Just watch it. No leftist nowadays actually does outreach like this. Obv big spence had no actual arguments against what I was saying and just had generic responses. He didn't even try to address the distinctly anarchist points I made on authority, and I actually got quite a few spencerites to follow my channel. There is a hoppean/ancap to fascist pipeline that I can easily put an end to. o7
>>802930spence isnt rlly able to really answer anyone in any debate ive seen him in and this includes against christian nationalists and muslims
Richard's idea of "civilisation" is entirely ahistorical. Civilisation begins with the formation of cities, which as Derrick Jensen says, begins importing goods rather than domesticating them, and so is essentially the transition into unsustainability. It becomes a pyramid scheme, and we see this well enough in how no civilisation lasts long enough without enslaving its subjects. Inflation as a tax on labour only proves the open secret of debauchery.
The neolithic revolution begins creating agricultural surpluses, and this is the origin of further development, by instructing an unhealthy surplus population to tasks for elites. We don't see sites of religious worship outside of this; only prehistoric curiosities (e.g. such as the ritual burying of the dead, or certain carvings) - religion proper is simply the institution of sacrifice; a sacrifice of the surplus resources (all class society has this basis). This is what should prefigure the assertion that politics and culture is downstream from religion. All politics is class politics (e.g. patricians/plebeians). All religion is sacrifice. And all class society is a rite of class offering. Culture itself is more ambiguous. Both Spengler and Stalin see that culture lives in language, which itself is not a merely "superstructural" construct. We see with etymology that words encode ancient meaning within its mouth sounds, so this is a more curious matter, and cannot be reduced to "material conditions" in the same way as class society and religion can be rationalised. For example, you can have culture without politics or religion; custom plays a precedent part in all of society.
I wonder why Richard doesn't just call himself an atheist? His schtick is diet Jungianism, but without the possibility of sublimity. Nietzsche described the sublime as the distance between Apollo and Dionysus, but Richard never invokes Dionysus as an Aryan archetype (despite the fact that Nietzsche calls him Hyperborean). What then, is the idea of beauty? Freud recognised that sublimity is the encoding of carnality (e.g. Dionysus). Eros is the god of Freud and of the Orphics. Philia is a mode of Eros, and brings the greatest friendship. Does Richard have any sophisticated idea of erotic power? The point is that art must have a meaning, but at least Richard admits that he may not be the right vessel for it, and he proves it, by saying that all art is political. This is a hollow sentiment. He invokes Hollywood films - this is democratic art, not aristocratic art. Arteurs don't care about James Bond. But this is the problem; Spencer is not a 'traditionalist' (e.g. an aristocrat of the soul who rides the tiger), he is a person seeking relevance in a degenerate, dying world. Anyone influential in the Kali Yuga is part of the problem, since they want idle power. Traditionalists are also foresaken as Rabbinic Zionists; "not now, but soon will the diaspora return". The ideal of caste society is the purest imagination of these fools. Wilderness will swallow up human hubris, since the earth bears her own children, without need of the sky. The fantasy of man killing the earth is a most deranged homosexuality; a reversal of Freud's Oedipus Complex.