“The Intellectual Dark Web”

A minor rectification of names. The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is supposedly intellectual, dark and on the web, but it is in fact just the newest generation of cuckservatives, of controlled opposition. Guys like Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro are the exact opposite of what the propaganda machine leads you to believe: they are the Boring Offline Tours (BOT). Only Jordan Peterson has some semblance of intellect, but unfortunately this interview is the final nail in his coffin as controlled opposition.

The thing about the IDW is that the name just does not apply. ‘Dark web’ implies anonymity, implies speaking truth to power, implies that if you took the dark web into the light of day, you’d be in jail. That members of the supposed IDW enjoy prominent media positions, big posters with their faces plastered on them and sold-out venues tells us they are the opposite of the dark web and that we are once again being conned by the media.

As for the intellectual part; it is absent, or at its very best it is packaging red pill truths in a sugary purple pill coating. Observe the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ bending like leaves in the wind to justify journalists preaching white genocide, to justify rampant misbehavior by females, to change the conversation from what everyone is thinking into the conversation that those in power want you to think about.

Jordan Peterson stood out as a man of some eloquence and intellect, lending most credence to the IDW, therefore it is the saddest to see him fall so fast.

The earlier linked interview, titled ‘an Invitation to the Intellectual Dark Web’, is a 90 minute interview between JBP and an incredibly stereotypical virtue-signaling leftist, whose main point seems to be that he is incredibly empathic for the disaffected. In fact he is so incredibly empathic that he can’t help but hate happy people and wants them to suffer as much as he himself suffers for the poor.

Naturally his conduct and name, Hurwitz, made my spider senses tingle, and surprise surprise: Hurwitz is Jewish. Every. Single. Time.

When honest, investigative people watch this interview, they thus think: ‘a Jewish journalist writing for the NY Times who is highly involved in the democratic party? Isn’t that an extremely typical description of the radical left Peterson rails against?’

But instead of saying what is on everyone’s mind, Peterson redirects the conversation and introduces his leftist friend as an intellectual beacon of integrity and honesty to all his viewers. Peterson fails the shit-test.

To all of Hurwitz’ aggressive moral posturing, the appropriate response by Jordan Peterson is to call him out on that. That would be to do what is Right. Leftism is after all a giant shit-test: the leftist will agitate wherever he can and take advantage of the disaffected, but if you recognize the shit-test for what it is and call him out on it, you will have passed the shit-test and not be taken advantage of. Leftists are much like women in this sense.

JPB fails the shit-test, and he does this in exactly the same way, when you rub up against your woman and she says ‘not tonight honey I have a headache for the 50th time’ you say ‘oh huh that’s so sad I hope you feel better soon.’ Wrong answer: you were supposed to get the underlying hint and realize the conversation was not about the headache. In interviewing Hurwitz’ as if he were serious about cooperating with the right instead of what he is actually saying, namely wanting to kill the right, Peterson fails the shit-test, fails to speak for the disaffected white men he is said to represent.

Peterson rose to fame because he fought: first against radical left legislation, then against feminists. But it seems he is done fighting and is now breaking bread with our enemies while telling us these enemies are our friends.

The conclusion of the real IDW is that fighting is inevitable and good, and if a man after 2 fights is only seen breaking bread with our enemies, never with our friends, the only conclusion is that he too has become controlled opposition, has joined the BOTs.

To be entirely fair to Peterson, I don’t think it was his intention to be controlled opposition. It just sort of happened that way. We all have to come to terms with the demise of the West, and we all do it in our own way. In mourning, a person goes through different emotions before coming to terms with reality – denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance, in no particular order, although denial is usually first and acceptance last. Peterson has gone through depression, has expressed anger, and is now obviously bargaining with his enemies, hoping for a peaceful resolution. Clearly his enemies are flattering him enough to make him believe a peaceful resolution is possible.

There is no peaceful resolution, at least not one that does not first include war, does not include the dismantling of the Cathedral. If you want peace, prepare for war.

While it is understandable that Peterson does not want to see it, it makes him a pawn to does who do see it, or those who do not see it and do not care about it. Peterson thinks we can talk ourselves out of this mess if we just listen to one another. Mr Peterson, some people just want to see the world burn, and unfortunately these people are running the show and the way things are going, they will have their way before you can say ‘clean your room bucko.’

Advertisements

15 thoughts on ““The Intellectual Dark Web”

  1. True, but you sound like assuming that is a bad thing. I think many people need their views gently and gradually changed, not shocked with truths they would get afraid of and reject.

    I know it was so for me. Irving Kristol and Michael Oakeshott were the first non-liberal authors I’ve read.

    I know there is an appeal to the “Zen master slap”, the shocking, sudden awakening. The problem is psychological. So far as people have too much of their egos tied up in “I am cool and high status because I agree with those cool and high status people, not these boring old fashioned guys, dumbfuck rednecks and fascists”, the sudden shock feels like staring into an Abyss where THEY are seen as boring old-fashioned guys, dumbfuck rednecks and fascists if they accept those ideas. This abyss is quite nauseating, seeing the chance of your construct of a self and its social value potentially disappear. Perhaps those of a heroic mind can think “whatever, my value is not based on my opinions, and to the extent yes, only so far as they are actually true”, but this is rare.

    For the weaker, it is important to get a gradual redpill, so that they can gradually reconstruct their narrative of the self “OK I now agree with boring old-fashioned guys and dumbfuck rednecks, but I am still not a fascist and boring old-fashioned guys are responsible and dumbfuck rednecks have, um, natural instincts, so now I can go and give some shit to liberals who are like my former me that the are irresponsible and lack good instincts and can sort of see myself as better than them this way”.

    It is important, though, that the gentle purple-pill distributors should not lie. They should just not talk about the harsher stuff.

    1. It is important, though, that the gentle purple-pill distributors should not lie. They should just not talk about the harsher stuff.

      I am not counting on them not lying, hence the need for distance.

  2. >this interview

    Honestly, why even link to that interview like you expect me to spend 5,130 seconds of my already pathetically short mortal lifespan watching that miserable beta cuck yammer on about this or that with that supposedly betesticled yenta into his subpar webcam because sometime in the last handful of years even the UN figured out that their slick-looking over-made professionally produced propaganda reminds people of television broadcasting and took to pushing mediocre schlubs armed with no makeup, shitty sound, and thoughtless backdrops to simulate authenticity and permeate every level of production quality with their weaponized geno- and culticidal internally incoherent faintly buzzing claptrap.

  3. >We all have to come to terms with the demise of the West, and we all do it in our own way.

    Professional Harvard Jew Noel Ignatiev was right, in the main, when he said, “we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed”.

    There is no “the West”, and there never was. It was just a delusion, a psuedoreligious, quasimystical apparition of foggy-headed old sops without land, title, talent, gold, intrinsic nobility, or outer respectability, invented to share in the glory that was the great white world of the great white men.

    “The West” is nothing more and nothing less than the great conquering masculine spirit we kindle in our momentarily beating hearts between one vast gaping chasm of icy blackness and another.

    1. “The West” is nothing more and nothing less than the great conquering masculine spirit we kindle in our momentarily beating hearts between one vast gaping chasm of icy blackness and another.

      Yes, but ‘the West’ is shorter.

      1. “The West” is just like “religion”: everyone has his own definition.

        All I’m saying is that none of them — at least not detectable to me — seem to intersect with the conquistador spirit that brought the light of civilization from the Old World to the New Ones. Keep in mind, also: every significant European Power acquired overseas colonies: the English; the French; the Portuguese; even the Italians and the Germans, though tepidly. Only the English had any noteworthy success at peopling those colonies: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, pre-Lincoln America, and they had lost much will by the 20th century — by that time, the only Power that would have exerted itself in expansion in the classically Anglo manner was Germany the Third.

        And who is talking about this?

  4. If anything the guys you mention are more of a gateway to the “intellectual dark web.” As you mention when you think Dark Web, the first thing that comes to mind is anonymity.

    Consider the actual Dark Web: TOR, unlisted sites, assassins for hire, sites to buy drugs, and all sorts of “forbidden” knowledge that no one want wants their public name associated with. Basically everything out of a good spy thriller where some journalist follows a web of lies and conspiracy to the bowels of the internet.

    The overall implication is that you have to dig very deep and keep digging to find the actual truth and knowledge that’s been hidden or simply and deliberately relegated away as far as possible to prevent most people from knowing about it.

    Places like the NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, NY Mag, and other mainstream/legacy outlets applied the label “Intellectual Dark Web” to people like Peterson, Harris, Rubin, Shapiro, and even Joe Rogan because they were blinded by their own bubbles. It’s been like that for so long that these people who they dub the “IDW” and their success – Peterson’s new book for instance – shocked hem.

    It’s their version of forbidden knowledge.

    Conversations start to occur that legacy media outlets wouldn’t be caught dead having – all part of the narrative. One reason Rogan’s podcast is so damn popular is because he talks to people legacy media labeled heretics and lepers. Now his stuff and his guests aren’t all that controversial to us in the Dissident Right. It is however downright shocking to prog types stuck in an academic and media bubble who thought only crazed radicals on out-there-blogs, family members who had one too many expressing badthink, and supposed “debunked race realists” who have been shunned as ists and isms.

    Guys like Peterson have now made some forbidden thoughts more palatable to the mainstream audiences – or at least expressing information that was always thought by people – but completely ignored and downplayed by mainstream academics and media. (His emphasis on the plight of young men in society, crazed feminists and gender ideologues, problems with post-modernism and marxism, etc.)

    Yes, they still label it IDW, but they are getting more used to it once they realized how many people actually had interest in what Peterson was saying but now had been given the “courage” to express said thoughts more openly. This essentially is his breaking of bread.

    1. Yet I know for a fact that my blog is read by leftists, so it is not like my kind of views are completely unknown compared with Peterson.

      It is simply that while my views are unspeakable, unthinkable thoughtcrime, Peterson’s views are speakable, thinkable thoughtcrimes. It is a matter of damage control.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.