[Topics]
Richard Spencer the imbecile.
Written: 2021-11-04
Not that this is news or of earth-shattering importance …
However, in a Google Hangout session or so with, among others,
Josh Neal—whom I dislike, too—and Jefferson Lee, Richard Spencer called
Owen Benjamin an incel (an “insult” he uses quite often); Owen, he said,
is someone who has a certain wisdom, but the wisdom of the loser, the
outsider, the one who has been cast out (or so)—someone who’s not getting
any poontang (sic!).
This is, obviously, highly problematic and shows how laughable modern-day
“intellectuals” are. As I wrote somewhere previously, those on the pagan
Right very often quote Nietzsche and Spengler affirmatively, ignoring
their personalities, their biographies.
(Spencer even said—see “EBL 10: Nietzsche Revisited”—that no other thinker
influenced him more than Nietzsche.)
Nietzsche detested his life, never
married and had no “success”—I am, again, using such vulgar lingo because
of its widespread use—with women. Spengler, too, hated his life, and
while he wallowed in sexual decadence somewhat—his personal notebooks at
least seem to suggest this—, he also notes how he did not experience a
month in his life without thinking of suicide. He also suffered from
phobias, being afraid of even his pupils, having a hard time entering a
store and so on.
Is Nietzsche, therefore, an “incel”*?
Who cares? Spencer, as Vox Day once rightly noted, never even wrote and
published a book! Obviously, wisdom was never something you’d expect
the average joe to have anyway, his denigration of Owen Benjamin in this
regard is completely baseless. Apart from the rather ludicrous and juvenile
name-calling, calling him an “incel”—which he is not even, since Owen
Benjamin is married. (I have no real interest in Owen Benjamin, I only
became aware of him because of Vox Day.)
As if there ever was much wisdom with the sex-enslaved …
Such a lifestyle is the inversion of wisdom.
Not much to expect here anyway. Defending fornication and sexual decadence
on the Right, who would have thought … To Jean-François Gariépy he even said
he has no interest in a revival of religion. (Though in another livestream
he said he wished he could “believe”—rather chameleon-like, I don’t really
like such wishy-washy kind of characters.)
Atheism coupled with being obsessed with life and living is the worst
combination imaginable. Such a worldview won’t produce anything of
importance in philosophical matters. Neither Nietzsche, Schopenhauer,
nor Spengler were hedonists. At least intellectually.
This is also why Anthony Ludovici is of no importance and little
value; I only was interested in him because of his support for
eugenics, though in his autobiography he
turned out to be a complete buffoon, who, no joke!, even saw Freud as
a scientist! He took seriously a lot of bogus “science” of his day.
Not to speak of his shallow affirmation of life.
Says Gómez Dávila:
If one does not believe in God, the only honest alternative is vulgar
utilitarianism.
The rest is rhetoric.
Men can be divided into those who make their life complicated to
gain their soul and those who waste their soul to make their life easier.
Prayer, war, tillage are manful occupations.
The only man who saves himself from intellectual vulgarity is the man
who ignores what it is fashionable to know.
In a century where the media publish endless stupidities, the cultured
man is defined not by what he knows but what he does not know.
It is fine to demand that the imbecile respect arts, letters,
philosophy, the sciences, but let him respect them in silence.
An atheist is respectable as long as he does not teach that the
dignity of man is the basis of ethics and that love for humanity is
the true religion.
Modern man’s life oscillates between two poles: business and sex.
To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.
When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it
only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.