Sep 30, 2022·edited Sep 30, 2022Liked by ourospost
I was subscribed to AA for a while on YouTube, but was compelled to unsubscribe a couple of months back.
I couldn't really put my finger on what exactly I began to find so... unappealing about him at the time, but I did eventually find him to be (this will sound more disrespectful than intended but there's no better way of putting it) kind of useless.
He has a large following and people often cited him on Telegram etc., so I subbed and watched his stuff for a while.
I often found myself being much more drawn to and interested in listening to some (not all) of the people on his streams, far more than him.
I found that he was good at talking, but not particularly good at actually saying anything. Then I noticed, like you mentioned in this article, that he has a rather unpleasant habit of setting his fanatical followers on to people who he had taken a disliking to.
All in all, he seems like someone who absolutely should never wield any real power, and I thank God that he never will lol.
I think the main problem of this piece is that it is kind of of disjointed. The analysis of AAs role in the online right and his character failings is spot on but the criticism of elite theory falls flat i think.
Personally i still make time for AA, even tough i disagree with him a lot, because for all his failings he is ultimately very honest with his audience both for the good and the bad.
Completely agree that looking at him like an leader or as an example to follow is completely foolish and speaks for the lack of judgment of his most ardent followers.
Finally i completely disagree with your assessment of the leadership of the global American empire. There is clearly a group of people in America who have clear and defined objectives and make plans together in order to achieve them. They also a very clearly defined telos that has basically remained the same since the establishment of the post Nuremberg regime and serves as an unifier to all the factions of the elite. Different groups like the Neocons or the pure technocrats only really differ in the methods they use to achieve essentially the same goals.
You are wise to dial in on Turnip's confederate model. Once the local parallel's are established, they will need to work with others to achieve overall governance, should that be needed/wanted down the road. Not everyone will hold to "Christ is King" so an arrangement needs to be worked out.
As for AA, I continually pray for him that he is drawn to Christ. Likely or not.
Overall, this was a cogently argued critique of AA and his acolytes if a bit on the uncharitable side. I’ve had concerns with his dismissive attitude in previous debates he’s had; most notably his half-baked attack on Carl Benjamin’s support of liberal democracy and with Joel Davis not too many moons ago. Complaining that your opponent is unfairly using “debate tactics” in a debate to justify poor performance is bizarre to say the least.
His rabble-rousing is by far his least endearing quality and his willingness to engage in blood sport is at best a waste of time. The acid test for engaging with detractors at this point should should involve asking ourselves the following questions and receiving answers in the affirmative:
1. Is the critique being made in good faith?
2. Will rebutting this critique move us closer to identifying a positive way forward?
One might think we’ve learned to pick and choose our battles by now, but it’s evident AA still spasmodically rebuts points made in stream chats and elsewhere online and is more than willing to waste energy on Twitter drama. This appears to be coming from a place of insecurity rather than for the cynical purpose of generating additional buzz for the channel which highlights a regrettable character flaw.
To be fair to AA however, unless I’ve missed claims he’s made in past streams, he has only held himself out to be an intellectual, himself eschewing any efforts “on the ground” or to organize a coalition around a specific and measurable plan. He even went so far as to acknowledge his Gamma male tendencies when discussing Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy, admitting along with his UO cohost that he was ill-fitted for a leadership position based on temperament.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the man, AA has had a significant impact on this space. What has gone wrong and what I believe prompted the writing of this article in the first place is that a cult of personality has formed around AA due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what AA’s role (and others like him) is in all of this. At its core, adherents of any cult of personality are elevating a person other than Christ as their champion. To use a crude and somewhat cringe analogy, if we view this “dissident right” (for lack of a better label) movement in terms of the Hero’s Journey, this role loosely represents the “Meeting the Mentor” phase wherein the value contributed lies in instruction of the world as it is and pointing towards the tools we may need in our journey. An important caveat here is that the mentor is flawed, may not provide entirely correct information, and doesn’t know exactly what we’ll face in the future. In the final analysis they can only guess at what the end goal should be through their own myopic and oft distorted lens. Most notably, this role cannot and should not shield any of us from the ordeal to come.
Ultimately, I believe AA has started stagnating in his journey on a personal level and oscillates between periods of glimmering rays of hope and black nihilism. Before I write him off as nothing more than despair merchant however, I try to think of how I would view things were I not a believer in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Looking at the world through a purely materialist lens will inexorably lead towards depression, fear, and cynicism in a never ending cycle of despair, hope, temporary high, and despair again. If you keep putting your faith in man expecting them to fill the primordial Messiah vaccuum in each of us that only Christ can fill, you will be left in a depressive state.
I may well be wrong, but I don’t get the impression that AA is intentionalIy seeking to deceive himself or others which is why I have more time for him than others. I just recognize that he may come to conclusions or socio-political prescriptions that i may fundamentally agree or disagree with. We each have to think for ourselves, ground ourselves in eternal truths, and avoid attaching undue importance to the words or actions of sinful man no matter who they are. I pray that AA finds eternal salvation for his soul through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
That was an extremely well-worded, eloquent, and downright lovely comment, my friend.
I have nothing to qualify except for the point about him being misviewed as a leader. I will lend all the credibility to him imaginable, especially on his honest, conscious views of himself. I think that's why half-way through writing this, I realized it was the monster he created that was more-so concerning, and not he himself.
If he were a 19th or 20th century author, he would have been remembered as poignant and ingenious, if at times disgruntled. Unfortunately, we live in an era of mass communication still in its untested state, and I would argue in a dangerous state, and big, attractive ideas can rally a lot of people into a state of fervor. I'm not sure how he sees all of it, and since the world moves too quick for our emotions to handle, I'm sure he has trouble coming to terms with who is enemy, who is friend, what is right, and what is wrong. I don't blame him for being human, but what I do blame is his toxicity and negative impact on a movement meant for goodness and truth.
I pray the same. If he was ever to be saved and filled with an eternal sense of hope and love, he could accomplish more than either of us could ever hope for for ourselves.
I appreciate it my friend and I enjoyed reading your article all the way through. I found myself nodding my head along to most of the well-argued points you laid out despite my own familiarity bias. AA was a kind of touchstone for educating myself about politics and economics. I’ve been more or less actively engaged with his content for quite a while and perhaps that resulted in my appreciation of baser cynicism and “info-tainment” over transcendental truths.
If we look at him objectively, it’s undeniable that his behavior is oftentimes destructive and he’s acted as a provocateur where it wasn’t asked for or needed. He’s given oxygen to undesirable elements in our spheres and promoted activities that sabotage the movement’s credibility. I don’t think he has the capacity to effectively lead or formulate a forward-looking vision which is why that task should fall to others less quarrelsome. I can appreciate some of his intellectual contributions without forming a tribal unit around him or looking to him for leadership.
Thanks again for the great article and sharing your unfiltered thoughts on the subject.
"he has only held himself out to be an intellectual, himself eschewing any efforts “on the ground” or to organize a coalition around a specific and measurable plan"...AA has put forward the idea of building a network of 10's, mostly an intellectual priestly class. The cadre that organizes Scyldings also organizes Basketweaving...I will leave it to you to investigate further. https://youtu.be/RHia8k8Bi7c
1. You say "there is no center of evil with its own intent" and that the regime today has no telos. But clearly this isn't the case. The regime's obsession with destroying traditions is an ideological offshoot of Critical Theory and its various sub-disciplines, e.g. Gender Studies, Whiteness Studies, Postcolonial Studies. The levers of power may be controlled by midwit apparatchiks, but they get their marching orders from a core community of elites in academia, high finance, Silicon Valley, and the media. Both Mr. Parvini and Mr. Yarvin, I think, are largely correct about this.
2. Anyone can tell from a mile away that Mr. Parvini currently does not have the Light of God in his heart. He is a brilliant diagnostician and a fine entertainer, but he has no truck for the numinous or transcendent. Men searching for guidance should take his prescriptions skeptically, because he does not aim for the divine, and there is no righteousness without God.
3. Mr. Parvini platforms other intellectuals (living and dead) who bring a wealth of cultural and historical knowledge to the public sphere. For that, he deserves to be commended highly.
4. Mr. Parvini's toxic attitude is bog-standard among people who come from academia. On the one hand, he claims to be "just a scholar" and to not seek the mantle of leadership. On the other hand, he has no problem wielding whatever power comes to him as an e-celebrity for his own personal ends. Academics love to treat intellectual spaces as their own petty fiefdoms.
5. Like you say, Mr. Parvini's influence has grown because he was the last man standing after so many of his predecessors were deplatformed. I believe men follow him currently because the online right is starved for leadership. He is entertaining and informative, but in no ways inspiring. His influence will wax or wane if either (1) he accepts Christ into his heart or (2) a BETTER man comes alone. The Academic Agent character is the poor man's Asha Logos.
7. I think many of us are struggling with how seriously to take these so-called "online communities." They are clearly much faker and gayer than real-life communities, but realistically they are the only place many of us can have open, honest conversations without having to cloak our thoughts behind layers and layers of poz. E-drama is retarded and to no one's benefit.
I don't know if I have such a damning opinion of AA as you, but his proclivity for bloodsports is certainly a major problem, and I fom know if I can completely disagree with any of your criticism of him.
I was waiting for the other shoe to drop when you wrote words in line with the 'no one is in charge' line of thinking -- will there be a Yarvin mention? And there it was. I need to ask why so many putative Christians allow a mischling Jew call the seats of power the Cathedral and not the Synagogue: why?
Thank you for this article, which gives me some context to a recent talk in which Neema Parvini begins by endorsing the Nazi ideology of Carl Schmitt, gives a nod and a wink to Whoopi Goldberg's willfully dismissive ignorance about the Holocaust and Kanye West's descent into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, then implies sympathy of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in general (while suggesting that Jordan Peterson, Nigel Farage and Ben Shapiro are some sort of controlled opposition): Dr Neema Parvini, AKA Academic Agent on The Octopus And Elite Theory.
P.S. Given Neema Parvini's devotion to Nazi ideologist Carl Schmitt, I think it would have been worthwhile for you to mention that Julius Evola was a Fascist.
I was subscribed to AA for a while on YouTube, but was compelled to unsubscribe a couple of months back.
I couldn't really put my finger on what exactly I began to find so... unappealing about him at the time, but I did eventually find him to be (this will sound more disrespectful than intended but there's no better way of putting it) kind of useless.
He has a large following and people often cited him on Telegram etc., so I subbed and watched his stuff for a while.
I often found myself being much more drawn to and interested in listening to some (not all) of the people on his streams, far more than him.
I found that he was good at talking, but not particularly good at actually saying anything. Then I noticed, like you mentioned in this article, that he has a rather unpleasant habit of setting his fanatical followers on to people who he had taken a disliking to.
All in all, he seems like someone who absolutely should never wield any real power, and I thank God that he never will lol.
I think the main problem of this piece is that it is kind of of disjointed. The analysis of AAs role in the online right and his character failings is spot on but the criticism of elite theory falls flat i think.
Personally i still make time for AA, even tough i disagree with him a lot, because for all his failings he is ultimately very honest with his audience both for the good and the bad.
Completely agree that looking at him like an leader or as an example to follow is completely foolish and speaks for the lack of judgment of his most ardent followers.
Finally i completely disagree with your assessment of the leadership of the global American empire. There is clearly a group of people in America who have clear and defined objectives and make plans together in order to achieve them. They also a very clearly defined telos that has basically remained the same since the establishment of the post Nuremberg regime and serves as an unifier to all the factions of the elite. Different groups like the Neocons or the pure technocrats only really differ in the methods they use to achieve essentially the same goals.
Still good article as always.
You are wise to dial in on Turnip's confederate model. Once the local parallel's are established, they will need to work with others to achieve overall governance, should that be needed/wanted down the road. Not everyone will hold to "Christ is King" so an arrangement needs to be worked out.
As for AA, I continually pray for him that he is drawn to Christ. Likely or not.
Overall, this was a cogently argued critique of AA and his acolytes if a bit on the uncharitable side. I’ve had concerns with his dismissive attitude in previous debates he’s had; most notably his half-baked attack on Carl Benjamin’s support of liberal democracy and with Joel Davis not too many moons ago. Complaining that your opponent is unfairly using “debate tactics” in a debate to justify poor performance is bizarre to say the least.
His rabble-rousing is by far his least endearing quality and his willingness to engage in blood sport is at best a waste of time. The acid test for engaging with detractors at this point should should involve asking ourselves the following questions and receiving answers in the affirmative:
1. Is the critique being made in good faith?
2. Will rebutting this critique move us closer to identifying a positive way forward?
One might think we’ve learned to pick and choose our battles by now, but it’s evident AA still spasmodically rebuts points made in stream chats and elsewhere online and is more than willing to waste energy on Twitter drama. This appears to be coming from a place of insecurity rather than for the cynical purpose of generating additional buzz for the channel which highlights a regrettable character flaw.
To be fair to AA however, unless I’ve missed claims he’s made in past streams, he has only held himself out to be an intellectual, himself eschewing any efforts “on the ground” or to organize a coalition around a specific and measurable plan. He even went so far as to acknowledge his Gamma male tendencies when discussing Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy, admitting along with his UO cohost that he was ill-fitted for a leadership position based on temperament.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the man, AA has had a significant impact on this space. What has gone wrong and what I believe prompted the writing of this article in the first place is that a cult of personality has formed around AA due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what AA’s role (and others like him) is in all of this. At its core, adherents of any cult of personality are elevating a person other than Christ as their champion. To use a crude and somewhat cringe analogy, if we view this “dissident right” (for lack of a better label) movement in terms of the Hero’s Journey, this role loosely represents the “Meeting the Mentor” phase wherein the value contributed lies in instruction of the world as it is and pointing towards the tools we may need in our journey. An important caveat here is that the mentor is flawed, may not provide entirely correct information, and doesn’t know exactly what we’ll face in the future. In the final analysis they can only guess at what the end goal should be through their own myopic and oft distorted lens. Most notably, this role cannot and should not shield any of us from the ordeal to come.
Ultimately, I believe AA has started stagnating in his journey on a personal level and oscillates between periods of glimmering rays of hope and black nihilism. Before I write him off as nothing more than despair merchant however, I try to think of how I would view things were I not a believer in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Looking at the world through a purely materialist lens will inexorably lead towards depression, fear, and cynicism in a never ending cycle of despair, hope, temporary high, and despair again. If you keep putting your faith in man expecting them to fill the primordial Messiah vaccuum in each of us that only Christ can fill, you will be left in a depressive state.
I may well be wrong, but I don’t get the impression that AA is intentionalIy seeking to deceive himself or others which is why I have more time for him than others. I just recognize that he may come to conclusions or socio-political prescriptions that i may fundamentally agree or disagree with. We each have to think for ourselves, ground ourselves in eternal truths, and avoid attaching undue importance to the words or actions of sinful man no matter who they are. I pray that AA finds eternal salvation for his soul through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
That was an extremely well-worded, eloquent, and downright lovely comment, my friend.
I have nothing to qualify except for the point about him being misviewed as a leader. I will lend all the credibility to him imaginable, especially on his honest, conscious views of himself. I think that's why half-way through writing this, I realized it was the monster he created that was more-so concerning, and not he himself.
If he were a 19th or 20th century author, he would have been remembered as poignant and ingenious, if at times disgruntled. Unfortunately, we live in an era of mass communication still in its untested state, and I would argue in a dangerous state, and big, attractive ideas can rally a lot of people into a state of fervor. I'm not sure how he sees all of it, and since the world moves too quick for our emotions to handle, I'm sure he has trouble coming to terms with who is enemy, who is friend, what is right, and what is wrong. I don't blame him for being human, but what I do blame is his toxicity and negative impact on a movement meant for goodness and truth.
I pray the same. If he was ever to be saved and filled with an eternal sense of hope and love, he could accomplish more than either of us could ever hope for for ourselves.
Thank you for your lovely comment.
I appreciate it my friend and I enjoyed reading your article all the way through. I found myself nodding my head along to most of the well-argued points you laid out despite my own familiarity bias. AA was a kind of touchstone for educating myself about politics and economics. I’ve been more or less actively engaged with his content for quite a while and perhaps that resulted in my appreciation of baser cynicism and “info-tainment” over transcendental truths.
If we look at him objectively, it’s undeniable that his behavior is oftentimes destructive and he’s acted as a provocateur where it wasn’t asked for or needed. He’s given oxygen to undesirable elements in our spheres and promoted activities that sabotage the movement’s credibility. I don’t think he has the capacity to effectively lead or formulate a forward-looking vision which is why that task should fall to others less quarrelsome. I can appreciate some of his intellectual contributions without forming a tribal unit around him or looking to him for leadership.
Thanks again for the great article and sharing your unfiltered thoughts on the subject.
"he has only held himself out to be an intellectual, himself eschewing any efforts “on the ground” or to organize a coalition around a specific and measurable plan"...AA has put forward the idea of building a network of 10's, mostly an intellectual priestly class. The cadre that organizes Scyldings also organizes Basketweaving...I will leave it to you to investigate further. https://youtu.be/RHia8k8Bi7c
OK
Sorry, that was to Faith Knight.
👌
A few thoughts while reading...
1. You say "there is no center of evil with its own intent" and that the regime today has no telos. But clearly this isn't the case. The regime's obsession with destroying traditions is an ideological offshoot of Critical Theory and its various sub-disciplines, e.g. Gender Studies, Whiteness Studies, Postcolonial Studies. The levers of power may be controlled by midwit apparatchiks, but they get their marching orders from a core community of elites in academia, high finance, Silicon Valley, and the media. Both Mr. Parvini and Mr. Yarvin, I think, are largely correct about this.
2. Anyone can tell from a mile away that Mr. Parvini currently does not have the Light of God in his heart. He is a brilliant diagnostician and a fine entertainer, but he has no truck for the numinous or transcendent. Men searching for guidance should take his prescriptions skeptically, because he does not aim for the divine, and there is no righteousness without God.
3. Mr. Parvini platforms other intellectuals (living and dead) who bring a wealth of cultural and historical knowledge to the public sphere. For that, he deserves to be commended highly.
4. Mr. Parvini's toxic attitude is bog-standard among people who come from academia. On the one hand, he claims to be "just a scholar" and to not seek the mantle of leadership. On the other hand, he has no problem wielding whatever power comes to him as an e-celebrity for his own personal ends. Academics love to treat intellectual spaces as their own petty fiefdoms.
5. Like you say, Mr. Parvini's influence has grown because he was the last man standing after so many of his predecessors were deplatformed. I believe men follow him currently because the online right is starved for leadership. He is entertaining and informative, but in no ways inspiring. His influence will wax or wane if either (1) he accepts Christ into his heart or (2) a BETTER man comes alone. The Academic Agent character is the poor man's Asha Logos.
7. I think many of us are struggling with how seriously to take these so-called "online communities." They are clearly much faker and gayer than real-life communities, but realistically they are the only place many of us can have open, honest conversations without having to cloak our thoughts behind layers and layers of poz. E-drama is retarded and to no one's benefit.
Based Kris Kristofferson quote.
I don't know if I have such a damning opinion of AA as you, but his proclivity for bloodsports is certainly a major problem, and I fom know if I can completely disagree with any of your criticism of him.
I was waiting for the other shoe to drop when you wrote words in line with the 'no one is in charge' line of thinking -- will there be a Yarvin mention? And there it was. I need to ask why so many putative Christians allow a mischling Jew call the seats of power the Cathedral and not the Synagogue: why?
Thank you for this article, which gives me some context to a recent talk in which Neema Parvini begins by endorsing the Nazi ideology of Carl Schmitt, gives a nod and a wink to Whoopi Goldberg's willfully dismissive ignorance about the Holocaust and Kanye West's descent into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, then implies sympathy of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in general (while suggesting that Jordan Peterson, Nigel Farage and Ben Shapiro are some sort of controlled opposition): Dr Neema Parvini, AKA Academic Agent on The Octopus And Elite Theory.
Traditional Britain Group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC6YOTas-_Q
P.S. Given Neema Parvini's devotion to Nazi ideologist Carl Schmitt, I think it would have been worthwhile for you to mention that Julius Evola was a Fascist.