parliamentary system, it elected Gough Whitlam Prime Minister who attempted to nationalise the mining sector during the early 1970s; a soft touch is required. The different means in these two cases is that between a ‘constitutional crises’ and a military coup.
But the two separate means are towards a unified ends, allowing Moderates to act and adapt tactics best suited to a variable geopolitical environment.
So the foreign policy means of the Moderate Party are a combined:
And the foreign policy end is:
The Neocon foreign policy means have, since WW2, been the more dominant of the two. It is more effective in getting quick access to foreign assets. It stimulates growth by feeding into the military industrial complex. The loss comes from that of faith in government, which in fact actually serves one of the policy agendas of the Moderate political platform, which is the destruction of government by Neocons.
When foreign policy isn't concerned with resource extraction then the Moderate foreign policy is more or less bi-partisan.
Moderate Domestic Policy
On the domestic policy front the Moderate party instead uses common means in achieving separate ends. However, these ends only appear to be in opposition to each other, as they actually converge to become the means toward a single end. This end is the incorporation of communities into segregated identity groups, to be governed by corporate policies reinforced by what the State becomes reduced to, a monopoly of violence.
The Moderate domestic policy platform is as follows:
That the political right seek to destroy government isn’t contentious, as they say as much. Its belief there should be smaller government comes from a mistakenly thinking Neoliberal policy expands it. This belief, as far as I can tell, assumes that higher government stems from the assumption that spending by Neolibs equates to the expansion of government programs.
I needn’t explain the fault in this belief as the money can clearly be observed being spent almost entirely in the private sector. And there is no such thing as a government program operated by the private sector. Only a government funded program operated by the Private sector. Which is effectively the subsidisation of smaller government, something they support
The political left on the other hand doesn’t openly advertise that the destruction of communities. It in fact claims the opposite through the creation of diverse ones. Because of this, the contention that they do requires greater attention.
Put simply, a community is a social group exhibiting between themselves common and easily recognisable traits from which they can derive trust in absence of person-to-person relationships. It is determined and bound by a mutual platform of these easily recognizable and common traits, historically being ethnic, cultural, or religious.
Put simply, a community is a social group exhibiting between themselves common and easily recognisable traits from which they can derive trust in absence of person-to-person relationships. It is determined and bound by a mutual platform of these easily recognisable and common traits, historically being ethnic, cultural, or religious.
These common traits a community share are what allows for trust between strangers, and from which a community derives its security. If its common traits are taken away or diluted, those within that community will begin to feel insecure and look elsewhere for it. So a community without common and easily recognisable traits is not a community as there can be no trust.
The desegregation of a community is the destruction of it. That is not a commentary on the merits of diversification, only an apolitical observation. Diversification can be bad or good depending on what is achieved through it, so stick with me here.
If you remove the common and easily recognisable traits from a community, you will destroy it by removing its trust and security. As a process, diversification begins with the destruction of established communities as a means for creating diverse ones. But for diverse communities to develop they must form common and easily recognisable traits between fragments of insecure people.
Initially, there cannot be common and easily identifiable traits within a diversified community, which makes a diversified social unit fragments of destroyed communities. This diversified social unit can develop into a community over time but will never start as one. Thus, the process of diversification is the destruction of communities, not the creation of them. The environment the diversified social units are mixed into will determine what common traits security and trust will be easily recognised in. So diversification is the destruction of communities for the placement of new ones. Diversification does not develop new communities, the environment they develop within does; as diversified social units can only become communities once they become less diverse from sharing a common environment.If the environment is corporate, then the new community will be a corporate community.
The agenda of Moderates is to create new communities for corporations to control, and it mobilises its left wing through the Neolibs to do this.
First the common traits of existing communities are desegregated and diversified into new social units lacking security. These social units over time become cross-segmented and develop security from their shared environment. The environment which incubates this process is predominantly the workplace, as it cannot be avoided by most. Though modern communitication networks provide a cyber enviroments in which this process takes place.
If the majority of workplace environments are corporate environments, then the common trait from which these new communities derive security will be corporations. But this is not enough.
Once a corporate community is created from desegregated communities, it then intentionally segregates into identity groups creating a incorporated segregation which is commonly conceptualised as Identity Politics. That is, various interest groups defined by race, gender, sexuality competing amongst themselves for a bigger share of a platform controlled by corporate policy. This competition between produces a form of motivation called adaptative motivation, where by people engage productively within their environment in the hope of changing it to better suit their ability to identify with it.
These identity groups are compelled to compete over the common traits of the corporate community because a diverse collection of interests sharing a common platform can never feel completely secure. When one group gains more security it is taken from all other groups. Since all identity groups have been included, it cannot be about becoming included or gaining a voice, but being more included and gaining more of a voice. There is only so much platform on which to stand.
People can have almost everything in common except their biological traits. If they define their identity by their biological traits then they will never feel secure among those with different biological traits who do the same.
People who preface speech by identifying with their biological identity to give it context, do so because they do not feel secure in their environment.
Identity Politics is the manifestation of social units fighting over common traits. The common trait is the platform they share within corporate communities. Deplatforming is the removal of an identity group from the platform of common traits to make way for others. Identity Politics serves no function other than to divide diversified communities.
This process of creating diverse communities through desegregation only to segregate them into identity groups is Incorporated Segregation, and it's how Corporate communities are made.
The process of incorporated segregation:
This is the driving force behind identity politics. Which is a blatantly manufactured phenomenon sustained by corporate media. It is an induction mechanism for adaptive motivation which has been developed to supplement pecuniary motivation as a primary means for enticing growth within societies transitioning from, broadly speaking, late-capitalism into post-capitalist ones.
John Kenneth Galbraith’s 1967 book, The New Industrial State, gives an insider’s account of the evolution in motivation, trending towards the future of rising managerial technocracies of specialised experts within advanced technology corporations, which at that time had begun to usurp market dominance from the traditional management systems of the entrepreneurial industrial firms. Identity politics as we now know it is a contemporary measure for extracting what Galbraith called, the adaptation motivation.
In the general theory of motivation there are four methods used to compel people to pursue goals or interests external to their own:
Capitalist belief is based on pecuniary motivation as the most compelling. Socialist as Identification. Militarist as Force. Adaptation is relatively new as the primary motivator, as it has traditionally been associated with revolutionists, or rather—those achieving means rather then those sustaining ends.
These four do manifest in combinations of one another, so the classifications in practise are not so clearly defined. For instance, if workers are paid subsistence level wages then force is passively incorporated into pecuniary motivation, as the alternative to work becomes starvation. While this isn’t technically the use of force, nor is it reward. It is a moderation between the two.
Pecuniary motivation must also generally be provided to a sufficient extent before identification or adaptation can be accepted as an appropriate supplement to anymore of it.
Forceful motivation is external and unsustainable. Societies which rely on it will eventually collapse and always have done. To achieve more production through force, the intensity of that force must escalate to coerce it. Eventually, due to a need for perpetual growth, the level of force required for greater production escalates to a point where it becomes no worse than death and the people it is brought to bear upon realise it in their best interest to meet it with revolt. This accounts for much of history.
Force is an externalised motivator and cannot work in perpetuity if it is attempting to coerce the activity of perpetual gains in productivity. Because of this the rapid productivity of industrial society meant control over the workforce had to become more internalised.
Thus the pecuniary motivation of the factory wage system, when calculated expertly to the subsistence level, acted as an internalised motivator between force and reward. A worker may choose starvation over the factory hours required for providing the means of converting food into energy to fuel the muscle and nerve of labour; though most won’t, almost none if they have dependants.
Identification as motivation encourages conformity and loyalty in exchange for social prestige and other immaterial benefits derived from being apart of something bigger than the individual.
A noticeable modern application of this motivation can be observed in the United States custom of troop worship. Social respect is given in a sort of a dignified pity for those wheeled out at sporting events, or waving back to the crown with their remaining arm, dressed up impressively for the occasion and hoping the gig pays because a livable pension certainly isn’t. The military relies primarily on the young males sense of identity for recruitment. Since the US military is the one used post-WW2 to secure the resources of the former European colonies, it the one which has adopted this identification motivator into it’s culture to the most apparent and disgusting extent.
The old industrial firms which dominated markets prior to the advanced technology corporations, cultivated Identification motivation through its era of the “Company Man”. WW2 played a big part in rolling over Military culture into the private sector, as many of the men had been acclimatised to a similar institutional company structure during the war, which had necessitated very close male orientated communities during it. Many men carried the war home into the workplace and completely avoided the realities of civilian life to instead work themselves to death and neglect their families. Identifying with the company over famiily helped them from ever returning home.
Adaptation is a very modern motivation. It is the most powerful as it empowers people, but also the most difficult to maintain control over, as its coercion lies in conceding an element of control to the interests of those it’s used coerce.
What it does is entice a workforce to be productive within a corporation in exchange for the possibility of gaining some control within the corporation, which can then, so they think, be used to adapt the corporation to better conform with their beliefs. Unlike identity which conforms the worker to the established form of the corporation, adaptation entices the worker to try and conform the corporation to better suit their own identity. This is an internalised control pushed to such an extent that it almost appears to concede it. The trick to harnessing the adaptive motivator is in ensuring that the interests it motivate don’t conflict with the interests it serve. Which simply means that there mustn’t exist a conflict of interest between the identity of the corporation and the identity of worker. However, there must been a conflict with the workers identity and something for there to be motivation for them to change that thing. Incorporated segregation is this trick, as a worker is segregated into an identity group, which is both aligned with the corporate identity while simultaneously in conflict with other identity groups. The identity groups are motivated to change each other but never the identity of the corporation. These identity groups segregated along biometric lines are no threat to the corporation like labour union, which is a threat because it identifies along class lines in opposition to the corporation's interests.
The power of this development is striking when compared to the motivation method which came before it. Prior to Incorporated Segregation corporations utilised the identification motivation of a solitary identity group, white men. While incorporated segregation harnesses the adaptive motivation of all identity groups.
Take for instance a high functioning woman who is extremely motivated by her belief in gender equality. In previous eras, such as the “Company Man” era for instance, it wouldn’t have mattered how hard she worked, she never would’ve been able to attain the power required within a corporation to conform it into a better environment for her identity. For her, any adaptive motivation fuelling productivity would likely end only in frustration. Because she recognises she cannot change her environment, and because her environment does not allow her to identify with it, she has no practical motivation other than money, for which she is paid less of. And so she opts out. Gets together with like minded women and creates a grassroots community which becomes apart of a feminist movement outside the corporations purview. The result is the corporation has squandered productive power.
It did this because the corporate identity was fixed to the male identity, it did not allow women the adaptive motivation required to attain for themselves an identity within it, so they chose to opt out of it.
Adaptive motivation is an extremely powerful and volatile productive force within the modern corporation. If it is suppressed people will opt out. If it allowed to be misdirected it can usurp the existing power structure.
Adaptive motivation in depth
Adaptive motivation is defined by a persons self-identity and their need to adapt an environment to reflect it for security. If a person’s identify is already reflected in their environment then they have no motivation to feel secure. So adaptive motivation is expressed through identity as driven by an instinct seeking security.
Identify is currently encouraged to be expressed through following segregated groups:
It is encouraged to be further expressed in segregated hybrids of these:
Notice how culture is ignored, even though it is by far the most substantive and expressive aspect in expressing ones identity. Culture overrides all others as it is fixed to an environmental constant while the others are variable and exclusive. Culture is the only one which guarantees common and easily recognisable traits required for trust and security between strangers. The reason culture is ignored is because it has come to reflect the corporate identity, which is encouraged to be shared between all identity groups as a diverse culture to be celebrated.
Since all these identity groups share a common diverse corporate culture, they also share a common platform which is meant to reflect all their identities to provide them all with security.
And here’s the crux of it.
The identity groups with the least amount of identity reflected on the common corporate platform will become compelled by adaptive motivation (insecurity) to attain the power required to gain more.
The only way they can gain more is through working productively within the purview of the corporation to gain promotion and greater influence within it.
When these groups do manage to gain more influence and project more of their identity onto the common platform, they do so over the identities of other groups. These other group then become insecure and through adaptive motivation a self-regulating cycle repeats.
And so identity groups compete amongst themselves for security, while the corporation cultivates this through an exchange of security for productivity. This competition harnesses the productive power of adaptive motivation, which also becomes a self-regulating system. Any identity group with too much security loses it to others and gains motivation.
Such a system of self-regulating diversity sounds like a good thing, until one realises it can only function so long as identity groups feel perpetually insecure. The worst possible outcome for the corporation would be if they all harmonised and felt a communal sense of security, which would be the complete eradication of adaptive motivation from the workforce.
So the workforce is diversified but never allowed to harmonise into a community, which is the stated goal of diversification. Harmony destroys adaptative motivation, which destroys productivity, which destroys growth; growth being the primary interest of a corporation.
There is no plan for harmony between identity groups within a corporate defined culture. The plan has always been a means of achieving growth through adaptive motivation, which requires devision and agitation.
Once this is realised the modern news cycle begins to make a lot more sense.
What is shared in common between people is strategically divided into different experiences of it, until it becomes uncommon to them. The experience of X for women becomes foreign to that of men. That of transwomen to women. That of gays to straights. Africans to anglos. Asians to africans, and so on.
People fragmented into atomised identity groups to be stimulated and provoked perpetually into outrage, pitted against one another for space on a platform used to vent further frustrations.
There’s never been a better time to opt out of this fucking fuel tank of corporate growth. Though then you may also realise there isn’t a lot left to opt out to.>
The flaw in incorporated segregation is that while the corporate environment provides people with a sense of security, it almost exclusively relies on this in compensation for the other human needs it fails to meet. Due to this it is always in the process of amplifying the level of security it is providing to its workforce through incorporating more and more aspects of peoples lives into the corporate package alongside salary. Such a thing is privatisation of areas previously outside of the control of the corporation: Health care, human rights, education, and even reproductive ability; all things covered in new Enviromental, Social, Governance policy, which is a running theme on this site.
The security corporations provide is a compensation for their inability as an environment to foster the development of virtuous or moral common traits between its workforce into, what a community is actually meant to be. Corporate culture tries so ever hard to manufacture itself on organic grounds, but it cannot do this any less synthetically than it does the manufacture of commodities. It cannot hide its lust for growth and this overbears all things contained within it. The nature of a corporation is irreconcilable with community. Eventually people will realise that the community doesn’t serve the commune, but rather that which has incubated it. And that is the functioning model of a personality-cult. Corporate communities are actually policy cults. These cults utilise internalised coercive control to keep people in them. They cannot force them to remain, which means their greatest threat is the ability for people to opt out.
Before the West interfered with African Civilisation, it functioned as a series of tribal communities situated vastly across a continent of abundant resources and space. Because of this the principals of community leadership were very different than those of Europe, where resources and space were scarce, communities much bigger and in closer vicinity of one another. In Africa, if a community leader became disliked, members could leave and start a new community somewhere else where space and resources were readily available to provide them with their own security. In Europe this was much more difficult, as without the surplus space and resources those new communities generally had to impede on the territory of established ones. Which meant forming new communities in Europe was an inherently dangerous endeavour.
The result of this was that in Africa, leadership had to be somewhat benevolent and internalise its control over followers to keep them subscribed. While in Europe, since leaders knew there was no where else to go for security, they could externalise control without worrying about people opting out. In Africa people deserted their leaders. In Europe they had to overthrow them.
So the biggest threat to a corporate policy cult is its workforce opting out. Its workforce will only opt out it it can opt in to a better option. This potential alternative option in a late-capitalist society can be broadly defined as Counter-Culture. Culture made of communities formed of people who have opted out of corporate ones.
If Counter-Culture is destroyed it becomes no longer an option. At which point there remains no means through which people may meaningfully opt out of the Corporate State.
Counter-Culture as a movement has been malformed, misappropriated, undermined and outright attacked through the latter half of the 20th century. It has been effectively demolished, existing these days as an alternative fashion rather than lifestyle.
The way to destroy any community is to remove the sense of security derived by its members from its common and easily identifiable traits. To destroy Counter Culture it is necessary to corrupt its common traits until all trust is lost in them.
Now, when one thinks of historical examples of those who opted out and formed new communities during the latter 20th century, the examples which instantly come to mind are in almost all instances, ones in which something went terribly wrong: Jonestown, Rajneeshpuram ,Branch Davidians (WACO incident), Manson family, the family, Heavens gate, scientology. I can't actually think of a breakaway community known about in popular culture which was innoculate or even a mild success. They must exist rigght?
Well as the cult of the corporate community boomed into the late 20th century so did religious cults. What this type of community offered(before they developed into cults), which the corporate community couldn’t, was spirituality.
Since there is no corporate god but growth, and all things growing only do so towards death, its difficult to derive a sense of purpose from corporate ideology as it’s effectively a death cult.
See spirituality—not religion; the latter being an expression of the former; for many is a basic human need as important to them as sexuality or security. New spiritual cults meet this need and filled very real spiritual voids within many people, people more than happen to trade in their material assets for the communal elation these communities initially provided. And many did start out as good communities before they developed into cults. Jonestown is a striking example of this.
So what went wrong? This is given much publicity. What isn’t is a single example of when a counter cultural community went right. When people think of opt-out communities they think of the following things: Mass murder, Mass suicide, Child molestation, and sexual slavery
All in all—lives ruined. Anytime we think of these communities, any one which has opted out of late capitalist society, we feel malaise. Therefor any community which is a group of people opting out by nature has become a series of red flags.
People have become too afraid to opt out due to the publicly of instances where such a thing has gone terribly wrong. And this keeps people subscribed to their internal controls even if they may begin to consciously doubt them.
For seventy years any security to be found beyond the corporate embrace has gradually diminished. And since the corporation cannot hide its soul crushing nature, the alternatives to it must always be worse. And so it is that the religious communities will molest your children, that psychedelic communities will brainwash you to commit murder, that isolationist communities will eventually want you to commit suicide, that militia communities want to kill you, that survivalist communities are really secret militia communities, and that all Non-diversified communities are extremist.
This isn't to say they don't do these things. But that list is the general avaliability of options for opting out. And it's not as if corporations don't do some if not all of these things too.
Now I’m unsure of the extent to which this fear of opting out has been manufactured and how much of it has been a natural phenomenon. Intelligence operations such as CHAOS by the CIA are clear evidence that a wide net has been intentionally cast to subvert nonconforming but innocuous communities as part of attacks on dangerous ones.
I am sure people are too afraid to opt out. They like the idea of it. They like the temporary experience of it on vacation. They like it in cosmetic form with all the creature comforts of a corporate festival in the desert, unknowingly exploring hollow spirituality through the burning of a giant wicker effigy in sacrifice to Baal; that is, according to certain Scottish rites in the unabridged versions of Frazier'sThe Golden Bough.
We are living at the tail-end of a transitional period. Because of this one can point to our current environment for evidence we are in the era of Corporate governance. People have begun applauding corporate oligopolies as they mobilise autonomous power over society. They applaud because it is being mobilised against the identity groups they compete with for security. Remember, all the Corporation can offer is security, and it only offers this in exchange for growth.
It is for this reason corporations have taken action against right leaning identity groups to provide the left leaning ones with more security, most evidently through cancel culture.
The reason they have sided with the left instead of the right is because the majority of people live in left leaning metropolitan cities. There is no other reason, it’s purely a numbers game at this point.
Through siding with the majority identity groups, corporations gain the consent and mandate initially needed for them to take over the social responsibilities and controls of government.
Western societies needs to be governed under the guise of majority rule to live up to their own self-image and maintain high moral. Which necessitates that corporations initially side with the left. It gives the Corporation the mandate of majority rule without any elections.
Once the majority rule mandate has been established external to elections, it becomes further embedded into social acceptability through a gradual escalation of its power. At first corporate governance will be benevolent, after that it will begin to develop poison pill policies whereby if people want x then they will have to accept y. Most will not notice y being slipped in alongside x, they don’t when congress or parliaments pass bills, and so will assume the future they are supporting is simply x = x. But in reality it will be x + y = xy. And if people then want e, then (e + z) + (xy-x) = ezy. policy.
Corporations have already attained the majority rule mandate and are beginning to validate it through “CEOs taking action”. The two main areas of focus currently are the environment and equality. Two things which must be addressed and that the government has failed at addressing, or rather succeeded at as the government is the Moderate Party, and the Moderate Party is the party of corporations.
If corporations adequately address both issues as part of the reorganisation of society taking place during this pandemic, then I suspect we will emerge from it living in the Corporate State. Perhaps this is what's meant by great reset and covid normal.
There is no conspiracy here, it’s all out in the open so there's nothing to expose. Perception as opposed to visibility is controlled to gain legitimacy and acceptance. You could think of this as an open source conspiracy. Any vulnerabilities that become exposed can be patched. Thus those who expose it strengthen it. The psychology used here works like a vaccine against any other perception of it, and is explained by an official source of it: 'How to inoculate against the spread of misinformation'. Like i said, open source conspiracy.
Once counter culture is destroyed there still remains a need for people to feel communally empowered through activism. But activism needs to be against an established force or one perceived, as it is reactive in nature and must always be in opposition to something.
To ensure activism doesn’t become counter-cultural to incorporated segregation, activism must be appropriated and directly elsewhere. This is being done through the creation of modernised philanthropic foundations which blur the line between community activism and corporate activism. The bridging link between the two are identity groups.
What these corporate activist foundations do is build a coalition of associated grassroots activist groups which are then aligned to their interests by providing them with funding and publicity so they grow to eclipse others which may threaten corporate interests within the broader activist movement. Further more, as activism becomes divided between competing interests of identity groups, and all identity groups have been diversified into the common corporate culture, corporate culture is not an immediately recognisable target and appears more as an ally providing funding and publicly for those willing to align themselves with it and subvert activism along class lines such as labour unions.
This same ploy has been used for over a century in academia and science to control the perception of expert consensus through a grants system. Private funding and publicity is given to research which produces conclusions in alignment with the interests of those foundations controlling the purse strings of Universities and other Institutions.
Research which concludes against the interests of those foundations has its publicity suppressed, funding pulled, and researchers blacklisted from future funding. Eventually it becomes universally understood which conclusions are expected to further ones career and which ones end it.
In fact the same system yet again is used broadly across any kind of publishing industry. Journalists for the New York Times know which kind of articles further their career. They are “Independent” journalists but know what is expected of them if they want to be successful “Independent” journalists. Those who don’t know about the system quickly learn it when they are relegated to the back pages while careerist colleagues are venerated upon the front ones. Eventually those with integrity give it up to progress, or quit out of frustration to maintain it. There is never a shortage of replacements for the latter, though the quality of journalism does decline, which isn’t an issue so long as there isn’t competition between these real independent journalists and their corporate counterparts; which there isn’t.
These websites may be of interest:
Luminate Group: https://luminategroup(dot)com/