Dissonance to Informational Control in Technological Society: Part 3
Commentary on corporatists and the re-introduction of Clique Theory
Continued from Part 2…
This part discusses the mentality of the corporatist political type and the peculiar ways they interact with sociopathic liberals, as well as delves into Clique Theory.
CORPORATISTS ARE COWARDS AND CAVE TO A CARROT-AND-STICK APPROACH
Corporatists are fundamentally cowards. They love complaining about liberals who bully them to conform to the cause de jure, that they’re simply “moderates” and just want to make money, but at the end of the day they always give in and acquiesce to them. In 1897 Robert Lewis Dabney, Chief of Staff to and biographer of Stonewall Jackson, bitterly wrote about these “moderates” and his description of them applies just as much now as it did then:
It may be inferred again that the present movement for women's rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its bark is worse than its bite, and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it in wind, and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women's suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.
Absolutely devastating toward corporatists.
Sociopathic liberals have a carrot and a stick approach toward corporatists to get what they want. For the carrot, they tell them: if you play ball you’ll get rich. There is a revolving door between government and industry, including cushy lobbying jobs and board seats that influential corporatists get access to if they do what they’re told; see public choice theory. Per the New York Times, ”Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers... who can join corporations or their boards without waiting.” Wikipedia provides examples of individuals who have moved between rolesin sensitive areas include Dick Cheney (military contracting), Linda Fisher (pesticide and biotech), Philip Perry (homeland security), Pat Toomey, Dan Coats, John C. Dugan1, former FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker (media lobbying). Democratic Representative Dick Gephardt left office to become a lobbyist and his lobbying agency, Gephardt Government Affairs Group, earned close to $7 million in revenues in 2010 from clients including Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Visa Inc., Ameren Corporation, and Waste Management Inc. There are countless others.
Another carrot for some corporatists, especially politicians, include outright bribery laundered through book deals, with major advances provided even though the books sell almost no copies. For example Obama (a corporatist larping as a liberal who let Citibank appoint his entire cabinet) arranged for a government contract for Common Core to be awarded to Pearson Publishing Company for $350 million; later on, he received a $65 million kickback book-deal from Penguin Publishing, Pearson’s parent company. Insiders said that fathoming the math on this deal was impossible since the advance was so far from the norm. As one foreign rights associate put it: “We’re all so blown away by the numbers on this deal that the sky’s the limit, right?” She went on, “I’ve rarely seen seven-figure deals abroad, but these numbers are new to the game.” Comey, Biden, McCabe and John Brennan also got book deals from MacMillan Publishing, a subsidiary of the same publishing company, with big advances. MacMillan Publishing was owned by Israeli spy Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell. Eleven Senators earned more than $2,000,000 in book royalties or advance payments in 2015.
Other carrot incentives for corporatists who play ball include insider trading (which is rampant in Congress on both sides) and public speaking fees. An easy example of this pay-for-play is Liz Cheney, whose net worth ballooned from $7 million when she took office in 2017 to $44 million in 2020 due to her willingness to advance the globohomo agenda. She was mocked for losing her reelection in 2022 for selling out and being the lone Republican on the 1/6 committee, but she laughed all the way to the bank.
The biggest carrot sociopathic liberals can offer the corporatist type, though, is favorable government regulations and even monopolies. As James Perloff explains2:
It is natural enough to suppose that rich capitalists, who made their fortunes through the free market, would be proponents of that system. This, however, has not been the case historically. Free enterprise means competition: it means, in its purest form, that everyone has an equal opportunity to make it in the marketplace. But John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and other kingpins of the Money Trust were powerful monopolists. A monopolist seeks to eliminate competition. In fact, Rockefeller once said: “Competition is a sin.” These men were not free enterprise advocates…their coziness with Marxism (it is well to remember that Marx’s coauthor, Friedrich Engels, was a wealthy businessman) becomes more comprehensible when we realize that communism and socialism are themselves forms of monopoly…[Frederick C.] Howe explained: “These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation.
Play ball with the sociopathic liberals and the corporatist type can remove their competition; that’s a deal this personality type would take in a heartbeat. Peter Thiel makes a similar argument in his book Zero to One, where he states, “All happy companies are different: each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: they failed to escape competition.” He conveniently leaves out the rent-seeking bribery (“lobbying”) and selling-out to sociopathic liberal requirements of monopoly formation, though.
Some of the “stick” tactics sociopathic liberals use to pressure corporate types include the following:
HR Departments: “Civil rights” law made “discrimination” illegal so corporations must keep a large human resources department and are subject to the latest fads and whims of a society forever lurching leftwards. Failure to abide by the latest laws and trends results results in lawsuits and decreased profits.
Defining norms: Leftist control over education (especially academia) and media give them the power to define normalized standards of behavior, resulting in brainwashing of both elites and the masses. Being a CEO doesn’t make someone impervious to this process.
ESG scores and stakeholder capitalism: Globalist organizations and financial institutions (e.g. BlackRock) create ESG scores which act as a social credit system for corporations which bullies them into implementing “woke” policies under threat of financial ruin. BlackRock uses the Orwellian term “Stakeholder capitalism” for their bullying and they invest 401k and pension funds into stocks but retain the voting shares of the people who invest with them. Meanwhile, BlackRock took in a large portion of the Federal Reserve’s ETF investments (which the Fed had printed out of thin air), showing the deep interplay between public/private partnerships. Such partnerships are common in 21st century America because the government sees itself limited by the Constitution over what it can accomplish so they incentivize, cajole and threaten corporations to carry out their unconstitutional bidding indirectly on their behalf— Twitter, Facebook and Google are all subject to it.
Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock and a man obsessed with entrenching the power of existing elites under the guise of social justice. Pressure groups: Pressure groups like the ADL and SPLC in collaboration with the mainstream media attempt to ruin the lives of anyone who speaks out against leftist ideology. This applies to CEOs as much as it applies to proles.
Conflicts of interest: The boards of multinational-corporations are staffed by members from the Council on Foreign Relations, World Economic Forum, etc. who also enforce wokeness from the top down.
Outright manipulation of stock prices: Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of overstock.com, went public in 2019 with allegations of political espionage by FBI figures including FBI agent Peter Strzok. In a Fox Business interview, Byrne described how he was offered a $1 billion bribe of sorts to stay quiet. In 2018 Overstock was subject to a SEC investigation; Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, happened to be the Associate Director of the SEC Enforcement Division who happened to be leading the SEC investigation of Patrick Byrne’s company. Per Sundance, “So the wife of the FBI agent who was directing Patrick Byrne in the sketchy FBI operation targeting Donald Trump… just happens to open an investigation of Byrne shortly after the corrupt FBI operation containing her husband first hit the headlines in early 2018. I wonder if the elimination of that SEC investigation was worth, oh, say $1 billion. Huh, imagine that? Coincidences. Small world.” One can only assume such actions are common. Byrne resigned from Overstock out of concern it would be targeted due to his whistleblowing.
Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics states that any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. Examples include the Church of England and Amnesty International. Even apolitical foundations set up by right leaning billionaires grow leftist over time; the Ford Foundation regularly promotes LGBT rights and social justice even though Henry Ford was so right-wing he had written a book called The International Jew.
One example of a liberal issue subject to pressure tactics was gay marriage, where the messaging and social pressure pushed onto the public, including corporate types, was a classic slippery slope:
The speed of this social change was breathtakingly fast, occurring in less than a generation. Most advertising today includes homosexuals kissing, race mixing, and commercials being 50%+ black despite making up 14% of the population, which even 10 or 15 years ago would have been seen as shocking. The media is also starting to actively push pedophelia as well. There is a real slippery slope that results from the cowardice and lack of perception that corporate types have: they will always cave to liberal pressure.
The same is true on gun control. Sociopathic and NPC liberals publicly claim to only want “reasonable and incremental gun control measures” but they won’t be and aren’t satisfied with any specific gun restriction. They haven’t been satisfied with red flag laws and they haven’t been satisfied with background checks or banning assault rifles.; if they did want only reasonable restrictions they would eventually be content with the ones passed instead of turning around and demanding more. What they really want, but won’t say publicly, is a total prohibition on gun ownership. It is the same in other western countries: Trudeau announced a Canadian gun ban, Australia banned guns in 1996 and New Zealand banned guns in 2019. These only affect law abiding citizens though: felons and jackbooted enforces of the regime are allowed to keep their weapons and avoid punishment for their crimes which serves a useful purpose in terrorizing and distracting the middle class (i.e. anarcho-tyranny).
So-called “conservatives” and “libertarians” have lost on most cultural issues of importance over the past couple centuries from limiting the size of government, to promoting balanced budgets, to limiting immigration, to limiting the trade deficit, to limiting wars (for small “c” conservatives; the neocons have gotten all the wars they want), to allowing freedom of association; the list goes on and on. This shows the inherent contradiction within nature: despite the corporate “moderate” types being rich and successful and ideological dissidents being poor losers, only the latter can dream of reforming society because they aren’t financially or ideologically compromised.
CLIQUE THEORY
Because only ideological dissidents have the intellectual capacity, analytical abilities and moral integrity to see the establishment for what it is, they are the only ones who may envision the changes necessary to replace the existing system with something better. Ideological dissidents are drawn exclusively from the Loser clique.
Clique Theory is a theory promulgated by a group of anonymous internet autists who argue that a person’s physiognomy is destiny in modern America (elsewhere and in other eras too, but to a lesser degree). The theory postulates that the U.S. has a rigid, informal social hierarchy based entirely on one’s genotype and phenotype, which is based on one’s genetics and is more rigid than the Indian caste system. An individual based on nothing more than a glance may be categorized into one of the following cliques: Jock, Prep, Nerd, Scumbag, Woman and Loser. There are also various ethnic cliques (Black, Jewish) but each of these still has a regular clique designation within it.
Per the mothballed clique theory website (and with some minor adjustment for clarity) the following describes each clique. The classifications are crude and juvenile, but they provide a helpful approximation for how phenotype and genotype affect one’s life and political outlooks:
Preps: Preps are old money types, have trust-funds set up at birth, have important connections with highly selective breeding leading to high IQ’s and good phenotypes. Preps are exclusive and have high self confidence. They have contempt for others outside their “club”, tailor laws to protect themselves and have no moral compass other than noblesse oblige. It’s hard for preps to mess up and everything is pre-wired for long term success. They are tall and good looking. The prep disadvantages are arrogance, snobbishness, and aloofness. They are also personally corrupt. They're so used to stealing money from the system and from the other cliques at the professional level that it may spill over into their private lives. That's why prep politicians are often embroiled in influence peddling and tawdry sex scandals with bimbos and scumbaguettes.
Jocks: Jocks have athletic prowess, courage, leadership skills. They are great at teamwork and have strong work ethics; they are competition-driven and success oriented with rugged phenotypes. They are tall and strong. The jock disadvantages are arrogance and narcissism, lower IQs, lower self-awareness, lower adaptability once sports career ends, and they are subject to physical injuries and early burn-out. Jocks are excellent in sales jobs due to their charisma.
Nerds: Nerds have the highest IQs of all the cliques, have engineering and technology prowess, excellent planning skills, and are perfectionists. They are oblivious to the powers of women and usually end up bossed around by one romantically (if they mate). The nerd disadvantages are obliviousness to humanity, zero social skills, low self-awareness, and they possess terrible phenotypes including being physically weak, emotionally clueless, high susceptibility to intimidation and bullying, and they have poor eyesight.
Scumbags: Scumbags have brute strength and endurance, manual skills and craftsmanship, reproductive prowess, a feral nature and instincts unencumbered by reflection, nuance or moral delusions. They are the clique most likely to get tattoos. Important note: Scumbags are not those who are “scumbags” morally (this confuses a lot of people); it is a specific phenotype. Scumbags watch UFC and get big muscles and get in fights at bars; some become car mechanics or HVAC technicians. The disadvantages of scumbags are they are the lowest IQ of all cliques with minimal education, zero self-awareness, the poorest planning skills, poor impulse control, and they are highly susceptible to substance abuse and the lure of scumbaguettes.
Losers: Losers are anyone not in one of the above cliques; they may be cliqued (like goths or hipsters) or cliqueless. Their high IQ’s plus high self-awareness are actually disadvantages as these traits aggravate their frustration and sense of failure as they attempt to jump their Lane. They are erudite, but only in things that don't count like liberal arts. The one (usually worthless) advantage losers have is that, being highly aware plus being the clique least tied into the establishment due to lack of material success, they are in the best position to properly critique the societies in which they live.
Jocks and preps are naturally high status and will always be okay in any society they live in, so they don't care about politics very much and generally go with the flow. Contrast this with losers, so sensitive and personally aware of their loser status and who cannot help but obsess over it. When the loser is autistic on top of this they will provide incisive commentary on society that no other clique can get close to matching; see 4chan /pol as an example. The disadvantages of the loser is their inability to win at anything no matter what they do (which is arguably why Hitler, an ascended loser, was potentially always destined to lose), they are highly aware but delusional, they possess poor phenotypes, work ethic and motor skills; they have voracious sexual appetites but poor prospects leading to perversion; they are highly susceptible to “get rich quick" schemes like liberal arts and the grad school scam; and they possess an often uncontrollable compulsion to spend their lives posting.
Note: if you don't know what clique you are in, you don’t readily fall into one of the other cliques, or if you spend an excessive amount of time on internet discussion forums, you are loser clique.
Women: Women possess powers of manipulation, seduction, intimidation and bitchiness that are incomprehensible to the other cliques; they have the lowest IQs for data processing but the highest emotional IQs; they are instinct driven. Women are emotional, irrational, mistake and depression prone; physically weak; highly susceptible to the claims of religion and being ruined by other rivals within the woman clique; they are driven by their biological clocks and reproductive cycle.
A minority of people posses hybrid cliques such as scumgeneer (scumbag + nerd clique), or prepbag (prep + scumbag clique).
People may aspire to be in a different clique, but “changing lanes” is impossible and anyone who tries to do so will only end up hurting themselves. For example, a nerd trying to play sports like a jock, or a jock trying to do programming like a nerd, would bring ruination for them both - one must stay in one’s lane or it’s inevitable that person will end up hurt.
Clique theory is not completely fatalistic; one can advance or descend within one’s clique between the low, medium, high, and ascended versions of their clique although the ascended version is quite rare; most people are low versions of their clique. Friends are people who form social alliances based on clique and phenotype. Career accomplishments do not define clique which is immutable. No one generally wants to be friends with a loser clique loser, not even other losers. Internet posters on forums are mostly pure loser clique and have bad phenotypes, although a minority are loser clique hybrids with another clique - there are no frequent internet posters who are not at least 50% loser clique.
Combining clique plus political type designations is an excellent way of describing someone’s core personality. Calling someone a “medium level prep corporate type” or a “high nerd/loser hybrid dissident type (Solzhenitzyn)” or an “ascended nerd corporatist type (Bill Gates)” or a “ascended scumbag/NPC liberal (Eminem)” is highly descriptive. It is more descriptive than the Big 5 Personality Test, which is the best personality test available.
In a society hyper-focused on enforcing conformity via the Overton window or risk being cast out, jumping from one fake meta-narrative to the next to keep the public entertained, only the loser cliqued loser, the lowest of the low, the most socially awkward, the worst performer financially, the eternal outsider, can discern the truth of the state of society and dream of a course correct. It is indeed the only thing they are good at. This is because when other cliques achieve financial success or academic prominence or excel at sports - really any activity not associated with being a loser - such success comes with strings attached that require one to compromise one’s views in order to retain their social status. Only the loser, lacking any success at all, can afford to grasp and promote viewpoints that lack social status.
Here’s to the glory of the loser clique loser!
BASED ON CLIQUE AND POLITICAL TYPE, PEOPLE GENERALLY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET
Based on clique theory and political type theory, a significant majority of individuals are either system NPCs or corporatists and they follow the decisions of sociopathic liberal leaders who spin meta-narrative fantasies for them to believe. The masses embrace these fantasies wholeheartedly and they generally sign on to follow and promote whatever instructions their leaders tell them to do. Wars are fought and many men, women, and children die because of the decisions of a few individuals; history is replete with examples.
For whatever reason, nature seems to adhere to this kind of collective punishment which someone of a just mind would think is abhorrent - after all, why would anyone moral punish the many for the misdeeds of the few? From this perspective, though, when people eagerly embrace following lying, sociopathic leaders, society deserves whatever results from it. Only the loser clique loser dissidents — small in number — and young children who have not yet chosen their path are the real victims of this collective punishment, for the loser clique loser dissidents are the only ones with the individualism, the discernment, and the moral fortitude to dissent from the herd. For them to suffer for the actions of the multitudes is a real tragedy.
***
In Part 4, we will explore the widespread, sophisticated and deadly tools wielded by the establishment to stamp out rising cognitive dissonance among the masses.
A Department of the Treasury official in the administration of George H. W. Bush who pressed for banking deregulation and repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, then as counsel to the American Bankers Association lobbied for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealing key provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, and then starting in 2005 returned in a senior government role as Comptroller of the Currency.
James Perloff, The Shadows of Power, 44-45.
While I see the Truth in: "the loser clique loser dissidents are the only ones with the individualism, the discernment, and the moral fortitude to dissent from the herd. For them to suffer for the actions of the multitudes is a real tragedy."
Parts of me judge that many decent Westmen I know are "go-along conformies" by nature, evolved to operate under a trustworthy hierarchy. They aren't adapted to be under pathocracy. My ancestors who wrote the Codex Oera Linda knew they had to keep the corruptors and poisoners out of their hierarchies.
The Oera Linda is a sad tale of the fall of our high-moral, high-trust communities falling, one by one, to the sociopathic "elites" that the people of Frya saw ruling the peoples of Linda and Finda. https://oeralinda.nl
Why are you calling the liberals "sociopathic" if they are the society build builders of the West and the upholders of its morality? Is that a meaningless buzzword?
And regarding the liberal/conservative divide - I just don't see it. To me, the only real opposition to the values of the Americans in history were the Mormons - because they wrote a scripture that superceded the Bible. Why has America failed to give birth to any other competitor (such as Hitler in Germany and Lenin in Russia) remains a mystery to me, however - might have something to do with the founder effect of the original stock (and the defeat of the Confederacy).
Although to be fair, another factor is probably the insane prosperity and geographic security of the USA. The ruination of Europe in 1945 was the final coffin into any political activities the Americans might have engaged in.