Bioleninism explains the genesis of The Cathedral. The article is hosted here: spandrell.com/... Follow Spandrell here: / thespandrell Thanks to Galahad for the thumbnail.
Bioleninism is one of the most important developments in political theory in the modern era and yet barely anybody talks about it. It explains _so much,_ especially when tied to cultural Marxism and postmodernism.
It's not that revolutionary tbh. Maybe I missed something, but like no shit, political and ideological movements recruit from outsiders and losers. If you're going to overthrow a system of course you're going to appeal to the types of people that are disenfranchised from said system who else would even bother?
This completely nailed a lot of things I'd been thinking about. A local leftist political party, whose patrons all act very smugly about knowing everything, is filled to the rafters with guys and girls most of my age group considered losers/rejects of varying degrees. The ironic thing being they've formed their own authoritarian hierarchy complete with personality cult
Seriously, when's the last time you saw a sharp, good-looking, fit, urbane, balanced guy spouting the leftist dogma? It always seems to be some smug resentful neck-beard incel, who of course has all the answers to societies ills. Nice username btw
Do they realize that they're putting freaks out of work? You know I mean, right? The Fat Guy, the Midget Lovers, the Tattooed Lady, the Pain Guy, the Gender Enigma, the Dildo Swallower, the Bearded Lady, they're all so common now that there's no demand. The Strong Guy, the Hairy Guy, the Fire Breathing Black Metal Chick and the Guy Who Bites Off Chicken Heads are perma-canceled due to Antifa.
@@heyassmanx As he said in his last video, the left is essentially a "coalition of losers", and that explains so much of what we see Literally every gym bro is libertarian or conservative for example
They are two different concepts, the spiteful mutant is a cognitive abnormality caused by a mutation that is not darwined away, why the bioleninist ist just inferior in terms of societal competition (could be superior in its own society e.g. somalia)
@@stephanaugust1101 watch part one of these two videos. The imported Somali is precisely the "low status person elevated" in being brought into our society where he literally had no right to be. You can't get any lower in the country's pecking order than sitting in Africa where none of us need give a toss about you.
You now also see people who would be traditionally successful in a meritocracy starting to smarten up and see that, in order to move up in status, they should mimic the lifestyle of the dregs and wear their costumes, etc. This is basically the tattooed hipster MO.
When the 60s came, workers had gotten rich. A Classical Leninist revolution was no longer needed. The ruling class needed a new ideology. And thus, cultural marxism was born. Now whether you were rich (relatively speaking) was not the agenda anymore. What mattered were social disadvantages and social justice... We all know the rest.
Yeah, the “cultural marxism” meme gets thrown around far too much, and the impact that the Frankfurt writers have had is far overstated. Many of the social ills blamed on cultural marxism are better explained by social liberalism, which is promulgated by capitalism; they go hand and hand. People should stop being so reactionary toward Marx’s ideas. I’m not Marxist, but it is helpful to understand the relations of production and its relationship with the superstructure of society. This doesn’t mean one had to advocate for an international workers revolution to usher in communism. You can employ a structural analysis of society and still maintain racial consciousness and oppose liberalism. The Dissident Right still had far too many reactionaries, and that is a weakness in my eyes.
@@rhyswilliams424 None of that explains why industrial workers, whom Marx work was focused on, did not revolt in the way Marxists anticipated. That fact that the October Revolution was unpopular and effectively was a junta forced many, leftist thinkers like Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and later Bourdieu to focus on the cultural, psycho-analytic, normative causes of capitalism's perseverance. It's fair to distinguish this as 'cultural' rather than 'classic' marxism. This term was not created by the nazis. That's 'Cultural Bolshevism' which is a direct reference to supposed Soviet interference. Truth and Downfall is correct anyway. Better living standards did undermine radicals' ability to stoke revolution. And as Marcuse would help form the New Left those radicals concerns would shift from the economic to the distribution of social capital. Similarly other marxists, like Trotsky, would attach social reforms like women's participation in labour and politics, the dissolution of the "bourgeoisie" family to the realisation of socialism. Almost everything we attribute to identity politics now is rooted in that shift from pure economic materialism to sociology among marxists. >the chronic loneliness induced by profit-based dating apps, social media, the lack of affordable social clubs and societies to meet new people lol is this what incels are telling themselves nowadays?
@@rhyswilliams424 I didn't mean that the Bolsheviks merely faced political competition from the Mensheviks etc. They had to put down numerous rebellions before they could properly establish their rule e.g. the Kronstadt Mutiny. They were not seen as legitimate by most of the people. It's extremely dishonest to portray the standing down of the guards of the Winter Palace as proof of the Bolsheviks' popularity. They merely surrendered to a force over ten times their number. You literally claimed that 'cultural marxism' was coined by the nazis. This is not true in and your assertion that it refers to some anti-semetic conspiracy is also without evidence. AFAIK it was coined by Jordan Peterson or Stephen Hicks to denote that Sociology didn't simply become 'more critical' but came to rely on Marxist assumptions. You described this yourself: *"They [the Frankfurt School] are a school of social theory, and critical theory, which in entirety is based on Marx's critical approach to economics."* Descendant critical theories of the Frankfurt School like critical race theory, marxist feminism etc. are explicitly 'identity'-based. Saying that there are other theories of identity such as pan-nationalism is just a distraction. It's quite a poor one because it invokes the Third Worldist movement which exemplifies the synergy between marxian thought and yet another identity politics. While cultural marxism is not the only source of identity politics it is undeniably the main one given its predominance in academia and activist circles. Lenin's generally anti-bourgeoisie social theories exemplify the class-based id pol of classic marxism but are obviously distinct from the later psycho-analytic, race based writings of someone like Fanon. Rather than disproving the existence of cultural marxism this shows different dimensions of it. We see ciphers of their ideas in critical race theory where blackness and whiteness stand in for proletarian and bourgeoisie respectively. I don't see the point of arguing about why people revolt because the historical record shows that marxist uprisings are generally the work of small vanguards rather than being popular. Your point about leaded water is irrelevant as we know that the people of Flint did not stage a rebellion. Plus T&D was referring to a time of relative, general prosperity in the 60s not severe inequality. T&D is also right in that leftist theories did shift towards id pol during that time (Black Power, Feminism, New Left). You can take it as an example of the superstructure changing in response to economic conditions or as search for new answers once the proletarian revolution failed to materialise w/e.
Hey, Charlemagne, have you read Edward Feser’s paper “The Opium of the Professors”? In it, he argues that the intellectual presuppositions of Western philosophy were uniquely inconvenient for the political ambitions of intellectuals, which explains their perversity and hostility towards traditional Western thought. How do you think this fits into Biolenninism?
Having now read both parts, I think it is a fragment of Bioleninism, as these intellectuals, as Spandrell adn Feser both point out, are not very high status in normal societies. I would say that Bioleninism is a less polemic and more concise synthesis of some of Feser's ideas, particularly the ones he lays out in the first part of that series of posts.
Charlemagne The Biolenninism explanation only explains the motivations of people joining the Left’s “coalition of losers.” It doesn’t explain, I think, the sheer perversity and vitriol of Leftists towards traditional Western attitudes about morality and politics.
@@appliedvirtue7731 Yes and I think knowing the motivations itself are 90% of what we need to actually combat the Left in terms of repairing incentive structures.
I am legitimately giddy that i found you... so much "wrongthink and hatefacts" in the last videos... i love it. Does not change what is going on in the world, but its always nice not to be "alone". 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what they say.
A thing that also is remarkable as an important factor related to the low-high status dynamic is the environment, social and physical environment. As you say, even in the most egalitarian utopian society, those who live in areas with the most resources, best climate... will be more successful than those who live in the "worse areas".
Did the video make you feel like you are one of those people that is naturally high-status, and that everyone that has higher status than you, under the current world order, only has that status because they are put into position by a coalition of losers? Did it make your peepee hard to think about yourself in that way?
If firms justify their existence by the relative stability they offer their customers and employees, wouldn't they have an incentive to create as much instability outside their sphere of control as possible in order to exaggerate the distinction between them and self-employed people.
@Be Kind To Yourself good families, good communities, and good nations are self sufficient and therefore do not need to consume from firms. Thus it is in the interest of firms to destroy these institutions as much as they can without sacrificing the potential of their workforce proportionately.
I’d like to hear an analysis of where people like Keir Starmer (UK Labour Party leader) or Bernie Sanders fit. Both are wealthy (would have social high status anyway). Is it that they reached the status limit of their natural capabilities, but want yet more, and the only way to get it is on the left?
You can't ever really eliminate hierarchy, and the elites on the bioleninist left won't necessarily be low status losers like their base. Sanders doesn't have a great track record as a congressmen, and is no aristocrat, but is a step above the Berniebros.
@@Charlemagne_III I see, yes. I get why some self-made men from low status backgrounds (eg Starmer) will always feel inferior to those born of elite families. Whatever your attainment there's always a tier above you to which you aspire, and the aristocratic class will make sure you know you're not really one of them. But I don't get why self-made men cuck and turn left at the last hurdle (just outliers maybe?)
“He couldn’t have actually been serious. Abolish private property? Even Monkeys like to own stuff!” Proof that Mr. Moldbug doesn’t understand what “private property“ means, lmao
Private owner of the means of production is as old as civilization. Collectivist projects aside from building infrastructure, industrization , and a few others were abject failures. Worse yet, unlike capitalism which has many faults but has self correcting mechanisms, socialism/ communism has none because it cannot have freedom to people.
@@alabastertheunicorn3204 If you read older socialist writing, and even older classical economics, they make a clear distinction between industrial capitalism and financial capitalism. Hitler's Germany, 19th century America, and today's china are all variations on industrial capitalism. Whereas the late british empire and today's america are engaged in financial capitalism. The basic issue is that you have a banking, monetary, and financial system that is fundamentally based on rent-seeking and fraud, rather than an economy centered on actual production.
This is the most in detail video I have ever watched about right-wing political theory and so far I'm not impressed. This "literature" appeals to a very specific audience, sexually frustrated white heterosexual males. The reason why this is the case is that these sexual frustrations are being projected into the political theory, it's truly sad and disappointing knowing that there are people who unironically believe that radical political ideologies and movements are motivated because the men beholden to these ideologies want to increase sexual access to females. The projection is so painfully obvious and also the author seems to be thinking that social status and material wealth are the same as if they are interchangeable (Which of course wealth still does play a role in social status) but failing to recognize the much more important indicators that contribute to social status such charisma, height, intelligence, integrity, masculinity, and attractiveness. One more thing before I stop wasting my time typing this comment, it's very cringy when the author is trying to make an assertion without any explanation by using buzz words like "Naturally" and "Natural", that was when I realized that the text the narrator was reading was intended for an audience that already agreed with the author in the first place. Direct message Sultan on discord for a vc chat]
@@matthewprice6828 "Every idea is the manifestation of psychological circumstances....Except my own ideas of course" - Every Leftist His idea of projection could easily be his own projection onto an audience. His assertion that this ideology is an appeal to sexually frustrated white males could easily, by his own logic, be a result of his own disdain for sexually frustrated white males. Furthermore, he lacks any substantive critique of the ideas themselves and instead provides an appeal to motive. Here is a relevant passage for thought: Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing. In short, every idea is reduced to a relativity of some sort, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion nullifies itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion nullifies itself if it is true and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby that it is false; its initial absurdity lies in the implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by enchantment, from a relativity that is declared to be the only possibility. The axiom of relativism is that “one can never escape from human subjectivity”; if this is the case, the statement itself possesses no objective value, but falls under its own verdict. It is abundantly evident that man can escape subjectivity, for otherwise he would not be man; and the proof of this possibility is that we are able to conceive of both the subjective and the surpassing of the subjective. This subjectivity would not even be conceivable for a man who was totally enclosed in his subjectivity; an animal lives its subjectivity but does not conceive it, for unlike man it does not possess the gift of objectivity. Social relativism does not ask whether it is true that two and two make four but from what social background the man has come who declares this to be the case, and it does so without ever considering the fact that if the background determines the thought and takes precedence over truth, the same must apply in every case, which means that every background determines thought and every thought is determined by a background. If someone objects that such and such a particular background is favorable to the perception of truth, we could easily turn the argument around by referring to a different scale of values, which goes to show that this argument merely begs the question and that even on the most favorable showing it amounts to no more than an estimate of probabilities without any concrete significance. The same applies to historical relativism: since every human thought necessarily occurs at a given moment in time-not with regard to its content but with regard to the mental process-every thought would have only a relative value and would be “outdated” and “obsolete” from the very moment of its birth; there would therefore be no point in thinking since man could never escape duration.
I agree with you. There are some interesting thoughts in this, but some of it would definitely appeal to the people you’re talking about. It actually is the other end of a political horseshoe, where status will be given to you that has been withheld…if you get the troublesome ones out of the way. It’s not wrong about how the left works, though.
