Leninism and Bioleninism
This is the third of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the first part here, and the second part here. I also gave an interview with some more thoughts on the topic which you can read here.
Happy New Year everyone. I left a bit of a cliffhanger on my last post, which I intended to resolve in a few days, but I've been pretty busy, not really in the mood to write long form.
I am sorry about that, but do note, this blog is a free service, so I hope you understand it doesn't quite take the priority of my time. Again, there's a Bitcoin address at the sidebar, so if you want me to write more, I'm sure we can arrange something.
2017 has been a quite eventful year. I guess the overall mood was disappointment. Trump didn't get anything done. Doesn't seem like he'll ever get anything done. Europe slowed down the refugee invasion but not by much. And China has realized that AI makes state control so much easier. It's showing the way in censorship and crowd control. All China is doing will be done on the West in a few years, with the aggravating factor that Western states will use Orwellian tools to jack up Bioleninism.
Speaking of which, I gotta continue my last post. So we left with the early evolution of Western liberal parliamentary system. In economics there's this great concept called the "invisible hand". In a free environment, if there is money to be made, someone will find a way to make it. Works the same in politics: in a free political environment, if there is power to be grabbed, someone will find a way to grab it. Economics and politics are really quite similar.
There's this aspect of economic theory called "the theory of the firm". Why do corporations exist? Why can't be all be self-employed? That's kinda how it worked during medieval guild days. Why are we all slaves of huge corporations now?
There's many ideas thrown around, but the standard theory is that firms are built because of "transaction costs". Basically in a free market, individual economic actors don't quite trust each other, for good reason. Too many people around, can't really know who's good and who isn't. A hierarchical firm fixes social relations and sets up a structure of trust and responsibility that makes economic action more predictable and safe.
The standard liberal theory of politics had it so that all political actors were self-employed. But, surprise surprise, political firms, i.e. political parties, turned out to be way more effective at political action than isolated individuals. And the same way that corporations tend to look for a certain kind of man, not quite the same as the old individual craftsman; political parties too select for a certain kind of person. One who obeys, who can be trusted. That was the seed of Leninism; and oh boy did that seed grow.
The thing about firms, or any organization really, is that there are no fixed limits in how large they can grow, and how many things they can make. A state is but a gang of dudes who then grows into an army, then conquers a territory. As a gang the dudes did little more than drink beer and the odd assault on trading caravans. But eventually the grew into a state which does pretty much everything. Plenty of examples of that in Chinese history. For something closer to home: the East India Company. Started trading spices. Then ended up ruling over 400 million people. Why? There was marginally more money to be made in every step of the process.
So happened when political parties started to form in the 19th century. Parties formed in order to secure power in parliament. But once you have a machine to grab power, why stop there? There's a lot of power out there outside of parliament too, whatever the constitution says. There's the executive and the judiciary too, for starters. There's the press, the power to shape opinion. There's education, the power to shape the minds of children and their social relations as they grow. There are lots and lots of social groups around, and they all have power dynamics in them. Why don't eat them up too? If there is power to be grabbed, someone will grab it. And the liberal revolutions were all about putting power out there in the open, up to grabs.
Well, surprise surprise, people started moving to grab it. And as in the magical invisible hand, which builds up an efficient economy if you only let it do its job; the invisible hand of politics also did its job. Economic firms are built around the pursuit of profit, and they grew through the joint-stock corporation. Political parties are built around the recruitment of low-status, or compromised (i.e. potentially low-status) people, and the promise of delivering high-status to followers and voters after power is grabbed.
We all know how efficient and sophisticated profit-pursuing mechanisms have evolved. Liberal politics were also this primordial soup where power-grabbing mechanisms were to evolve. And it didn't take too long for a strong, stable and hugely contagious mechanism to evolve. Socialism. It was always around, but Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848, just the year that the liberal revolutions were killing off all the monarchies across Europe.
Socialism refined liberal politics, the same way that double-entry bookkeeping refined business accounting. The base of electoral politics was to promise high status to low status people. Marx, starting this tradition where semi-assimilated Jews don't get the latent hypocrisy of the host society, didn't quite get the joke of liberal egalitarianism, and just took it to its logical conclusion. You're not supposed to do that, kids. You're supposed to get the joke. But he didn't. Liberty and Equality? Ok, let's abolish private property then. Hey wait a little there. Are you serious? Abolish private property?
He couldn't have been serious. I mean, come on. Private property. It's not only the basis of civilization. Even pre-farming tribes have private property. Even monkeys like to own stuff. How insane have you to be to say that private property has to be abolished? Who the hell is going to join that movement? Well, a lot of people. You see, capitalism was a big deal. It changed how the whole society worked. In more concrete terms, it changed what kind of person was high status and who wasn't. Under capitalism, the merchants ruled. And that made a lot of people unhappy.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/950253535417036800
Hey, some people just aren't capable of being successful at capitalism. It ain't that easy. And, you know, people are different. It's not their fault if suddenly some shtetl Jew who can't even speak properly is pretty good at making money and so is suddenly now 1000x more high status than he is; when just 100 years ago he would have been some decent member of feudal society and the shtetl Jew would have been widely scorned and hated. Not being good at something sucks. So yeah, people were resentful. And socialism catered exactly to that resentment.
Of course socialism didn't have to outright call for the abolition of private property. Feudal society had private property. They could have just called for progressive taxes, widespread welfare, usury laws, that stuff. But why be reasonable when it doesn't really matter? A political party doesn't have to deliver on its promises. Least of all a leftist one! A Leftist party is by definition fighting against the establishment; if they can't deliver on their promises they can always blame the powers that be. And people will believe them, because, well the powers that be have power. Or used to. And inertia is a real thing. People's memories can be inaccurate, especially if they have a good incentive to not update.
A political party can get away with lying; a political movement, i.e. a vague and embryonic version of a political party, can get away with murder. They don't need to deliver on anything. They don't have to be reasonable. They don't even have to make sense. They just need to be able to recruit committed people. And guess what, being unreasonable gets you more loyal followers than being reasonable. Why? Again, because reasonable, well-adjusted, normal people just have a wider range of options available for them. They don't need to commit to some crazy plan. They can just get a job and live a normal life. For an unreasonable, maladjusted, weird person, your options in life are much more limited. Joining a crazy political party which proposes the abolition of the very thing that makes society possible is, very likely, the best shot they'll ever get at achieving high status in their lives. So yeah, why not. Communism!
Again, there's many versions of unreasonable and maladjusted. Some people are genuinely just not very good at dealing with capitalist society. Born like that, to no fault of their own. Writers, journalists, middling lawyers. Rivers of ink have been spilled writing about how intellectuals are always overwhelmingly leftist. Which is odd given that communism didn't turn out to be very nice to intellectuals. But capitalism gives high status to precisely the opposite kind of person, the merchant, and intellectuals hate that. They are natural socialists. Very eager socialists.
An easy heuristic would to see the natural constituency of any political movement as the people who, in the grand zero-sum game of human social status, would rise in status if that political movement were to gain power. But it’s not quite like that, if anything because you just can’t know what’s going to happen. Early socialists had no idea what was going to happen if socialism take power. They said they knew, but nobody knows the future. Uncertainty is the constant in human life. Any claims to the contrary are bullshit, or in scientific speech, signaling.
What is real is the present. And so the natural constituency of any dissenting political movement are the people who actually, very actually, in this very present, are losing out in the grand zero-sum game of human social status. These people are pissed and resentful, and they will do what they can to mess with society as it presently works. For good reason. Life is quite short, and you only get one. Nobody wants to lose out in status. The consequences of that are pretty bad. Losing out in the pecking order means, in general zoological terms, access to worst-quality mates, or no mates at all. So you bet all those intellectuals were pissed, and wanting to jump in to whatever movement promised them they would crush capitalism and those evil fat cats. Even if it took away everything that’s good in life in the process. Who cares, that only made the process more engaging.
Again, the perception of losing out is subjective. Some people just are unreasonable and maladjusted and are not content unless they have absolute power and a harem with two thousand women. Political movements tend to house a disproportionate amount of those, alongside people who are really losing out to no fault of their own. A lot of people are losing out due to bad choices they did earlier in life, say, studied puppetry instead of something useful. So they are losing out, and it’s their own fault, but they can’t do anything about it either, and so they join up the ranks of the opposition.
The point here is not who forms the ranks of the opposition. The point here is that in a democracy the opposition has an actual shot at grabbing power. They have the freedom to do so. They are encouraged to do so. And so any smart political agent is going to find a way to organize these people. The same way any smart commercial agent is going to find a way to make money. There is always someone. An evolutionary process will produce it.
And the resentful will win, because upward mobility is a very strong motivator. Hope really does trump fear. People with a shot at gaining status are always going to outcompete people who are just trying to keep what they have. They are plenty of pathways, but the writing is in the wall. In a “free society”, the politics will always move to the left. Always.
Of course the degree to which they move to the left depends on the degree of freedom on the political process. The first part to move left is the legislature, which is the part which is most open. Again as I was saying there are other parts to a power structure. The bureaucrats, the lawyers. The press, which provides conversation topics to all of them. The education system, which raises them and their children. It’s fairly obvious that if any political agent is to take absolute power, he has to grab not only the parliament; he has to grab all these too. And those are trickier than just MPs. Again we saw the process by which politicians move to the left: a political party needs loyal people who follow orders; the lowest status people are more likely to be loyal, given their lack of options. But bureaucrats or judges are harder to control. For one they tend to be smarter. They have to be smarter, they need to do an actual job. States tend to try to hire smart people to work as bureaucrats or judges. China hired them (China had governors double as judges, didn’t and doesn’t believe in separating the executive from the judiciary). through a famously hard exam system. In most places bureaucrats are still hired through exams. Let alone judges and lawyers. They have to pass the bar.
So how do you control these people? You can’t do it overtly, like you do with politicians. You can’t organize them through a formal political party. That’s against the rules. This is a very important point. How do you make sure the unelected parts of the power structure are in harmony with the elected parts? Here’s where the Leftist Power Machine divided into two paths. I call it the branching of leftism between Formal Leninism and Distributed Leninism, which then for historical reasons became classical Leninism and Biological Leninism. Historically this maps very well into what Moldbug called the Anglo-Soviet split.
Leftism in Russia had been advancing, slowly but steadily, for a very long time. Russia was formally an absolutist autocracy ruled by the Tsar. But during the 19th century the country opened up quite a bit, and as capitalism advanced, leftism grew in the same proportion among the people who weren’t doing so well under capitalism. The Dostoyesvki types. Of which Russia had no lack of. I’d say Russia had a disproportionate amount of leftists because instead of capitalism growing organically as in say, the Netherlands, it came out of the blue into a very traditional and pious society. So of course all those people who had been conditioned over centuries to be loyal subjects and good Christians weren’t enjoying all that freedom to build factories and make money. And so they hated the whole thing. Russia produced lots of leftists of the craziest sort before it even had electoral politics.
So then comes Lenin and stages a coup and actually grabs power as a formal communist. And what did Lenin do? He wanted absolute power. Like everyone else, but he actually had the guts and the will to pull it off. Lenin’s way of achieving power was to do what I just said you couldn’t do. Integrate all the ruling class into his political party. The judges, the bureaucrats, the teachers, the press. Everything into the party. The Communist Party. Political parties, remember, appeared as a way of ensuring discipline and organization in electoral politics. Lenin just extended the idea to every single organ of power in Russia. And it worked. It worked like a charm. It wasn’t easy, by no means. It took a long and bloody war. Then long and bloody purges. Then some more. Then the complete terrorizing of society. Then some more purges. But after 20 years or so Stalin had it more or less set up. He had achieved absolute power. He controlled the party. And the party controlled everything.
That’s Classical Leninism. There’s plenty of literature about it, if you want to know more. And there’s China right now, where the same principle still applies. Moreso these days after Xi Jinping tightened screws back on some areas of power which the Chinese Communist Party had let loose some decades ago. The point about Leninism is that after absolute power is achieved, the leftist ratchet stops. The country stops moving left. No new ideas. No new catering to low-status people and using them to topple the government. No, none of that. The ever advancing leftist movement was just a means to an end. The end was power. Once power is achieved, leftism dissolves. It doesn’t disappear; it leaves some residue, in that states always try to have ideological consistency with what they said during their founding. Chinese dynasties framed that as filial piety of emperors following the ideas of grandpa the founder; but it’s mostly just inertia.
This is not how things turned out in Western Europe and North America. No leftist party as such ever achieved absolute power in the West. It just didn’t happen. And not for lack of trying. But it didn’t pan out. As for why, well there’s my theory back then. Countries which developed capitalism slowly tended to produce less resentful losers than agrarian empires who were thrown suddenly into modernity. That’s not quite my original theory, I’ve read it somewhere else, maybe someone can remind me who first said it. At any rate the success of Leninism in Russia and China has plenty of chance in it. Lenin could very easily not have taken power, he could have lost the civil war, he could have not had that precious Wall Street Jewish money to keep him afloat. No Soviet Russia, no Communist China either. But anyway, it did happen, and socialism was very strong in those places with or without actual takeover.
So what happened in the West, anyway? There’s one guy who thought about it very deeply. For a long, long time. Mostly because he was in jail so he had plenty of time to study the problem. I’m talking about Antonio Gramsci. He was a communist agitator in Italy who got caught by Mussolini, and was sentenced to rot in prison. During that time he thought a very reasonable problem. Why am I here? Why did I lose? Fucking Lenin did a coup d’etat and he won, now he has power. Now look at me, rotting in prison. What went wrong?
His idea, which was hugely influential, and for good reason, was that the power structure wanted to keep being the power structure and you couldn’t just throw it away and replace it with your boys. You can try your chance in electoral politics, but there’s only so many resentful fucks who are willing to vote for the abolition of the very foundation of social life (property), at least in moderately prosperous Western countries. In these kind of places, if you want to take absolute power, you have to colonize the power structure very slowly. You have to influence their minds. You have to change the culture. This sounds very esoteric and spiritual but it’s not. Basically Gramsci argues that you gotta grab the press and the education system, and slowly but steadily do in every institution with some power what you do in a political party. Political parties work by hiring loyal people by preying on their low-status. Well, find a way into HR of every school, every newspaper, every government department, every judicial board. And to the very same thing. Run a distributed covert Leninist party. Until you run everything.
Sounds easy, huh? No, it sounds complicated like hell. And it was. But not so much; after all there’s fairly obvious economies of scale to influence peddling. A guy knows a guy who knows a guy. The great discovery of the 20th century wasn’t atomic power. It was the power of cliques. A few people in positions of power sticking with each other is the most powerful force in the universe. They can make lies become truth. They can make toilets be sold as art, they can make women be combat soldiers. They can do anything. It was quite easy for socialists to get their hand in the media; after all journalists are all natural socialists. Smart-ish guys good at writing with no talent for making money. And the same goes for teachers. Teaching doesn’t pay very well. And it’s exhausting. Why would anyone want to be a teacher? Well, for the greater glory of socialism, that is.
So once socialists colonized the education system, the Gramscian distributed Leninist party got most of the job done. After all the schools are exactly where all the different power centers intersect. Montesquieu must have thought himself very smart saying that Legislators, Bureaucrats and Judges should be independent and in constant conflict. Well yeah, but where do they send their kids to school? To the very same places. And pray tell, cher Marquis, how do you plan on having those judges and bureaucrats and legislators and teachers and journalists and bankers and industrialists, who have all grown up together, shared a secluded life as a unified ruling class; how the hell are you gonna make them check and balance each other? That can’t work. And it isn’t working. They marry each other and send their kids to the same schools. Yeah, they’ll do some show and play politics theater, or Kabuki as the American like to say for some reason (as if only Kabuki was fake and other theaters were real), but in the end they are an endogamic ruling class and they know it.
Gramsci’s program was also called the Long March into the Institutions. A slow but steady Cultural Revolution. It was complete in most Western countries by the 1960s. And then we know what happened. I guess Gramsci’s original plan was to then grab power in a classical Leninist way, a dictatorship of the proletariat of a sort. But that ship had sailed in Western Europe. The workers were rich. They could afford cars and houses and vacations to Florida or Spain. You couldn’t motivate them with calls for hanging the capitalists and redistributing their property among the masses.
So the party was up and running. By the 1960s socialists cliques, more or less loosely associated with formal socialist parties, were running most schools and most newspapers and most government agencies and most courthouses and most parliaments. But you had to keep them together, keep them loyal and obedient. The early, the classical way was to get the losers of capitalism, i.e. workers and bureaucrat-inclined people, and promise them high status come the revolution. That had worked pretty well from 1848 to 1948. Hell they conquered half the world and were really close to capturing power in much of the West too. But by 1960 in the West they needed a new ideology to get people motivated and loyal.
So again, what they did was stick to the structure: promise high status to low status people. But change the content, adapt to the times. Western 1960 society was very much not 1860 society. It was much richer, much more equal, and much more pleasant. People worked 8 hours a day, they had cars and TVs, girls put out pretty easily and there was always a party to go. Absolutely no point in running a communist revolution. Well there was the 1968 “revolution”, with the anti-Vietnam stuff and all that. But that was just a big ass outdoor party, not a real revolution. It just sounded cool to call it that. The teens from 1968 are now all in positions of power and they haven’t abolished private property.
But again, the leftist ratchet isn’t a particular set of people. It’s a memeplex with a life of its own. A virus evolved to concentrate power, adopting ideas that help in the project, and discarding those that not. Economic socialism, organizing the poor wasn’t working out in the West anymore. But the principle is sound; they just needed to find whoever was low status then. And there is always someone, status is zero sum. There’s always someone on top, someone on the bottom. Even in egalitarian societies. Socialism had really pressured Western society into becoming a quite egalitarian and pleasant society by 1960. But even in the best of worlds, there’s always low status people. Even if you re-engineer society so that there’s complete equality of opportunity, even if you run a revolution and you dissolve every existing hierarchy and start anew. There will always be low status people.
Because there’s always biology. Some people are tall, some people are short. Some look good, some are pretty ugly. Some are thin and some are fat. Some are pleasant some are annoying. Some are cool and some are awkward. Some are smart and some are dumb. Some make good choices some make bad choices. Some are law-abiding and some are criminally inclined. The latter of each pair is going to be low status anywhere on earth. Even in Soviet Communism under commander Trotsky. Some people just suck. That’s the way genes work.
And so thankfully for Leftism, even after achieving affluence, even after the working class disappeared as a thing, there was still plenty of material to work with to advance the cause of complete control. And so Leftist groups started agitating status for people of African descent. For Jews. For single women. For drug junkies. For sluts. For fat people. For homos. For lesbians. For aggressive Muslims. For the disabled. For the retarded. For the mentally insane. For the trannies. All people who are were low status in Western society. And who would be low status in any society. Because they suck. They just aren’t very productive. For no fault of their own. Some people are born tall, some short. Some smart, some dumb. Some empathic, some psychopathic. Some content with their lot, some greedy with powerlust. That’s how it is.
And so the Long March through the Institutions that Gramsci first envisioned as a way of having the Italian Communist Party do what Lenin had done, ended up producing a different kind of Leninist system, one distributed and informal, instead of Lenin’s unified and formal, and one which morphed into promotion of the dregs of society qua dregs of society, instead of promotion of Marx’s idea of the wrongly oppressed proletariat. Marx was not a good man, but at least he tried to dress his ideas in a way that made sense. Das Kapital took some real work to write. But that was just some contingent accident of his time. Leftism doesn’t need to make sense. It just needs to get the job done.
Or at least marginally. Because the very fact that we have Biological Leninism as the organizing principle of all centers of power in the West, and that it keeps getting worse all the time, is because it’s not quite getting the job done. The job is concentration of power. It’s achieving absolute control. What Lenin did. What once Lenin did that, or more precisely Stalin did that, the ideological content of the Left stabilized. Cthulhu stopped swimming left. But here in the Atlantic Cthulhu has been swimming for centuries, getting crazier every day. Because there’s no one to stop him. We have a Cathedral, yes, an informal distributed Leninist party, ensuring very efficiently that only their people get in positions of power and influence. But there is no Stalin. No Xi Jinping. Not even a lousy Putin even.
As for why, is a good question. The unwritten constitution of English politics is just very robust. English liberty. Only Oliver Cromwell ever tamed that beast, and not for very long, and that was quite a while ago. The West is the US vassal empire, and the US just doesn’t do absolutism very well. But it’ll get there, it’s getting close; the returns are just too great. If there’s a way to grab power somebody will grab it. All he, or more likely she at this rate, has to do is say: give me power, or else, all of you, all those evil fat women with a make-work office job, all those foreigners living off the public purse, all those just plain unpleasant people with unhealthy lifestyles; all of you, give me power, or if you don’t, we’ll go back to 1959, it’ll be ok to be white, and all of you will have to make your bed, clean up your room, and do actual work. You’ll be on your own.
How long will it take? Can’t be that much longer.
142 comments
[…] Leninism and Bioleninism […]
Your point about a dictator stopping the signaling spiral is also applicable to Islam. The fundamental issue with Sunni Islam as a dangerous political movement to non Muslim societies is because there is nothing to stop the Muslim ratchet of being more muslimier until all your women are wear potato sacks because political legitimacy in Sunni states as dictated in their liturgy resides in who is most righteous. The Shia have avoided this problem by stating that only a direct descendant of Mohammed via Ali is fit to rule. The presence of a grand Ayatollah prevents the Muslim ratchet found in Sunnis because trying to out Holy him gets you hanged. The Ismaili Shia have perfected this by their Holy man now being basically a European aristocrat so they as a community are tolerable to be amidst non Islamic societies.
Indeed. But see also how weak Shia Islam is in comparison. Only Iran is Shia as a state, and that's because of that huge fluke which was the Safavid conquest. Everywhere else Sunni madness prevailed.
I have an OT question for people familiar with Mencius Moldbug and Jordan Peterson: Recently at an event in NYC someone asked Jordan Peterson a longwinded comment / question about the Holodomor and a book by Solzhenitsyn called “200 years together”: https://youtu.be/CJJUdAXoP-Y The guy asking the question sounds like Curtis Yarvin! The ums and uhs, the “Jewish American”, the carefully structured yet longwinded background, the eerie politeness, the primary source fetish — it really seems to me like Moldbug did this. Q1: Am I right, is this really Moldbug? Despite the considerable discussion online about this event, I have seen no claims about who the questioner is. Q2: If it was Moldbug, what motivated him to put JP on the spot like that?
I doubt it was Moldbug. I don't think he'd have said what this guy said about Holodomor having been a Jewish revenge on Ukrainians for the latter's ethnic hatred of Jews (by the way, does this guy happen to know why Ukrainians used to dislike Jews?) Look up his essay "Why I am not an anti-semite". As for this guy looking and sounding like Moldbug, there are millions of Ashkenazis in America:
I don't think the voice sounds like him at all. And I can't imagine Moldbug going out of the way to attend an event of this kind. The guy has a family.
I agree it would be very odd for someone like Moldbug to do this sort of thing. To my eyes and ears the voice and hand gestures match those in his other videos but I might be mistaken. From behind we can't see the face of the questioner, I wonder if there are other videos of the event.
I second that sounds a lot like moldbug.
I used to not like Xi Jinping because of his weakness in letting his wife educate his daughter by sending her off to Harvard indoctrination (she was a 2nd year transfer student which reading between the lines means he wanted her educated in China but the wife won that fight) but he is growing on me. I recently watched the Lotus Award for Chinese classical dance and noticed a rather glaring intrusive element in that the presenter opened up the ceremony by quoting Xi Jinping. At first I was a little nonplussed because it seemed so out of place and because the personality cult is rather lame but then the more I thought about it, the more assured I was. The performing arts are a natural breeding ground for subversive Western Leftism. I've seen more than my fair share of man buns and even a young Chinese creative director sporting a Wilhelmine mustache. The intrusive presence of party control in a niche field rather than being oppressive is rather assuring in that the party is willing to fight the culture wars everywhere and keeps the degenerates and subversives in line.
I'll believe when he shuts sixthtone.com and sends them all to 劳动改造.
I agree about the former, but I don't know about the latter. The tactic of intrusive presence of party control can backfire very spectacularly. Look at popular music in the Soviet Union: CPSU was intrusively (to the extent possible given contemporary technology) present, it assiduously promoted its VIAs and propagandized against degenerate western (mainly American) music and fashion (left: such a hipster isn't worth a bent nickel! right: I'd hang myself if I'd look even a little bit like her!) All in vain: the very children of CPSU functionaries preferred American rock &c. because it was perceived as cooler. It was cooler. CPSU put itself in the position of meddlesome fuddy-duddies who never let people have any fun. Worst of all, ineffective enforcement of this widely-known policy undermined its authority and created pent-up pressures which had no acceptable outlet. I'm not saying this was a major factor in the breakdown of ideological control in the USSR, but it was a factor. And eventually, when Gorbachev loosened restrictions on speech, instead of the trickle he was obviously expecting, the pent-up pressures exploded through the holes and washed away CPSU's authority and himself with it.
You got a point, but the Chinese are rather more obedient by nature, and they live in an already fairly old society. You see none of the youthful rebellious spirit you saw 20 or even 10 years ago. The <25 year old crowd loves big brother all over the world.
CPC wisely permits materialistic acquisition and status competition on that basis. It probably suffices to siphon off rebellious spirits that would have been copying rock&roll on used X-ray film instead, in addition to Chinese obedience.
The 25-35 crowd, perhaps. Audacious Epigone constantly posts on how white generation Z (following the Millennials) is very different, at least in America.
In my little corner of China, private conversations tend to acknowledge that CCTV is embarrassingly fuddy-duddyish, or how it's worthy of remark that a rapper lost his career over tattoos or what-have-you. I've found, though, that that which is worthy of remark never rises to the level of something worthy of action. Several things are likely at play there, but it is enough to notice that history is something of a sieve and China has selected a population partly on their ability not to take any interest at all in political goings-on. My wife and my wife's family are good exemplars: college-educated people who simply aren't at all moved by things that don't properly concern them. Makes a fluke of a lot of things, the 20th century included, and explains why it is that the Chinese end up resorting back to centuries-old political models as Derbyshire noted recently. I'm with spandrell and the Duke of Qin, by the way, who noted elsewhere their hope that Xi, as he consolidates, will toss out a few more degenerates.
Images didn't post, adding links instead:
: such a hipster isn't worth a bent nickel! 
: I'd kill myself if I'd looked even a little bit like her! This post has more pictures, note LPs copied on used X-ray film.
"I’ve seen more than my fair share of man buns and even a young Chinese creative director sporting a Wilhelmine mustache." How shocking the victimization! Cultural sexual harassment by distant man-bun, I don't know what a Wilhelmine mustache is, but it's probably diesel dyke. Eh bien, a 'creative director'? "The intrusive presence of party control in a niche field rather than being oppressive is rather assuring in that the party is willing to fight the culture wars everywhere and keeps the degenerates and subversives in line." Is 'sinopop' a niche field? Leftist architecture critic Owen Hatherley was called 'racist' by a Manhattan JAPess for publishing that term in Expo Days of Yore, where he heard creepy orientalish Muzak regularly. To quote Spandrell, that sounds like some Big Ass Party too.
The last long paragraph truly seems to describe the impending endgame. It is a "eureka" moment. Ein Aha-Erlebnis. All we need to know in a paragraph, not bad (although one needs to have read, at least, the series on bioleninism to fully comprehend why this is inevitable). The contents of this blog deserve to be put into a book (400 pages, say?), with a version of this last paragraph in the end as corollary and ominous prophetic warning. By sheer force of quality, it would become a best-seller. And the author would get money and -of course!- STATUS. If Peterson has become famous with his thoughts, which are good, but not as good as the work in this blog, Spandrell could be even more successful.. or maybe not, since he doesn't sell religion... let alone hope. But the book would sell wonderfully, of that I am sure. One little observation, though: it's "cher Marquis", or "chère Marquise", for a woman.
How does one unify a coalition of fat problem-glasses feminists and aggressive muslims ?
Tell them to hate whitey.
I can see them ally now because they have a common enemy, the white men, but I don't see how they could unify for an actual revolution and takeover. You need a bunch of smart men to do that.
That's not how it works. They are cannon fodder to be used by others.
lol you said it in a funny way
basically it's late 20th/early 21th century "armies" for fighting wars within the State.
In the Classical Leninist movement, you had actual manly men (class based leftists) who could fight and win when you staged your coup. No one believes a coalition of whitey-hating bio-rejects could win an actual war - not even themselves, I don't think. So you just end up in this constant holding pattern. Bio leninism is great for consolidating soft power and making life for their opponents miserable as long as that structure is intact, but we have no evidence it can transition to hard power and hold it. The big joke about pussy marchers is nobody is actually afraid of them.
I take issue with the leftism infecting the legislative branch first or most easily. This is not the case in most of the West. The fist to fall were always the judiciary. Generally appointed and lifetime influence generators, they were the ones who applied the block and tackle to liberalism 1.0 which allowed later executive and legislative power to uproot traditional systems in a matter of years rather than generations. The great strength of media control is not just the mind of the masses being plyable, but using those meme distribution systems of the media to give the judiciary the normative social room to wiggle free of tradition and sense. Massively unpopular high court decisions which could have precipitated backlash were blunted by the assurances of the media that the courts were prescient observers of the just arc of history rather than simply a cabal of like-minded elites. The x-factor of biological Leninism is therefor the nature of the elite itself. What has caused the left to come off balance in the current era is that they have made their own future uncertain. It is absolutely certain that the political elite are overwhelmingly Jewish and Western European with a smattering of East and South Asian. Yet these visible biological markers are becoming dead weights to status in subsequent generations. Though leftism is a viral memplex, the host elite is now moving into terminal sickness. And unlike the 19th and 20th century there is no longer a high functioning elite waiting in the wings to usurp power. The ersatz elite of tomorrow is a 90 IQ mulatto woman who is incapable of taking advantage of the left memplex in the same way as a 130 IQ Jew, Han, Anglo, or Slav male. Therefor, if the principle pivots on the concentration of power, a new system must be emerging from the current paradigm's failures. The most likely new host is the corporation itself as distributed state network. Google or Facebook allows the pretense of liberalism to excuse the absolutist control mechanisms of former state agencies ostensibly under public purview. Biological Leninism still nominally operates through the human resources department and culture of the board, but the profit imperative gives the elite a third way excuse for their own continuity which does not exist in the state proper. Rather than President Oprah asserting absolute control over colonized Europe, it is likely that the major corporations of the West will simply finish their mergers with the permanent government to form quasi private hierarchies which cannot be tampered with by the elected state around them. From this vantage point the ravages of biological Leninism can be allowed to cull the hinterland populace while the elite consolidate control over profitable and power yielding new acquisitions. Not only would the western elite extinguish her local enemies, but this would also provide a nominal reason for the continued push of the memplex into Asia.
Ksytria Dharma।।
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
2017 has been a quite eventful year. I guess the overall mood was disappointment. Trump didn’t get anything done. Doesn’t seem like he’ll ever get anything done. Europe slowed down the refugee invasion but not by much. And China has realized that AI makes state control so much easier. It’s showing the way in censorship and crowd control. All China is doing will be done on the West in a few years, with the aggravating factor that Western states will use Orwellian tools to jack up Bioleninism. Yeah..that pretty much sums up 2017...a big disappointment, except for Bitcoin.
I haven't finished this yet, but wanted to weigh in because socialism, as you describe it, is hyper religious. A power sharing agreement between those who get ahead and those left behind.
Spandrell, clearly you are correct: the more historic white America loses power, the more it is demonized and built up to be all powerful. We will get to a point where historic white America has lost so much power that a power hungry politician can go in for the kill: white historic America is inherently racist and evil, they cannot be saved, hey need to be reeducated or wiped out or their assets appropriated or the country filled with a hundred million Muslims a year. Do you see any hope of preventing this? If so, in which way? Trump really hasn't done anything in his first year to stop or prevent this -- he has merely delayed the process by a couple years.
>The early, the classical way was to get the losers of capitalism, i.e. workers and bureaucrat-inclined people, and promise them high status come the revolution. Immediately thought of the Gervais Principle posts when I read this line.
Your mention of cliques brought this extract from "Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder to mind:
Where does the fall of Soviet communism and the apparent yearning of people living under communism in the eastern European countries for a prosperous and free life in the West fit into your narrative of irresistible leftism? How come Russia is less leftist and more capitalist than it was? How come China is more capitalist and less leftist than it was? How come only North Korea and Cuba are still hanging on to the classic communist systems?
My narrative is not irresistible leftism. Leftism is always fairly small in number. But leftists are motivated and they tend to win. Not always, indeed there are such things such as rightist shifts. They tend to be sudden and punctual. Coups, in a a sense. But once they're over the trend leftwards starts again.
Could this possibly be an issue with the way left & right are defined? It's a peculiar case of overt christian imperialism falling out of favor so being disguised as Liberalism. The 'right' doesn't exist as it holds no power https://twitter.com/Neoabsolutism/status/928453216706031617?ref\_src=twcamp^share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^0 Instead think of it as universalist imperialism & bio leninism as co opting the most willing & wretched to be traitors. This also properly puts it into its religious context http://mosmaiorum.org/persecution\_list.html The counter, is a strong dedicated force wholy devoted to battle।। ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।
>neoabsolutist >anything but a submissive Projection, your honor!
I think Spandrell should put more emphasis on the fact that a state cannot do much with an untalented elite selected for loyalty, and in time they tend to ease that up somewhat, allowing more talented people in the ranks. But that necessarily removes their loyalty. So basically by the Gorbachev times Soviet elites were already at least half-smart people who indeed had little loyalty to the system, thinking, correctly, that they can convert their influence into massive private property in a new political system and become oligarchs. I think these are the later stages of the process Spandrell described. Once Leftists have a totalitarian state ran by loyal idiots, it will either collapse or get overran by enemies, but if neither happens they will likely ease the counter-selection, the adverse selection and let smarter people in, who are less loyal, and engineer a radical change where they carve out their own little "kingdoms" resulting in neofeudalism.
Leftists always win eventually, but they destroy whatever they take over. You can not run a large institution like a government, corporation, military, by leftist principles. You need hierarchy and merit, which produces inequality. What usually happens is the whole thing was just an attempt by the ambitious and out of power to gain power by lying to the masses about achieving equality. You never get a real leftist government, not for long anyway, you just get new elites.
Good stuff! (and what I wouldn't give to have Moldbug in the comments section)
because instead of capitalism growing organically as in say, the Netherlands, it came out of the blue into a very traditional and pious society. _So of course all those people who had been conditioned over centuries to be loyal subjects and good Christians weren’t enjoying all that freedom to build factories and make money._ _that was just a big ass outdoor party, not a real revolution. It just sounded cool to call it that. The teens from 1968 are now all in positions of power and they haven’t abolished private property._ Those were not more important than the rest of it and the 'tone' is everywhere, but the two I noticed as being the tastiest in terms of writing style gone 'wide open'. Anyone who hadn't had their noses rubbed in either of them has gotten them rubbed in them now: I hadn't really gotten to the first as with this 'Netherlands capitalism' vs. 'Soviet Flesh Failures Capitalism' (which is also very funny even if factual), but the 60s American hippie stuff would be impossible to miss and also impossible to pin the practitioners down about it: Those are the majority, not all of them--I'd have to say that their capitalism doesn't actually make these particular ones admirable, just that they had been much more ordinary than they thought all along; they then continued this. Interesting that you've never been to the W. Hemisphere, and have claimed these quite correct statements about a crucial aspect of the American 60s. Yes, you've definitely got something here, and this one was maybe even more 'exciting' than the first two installments, but climaxes always are (I don't know where you'll take this now, of course--many more specifics of The Lives of Low and High Status Personnel, we viciously and not very imaginatively hope.) Maybe the first two installments introduced the 'bottom-line law', and by this one you're familiar enough that you can come along for the ride--it was a pleasure by now, seriously but also not unlike the Vienna Woods. Very energetic and rhythmic in the reading. Yeah, maybe one will even get some ideas of how to steal some of it for one's own status seeking ('immature artists borrow, mature artists steal'.) The 'Lorma' is basically right, though, a 400-page book, more status and money for you, although I imagine you've got a reasonable amount already. You certainly have, even prior to this series, made a good and irresistible case for desiring these at all times. Much easier to give 100% concentration to than any kind of meditation or that 'silent contemplation of God' you mentioned in a Tweet. I gave the last vestiges of that up the minute I read that Tweet. There's the mastery of the subject and the nonchalant sound of the written execution: It doesn't sound as though you worked that hard at it, but it's obvious that you had to. Or did you? just tossed it off, you know, this interlude of 'free service'? Definitely has a Voice--strong baritone, basso not necessary.
Thanks for the kind words. As for my style, I write in sudden bursts of inspiration. If a post takes more than 30 minutes I tend to doze off and start over. I wrote 2 drafts of this post in December, didn't like them, and just started over this one yesterday while hangover on a long flight.
Yes, you've been gathering the historical evidence most of your life, and then natural talent intersected with it (not talking about the trendy 'intersectionality', don't even wanna know.) Yeah, you got pretty good Darwinism... Garr--that Tweet was maybe a month ago and he tweets a lot, so my memory is that he showed a Muslim bot doing one of the 'Virgins' Variations, he's spending most of his time 'tearing out hymens', and Spandrell responded "Sure beats silent contemplation of God", or close to that. He's got this way of ringing a bell (as in those 2 examples I quoted) that clears out the remainder of the detritus, i.e., I had done none of that consciously for many years, but now I was ready to see how Saint Cecilia's 'Days of Dry Prayer' were not the exception--they were all--every single one--horribly, stiflingly like that. 'Robin and Marian' was not much of a movie, but at least Hepburn finally tells Connery "I love you more than God"--that redeemed her from 'The Nun's Story', and she abdicated even then, unceremoniously trashed, rather 'softly stoned', by the coven of convent bitches and their 'embattled flesh', as Faulkner would term it. So that then you're able to get 'finished off' without even a whiff of guilt. He may be more of a teacher than he likes to think.
See, other people agree that a book would be a good idea. The way things are going, you would have Steven Pinker praising it openly in a few months after publication!
Gonna need to raise an advance in bitcoin for that.
That was one productive hangover...!
Your beers were put to good use as you see.
What was said in the Tweet about silent contemplation of God, exactly? (I googled "Spandrell silent contemplation of god" and nothing came up.)
https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=contemplation from:thespandrell&src=typd&lang=en
That says "Sure beats silent contemplation of God", referring to something that isn't visible underneath the tweet, something "unavailable". The word "contemplation" is in boldface, and clicking on it brings up an "unavailable" message. The comments to the tweet suggest that what is said to beat the silent contemplation of God has something to do with sex or love or marriage. I can't really guess what it is that is being said to beat silent contemplation of God, because it seems to me that while having sex with a loving and beloved wife might indeed beat silent contemplation of God, other sexual or otherwise romantic or quasi-romantic activities are beaten by silent contemplation of God.
Oh, sorry -- I've just read Parisian's sort-of-explanation above. However, I still don't know what's being referred to, because "a Muslim bot doing one of the ‘Virgins’ Variations, he’s spending most of his time ‘tearing out hymens’ " doesn't make matters very clear to me. It's okay; I don't have to understand everything.
It was a Memri meme tweet, he’s been since suspended. It was some jihadi on TV saying that jihadis after death spend their time breaking hymnens in heaven, by the dozens. If you’d rather contemplate God, well good for you.
I imagine that the contemplation of God after death is like walking around in an endless park (the kind with various environments including woods, gardens, meadows, lawns, plus lots of interesting rock-formations, hills, and streams) on a sunny spring or autumn day, passing beautiful friendly people (but not too many of them; it isn't crowded the way Central Park is) -- rather than like sitting in one place staring at a wall or candle-flame or, close-eyed, into the flickering void within your own head. Now and then maybe you walk together for a while with one of the people you meet, and the two of you point out beautiful things to each other, saying, "Wow, look at that!"
First thing popped up was images of colour covers of Jehovah's Witness booklets: Pastoral, bucolic SWPL w/nice white people doing middle-class housing, trees (no palms, of course), garden-variety fleurs,smiling pets, uneaten and lambs amid plethoras of rivulets and and burbling brooklets. We've finally run them off the street by now. I think our host and I were probably thinking about this life, how doing it wasted precious time which need be spent on aesthetics of building factories and making money. God, what a sensational revelation: There is poetry in money. For your innocence and good will, I christened 'The Third Viennese School' (even the Strausses didn't get a schule, Vienna is that rich.) Inflicting Julie Andrews on anybody is one of the meanest tortures, but this is fairly sincere--and you axed for it : My heart wants to beat like the wings of the birds that rise from the lake to the trees My heart wants to sigh like a chime that flies from a church on a breeze To laugh like a brook when it trips and falls over stones on its way To sing through the night like a lark who is learning to pray(!!!!)
"uneaten cows, pigs and lambs"
(1) Think of tripping in an uncrowded Central Park (2) Jehovah's Witnesses are all over my Latino/Hispanic neighborhood, and very nice family of them lives next door (3) I don't see what "breaking hymens" has to do with "building factories and making money"
Garr, you're a genuinely fine gentleman, if pedantic and habitually 'paper-grading'. I can't clarify further. In any case--too much digression and off-topic. I was warned by one of the recent 'Sayings of Alrenous' not to get 'tripped up'. Email if necessary, otherwise: FIN here. JW's are briefly okay in thoroughly dumb-ass way, e.g., one ordered me to prefer 'peaceable-kingdom' environment to my own Babylonian street --in full spring blossom. I just said no thank you.They use 'fellowship' as a verb, as M. Jackson's "We fellowship" (down 't the church.) Just saw 'Breaking hymnens in heaven'. Best [sic] in some time. Hausfrau Von Trapp is low-status hymnen: 1)Rejection by The Lonely Goatherd. 2)Str8 to Kollektive Farm: Commie movie is pure Soviet Socialist Realist 'Art'. Mme. Xi stars in High Yella Rayciss Remake.
Isn't the most miserable and bitter populations the least sexually active according to all psychometric research? Wouldn't that explain why so many religious monks of all faiths give in to pedophilia and closet homosexuality (23%-56% of Catholic priest for example) move so than the general population? There is no way silent contemplation of a possibly nonexistent God could beat the biological need for sex. Its just not possible in nature.
Where you got that 23-56%. Not that I disagree, I'm just curious.
I don't know about percentages, but you got the causation all wrong. In my experience, it's the other way around. People who are religious but have a problem with paedophilia/homosexuality tend to enter orders thinking it's going to cure them. Or their parents force them into the orders thinking it will cure them. Of course, it vast, vast majority of cases it doesn't work out.
Your analysis of the present state and the history that led to it is very convincing, but I have my doubts about the predictive part of your last paragraph. Absolutism might well come back to Western civilisation - previous attempts with democracy in ancient Greece and Rome didn't last either, but I don't see how a coalition of low-status people can make it happen. I mean the misfits you mentioned in your post are already reliable voters for the progressive cause (aka the "left") and none of them believes in democracy. How can they give more support than they already do? Historically, Western civilisation has sometimes responded to attempts of progressive power grabs with military dictatorships (e.g. Franco, Pinochet, Sulla). Such guys didn't appeal to natural low-status persons, but rather to the large number of people who have something to loose if the "left" takes power.
I also have trouble with the predictive part. After the valueless incompetents "win" two problems emerge. They can't really run a functioning civilization because of their incompetence. Second, the coalition of the fringes is held together by antagonism to (generally competent) whites. These white people are low status under that regime, so it makes sense for them to want to upend the apple cart. When competent people want to upend the apple cart, the cart tends to get upended. This is basically the GTKRWN scenario. So instead of a solidified power of the useless a civil war is more likely. Or they manage to kill off whitey (see Rhodesia and South Africa) and the system collapses due to hunger, inflation, inability to maintain a technical civilization, etc. Again, no solidified, stable power.
It's almost as if Spandrell is advocating for traditional, Real Socialism, to stop the current madness in the West. The Chinese have shown it can be made to work, if the ideology is left only as a symbolic superstructure. But the U.S. is a key problem, from that perspective: there is no country in the world less inclined to Socialism. And that's the most important country in the West.
Not exactly my point, but if you want to peddle it to Zizek or some other orthodox Red; be my guest.
Glad you're back.
Jews as low or low functioning? How so?
Low status. Certainly high functioning. But they were despicable usurers, killers of Christ until their emancipation in the 19th century.
On some theoretical level, a Jewish moneylender in the Holy Roman Empire was lower status than a Christian serf, but one got to hang out in the royal court and the other spend all day shovelling s**t. Early Left Wing movements were mostly anti-Jew, not because Jews were newly rich (they weren't), but because Jews were the most obvious example of people whose high status was undeserved (by commonly accepted standards). The simplest explanation for Jewish history that explains the most is that Jews pick the winning team and position themselves firmly and ostentatiously within it with a disregard for how this might blow up in their face if the other team starts winning. Jews do very well out of BioLeninism because they get to take part in a elite that is composed of morons, thus allowing them to take the best jobs. Same with Asians. Same with Left Wing Whites for that matter, except that Left Wing Whites need an excuse ("I'm bipolar") to be in the club, whereas Jews, hitherto, get a Jew pass. Your paragraph about Marx, by the way, is one of the most pointedly accurate things about Jews I have ever read.
Thanks. Jews did get pogromed every once in a while. Not getting pogromed beats getting pogromed.
Stellar article, some very illuminating points driven home I have a question about this part: >[...] leftism grew in the same proportion among the people who weren’t doing so well under capitalism. The Dostoyesvki types.[...] What do you mean by "Dostoyevski types"? As in characters from his books or people like Dostoyevsky?
Both? Read "starved writers obsessed with religion".
[…] “The great discovery of the 20th century wasn’t atomic power. It was the power of cliques. A few people in positions of power sticking with each other is the most powerful force in the univer…“ […]
Social status (SS) in us primates is not just about social aspects - it is about life itself. SS is an INDEPENDENT and the strongest cause governing life- and healthspan in humans. I wrote about this aspect here: https://pastebin.com/GUrmyDc6 Note that SS is a relative, not absolute property - one can not only get a higher SS by climbing up (which is difficult, given the hard competition) - but also by pushing others down! Sabotage and harming others is often much easier than improving oneself; this may be the leading cause for phenomena like bullying, mobbing, evil gossip and other kinds of the kind of social warfare everybody wages on everybody else, in some form or another. I wonder if I have found a universal key to all legal laws, ideologies, philosophies and religions, for all those social tools (or social weapons, as any tool and weapon are much alike, and anything can be a weapon if you apply it right; I define "weapon" generally as any means to force one's own will on others, which can happen overtly (for example, with physical violence) or covertly (that is, that the victims are not even aware that they are under attack and being subdued, for example with exploitation of modern "weapon-grade" psychology, for example the Cialdini- pre-/persuasion techniques) influence only a very limited, basically simple set of areas: Those things all known life, including of course humans, NEED to perpetuate life: 1)Resources (food, money, shelter, etc.) 2)Security/Safety (from predation, the environment, other members of the same species) 3)Reproduction/mates These three things are universals. In socially organized species like us they can perhaps condensed into "power", which may be simplifiable as SS. Therefore, all laws, ideologies, philosophies and religions seem to only be about regulating/governing the distribution of resources and sex and personal security, by enforcing or giving pretexts for the respective distribution scheme. Another idea of mine is that "vampirism" exists - "life" can be taken from others and used for expanding one's own life: A) Capital income/interests/dividends/profits - this is other people's work products, a representation of their life-time, life-energy and health-time. Through capital income, the really rich people can access life energy/life time/ health time of legions of many poorer people through money, which is transferred, and therefore, in a way, their life time/life energy/health-time, too: I mean this in a very concrete, non-esoteric way - for example, a single person could never build and own and operate a huge mansion/palace/skyscraper, but through the magic of money it becomes easily possible. B) Outright replacing failing organs with healthy ones of poorer/low-SS people through organ transplantation - this can be facilitated through money/power/SS - for example, the big business in China of harvesting prisoners or those condemned to death sentences for their organs - they are kept alive to store bodies/organs in working manner until an high-SS/-power human is in need to expand his own life through butchering other people. C) The extraordinarily powerful health effects of high SS explained in the link above can be seen as vampirism, too, because in way those of high SS have pushed down others into lower SS and therefore kind of transfer the life- and health-span benefits of high SS from those beneath them to themselves. I think that the purpose of life, in practical terms (ignoring the fairy-tale, made-up stuff of philosophies and religions) is very straightforward: To kill or enslave (exploit, like in "enlightened self-interest) other people for maximal personal gain. This is what we are actually, really, doing in life. Attaining a high SS/power/rare high-quality mates (or even mates at all)/resources(wealth) means taking those away from others, therefore harming them, which ultimately leads to their destruction. Those who can attain power/wealth/high SS condemn others to not have those things, therefore - slowly and indirectly or quicker and directly - killing them. Those who can successfully impregnate a female exterminate all the potential offspring of other men that women could have born; sexual success means sexual failure for all other competitors in the socio-sexual war for reproduction; and not only are those men killed off evolutionary who fail to reproduce at all (because better men prevented them), also "partially" those men who have to settle for lower-genetic-quality women, therefore only being able to father lower-genetic-quality offspring, so their children are born at an disadvantage compared with the men who won the superior-quality women. Formal education, getting "degrees" is already a serious war for extermination, a process to kill or enslave: Those who win here over the others will have access to high SS/wealth and high-quality mates, therefore subduing them - killing or enslaving them later on (enslaving other people can be seen as a slow version of killing them, so perhaps we can simplify the meaning of life is to kill others). From kids' sand boxes to the grave, humans are at war with each other for resources and sex, and this constant social war is nothing else but the attempt to effectively kill or enslave other humans to perpetuate one's own genes, one's own life. Aggression means harming others; without harming others, we cannot survive, not perpetuate our lives, not live. The superior are always in the process of killing off or enslaving the inferior; and this seems to be absolutely necessary to perpetuate the human species, as otherwise every generation would grow weaker, dumber, more diseased and uglier - therefore, "equality" is impossible not only socially, but already for biological reasons. Leftist's core-desire of equality ("Nobody shall be allowed to have higher SS than me!") is not about poverty or riches; this is only a pretext: Consider an utopian future (after humanity spread out into the galaxy and lives on scores of planets) where every single human is guaranteed an "basic income" - so large, that it is equivalent to ten times the whole economic output of planet earth's humanity today (perhaps through a huge robot workforce) - imagine the vast wealth for every single human in that hypothetical future! But still: In "future space school" those kids would be seen as "poor losers" who only have to life off those ten earth-like planet's economic output ("space future social welfare") while their peers' parents own not only ten, but hundreds of planets and their totalized economic output! Their would be social ostracization of those future loosers, because they could not afford the then-equivalent of today's Iphones and 10,000$-handbags etc. - whatever those equivalents may be. We see: In humans, as soon as an economic base of needs is met (food, shelter, etc.) everything is only about SS - which cannot be evenly distributed. Even if some magical fairy could wave their wand and make everybody perfectly equal (beauty, health, IQ, wealth,...), human nature, our genetically programmed instincts, would drive humans immediately to try to achieve a higher SS over other humans. And so it must be: Only through this mechanism evolution seems to be able to produce ever-superior organisms (in terms of fitness) - the sexes need to be able to recognize superior potential mates, and this means they must compete with each other, must try to out-compete others, which means actually to kill off others (through natural or sexual selection). Again: The true meaning/purpose of life is to kill other humans. All politics/laws/religions/philosophies are just weapons (in the sense laid out above) to attain this goal over others, by making them docile, submissive, making them to take down arms and become conquered and killed/enslaved.
Consider "love": This is merely a selection mechanism to exterminate inferior life. Those who are not/less loved receive less support and reproduction chances, killing them outright or partially/slowly. Consider "friendship": This is merely an evolved instinct to find useful allies to further one's own survival. This can be seen more clearly by recognizing who is not being sought as a friend: Poor, weak, dumb and ugly people, also old ones (not even old people want to be friends with old people - they are a bad social investment for allies, because they will die soon, therefore be of very limited usefulness to ourselves as future allies, also probably needing much more assistance themselves soon than they will be able to give). There are no friendships between people of different social classes, different levels of beauty (in women), and different levels of IQ - one side would envy, the other side feel pity or be disgusted; therefore no such friendships exist. I feel it is freeing to take out the sentimental garbage out of those things, as evolutionary psychology does - humans, especially their emotions, instincts and based-on behaviour are actually like machines, with fixed sets of "algorithms" that govern their motivations and actions. All character traits (Big5) and IQ (also health and beauty) are genetically determined and highly heritable. Life success is a function of those heritable traits. If they are allowed choose mates freely, humans with superior genes mate with other humans who also carry superior genes. Given free sexual (mate) selection, all meritocracies (democracies and everything else) are, then, actually feudal systems based on genetic quality! More: Over time, high-quality genes should move up in the social classes: Genes for high IQ/health/beauty/willpower/etc. should enrich themselves in the upper class, while low-quality genes should get enriched in the lower class. Over time, this process should(?) lead to the creation of a new (sub?) species of human - a homo superior from the upper class, and a homo inferior from the lower classes (dumb, fat, impulsive, low-health mere consumers). I wonder if the public tabooization of eugenics and IQ and differences in genetic quality and differences in heritable character traits are deliberately enforced by the upper class as ruling class: Their power as ruling class, ultimately, is derived from their superior genetic quality! To perpetuate this power, the upper class must make sure it stays the superior class in genetic quality (IQ, impulse control, health, conscientiousness, willpower etc.) - and exploits the leftists' instinct/desire for "equality" and "social justice" for this very end most skillfully... We are all eugenicists! Or do you want to mate with an ugly, unhealthy, stupid mate? No? See, therefore you try to exterminate inferior-quality humans - you condemn them to extinction, if female by refusing to bear the children of such men, if male by refusing to pay for and rise children of such women. Elites push propaganda that is the opposite of truth, this induces outrage and other strong feelings in people, and then they are distracted and fighting and hating each other, forming fractures (divide and conquer), neutralizing themselves. The basic technique seems to be to find a truth, and then to reverse it; ideally, it should be something people have strong feelings for, so a strong moral or otherwise emotional outrage is produced. Examples: -racism (the lie that you are evil if you have racist feelings) -sexism (the lie that women and men are not inherently different and are to be treated so) -feminism (the lie that women are as smart and strong as men) -wage gap (that women are unfairly underpaid) -social justice (that it is somehow wrong that people are of different quality and therefore value) -infidelity (the lie that infidelity is evil, while in reality most people fantasize about cheating with hot sex) -hebephilia (the lie that men are evil for sexually desiring young, fertile females, not old ones) -equality (the lie that we should be and want to be equal - the truth is that we are all desire to be better then others) -homosexuality (the lie that it is evil to hate gays - the truth is that most men are extremely disgusted and hateful by gay displays) -hate (the lie that hate is evil, why all people feel hate for many things, and this being a powerful, healthy motivator) -blank slate (the lie that beauty, strength and intelligence are not hereditary, not genetic, and personal value and success is only a function of ones environment or upbringing) etc. The basic technique is always the same: Find a truth, reverse it, publicize the resulting lie, have those who hope to gain something by the lie and those who react offended by the obvious lie fight each other, often helping the people hoping for the lie to be true with funding or increased media coverage. This scheme is going on in some way or another for over 100 years; just look up old newspapers in the library. Such a simple technique, and the public is rendered helpless against it; the emotional reflexes to this technique guarantee public attention and outrage, resulting in attention diversion and attention control, increased media sales, political influence and making huge parts of the people marionettes.
The social war for status, resources and reproduction is merciless and deadly, but often fought with a smiling face. The meaning of life is whatever prevents you from killing yourself' ~ Albert Camus I'm especially angry at how "racism" is used as a weapon to end any discourse; those who use that accusation immediately "win" any debate, shame their opposition, frame themselves good, all others evil. "Racism" is deliberately left ambiguous, not clearly defined, to keep it useful as an universal-use political assassination tool to shut up people at will. Example of how I think this works: Consider people ~400 years ago. Church ruled. How? By fear, shame, guilt: Reality: People instinctively desire sex and masturbation. Church said you're evil for feeling so, only sinners do, who then go to hell (=eternal torture). (We laugh; people of the past had no other info and were in terror of it!) People also feared public opinion of this Church-constructed mental trap. They feared social ostracization for being known as people who desire sex. Sex was made a taboo. A taboo, deliberately set up so as to affect everybody, for everybody desires and likes sex. EVERYBODY WAS MADE GUILTY. Telling publicly, or even in private, or even in private thoughts to oneself (thought control of the Church!) the truth was impossible - the Church-constructed fear, shame and guilt made it impossible. This was a central source of Church RULING POWER - it made everyone belief himself to be evil/sinner secretly inside, and only the Church (directly or indirectly by giving money to it) could offer absolution. Today: I see the same principle at work: Everybody knows themselves to be racist, for we favor our own race over a different, all other things equal. By causing constructed public outrage for admitting this truth a social taboo is installed, so admitting being racist means social ostracization, even the mere public accusation can be used as a weapon by causing fear, guilt, shame. EVERYBODY IS MADE GUILTY. It's used for political RULING POWER again, in precisely the same way the Church did long ago. Only by submitting to mass immigration of people we despise we can be "absolved". I am a homophobe, sexist, racist conservative who wants to "own" slaves. I explained why I think these things are all appropriate here: https://pastebin.com/C6ERRxqG I will end this long comment with my understanding how the economy works in terms of politics: (I’ll explain what the refugee phenomenon in Europe is really about, too.) Envy – and greed – by European, especially German, upper classes, compared with what they see their US counterparts enjoy: A sizable low-IQ, mostly Negroid underclass. Why? Because, for the upper class, Negroes function as what I termed “profit pumps”, or “profit guarantees”: The only class that really produces surplus is the middle class (MC) – skilled workers, above that doctors, engineers, small businessmen etc. I repeat, for this is important: The middle class is the only class producing meaningful amounts of surplus wealth. The upper class (UC) wants that money from them, naturally. Problem: Middle class is too smart to simply being tricked to give their work’s profits to the UC; and this cannot be changed, because the MC must be kept rather smart, because the nature of their work as a profit source needs to keep them smart. How did the UC solve this problem? MC has a weakness – they lack capital,they are not really, independently rich – they fear unemployment, illness and falling down the social ladder because of that. Therefore, they agree to pay high taxes – for a social welfare system, because of their deep-seated fear that they would need it one day themselves. Their tax money, therefore, goes to the lower classes (LC) – White Trash and Negroes, in the USA. But does their money END there? Not at all – LC people immediately spend it – specifically for stuff the MC would never spend it for (as they are too smart, saving, conscientious for that), like huge-margin/profit goods like branded sports shoes (Negroes actually kill each other for those and crave them – MC parents would scold their kids for buying things like shoes for 500$ that last few months before being worn/ugly and cost 3$ to make, the difference being profits for the UC owners of industry). So how can the UC route the money flow from the MC to themselves? By growing the immediate-gratification, money-squandering LC, ideally Negroes (as those have lowest IQs and act like easily impressionable - by advertising - kids even as adults and therefore can be perfectly controlled through media and advertising, which is not so easily possible with the MC). Thanks to the welfare system, the more LC people live in a society, the more money is forced from the MC to flow to the UC (by proxy of LC). This is also the reason the UC enforces “anti-racism” rules – as any questioning of importing more LC people the welfare tax-based system would immediately endanger UC’s vast profits from the work of the MC! This is also the reason for the UC pushing "racism" ,“equality” and “social justice” and all those "leftist" concepts – the higher MC is taxed for the welfare system, the more the LC consumes of the MC’s money, and the more profits are forced to flow to the UC! Therefore, I think it appropriate to think of the welfare system not longer merely as just that – it actually has been modified into a weapon to enslave the MC by the UC. And this is what happens in Europe – the native population is too MC, too conscientious, they tend to save too much and squander not enough of their income and savings for consumer trash, therefore limiting UC’s profits. This is especially relevant in connection with the rise of China, as more and more wealth of Western societies flows out towards there because more and more products and services are made and based in China – moving profits and wealth also there; to limit the threat to themselves, Europeans UC’s now mass-import a future LC, their own versions of US Negroes so to speak, to enforce and secure future profit flows from the productive MC to the UC. This would allow the European UC to keep their wealth, or even increase it, even in a future where average European wealth would decrease due to Chinese competition and an aging population. Demography is a weapon, tool, profit and status foundation for ruling.
In my opinion modern leftism had been broken, conquered and made into a tool for the upper class. "Leftists" have been humiliated (without most of them realizing it) into "useful idiots" for the upper class. As I pointed out above: The upper class has vast interests in promoting leftism, to secure their position of power as rulers of society by manipulating society so that the basis for their superiority, their power - genetic superiority and wealth (that is, vast incomes) - are kept unchallenged. They do this by introducing social taboos - racism, genes, eugenics, IQ, inequality (based on genetic quality) - which happen to be desired by leftists in their simple-minded desire for "equality" (to prevent others from attaining a higher social status): Leftists want people to think that humans are "blank slate" material instead of the product of genes; leftists want to ban (make taboo) everything that measures or shows inherent differences of people, for fear of being found out to be some of the inferiors themselves. Look at what formidable a power and foe communists once were! They had achieved the power to destroy Western elites through their nuclear potential and commanded a great military and economic empire! Now - compare with contemporary "leftists": Crazy, outright mentally diseased, sexually deviant, weak, ugly and dumb clowns in colorful clothing full of tattoos and piercings, walking CLOWNS! Their rallies are a circus, physical entertainment, their "movement" is fractured into thousand different parts and opinions, their real "revolutionary" power is less than that of the plumbers union! It's kids and weirdos, who are not even able to cope with basic life, let alone posing a threat to the upper class! Leftism is one of the very worst things humans can follow: It's self-sabotage, self-defeat. Self-victimization Olympics and feeling (counter-factually) oppressed prevents all self improvement: "Fat positivism", for example, tries to challenge human nature into making humans perceive obesity as sexually not repulsive, which is obviously hopeless. Instead, working hard on oneself to slim down and exercise to rise one's attractiveness is the only thing having a chance to succeed - exactly which that stupid ideology prevents. Being offended one is not rich and only endlessly trying to find justifications why the rich should be expropriated and the "poor" should get their stuff for free is endlessly inferior to just the smallest effort of a boy trying to make money himself by selling self-made lemonade in front of his parent's house - he tries to grow himself, to achieve success himself - not to try to shame others into giving it to him as a gift, or even worse, prove to them that he is entitled to receive this gift from them. Leftism, especially in its contemporary form, is nothing else than an attempt at scapegoating non-leftists, superior people (and for most leftists, it takes not much to be superior over them) to make them somehow guilty for being superior individuals. People need to be controlled, from the perspective of the ruling class at least. How? Of course, by programming and by neutralizing them. Programming as a tool is better known: Propaganda, advertising, education, schooling, media exposure, legal laws and all that.It works more or less, but seldomly can powerfully control what most people really privately THINK. BUT it is almost perfectly achieved to control what most people THINK ABOUT! This is the "neutralization" aspect of social control: Distraction, and destruction of life-time. Americans, on _average_ (even more for the lower classes, the primary target of neutralization) watch 8h TV per day. This time is destroyed life time. They are distracted. You cannot reason, think in TV/Movies - before you can form an idea and work on it, the next scene is already shown, the next attentional cue presented and hammered into the consciousness - endlessly. After TV hours, people feel like "waking up" ("Where are all the hours gone to, it felt just like a few moments since I sat down in front of the TV?"), yet are mentally fatigued and need to rest. They cannot learn, they cannot experience real things, they have only been neutralized, like by a mental straitjacket. And it goes on for decades, all their life, from cradle to grave for most, and 8h in terms of life time means that at least half their waking life-time is spent in front of the TV, the mind- and life-neutralizer (and therefore, neutralizer of socio-political opposition): If they live 100 years, they spend 33 years sleeping, 33 years at work/school/traffic/shopping and 33 years watching TV - at least for the past generations, today we also have the powerful new neutralizers of potential opposition in form of other entertainment weapons - video games, social media and other things internet-related. By sheer quantity, the NEUTRALIZATION WEAPON is clearly the most powerful - nothing else destroys so much potential, so much life-time, and - importantly - nothing pacifies and makes more docile, nothing destroys self-development, self-improvement more. Drugs, religions, political movements are nothing against the destructive, enslaving and crippling power of the great distractants, the mighty entertainment weapons. It's not armies and police who control the population - it's the pleasures of eating (obesity, illness, weakness) and entertainment (dumbing down, by preventing education and attaining goals and by making people forget and lose abilities over time through non-use). ... Brzezinski said that “in earlier times, it was easier to control a million people, literally, than physically to kill a million people” while “today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.” Yet the elites are successful at it, they just have to work harder, mostly because of the advent of the internet: Information is not longer mainly a one-way street from ruling class to the public (Movies, books, TV, radio) - today members of the public can easily publicize and reach millions of people - theoretically all people on earth - for a few dollars worth of internet connection. This is so dangerous to the rulers, that, for example in China, the internet is extremely tight controlled by the government; in the West, the weapons of distraction, the entertainment weapons, seem to be still the weapon of choice over outright censorship. The upper class tries to divide and conquer - the more fractions, the more chaos, the more opposed political factions (old vs. young, white vs. black, women vs. men, leftist vs. rightists, vegans vs. carnivores etc. etc.) are produced and perpetuated, fueled, the more - counterintuitively - social stability (in terms of keeping up the power of the ruling/upper class) is secured, because the more fractionated people are, the less likely they can stand together and challenge the ruling/upper class. Who holds real power anyway? Not the voters, so much we know. It's the upper class, the "top families" (though not all members of those families are fit for or participating in the ruling). And they do not want to be observed doing the ruling, they want to exercise powers in secret, so that the chances for resistance are lowest. Therefore, I think that the "Potemkin rich" (from "Potemkin village") are in place - richer actors, singers, sports stars and the like - to mesmerize the public's attention and to obstruct the view, hinder attention to the real powers behind the scenes, the owners and rulers of industry and capital, the real upper class. Media is full of topics about the "Potemkin rich", instilling the idea in most people that these are the "rich" who "rule" - instead, this is just another layer of distraction. People chatter endlessly about actors and singers and sport's heroes, completely oblivious to the fact that those people are not even really rich (compared with the upper class who owns all the good land, houses and corporations) or really powerful.
Oh, and by the way, the "divide and conquer", or rather today "divide, cause outrage, command distraction/attention" the upper class uses works by selectively supporting political movements with money, ideas and other resources, openly or secretly, also through the intelligence apparatus. In the past, an example is COINTELPRO. Today, Soros is an example: My personal hypothesis is that the US intelligence apparatus uses its power/resources to give him tips on how to make big money by speculation - under the condition he uses most of that money gained to publicly funnel it into political movements the US goverment/upper class wants (NGOs), to support US policy, for example in color revolutions and exploitation of youths/socialism/feminism/revolution in target countries to destabilize US-unfriendly governments in those foreign countries (I see this as one of the reasons Russia banned Western NGO activity, as well as China, at least in essence). By acting through this scheme, the US elites can fund/support/influence movements and countries covertly they cannot manipulate/fund/support openly. From the upper class' perspective, the basic political manipulation scheme is as simple as effective: If the left is weak, they support the left. If it grows too strong, they stop support, begin sabotage, and/or support the right. If the right grows too dominant, they reverse again their support. So, neither right or left can ever win, because their whole struggle is manipulated by the ruling class, which does not care for left or right politics, only for keeping power themselves - genetically, structurally, and financially. This, on my opinion, is the reason behind the otherwise puzzling fact that Western governments and clearly ultra-capitalist individuals and foundations support what, from a superficial view, are their sworn enemies (communists, socialists, Nazis, Muslim organizations, etc.). If you support your enemies, you get a certain measure of control... Even more, if you also support your enemies' enemies...
The only objectively true, supreme law - moral, legal, religious or otherwise, is this: Only the one with the highest power (to cause pain and destruction/death) has the highest right, is the true sovereign. Even our idea of God must submit under this law, for a God who is subject to destruction or torture by somebody else cannot be God. Law follows power. For if one lacks power to enforce one's idea of "law", moral or otherwise, of good and right, good and evil, one has just an plea, can only beg to others to hope to have it some real-world impact. Anybody can make up "laws", based on his (genetically imprinted) feelings of what is right and wrong, even a child can do it. Therefore, having morals is nothing special or impressive; to give it meaning to those who feel/think otherwise, a moral system must be proven to them - which is difficult or impossible (because morals are instinct-based and therefore genetic, and because of opposing interests in individuals, which will not be dissolved, only suppressed, by laws); however, the "proof", the demonstration of its superiority can also be in the form of raw power: Do as the more powerful entity says, or get tortured or killed. This, by the way, is how our legal system works, actually: They say that one would be able to arrive at the pleasure of being law-abiding by insight, but nonetheless law-breakers are tortured (I see imprisonment as torture) or killed as the primary motivator. Here we touch politics, of course, because it is about the morals/interests of one person or group being enforced on all people as law, with threats of torture or death (again: all law flows from power or it is no law); politics and power are, of course, most closely related.
How about mercy, "solidarity" in terms of the leftist culture? (Sbd. once said that "solidarity" is the leftist version of "I'll pray for you" of Christians.) How should we act in life? Should we show mercy to those who are inferior to us? I think no, we should be ruthless, at least if we want to keep existing and reproduce advantageously: (I'll use the terms "poor" and "rich" as general terms for the disadvantaged and advantaged.) 1. The poor are also subject to the evolutionary pressures of getting resources and high-value mates just like you are. If you were poor and they were rich, they would exploit/enslave/kill you, too. By helping them to gain richer (without you becoming even richer, too in the process) you will only strengthen your rivals/enemies and weaken your own position in the war for social status. 2. The very point of being rich is to have others who are poor(-er) who then have to serve you as, basically, slaves. If they do not need your money and therefore act as your slaves, it has no point to be rich, at least in terms of social status. Being rich means in that sense that you get them to work for you, and profit from it - for example by owning their abode, and getting rent as capital income. If you want to be rich, you want to have capital income (=not having to work yourself), which means exploitation of those people who work for your profit/rent/dividends/interests. Not exploiting the poor when the very objective is to get rich (=exploiting the poor for capital income) makes no sense; therefore exploit them right away mercilessly. 3. The poor/inferior are not your competition in the social war for resources/mates - power, social status - other rich/superior humans are. If you show mercy in exploiting the the poor and your rival not, he will make more money, gain more power, and will so be able to more likely outcompete or even destroy you in the war for resources and high-quality mates for reproduction. Therefore, the poor will be exploited anyway, if not by you then by anyone else, but your failure to exploit them when you can will only give you a disadvantage in the social war. 4. Even if you show mercy to the poor they will not thank you. Human nature is that way. There is a psychological tendency to perceive the poor as "good" (and not as the human garbage they usually are) and the strong as "evil". This also applies to the poor themselves - they will show respect for the powerful and strong/rich, even adore them (in the form of actors, singers, sports stars a common day experience) - but will themselves be disgusted at other poor people or even more poor/inferior people like them. Kindness is quickly forgotten by most humans, greed and power never. To a king who enjoyed the cheering crowd at his coronation, a wise adviser pointed out that the very same crowd will cheer as well at his beheading. Do not be merciful (or only when it makes Machiavellian sense) - you will only lose something, and gain nothing.
Then why be so merciful with the generosity? This is thoroughly useful (at least 95% of it that we hadn't thought of), so not fully 'machiavellian' but quite dogmatic, which accounts for the other 5%. It is impossible that UC doesn't also suffer a fair amount of the time and that it is obvious that mediocrity is across-the-board. It's like Alrenous's 'new pain base' after you've discovered the 'pain you didn't know you had' by taking heroin. Maybe it had to be written this way--in the interests of brevity, of course, and you had to proclaim general mechanisms because they usually are the operative ones. Fantastically useful, but you stink of MC, or at least Nouveaux Riche, even if as loaded as Old Money (plenty of UMC is nouveaux riche already, but wants to skip the 'vulgar stage', which is always impossible--we have fantastic examples of this, well--illuminated by many documents): UC and (many, at least) elites are not nearly always merciless (although they mostly are, or were in ancestry, and maybe most often are, especially to everyone else for profit, but to each other as constantly, and proof of sibling-killing throughout the power-struggles of rulers has been there forever, even in places like Denmark and Sweden in the 17-19th centuries, just to cite one example), and poor are not nearly always garbage. If you think so, you're just two-dimensional--and do seem quite possibly to be. Or to be fair (which is interdit, of course), you were just making this as concise as possible; although I for one read all of it, and find it to be mostly a very stimulating and immediately adaptable primer for status acquisition, however truncated into such miniature form of myriad posts. The 'killing' as means of acquired status is a good metaphor, and applies often, not always. This is nothing new, and does happen like that frequently enough, except when the 'slowly killed' uses it as a means to learn how to rise instead from the lesson learned. You've got countless examples of brilliant usage (and usefulness at any level), and points like the 'rich [but not really rich] entertainers and sports objects that lower classes spend wasted time on, as unpaid fans, is very good, but the Really Rich hang out with them, and do use them, but not exactly as slaves in drudgery-pain. Sure, the dumb ones among the poor are the largest numbers of them, and the UC is well-known to stay beautiful by occasionally intermarrying with a LC 'beautiful individual' to keep the Upper Classes 'so goodlooking', which they are as a group much more so. However, those entertainers and rich football players are much more interested in clinging parasitically to their superiors (richer film stars who try to get into the most WASP co-ops and are rejected, so go off in high dudgeon, and say things like "it was because I was Jewish", which it may well have been), as it were, and are not personally interested in their fans, whom they use for profit just like their superiors use them and the LC. Some of them, are, however, very rich too, including some of the vilest ones. No, $500 million by Puff Diddy is not the Kochs's inherited $50 billion each, but it's not small either. Money-wise, both are in the .0001 % So wealth and income and fame is not always sufficient at the highest levels to buy the highest status (maybe it will be, but not yet.) The Viking/collen/michael is right about Trump's inability to 'make it into the Park Avenue highest NYC society', and does good work constantly pointing it out (as recently as yesterday again, under yet a new name, at 'Jim's Blog'), and that wouldn't be a problem, of course, if he didn't want the reassurance of his superiors, and reassurance everywhere he does lust for. He says he doesn't, but only because he doesn't get it everywhere....and still doesn't. So it still stings. The same is true of the oligarchs who buy condoes for money laundering their swag in form of suitcases of cash on Billionaire's Row on 57th and 59th Street (but who can't get past a Park Avenue co-op board), and then you find an LLC with nobody's name on it, incidentally, asserting more power in the hiding scheme. This 'new cash' is like a drug, easily understandable, and makes them feel the sting somewhat less of not quite being able to buy into Old Money yet (and pretend it doesn't matter), but the renewal of population, not decrease, of the East Side WASPS is the fact; I was surprised by this too. We owe a great debt to Louis Auchincloss, including in his last years, for telling us of this: It's still closed, or there would be no Billionaire's Row nor trendy DT Whitney fashionable scene where before there was only slum. But your Manifesto does provide a reminder to ratchet it up a step or two till the next one comes round. Some of your condemned groups (say, the elderly) generally are gradually left by the wayside, but this is in no way true of individuals in any of the groups, and the UC does value friendships and even love, which you seem to want to devalue as lower-class phenomena easily sold off in the guiltless Faustian pact. Again, often, not always. Right about the condemnation of sex at all levels, though. This has to be primary in slipping past.
Trump’s inability to ‘make it into the Park Avenue highest NYC society’, and does good work constantly pointing it out (as recently as yesterday again, under yet a new name, at ‘Jim’s Blog’), and that wouldn’t be a problem, of course, if he didn’t want the reassurance of his superiors, and reassurance everywhere he does lust for. This is really off the mark. Trump longs for no reassurance at all, and it's nearly patent he despises the atop-the-top for seeing their nation (well, the few who have a reason to see it as their nation. Many others lack a reason to. Let's focus on the first group here) as a toy to toy with and nothing more. Trump simply tries to be not impeached, or shall we say, Watergated, because he clearly knows "how things go" in this country in the last decades. He's done all what could be humanely done while still keeping his position. He has the task of governing against all (well, four fifths of) the governing powers.
It's not off the mark, but not worth arguing with except his New York, pre-presidential persona. The part going on now is just opinion about current D.C. policy, ideology, politics, etc. You probably know nothing of Manhattan social classes, or it sounds it. Leona Helmsley (even before the tax evasion) was never apart of NYC upper class life. She was the same kind of RE magnate Trump is. Sure, he thinks his garish _nouveau riche_is 'better' because it's his. He could even think it's an alternative to Upper East Side gentry, but if it were so, the gentry (as the Astors or Vanderbilts, some old ones and many descendants still remaining) would have come running while he was still doing most of it here or in various businesses, licit or fraudulent (Trump University was indisputably fraudulent) and they most certainly have not. I do remember him talking to Anderson Cooper and telling him what a 'great woman' his mother, Gloria (definitely atop-top) is. Admittedly, that would be hard for anyone to miss, though. If that's not clear, the Clintons finished out their 8 years, and moved here. There were quotes from some of these Brahmins of how they were 'thoroughly inferior people' at first, as they began to make their way in, with her soon to become a NY senator, and his settling into a Harlem office till he could quietly slip away (having first failed at getting the lavish 57th St. address he wanted, but then 'making do' in his good ol' boy way as always.) I didn't say those types weren't snobs and were always right about everything, I just know that they are the ones who still call the social shots in Manhattan, and they are both deep in Wall Street and run all the high-culture boards, esp. the Met Museum. "it’s nearly patent he despises the atop-the-top for seeing their nation (well, the few who have a reason to see it as their nation. Many others lack a reason to. Let’s focus on the first group here) as a toy to toy with and nothing more." He certainly wishes he really despised them instead of envied them, but they despise him as well, have always done and always will. He's still the 'Queens boy' to a certain degree (this is what Collen/Viking keeps reminding people of--and he certainly does not talk about 'the old neighborhood' as Mario Cuomo used to, also from Queens), just as Jared was from a 'less affluent' New Jersey town. Livingston is upper-middle-class, but not rich like neighboring Short Hills, and he was even educated in super-low-status Paramus (of the mall rats.) It's true he went to Harvard, high-status but looked askance at in most of these parts. There's a hedge-fund guy with a fabulous townhouse on my block who grew up in Short Hills whose father was the most successful short-seller on Wall Street, and then the son did the same just before the Collapse (then became a 'psychologist' specializing in paruresis, or 'pee-shyness'.) They would have a hard time getting past any Park Avenue co-op board too, due to Jewishness, which still is not encouraged by the old-line WASPS. Anyway, most from the less fashionable want to be let in to the more fashionable. Jay Gatsby is not the one whose 'voice was full of money', even if he had plenty. All the Trumps and their ilk are parvenus. And even though they're all rich, they're not nearly as rich as some of the NYC billionaires (Bloomberg is at least 5 times richer than whatever Trump is, and certainly a small percentage of either Koch), nevermind we don't know 'how rich'. "He’s done all what could be humanely done while still keeping his position. He has the task of governing against all (well, four fifths of) the governing powers." There's nothing 'humane' about him, even if you do support what he has (and hasn't) done. I voted for him, but he has already failed admirably IMO. He does have the task of governing, but doesn't.
I really endorse you on 4) there. Let me quote some "sociologist" quoted by Bauman in a book of his (in disagreement): I don’t accept the idea that who has been the victim should combat the temptation to become the victimizer. You shouldn’t ask too much of common folk. It is normal for the victim to turn into the victimizer. The poor man, as well as the poor, ends up by hating you \[...\] for he wants to forget the past, the humiliation, sorrow and the fact of having achieved something through the help of someone, thanks to the pity of someone, and not by himself \[...\] How to escape the sorrow and humiliation? The most natural thing is to kill, or humiliate your benefactor, or to find someone still weaker to triumph over/on him.
I think it is possible to get a higher social status and joy of dominance over others in two ways: One is by dominating others aggressively through dominance (muscles or smarts or beauty). The other is often overlooked: The weak, dumb or otherwise inferior can sometimes be observed to show an almost unreasonable, seemingly altruistic, bordering on aggressiveness, helping-behavior, a "helper-syndrome": By finding others who are even more inferior, for example homeless people, they can then "help" them (soup kitchens, assistance to write letters or apply for government handouts etc.) - but in an important sense those helpers help themselves, by being able to dominate somebody else - if not by attacking and humiliating others, then by helping and therefore also humiliating others - as being so inferior to need and receive such help has a socio-psychological aspect of being humiliated. All voluntary behavior must activate be motivated due to genetically imprinted activation of the reward center in the brain, it seems - and gaining social status appears to be a general principle that activates the reward center. Consider humor: It's considered a good and proper thing; but the less-known reality of all humor is that we only find that funny which is about - real or imagined - losing of social status of someone. This is the universal rule of all humor, all jokes - it is centrally about humiliation, about losing social status; and if others lose it, everybody else gains it, because it is a zero-sum game, and gaining social status causes pleasure, and pleasure makes humans laugh. Therefore, all humor seems to be aggressive, never friendly.
Eh, you're a bit off the mark on your evaluation of humor. "..we only find that funny which is about - real or imagined - losing of social status of someone" Consider this anecdote from Schopenhauer: ".. the well-known anecdote of the actor Unzelmann. In the Berlin theatre he was strictly forbidden to improvise. Soon afterwards he had to appear on the stage on horseback, and just as he came on the stage the horse dunged, at which the audience began to laugh, but laughed much more when Unzelmann said to the horse : " What are you doing ? Don t you know we are forbidden to improvise ? " Whose status is being lowered here? The horse's?
Actually, after considering it again, the Berlin theatre is being mocked when Unzelmann makes their rules seem ridiculous. Well what about something like a "why did the chicken cross the road" joke? "Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side!" The joke is only funny to those who haven't heard it (and maybe it only barely passes the threshold for humor), but you could argue that any laughter resulting from it comes from sudden realization of self-awareness on the hearer's part about their own cognitive limitation; thus they are mocking themselves. "Well, obviously the chicken wants to get to the other side! Why didn't I think of that?" I don't really think that sort of surprised laughter would necessarily involve a lowering of status though. Maybe in the chicken example people might look down on you as a stupid person for thinking such childish humor is funny, but it seems easy to imagine a scenario in which one of those people would laugh at some other cleverer joke or pun or what have you, that wouldn't involve some lowering of status.
Consider examples of the UC shutting down/killing off/destroying political movements that could pose a realistic threat: "Occupy Wallstreet", the "99%" movements a few years back. This was dangerous to the UC - not only did they rally in front of banks and living-centers of the rich; they also achieved to frame their movement to be in the interest of the majority ("99%"), directed attention to the really rich and powerful - and that in a dire time of financial crisis, where the public is especially angry at the rich/powerful because they themselves lost jobs/house/money/car etc. This was the worst time for a socialist movement, and a great immediate danger, therefore. Now - you remember what happened? Right - nothing. The movement died down, vanished into nothing, in a short amount of time! Such magic! Instead, we got suddenly and powerfully "replacement social movements" - "Black lives matter", "the social justice warriors", increased feminism - on the right side of the spectrum even the "Tea Party Movement". Now consider that! A dangerous leftist anti-UC movement with the potential to unite most of the (non-UC) public - vanished just like that! - and got replaced with fractured, crazy, outrage (hatred) - generating weirdo and special-interest movements! Instead of having a "united front" of non-UC "99ers" against the UC, there suddenly was a mix of protest movements who not only hated the UC, but HATED EACH OTHER EVEN MORE, distracting outrage and hatred away from the UC! Magic! Good fortune! Such good luck! No. Deliberate social engineering, of course. The socialist instinct, the desire to avoid getting a low status and attaining a higher one, to "remove" those who are a percepted as threat to ones SS by force, was rerouted away from the UC (which seems so far removed from common people and are no direct, more a conceptualized rival) by putting peer-grade social rivals in front of non-UC people's noses: Suddenly it was not 1% vs. 99%, but Blacks vs. Whites, old vs. young, employed vs. unemployed, patriots vs. non-patriots etc. etc. again, the good old "divide and conquer", the old general method applied with new, improved techniques from, for example, behavioral psychology. The UC rulers are genetically, therefore intellectually and emotionally superior to the rest of the people, and they know exactly how they feel and think, only of a higher level - those of superior intellect can easily manipulate those of significantly lower cognitive ability: It's not even a contest. On top of their inherent cognitive abilities the rulers from UC also have access to a higher grade of learning, education, and generally a better insight into society, just from the fact that they can much better see/recognize/learn/gain insights into how things really are and function by having the view from "top down" on society. Imagine you were IQ 100, and suddenly all other humans would be on the level of sufferers from Down-Syndrome: If you were not lazy, in a few weeks you would be uncontested ruler of the whole planet earth, the whole humanity. This is a bit how society looks and feels from the perspective of UC, at least from it's really functional members who do the actual ruling.
I cannot post further, something seems broken.
Perhaps it was the links in my comment. I therefore link my comment as follows: https://pastebin.com/pE5qiQax
May I suggest you open a blog.
I'm sorry when I cluttered the comment section or offended in any other way; I am not interested to publicize, I only try to find out if some of my thoughts make sense by exposing them to other people whose writings I found insightful, in the hopes if attracting critique to prevent myself from fooling myself (in the sense of Feynman) - because of the strong human tendency of rationalization, and the (starkly observable trait in leftists) tendency to believe that that is real what one hopes/wants to be real. I try to figure out how we humans really function to grasp reality better. For example, I feel confident that true altruism is impossible, though presented publicly as an ideal by many (in an attempt to further their survival/SS at someone's else expense?) - so what is true? Consider the analogy/example of a cow that gives her milk freely to everybody who asks - soon the cow would kill her calf, and then herself. It seems true altruism is impossible because it is self-destructive, and that the request of many (especially from the left) that humans should be altruistic is actually only self-serving and calculating to exploit others. So it would seem humans are actually completely egoistic and consciously or unconsciously always calculating to maximize their personal gain, which then translates into behavior; but that for evolved social-behavior reasons there is a widespread tendency to fake altruism (when the personal costs are low or social visibility is high) to virtue-signal to gain a higher SS/power and to attempt to gain more from feigned altruism in expected or socially shamed reciprocation than one gave to others. Generally I am confused because the publicly stated ideals and actual human behavior are so fundamentally different, opposing even. It's like there is a set of public rules that are hypocrisy (only followed when one is exposed to public attention), and a set of true rules that people really function on.
Taken this question from general to special example: Is feminism anything else than projecting female's frustration of their own comparably low sexual attractiveness outwards as a rationalization in the form of aggression against men who do not want them sexually, that is pay attention to, have sex with and give power and money to, like they would do with very sexually attractive women? To put it in simpler words: Are those feminists angry because they are humans of inferior quality?
Yes. Or humans who are not of inferior quality, but who, once feminism already became a movement with power, found it expedient to join it in order to not lose status themselves. You had to love Communism in Soviet Russia even if you weren't an industrial worker.
Again, you may do better by opening a blog and organizing your thoughts better. On hypocrisy; Robin Hanson has a new book, "The Elephant in the Brain", which explains it in fairly accessible terms. I think it will help greatly with your confusion.
Thank you very much for this book recommendation; I am reading it right now and find it as fascinating as insightful.
Generally I am confused because the publicly stated ideals and actual human behavior are so fundamentally different, opposing even. It’s like there is a set of public rules that are hypocrisy (only followed when one is exposed to public attention), and a set of true rules that people really function on. This isn't an elite scheme, however, but due to the basic design of a single human mind, and then societies (collective minds) as well. Basically... if a "truth" becomes an article of the mainstream doctrine, it is because becoming so, interests are served. This alone tells you that whatever will be propagandized, and instilled on a massive scale, will never be the truth: with a truth, there would be no need to do all that work. Contrary: all that work is done to instill anti-truths: "truth"s that blanket a truth that, left in the open, would be of harm (to the elites, or to the society at large). So, yes, all the pillars of the mainstream culture at every time in history are a string of blatant falsehoods. Where I disagree with the mainline interpretation is: are really the elite exploiting and enslaving the folks? Or won't it be that the elite's "obey" the folks (the folks' unconscious will at least), and serve a required function? If one things to Rao's The Gervais Principle, the foreword to Histoire d'O, or landmark psychology essay The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bilateral Mind (Jaynes) [obviously it has never made it to the mainstream] and the first paper anybody interested in both politics and truth should begin with reading, Beahrs' Ritual Deception: a Window to the Hidden Determinants of Human Politics one can reach a new standpoint, and so much will appear under a new light. Your account doesn't... account for the existential, primary need, on the part of the "slaves", to be kept free from their own freedom — their ultimate source of terror if they were left with it. Nor for their hunger for deception, and ego-feeding palaver. So for example, are Fakebook and Instalie exploiting their hundreds of millions of average users? Or aren't they providing a priceless service, helping those hundreds of millions of egos attaining the sole thing they are capable of desiring and which will suffice for they to live a contented life, that is the feeling that, like at Lake Wobegone, all the children are above average (the children is, obviously, they). Lastly, a word on what you said of love. Your sketch is enough to account for all female love. Males can be taken, and give, idealistic, beyond-darwinian love. That they are punished excruciatingly by the female for doing so can be seen as to consolidate your point, and in fact I don't disagree. Only wanted to point out some male (dearly paid) exceptions to a jungle-bound vision of passion between the sexes.
"Curious Story', as Robert Schumann might say. Occupy was in Sept. 2011, just after opening of 9/11 Memorial, which I went down to see. It had already started a few blocks away, but I didn't want to see it. Interestingly ambitious since so naive. TV coverage would then show someone off to Goldman's or the stock exchange, but although he may have been 'killing them', it gave him no charisma--those are either pinched or richly clothed in expensive coats and groomed rich-Jewishly like Pres. historian Michael Beschloss (Charles Schwab isn't Jewish.) Murder is not illegal because it's pleasurable, because there are so many things that are not illegal that are pleasurable. The famous American Puritanism doesn't run nearly everything. I can't see any scientific proof you've given, so I'll be brief. It's not cooperative, not nice, not civilized - but one cannot argue that it outcompetes flower bouquet gifts, dating, marriage and rising of one or two children by a rather spectacular degree. Well, that's another interesting sentence. I don't disagree that Genghis Khan was 'successful', but whether he was the most successful I don't think is necessarily true, or just doesn't matter. You've proved only that he was one of the most sensationally gluttonous. There was a passage from one of Sade's novels quoted in that poor bio of Foucault by that amateurish academic, but I don't remember which one, and have read only 2 or 3. Some libertine woman has murdered someone. She must not be quite as outwardly slatternly as she sound, because proles don't have the opportunity to do this kind of thing, but I always picture her as a frump. I forgot who she murdered too. She said: "Why did I do it? Because it was fun, to spill my fuck". Probably memorable because I don't remember Sade's characters reflecting on such things in the late afternoon. In any case, some find it pleasurable, whether Stalin, Napoleon, Hitler, Trump or the Clintons, once they've gotten up there. Maybe some of them read Nietzsche when they were 16 too. Who knows? A species who is really peaceful and friendly sure would not voluntarily enjoy so much depictions of aggression and killing of fellow humans, wouldn't it? After all, it can be expected that people want to watch as entertainment things they really want to do and really enjoy - like sex/pornography/erotic depictions, for example. But most of what humanity wants to see and enjoy is not singing and dancing together in peace and harmony, but conflict and killing. People can be interested in serial killers (who definitely get off on their careful murders, cf. Daumier, Gacey), but that doesn't mean they're excited by it, at least not pleasured by it (most are not, I can't prove that, but you can't prove anything you've said either, so what the hell). 'sex.pornography/erotic...' ca be educational, although maybe only .0001% I've ever seen are aesthetic. Most is useless, and most don't have time to get through much. It's illicit, but not illegal. Lots of things are 'relatively legal', mundane examples being med. marijuana. You can 'sing and dance' without 'perfect harmony', and you surely do! Anyway, status is very subjective. Spandrell talks about a primarily mainstream sort, which is always necessary up to a point if you want to have any status at all, but those aren't the only ways to see SS. Oh vell, I'm afraid the whole isn't greater than its parts, although I guess you can be killed if you want to be. Baffling.
Status is intersubjective. It's the sum of what many subjects think. Some people are better at reading minds than others. We call the extreme left tail of that distribution "autists".
Yes, that sounds right, with almost all subjects agreeing on some measures of status, and maybe still 'many, but fewer subjects' agreeing on some that not all do. Autism is 'extreme left tail'? You don't mean 'always leftist', do you? I mean, that one of you who is super-bright/scientific but claims he's autist (I think he means it, but not sure.) He's def. not leftist, but maybe you were referring to 'rainbow coalition' autists. Yet another one in these parts (doesn't comment here, but you know the one) seems to read minds well, may call himself autist (I've never been sure), but does absolutely refuse to answer questions. Is that an autistic trait? I'm beginning to think it must be, this presupposition that even superficial communication is humiliating or painful.
I mean that in a bell curve of "ability to know what's going on socially", autists are at the leftmost edge.
Yes, I guess they are. There's others though, who read pretty clearly "what's going on" but still are unable to perform the ritual deception, and self-deception, social navigation demands at every breath. (Or hate doing it, deeply). These have been defined Aspergoids.
Now we are getting somewhere, acknowledging our problem is cultural Marxism.
Excellent again. I particularly enjoy your talent at making all this easy to understand in plain language, considering how much you are unpacking here. This piece hits home, since right now, approaching 30, I am on a middle of personal slump, owing to my lack of success with women. Not so much due to looks as personality, but it doesn't matter in the end. The thing is, I have always been left-wing, more economically than culturally. I have grown to admit the efficiency of capitalism but still think that there is a lot of dysfunction in it (in the corporatist fashion in which really exists, not as libertarians would like it to be). What depresses me right now is realizing that even if we achieved a sort of permanent 1960s again, with full employment and all that jazz, I would still be sad, because the sexual marketplace can not be fixed in the same way the regular marketplace can. What amazes me is how can regular people be cheerful despite all. I guess that they don't fathom any of this, and accept life as it is.
Thank you. I do pride myself in writing clear prose. You'll have to solve the women thing; either go Roissy, or get a foreign woman, or move abroad yourself. It can be done. People may appear cheerful but the psychiatric drug consumption rate doesn't lie. People do.
I would recommend the Roissy way. But he goes by the name of "heartiste" now.
'psychiatric drug'--sometimes these do work. Many nightmare stories of most kinds, often the ones that destroy libido. I always thought it was 'selling out', 'selling soul', something or other--avoided them all for decades, and some are actually quite to the point, at least Wellbrutrin is for me for about 8 months. Sometimes what seem like outside depressing stimuli are, but not totally, so that you can control them considerably better. Even if the sex market doesn't seem to be working, it is not possible that it is not working at all, but that you can perceive it that way with so many disgusting movements occurring (and any kind of med doesn't even make you perceive disgusting things as anything but.) That doesn't mean I know what Oscar C. should do, or whether it would work, but sometimes things you're sure are only caused by external depressing things can be more internal than you think--or at least you can get some power over them, make them start to go your way. I did swear by never using one, and shit like Zoloft will truly take away not only libido, but all energy. Read about Wellbutrin anyway--it's the one that actually stimulates libido, but I was surprised that things I'd thought would be 'too dark' for years were also removed, and that things I thought would be removed that I wanted were not. It re-shaped difficult perceptions so that I could see it was at least possibly getting depressed for something that was not really that powerful, and made it possible to fix innumerable things. They are not all downers like Prozac, and I didn't lose anything I valued but looking at things too darkly. such that I was often paralyzed with some problems. I've read a lot of other stories on the net and some irl friends, and it's the only one that does not have but a few negative responses. I think this may be rare, because the horror stories of most ADPs seem to be in the majority (but not for W., again.) This one hypes you a little, and removes some depression that way. I just put this, because if you have the looks, but the 'personality' is the problem, it can often just be the projection of depression itself, and that never ever sells to anybody--I think Spandrell has a cartoon of two lobsters on his Twitter which shows how poorly depression sells--it never matters whether you fail because it's somebody else's fault, because you still lost--nd everybody knows it, even the one's who sympathize, which may be the worst part; who needs sympathy? It's a pitiful substitute for success. I don't think people are 'cheerful' in general, and I know I'm not particularly, having yelled at dumb customer service at a big dept. store yesterday, and ended up getting my way because she was totally retarded and a bitch. I do know that some people are against all of these on principle, and I was for 40 years, but my preconceived notions were wrong, to my surprise--but it had to be because of getting the right one. (otoh, I've never thought psychiatry did much but give license and indulge and impoverish.) W. begins to pick you up right away, there's none of this nonsense of having to wait 3-4 weeks while you get more and more listless for the 'good effects' to take place. And you definitely sound seriously depressed. The women (even if few decent) would often like you if you weren't so obviously depressed. The 're-wiring' doesn't work the way you think it will, isn't sudden, and you don't 'lose' pieces of yourself except the half-dead ones. It's also easier to give up than other ADPs and certainly than narcotic scheduled drugs. Just something worth considering--apologies for putting this here, Spandrell, I don't know this guy, but it does sound somewhat like 'personal depression.'
Yes, this is helpful, parisian. Thank you.
The difference consists in intelligence difference and self-deception difference. If one is really half-witted, they will not even need to self-deceive to winnow out whatever would otherwise strip them of mental well-being. If they are intelligent and insightful, self-deception is needed. If there is no ability to self-deceive, you have a real philosopher, or artist, and a wretched existence. And most times, of course, you have the wretched existence without the art and philosophy.
Spot on. That sums up my impressions quite nicely.
IIRC Warren Buffett said that being anxious is usually the price of being smart, because you experience more things at once, and can intuitively associate them at once, therefore you perceive more things, and, critically, more things that could go wrong, even catastrophically so. For example shyness, insecurities etc. are actually not a deficit on something; to the contrary, they are representations of being more (self-) aware: They vanish completely if cognitive ability is impaired, for example by alcohol: Dose-dependently alcohol jams brain functions, the more delicate higher-order processes (thinking, more complex social instincts etc.) first, the more robust base instincts later (appetite/sex/domination/fighting) and at last the most robust processes (breathing drive, consciousness, heart drive). This is the reason alcohol makes so bold, dominant, social, outgoing - to be shy and careful, complex neuronal machinery is needed to analyze the environment for possible (social or physical) dangers or negative consequences of one's behavior and therefore inhibit behavior - if those higher-order processes are "switched off", all one is left with are the more base brain functions, and that's the cause alcohol enables people to socialize more easily, flirt more easily - but also to embarrass themselves more easily (though they do not recognize it when they are drunk). This is also the reason we find sexual partners the more attractive the more drunk we are: To assess the correct attractiveness of potential mates a lot of cognitive processing has to go on; finding detrimental traits takes processing power, and if that is switched off, we are only left with our baser instincts, our more animal-like subsystems, and therefore idealize who we see. By the way: Brain imaging by fMRT shows that when people are in love, brain parts associated with analyzing people are literally switched off when looking at the loved person - and this leads to idealization, which is so typical of falling in love. After a few months or so deactivation ceases, and when looking at the same person those brain centers come "online" again - the idealization ends, suddenly the lover looks much less appealing, much more negatives are noticed, and the love ends or is diminished.
Nice summary, thanks. Buffett knows what he is talking about.
For example shyness, insecurities etc. are actually not a deficit on something; to the contrary, they are representations of being more (self-) aware: Yes, but as for example Julian Jaynes tells us in his The Breakdown of the Bilateral mind and the Origin of Consciousness", being more self-aware than the average in one's time is a disadvantage; as is being so much less than the average. "Self-aware" is a synonym for what is called Sociopath in The Gervais Principle. You either are a status-maximizer type (and you'll love the leg on all other people your awareness gives you), or will see common life as a rueful comedy woven from deception and self-deception, and become depressed (to use an euphemism). No need to take my word about the power and usefulness of self-deception — Trivers' written a very good book about it (if you ignore the PC-pandering lip-service parts where he himself has in mind his social standing, and does what he charges "social scientists" with having done).
[…] Opiate of the masses? […]
Following spandrell's recommendation, I am reading _The Elephant in the Brain_. On page 83, the point-deer-make-horse story is told. And the same observation about lies being a wonderful method to create conformity and detect loyalists is made. It's almost as if the writers were readers of this blog.
They are.
[…] Many on the left, however, will tell you that you are wrong and ableist. As anyone who understands bioleninism would predict, the left does not want to help the handicapped, but rather mobilize them. In a […]
Interesting attempt to frame current situation in western world as something "natural". There is nothing natural about it. Its not a coincidence that every single policy is designed to decrease white birth rates. All of this was created by group that understands human nature down to the bone, which is why it feels like its "natural". Just think about the protocols; its obvious hitpiece on jews and it describes hypothetical meeting not an actual one. Yet everything in it has come to pass. This shows you how well these people understand human nature. Everything that is happening today is part of preconceived plan and designed to lead to preplanned outcome.. The creators of these policies also understand the inevitable outcome. Therefore rise of ethnonationalism is not a fluke as many WNs like to think. We're fighting globalists or jews or call them whatever you want to, but we are not really fighting the creators of the system, we're doing exactly what they want us to. Its very obvious both sides are being agitated against each other with professional techniques. I will not pretend that I know the outcome because these are highly psychopathic people and frankly I don't understand human nature well enough, but I have no doubt it (the outcome) is already determined. I'm happy to have found this site, thanks for good read.
Isn't plotting part of nature, and therewith "natural" too though? http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.it/2015/03/its-not-marxism-because\_11.htmlhttp://masculineprinciple.blogspot.it/2015/03/cultural-pillars-and-critical-theory.html (Marx/Engels "Marxists" -> Marxism/Leninism [They realize how the way to their taking power, possibly global power, passed also through taking control of the minds of the female half of the population] -> failure of Communist revolution/Marxism Leninism -> Frankfurt School ["We ought to be more subtle in manipulating people's minds. Also, technological progress is making fewer and fewer of them empty-stomached enough to be as easy to manipulate as we had expected them to be. We ought to be more subtle, definitely, and make more use of mass connunication media! Add "culture" to "economy". -> Frankfurt School moves to the USA, where they find their ideal ground to spread and thrive. The USA learn to rule the world "globally", under a multiplex of banners (NGOs, "non-profit" organizations that "bring forth" and "bring about" rights to people who don't have them, ...), carefully (as Moldbug has written on) using the label "international" in the place of "USA", and doing nothing but "helping". Sometimes the women who "need more schooling" in Country X. Other times the "rebels", in the Ukraine, or Syria. Also, of course, within the very USA, helping women to want to work more... double the worker offer, and pays will in fact be halved. Control people, and prospectively the world — by using the more herd-minded half of the population as your leverage. And always using names that have an altruistic ring to it. You check any "women right" or "discriminated people right" NGO website, and see... Marxist-Leninist methods of seizing power. And then more power. Looks like it failed a century ago because psychological understanding of people's, and women's, minds didn't work well. On the other hand, it's not like today Engels, Lenin, and the Frankfurt School heads be alive and running. Now in all of this — how do you discriminate between "nature" and "intent"? They are the same thing. The point being, that humans (specially some categories of them) will enthusiastically follow, and make themselves an instrument of, whomever lies them the most and the best. Furthermore, similar rise -> androgynisation breaking of the family structure (which happens as long as law no longer keeps in check female hypergamy as it does male violence. Civilization grows upon the grounds of both male and female "hindbrain" instincts being restrained) "women becoming like men" and "men becoming like women" -> societal fall. Cycle repeats. This time though, technology is near to be advanced enough for our species to go past the "division between 2 sexes", and even move into a state where reproduction is synthetic and no longer done within the human body. Nature will draw the course — while the best organized and smarter and power-hungry will read what's incoming and gain the most power.
Note: when I say "the cycle repeats" I have in mind the fall of the Roman Empire, of certain Greek States in the time of ancient Greece, and so on. Darius III is recorded to have said "My men have become women and my women have become men" at the fall of the Persian Empire.
[…] very good. And he’s simply off the charts this week with his initially unassuming sequel: Leninism and Bioleninism. (What he is when he’s bad is classified.) He starts with a deceptively simple, and really […]
[…] given potatoes. The meat is here and here. Read those first, and I shall await your return with baited […]
Very good work here, and much to think about. (Sorry to be so late to the party.) There is also considerable overlap with Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, which I mean as high praise.
Thank you.
[…] Spandrell: here, here, and here are three posts outlining an idea — “Bioleninism” — that seeks to explain […]
[…]https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/leninism-and-bioleninism/[…]
[…] This is the first of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the second part here, and the third part here. […]
[…] This is the second of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the first part here, and the third part here. […]
[…] – The Jungle, Sinclair (1906) – The Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor (1911) – The Worldly Philosophers, Heilbroner (1955) – The Triumph of Conservatism, Kolko (1977) – Eugenics – A Reassessment, Lynn (2001) – http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Richard-Lynn-Eugenics.pdf – The Underground History of American Education, Gatto (2003) – A Patriot’s History of the United States, Allen and Schweikart (2004) – The Fate Of Progress, Eisenach (2004) https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-fate-of-progress/ – The Roots of American Bureaucracy, 1830-1900, Nelson (2006) – The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics, Schambra and West (2007) – https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-american-politics – The Cross of War: Christian Nationalism and U.S. Expansion in the Spanish-American War, McCullough (2014) – Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, Leonard (2017) – The Gilded Age: 1876–1912: Overture to the American Century, Axelrod (2017) – How the Gilded Age Got That Way, Bordewich (2017) – https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-gilded-age-got-that-way-1503683705 – Problem Reaction Solution: Internet Censorship Edition, Corbett Report (2018) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqC82zmHccU – Old Populism and the New Ideas of Michał Kalecki, Toporowski (2018) – https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/05/old-populism-and-the-new-ideas-of-michal-kalecki/ – Leninism and Bioleninism, Spandrell (2018) – https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/leninism-and-bioleninism/[…]
Great posts. I suppose this is why when Communism (Leninism) is about to take power, Nationalism (I call it Hitlerism) arise to fight it. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, the South American dictators are all examples of it. How does that happen? Promise high status to low status people. and power to be grabbed. When Leninism grabs power (not still total power), those that had a lot of options and were not going to be loyal start to have the same incentives the previous low status had. In biological Leninism, when the white men start to feel low status and think that they cannot change it by themselves, they start to support an alternative Leninism (Hitlerism) that includes them--> The nazis vs Communists, Alt-right vs the rest, etc. Historically Hitlerism has won, since they are a group of better performing people, but not always.
[…] – The Jungle, Sinclair (1906) – The Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor (1911) – The Worldly Philosophers, Heilbroner (1955) – The Triumph of Conservatism, Kolko (1977) – Eugenics – A Reassessment, Lynn (2001) – http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Richard-Lynn-Eugenics.pdf – The Underground History of American Education, Gatto (2003) – A Patriot’s History of the United States, Allen and Schweikart (2004) – The Fate Of Progress, Eisenach (2004) https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-fate-of-progress/ – The Roots of American Bureaucracy, 1830-1900, Nelson (2006) – The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics, Schambra and West (2007) – https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-american-politics – The Cross of War: Christian Nationalism and U.S. Expansion in the Spanish-American War, McCullough (2014) – Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, Leonard (2017) – The Gilded Age: 1876–1912: Overture to the American Century, Axelrod (2017) – How the Gilded Age Got That Way, Bordewich (2017) – https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-gilded-age-got-that-way-1503683705 – Problem Reaction Solution: Internet Censorship Edition, Corbett Report (2018) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqC82zmHccU – Old Populism and the New Ideas of Michał Kalecki, Toporowski (2018) – https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/05/old-populism-and-the-new-ideas-of-michal-kalecki/ – Leninism and Bioleninism, Spandrell (2018) – https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/leninism-and-bioleninism/[…]
[…] Leninism and Bioleninism | Bloody shovel […]
[…] 1, 2 and 3 of Bioleninism can be read at Bloody […]
[…] Parts 1, 2 and 3 of Bioleninism can be read at Bloody Shovel. […]
[…] be completely missed by our ersatz conservative party who will determine that pandering to the bioleninist factions will of course win them votes from the ‘new’ Australians and the woke […]
[…] This is the first of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the second part here, and the third part here. […]
[…] de la coordinación ideológica espontánea, la lucha de clases mutó en lo que Spandrell llamó Bioleninismo: la promesa de status a minorías raciales con bajo IQ, obesos, solteronas y desviados sexuales. […]
[…] de la coordinación ideológica espontánea, la lucha de clases mutó en lo que Spandrell llamó Bioleninismo: la promesa de status a minorías raciales con bajo IQ, obesos, solteronas y desviados sexuales. […]
[…] Continuación a la segunda entrada de Spandrell sobre bio-leninismo, publicado en Bloody Shovel el 21 de Enero del 2018. […]
[…] I could go on about the issue of the effects of Cultural Marxism, but a more in-depth look can be discovered about this subject in a series of articles entitled Biological Leninism, which is the first of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the second part here, and the third part here. […]
[…] these white-ethnic urban communities in the North and Southern whites were squeezed out of the political structure, they were also being squeezed for all of their worth by hands of the […]
[…] these white-ethnic urban communities in the North and Southern whites were squeezed out of the political structure, they were also being squeezed for all of their worth by hands of […]
[…] Artigo Original: https://spandrell.com/2018/01/21/leninism-and-bioleninism/[…]
Thank You, spandrell, for the wonderful term "Biological Leninism"!