On BioleninismNicholas R. Jeelvy
I have a special relationship with the concept of bioleninism. While I’d been based and redpilled for a while, reading Spandrell’s initial posts in early 2018 resonated with me on a deep level. It jumpstarted my own path as a commentator and a more active participant in dissident politics. In fact, for the bulk of 2018, I functioned as a superfluously erudite explicator and expander of the idea of bioleninism. Before, I had been reading the old paleocons and paleolibertarians, graduating to Moldbug and allied neoreactionaries, but internalizing using bioleninism as a conceptual lens awoke in me a deep contempt for the enemy — the bioleninist coalition — not just because of the fact that as a white, heterosexual male I am the object of their resentful crusade, but also due to the sheer ugliness and anti-civilizational force of the bioleninist coalition. It has been two and a half years since Spandrell’s three–part essay was completed — it may be time to reflect on it.
It begins with an analysis of the problem of creating a ruling coalition — a winning political formula, and all the problems inherent in both feudalism and classical liberalism with regard to that. Long story short, the classical liberal model provides a massive state staffed by people with no loyalty to each other or the state, whereas the feudal model provides excellent loyalty and stability, but the feudal state is of necessity small and not very good at major projects — after all, what is feudalism but a homeowners’ association writ large? And so, a political formula arises to capture power — Leninism.
Leninism is, quite simply, the gathering of a political coalition based on their loser status, their resentment towards their betters in society, and the fact that they’d be nothing without the Party. The loyalty of Leninist cadre is ensured through his dependence on the Party for his status in society, which status he would not have otherwise. Conversely, the enemy of the Party is of necessity the person who would have something independent of the Party, even if the Party were to disappear tomorrow. The enemies of the Party run the gamut from a kulak — a peasant farmer who has two cows rather than one — to a shopkeep in Petrograd, Cossacks in Zaporozhye, Germans in the Volga, all the way to the Little Father, emissary and servant of the Great Father in Heaven, the Tsar and Autokrator of All the Russias.
Who is, therefore, the Party? Resentment is a strange thing — we don’t see it in the peasantry of Russia, but rather, the Bolsheviks were middle and upper-middle class. We don’t see much of it in Russians, either. Bolshevism was a movement with Jewish brains, Caucasian (as in, from the Caucasus) balls, and Latvian muscle. What did these three ethnicities have in common? They were the perpetual other in the Russian Empire, permanently separated from both the German-Nordic aristocracy and Russian commoners despite their newfound wealth.
Leninism was a means of weaponizing resentment, of using its burning passion to forge the iron bonds of the Party. The CPSU was a well-oiled machine that ruled everything in the Soviet Union and got things done. Considering the economic insanity under which they found themselves forced to operate, they did a fairly good job of governing the vast expanse of ye old Soyuz Nerushimi, even after the death of Stalin left a massive power vacuum that was never again filled by a charismatic, capable strongman, only by the grey, old men of the Politburo.
Bioleninism is that same basic model of building a ruling coalition — a revolutionary army turned ruling party — from the losers and dregs of society. This time, however, mobilizing the working class didn’t quite work out. The working class in the mid-to-late 20th century in Western Europe and North America was well-off and well-respected. Therefore, the coalition had to be built out of people who’d catch the bum end of even the wealthiest and most egalitarian society. Those who are biologically unfit to be in it. The stupid, the violent, the sexually deviant, the mentally ill, the unmarried, unmarriable women. The ethnic minorities, even if they were indeed wealthy, for being a member of a foreign tribe makes you low status regardless of wealth. And so, the Bioleninist coalition hoved into view — an army of blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, feminists, homosexuals, pedophiles, transsexuals, schizophrenics and worst of all, single women in their mid-to-late 30s. And they are fanatically loyal to the Party because they are literal human garbage without the party. Without the ideology of woke and the massive power of the state to protect them, the bioleninist clients would be shit out of luck — like Antifas attacking a Right-wing gathering, they’d be crushed in a fair fight. This is why the cult of woke is so fearful of those evil white racists and supremacists — because they understand that unless their party remains in power, they’ll be carted off to the various institutions — mental and correctional — that sane societies construct to house their kind. Contrast that to the lack of loyalty which the Republican party commands from the Right. The average white Republican voter rightfully understands that the GOP is a bunch of dorks without whom his life wouldn’t change much, or might actually get marginally better. Apropos, he votes in elections, but does not go the extra mile — he doesn’t pester his relatives, leaflet neighborhoods, put up posters or try to get liberals banned from social media. He just wants to grill, for Chrissakes!
Bioleninism is also applicable to the foreign policy of a hegemonic empire ruled by a bioleninist cadre. The bioleninist hegemon will choose to support nonviable tribes aspiring to the status of client statelets in conflicts that do not otherwise concern it, because in such entities, it will find reliable and fanatically loyal allies which give it pretexts and moral cover to involve itself in various conflicts around the world. Behold, bioleninist loyalty in song form.
We are now witnessing the ever-progressing expansion of the bioleninist coalition to such dregs as were unimaginable just a few years ago. The recent unpleasantness in America resulted in the beatification of the violent criminal, porn star, drug addict, and all-around worthless excuse for a human being George Floyd, who is now venerated as a saint in the cult of woke. If he had only been trans and mentally ill, he’d have been bioleninist Jesus. The bioleninist cadre has been given free rein to loot and vandalize America’s cities in honor of this new saint.
We might be tempted to think that the resentment fueling the bioleninist coalition is class-based, economic in nature or otherwise, well. . . rational. But it’s all status-based, and money and class don’t always grant status. Even Leninism Classic had an enormous bioleninist component — all those outsider ethnicities, especially the one which is perpetually low status despite wealth. As we have learned this week from the erstwhile Abigail Shapiro and her crusade for nose positivity among Disney princesses (I shit thee not, dear reader), the root of resentment is usually something petty like nose shape or size among women. Imagine being made to feel excluded as all those blondes with petite noses get hitched to the muscle-bound Nordic-presenting chads with lantern jaws, and then going home and have your yenta mother yack your ear off about Jerry from down the lane with the mole on his upper lip and the schnoz which can sniff Oz whose dad is an accountant for Goldman Sachs. Almost makes a girl want to pursue a career in professional grievance studies and hack out a Ph.D. thesis explaining why male attraction to women with normal-sized noses is pathological and indicative of Advanced Rape Fascism.
Beyond just the coalition of the fringes, bioleninism is the single most successful political formula on the planet, and its passionate resentment of the white, heterosexual, male, Christian, and increasingly, sane and law-abiding will only intensify as the bioleninist coalition needs ever-greater hysterics to keep trucking along, to find increasingly dysfunctional, crazy and downright ugly (in the spiritual sense) people to fill its ranks. It’s been long a joke on the Right that the Left will eventually make pedophiles and child molesters the latest addition to the coalition. There are many signs that this is next on the menu. After all, is there a better candidate for “has nothing outside of the party” than a literal child rapist?
Expect pedophile story hour to come to a library near you.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
The Estonian Election & Nationalist Strategy
A “Novel” Approach to the Understanding of Evil
The Banshees of Inisherin
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 525 On Capitalism, Socialism, & the Ethnostate
The Elite Are Those Who Refuse to Lie
Nothing Is True, Everything Is Possible
Lipton Matthews Interviews Beau Albrecht about MLK
Why Crime & Punishment is Garbage
This is one of the most brilliant, insightful and hysterically funny take-downs of the Left, which otherwise is terrorizing serious citizens of our country watching TV pictures and commentary of stores and police stations burning, statues toppling, and freaks running free in the streets, breaking windows and whatever else is left to break. I swear I didn’t have wine with lunch, but I’ve been laughing with tears streaming, over this essay. You hat hit this ‘revolution’ on the heads of all its nails. Now we can laugh a bit about it, while seeing it more clearly.
I have been watching for weeks, months maybe, all the types you name, marching and skipping and shouting and meandering down our city streets, popping firecrackers and randomly spray-painting nonsense everywhere, and I wondered — how can anyone — ANYONE — with any sense not see that they are crazy as loons?
Oh, you’ve spelled it out beautifully here, and should be allowed to read it aloud at next year’s Academy Awards, though that’s impossible, of course — but it would draw the biggest audience — to let them finally know that we are ‘on to them’. Even I was not aware of all the connections myself, but I kept thinking — this is insane, what am I watching here?
I especially relate to the concept of “Leninism was a means of weaponizing resentment”. I see that clearly in some of my former friends, who disowned me in 2016, after I voted to close the borders; the continually rant and rave about “the Rich”, “the Corporations”, “the Greedy”, etc., raising their voices as if Rockefellar or Rothschild themselves had just entered the room.
Thank you for sorting it out so perfectly, and thoroughly deflating their balloons of nonsense. Not that they are not still a threat, and still vastly adored by myriads of wannabe ‘terrorist revolutionaries’ and closet commies, but if Biden is elected , we might even get Kapaernick as Ambassador to The Congo, or whatever it is calling itself today.
Well, sit back and enjoy the sow, and remember the best line here — “And they are fanatically loyal to the Party because they are literal human garbage without the Party”!
I’d have to say that your lefty friends were at least partially onto something, but lashing out against the wrong targets. I don’t have a problem with the 1%ers, but a lot of the 0.001%ers are rotten to the core. These are the richer-than-God banksters who pull strings, the limp noodles in Silicon Valley who censor anyone to the right of Ho Chi Minh, the “woke” CEOs tossing out millions for virtue signaling points, etc.
“Bolshevism was a movement with Jewish brains, Caucasian (as in, from the Caucasus) balls, and Latvian muscle.”
This is FALSE. In fact the exact opposite is TRUE.
Check for yourself the list of Soviet Union marshals and you’ll see that the majority were in fact Russian, few Ukrainians, one half Pole, and one Armenian. Beria and Stalin Georgians.
More than that check that all the White generals were of mixed ethnic origin, and all of the Red commanders that defeated them were of Russian origin.
The Reds were all former soldiers or officers in the Tsarist Army.
No matter how the facts are spun, the truth is that the Soviet Union was the direct heir of Imperial Russia and in fact was a revolution against a foreign elite represented by the Tsar and his family. Elite that was seen as backward, ruthless (check the list of Russian wars and how bloody they were), incapable to face the modernity. And this incapacity meant more Russian blood spilled.
It was a Russian revolution hijacked by the usual suspects. I can get back with details.
Well, VChK (after several reorganizations tranferred to NKVD) had been set up by a Pole (Dzerzhinsky), had another polish commander (Menzhinsky), two jewish ones (Yagoda, maybe Yezhov?), and finally, a Mingralian (Beria). And there were also henchmen like Yakov Peters (latvian).
As for the marshalls it’s true that there was little variation in terms of ethnicity. I’m not sure on White generals (although I read somewhere about polish roots of Denikin), but people like “Bloody White Baron” Ungern-Sternberg were an example of diverse lineages in the imperial service. Humourously, he was defeated by a latvian commander. What many non-Russian people don’t understand is that the imperial ranks were fairly inclusive for people like General Tsitsianov (Georgian), german nobility from Courland and so on. To this day Russia maintains that tradition of honouring all their national heroes/important figures regardless of ethnicity.
The imperial heritage of USSR sounds a bit Duginist to me, although there is some merit in the observation, that Stalin was a more “conservative” leader in the classic sense. His philosophy of ruling didn’t differ that much from Ivan IV or Peter I (both of whom he admired) and once you look closer at the administrative level, the quasi-feudal structure is what strikes at the first glance. And even Stalin knew the value of having his own Kaganovich. Oh, and Anastas “Ice cream” Mikoyan who survived all the purges.
On the subject of royal family, the greatest tragedy was the early death of Alexander III when his iron fist was needed the most. General degeneracy of the imperial court aside, poor Nicholas was too inadequate for those times and allowed himself to get lost in the maze of intrigues and political turmoil. Entering the Great War, especially against the 2nd Reich was a death sentence for the Empire and Tsar himself. Given how pathetic was the post-February interim government, I’d say that royals weren’t that bad in comparison.
The russian revolution being lead primarily by jews is largely a murkan wignat meme, the revolution was the natural outcome of the leadership of the czar and was supported by most ethnic russians. Of course it included several minorities, mostly jews, but also poles (iron Felix being the most famous), Georgians (Stalin), Armenians and other ethnic groups, but the vast majority of the communist party and its leaders were russians and ukrainians. This supposedly “jewish” revolution didn’t bring about a single jewish head of state. The few remaining jews within the party were all purged by Stalin and the soviet union stood as a wall against zio-american world domination during the cold war.
Another thing, the “cultural marxist” meme, compare the soviet union with the US and Europe, how come “cultural marxism” only exists in hyper capitalist countries, how come actual marxist states like the USSR and the DDR had a hyper conservative, almost fascist, culture?
I’ll have to disagree with that. The Bolshevik Revolution wasn’t exactly a grassroots effort, but portraying it as such was a useful historical myth. As for the early composition of the Party’s leadership, there are plenty of contemporary accounts supporting what the “wignats” are saying, though this composition did change later on. I usually don’t go into things like that, but David Duke wrote it up with extensive footnotes as supporting documentation.
As for cultural Marxism, that was a feature of early revolutionary conditions, though they figured out soon enough that this stuff just doesn’t work. However, it’s perfectly fine to promote dysfunctional things in an enemy country. Only globalists are dumb enough to run subversion strategies in countries that they already control.
There, very obviously, was never, really, anything even remotely comparable to what you call “cultural marxism” in North America and Western Europe today, even in the early phases of the Russian Bolshevik revolution, and even if there had been, and it was so summarily abandoned by the leadership, as you suggest, there ,obviously, couldn’t have been any significant degree of fanaticism for, or even attachment to, the concept, or that kind of a break with it simply wouldn’t have been possible. Far more organic, and evidenced, a manifestation of “cultural marxism,” if you will, that is, an application of Marxism’s fundamental concept to the idea of culture, in the early Bolshevik revolution, is the idea of the “Proletcult,” the concept of existing imperial cultures being dissolved and replaced by a single, new, organic, proletarian culture, at least within the Soviet Union. Had the revolution succeeded in all of Europe then it probably would have been applied
to the entire white world, however, without a doubt, the same form of it would never have
been expected of any of the other races, the Bolsheviks were far too smart for that, and this idea is antithetical to the one you call “cultural marxism.”
With regards to it not being a grassroots movement, it probably wasn’t, but then no movement that relies upon a precise academic philosophy for inspiration and guidance can ever really be, the overwhelmingly Lockean American revolution can hardly genuinely be described as a grassroots movement either, but is typically held up as the gold standard of grassroots movements in North America and Western Europe today.
You’re completely right, at least by modern definitions, though these revolutionary political entities certainly didn’t think of themselves as conservative by any means. They, obviously, thought of themselves as socialist, they simply didn’t consider this to mean something that necessarily obliges them to oppose traditionalism in all cases. Traditions that fit with the revolution’s ideals were considered positive, even progressive, and encouraged. It was a different idea of progress that was characterized by more than just iconoclastic novelty.
This is true socialism.
Have to agree with you Fredrik, for what it’s worth.
The Jewish nature of the Bolshevik Revolution is irrefutable. Jews led it and American Wallstreet Jews funded it.
The first law they passed was to make anti-semitism illegal. And no, Stalin did not purge the Jews from the Soviet Union. Some were targeted, but Jews got off easy compared to other groups. They continued to be overrepresented in areas of influence, and after the collapse, they were positioned perfectly to become oligarchs. As for cultural marxism, the whole point of it is to bring about the conditions necessary for a communist revolution. Life in 1950s U.S.A. was just too good. The reason that cultural marxism (as we know it) didn’t exist during Bolshevik times because the conditions were already ripe for massive social upheaval. That being said, the Bolsheviks were pretty pozzed themselves in their beliefs, and it’s clear that the tenets cultural marxism stem directly from “traditional” marxism.
“That being said, the Bolsheviks were pretty pozzed themselves in their beliefs, and it’s clear that the tenets cultural marxism stem directly from “traditional” marxism.” It doesn’t matter how many literary sources supporting that statement you can cite. The actual, on-the-ground, observable evidence in Eastern Europe simply doesn’t align with it, and this, if anything, is irrefutable. Find any old former communist party member in Eastern Europe and talk to him or her, clearly you never did. Even the real Nazis were pretty “pozzed” compared to the real Bols. While there may have been Wall-Street Jews that supported
them, there were also those vigorously opposed, and even more so later on.
Find any old former communist party member in Eastern Europe and talk to him or her, clearly you never did.Why don’t you try refuting the evidence I posted in the link by posting some actual evidence of your own, tankie.
Yeah, I’d already read that Wikipedia article, have you read it? I’m right, are you on crack? Now we are talking about a Wikipedia article here, so, it’s worth taking into consideration the fact that it’s obviously always going to be slanted to make it look like there’s more support for homosexuality than there really is, but, regardless, it’s very clear that there was very little. Keep in mind that the 1920’s were the start of the the sexual revolution proper, one of the first waves of institutional support for the normalization of homosexuality, overwhelmingly capitalist institutional support, similar conversations were taking place all over the Western world, and even then, support for homosexuality in Russia was nothing compared to what it was in Germany, something that never really changed, when you scratch the surface, and Russia was the first to put it down, the Bols did it before the Nazi’s did it, another strike for them. You cited a (bad) article that supports my thesis more than it supports yours, a better one would have supported it even more, but, anyway, it’s clear that your mind won’t be changed, and I don’t feel like wasting my time digging articles for you, ones that support my thesis shouldn’t be that difficult to find at all, find your own if you like, and you actually already did anyway. It’s funny, I actually had an almost identical argument about a Wikipedia entry that actually proved my point, about Nazis no less, with a blazing, pro-gay, liberal advocate just a little while ago, the varied faces of western capitalist imbecility, and I did offer evidence, former and current communist party members in Eastern Europe are evidence, just evidence you can’t click and go to instantly, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, or aren’t evidence. Travel to Eastern Europe someday, since you clearly aren’t from there, it’ll be a very educational experience for you, especially when it comes to communism, literally the only reason it’s healthier than your land now, and not nearly as healthier as it used to be when it had it. The only information about the USSR and communism you know comes from articles like the Wikipedia one you cited. For me that information is my world, and as far as being a tankie goes, you mustn’t have read most of my previous comments on counter-currents, so I’ll tell you the same thing I’ll tell anyone that calls me a racist: “Yup! Get fucked.”
That was a long winded way to say, “Just believe me!” You realize we can actually go back and read the words of these people, right?
“You realize we can actually go back and read the words of these people, right?” I’m counting on it. There are lot of words to read though, and they’re not necessarily always fully in agreement with each other, or anything close, but as long as you stick to the big names, except for Trotsky, I haven’t really done all my research on him yet, and I’ve heard some troubling things, their words prove me right.
Lmao, just stop.
“Lmao, just stop.” Now that’s funny… What are you, a thirteen-year-old twink? Do you know anything about the history of the National Socialist German Workers Party? The Aryans
were no strangers to glancing sideways at the urinal. The Bolsheviks never had overt homosexuals as high up the ladder as the German National Socialists did, even speculations about Hitler himself abound. Beat around Wiki some more, it should all pop up (though no promises since I don’t really use that site), anyway the web has it. Just stay in school.
“Lmao, just stop.” Now that’s funny, what are you thirteen? Yeah…….. no, and I’m basically right, even though it was just a subjective statement, not unlike your previous one to the contrary, and with just as much or more ground, so the joke’s on you. We’re talking about the early stages of revolutions, since I’m sure even you don’t have the gal to call Stalin’s Russia “pozzed,” so then compare the early Bolshevik revolution in Russia to the early National Socialist revolution in Germany. The early Nazi party was about as “pozzed” as it gets, homosexuality was rampant in the SA, it’s leader was a blazing homosexual, and there were a number of high-ranking Nazi officials that were either closeted or open homosexuals. Later this diminished, but gay loyal Nazis always remained tolerated, and
there are even speculations that Hitler himself may have been homosexual or bisexual,
so, yeah, the early Nazi’s were at least as “pozzed” as the early Bols, all this information should be on Wikipedia, although probably somewhat glossed over- cause, you know, “gay good, Nazi bad,” but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t there- just saying, since you use it and I don’t. I’m pretty sure I even watched some of it on the history channel, so it’s hardly just an evangelical conspiracy theory. It’s an entirely reasonable impression.
There is a difference between looking past Rohm’s homosexuality because of his value to the party in other ways and having a policy of legalized homosexuality. The latter was a hallmark of Jews, communists, and yes, the Bolsheviks (as I’ve already shown). Don’t confuse what actual communists believe(d) with the policies of Stalin. As for “rampant homosexuality” in the SA, does Rohm and a few leaders count as rampant? We also have to question much of what is said about the national socialists these days because a lot of it is ridiculous propaganda, like Hitler being a homosexual, a pedophile, having a small penis, was a prostitute, only one testicle, etc. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that homosexuality in the natsoc ranks is played up to show how “hypocritical, degenerate, and repressed they were!” It is interesting that the SA is thought to have had many communists and social democrats in the ranks. And of course, we know what happened to Rohm and the SA in 1934.
One last thing, it’s easy to see where communists and national socialists stand on these issues today. What does that say about each respective ideology? A real communist society would be a live and let live hippiedom.
So this first; “One last thing, it’s easy to see where communists and national socialists stand on these issues today. What does that say about each respective ideology? A real communist society would be a live and let live hippiedom.” First of all, there is no one standing that communist and socialists or national socialists have on these issues today, and if there was, why would that make it the the real standing, as opposed to an earlier one, or potential future one? It doesn’t say anything important. Secondly, that isn’t real communism. That’s the exact opposite of real communism, and what communism most essentially and inextricably is, collectivism, discipline, and unity. The problem is that you literally don’t know what communism is and get all your information about it from Wikipedia. Thanks for the link to the last article though, even though I hadn’t read it, I was familiar with the content. Yes, the concept of giving people more time to engage in the kind of work they like to engage in is indeed a part of marxism, but this is, by far, the least frequently criticized aspect of the ideology I can think of, almost everyone at any point in the political spectrum wants that. There are certain elements of marxism that can be interpreted individualistically, like that one, but they can all invariably also be interpreted collectivistically. There are a million different ways that the exercise of that concept could manifest itself, how did you go straight from that to hippiedom? It’s really not reasonable. Moreover, why do you insist that that is the real form of marxism, when I unambiguously and persistently insist that it isn’t, and have more experience with it than you, and most historical documentation depicts it very differently? Now, as far as overlooking Rohm’s homosexuality, for the benefit of society, even while it’s understood that this behavior is harmful to society, and likewise with other useful, loyal Nazis, not being the same as legalizing homosexuality, it actually is the same, because it literally means they’re actually punishing the one’s they’re punishing for it for something other than that, and just using it as an excuse. Your statement about the Bolsheviks legalizing homosexuality is also misleading, they never legalized it per se, they simply uniformly discarded all tsarist law, and started producing a new legal code from scratch, and it took all of about a decade to get it right back in the books, and then it was off to the gulags, which even you don’t agree with, so, again, the Germans really weren’t any tougher on that kind of stuff than the Russians, and in some cases it was the other way.
“Don’t confuse what actual communists believe(d) with the policies of Stalin.” Say of his ways what you will, but don’t dare claim he wasn’t a communist, and Trotsky was. No, lets be perfectly, unmistakably clear, Stalin is real communism, Trotsky is fake communism.
And don’t get me wrong, I think that the natsocs in Germany were too extreme with their stance on homosexuality. There is a lot of potential policy between legalization/promotion and execution. My own personal stance is that gay marriage should not be legal, ban on depictions in media, no gay bars/bathhouses, no homosexuals in positions of power over children, etc. Those types of things.
Well I agree with you about that, but the only places in Europe that have those kinds of laws today are former communist countries, and those countries’ relic communist parties always support laws like that too, while most western rightist parties don’t. That’s were communists stand on these issues today, the people you’re thinking of aren’t communists. Natsocs, on the other hand, seem to be going increasingly wishy-washy lately, but that’s just my impression, the first part about communists supporting those laws is a fact.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Cultural Marxism has become a dick measuring contest where the shortest one wins.
“Bioleninism,” ey… that’s a new one. I understand the concept, but very much doubt it’s all that new a concept, and even more that it in any way actually originated with Lenin. Moreover, there’s a degree of subjectivity involved in distinguishing losers and winners, not always the same amount, sometimes very little, but always an amount. What happens when the losers win, be it by virtue of a stealthy application of “bioleninism” or anything else? They can hardly still be called losers then, can they? You believe in born winners( as opposed to made winners), right? What makes someone born a winner( genetics, money, power, status)? The only one irrevocably born with is genetics, and even some genes abilities to express themselves, in fact, vary with environmental stimuli. No genome, however, guarantees money, power, or status in any society. This is obvious. It is, however, to be expected that those endowed with more favorable genetics variously outwardly express this favor to variously rise to prominence among these categories in a fair and just society( like the good ole U.S of A, right?), or so goes the thesis, your thesis, apparently. Very often it doesn’t work like this, again obviously, and institutional obstacles prevent someone, even someone with very favorable genetics, from coming to any sort of
meaningful prominence in his or her society. Such people are reasonably interpreted as losers according to the aforementioned expectation, resting within the prior expectation of a fair and just society, something as easily achievable as any leninism, but even were either of these expectations remotely reasonable, a genetically born winner still isn’t
that, observably, from birth. In any society, before such a winner can be recognized as such, unless they are fortunate enough to be born into money, power, or status, and especially where they are expected to be, it is reasonable to interpret them as losers.
This, obviously, doesn’t mean that they objectively are, and the ability to effectively employ “bioleninism” or leninism to increase one’s status may precisely, in fact, be evidence to the contrary, rather than evidence that one is, in fact, a genetic loser. I
would argue that, ultimately, neither Jews nor Latvians benefited from the Russian revolution as much as working-class Russians, whatever these other groups’ true motivations for participating in the coalition with the Russians may have been, and that the Russian leninists, as the coalitions’ primary benefactors, were also it’s primary exploiters, and therein demonstrated their genetic prowess, relative to both the other groups in the coalition and the empire’s bourgeois( and lingering aristocracy). Without a doubt, innumerable Russian proletarians that were genetically as fit or fitter than any member of the bourgeois or aristocracy were enabled to come to far greater social prominence than would otherwise have been possible by the revolution, with leninism as their justified means to that end. In other words, I’m arguing that “bioleninism” and leninism are both just intelligent, exploitable gambits in the arsenals of both winners and losers, not just losers, as you seem to suggest, and certainly not something indicative of genetic maladaptivity, just social disadvantage, and that it’s the degree to which these gambits ultimately succeed or fail that does the most toward deciphering whether it was
ultimately winners or losers that had embarked upon them, and that while the triumph
of the Russian leninists may very well be indicative of the strength of their genetic competency relative to the then Russian bourgeois, it is unlikely that any similar
outcome, and reasonable conclusion, will ultimately accompany our enemies’
remotely comparable gambit against us.
Good summary of Spandrell, but I feel compelled to add:
tl;dr: Excess of spiteful mutations = mouse utopia = clownworld = TEOTWAWKI
Biolenilism is just another word to designate another neo-Christianity. It is the transmutation of values, where the weak appeal to the strong using victimization and equality, in order to end up imposing themselves on them. Whites live trapped in Christian ethics, it is their mousetrap, they cannot escape from there because they refuse to abandon the great Jew.
True. As I read the essay the words of the Christus during the Sermon on the Mount were ringing in my ears, “The first will be last and last will be first”. We see this when the Pope washes the feet of stinky dangerous africoons.
This is an extremely insightful piece, and well written.
My compliments to you, sir!
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment