What I was trying to say is that his argument for biological basis of Leninism wasn't convincing to me. You are right, he comes up with the political theory, not biological. Even though there are a lot of factual statements about the nature of Leninism I don't agree with.
I'm not so sure about that. First, human politics are the expression of human biology. We can't escape it. Second, he rather clearly references evolutionary psychology, which is nothing more than the biology of human feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. He makes the argument that, once basic needs are met, the human animal is hard-wired to seek social status, that this is the real currency that we crave because of our nature. He then develops a theory of how that craving for status has led to modern political conditions. In that sense, I have to disagree with the idea that "it's not biological". It is entirely based on biology.
As far as politics is concerned, Australia mirrors USA, sort of, and on a much smaller scale. Australia is a truly Nanny State, and Australians are very obedient people, so that serious trouble - intense protests or strong opinion statements (the kind that can get you into trouble or spark intense public debate) - is rare.
It's very interesting to me how different the reality you experience is from Americans' impression of Australians as rugged, outdoorsy individualists.
What drives current division of social groups is a fascinating topic, and I don't think there is one cause. Feminists' dissent of white males is not driven by the same reasoning as that of, say, Black activists or the Left.
In American political discourse, feminists and BLM are all considered to be of the Left. Bio-Leninism acknowledges that all of those different viewpoints have different origins. What the theory of bio-Leninism is about is trying to describe how they are all coalescing into an anti-straight, white, male alliance despite their varied origins.