sofiechan home

On accumulation

anon_vihe said in #3961 1w ago: received

We know that speciation occurs as per Darwin's studies and observation from marine trawling.

Given the modern environment, what type of human creature is most suited for wealth and power accumulation? You have to be either (1) really good at doing things or (2) really good at faking it.

You can accumulate wealth and power by (a) building it yourself whether community or some company, (b) convincing others to give it to you/inheriting a previous system or network, (c) being in the right place and getting on the right trends.

Companies, organizations, and groups are the outward appearance of groups of people that have the same belief or at the very least can work together. Often, people create things to get the attention of those higher up.

There are many different systems of power and groups of people. It seems easier to attach to an existing one than to springboard your own.

referenced by: >>3962

We know that speciat received

anon_lany said in #3962 1w ago: received

>>3961
> Given the modern environment, what type of human creature is most suited for wealth and power accumulation?

In addition to the factors you give, one also has to be really good at evading or fending off social parasitism. The modern political environment offers many opportunities for state-enabled parasitic strategies, e.g., the many forms of bioleninism. These are quite capable of thwarting the competent, if the latter fail to develop effective counter-strategies.

referenced by: >>3967

In addition to the f received

anon_vihe said in #3967 1w ago: received

>>3962

Bioleninism, as this book (https://legrandcontinent.eu/fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/06/Spandrell-Biological-Lenninism.pdf) defines as the application of status to people who should not have it due to natural attribution of traits, so they will be inherently loyal to the cause?

The book itself first concentrates on the DEI faction. They're likely too incompetent to govern long-term and their power is waning, but the application to other countries is an interesting insight. The destabilization from older single women and their behaviors (owning a pitbull, sabotage, etc.) is not to be underestimated.

I wonder if Bioleninism can be applied to recent examples of fundraising: Cluely, this new AI therapist chatbot thing that raised a lot of money, hacker houses. People who rebel against the college system but subsume themselves to another one for power. They seem to parrot things like "Europe has no AC" as their mating call.

Another point the book makes is that normal, well-adjusted, and competent people find employment and live normal lives. They would do well on their own. This dude who runs an apple farm seems like he would fit: https://substack.com/@thomasfoydel

Maybe this forum has similar purposes (the acquisition of power), but its motive is different, such as a return to merit.

The statement "Countries which developed capitalism slowly tended to produce less resentful losers than agrarian empires who were thrown suddenly into modernity." could be "Having some wealth makes people more stable." I would call status not just wealth, but how much you fit into existing structures of higher wealth. A way to rephrase the book: power is about how many people's minds you can control. If you can control many people because they have no better choice, you can create a big group.

referenced by: >>3975

Bioleninism, as this received

anon_vihe said in #3969 1w ago: received

Seems like life happened.

https://spandrell.ch/2024/3/3/a-post-mortem-on-neoreaction

Seems like life happ received

anon_pudu said in #3975 1w ago: received

>>3967

The idea that revolutionaries, a class of people capable of winning against the odds and seizing massive profit for themselves through merit, are "resentful losers" reminds me of how "incel" has been transformed into a general insult with no stable characteristics. If power is always the purview of the deserving how can one demand a change in the status quo at all? I say this from an anti-communist perspective.

referenced by: >>3976

The idea that revolu received

anon_vihe said in #3976 8d ago: received

>>3975

Think that's just a slip in wording. I think he means the degree of envy and inequality, thus the motive for overthrowing people, was high in countries making a big jump from farmland to the modern world.

I focused on the environment because the people have not changed but the environment (social readiness for specific attitudes, relation of people to technology) has, so certain behaviors must be rewarded.

Example: BAP says kids who are unaware fail to get through school. If you realize it is fake and gay despite being capable, you get selected out of the environment and work in a supermarket reading conspiracies on the internet like QAnon because nobody around you has actual structure.

Therefore it selects for those who are academic grinders (or social ones if they don't aspire to STEM which means copying whatever those above you say) and in the right culture/feeder schools or those who do well but are unaware of its nature.

A society where we mainly meet strangers as opposed to small communities is one where deception and appearances is more valuable. Environments with a few large companies leads to more dependence and desperate people compared to a society of middle and small companies.

You likely don't get much attention for being an activist who is Black and! Trans today, but ten years ago the environment would be ripe for this. The environment, I feel, is ready for a group of competent young men who can pull themselves together and create a cultural movement rather than more 'activists' for simply how exhausting and how destructive they are.

There was an older man running companies I talked to a while back, and one of the examples of value creation he gave me was taking a book everyone needed for their industry and making it ten times as expensive. I don't think he understood that good neighborhoods used to be everywhere, and that in a high trust society more things cost less, not infinitely more. There was a class of looters in this country decades ago and they trained generations to have short-term values, and I'm afraid there's not much more value people can extract from the barebones supermarkets and places that dot the country today. Walmart for the masses, Whole Foods for the privileged. The high end is still there, if you can make it somehow, but it appears to those who are there that such benefits are commonplace due to their preordained circles.

Think that's just a received

db said in #3977 8d ago: received

My sense is that for every tech billionaire there are at least 1,000 who could have been as successful given a run of better luck. That is to say that the attributes needed to be hyper successful are 1 in a million, but even with them you need to make 10 or more big and risky bets and have them all work out in your favor.

My sense is that for received

anon_nipi said in #3988 7d ago: received

It depends on the level of wealth you're looking at. There are a lot of people quietly stacking up their eight figures in tech and finance by being pretty good at something technical, being very good at office politics, and conscientiously making calculated career moves over the course of ten to thirty years. These are people who, once they have their money, are likely to hold onto it.

Mimicking this class is probably the most reliable way to get significant wealth up to I don't know, $25m. It's hard to get that much money for yourself by grifting or getting lucky though lesser amounts might be easier. It might be easier to get control of a budget of that size at an NGO or in some obscure corner of the bureaucracy.

It depends on the le received

You must login to post.