Most of us are familiar with the anti-white policies of the corporate world. From affirmative action and diversity promotions to termination for thought crimes and anti-white advertisements, big business happily accepts the dictates of the Jewish narrative in all its guises.
There are numerous reasons for this: false impressions of the market based on Jewish media representations, various governmental financial incentives, pressure from social justice warriors, the employment of rich and sheltered liberal whites in leadership positions, and the vastly disproportionate number of Jews in positions of power, both as business leaders and as financial puppet-masters. To be sure, this list is far from complete but beyond such things is another serious problem, one that greatly inhibits the ability of whites (especially middle and upper class whites) to combat the anti-white agenda: the corporate world functions as a parallel state with a deracinated and emasculated culture that serves to misdirect healthy racially-based social organizational impulses.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American spends more time working than doing any other activity. Our jobs not only occupy a great deal of our time but also a tremendous amount of mental space as well: worrying about deadlines, navigating the waters of office politics, presenting the appropriate physical image, maneuvering ourselves into better positions so that we might be given the chance to work even longer hours for a few more dollars, socializing with the right people outside of work, and so on. What might seem like an eight, nine, or ten hour work day is, in reality, quite a bit longer and involves many things that do not directly apply to the specific set of tasks any given job requires. There is an intense psychological investment in one’s workplace universe that reduces the capacity for investment in other realms of activity and which does not disappear when one leaves the hypnotically sterile manicured lawns and “plop art” of the office park. Honor, loyalty, and duty are directed towards one’s employer and coworkers rather than towards the state, the nation, and, all too often, even the family.
This devotion to the corporation is rooted in the Protestant work ethic and is exacerbated by traditional white high social trust and a corresponding sense of dutiful reciprocity. Like so many valuable and admirable white traits, these have been perverted and used to manipulate us into self-destruction, partially by design and partially due to the natural trajectory of capitalist modernity. Life in the corporate world ends up being the psycho-social equivalent of dual citizenship, but without even the political dynamism and commitment inherent in that term.
The ultimate loyalty, however, is to the corporation, both in daily practice and in political allegiance (there is, for example, no viable American political party that does not court big business and subscribe to the neoliberal worldview). Traditional loyalties to organic social units are subsumed into this corporate “state,” thus creating a neutered, short-sighted, and politically passionless populace. The employee owes his allegiance first and foremost to the corporation, which is the source of his livelihood and towards which his emotions, his ritualistic impulses, and his sociality are directed.
How does this happen? The primary reason is, of course, simply the sheer amount of time spent in the physical workplace. Secondly, there is the tremendous psychological pressure caused by the conviction (real and/or imagined) that success in the workplace determines one’s quality of life. But there are ways in which the social and organizational environment of the workplace alters the character of individual employees and their relationship to the outside world. The workplace environment shapes reactions, opinions, desires, goals, and visions of the future in accordance with its own internal logic. The employees constitute the “citizens” of the bureaucratic and intensely hierarchical corporate “state.” This “state,” however, is devoid of any purpose other than resource consumption and regurgitation, money-making for the sake of money-making, and self-replication through physical and market expansion. As such the impulses of its citizen-employees are likewise geared towards such politically fallow and spiritually unfulfilling goals.
Beginning in the mid-19th century, new technologies and expanded distribution capabilities allowed businesses to grow far beyond local and regional markets. Accompanying this change in scale was the bureaucratization of business. Expanding businesses needed employees to manage the expansion. With further expansion came greater numbers of managers and then, naturally, a group of managers to manage the other managers and so on. This pattern became the dominant organizational model for business in America and, as so many of us know, remains so to this day. Sociologist Robert Jackall, who has done extensive work on managerial ethics and corporate culture, writes:
The changes in our social landscape brought about by this bureaucratization can hardly be exaggerated. This great transformation produced the decline of the old middle class of entrepreneurs, free professionals, independent farmers, and small independent businessmen — the traditional carriers of the old Protestant work ethic — and the ascendance of a new middle class of salaried employees, that is, clerks, managers, executives, officials, technicians, and professionals alike, whose chief common characteristic was and is their dependence on the big organization. In the bargain, bureaucratization shredded and reknit whole communities by making individual life chances almost wholly dependent on bureaucratic career lines that often require an unusual willingness to be geographically mobile.
A multiplicity of bureaucratic businesses was created, each containing employees who were now dependent on the success of their particular organizations. It should already be clear how the concept of dual-citizenship applies here: with people and families increasingly scattered across the country, meaningful ties to traditional social, economic, and governmental community networks were broken; people became dependent on large business organizations for their financial security, their social networks, and their psychological comfort; the corporation, bosses, coworkers, and the very process of bureaucracy became the foundation of their daily lives.
As time progressed, this pattern of rootless corporate bureaucratization spread like a virus. The culture of corporations — and of corporate culture — became deeply entrenched in American society. With every passing year, fewer and fewer Americans remained outside this system. Those who did (blue-collar workers, craftsmen, artists, and others) found life much harder, while those who willingly joined this new “state” found that their lives were dramatically changed by the experience. All of this has continued and deepened since the process began almost a century and a half ago. The workplace is now a home away from home and few question it. Individual identity has given way to a task-based institutional collectivism. Free-thought has given way to conformity. Honor has given way to compliance. And the average worker’s higher sense of duty is now geared towards his employer rather than his community. In order for a person to succeed in the corporate world, a profound obsequiousness has to engulf his spirit. To think that this spiritual submission does not flow into other aspects of employees’ lives is terribly naive.
In this parallel state, the chief executive officer (CEO) is the head of state. His representatives are the equivalent of titled nobility. They are the law makers and the culture producers. Their financial success and comfortable existence is the raison d’état and they are treated accordingly. In the modern business world, deference to one’s boss is almost Confucian. Dr. Jackall writes:
On a social level, even though an easy, breezy, first-name informality is the prevalent style of American business, a concession perhaps to our democratic heritage and egalitarian rhetoric, the subordinate must extend to the boss a certain ritual deference. For instance, he must follow the boss’s lead in conversation, must not speak out of turn at meetings, must laugh at his boss’s jokes while not making jokes of his own that upstage his boss, must not rib his boss for his foibles. The shrewd subordinate learns to efface himself, so that his boss’s face might shine more clearly.
It is hard to imagine this type of behavior in any other American context. Not only is it distinctly foreign to American social custom but it endows the corporation itself with a majesty found nowhere else in American society (with the possible exception of celebrities, among whose numbers we can count numerous CEOs). Indeed, for Dr. Jackall, this odd combination of “hankering for attachment” and the unavailability of “kings and princes . . . as objects of personal attachment” is the very basis for the ethics of the American corporate world. The human need for objects of reverence and for some sort of ritualized deference to authority is transferred from the real state to the parallel state. But in the parallel state these rituals merely fulfill a base, mechanical psychological need. There is no higher purpose, no deeper understanding of one’s place in the local community, the nation, or indeed the universe that is illuminated by these empty “substitute” rituals. They function only to divert these basic human impulses away from the recreation of an organic racial nation-state.
Life in the corporation is one of constant concern for one’s position within the hierarchy. It is an inherently selfish social orientation, despite its superficial organizational form and “go team” attitude. The health of the corporation and, in particular, of the department or “team” of which one is a member, matters only to the extent that it serves as a protection from the vagaries of office politics, the whims of the CEO and his henchmen, and chaotic market forces. It is because of this that patron-client relationships are formed. The employee/client recognizes that his personal interest is best served by submitting to the boss/patron and using the relationship to advance his own position within the organization. This submission rarely, if ever, arises out of a commitment to whatever it is the corporation “stands for.” There is no idealism at play here, no concern for the corporate mission, no selfless devotion to an ideal. It is a submission based in selfishness and a gamble on the efficacy of “safety in numbers.” The employee will regularly allow his boss to take credit for his various personal successes as well as take the blame for his boss’s failures in return for protection within the organization and a chance for advancement at a later date — or even for such pathetic perks as “better, more attractive secretaries, or the nudging of a movable panel to enlarge his office, and perhaps a couch to fill the added space, one of the real distinctions in corporate bureaucracies.” But this is a highly nuanced game and any loyalty between the patron and client is based solely on social safety, convenience, and internal political strategy.
There is no solid ground for loyalty within the corporation other than the shared experience of the workplace and the desire for personal gain, and so these relationships are fickle. Privileges can be revoked at any time for minor infractions of corporate cultural rules. This, for example, is partially the reason behind the highly euphemistic language characteristic of business-speak: “managers’ public language is best characterized as a kind of provisional discourse, a tentative way of communicating that reflects the peculiarly chancy and fluid character of their world.” The prevalence of such “chancy and fluid” relationships in the workplace impacts levels of social trust outside of the workplace. Employees who are accustomed to tenuous relationships and uncertain motives in their personal interactions during the workday are more likely to carry these feelings with them into the larger community. Office politics become an overarching concern of the employee. Bosses have the power to forever alter the course of any particular individual’s life and so a combination of fear, distrust, and submission provides the backdrop to the employee’s workday and beyond. Arguably, there is no other person in an employee’s life that has as much say over his present and his future as does his boss. The corporation then is a system of rewards and punishments dependent on variables that are only minimally controllable by the employee.
Unstable and shallow personal relationships combined with the need to present a widely acceptable corporate image to the public and to regulate potentially disruptive employee behavior causes corporate workplace culture to be heavily conformist. Tolerance of dissent — even when it could benefit the business as a whole — is minimal. Whistleblowers, the most obvious example of dissent, are treated very harshly. But so are those who simply try to do a good job (i.e. the “right thing”) but whose efforts disturb the balance of the patron-client relationship. If efforts to, for example, reduce waste or improve health and safety, reflect poorly on one’s boss — or, worst of all, the CEO — one risks being ostracized or terminated. Dr. Jackall writes: “Notions of morality that one might hold and indeed practice outside the workplace — say some variant of Judeo-Christian ethics — become irrelevant, as do less specifically religious points of principle, unless they mesh with organizational ideologies.” But in the corporate environment in which dissent can be something as innocuous as the wrong clothing or having the wrong friends in the organization, unpopular political opinions can hardly be tolerated.
The recent case of Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich, who was fired for supporting California’s Proposition 8, a measure to stop the legalization of homosexual marriage, is a good example of this. Though such a dramatic and public controversy is to a large extent indicative of the power of the Jewish narrative (whatever one’s opinions are on this specific issue), had the issue remained within the walls of the corporation Mr. Eich could still easily have faced severe repercussions merely for having an unpopular opinion. Corporate culture is one that encourages having no opinions outside of the norms of the human resources department (themselves subject to change with fashion or new leadership). Dr. Jackall writes:
Organizational leaders can attempt to set standards of moral evaluation and practical moral reasoning to guide their charges’ actions. But since there is no necessary connection between the good of a particular individual, the good of an organization, and the common good, standards that leaders might assert are arbitrary to some extent, subject to negotiation and reinterpretation by competing organizational interests, and always suspect as public relations ploys.
What concerns us here is not whether either Mozilla or Mr. Eich was right or wrong but rather how corporate culture stifles any thought which drifts out of the mainstream. Not only is there no necessary connection to the common good, there is virtually no incentive to think along such lines in the first place. Like the flimsy patron-client relationships described above, this conformity has negative ramifications in the outside world. Employees who are conditioned to thinking within very narrow parameters for the better part of the day will be far less likely to engage in radical politics when the work day is over. They will come to internalize the value of conformity to an unhealthy degree. Though this could certainly be considered a rational response to internal office politics, it stifles spiritual and political vitality in general and race consciousness in particular — what the New Right would obviously refer to as “the common good.”
It has probably already occurred to many readers that much of what has been described above reflects healthy human impulses. There is nothing inherently wrong with deference to authority, with conformity, and with bureaucracy. There is also nothing inherently wrong with corporations. Indeed, given a fit culture, the opposite can be true. Political scientist A. James Gregor, relaying the ideas of the Italian Fascist theorist Sergio Panunzio, writes:
Obedience to law, and respect for authority that sustains it . . . finds its origin in the natural human trait of making positive response to suggestion from primary group members, imitating behavior of peers and superiors, and being responsive to affirmations of value common to the community. The very nature of in-group amity renders the individual susceptible to social influences that govern not only behaviors, but a sense of appropriate conduct, and helps generate the moral and ethical convictions that sustain all of that.
In the current Judaized cultural climate, under a government that actively seeks to destroy any and all sense of collective white identity, that which inhibits active resistance to racial dispossession can only be seen as a tremendous negative. The question before us is how to reclaim a position of authority so that these natural human traits can be reoriented towards racial self-preservation. The sociopolitical and psychological orientation of white Americans has been co-opted by allegiance to the false parallel state and corporate cultural matrix.
There is a three-pronged war waged by corporations against whites: first, a demographic war through affirmative action, diversity training, off-shoring, support for immigration, corporate donations to anti-white causes, and race-based (read anti-white) promotions — not to mention the problems of free-market fetishization and the harm caused by the neoliberal system in which corporations thrive; second, a war of symbols through the anti-white advertising epidemic and other industry-specific textual representations; and finally, through the creation and maintenance of an ossified, conformist workforce in which the individual employee’s sense of self and community is dependent upon wage-slavery, Asiatic levels of obsequiousness, and a shallow strategic loyalty to people who neither care about him as an individual nor as a part of any nation external to the corporate bureaucratic workforce. The corporate campus is the soil, the workforce is the blood, and the corporation itself is the state. We need to resist this both in theory and in practice by redefining what it means to be a national citizen and reclaiming the state as the expression of the collective will of the nation. Integral to this effort will be the disestablishment of the parallel state, a permanent end to corporate dual-citizenship, and a profound shift in our understanding of the relationship between the nation-state and the economy.
1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “American Time Use Survey,” http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/ (accessed January 3, 2016).
2. For a fascinating analysis of exurbia, including the architecture of office parks, I highly recommend: Joel Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (New York: Anchor Books, 1992).
3. Robert Jackall, Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, 20th anniversary ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 10.
4. Chronologically, this coincides with the financialization of Western culture. See my review of Alex Preda’s book which charts this development: Donald Thoresen, “Framing Finance,” Counter-Currents Publishing, December 9, 2015, http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/12/framing-finance/ (accessed January 9, 2016).
5. The rise of telecommuting can be seen as a positive development in that it lessens the need for geographic mobility but membership in the bureaucracy and compliance with its internal logic remains necessary and so it is unlikely to create a major cultural shift in and of itself.
6. Jackall, p. 20.
7. Ibid., p. 11.
8. Ibid., p. 21.
9. Ibid., p. 142.
10. Ibid., p. 110.
11. Sarah McBride, “Mozilla CEO Resigns, Opposition to Gay Marriage Drew Fire,” Reuters, April 3, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403 (accessed January 9, 2016).
12. Jackall, p. 239.
13. A. James Gregor, Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 71.