Daniel Miessler did us all a service by tracking down the beliefs of the members of the “intellect dark web”. The term was, I believe, coined by the far-left New York Times to describe a group of folks who are not racing ahead as quickly as the NYT wants them to.
The graphic above was created by Miessler, and was originally made into an open-source Google spreadsheet. As an comedic aside, Miessler, God bless him, allowed people to contribute new names and subjects. I was on-line Sunday morning watching the live edits. People were showing off their senses of humor. Miessler was forced to eliminate the editable pages.
You can still see his now read-only graphic and notes. But Miessler, as of this writing (Sunday night), has not yet noticed comedians got to this page, too, and have changed many of the labels. Use the graphic on his site for reference.
The graphic’s key: “Light green means mostly a liberal position. Green means definitely a liberal position. Red means definitely a conservative position. Light red means mostly a conservative position. Purple means libertarian position, i.e., government shouldn’t have a say.”
The names are: Same Harris, Eric Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro. The only one who comes closest to the “conservative” party line is Shapiro. About him, more below.
During the research I started noticing some weird stuff about this supposedly hateful IDW group of Harris, Weinstein, Rubin, and Shapiro. Namely, they’re all Jewish, and yet a number of them are often labeled as white supremacists and even neo-Nazis. That completely breaks the supidmeter [emphasis original]…
Then I watched Dave Rubin, who a bunch of my liberal friends told me was this crazy right-wing guy, have Shapiro on to debate the top liberal vs. conservative issues. And Rubin (a gay Jew, by the way), was the one defending the liberal side.
Additionally, Rubin, I think, believes he is “married” to another man. This is dark, all right; but it is, as we have to admit, now a conservative position.
Miessler goes on to praise an interview Rogan conducted with Shapiro, admiring both for their civility. Why shouldn’t they be civil? They disagree about little. Again, more about Shapiro and this interview below.
First, let’s look at the reactionary positions on the matters Miessler identified.
- Man-made Climate Change
- Need For Stronger Gun Laws
- Believe in Gun Ownership
- Religion & State Separation
- Illegal Immigration
- Drug Legalization
- Gay Marriage
- Single Payer Healthcare
- Wealth Inequality is a Problem
It’s real, but unimportant in size and effect. Also, reactionaries are old-school environmentalists who loathe “consumer” culture. If you are calling people “consumers”, you have lost.
Allowing women to kill their children, and to even instigate divorce, would be forbidden in any reactionary government.
True, we need stronger laws to keep government and activists from restricting gun, ammunition, and paraphernalia use.
At least two per every person over eight in each house.
For for some, against for others. Against Gardasil, for example, which encourages misbehavior.
Such a thing is impossible, even now.
For for some, against for others. Drug use depends on the drug, people taking it, circumstances. Even “doctors” are wildly misusing drugs (puberty blockers, opioids, ask-your-doctor-abouts). How can we trust most people not to?
It is impossible two (or more, you numerical bigot) can be married to one other. Even stronger, sodomy should (again) be a crime.
I take this as meaning Federal control of all healthcare, which is absurd. Subsidiarity in this and in like things.
If this is in the sense of rule by oligarchy, which is more or less what our situation is becoming, then we agree such a thing is never to be desired. Some reactionaries, (the new ones) it must be admitted, would find the prospect of rule by corporate oligarchy desirable, but this is perhaps because they haven’t noticed how woke capital has become. I believe these fine fellows thought that corporate rule would be constrained to small parcels of land, which leaves out the possibility of globalization and the impossibility of Exit.
Now Rogan and Shapiro (clip link). Do watch the clip: it is instructive (this is the first time I’ve listened to Shapiro for more than thirty seconds; his voice is worse than you have seen reported; the full video is two-and-a-half hours, and I haven’t the strength).
The graphic is correct. Rogan is a progressive, full stop, albeit a slow-paced one. He believes gay people exist—they do not—and because they exist, they should be allowed to act on their desires. This is asinine because thus necrophiliacs (or murderers or whatever) exist and should be allowed to act on their desires.
Shapiro, though he agrees gays exist, sees the stupidity of Rogan’s conclusion, but is keen not to “impose” his religious belief on others. “I’m not trying to convert you”, which is exactly what most want to hear. But this is the Imposing Your Beliefs Fallacy, for if you do not impose your beliefs, the other fellow is going to impose his.
Rogan is, I gather, an atheist, but not unfriendly to (some) religion. Shapiro to his credit admits Jews do not believe in the divinity of Christ, which is rare to hear spoken. “We don’t even believe [Jesus] was a prophet…He was a Jew who was trying to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his troubles.”
Rogan: “He was resurrected?”
Shapiro: “No, that’s not a Jewish belief…we’re not into miracle stories.” He then cites Maimonides (d. 1204) crediting a “strong east wind” for the parting of the Red Sea. Later, he quotes from the Talmud (which, he doesn’t say), not the Torah.
In his favor, Shapiro recognizes masturbation and homosexual activity are sins, and that having a desire for a sin is not exculpatory. But he is “not in favor of having any of this encoded into American law because freedom is freedom and people should be free to sin however they choose, so long as they aren’t harming anybody else.” Yet masturbation and homosexual activity do harms others.
The comments about religion are interesting, because Right Wing Watch yesterday was incensed to discover a clip from Rick Wiles (who I had never heard of) wondering why Christians were supporting Shapiro. Wiles was responding to the Rogan-Shapiro interview.
Wiles: “Ben Shapiro denies the divinity of Jesus Christ…That makes him an anti-Christ. Saint John said that anybody who denies that Jesus Christ came to earth as God in human flesh is anti-Christ. There is no one anti-Christ. There is a spirit of anti-Christ and Ben Shapiro has the spirit of anti-Christ…Why are any of you out there following Ben Shapiro? Why? You’re schizophrenic.”
As I said, many found this insulting and opprobrious and, yes, “anti-Semitic”. John said this: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
Why be insulted? If you don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, the definition is technically true (in the way “anti-Semitic” is not). It’s more than just Shapiro, of course; it’s most of the world (it was true of me for many years). That opinion is about as reactionary as you can get.
The point of the quotation, in the context of Rogan’s interview, was to wonder whether Evangelicals are pulling back on their support of Jews (and Israel) by finally recognizing Jews in fact don’t believe as they do. So far, this seems to be only on the fringe. If this attitude spreads, it will make for interesting times.