Why Corporations Support Black Lives Matter When They Didn’t Support Occupy Wall Street

Western corporations are falling over themselves to show their support for Black Lives Matter. Professional sportsmen proudly display BLM logos on their shirts, television shows hold moments of silence for George Floyd, and the FaceBook and Twitter accounts of countless large entities have paid their respects. But no corporation did anything like this for Occupy Wall Street. This essay explains why.

The Occupy Wall Street movement began in September 2011 with a campout protest at New York’s Zuccotti Park. The protest was sparked by rising inequality in America, something that had increased sharply after the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08. Bank bailouts had ensured that the wealthy avoided any of the suffering from the crisis, and that the poor took the entire burden.

OWS’s most famous chant was “We are the 99%”. This referred to OWS’s belief that the top 1% of Americans were hoarding a grossly disproportionate amount of resources and power. Their fundamental motivation was to express outrage at this state of affairs in the hope of forcing change to a more equitable system. They made demands such as getting corporations and corporate lobbyists out of politics, granting the working class a greater share of production and reforming the banking system to restrict speculation.

The movement appealed to an entire generation of young people, who were just then beginning to understand that they were going to have a lower standard of living than their parents did. These young people saw in OWS the potential to arrest the relentless decline of their living standards by enabling them to come together to assert their collective interests.

This terrified the American Establishment.

If there’s any one single thing that the Establishment fears, it’s poor people coming together on the basis of class. Class solidarity is the only way that the people can form a broad enough front to work against inequality without being divided and conquered into impotence. The formation and expression of class solidarity, then, is a direct threat to the interests of the ruling class.

In the wake of Occupy Wall Street, the 1% came together and decided upon a strategy to prevent this from happening again. They realised that they had to pre-emptively divide and conquer the people because, left to their own devices, the people would inevitably organise and demand their right to an equitable share of production.

The greatest fear of the Establishment was the coalescence of the 99% under one banner. Having previously observed the degree of animosity that existed on account of racial tension, a plan became apparent: to divide the 99% up along racial lines. This was primarily to be achieved by pushing a racial oppression narrative that claimed that white people owed blacks reparations for past injustices.

Because the 1% owns the mainstream media, they simply directed their employees in the media to start pushing that narrative. And they did. The mainstream media everywhere stopped reporting on class issues entirely, and started reporting only on racial ones. Any case of racial injustice was blown up to seem an atrocity, and overcoming it a pressing issue, while class inequality was ignored completely.

After some years of this, OWS’s narrative of the 99% versus the 1% was overwhelmed by the Establishment’s narrative of black versus white. People stopped thinking in terms of class solidarity, and started thinking in terms of race. This was all by design.

Thinking in terms of race can never, ever lead to justice for the simple reason that many blacks and browns are middle-class while many whites are working-class. Fighting to improve the position of middle-class blacks and browns instead of that of poor people is unjust, and fighting to worsen the position of working-class whites instead of that of rich people is unjust. This fact is understood deeply by intelligent people.

So all attempts to increase racial consciousness must be treated with the deepest suspicion, as suspected attempts to destroy class consciousness. Every time someone pushes race conflict or a racial issue, the astute observer ought to ask if this is an attempt to distract from class issues. In the vast majority of cases, any racial issue being pushed will not really be worth attention.

This divide and conquer has now been ramped up to such a degree that the mainstream media now acts as if each person is their race first and foremost. If you are white, you’re on team Bad Guy and have to pay compensation. If you are black, you’re on team Good Guy and get to claim compensation. Your skin is your uniform, and your moral standing is dictated at birth by that skin’s melanin content.

The 1% more or less succeeded in their scheme to destroy class consciousness after Occupy Wall Street. Today, more people are concerned about what happened to George Floyd than by the unaffordability of housing (which is now out of control). Thanks to the mainstream media, most people can tell you about Black Lives Matter but few know how far their house-buying power has fallen in recent decades.

This is the reason why all of the big corporations support Black Lives Matter when they didn’t support Occupy Wall Street. Black Lives Matter pushes a narrative of racial division, of Team Black against Team White, and in doing so it splits the 99% down the centre, leaving them powerless against the predations of the 1%. Anyone who decries this racial narrative in favour of a class one is accused of not paying full respect to the oppression of blacks and browns, and is smeared as a racist.

It’s a perfect recipe for rendering the working class incapable of taking collective action against their rulers.

The basic rule is that any future movement seeking to bring the lower classes together against the Establishment will be opposed, and any future movement seeking to set the lower classes against each other will be supported. It can be predicted that any future movement promoting racial grievances, gender grievances or grievances relating to sexual orientation will be promoted widely by the mainstream media and supported by major corporations.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Is It Time For Anticom?

In the wake of the German Revolution of 1918-19, cadres of nationalist street fighters formed to stop Communist violence and destruction. Known as the Freikorps, they served the keep the streets and speaking venues safe from interference. Given that Communist agitation has once again led to widespread chaos and destruction, is it time for the Freikorps to rise again in another form?

Many people have been horrified by the mindless street violence carried out recently by left-wing agitators under the guise of anti-racism protests. Videos have circled of people getting their heads smashed in by mobs in full chimpout mode. When not committing violence against people, the mobs are destroying property, in particular monuments and statues.

The most egregious incident occurred last week in the CHAZ district of Seattle. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone formed in downtown Seattle some weeks ago, supposedly in protest at the death of George Floyd. However, it didn’t take the CHAZ security services long before they themselves gunned down an unarmed black man. Shortly after this incident, the local police cleared the area.

The lazy assumption is that Antifa and their fellow carnage-wreakers can’t do too much damage because, if they did, the local police would stop them. But this assumption ignores the current reality of policing in the West. All over the West, the local police forces are on the brink of losing their ability to enforce law and order.

For one, many Western police forces are about ready to walk off the job on account of adverse job conditions. Because of the widespread availability of phone cameras, and because of increased attention paid to police brutality in the wake of the Floyd killing, several American police officers have already been charged with brutality offences when they would ordinarily have gone unpunished.

Given that the entire public is baying for the blood of the police, and given that the occasional officer keeps getting thrown to the mob to appease them, many of the other officers have thought “fuck it” and either surrendered their badges or stopped following orders properly.

For another, the police bureaucracy is no longer motivated to enforce law and order. Most high-ranking police officers are political appointees, because the Establishment won’t let the rank and file elect their leaders (far too dangerous!). These appointees haven’t been chosen for their freethinking ability, but the opposite. They’ve been chosen for their ability and willingness to carry out an agenda.

It isn’t easy to say what “The Agenda” is, because it’s being pushed on us by multiple factions that all have their own intentions. The easy way to understand it is to think of what David Icke calls the “Totalitarian Tiptoe”. This is when the ruling class deliberately foments problems among the population, provoking a reaction that demands a response, so that they can offer the “solution” of greater totalitarian controls.

High-ranking police officers, all around the West, have directed their underlings to not enforce certain laws. As such, various laws relating to property damage and freedom of movement have not been enforced. Sensing weakness, criminal movements and gangs have moved in to do what criminals do everywhere: prey on the citizenry.

The plan is that this increasing disorder will lead to protests, which will lead to violent unrest. This unrest will then be used as a pretext to introduce totalitarian measures, such as increased surveillance, stripping away rights or draconian prison sentences.

The way to counter this is for the citizenry themselves to impose order upon the environments in which they live. The first step is for them to organise in cadres of fit, determined men with a strong instinctive dislike of Communism, horizontalism and all forms of resentment-fuelled slave moralities.

Each of these cadres would form a cell in a wider movement, one without leaders but which shared an ideology and which communicated and organised based on this ideology. This ideology could be anti-Communism, and the movement would be known as Anticom.

Anticom would be an anti-Communist movement that would battle Communist and pseudo-Communist movements like Black Lives Matter. They would also provide security for anti-Communist speakers and rallies. At least initially, one of their major uses would be to counter Communist deplatforming attempts.

In performing these actions, Anticom would act similarly to the anti-Communist Freikorps who battled the Communist street gangs in Germany after the Revolution of 1918-19.

The original Freikorps were made up of World War One veterans and unemployed youth. The America of 2020 has plenty of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, and the numbers of unemployed youth are increasing as the economy tanks. There are now large numbers of young Western men who would be willing to volunteer for local anti-Communist actions.

The first thing would be for an intelligent and competent man in every locale to organise a group of ex-military and marginalised youth for the purpose of resisting Communist mobs. These groups would need a distinguished uniform, something that helped them operate as a single unit under pressure. They might also need weapons, both non-lethal and lethal.

It would be important not to organise in the sense of having a defined national hierarchy and command structure, because doing so would invite government action. The Communist street gangs organise themselves in cell format, with a small group of leaders who take the responsibility to co-ordinate with other cells and to organise their followers for action. Anticom would have to do something similar.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Clown World Chronicles: Who Are The ‘Alt Centre’?

The Taoists are fond of telling us all that, even in the darkest of times and places, there is always a spark of light that will expand to illuminate the entire world. The same is true of Clown World. Despite that things are grim and that the trends suggest they will get worse, there are a small number of men and women who represent the light shining in the darkness. They are the alt centrists.

Understanding alt centrism first requires that one understand the alt right and the alt left, and that means understanding the Fourth and Fifth Acceptances and the Fourth and Fifth Rejections.

The alt centre accepts that the alt right has a point when they say that multiculturalism has failed on a number of levels, that mass Muslim and African immigration has brought misery to the West and that Clown World is primarily a spiritual phenomenon. In other words, the alt centre shares many of the masculine sentiments that the alt right possesses.

The alt centre, however, rejects the alt right’s proposed solution to Clown World, which is segregation. The alt centre considers this a denial of life. Ultimately, the desire for segregation is motivated by a will to cruelty (this doesn’t necessary apply in places like South Africa). This Fourth Rejection is held at the same time as the Fourth Acceptance, which accepts that multiculturalism has failed.

Likewise, the alt centre accepts that the alt left has a point when they say that neoliberal capitalism has failed on a number of levels, and that inequality has increased to the point where the social fabric is becoming torn and civilisation is starting to break down. This is known as the Fifth Acceptance in alt-centrist thought.

Also likewise, the alt centre rejects the alt left’s proposed solution to Clown World, which is forced wealth redistribution and anti-white resentment. The alt centre explicitly rejects all slave moralities under the Second and Fifth Rejections. Intersectionality is explictly rejected under the Fifth Rejection. Collective resentment is not a solution.

This might sound like a contradictory set of opinions to hold, especially to anyone who is used to letting the mainstream media define what’s what. But the alt centrist embraces these apparent contradictions. Simple rhetoric is for simple minds, and the political scene doesn’t need any more dumb people in it.

It isn’t easy to describe the demographics of alt centrists, because a person only becomes one if they see the flaws and merits in all of the other positions. As such, alt centrists are hard to distinguish by race, sex or social class. The most one can say is that they are not the same demographics that are commonly found in Establishment institutions.

It’s certainly true that alt centrists tend to be intelligent, because a person needs to have a certain level of historical knowledge to have noted the positives and negatives of the other five political positions. But intelligence, or at least education, is not enough. There are plenty of great intellects justifying the horrors of all of those other positions.

Alt centrism is more a matter of wisdom than intelligence. As such, it does not attract followers on the basis of education or ideological fashionability. Alt centrism is more a position one comes to once one has become too wise to fall for the rhetorical and emotional trickery of the other five positions. When a person is no longer swayed by appeals to order, or freedom, or peace, or revenge, or justice, that person can become an alt centrist.

A person is most likely to become an alt centrist if they have amassed an uncommon amount of life experience.

If a person has done a lot of world travel, they will have experienced a great variety of other cultures, and will no doubt have noticed some good things and some bad things about each one. If they are wise, they will have allowed this to influence them, so that they became good where other people were good but resisted becoming bad where other people were bad. This will have made them a more well-rounded person.

This is also true of people who have moved between social classes over the course of their lives, or whose occupations have brought them into contact with a large number of people from a variety of classes. The more reality one has been exposed to, the greater the power one has to correctly mold oneself into the desired form.

Alt centrism works in a similar fashion. The alt centrist is one who has tried out all the other political positions, and found them all wanting. They have argued for monarchy, they have argued for revolution, they have argued for capitalism, they have argued for neoreaction and they have argued for social justice. So they are aware of the shortcomings of each, but they also know why people are inclined to assert these positions.

This almost Luciferian approach is in harmony with alt centrists’ fundamental belief in the value of independence and freethinking. As such, it is rare to find them in popular mass movements. An alt centrist is liable to support a universal basic income and drug law reform at the same time as opposing open borders and affirmative action. So they don’t fit into boxes neatly enough to be someone else’s tools.

Fitting with their anti-Establishment sentiments, alt centrists tend to be against modernism. Being also against totalitarianism, they are happy to hearken back to the distant past, to the Classical Age, whether the Greco-Roman, the Chinese or the Hindu one. People who read Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Chanakya and Chuang Tzu are often alt centrists.

In summary, the alt centre are Clown World’s good guys. They outright reject political fanaticism on account of that it ignores the human will to avoid suffering, but they are just as fanatical about increasing their intellectual and spiritual depth. They are the philosopher-kings whose revolution overthrows tyranny and institutes a new Golden Age. Let us hope that one day they can lead us out of Clown World.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Why The Greens Should Lose Voters To TOP In Coming Weeks

With a general election now less than three months away, the various political parties are trying to position themselves front and centre in the mainstream media. Most days now bring a major announcement from at least one registered party. The announcements made yesterday have the potential to cause a great deal of support to switch from the Greens to The Opportunities Party. Numbers man Dan McGlashan explains.

In the second edition of Understanding New Zealand, I showed that the demographics of Greens voters and TOP voters were very similar. The correlation between voting Green and voting TOP was on the order of 0.8, which shows that the two groups overlapped to a major degree.

Both voting blocs are young, highly educated, urban and white. They are the kind of people who are doing relatively well but who do not wish to use the Government to force themselves into an even better position (in contradistinction to National and ACT voters). They are very similar in demographics and psychology to their social democratic counterparts in places like Northern Europe. In fact, many Green and TOP ideas originally became popular in Northern Europe before being adopted.

When I wrote the article linked in the paragraph above, in 2017, there were no major distinctions between the two parties. This year’s election campaign has already revealed some and will, I suspect, reveal more. Support for my suspicion comes from recent policy announcements.

The Green Party shot themselves in the foot yesterday with their announcement of a Guaranteed Minimum Income. This policy promises to ensure that no New Zealander need live in poverty, by topping up whatever income they get to a minimum of $325 per week. This would mean that all part-time workers would get topped up to $325 per week, as would beneficiaries (apart from pensioners, who already receive more than this).

Green Party support for a GMI will, in my estimation, cause them to lose a significant number of votes to The Opportunities Party.

Although some of the smarter Green supporters have been trying to remedy the error by describing the policy as a universal basic income, it isn’t one. It’s something significantly worse – so much so that The Opportunities Party have stolen a major trick on them through their support of a UBI.

Those who counter that the Greens’ $325 is much better than TOP’s $250 need to take into account that TOP’s offer leaves the part-time worker much better off. The worst thing about the Greens’ guaranteed minimum income policy is that it massively disincentivises part-time work.

Let’s assume, for simplicity’s sake, that our part-time worker is doing 20 hours a week at $19 an hour, for a total of $380 before tax (let’s say $327 after tax, according to this tax calculator).

The Greens’ proposal would see this person not benefit at all. Earning $327 would see them receive no top-ups. This means that, incredibly, anyone working less than 20 hours a week might as well not bother showing up to work anymore. They wouldn’t get any net benefit from working 19 hours or fewer, because their total wage wouldn’t be higher than the $325 guaranteed minimum.

TOP’s proposal is entirely different. A part-time worker working 20 hours would first of all get the $250 universal basic income. The full value of any wage they received from an employer would then get added to that (minus taxes, of course). Because that wage would be taxed at a flat rate, they would come out miles ahead compared to the Greens’ proposal.

Let’s use an extreme example, and say that the part-time worker’s taxes go up 5% under TOP’s proposal (this is not close to being accurate, but let’s assume it for simplicity’s sake). This would leave them with $308 of their wage after tax, plus the $250 UBI, for a total of $558 – i.e. $233 ahead of where they would be under the Greens’ proposal. Even if their taxes went up 10% (an absurdity) they would be over $200 a week better off.

So the Greens’ proposal amounts to maximising the risk of the welfare trap. Anyone employed for fewer than 20 hours would have no incentive to continue with their job. If they can’t get full-time work, they’re better off not working at all.

This is arguably even worse than the status quo, in which beneficiaries make slightly less than $325 but can earn up to $150 from part-time work before their benefit is docked. Someone on the Jobseeker’s Allowance working eight hours a week would make around $250 from the Jobseeker’s Allowance plus $150 from their part-time job, for a total of $400.

A cynic might even say that the Greens’ policy was intended to create welfare dependency in the knowledge that welfare beneficiaries heavily support left-wing parties (as I demonstrated here). That’s possible but it’s more likely that the Greens have erred on account of their naivety and fundamental misunderstanding of economic psychology.

With regards to 21st Century welfare policy, TOP have cleverly positioned themselves close to alt centrism. They oppose the Establishment but are neither left nor right. By supporting a UBI – something closer to a right-wing position – TOP have avoided giving in to the politics of envy that have caused many centrists to become disappointed in the left in recent decades. This gives them a major point of distinction with the alt left, represented by the Green Party.

By avoiding ACT’s politics of greed and the Greens’ politics of envy and dependency, TOP have set a pragmatic, sensible course as the centrist alternative to the Establishment. I predict that the superiority of their UBI proposal to the Greens’ GMI policy will win TOP a significant number of votes from the Greens. The next move to distinguish themselves from the loony left should be for TOP to abandon any proposal to raise New Zealand’s refugee quota.

*

Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing, is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people. It is available on TradeMe (for Kiwis) and on Amazon (for international readers).

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!