Boycotts 101: How to Counteract Left-Wing Business

3.699 words

Almost the whole world is under the thumb of globalist Leftist ideology today. BlackRock, META, PepsiCo, and others are now at the forefront of degeneracy. They own controlling stakes in each company, thanks to which they are able to literally dictate their terms to businesses that are large enough to give them massive influence over society.

Part 1 : Analysis of the Strategic Situation

The main preachers of LGBT and Leftist ideology are large in number and have great influence. They can be divided into several parts:

1) Private business

2) Political parties and activists

3) Private foundations and initiatives

We will touch on private business and its influence. Let’s start with an analysis of the phenomenon of what is happening today in the West, since it is the Western countries that are the main source of the promotion of Left-wing ideologies. Examples of such companies:

Patagonia: This American outdoor apparel and equipment company is renowned for its environmental and social initiatives. Patagonia is a strong advocate for climate action, environmental protection, and sustainable production. The company has launched a number of campaigns and programs aimed at protecting natural resources and raising awareness of environmental issues.

Ben & Jerry’s: The famous US ice cream manufacturer is also an active promoter of Left-wing ideas. The company supports social justice, the fight against inequality and racial discrimination, and also advocates for animal rights. Ben & Jerry’s often releases new ice-cream flavors that reflect their social values ​​and support specific social movements.

The main source of concern, however, is the company which has become synonymous with the expression “a source of concern” among Right-wing and conservative movements: the BlackRock Corporation.

BlackRock is the world’s largest investment company, specializing in asset management. It was founded in 1988 by Lawrence Fink, Robert Capital, and other partners. Today, BlackRock manages trillions of dollars in assets from clients around the world. The company provides a wide range of investment products and services, including stocks, bonds, real estate funds, pension funds, and other investment vehicles. The company is also actively involved in corporate governance and influences the strategic decisions of the companies in which it invests.

One of BlackRock’s important characteristics is its significant influence on financial markets and corporate strategies. The company has come under fire for its enormous influence on the global economy and financial markets. Some critics accuse it of being too powerful and controlling too much of the world’s financial resources, which could lead to limited competition and potential market manipulation. These same funds are used to buy different companies that are competitors with each other — which helps to divert attention and simulate the struggle in the market for buyers and consumers.

Does this remind you of anything? In fact, big business has created an alternative state within a state: the Deep State.

Before calling for a boycott, it is necessary first of all to proceed from the fact that at the moment these large companies own if not all, then a significant amount of the market and business. This fact has led to small- and medium-sized businesses beginning to leave the economy altogether, except for those that in one way or another positively influence or cooperate with big business.

The current situation is perfectly described by the word “oligopoly,”, as big business has created a deep state network — a kind of analogue to Keiratsu in Japan, huge conglomerates that wield great power and influence, including among politicians.

Let’s analyze their means and instruments of influence:

1) Mass media. The media they buy dictates the desired narratives to the population, pitting citizens of one state against each other (at least in the United States and Europe). Even conservative media are often controlled by these holdings. Their influence cannot be underestimated; there are enough resources there to avoid highlighting “inconvenient” topics and equally “inconvenient” movements and protests. Remember: independent journalism does not exist in principle.

2) “Charitable” funds and initiatives. This serves as a source of legalizing income, which in turn leads to the creation of agents of influence in any state and country. It is a well-known fact that the Soros Foundation sponsors the creation of anti-national and anti-ethnic “open communities” (which is a copy of the US structure). Another example is the Bill Gates Foundation, which was involved in the creation of vaccines that lead to infertility.

3) Political lobbies. It is no secret that with their current influence on the economy, large corporations can afford to keep politicians in their pockets . He who pays calls the tune. Also, thanks to their influence they are able to influence the state’s repressive machine.

4) Private universities. Harvard, Yale, and other private universities have become the producers of talent for big business. State universities, frankly speaking, are weak and cannot compete with  private universities today; they do not have the same budgets, the same funding, nor the same patents and innovations.

5) The actual business and its products. It is the basis of well-being (in addition to market speculation) and is the main source of income. Businesses are also capable, within the framework of a promotional company and advertising (in the mass media they have bought), to promote hidden narratives that act as a kind of preparation before the onset of neo-Bolshevism in the fragile minds of the population. The main characteristic of Left-wing business is large scale. Large scale breeds greater sustainability.

An important influence on this is point number 4. It is thanks to the students of those schools and universities that are supported by private foundations “For all the good against all the bad,” including other factors that in fact create a kind of analogue of a network structure, with their analogues to the armed forces, intelligence, research institutions, educational system, economic, and even some proto-functions of the state system (internal corporate law).

At the same time, it is important to understand that blows to business are perhaps one of the key means of combating them.

Part 2. Analysis of the tactical situation

Let’s look at the main means by which these corporations achieve their influence:

1) Social media

2) Charitable foundations and organizations

3) Private structures in the form of universities, institutes, etc.

Whoever controls the media controls the crowd and is able to control the mood and sympathies of the population. All plus or minus large and influential media outlets belong to transnational corporations that hold a monopoly on public information (in this case, a monopoly due to the fact that many media outlets have controlling shareholders from the same structure).

Their strength is their mass coverage, the effectiveness of conveying certain narratives and messages. A huge staff of specialists and paid propagandists (in the form of journalists) make it possible to professionally promote any thoughts that the transnational corporations require. In addition, they are able to literally roll over everything that is not dependent on them. They are capable of becoming “lightning rods” for channeling negative emotions and protests.

Their weak side is their oligo/monopoly, which allows them to undermine trust through fakes, stuffing, and methodical partisan counter-propaganda. They also suddenly find themselves weak when confronting plus or minus a large organization or initiative. Also, due to the general degradation of the education system, the quality of their work is falling.

As for charitable foundations and organizations, they are used for three purposes: promoting the interests of transnational corporations (in fact their beneficiaries and sponsors), the legalization of money laundering, and financing the changes they need in technology, society, and so on (intermediaries in achieving the interests of transnational corporations). Only a small part of these funds are able to truly benefit society — as it is prescribed.

An analysis of their strengths:

1) Their ability to put pressure on emotions and an appeal to help the “poor and unfortunate” among certain groups or even classes (the same organizations which work to make a transgender transition possible).

2) Legalization of income: as a rule, this money, with proper accounting and compliance with standards, allows you to avoid taxation (or switch to a special tax regime).

3) Availability of qualified personnel to “help” society: fanatical zealots work there, who, however, are professionals in psychological influence. America is a country of sales — one that has brought sales to a professional level. This cannot be ignored.

4) The opportunity, through such organizations and with due support from the authorities, to have the same level of influence as the media. This also helps to promote the necessary narratives with the goal of building a “just” society.

Weaknesses:

1) When analyzing their beneficiaries and owners, one can directly appeal to the fact that these structures do not promote the interests of a certain social group, but exclusively the interests of the beneficiary.

2) People remain people, and there is no escape from this. Working on people and their shortcomings is effective. One good piece of incriminating evidence can if not stop, then seriously damage the activities of such an organization. For example, there have been known scandals when figures of various LGBT charitable organizations were caught in laundering and stealing funds, an in some cases were involved in pedophilia and violence against their members and those they “protect.”

3) With successful counter-propaganda, their influence can be neutralized so much that they will become pariahs even among their own. After all, no one with common sense wants to be associated with someone extremely inadequate and marginal. For example, in recent years even gay people themselves have openly opposed LGBT movements, since these movements are a direct threat to them (and not just conservatives and nationalists). This has occurred in private structures, institutes, and universities.

Their strengths are the availability of qualified personnel (which have leveled out in recent years due to the replacement of science with the propaganda of Leftist ideology), enormous funding, and vast scientific and technical resources. All this allows scientists to dictate their terms. These are also personnel forges for companies that are owned by transnational corporations. This approach allows, from a pseudoscientific point of view, to justify any initiatives, any bills, and  any practices that serve as a means to promote the interests of said companies and corporations. There is also a serious scientific and practical basis for studying their impact on society, as well as a monopolization of science and progress, where only what is profitable for corporations is financed.

Their weaknesses are the gradual degradation of science and scientists, the often open sabotage carried out by scientists (because they give out grants, and in return they get the results of experiments that cannot be reproduced). Ideologization provides extensive opportunities for counter-propaganda. Many scientists are not happy with the fact that they are essentially becoming slaves of companies — something that can and should be put under pressure.

It is also necessary to add business analysis to private structures.

Strengths: comprehensiveness and omnipresence, a large safety margin, and a large staff of workers that allows them to be manipulated as desired. As a rule, there is a rather restrained attitude towards ideology because the ultimate goal is to make money. Ideological views, however, dictate the direction of behavior in business and a sufficient level of populism in order to make a profit and support other initiatives and political structures from it.

Weaknesses: They still receive the same income. A successful boycott forces companies to at least reconsider their views or cancel obviously failed projects and initiatives. Also, due to the general degradation of personnel there is a decline in the efficiency of business and companies. Their vast size deprives these companies of maneuverability: They cannot quickly adjust in the ways they need.

There is nothing to say about politicians, journalists, and others. They will do everything they are told and ordered to do, because in the United States there is the institution of lobbying. Whoever pays calls the tune.

When declaring a boycott, all these factors must be taken into account in order to carry out effective and diverse work against transnational corporations and their influence on society.

Part 3. Conducting the boycott as an integral operation

Carl von Clausewitz said:, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Let’s start with this and define what a boycott is.

A boycott is a conscious decision or action to stop or limit contact with a person, organization, or product in protest or disagreement with their actions or policies. This may be a means of expressing dissatisfaction, or an attempt to apply pressure in order to change a person or organization’s behavior or achieve certain goals. A boycott can manifest itself in various forms, such as refusal to purchase goods, refusal to participate in events or promotions, refusal to cooperate, etc.

In this case, we will concentrate on an economic boycott, as well as maximum restrictions in terms of cooperation.

An economic boycott is an effective means of achieving this, since you are in fact depriving the company of their market, which will force them to at least make concessions and take into account the opinions of consumers.

An important aspect of a boycott is mass participation. A boycott is a mass boycott when a large number of people protest against a company or brand. When successful, this can cause serious damage to the company.

Therefore, an economic boycott will include several areas of work. The first are the boycott actions themselves: refusal to buy products, and perhaps a purchasing of their direct or indirect competitors.

The second is the information front, which will include active propaganda and boycott agitation, counter-propaganda, information warfare, and countering the enemy’s information influence. This is perhaps the most important part of the boycott. It is due to information work that a boycott achieves its amazing effectiveness. To take an example, consider recent events related to sexual harassment in Hollywood and the #metoo movement. Just the suspicion that something had happened was enough to destroy careers, damage companies, and cause reputational damage to a person or company.

The third is the development of alternative sources of information, economic and so on. When you create your own business, the fact that your own companies can cover the basic needs of ideological comrades-in-arms is extremely important. This also includes developing our own management personnel who are capable of working effectively in business.

If we consider possible counteraction as a kind of doctrinal scheme, then it will be an offensive long-term cumulative campaign, drawing on Brett Friedman’s terminology from his book Military Operations: Operational Art and Military Disciplines.

Taking into account the inequality of forces between patriots and nationalists and the structures opposing them that serve the interests of transnational corporations, this is the main method of counteraction on which other strategies will be based. Boycotting refers specifically to long-term cumulative campaigns.

It will be offensive in the sense that during its implementation we will achieve several goals:

1) Neutralization of the influence of agents of transnational corporations.

2) Protecting the interests of patriots and the national state.

3) Reducing the resource base from which corporations feed.

Weakening their resource base through a boycott will create opportunities for conducting raids (in the form of strikes, paralyzing their technological processes, blocking their supply points for enterprises, etc.).

A boycott, like any enterprise, must be planned based on the necessary strategic and tactical objectives. It is important to remember that a boycott is a means of achieving tactical — and later, strategic — goals. A boycott for the sake of a boycott should not be carried out,  and this must both be achieved as a result of this action as well as taken into account when drawing up an information campaign aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the boycott as an operation. In the long term, a necessary condition is to form your own business that can become a competitor to large companies and corporations (within the limits of what is reasonable and possible, of course). This will make it possible to even more seriously undermine the positions of transnational corporations that have formed an oligopoly.

The optimal algorithm for carrying out a boycott:

1) Determining the goals of the boycott that need to be achieved. The goals must be clear, measurable, and achievable in principle. A time frame is also needed for the boycott and to achieve its goals.

2) Selecting the opponent against whom the boycott is to be carried out. It is easier to boycott a small business than a large one, but the consequences and scale are very different and should be based on the boycott’s goals.

3) Identification and planning of the boycott and its accompanying components: information campaigns, identification of competitors, and possible alternatives.

4) Preparation for the boycott and accumulation of the necessary resources.

5) Conducting a boycott and adjusting its implementation based on new conditions, accumulated experience, and new information received.

Each action must be carried out as an organized action aimed at achieving a specific goal. Without defining a goal, people who can be persuaded to join a boycott quickly lose motivation as well as their understanding of the boycott’s feasibility, and, subsequently its effectiveness. Remember the example of Netflix. It is important to remember that the average person is rarely interested in politics, so it is not so much about putting on a show for the public or preventing people from leading their lives (as the ladies and gentlemen of Leftist/feminist/vegan/environmental organizations do). Use your funds effectively and carry out explanatory work to reach a larger number of supporters. Information work is beyond the scope of this article.

Let us analyze the boycott using the example of an abstract medium-sized non-compete agreement (NCA) business (as a kind of average indicator). This particular company produces quick breakfasts and other “health food” products across a region of three states. Their shares are listed on the stock exchange and part of this company belongs to one of the large investment funds. The month of June is coming, so the company is designing a whole information campaign regarding feminism and the visibility of LGBT people, and plans to use part of its profits  from sales to help such “persons.” The company actively decorates his offices, social networks, and other means of communication with the symbols of Left-wing totalitarian movements. They also have an entire department for equality and diversity, which is headed by someone who has completed a degree in gender studies. Our task is to force the company to do the following during period that it promotes the LGBT agenda (this is usually over a period of one-and-a-half to two months and is the most acute and effective time for carrying out a boycott):

A) Move away from the LGBT agenda, taking an apolitical position in the market.

B) Fire people associated with Left-wing policies and movements (inclusivity, equality, feminism, etc.).

C) Force them to support the conservative agenda, or at least force them to act independently and with their own reasoning.

Tactical considerations:

Achieving these objectives consists of carrying out a combination of the following activities:

A. information war

B. A boycott over a set period (from a month or more)

C, Holding rallies and protests, with the aim of achieving their coverage in public areas.

Based on this, we break down these actions into the following stages:

Phase 1. Preparation and planning

The collection of information on this company begins: what it does, size, staff, management, and who owns it, as well as their prospects and plans. This can be obtained from their official annual financial statements. Often there is important information regarding the company’s risks, difficulties, plans, and vulnerabilities in them (this is information available to shareholders and investors). The next stage is identifying their competitors. This will be necessary to determine the replaceability of their products during the boycott. They are also subject to analysis.

Open-source intelligence begins next: An investigation into the company participants and employees takes place, and if possible, a search for incriminating materials begins. If they exist, this will greatly facilitate further information work.

Based on the collected materials, the creation of an information operation begins that is aimed at several goals at once:

1) Discrediting the company’s activities and its reputation.

2 ) Drawing up an information agenda for participants to explain the boycott’s goals, as well as its importance in order to gain new supporters.

3) The collection and creation of means of conducting information warfare and propaganda in the media, social networks, and so on.

4) Identification of the target’s products and their analogues for boycott.

It is necessary to take into account the effect of information and its relevance, as well as the purpose of the boycott. When planning, it is important to comprehend and analyze possible opposition from the company and participants associated with LGBT and other structures.

Phase 2. Gathering resources and actors

The persons responsible for organizing the boycott, as well as those who will be responsible for the information agenda and working with the media and social networks are identified. The necessary resources are also determined: accounts, banners, flagpoles, etc. It is important to identify the material resources needed to finance boycott activities and information campaigns.

The time of action and the start of each participant’s work is set in order to achieve a cumulative effect.

The goal is to announce a boycott as unexpectedly as possible and at the same time conduct an aggressive information campaign that will last at least a month.

Due to this, a phenomenon called “Operational Shock” will be achieved: an extremely valuable resource that allows you to attain the desired results as efficiently as possible while the other side figures out what’s what and spends time trying to understand what is happening.

Phase 3. Action

Carrying out planned actions while taking into account the circumstances provided for in the plan. What will be most important here is the ability to take the initiative, improvise, and adapt due to circumstances. Actions may change due to new circumstances, unforeseen factors, etc.

For this stage, coordination between the headquarters and the participants will be important, and they must be kept informed about the situation on the ground.

Phase 4. Conclusion and summing up

Everything has already been said here: There will be an analysis of the results of the actions and the current situation, as well as of the specific activities of the participants in the boycott and how its goals were attained or not.