Problem is that your 'tragic abused woman' has not gone through a succession of men; she has been stuck with one man, or monster, possessed of many masks or identities, some of which he allows her to choose for him in the hope of being treated better like the manipulative sicko he is. And your 'product development team' has developed only one product, riddled with flaws, to which every successive iteration has merely given a superficial update without correcting the underlying problems. Thus, in both cases, the disillusionment is perfectly rational, and your desired attitude of holding out hope is not.
That is to say, dissidents in Britain – much like their counterparts in the US – have not gone through a succession of different strategies, putting down what doesn't work and picking up what does, only to get mysteriously disillusioned and quit in the middle. Instead, they have clung to only one strategy, that of seeking power through conservatism and official politics – and despite constant failures and betrayals on the one hand, and a growing body of theory explaining in detail why the strategy cannot possibly succeed on the other, their reaction to any internal critique or attempt to pivot to a more realistic strategy has been to shout it down as demoralization and 'blackpilling'. And now, unsurprisingly, this wall of delusion is beginning to crumble, as lies always do in the end.
I'm not exactly a fan of Parvini or his take on elite theory, but what he wrote about Tucker Carlson's new party shows some sort of common sense:
"Let us think about what Tucker is asking us to do though. He more than anyone has exposed the system, given his audience every reason to be thoroughly disillusioned with politics, the democratic process, and the American state more generally. He now wants people to get their energy up ‘one last time’ for a new party and a new election? How does he imagine it’s going to work? The regime is just going to let him run on a massive anti-corruption, anti-lobbying, and anti-Israel ticket and then just hand him the keys to power? He is not that naïve, which makes the decision to launch this party a little perplexing. Is it a grift? Is it a nice landing site for his friends like Joe Kent, Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene? I don’t know, but I find it basically impossible to muster enthusiasm for it. My appetite for hare-brained slopulist political projects that aren’t going to go anywhere is at an all-time low.
...
"The deeper problem is not that Tucker is a grifter or that his circle includes cranks. It is that any vehicle launched under the current institutional settlement – ballot access rules, donor networks, media amplification thresholds, the permanent bureaucracy’s veto power, and the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus – will either be co-opted, starved, or forced to moderate into another managed protest faction. In other words, even the great Tucker Carlson will come face-to-face with the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Does he have an even remotely serious plan to overcome it? History does not show populist media figures converting audiences into durable counter-elite power without either a genuine fracture inside the existing elite (a real civil war among factions with resources) or the slow, unglamorous work of building parallel institutions, cadres, and material independence outside the electoral spectacle. Cheering a new party is simply the latest way of remaining inside the spectacle. The only non-cope moves left are the ones that do not require the regime’s permission: exit where possible, competence and loyalty networks where exit is not, and a ruthless refusal to treat the next charismatic broadcaster as a political saviour. Maybe Tucker has secretly done all these things and is, in fact, the mastermind of a vast organised underground network waiting to take over America properly – as per my original cope, it is possible. However, something tells me that it is improbable and I don’t think we should be pinning hopes on imaginary ‘white hats’ anymore."
All of this is transferable to Rupert Lowe and Restore, which simply competes with Reform to deport migrants on paper and seems to have no more idea than they do on how to deal with the 'Blob' and other deep structures of Britain's democratist regime. So, too, is your 'defence' of Restore – that those leading it hold their delusions sincerely, and that some of them are not kosher with Israel and the Jews – transferable to Tuckler and his new party; and in both cases, it is irrelevant to the fundamental problem, which is the absence of any plan or even desire to go beyond the same old strategy of conservative politics and the production of entertainment slop.
Clever he may be, but not that clever! I stopped watching AA when his cigars got bigger than his brain... - and don't mention the Edwardian smoking jacket! Pompous pontification thy name is Parvini! Correct me if I'm right, but didn't AA also encourage the disaffected to vote for Corbyn last time round? 5D chess - or 3D affectation? There seems to be a point with all decent dissidents when their popularity gets the better of them and they start sneering for a living. There are, of course, noble exceptions to this 'fatal success' rule: Woes is one such dissident aristocrat in this regard. Is it something to do with having been put through the ringer in one's time, and learned painful lessons about the limits of one's own personality? Not sure AA has ever really endured any bitterly hard times. But then I don't know too much about him. Maybe I'm wrong. It has been known!
when I think that this whole cultural crusade started with “don’t judge a book by its cover” and “white people can’t dance”.. man, where is this going to end. Feels like it will rival the world wars by the end of it all.
Optimisim for what? Optimism is not courage nor helpful or useful right now in the social order of things. What exactly is the vision of Restore? Heritage party is much clearer, realistic and practical than Restore. Its measured, believable and the best to be hoped for, only really deconstructing the liberal excesses of ultra-capitalism, first stage technocracy and globalism. Hwever they have even less opportunity and chance of making an impact inside the current biased and a system that prevents new entrants, built to support, sustain and expand elite power interests. Politics is only for the different big meta-classes and their interests. The entire article is naive and overly sentimental without substance. We need to have a positive and constructive vision for our political, economic and social future; that optimism for something better that will make us all flourish as much as possible, but where does Restore fit in to that? Optimism for Restore is misplaced. It is unable to run a country and it never will as it expresses populist slop and fantasies filled with mantras, slogans and easy answers (remigration, ethonativism, christian fundamentalism etc) from and for an ideological fringe, albeit dressed up with decent and reasonable traditional themes, and philosophies that cannot work in this reality. The money-power complex rules and the elites get to decide the games played, the rules and the exceptions. But the party is up against globalist dark technocracy, massive interests and incentives that have no regard for rightist dogma and doctrines. Restore provides little optimism or a credible, substantial or usefl force for redirecting, and rebuilding the country.
I confess I wasn't aware anyone had suggested Lowe was angling for a merger. I think his 'offer' was a reply to people who accuse Restore of splitting the vote. There was no way Farage could have accepted it, and this highlights the fact that Reform and Restore have fundamentally different polices and goals.
He doesn't say 'don't bother'... it's just about setting realistic expectations. He was on board with Restore to begin with.
The overwhelming likelihood is that Restore is somehow folded into Reform for the next election, however that may be, and we get a slightly further right Reform than we otherwise would have.
The power base for Restore just isn't there right now. Though it might be in the future.
Do you really think they'll want to go to the election with say 8% of the vote, and generate a shitload of ill will for 'splitting the vote'? Because that's what we're looking at. Ultimately, they'll have to meet in the middle 'for the good of the country'.
Note, I'm an accelerationist, so if Restore cannot outright win, I'd like to see the fucking Green Party shag this country to death. THAT might awaken the White people. I'm not advocating for Reform in a month of Sundays.
You really think the GB News backed, Zio signed off, big donor stuffed, Tory filled Reform are going to 'implode'? They are an institution at this point. Not at the level of the Tories and Labour, but still, major player in British politics. Farage might duck out, but there's Jenrick and Zia et al waiting in the wings...
Maybe we think Lowe isn’t 'the one' or the hero because we expect him to be the person who not only starts clearing the dense, overgrown forest, but finishes turning it into a pathway. But perhaps that isn’t his role. His role might be to clear the way and make a path so someone else can follow it more easily. History might remember him as the person who made the journey possible for someone else.
In his recent interview with Bret Weinstein, Lowe stated that he “detests” ethnonationalism. Like his rivals, he appears to regard ethnonationalism as his Achilles’ heel.
Like his rivals, Lowe is also deeply attached to procedural universalism, civic abstraction, and the moral grammar of postwar liberalism. I get it. Lowe doesn’t understand the last sentence, let alone the structural reality behind it. But he does recognise the damage caused by mass migration. That is his main selling point, common sense unencumbered by radical theories.
But unless you understand the cause of a problem, you cannot hope to solve it.
Lowe is now 68 and seems increasingly in a hurry for political relevance. Not so long ago, he was saying Nigel Farage must never become Prime Minister. Now, following the Makersfield result, he has offered for Restore and Reform to put their personal differences aside and work together, pointing out that they have already done so at local level.
The direction of travel is becoming clear. The question is whether Lowe’s common sense diagnosis can survive the political logic of the parliamentary system.
I’m genuinely torn on this one. Even if Restore Britain ultimately fails or is folded into a broader establishment (Zionist) party, those involved will have learned a great deal. Some will inevitably become discouraged and drop out altogether. But others will learn the lessons, gain experience, and come out of it stronger.
He said he detests ethnonationalism, then advocate for the "demographic security" of "White Britons", so he is obviously an ethnonationalist without realising it. In his head, "ethnonationalism" means "jack boots and gas chambers". He doesn't - or didn't - understand that it means exactly what he wants. He is learning this stuff late after a lifetime of Boomer normie indoctrination.
I agree he is still (and will probably will always be) a Boomer in other respects - universalism, etc. But the three zoomers are clearly intended to take over from him, and not that long away.
Just one more thing... why Weinstein? As a secular Jew, BW criticizes Netanyahu’s administration but remains aligned with the State of Israel and is ambivalent on the genocide. Is Lowe's appearance a deliberate signal to a powerful organized minority that he can be trusted? It may be just a boomer thing but it’s not a good look
I have been meaning to check in on ya woes, I remember your Chanel from the wild west days. Funny how far the window has shifted, way more extreme stuff is tolerated now. I wonder what it's been like for you. I mean a guy like asmongold is a millionaire with a pretty similar stick - same politics, a genuine personality , though he is more click baity and games. Anyhoo, I'm sharing my thoughts and I bet I'm not the only one who wonders sometimes
AA is just lazy and egotistical. His last article about personality and organisation was genuinely one of the weakest pieces he has put out, he took a fairly basic truth, that people outside the establishment tend to be more disagreeable, and turned it into some poorly researched and argued slop piece. I made a respectful comment pointing out that the explanatory power of this theory was weak at best and missing far more important factors, and he just gives dismissive canned one line responses, 'the online right is worse than doing nothing' to which I responded, he again just gave a dismissive insult so I poked him back and he blocked me xD. The man is basically Nick Fuentes if he stayed in university.
The most damning thing for AA is that he was given the chance to put all his knowledge into practice and he spends all his time thinking up excuses as to why he is actually super justified to just do nothing. When you step back it becomes obvious what is happening, he was essentially the critic who constantly talks about the correct way to make a movie, and when given a chance to put his ideas into action he suddenly has a million reasons as to why he can't, nay shouldn't, help make a movie. He is just protecting his ego, it's also why he doesn't engage with arguments. I have put to him on multiple occasions that modern technology has massively changed aspects of how politics functions, but he just denies it and then goes on to pretend organising under cafes like the French resistance under occupation is actually better than organising online, he would actually have a point if he just said organising online shouldn't be the end, but that isn't his point.
It has also put 'riding the tiger' into question, because of course people would rather reap the benefits with none of the costs. Why try and save your people when the future is already set in stone? Just exist on the periphery of civilisation, extracting all the benefits you can. It is ultimately parasitic and non reciprocal, you have declared something is inevitable, so now you can just drink your flat whites and cultivate your little band of malcontents, and if anyone fighting to save their people looks at you and gets annoyed you have some theory to throw in their face.
Game theory would dictate that you have to deal with people who just sit out the fight, otherwise that is obviously the best individual option. What exactly that looks like us hard to say, but it is certainly something the right needs to think about.
"All this was said over and over again to shout down anyone who pointed out the truth about Trump. And yet it remained the truth. Frankly there is nothing more hyper-real and illusory than the concept of "morale" when applied to internet collectives. Not even a crowd but a postmodern pastiche of a crowd!"
The man is just full of shit. Doesn't address the specific claims, just that it echos of arguments made in defence of Trump therefore he doesn't have to actually respond to anything directly. Then he uses his favourite dismissive buzzword, hyper-real, as if the fact that something is not material is grounds for dismissal. I could just as easily say he has constructed his own hyper-real understanding of the world via books, therefore I can now dismiss him, it is just childlike argumentation. Also it is supposedly his job, how hard is it to actually respond to some arguments.
Now him and his little gang of muppets like to spout off about "they always say this is the most important election" as if that actually answers the rights issue of irreversible demographic collapse. Sure it isn't the "last election" but every single election makes everything far harder, and if you haven't even started organising when it really is the mythical "final election" will you suddenly jump too?
Ultimate Parvini has no answer to the question of "why not just start organising now" he would perhaps point to the iron law of oligarchy, but it is his job to think of ways of organising that perhaps avoid that pitfall, not just pointing to a problem and then running off into the sunset.
Excellent piece, Woes. I was baffled by AA's sudden heelturn, wondered if I'd missed something as Lowe seems to me the man he was a few months ago. I'm not surprised Lowe says some civnat things, as AA himself pointed out it's actually illegal for a British political party to openly avow ethnonationalism; also even if Lowe didn't care about race he's still much much better than Farage, he isn't cosying up with regime minions, he isn't a slobbering Zionist, he keeps hammering on about mass deportations, what exactly do we have to lose here? Our big boy "I'm more cynical than you, I'm ahead of the nihilist curve, I can't be fooled" pants, I guess.
If we're wrong, so what, we wasted some time and energy, we wouldn't have been overthrowing the government without this distraction, so why not entertain some cautious optimism? There's a danger of becoming not merely blackpilled but Denethor-pilled, gazing too long into the palantir. I had hope for Trump, I lost it, so what, it's not like I would have been storming the Bastille were it not for my foolish hope. Now I have hope for Lowe and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, no great loss. But if Lowe is legit, and we all refuse to entertain the slightest hope, that might well make a difference, presuming our vanguard has any influence on broader events.
I've always liked Academic Agent, but, he's not in the same league as MW. But we need everybody we can get, whoever is not deliberately against us can be accepted as for us to some extent or another. I say that because I don't think of the cause of what many of us are calling "ethno-nationalism" is narrow, I think it's the part of Western Civilization that post modern commie libturdism had tried to jettison from Western Civ that needs to be restored, if I may use that politically loaded word here. I think of ethno-nationalism not as excluding the way the National Socialists thought of it, but rather as a pillar of society that makes it hold together the way humanity has to be organized, whatever the proposed political or cultural system there is.
I realize I'm not as clear as I should be, but I'm not an Academic, as you can see. I philosophize by the seat of my pants.
The folk saying “fell for it again” so confidently better be right for their own sake, unless they apologise and actually help with our own things like TWI.
I don't think he is containment, no. I think he is a natural loner who eventually found it unbearable to be part of a collective project. I also think he has surrounded himself with people who are even more cantankerous than him, and they have influenced him.
“Faith” is just a misleading euphemism for gullibility.
Every con artist who’s ever lived wants others to believe things without any evidence, without any REASON to. Just because he said so.
Problem is that your 'tragic abused woman' has not gone through a succession of men; she has been stuck with one man, or monster, possessed of many masks or identities, some of which he allows her to choose for him in the hope of being treated better like the manipulative sicko he is. And your 'product development team' has developed only one product, riddled with flaws, to which every successive iteration has merely given a superficial update without correcting the underlying problems. Thus, in both cases, the disillusionment is perfectly rational, and your desired attitude of holding out hope is not.
That is to say, dissidents in Britain – much like their counterparts in the US – have not gone through a succession of different strategies, putting down what doesn't work and picking up what does, only to get mysteriously disillusioned and quit in the middle. Instead, they have clung to only one strategy, that of seeking power through conservatism and official politics – and despite constant failures and betrayals on the one hand, and a growing body of theory explaining in detail why the strategy cannot possibly succeed on the other, their reaction to any internal critique or attempt to pivot to a more realistic strategy has been to shout it down as demoralization and 'blackpilling'. And now, unsurprisingly, this wall of delusion is beginning to crumble, as lies always do in the end.
I'm not exactly a fan of Parvini or his take on elite theory, but what he wrote about Tucker Carlson's new party shows some sort of common sense:
"Let us think about what Tucker is asking us to do though. He more than anyone has exposed the system, given his audience every reason to be thoroughly disillusioned with politics, the democratic process, and the American state more generally. He now wants people to get their energy up ‘one last time’ for a new party and a new election? How does he imagine it’s going to work? The regime is just going to let him run on a massive anti-corruption, anti-lobbying, and anti-Israel ticket and then just hand him the keys to power? He is not that naïve, which makes the decision to launch this party a little perplexing. Is it a grift? Is it a nice landing site for his friends like Joe Kent, Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene? I don’t know, but I find it basically impossible to muster enthusiasm for it. My appetite for hare-brained slopulist political projects that aren’t going to go anywhere is at an all-time low.
...
"The deeper problem is not that Tucker is a grifter or that his circle includes cranks. It is that any vehicle launched under the current institutional settlement – ballot access rules, donor networks, media amplification thresholds, the permanent bureaucracy’s veto power, and the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus – will either be co-opted, starved, or forced to moderate into another managed protest faction. In other words, even the great Tucker Carlson will come face-to-face with the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Does he have an even remotely serious plan to overcome it? History does not show populist media figures converting audiences into durable counter-elite power without either a genuine fracture inside the existing elite (a real civil war among factions with resources) or the slow, unglamorous work of building parallel institutions, cadres, and material independence outside the electoral spectacle. Cheering a new party is simply the latest way of remaining inside the spectacle. The only non-cope moves left are the ones that do not require the regime’s permission: exit where possible, competence and loyalty networks where exit is not, and a ruthless refusal to treat the next charismatic broadcaster as a political saviour. Maybe Tucker has secretly done all these things and is, in fact, the mastermind of a vast organised underground network waiting to take over America properly – as per my original cope, it is possible. However, something tells me that it is improbable and I don’t think we should be pinning hopes on imaginary ‘white hats’ anymore."
All of this is transferable to Rupert Lowe and Restore, which simply competes with Reform to deport migrants on paper and seems to have no more idea than they do on how to deal with the 'Blob' and other deep structures of Britain's democratist regime. So, too, is your 'defence' of Restore – that those leading it hold their delusions sincerely, and that some of them are not kosher with Israel and the Jews – transferable to Tuckler and his new party; and in both cases, it is irrelevant to the fundamental problem, which is the absence of any plan or even desire to go beyond the same old strategy of conservative politics and the production of entertainment slop.
Clever he may be, but not that clever! I stopped watching AA when his cigars got bigger than his brain... - and don't mention the Edwardian smoking jacket! Pompous pontification thy name is Parvini! Correct me if I'm right, but didn't AA also encourage the disaffected to vote for Corbyn last time round? 5D chess - or 3D affectation? There seems to be a point with all decent dissidents when their popularity gets the better of them and they start sneering for a living. There are, of course, noble exceptions to this 'fatal success' rule: Woes is one such dissident aristocrat in this regard. Is it something to do with having been put through the ringer in one's time, and learned painful lessons about the limits of one's own personality? Not sure AA has ever really endured any bitterly hard times. But then I don't know too much about him. Maybe I'm wrong. It has been known!
when I think that this whole cultural crusade started with “don’t judge a book by its cover” and “white people can’t dance”.. man, where is this going to end. Feels like it will rival the world wars by the end of it all.
You’re delusional. Such a disappointment. Sorry, can no longer pay to read such rubbish. Good luck to you.
Could you be specific about my delusions? I think I made the case here for optimism. If there is something I missed, please let me know.
Optimisim for what? Optimism is not courage nor helpful or useful right now in the social order of things. What exactly is the vision of Restore? Heritage party is much clearer, realistic and practical than Restore. Its measured, believable and the best to be hoped for, only really deconstructing the liberal excesses of ultra-capitalism, first stage technocracy and globalism. Hwever they have even less opportunity and chance of making an impact inside the current biased and a system that prevents new entrants, built to support, sustain and expand elite power interests. Politics is only for the different big meta-classes and their interests. The entire article is naive and overly sentimental without substance. We need to have a positive and constructive vision for our political, economic and social future; that optimism for something better that will make us all flourish as much as possible, but where does Restore fit in to that? Optimism for Restore is misplaced. It is unable to run a country and it never will as it expresses populist slop and fantasies filled with mantras, slogans and easy answers (remigration, ethonativism, christian fundamentalism etc) from and for an ideological fringe, albeit dressed up with decent and reasonable traditional themes, and philosophies that cannot work in this reality. The money-power complex rules and the elites get to decide the games played, the rules and the exceptions. But the party is up against globalist dark technocracy, massive interests and incentives that have no regard for rightist dogma and doctrines. Restore provides little optimism or a credible, substantial or usefl force for redirecting, and rebuilding the country.
I confess I wasn't aware anyone had suggested Lowe was angling for a merger. I think his 'offer' was a reply to people who accuse Restore of splitting the vote. There was no way Farage could have accepted it, and this highlights the fact that Reform and Restore have fundamentally different polices and goals.
AA is brilliant but depressing. His main message seems to be: 'the iron law of oligarchy, therefore don't bother - it's all a waste of time.'
He doesn't say 'don't bother'... it's just about setting realistic expectations. He was on board with Restore to begin with.
The overwhelming likelihood is that Restore is somehow folded into Reform for the next election, however that may be, and we get a slightly further right Reform than we otherwise would have.
The power base for Restore just isn't there right now. Though it might be in the future.
'overwhelming likelihood'? absolute claptrap
Do you really think they'll want to go to the election with say 8% of the vote, and generate a shitload of ill will for 'splitting the vote'? Because that's what we're looking at. Ultimately, they'll have to meet in the middle 'for the good of the country'.
Note, I'm an accelerationist, so if Restore cannot outright win, I'd like to see the fucking Green Party shag this country to death. THAT might awaken the White people. I'm not advocating for Reform in a month of Sundays.
That obviously won't happen. It's more likely that Reform implodes.
You really think the GB News backed, Zio signed off, big donor stuffed, Tory filled Reform are going to 'implode'? They are an institution at this point. Not at the level of the Tories and Labour, but still, major player in British politics. Farage might duck out, but there's Jenrick and Zia et al waiting in the wings...
The Tories 🤣 you are not a serious person
If either Jenrick or Zia become leader, Reform is screwed.
I don't know if he's brilliant, but he has a very annoying voice.
thank you woes we needed that.
hang on in there restore we've got your back.
Maybe we think Lowe isn’t 'the one' or the hero because we expect him to be the person who not only starts clearing the dense, overgrown forest, but finishes turning it into a pathway. But perhaps that isn’t his role. His role might be to clear the way and make a path so someone else can follow it more easily. History might remember him as the person who made the journey possible for someone else.
"But I do think we are going to get our country back."
That's the kind of optimism we need. What good is saying we don't think that?
I confess didn't think that before Restore came along, but now I dare to think it.
If we can honestly think it, we can be it.
In his recent interview with Bret Weinstein, Lowe stated that he “detests” ethnonationalism. Like his rivals, he appears to regard ethnonationalism as his Achilles’ heel.
Like his rivals, Lowe is also deeply attached to procedural universalism, civic abstraction, and the moral grammar of postwar liberalism. I get it. Lowe doesn’t understand the last sentence, let alone the structural reality behind it. But he does recognise the damage caused by mass migration. That is his main selling point, common sense unencumbered by radical theories.
But unless you understand the cause of a problem, you cannot hope to solve it.
Lowe is now 68 and seems increasingly in a hurry for political relevance. Not so long ago, he was saying Nigel Farage must never become Prime Minister. Now, following the Makersfield result, he has offered for Restore and Reform to put their personal differences aside and work together, pointing out that they have already done so at local level.
The direction of travel is becoming clear. The question is whether Lowe’s common sense diagnosis can survive the political logic of the parliamentary system.
I’m genuinely torn on this one. Even if Restore Britain ultimately fails or is folded into a broader establishment (Zionist) party, those involved will have learned a great deal. Some will inevitably become discouraged and drop out altogether. But others will learn the lessons, gain experience, and come out of it stronger.
He said he detests ethnonationalism, then advocate for the "demographic security" of "White Britons", so he is obviously an ethnonationalist without realising it. In his head, "ethnonationalism" means "jack boots and gas chambers". He doesn't - or didn't - understand that it means exactly what he wants. He is learning this stuff late after a lifetime of Boomer normie indoctrination.
I agree he is still (and will probably will always be) a Boomer in other respects - universalism, etc. But the three zoomers are clearly intended to take over from him, and not that long away.
Just one more thing... why Weinstein? As a secular Jew, BW criticizes Netanyahu’s administration but remains aligned with the State of Israel and is ambivalent on the genocide. Is Lowe's appearance a deliberate signal to a powerful organized minority that he can be trusted? It may be just a boomer thing but it’s not a good look
I have been meaning to check in on ya woes, I remember your Chanel from the wild west days. Funny how far the window has shifted, way more extreme stuff is tolerated now. I wonder what it's been like for you. I mean a guy like asmongold is a millionaire with a pretty similar stick - same politics, a genuine personality , though he is more click baity and games. Anyhoo, I'm sharing my thoughts and I bet I'm not the only one who wonders sometimes
AA is just lazy and egotistical. His last article about personality and organisation was genuinely one of the weakest pieces he has put out, he took a fairly basic truth, that people outside the establishment tend to be more disagreeable, and turned it into some poorly researched and argued slop piece. I made a respectful comment pointing out that the explanatory power of this theory was weak at best and missing far more important factors, and he just gives dismissive canned one line responses, 'the online right is worse than doing nothing' to which I responded, he again just gave a dismissive insult so I poked him back and he blocked me xD. The man is basically Nick Fuentes if he stayed in university.
The most damning thing for AA is that he was given the chance to put all his knowledge into practice and he spends all his time thinking up excuses as to why he is actually super justified to just do nothing. When you step back it becomes obvious what is happening, he was essentially the critic who constantly talks about the correct way to make a movie, and when given a chance to put his ideas into action he suddenly has a million reasons as to why he can't, nay shouldn't, help make a movie. He is just protecting his ego, it's also why he doesn't engage with arguments. I have put to him on multiple occasions that modern technology has massively changed aspects of how politics functions, but he just denies it and then goes on to pretend organising under cafes like the French resistance under occupation is actually better than organising online, he would actually have a point if he just said organising online shouldn't be the end, but that isn't his point.
It has also put 'riding the tiger' into question, because of course people would rather reap the benefits with none of the costs. Why try and save your people when the future is already set in stone? Just exist on the periphery of civilisation, extracting all the benefits you can. It is ultimately parasitic and non reciprocal, you have declared something is inevitable, so now you can just drink your flat whites and cultivate your little band of malcontents, and if anyone fighting to save their people looks at you and gets annoyed you have some theory to throw in their face.
Game theory would dictate that you have to deal with people who just sit out the fight, otherwise that is obviously the best individual option. What exactly that looks like us hard to say, but it is certainly something the right needs to think about.
Lol Parvini's response to this article.
"All this was said over and over again to shout down anyone who pointed out the truth about Trump. And yet it remained the truth. Frankly there is nothing more hyper-real and illusory than the concept of "morale" when applied to internet collectives. Not even a crowd but a postmodern pastiche of a crowd!"
The man is just full of shit. Doesn't address the specific claims, just that it echos of arguments made in defence of Trump therefore he doesn't have to actually respond to anything directly. Then he uses his favourite dismissive buzzword, hyper-real, as if the fact that something is not material is grounds for dismissal. I could just as easily say he has constructed his own hyper-real understanding of the world via books, therefore I can now dismiss him, it is just childlike argumentation. Also it is supposedly his job, how hard is it to actually respond to some arguments.
Now him and his little gang of muppets like to spout off about "they always say this is the most important election" as if that actually answers the rights issue of irreversible demographic collapse. Sure it isn't the "last election" but every single election makes everything far harder, and if you haven't even started organising when it really is the mythical "final election" will you suddenly jump too?
Ultimate Parvini has no answer to the question of "why not just start organising now" he would perhaps point to the iron law of oligarchy, but it is his job to think of ways of organising that perhaps avoid that pitfall, not just pointing to a problem and then running off into the sunset.
Excellent piece, Woes. I was baffled by AA's sudden heelturn, wondered if I'd missed something as Lowe seems to me the man he was a few months ago. I'm not surprised Lowe says some civnat things, as AA himself pointed out it's actually illegal for a British political party to openly avow ethnonationalism; also even if Lowe didn't care about race he's still much much better than Farage, he isn't cosying up with regime minions, he isn't a slobbering Zionist, he keeps hammering on about mass deportations, what exactly do we have to lose here? Our big boy "I'm more cynical than you, I'm ahead of the nihilist curve, I can't be fooled" pants, I guess.
If we're wrong, so what, we wasted some time and energy, we wouldn't have been overthrowing the government without this distraction, so why not entertain some cautious optimism? There's a danger of becoming not merely blackpilled but Denethor-pilled, gazing too long into the palantir. I had hope for Trump, I lost it, so what, it's not like I would have been storming the Bastille were it not for my foolish hope. Now I have hope for Lowe and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, no great loss. But if Lowe is legit, and we all refuse to entertain the slightest hope, that might well make a difference, presuming our vanguard has any influence on broader events.
I've always liked Academic Agent, but, he's not in the same league as MW. But we need everybody we can get, whoever is not deliberately against us can be accepted as for us to some extent or another. I say that because I don't think of the cause of what many of us are calling "ethno-nationalism" is narrow, I think it's the part of Western Civilization that post modern commie libturdism had tried to jettison from Western Civ that needs to be restored, if I may use that politically loaded word here. I think of ethno-nationalism not as excluding the way the National Socialists thought of it, but rather as a pillar of society that makes it hold together the way humanity has to be organized, whatever the proposed political or cultural system there is.
I realize I'm not as clear as I should be, but I'm not an Academic, as you can see. I philosophize by the seat of my pants.
The folk saying “fell for it again” so confidently better be right for their own sake, unless they apologise and actually help with our own things like TWI.
Agreed 100%.
Woes, is there a chance AA grew a huge following and is now containment to keep things the way are?
If the current system is working well for him, he may not want it to change. He has a good job, owns 2 x homes and has status to lose.
By birth he will always have dual loyalties.
Very sad to see him become another online self-helper.
I guess Theory-celling is comfy.
I don't think he is containment, no. I think he is a natural loner who eventually found it unbearable to be part of a collective project. I also think he has surrounded himself with people who are even more cantankerous than him, and they have influenced him.