This article is the 15th installment of the VICI Report, a comprehensive multi-part series exploring the sophisticated use of technology in political operations. This series aims to uncover the processes, mechanisms, tools, and technologies used by Democrats to master our political processes and to develop strategies that answer and ultimately defeat their manipulations in 2024 and beyond.
Read the previous article in this series, Revitalizing a Soviet Legacy, where we discuss how the Democrat tech ecosystem has revitalized the decades-old leftist network set up in the 1960s, or start from the beginning of our series.
Introduction
Over the past few decades, venture capital and corporate finance have undergone a significant transformation, driven largely by the infiltration of left-wing ideologies into financial and business practices. This shift has its roots in Critical Theory, which has permeated educational institutions and influenced the rise of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) mandates. These frameworks, initially academic concepts, have become powerful forces shaping corporate policies and investment strategies, often prioritizing ideological conformity over traditional profit-driven motives.
Early tech giants, once guided by simple ethical principles like Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto, have shifted towards more complex frameworks like Effective Altruism, which seeks to maximize social impact through quantifiable measures. This evolution reflects a broader trend where business operations are increasingly intertwined with ideological goals, sometimes justifying extreme measures under the guise of doing good.
Additionally, the era of cheap money and the rise of venture globalism, fueled by influential gatherings such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, have led to a detachment of venture capital from real-world consequences. This detachment has resulted in inflated startup valuations and a lack of accountability, necessitating a critical examination of these trends and their implications for the future of finance and society. By understanding these dynamics, we can explore the need for a return to traditional values and accountability in venture capital.
Critical Theory, ESG, DEI, BBQWTH!!?!?
The infiltration of Critical Theory into the finance sector has led to a significant and concerning shift in how businesses and investments are conducted. Rooted in neo-Marxist ideology, Critical Theory permeated universities and business schools, laying the groundwork for the ideological transformation of the finance industry. Social justice and equity principles have been weaponized, prioritizing ideological conformity over traditional profit-driven motives.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria exemplify this shift. ESG claims to guide investment decisions based on a company’s adherence to social and environmental standards. In practice, ESG mostly enforces left-wing ideological conformity. Companies are assessed on their supposed environmental impact, social policies, and governance structures. However, these evaluations are frequently superficial, masking the true nature of corporate practices and promoting the illusion of social responsibility.
The influence of ESG has led to significant changes in corporate behavior. Companies engage in token measures to appear environmentally conscious while continuing their regular operations. Claims of fair labor practices often disguise the imposition of discriminatory rules on employees. Transparency, as promoted by ESG advocates, is often a façade for enforcing leftist agendas and silencing dissent.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) requirements have similarly become a mandate for many companies, further entrenching left-wing ideology in corporate practices. DEI initiatives, while claiming to foster inclusivity, primarily result in divisive and discriminatory practices alongside diminishing worker quality. Hiring practices prioritize racial and gender diversity over merit, potentially undermining company performance and employee morale. Investors and wealth managers demand DEI compliance, linking financial support to the adoption of these socially engineered goals.
The convergence of Critical Theory, ESG, and DEI represents a significant ideological shift within the finance sector, transforming traditional business practices into instruments of social engineering. These frameworks collectively push left-wing ideologies, reshaping corporate policies and investment strategies to prioritize social goals over financial performance. This ideological alignment leads to substantial changes in how companies operate, with many adopting policies that serve ideological ends rather than practical business objectives.
This shift has profound implications for accessibility to investment. Companies that do not conform to ESG and DEI standards quickly find themselves excluded from crucial investment opportunities. This exclusion limits their access to capital and pressures them to adopt left-wing practices to remain competitive. Major financial firms like BlackRock have integrated ESG and DEI criteria into their investment strategies, pressuring the broader market to follow suit and prioritize ideological conformity over sound investment principles.
The infiltration of Critical Theory into finance, combined with the rise of ESG and DEI, has fundamentally altered the landscape of corporate governance and investment. This ideological convergence prioritizes superficial compliance over genuine performance and fairness. As a result, the financial environment has become distorted, where ideological alignment often trumps traditional business metrics. This shift not only impacts corporate behavior but also restricts access to investment opportunities for companies unwilling to conform to these left-wing standards, challenging the integrity and accessibility of the entire investment landscape.
From “Don’t be Evil” to “Effective Altruism”
The ethos of early tech giants, epitomized by Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto, represented a commitment to ethical decision-making within the corporate world. This guiding principle was intended to foster a corporate culture that prioritized doing the right thing, even at the expense of short-term profits. Over time, however, this ethos has evolved into a more prescriptive framework known as Effective Altruism (EA), which seeks to maximize social impact through quantifiable measures. This shift reflects a broader trend of integrating ideological objectives with business operations, often justifying extreme measures under the guise of doing good.
Effective Altruism advocates for using evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others. In theory, this approach emphasizes charitable giving and social interventions that deliver the greatest measurable benefits. However, in practice, EA has often been co-opted to justify actions that align with left-wing ideological goals. This deterministic approach to philanthropy focuses on quantifiable outcomes, which can be manipulated to serve broader ideological purposes rather than genuinely altruistic ones.
The transition from “Don’t be evil” to EA marks a significant ideological shift. Where “Don’t be evil” was a relatively simple, morally guided principle, EA introduces a complex, data-driven approach that can easily be twisted to justify almost any action that claims to achieve a net positive impact. This shift has enabled tech companies and other corporations to pursue aggressive, ideologically driven agendas while maintaining a veneer of ethical conduct.
One of the most striking examples of this perverse philosophy in action is the case of FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange. FTX’s founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, positioned himself as a proponent of Effective Altruism, using it to justify his business practices and charitable donations. However, the collapse of FTX revealed a different story—one of massive financial mismanagement and allegations of fraud, with hundreds of millions of dollars in political donations made to the Democrat Party. This scandal exposed how EA principles are simply a mask for unethical behavior and advance political agendas under the guise of altruism.
The broader trend of shifting corporate philosophies from “Don’t be evil” to EA is not limited to isolated cases like FTX. Many companies have embraced EA as a way to align their operations with perceived social good, often prioritizing ideological goals over traditional business metrics. This shift has significant implications for corporate governance, as it encourages companies to adopt practices that may not be financially sound but are deemed ethically justified according to EA standards.
This evolution in corporate philosophy has led to a series of changes in how companies operate. For example, tech giants now often engage in initiatives that promote social justice causes, environmental sustainability, and other left-wing priorities. While these initiatives can have positive impacts, they also raise questions about the motivations behind them and their true effectiveness. By focusing on quantifiable social impact, companies may overlook more nuanced, less measurable aspects of ethical behavior, leading to decisions that prioritize ideology over practical outcomes.
Moreover, the shift towards EA has influenced how companies approach innovation and investment. There is a growing emphasis on funding projects and startups that claim to address social issues, often with significant backing from venture capital. This trend has created a landscape where ideological alignment can be as important, if not more so, than financial viability in securing investment. As a result, the venture capital ecosystem is increasingly shaped by left-wing priorities, further entrenching these ideologies within the business world.
The transition from “Don’t be evil” to Effective Altruism represents a profound change in corporate ethos. While it ostensibly aims to maximize social good, in reality, it often serves as a vehicle for advancing specific ideological agendas. This shift has significant implications for how businesses operate, invest, and innovate, highlighting the complex interplay between ethics, ideology, and corporate strategy in the modern world.
Venture Globalism and Cheap Money
The influence and availability of cheap money have profoundly shaped the venture capital landscape, particularly within the tech industry. These factors have driven the rapid expansion of startups and technological innovations, but not without significant consequences for financial stability and accountability.
The era of low interest rates and easy access to capital has fueled an unprecedented boom in venture financing. Investors, flush with cheap money, have been eager to pour funds into startups, often with little regard for profitability. This influx of capital has allowed startups to grow rapidly and scale their operations without the traditional pressures of generating ongoing income. While this environment has spurred innovation, it has also detached venture profits from real-world consequences, encouraging reckless financial behavior and speculative investments.
The increasingly international nature of venture capital, often referred to as Venture Globalism, where investments are made across borders, aims startups at global markets from their inception. This trend has been facilitated by the same factors driving cheap money: abundant capital seeking high returns and the global connectivity enabled by the internet. While globalism has opened new markets and opportunities for startups, it has also introduced new risks and challenges. The pursuit of global dominance can lead to overextension and neglect of local market nuances, resulting in strategic missteps.
Influence of WEF and Davos Crowd
The World Economic Forum (WEF) and the so-called Davos crowd play a significant role in shaping venture capital strategies. These elite gatherings bring together business leaders, politicians, and influential figures who discuss and promote global economic policies. The influence of these forums extends to venture capital, where ideas about sustainable development, social impact, and corporate responsibility are pushed into the Hypegeist. While these discussions claim to drive positive change, they risk imposing a one-size-fits-all extremist ideology on diverse markets and industries, stifling innovation and imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens.
The role of cheap money, venture globalism, and the influence of elite forums like the WEF have collectively transformed the venture capital landscape. While these factors have driven growth and innovation, they have also introduced significant risks and challenges. Ensuring that investments are grounded in realistic assessments of market potential and financial performance is crucial for the long-term health and sustainability of the startup ecosystem.
They Let This Happen
One of the most troubling aspects of the modern venture capital industry is the detachment of startup valuations from actual performance. This issue is particularly acute in the tech industry, where valuations are often driven by headcount, especially the number of technology workers like coders, rather than by tangible business metrics. This practice has led to inflated staff sizes and a host of associated problems, including internal social agitation and unnecessary political pressures within the tech industry.
In many tech startups, the emphasis on increasing headcount to boost valuations creates a perverse incentive to hire excessively. Companies end up with large teams where many employees have minimal responsibility for core products. This environment not only leads to inefficiency but also fosters a workforce with too much idle time, often resulting in internal social and political agitation.
Elon Musk’s drastic downsizing of Twitter/X starkly highlights this issue. By reducing Twitter’s workforce so dramatically after he took over the company, Musk demonstrated that many tech companies are bloated with superfluous staff. Despite the significant reduction in headcount, Twitter continued to operate effectively, revealing massive inefficiencies perpetuated by current venture capital practices that prioritize headcount over performance.
This system creates an environment where startups are incentivized to hire large numbers of employees for non-essential tasks. These employees, often overpaid and underutilized, contribute little to the company’s core mission. Instead, they have ample time to engage in internal activism, pushing for left-wing social agendas and creating additional political pressure within the company. This dynamic is not only counterproductive but also reinforces ideological conformity across the tech industry.
The venture capital industry, particularly dominated by GenX-aged investors, has played a significant role in fostering this environment. Investors like Peter Thiel, David Sacks, Marc Andreessen, and Ben Horowitz, who are often seen as leaning towards conservative or libertarian values, have nonetheless perpetuated a system that incentivizes inefficiency and ideological conformity. It’s particularly ironic considering Ben Horowitz’s father, David Horowitz, spent his career warning about the extreme left’s infiltration of various sectors. Despite these warnings, the venture capital industry has fallen into the trap of supporting practices that align with left-wing goals.
The lack of accountability within the venture capital industry for these practices is glaring. Investors continue to support startups based on inflated valuations tied to headcount rather than substantive business metrics. This detachment from reality has created a bubble of inefficiency and ideological conformity that ultimately harms the broader economy. There is a pressing need for reforms that hold venture capitalists accountable and ensure that investments are based on realistic assessments of a startup’s market potential and financial performance.
Current practices in the venture capital industry, particularly regarding tech startups, have led to significant inefficiencies and ideological pressures. The focus on headcount as a valuation metric has created a bloated, overpaid workforce with too much time for internal activism, driving left-wing agendas within companies. The tech industry needs a more balanced and accountable approach to ensure sustainable growth and genuine innovation.
Conclusion
The Long March Through the Institutions has fundamentally altered the venture finance industry, embedding left-wing ideologies deep into corporate governance. Critical Theory, ESG, and DEI have shifted focus from profitability to ideological conformity, resulting in a financial environment where superficial compliance often overrides genuine performance. The influence of venture globalism and cheap money has further exacerbated these issues, leading to inflated valuations and inefficiencies within the tech industry.
Addressing these systemic problems requires a new class of investors dedicated to reversing the damage caused by leftist ideologies. These investors must prioritize traditional values, both culturally and financially, promoting investments grounded in real-world metrics and genuine performance. By championing a return to profit-driven motives and fostering a culture of accountability and efficiency, this new wave of investors can restore integrity to the venture finance industry and reclaim corporate governance from ideological manipulation.
