I come from a biomedical background and I'm sympathetic to these data driven arguments. But sometimes can't help but find it funny that people still have doubts like this: "... or the left has generally grown, for either genetic or environmental reasons, meaning there are proportionally more leftists in power than before simply because there are more leftists in the base population than before."
Personally, I'm really content with the "bioleninism" pov (plus Darwinian view of human nature and history). BioLeninism is basically the human equivalent of a group of beta monkeys coming together and beating the current dominating alpha monkey. What happens latter is of no concern when the "plan" is made, since even if beta monkey nr x doesn't become the new alpha, he can try again, in a few weeks. In human terms this beta monkey nr x would be a mid-level political operative, which even though will never be able to get on top (where one can get the most differential reproductive benefits, from an evolutionry pov), he still will make a living by becoming part of the "natural", "biological" machinery of beta monkey revolution.
To expand what I'm trying to say, the inherent nature of biology and evolutionary forces, manifests itself differently in different species and in different environments. In monkeys there are betas against the current alpha. In human societies there are rich and poor, privileged and dispossessed, educated and uneducated, all in a big Darwinian fight to increase their differential reproduction, all like puppets under the influence of selfish genes.
That this tendency, that in political terms manifests as leftism or better to put it as collectivism is natural to humans as it is to monkeys, can be demonstrated by the rapidity with which Christianity spread. Inherently the religion of the poor and dispossessed.
David Ramsay Steele on “the long march through the institutions:
“The long march through the institutions" has always struck me as a bit fanciful. To conduct a long march, you need a lot of converts to
the cause, and if you have a lot of converts to the cause, you automatically get into the institutions. In other words, no master strategic plan is necessary; a large segment of lower-level intellectuals are using the Judith Butler prayerbook, and that automatically leads to the capture of much of academia, and thus the capture of institutions which recruit employees from lower-level intellectuals. In a way, there is something optimistic about the present situation because people who care about ideas do like to see themselves as rebelling against conformity, and Wokism has become conformity. And of course, there is the sheer trashiness of the postmodern neo-Marxist intellectual structure, which repels people with any serious critical faculties.
I hypothesize television had a role in the political/social changes that occurred starting in the 50s. This technology enabled two different mechanisms of control, which are coordination and propagandization. Through these methods, I believe that a lot of the main changes such as civil rights accelerated.
“I suspect dysgenics, ethnic immigration, and the accumulation of power favoring those with poor character more than before could all be at play.”
Wokeism seems to have primarily taken hold among high IQ people, no? So, that leads to a character issue. However, that seems to lack plausibility given the high-mindedness and quasi-religiosity of many of these folks. We might also consider Kevin MacDonald’s theories in terms of the spread of cultural Marxism--Marcuse didn’t act alone.
Follow up tweet from Thuletide regarding the long March narrative. TL;DR the long March was happening long before Marcuse
https://twitter.com/th_l_t_d_/status/1647226678349815814?s=46&t=UruTx4o1ffYcL5Y4rfVMoQ
I come from a biomedical background and I'm sympathetic to these data driven arguments. But sometimes can't help but find it funny that people still have doubts like this: "... or the left has generally grown, for either genetic or environmental reasons, meaning there are proportionally more leftists in power than before simply because there are more leftists in the base population than before."
Personally, I'm really content with the "bioleninism" pov (plus Darwinian view of human nature and history). BioLeninism is basically the human equivalent of a group of beta monkeys coming together and beating the current dominating alpha monkey. What happens latter is of no concern when the "plan" is made, since even if beta monkey nr x doesn't become the new alpha, he can try again, in a few weeks. In human terms this beta monkey nr x would be a mid-level political operative, which even though will never be able to get on top (where one can get the most differential reproductive benefits, from an evolutionry pov), he still will make a living by becoming part of the "natural", "biological" machinery of beta monkey revolution.
To expand what I'm trying to say, the inherent nature of biology and evolutionary forces, manifests itself differently in different species and in different environments. In monkeys there are betas against the current alpha. In human societies there are rich and poor, privileged and dispossessed, educated and uneducated, all in a big Darwinian fight to increase their differential reproduction, all like puppets under the influence of selfish genes.
That this tendency, that in political terms manifests as leftism or better to put it as collectivism is natural to humans as it is to monkeys, can be demonstrated by the rapidity with which Christianity spread. Inherently the religion of the poor and dispossessed.
David Ramsay Steele on “the long march through the institutions:
“The long march through the institutions" has always struck me as a bit fanciful. To conduct a long march, you need a lot of converts to
the cause, and if you have a lot of converts to the cause, you automatically get into the institutions. In other words, no master strategic plan is necessary; a large segment of lower-level intellectuals are using the Judith Butler prayerbook, and that automatically leads to the capture of much of academia, and thus the capture of institutions which recruit employees from lower-level intellectuals. In a way, there is something optimistic about the present situation because people who care about ideas do like to see themselves as rebelling against conformity, and Wokism has become conformity. And of course, there is the sheer trashiness of the postmodern neo-Marxist intellectual structure, which repels people with any serious critical faculties.
I hypothesize television had a role in the political/social changes that occurred starting in the 50s. This technology enabled two different mechanisms of control, which are coordination and propagandization. Through these methods, I believe that a lot of the main changes such as civil rights accelerated.
“I suspect dysgenics, ethnic immigration, and the accumulation of power favoring those with poor character more than before could all be at play.”
Wokeism seems to have primarily taken hold among high IQ people, no? So, that leads to a character issue. However, that seems to lack plausibility given the high-mindedness and quasi-religiosity of many of these folks. We might also consider Kevin MacDonald’s theories in terms of the spread of cultural Marxism--Marcuse didn’t act alone.
>But due to Marcuse, that 250,000 number was diluted to just 10% of the hiring pool. Thus 1.5 million Communists joined the applicant pool
Shouldn’t it be 2.25 million? 2.25 million + 250,000 = 2.5 million applicants which diluted the original conservative number down to just 10%.