Eaten by the Algorithm: Jay Dyer (and His Critics)

A Case Study in Internet Illness

“The ambition of Caesar and of Napolean pales before that which could not rest until it had seized the minds of men and controlled even their unborn thoughts.” - Robert W. Chambers, The King in Yellow

This article was originally written differently - merely as a critique of the algorithmic capture of Jay Dyer and it’s basis in an apparent passion of Avarice - ‘the all-American passion.’ I attempt to be level and to point out Dyer’s worthwhile content and points alongside points of controversy and fundamentalism. After writing it in January and scheduling it to appear in April, I have noticed the algorithm giving me many articles criticizing Dyer. Recognizing this I decided to buck it and rewrite. The point about algorithmic capture must remain and Dyer must take a backseat to being a point of example among many.

I should not that I have no personal animosity. I see illnesses of various kinds and am sympathetic as one who suffers similarly. Nor do I attempt to wade into personal, orthodox, or online ‘drama.’ When I introduce someone I talk about I will try to mention both point of critique and points of praise to be balanced. I want to point to the underlying phenomena driving drama and discourse - which boils down to a loss of goodwill as a product of inhuman cybernetic mechanic.

Jay Dyer has, I think, rightfully become a controversial figure. Prior to 2020 I was a subscriber and listened to and read much of his catalogue of subscriber content. From Dyer I was introduced to the work of Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, James Kelly, and Jacob Needleman. His talks on Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, and Plato’s Dialogues, for example, offer worthwhile and unique perspectives. His occult interpretations of film, such as from his Esoteric Hollywood books, also have merit as an axis for interpreting media - if now overused by him as a blunt hammer of interpretation which often misses nuance. Indeed, there is plenty of topics where Dyer added something useful to the conversation. I couldn’t keep listening to him because the quality of his content changed negatively and drastically. There were specific reasons for this change; his fundamentalist temperament and the audience captured algorithmically, and the fundamental avarice which underlies it. He has outlined his spiritual development from being of that reformed Calvinist type to “Radtrad” Catholic to the type of “Ortho-bro” fundamentalism which draws in critiques he gets. This way of being draws certain personalities who inherently desire something concrete by which to rest their identity and to stake claim to. There is both a fragility and a certain courage to these personalities. They will stand on what they believe with great conviction, but are often stubborn towards correction. We see in Dyer’ something of the current ethic of not wanting to work to live. We must all keep in mind that in the era of internet celebrity that living off of algorithms and audience capture is in itself degeneration. That is the nature of God blessed man to work, to labor on the earth, for his salvation.

Despite the glamor - an illusory sham - the entertainer is low on the social hierarchy while pretending to be at the top - he is bound in his livelihood to a performance which is servitude for great masses of people - producing nothing of material value, nor offering any true leadership or direction for the people. Yet an entertainer can be noble in their profession and do good through it. For art to be art it must first be noble. Art, as Tarkovsky thought, is that which traumatizes with goodness - piercing into the heart of the person to effect a real change towards the good by it’s beauty. In art there is the hint of theophany. Dyer’s livestreams get longer with time with only dwindling quality - goofiness rather than quality. It was a thing while I was still a subscriber that the free portions of the videos were becoming nearly content-less while he’d become serious and educational in the paid content, but I have to wonder if that continues to be the case. This is brought on by the algorithm wherein Dyer’s Audience which asks for Dyer to make a fool of himself - and not a holy fool either. Having been captured by a so-called audience he can sing ’pay piggy’ or show off his feet for a superchat joking (I hope) about foot fetishes. A lack of dignity is not humility. Dyer embracing his role as an online content whore is not becoming for an Orthodox man. The internet is dangerous and binding one’s livelihood is probably lethal.

There are allegations that his discord ‘community’ is being run in a cult-like way. I really don’t know about the truth of these allegations, but considering these follow from a fundamentalist temperament that has run amok without either internal or external corrections - the error of the ‘right’ - it seems more than plausible. The way of the Orthobro shows an equivalence in degeneracy. It is natural to become overly concretized when making a major shift of identity - to be too rejecting of where you came from and to hold firm and yet unexplored boundaries between yourself and others. This isn’t the Christian way. We have to hope that for every Orthobro that they are just in a phase that they will grow out of. And we should pray.

Nevertheless, let us observe these phenomena. J

1. There is the temptation to become and make a living from internet celebrity. This is a deviation from productive work. In the same way the industrial revolution created, eventually, a class of ‘office workers’ who were abstracted out from the means of production - the internet has driven a new entertainment industry abstracted out even from viable abstract bureaucratic and administrative work. Sherlock Holmes was an early literary exemplar of a man who works with only his mind rather than by physical labor - as he even was created to be capable of forgoing the typical labors of the detective. His brother Mycroft was portrayed as being intellectually greater, even more removed from labor, and therefore fit for a position of high government. Yet, we move beyond even that by offering a pipedream of a means to living in internet minimalism. Those with something to offer intellectually or socially are more likely to be ensnared.

2. There is the reality that all people are limited in what they can reasonably offer to the public. Some people can offer more and others less. Shakespeare offered a lot but it was across many seasons of his life and through continued interaction with a theatre group, an audience, and the circumstances he found himself in. Shakespeare spent months or years in developing a play that lasted a few hours. His life spent repeating this before his audience. Now, there is a compulsion to produce to meet the demand of an evermore demanding algorithm and the artificial audience it produces. Creators attempt to create hours of content multiple times a week and it is all ephemeral at best. Rather than the development of something noble there is play at intellectualism. Education, which should be noble and uplifting, is made into parody when turned to entertainment.

3. The passions are the focus of the algorithms. These unite the common passions of an audience with the passions of a creator. And if the powers that be really want to mess with someone they can grant an audience of bots and leave you in a delusion of fake interactions - this is the new means of ‘shadowbanning.’ Pride, desire for fame, or avarice can be hooks by which to draw one deeper into relying on the whims of the algorithm and, therefore, the whims of those who control the algorithm. To remain with integrity requires a willingness not to engage. Perhaps merely not to engage in the passions, but who is a Saint who has conquered these passions? Engage with algorithm/audience? Yes, that might be teneable not to care about audience reactions or growth. It need not be total. Engage with the internet is general? Maybe that’s the best course. Perhaps the humiliation of Dyer is algorithmically engineered by Google or by some government psyop strategy - impossible to know - but he has given himself up to it anyway.

4. Once the algorithm has a creator hooked, he can be drawn like fish on a line to whatever end the algorithm has designated for the creator. Passions can be easily played with. Hasn’t Jay pridefully claimed his subscriber counts and viewership has been suppressed? Yes, many times. Is he wrong? Probably not. But is he entitled to those viewers and subscribers? No, because the world isn’t about that. Investing himself in the pride of being vindicated and ‘getting the numbers up’ is a trap he’s fallen into. No different than the “joy of the knife” of Trump’s re-election. If they want Jay to self-censor, to spend all his time on streams that last an ungodly amount of hours, to act like a complete fool for pennies, this is within their power because Jay has given it to them. He cares about pennies. He cares about the views. He cares about vindication. They can take it all away whenever they want, but how much nicer is to have a little monkey on a leash. And unfortunately, yet inevitably, Jay has looked unwell for years. He is unwell.

As another, and probably more extreme, example, we have Jordan Peterson. A man who is in love with his own words. So much in love with his own ideas that he has built an AI in his own image to talk to - a veritably idol of himself. No wonder he talks over all his guests in his podcast, they are just a vehicle for Peterson to repeat himself like an Echo to his Narcissus. He now proposes that an (unwoke) AI using the “Great Books” to find the core of Western Civilization (probably by using his Maps of Meaning as the interpretive means) to re-found this Faustian Civilization. Of course he notes that most people can be cybernetically manipulated into being willing to integrate into this new reinvigorated civilization and leaves those that won’t to a class of the ‘criminal type.’ Historically, and shouldn’t he know this, but the criminal type has been expanded from time to time to include large populations as Jim Crow and the Third Reich show. And Saints overflowing in goodwill like St. Alexander Schmorell were executed as criminals. From some interesting lectures on symbolism to internet fame and drug addiction to A.R.C. we see this same algorithmic capture of a man. He has gone from a man with ideas (regardless of whatever merit you assign to these) to a demagogue and a tool for principalities. Jordan, similarly, appears incredibly unwell. And Dr. Peterson, your book (Maps of Meaning) is just a book - not more, and not less. I thought this book had merit and I certainly enjoyed your old lectures from before his rise to fame. I understand the criticisms of the misapplication of Jung and the overuse of Campbell discredited theories. There was still something to teach and he taught it best when he was just a professor in a classroom. His Genesis series proved his psychological interpretations were far too limited for Christianity, but an audience algorithmically given to him gave him over to his pride such that he has fallen totally in love with his own image - like narcissus. In his podcast, which is awful to listen to, he over-rides his guests to share his same overused and increasingly detached from reality talking points. What can be said by those who act as if they stand above it - above the woke? They suffer from the same capture.

Now to pivot. Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick is a wonderfully friendly priest and someone who is very easy to be comfortable with. His disputes with Dyer an example of how not to deal with laity on the internet. I recognize that He is in a difficult position of managing a lot of content.