The Intellectual Dark Web

Recently the NYT breathlessly reported on the ‘Intellectual Dark Web,’ a collection of academics, comedians, artists and feminists. Some of the more well known include Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro, with Joe Rogan also being tangentially lumped into the ‘movement.’ The entire premise of this loose collection of podcasters and public personalities is that of having conversations that aren’t allowed anymore. Controversial ideas such as ‘men and women are biologically different.’ The following illustrates the true insanity of the left and who exactly is actually creating and implementing policy. “After his talk (Sam Harris), in which he disparaged the Taliban, a biologist who would go on to serve on President Barack Obama’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues approached him. “I remember she said: ‘That’s just your opinion. How can you say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?’ But to me it’s just obvious that forcing women to live their lives inside bags is wrong. I gave her another example: What if we found a culture that was ritually blinding every third child? And she actually said, ‘It would depend on why they were doing it.’” While the level of censorship, degeneracy and cognitive dissonance in the media and politics continues to spiral into a near-indecipherable level of victim hierarchy and approved language and thought, does the resistance to ‘consensus parroting’ really constitute an answer to it? Should we be cheering on the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ as a valid answer to the left’s thought control? In my opinion, no.

Not to pile on the recent criticisms of Jordan Peterson, but the man’s worldview is one of have your cake and eat it too. He espouses a relativism, but coyly admits the efficacy of Christian morals in an evolutionary sense. If Dawkins is correct, they why not take him at his word and just eat people because we can? Sam Harris is a leftist atheist. Ben Shapiro is a never-Trump orthodox Jew. Heather Heying and her husband Brett Weinstein are former professors at Evergreen College and also leftists. Steven Crowder is a Canadian conservative comedian. The issue with a movement or intellectual group built around varying beliefs on what constitutes absolute truth or the nature of truth altogether, is there is no philosophical leg to stand on. Peterson and Harris may prefer a Western society that doesn’t blind every third child, but neither can offer a defense about killing every third child that is unfit in some way other that it might hurt their feelings. I do enjoy listening to long form discussions about controversial and complex issues, but a discussion implies an answer to the question. The Intellectual Dark Web seems to be an exercise in skepticism with a liberal dose of Kant and  empiricism mixed in. One is left at the end of it all wondering why it matters if the answer either doesn’t exist or cannot be known. Wrapping all of that up in a bowtie and a collection of rules that Ward Cleaver or any decent father would have told you does not profundity make.

So aside from the philosophical, the recent promotion of this specific group leaves me to wonder if an Approved Alternative™ is being established. The idea that anyone in the mainstream media, particularly the NYT would describe me as ‘princely’ is laughable. We are intellectual and culturally opposed in nearly every aspect of our lives, the existence of AP’s philosophical school of thought is an anathema to their relativistic hedonism. One does not praise a movement or philosophy that provides competing or superior answers to meta-questions. From a pragmatic viewpoint the recent attention and promotion of this idea that discourse is the be-all-end-all indicates to me that the dominant liberal apologists understand this as well. Simply, cui bono? A lack of coherent ideology and a large amount of overlap with the dominant ideology today does not make a movement, but a cacophony. In my opinion the left has created or allowed a blowoff valve for dissident thought to combat the growing dissatisfaction with their values and ruthless grip on mainstream society, without any of the teeth that dissident thought has.

In conclusion, don’t disagree with the notion that dissent and discussion of controversial or difficult subjects are a bad thing. However, we must all be careful to examine the underlying presuppositions of what we are being told to believe. Why are we being presented these people? Why if an enormously popular music mogul cannot express free thought, is the mainstream media a and thought police embracing this? If you were trying to consolidate and control both sides of the social and cultural conflict now raging in America, would you do anything differently? Food for thought.

Spread the love
                
By Published On: May 18, 2018Categories: Jesse James15 Comments on The Intellectual Dark Web

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: admin

15 Comments

  1. Anonymous May 18, 2018 at 23:32

    4.5

  2. Frank Pinelander May 19, 2018 at 14:54

    ” leaves me to wonder if an Approved Alternative™ is being established”

    “we must all be careful to examine the underlying presuppositions of what we are being told to believe. Why are we being presented these people?”

    EXACTLY!

    Thesis. Anti-thesis. Synthesis.

    “Someone”, suggested Trump establish a third party. Trump is doing that.

    The Game, part and parcel with “Democracy”, is a parliamentarian system.

    While I enjoy Trump’s games, I still believe him to be Controlled Opposition.

    Tread carefully.

  3. Centurion_Cornelius May 19, 2018 at 18:15

    Thanks for some ‘cold-water-in-the-face’ Jesse! It tends to wake me up! My two ears listen to what is said on the web, BUT it all goes through the filters of God, faith, family, the past, tradition, self-sufficiency, loyalty, honesty, courage, and rectitude.

    After seven decades on God’s Green Earth, you learn one thing: “Talk is cheap–watch the actions taken,” on or off the web. Those folks in your face or over yonder mountain–watch especially the hands of opponents and where those hands and actions are heading.

    Patience is a virtue. We keep sharpening our axes, reloading necked brass, canning, and splitting firewood–all are needed–come what may–be it good or evil.

    Peace and Blessings, Brother. Keep a sharp eye out–on or off the web.

  4. ApoloDoc May 20, 2018 at 14:57

    I have been beating on this issue for years, the idea that moral relativism necessarily follows an atheist, materialist worldview. The Libertarian Anarchist group is in the same boat as the leftists, they cannot justify WHY their “zero aggression principle” should be anything more than their personal preference.

    Of course the lack of logic and critical thinking are epidemic which goes very nicely with a side order of relativism. Ultimately TRUTH does exist, but few wish to recognize this simple fact. When the inconsistencies that follow their beliefs are confronted, it becomes attack time.

    I am pondering the chance to corrupt some young minds (college students) with a clear and coherent picture of reality. Gee, maybe I can make a zillion dollars from youtube like Jordan Peterson ;) Or maybe, just maybe, help a few young people to become defenders of truth.

    • Jesse James May 20, 2018 at 15:12

      The issue is that most on either side of the debate haven’t taken enough time to truly reduce the two schools down to their central tenets enough to essentially re-argue the transcendental argument. The relativist is making universal claims about the absolute of relativism. The statement ‘ALL is relative’ is a contradiction on its face. The twitter atheist might claim word games, but it reveals a logical flaw at the very center of that worldview. For kicks and grins you’ll get an interesting reaction to the recent multiverse relativist that seems to be growing in popularity when they are forced to admit that if there are an infinite number of universes there must be one where a Creator exists and the Bible is absolute truth…and it’s possible they are living in it.

    • Anonymous May 25, 2018 at 19:17

      ZAP is a unique preferred system because it’s the most complete implementation of the golden rule. The golden rule is the arrangement you should prefer, because you being a philosopher-king fed grapes by buxom slaves is unlikely. The rare Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, Lincoln can achieve philosopher-king status, but they’re merely hazardous and need to be killed when discovered.

      • Jesse James May 25, 2018 at 20:11

        There’s a reason the only time one sees anarchy is as a precursor to communism.

        • Northgunner May 26, 2018 at 03:11

          An answer to Apollodoc and Jesse:

          The reason that liberlarians  (small L like L. Neil Smith, Vin Supryowicz and others) and anarchists/voluntarists like Bill Buppert, Larken Rose and I adhere to the Zero Aggression Principle is that it is inherently wrong to threaten or commit aggression, robbery, slavery or fraud against another person that has committed none of the above listed acts upon us. 

          Anarchy isn’t a lack or absence of rules; it is the realization that there is NO such entity called “government/authority” in factual existence and that a ‘ruling class’ is nothing more than a gang of parasitical narcissistic sociopaths performing pseudo-religious rituals to feign an aura of legitimacy for their evil.

          That coercion, aggression, slavery, theft and fraud is inherently wrong no matter WHO commits them, especially when the assailant claims to act in the name of “government” while committing them is no defense. 

          We anarchists/voluntarists see the above acts as wrong in and of themselves; not to be convienently explained away via relativism as is always done by cultists in the cult of “government”.

           To say that anarchy leads to communism as a statement is a critical failure as we anarchists/voluntarists understand that each individual OWNS themselves and does NOT have any prior claim on any other individual, their property or anything else connected with their existence.  communism is nothing more than a viral form of collectivism/gov worship with envy and hatred of the individual as its dna.

          The parasite class and their propaganda organs (media, “entertainment”, and indoctrination agencies/officers) know that they’re loosing the battlespace of the mind as more people are both rejecting their legitimacy as conduits of thought/acceptance and seeking their information from alternative sources.

          More importantly, people who are on the front lines in their respective search for individual freedom are meeting and networking via cyberspace.  An example of such are the videos below between Paul Elam, a Men’s Rights Advocate and Theryn Meyer in the videos below:

           AVFM Interviews Theryn Meyer
           https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N4II9JuC0Kg

           Trans Central Station
          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo9t7gc8h-I

          Such meetings online and in realspace show that Freedomistas can come from different directions to voluntarily enhance and support the overall move towards Liberty.

          Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
          Fn-Az/Northgunner III

          • Anonymous May 27, 2018 at 04:22

            You’re supporting your argument using the word “inherently”. This inherent-ness is not supplied by a monster in the sky, that’s the transcendentalism Jesse mentions. Then, why is aggression inherently wrong? What is the argument that starts from an observation of facts around me, to the conclusion that aggression is inherently wrong?

            Multiverse is no better supported by experimental evidence than sky monsters. Quantum mechanics “interpretations” do not come from the science process, they are not a consequence of some theory whose predictions match experimental observations. QM “interpretations” are just religion, imaginings, faith-based non-sense.

          • Jim Klein May 31, 2018 at 10:22

            >>>Then, why is aggression inherently wrong? What is the argument that starts from an observation of facts around me, to the conclusion that aggression is inherently wrong?<<<

            Two facts mainly…that we're each a volitional individual. Collectivism fails because we don't exist as groups. We individually choose to associate in groups or not. And it's all volitional so the fundamental distinction in any social relationship, from 2 to 7 billion, is consent versus thuggery.

            So we see that the NAP/ZAP is not any sort of system at all, though it would undoubtedly emerge as one eventually. It's not even a rule except internally…rules don't change other people. It's the only thing it could be, a choice. That's the genus. It's a choice of the species promise.

            Everyone's hoping it's a rule or a system, so they don't have to do it themselves. Ha, epistemology again. Recognition that we are each the same sort of organism, readily yields neither ruler nor ruled be. It is an error to treat things as they are not and it is in the nature of each functional human being that it functions by way of free will. Physical thuggery is the ONLY way to make this not so. The belief that another person should be properly forced except as a simple means of personal defense, is an admission that one oneself should be likewise treated. That sort of dissonance kills.

            "However, we must all be…" No doubt lovely goals but unachievable goals are never rational. The only thing we'll all ever be, is human and driven by individual choice. And the only thing that's fair is that we each get exactly one shot at it. "Mister, there's nothing I have to do…except die."

            Now never mind me or philosophy, and never mind what a guy thinks he hears. The ideas are here in black and white. If there's something false in this comment, just cite it and explain why it's false. IOW get up and move forward. Anyone. Otherwise you're simply going to have to face the tough possibility that the ideas are true. Courage takes many forms.

  5. Fred May 20, 2018 at 15:49

    It is important, I think, to point out why we know that killing every third child is wrong. We know it as part of our innate sense of being. It’s the Natural Law of God written on our hearts that we protect our young. All efforts to the contrary are the lies of Evil. Right and wrong are real. It would go well with our souls to acknowledge He who created what is natural. And to reject what is unnatural, knowing it to be and calling these unnatural things the evil that they are. Our LORD calls them Abomination, something so grotesque that any man with his sense about himself knows it to be false, wrong, and an affront, Sin. God said; “Thou shalt not kill.” This is His Natural Law of self-defense. We are enjoined to defend ourselves and the weakest among us, children. I don’t know what anybody at this so called ‘movement’ would say about it but I do know what God says. Oh and, you Sir, are correct, our feelings about it are not relevant.

    “AP’s philosophical school of thought”
    What is AP’s philosophical school of thought? I hadn’t yet read that here. It would be nice to read, assuming all obstacles aside, not another laundry list of what’s wrong or who is making it wrong, but if you were to level set clearly stated objectives and your ‘philosophical’ preferred end state. Thanks.

  6. Eis Augen May 25, 2018 at 14:39

    This morning I read a simple statement that struck me with its clarity:

    “[The media’s] primary function is to help people manage their cognitive dissonance”

    Cognitive dissonance is the psychological stress experienced by those who simultaneously hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.

    Thus, the media isn’t trying to simply deceive people, but rather lull the weak-minded and confused into believing that being a good person requires reconciling the violation of belief/idea/value A due to belief/idea/value B.

  7. Swrichmond May 25, 2018 at 22:01

    All these deep philosophical discussions seem to lead to nihilism and then mass murder. But I repeat myself.

    • Jesse James May 25, 2018 at 22:12

      I wouldn’t say all. Relativistic ones certainly do.

  8. Anonymous May 26, 2018 at 08:32

    5

Comments are closed.

GUNS N GEAR

Categories

Archives

Spread the love