Revolt against the modern world

Bioleninism

One of the most interesting theories to come out of the Dissident Right is the theory of Biological Leninism, or Bioleninism, which describes the rise, nay, the inevitability of a coalition of the weird, inadequate, foreign and not-quite-fit-for-civilized-society as a unified voting bloc supporting those in power in a liberal democracy.

Developed by Spandrell (alias, Bloody Shovel) it takes the basic Leninist model of building a Party to rule the state out of the dregs of society, and shifts this to the realm of biology, wrong-think biology in particular, building the party out of people who are permanent losers within the social order. Naturally, this refers to the non-white, non-heterosexual, non-viable forms of life we’re forced to prostrate ourselves to as the living saints of the religion of diversity. This is for the very simple reason that those with zero status in a sane society stake their entire lives on accumulating social capital through the Party and will revert back to that position of zero status if the party ever loses power, thus ensuring their undying loyalty towards the party and undying enmity towards those who aren’t lacking in status – whether we’re talking about the ne’er do wells of old Russia or the degenerate and swarthy masses of the modern West. In other words, Bioleninism is a system through which the governing Globohomo powers ensure that those most problematic of peons – white, Christian, heterosexual men (and the women married to them) will always be outvoted (and therefore expropriated, disenfranchised and ultimately eliminated) by the aforementioned non-viable life forms.

Normally, I’d place it in the “big if true” folder, even though it does explain the past 50 years (or more) in the West. But what convinced me that it is true is the fact that the other side has been using a negative image of this theory to bolster their morale. Enter the ‘communities of vulnerability’. The guy expositing this thesis in the linked YouTube video is the very image of punchability, complete with a smarmy British faux RP accent. But much as though we may like to kick the ever-loving stuffing out of the messenger; that pasty, soy-soaked limey ain’t wrong. The Left will win using this strategy, unless we do something drastic. Alas, doing drastic things isn’t quite within our power.

Spandrell and others who’ve taken to expounding this theory have used it to explain politicking within democratic states with some success. This is not my point in this piece. Rather, I aim to demonstrate that the theory of bioleninism can also be applied to understanding the actions of the Great Satan global hegemon and other great powers, both current and historic.

It is no secret that the global hegemon has a habit of involving itself in regional and local disputes between mutually hostile tribes and nations. The questionable wisdom of getting oneself entangled in such overseas adventures notwithstanding, we understand that such involvement is necessary for the establishment and maintaining of Empire (or Hegemony – although, there’s precious little difference between the two).  What is interesting here is the seemingly arbitrary way in which the hegemon picks sides. Using the theory of bioleninism, this appearance of arbitrary selection fades away and we learn that there’s a very good reason why the side picked has been picked.

Being a good ol’ Balkan boy, I’ll give you an example close to home. During the past three decades, the USA has consistently favored the mostly Muslim Albanians over their mostly Orthodox neighbors, namely, Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Greeks. The history of this region is replete with sectarian and ethnic conflict, even before the Balkans began to Balkanize in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Yugoslav wars.

Diversity + proximity = conflict, and that’s the way it goes.

No biggie, though. We’ve been at this shit since before Alexander wore short pants and we’ll be at it for as long as we exist. They kill some of us, we kill some of them, the terrain of the Balkans doesn’t allow for serious maneuver warfare so nobody can really prevail over anyone else for a long period of time and even if we were all to be subjugated under some outside force like say, the Ottoman Empire, even then we usually keep on fighting right under our masters’ noses.

However, the Albanians have been on the rise precisely because they’ve had the unmitigated support of the USA and its satrapies in Western Europe over the past thirty years. This is the way that things are and we have to live with it. Though we might plan against and around it, it will be this way until such a time that the USA is no longer a global hegemon. However, it doesn’t hurt to understand why.

All of the Balkan countries exempting Greece caught the socialist bug in the 1940s. Some had it worse than others. None had it as bad as Albania. Headed by the wonderfully paranoid ideological puritan Enver Hoxha, Albania wasn’t just isolated from the Western world – it gradually become isolated from: Yugoslavia (1948), the USSR (1961) and even Red China (1977). Given that Hoxha claimed that Albania remained the only “true Marxist-Leninist” state keeping the faith alive after Yugoslavia, the USSR and even China fell to “revisionism”. This was all on top of a nation that was already a sectarian shithole with an average IQ of 82 historically incapable of existing without being an Italian satellite, the population of which has chiefly concerned itself with smuggling and violent crime since the time of Ancient Rome. Illyrian pirates were the scourge of the Adriatic in those days.

As the Memri TV preacher of memetic yore has famously declared, “he is even worse than a Jew. He is, and Allah forgive me for uttering this word, an Albanian.”

What hegemon in its right mind would ally itself with such a motley crew of Muslim vagabonds, whose already dismal IQ is further weighed down by the dysgenic effects of Zakat, Jihad and cousin marriage? Why, a hegemon seeking undying loyalty, of course.

As the Habsburgs learned in the first decade of the 20th century, allying yourself with a small nation nevertheless capable of defending its interests independently, or at the very least making it very difficult for great powers to push it around, is a game of luck more than a game of skill. Nations consisting of somewhat intelligent people in cohesive communities tend to be fickle and defend what they consider to be their own interests, prioritizing them over the interests of their hegemon and furthermore, find themselves in situations where their interests do not overlap with those of the hegemon.

Opposed to them are those tribal groups which wouldn’t be nations, or at least wouldn’t have states without the hegemon running roughshod over their neighbors. They, much like the many undesirables comprising the bioleninist coalition in a democratic state, owe their status and very existence to the hegemon and as such are loyal to the bitter end. Since their existence is contingent on the power of the hegemon, their interests always coincide with those of the hegemon. There’s a reason why a statue of Bill Clinton adorns Bill Clinton Boulevard in Prishtina, the capital of Albanian-majority, US-created Kosovo, ripped out of the clutches of Serbian power by the 1999 intervention of the NATO pact.

Examples abound from around the world. The USA also supports the pretender Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in its regional struggle with Shia powers, chiefly Iran. US and Western support were key in toppling the pro-white regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa. Even against its closest ally, the UK, the US supported the terrorists of the IRA in their struggle to “liberate” the five counties of Ireland which are full of Protestants hostile to the idea of unification with the Dublin Republic. This is for the simple reason that weak nations, those who wouldn’t even be political entities without support from the hegemon, are inexorably loyal to the hegemon that made them. Without it, they die.

It’s a rather old idea to prop up enemies of one’s enemy, but conventional wisdom teaches us that a weak ally is a liability. This may be true in a multi-polar world of several great powers, but our world is a world of one hyperpower and many middle powers. A weak ally can provide those things which the hyperpower usually lacks – legitimacy for imperialist projects and local superiority not attainable through sheer firepower and logistics. As the Vietnam war taught us and the Afghanistan war is still teaching us, a well motivated peasant guerilla can stop even a hyperpower in its tracks on its own turf, bogging it down in a protracted conflict which takes its toll on the hyperpower’s economic strength and will to fight. The answer, of course, would be to recruit a local peasant guerilla of one’s own to counter the enemy guerilla’s flexibility. Similarly, the hegemonic hyperpower might have the means to free the shit out of every other country in the world, but since it has to convince other nations and its own population that it is a force for good, a bioleninist weak ally has to be recruited in order to provide a casus belli for the hegemon, lest it looks in the mirror and sees, like Dorian Grey, its once-noble face twisted by evil.

What I’m proposing here dovetails nicely with the old Trotskyite idea of propping up religious and ethnic minorities in the West in order to weaken it and even harkens back to Friedrich Engels’ distinction between progressive (good for Marxism) nationalism in Western countries and reactionary (bad for Marxism) nationalism in countries of Eastern Europe. The old bourgeois bastard had it all wrong, though. It is Western nationalism which is reactionary and inimical to the socialist project, but more often than not, the nationalism of tiny, non-viable nations is the one that is amenable to socialism.

Just ask our good friend Enver Hoxha. Or Pol Pot. Or Robert Mugabe, or Ho Chi Minh, or even good ol’ David Ben-Gurion (Oy vey!).

Take your pick, they’re commie nationalists after all. The difference is similar to the distinctions between old-school Leninism and internal bioleninism. Sure, it works to help the ‘oppressed’, but it works even better when the ‘oppressed’ are literally shit-tier human beings biologically incapable of building a functional society, at least by the standards of the West. Nobody likes to believe that they stink, so they buy the narrative of ‘oppreshun’ to soothe their minds and invite support from bioleninists who put them to bed with golden promises of shekels and power.

In their heart of hearts, the dregs of society realize that they are the dregs of society. Per analogiam, a shithole nation usually knows what it is deep down in its national psyche, as this article from American Renaissance demonstrates, such nations often have to concoct (or have concocted for them, as is the case of Wakanda), a fantasy of what they could be if only there was no ‘oppreshun’. This knowledge drives the nation into the waiting arms of the hegemonic bioleninist.

It’s a functional system, sure, but the question we have to ask ourselves is for how long. Old-school Leninism has since crashed and burned, turning the lands of the former Soviet Union into poverty-stricken, degenerate nations which are only now beginning to recover. Internal Leninism has driven the West and the USA in particular to the brink of Brazilification and the cultural and economic decline can no longer be ignored. Like all distortions of the natural order of things, foreign policy driven by bioleninism will fail, either because the hegemon buggers off and starts minding its own business (which is what I suspect Donald Trump is trying to do), or because the hegemon collapses due to overextension (which is what I suspect will happen unless Donald Trump succeeds in getting the USA to bugger off). Once the hegemon is gone, all the weak, bioleninist clients are, to use the technical term, fucked.

Just like how a market corrects itself after an asset bubble bursts in the realm of economics; toxic assets will be liquidated, firms will go bankrupt and accounts will be settled with interest— lots and lots of interest. I trust that this readership understands, via analogy, the form of interest that pissed-off middle and middling powers charge their bioleninist clients once the hegemon buggers off. Rivers of blood doesn’t even begin to cover it.


 

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.