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The graphic above was created by Miessler, and was originally made into an open-source Google spreadsheet.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
- Abortion/Choice
- Need For Stronger Gun Laws
- Believe in Gun Ownership
- Vaccination
- 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.
Wholly against.
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.
“Evangelicals are pulling back on their support of Jews (and Israel) by finally recognizing Jews in fact don’t believe as they do.”
Covert influence techniques are powerful.
Since 1948 the PC media has pounded “Judeo-Christian” into Americans’ minds. The new state targeted Evangelicals for persistent, insistent, consistent insertion of the message requiring support of their ethno-religious nation’s existence as a pre-condition for achievement of Evangelical’s desired goal: the Rapture.
This wildly successful influence operation turned reality on its head. Formerly contemptuous of the beta-boy fake-conservative Shapiro’s foreign sponsor, Evangelicals now slavishly parrot anything that flows from their message center.
An excellent critique of the little faker and his belief system:
https://youtu.be/5Q2yxkiKCQw
I would have to disagree with the classification of Shapiro’s beliefs as of the spirit of the anti-Christ. The term is rightly applied to heretics that deny correct Christian teaching, not to simple unbelievers; to expand the context of the verse, 1 John 2:19 describes antichrists thusly:
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.”
This is rightly applied to early schizmatic sects and to sects like the Mormons, who deny the Trinity and thus deny both Father and Son; and arguably to those modern “Christian” movements which neglect preaching Christ crucified for some other end, like the Social Gospel movement, liberation theology, and prosperity theology; in short, if it calls itself Christian but it isn’t at its center about Christ’s life, teachings, death, and resurrection for our salvation from our sins, it’s an antichrist.
The rapture refers to the zany idea that people will be ‘taken’ all of a sudden. Just disappear.
The notion is born in America, in Chicago. Not evangelical, it’s Fundamentalist madness. Like the Welsh Chapel preachers famous for giving everyone a tongue lashing on a Sunday to purify their soul.
The www is purest dark.
Back To Black.
Black Velvet.
Black Is Black.
Black, Wonderful life!
“Spiders are good hiders”.
Joy,
Evidently, you’re not up on the zaniness. It’s quite old, in fact, Christian Zionism pre-dates Jewish Zionism! And it was born in the UK:
“The origins of the movement can be traced to the early 19th century when a group of eccentric British Christian leaders began to lobby for Jewish restoration to Palestine as a necessary precondition for the return of Christ. The movement gained traction from the middle of the 19th century when Palestine became strategic to British, French and German colonial interests in the Middle East. Proto-Christian Zionism therefore preceded Jewish Zionism by more than 50 years. Some of Theodore Herzl’s strongest advocates were Christian clergy.
“Christian Zionism as a modern theological and political movement embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism. It has become deeply detrimental to a just peace between Palestine and Israel. It propagates a worldview in which the Christian message is reduced to an ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20140129-christian-zionism-the-new-heresy-that-undermines-middle-east-peace/
It truly pains me to support Joe Rogan. He is the last person I would have ever suspected of becoming “Sage”. I am not saying I agree with everything he says. The range of guests he has on his show is fascinating. I have more faith now than I did before I started listening to his show.
I need to start tweeting “GET WMBRIGGS on your show!” at Joe Rogan.
Maybe you aren’t in alignment with what you heard, but his shows are much more sane than anything else on the air.
Somehow millions of people decide to listen to him talking to physicists, biologists, volleyball players, MMA fighters, comedians, political commentators, and maybe… just maybe we can get the statistician to the stars on there.
Dispensationalism is the root of the Evangelical love for Israel. I have actually had Evangelicals tell me that God has a different covenant with the Jews so *they* don’t have to believe in the Resurrection or the Incarnation. The root of this specific belief is the Scofield Bible, but I believe it there were several early heresies with a few similar ideas. All that is old is new again.
Took the family to an Orthodox service last week. We’ll be going back.
I’d like to hear more about Religion being inseparable from state. I agree, but i’ve only heard that uttered from another blogger who I only heard of after he had passed away, and his works were very influential on my thinking. I’m not sure i’ve fully grokked the concept yet.
In short, my assessment would be that all Authority derives ultimately from God; and since Sovereigns have a responsibility as caretakers of both Body and Spirit of their citizens, their authority is in essence a spiritual one. Does that match your thinking on the subject? have you written about this before?
Kent,
The rapture is the zany idea, that , if you’re not ‘ready’ the chosen ones will be taken. You’ll be left behind. Soul preparation is paramount. “Fundamentals” are apparently the list of what you MUST believe. It is a Protestant minority.
…
Britain drew a lot of lines on maps but talk of Zion British? That was not a good move. Literalism of certain bible verses is a feature of fundamentalism. It’s not the same thing as the rapture. Perhaps the rapture creates urgency to act and gets the adrenalin going.
Whatever it is Kent, it’s wrong. I agree on that. Even if the Zion word started in England.
It’s clearly one reason for politicians to attract voting groups It’s not a vote winner over here. Strong defence and proper policing is. “…ransom captive Israel” is also not to be taken literally. It is metaphor.
Christianity, is about God’s love, not his vengeance. It isn’t the soft option. Said this before. Mankind doesn’t need an excuse to hate, or thought/feeling laws . It needs a reason for the opposite to happen. Media and lawmakers are making that difficult, and they know it, between them. it’s done by design.
Evangelical Protestants know that Jews aren’t Christians and don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. Anyone who thinks they don’t understand this is just confused about their doctrines and motives. Since when do people have to be co-religionists for you to support them when they are being relentlessly attacked and persecuted by eighth-century barbarians?
David,
Regarding the ‘special relationship’ that some Hyphenated-Americans and Evangelicals want to have with Israel, George Washington said it best:
“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluged citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”
This obsession that some so-called conservatives have with getting involved in foreign places, with foreign peoples, *needs to stop*. Have we learned nothing from Korea, Vietnam, South America, The Balkans, or Afghanistan?
“This obsession that some so-called conservatives have with getting involved in foreign places, with foreign peoples…”
“So-called conservatives…” is exactly right!
There is NOTHING “conservative” about putting the interests of a foreign religious group ahead of the interests of the USA.
American interests are not served by inserting ourselves into millenia-old tribal/ethnic/religious/regional conflicts.
There are thousands of such conflicts raging across the globe–Armenia, Kurdistan, Ireland, Poland, Crimea, Mongolia, Rwanda, Argentina, Mexico, Japan, Philippines, and on and on and on…
Only if clear American interests are at stake should we ever intervene in a foreign conflict.
That’s conservative. That’s American.
Foreigners, and Americans working for foreign interests, are now expert at manipulating American public opinion, and American power for their foreign masters.
I’m glad you made that point David Gudeman.
The term judeo-Christian would appear to refer to a set or group with a common timeline. Purpose for that seems obvious but must vary.
Evangelical christianity is not a sect, here, anyway, it describes an approach.
Outside of this place I don’t talk about God and prefer not to, unless it’s somebody I know very well. On line, sometimes it seems you’re at a safe distance, but not really. If a point is made then the counterpoint is called for. Sometimes ends in a strange place.
It appears natural that the Evangelical Christians would have reached out more in all directions. Like “apologists’, as they are now, it seems, not so weirdly named.
There are several assumptions in the replies to me that I don’t accept. I don’t agree that American support of Israel is against the national interest. I also don’t agree that there is anything unusual about Evangelical support of Israel. Evangelicals also supported Taiwan vs. Mainland, South Korea vs. North, South Vietnam vs. North, England vs. IRA, and Cubans vs. Castro (note that except for England, none of these groups were even Protestant). Evangelicals also support persecuted people when the Democrats demonize them, such as white minority in South Africa and the secular population in Iran.
And, as those last cases show, Evangelical support is not enough to get the US to support a group; for that you need the Democrat-controlled press. So even if it were bad policy to support Israel, it would be odd to blame the Evangelicals for it, when Evangelicals can’t even get their own local schools to stop teaching sexual perversions to their children or get people to stop mass-murdering babies.
“I don’t agree that American support of Israel is against the national interest.”
Please share the benefits gained by the USA in return for sacrificing our military, financial, diplomatic, and commercial interests for slavish, unquestioning support of a hostile foreign country, Israel.
What’s in it for us, specifically?
Then, compare that to the cost:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/
“Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), speaking in the most recent legislative discussion over Israeli aid, stated that the $38 billion should be regarded as a floor, and that Congress should approve additional funds for Israeli defense as needed. It has, in fact, done so. At its most recent meeting, AIPAC announced the latest windfall from America, applauding “the U.S. House of Representatives for significantly bolstering its support of U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation in the FY 2017 defense appropriations bill. The House appropriated $600.7 million for U.S.-Israel missile defense programs.” And there is a long history of such special funding for Israeli-connected projects. The Iron Dome missile-defense system was largely funded by the United States, to the tune of more than $1 billion. In the 1980s, the Israeli Lavi jet-fighter development program was funded by Washington, costing $2 billion to the U.S. taxpayer before it was terminated over technical and other problems, part of $5.45 billion in Pentagon funding of various Israeli weapons projects through 2002.
“In 1992, AIPAC President James Steiner bragged how he “got almost a billion dollars in other goodies [in negotiations with Secretary of State Jim Baker] that people don’t even know about.” In September 2012, Israel’s former commander-in-chief, Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, admitted at a conference that between 2009 and 2012 American taxpayers had paid for more of his country’s defense budget than had Israeli taxpayers. Those numbers have been disputed, but the fact remains that a considerable portion of the Israeli military spending comes from the United States. It currently is more than 20 percent of the total $16 billion budget, not counting special appropriations.”
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
The sight of American legislators swearing fealty to a hostile foreign power, in Congress, should be a cause for alarm.
And don’t confuse yourself with “liberals vs. conservatives” on this issue. Israeli interests are the main funders of both the Democrat and Republican parties.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/26/at-aipac-democrats-republicans-agree-to-support-is/
The problem is that it isn’t about the money.
It’s about the principle. That’s what people disagree about.
Diplomacy can’t work for a nation that has no friends but interests.
Luckily for everyone, that is not true, ultimately.
Unless threats count as diplomatic.
Military strength is necessary while there are evil powers.
The military, left to their own devices, in my view, would do a far better job, or could do their job
but media doesn’t want that to happen. Media is in charge!
The military know, at least, first hand how ‘expensive’ a soldier is.
Men won’t sign up for an evil fighting power, in a free nation.
The soldiers and military are the ones who pay.
“Please share the benefits gained by the USA in return for sacrificing our military, financial, diplomatic, and commercial interests for slavish, unquestioning support of a hostile foreign country, Israel.”
I don’t think the US benefits from slavish unquestioning support of a hostile foreign country. And if you are going to characterize the support of Israel that way, it is clearly pointless to discuss the matter with you at all, so I won’t bother.
“And if you are going to characterize the support of Israel that way, it is clearly pointless to discuss the matter with you at all, so I won’t bother.”
Ok, don’t. Not very persuasive, though. Happy to back up every single assertion with voluminous examples and elaboration. Reality is a harsh mistress, but it’s all we’ve got.
When you’re finished drinking the kool-aid, you might want to consider reality–what does “slavish unquestioning support of a hostile foreign country” look like?
This:
American Speaker of the House tugs her forelock and declares to her masters (Israel America Council’s National Conference): Your country before America. I grovel before you, dishonor my own country, and beg for your mercy:
“I have said to people when they ask me if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid…and I don’t even call it aid…our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53x_zrkJwDs
Both American parties grovel at the feet of the hostile foreign power. No difference between the two–no “conservative” or “liberal” divide here. They are totally united in their craven treason.
And what does “conservative” (fake, by the way) abandonment of American interests in favor of expending American blood and treasure for a hostile foreign power look like, you might ask?
If treason had a face, it would look like the despicable neocon, Max Boot. Tucker Carlson elaborates below.
Pay close attention, Carlson eviscerates the slimy Boot’s slavering insistence on sending our kids to fight the wars of a hostile foreign power–Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and coming Iran, Russia, Turkey, and more and more:
https://youtu.be/UiMQEWVUzpg
“And if you are going to characterize the support of Israel that way, it is clearly pointless to discuss the matter with you at all, so I won’t bother.”
Reality intrudes again–as much as you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it’s not so:
“Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu took credit for Trump’s decision, tweeting, “Once again you are keeping the world safe from Iran aggression and terrorism. … Thank you for accepting another important request of mine.”
Characterize that! That’s called doing the bidding of a hostile foreign power, with no consideration of American interests.
“Requests”? More like marching orders.
How about some more reality?
“Previous “requests” to which Trump acceded include moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, declaring Jerusalem Israel’s eternal capital, closing the Palestinian consulate and cutting off aid, and U.S. recognition of the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in 1967, as sovereign Israeli territory.
“What Bibi wants, Bibi gets.”
Craven “unquestioning support of a hostile foreign country” indeed!
Pat Buchanan, an actual American conservative closely follows and reports the truth on the American traitors:
https://buchanan.org/blog/where-trumps-and-bibis-interests-clash-136842
Regarding honest error: belief is not a matter of will, or want. It is a matter of judgement given the evidence. Otherwise is self deception.
Claiming faith in God where it is not, is lying. Doing so through fear is not God’s way. It is the way humans operate, very earthly, very terrestrial. All too familiar. Love and truth cannot and need not be enforced by fear.
God Is love.
“whosoever shall speak a word against the son of man,
It shall be forgiven him.”
Matthew 12, 32.
God will forgive your honest errors. As he will forgive the honest non believer.
Else the claim is that God is irrational, unforgiving and unmerciful.
The entire point of Christianity falls down with belief in ‘repent now or regret it later’ type talk.
Just threats for the faithful to keep and maintain control of whatever they fancy, and impotent to the non believer.
It must make sense before people will believe.
Think about Doubting Thomas…
If someone has been a dreadful evil person they may fear |God’s judgement.
Attempts by many Church members is to break sprits so as to control power. That is Satanic.
Sorry wrong post. Should have been on the SAMT ‘free will’ from the other day.
What is it about “consumers”. Clarify this please.
Pingback: Joe Rogan Flap Proves That If There Is Dis- and Misinformation, There Must Be A Ministry Of Truth – William M. Briggs