Posted on 05/14/2018 5:59:34 AM PDT by calvincaspian
If you don’t know what the Intellectual Dark Web is, you probably will soon.
In short, it is a group of free thinkers who are having conversations with each other in the form of podcasts. On its face it doesn’t seem so extraordinary, but it is.
Why?
Because they are having honest, thoughtful exchanges without restraint and outside the politically correct parameters that today confine most discussions, the theoretical “safe zones” in which no one is allowed to say anything that might offend.
As it happens, no matter how well thought out, disciplined and sound those conversations are, they routinely do offend.
The offended class is a growing demographic and they’ve taken aim at free speech. They’re usually found shouting down and assaulting invited speakers on college campuses, mobilizing advertising boycotts, attacking those they don’t agree with on social media, and even getting some people thrown off entire platforms like YouTube.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
We should applaud this resurrection of the civil colloquy in our society and hope that it can simmer tensions and bridge divisions. People having discussions with each other should not be news, it should be the norm. We are not our best selves in 2018 and we should endeavor to be better, to talk to one another and to listen.
are we talking about folks like Jordan Peterson, First Things Journal, Chronicles Magazine etc??
whoever wrote this should be taught to use correct terminology to talk about the enemy, not their preferred terms like liberal or progressive. they are neither. They are fascist leftists. And they should be addressed as such.
You are not talking about liberals....they are like unicorns... a figment of the imagination these days
This is spot on. I don’t think the article mentions Scott Adams, which is a shame, but it mentions a lot of really good people. I watch quite of few of these on YouTube and it is refreshing.
Modern so-called “journalism” is just propaganda aimed at persuading low-intellect people to accept a Leftist ideology.
The Intellectual Dark Web actually has thoughtful people discussing big ideas in a serious way. I don’t imagine a huge percentage of voters would care to spend time listening, but those who do are rewarded for their efforts.
At the very least, the public should be aware that journalism doesn’t discuss ideas and doesn’t seek the truth in any way. For people who may not know what “discussing ideas and seeking the truth” looks like, then the Intellectual Dark Web allows people to find out how that differs from CNN.
I don’t like the term Intellectual Dark Web; it sounds too much like the Deep State. It has a sinister sound.
I listen to most of these people. Was a little surprised though when I learned they are part of the “Intellectual Dark Web”. . .these people are shining light on truth. But the pseudo progressive fascists consider the truth to be dark and foreboding. I suppose to them it is. Carry on Freepers and IDWers.
It’s not a bad term. It engenders the concept of foreboding truth.
I listen to Dan Bongino frequently. The only problem with podcasts over print is that you must listen to the whole thing and can’t scan it quickly.
The answer to YouTube censorship. Launching this Independence Day.
Yep
Trump’s election has made abundantly clear liberalism’s intolerance and outright hatred of those who disagree with their ideas. The recent study that shows the media reporting on Trump being 90% negative is but one example. Having a civil discourse on conflicting ideas which used to be the hallmark of colleges and universities is not only gone, but those with points of view different from the fringe left are banned, shouted down or even threatened with riots. The liberal ideaology has even reached levels of absurdity where colleges are providing safe spaces complete with coloring books for precious snowflakes to decompress if they experience some microagression and imposing surreal language to be used so that lunatic fringe groups are not offended.
We are battling fascist leftists who are entrenched and this is a serious fight for they kill their enemies and have no moral code except winning.
Their commandments are Alinsky’s Rules.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules from Rules for Radicals
Saul Alinsky describes 24 rules in Rules for Radicals. Of those 24 rules, 13 are rules of “power tactics”:
1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy
thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.”
3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the
enemy.”
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and
actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing
itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of
operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will
break through into its counterside.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive
alternative.”
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
The remaining 11 rules Alinsky describes are concerned with “the ethics of means and ends”:
1. “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue … Accompanying this rule is the parallel one that one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.”
2. “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”
3. “In war the end justifies almost any means.”
4. “Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”
5. “Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”
6. “The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”
7. “Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”
8. “The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”
9. “Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”
10. “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
11. “Goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’”
add City Journal writers to that mix too.
And some of the IBD editorials.
“The only problem with podcasts over print is that you must listen to the whole thing and can’t scan it quickly.”
I have YouTube Red but not sure if that matters.
My son told me about these guys- he’s been a Joe Rogan fan for years and listens to the others. It’s a wonderful thing when differrences are talked about, when ideas are freely discussed. This is LIBERTY! They have respect for themselves and each other. A ray of light.
Interesting to watch.
Well, at least First Things magazine allows commenters to post comments that disagree with the authors of their articles (as long as they are polite).
But National Review, the Alt Right publication, scrubbed all subscribers who were posting comments that disagreed with their authors (such as Jonah Goldberg). So while National Review authors assert Trump is an authoritarian and fascist at the same time they are blocking their own subscribers from free speech on their website. A year ago there were many subscriber commenters on National Review that disagreed. Now there are none.
Thanks for posting....bookmarked under FREE SPEECH
bump
Never thought of National review as alt right.
More of murky middle.
Ideally, titles for political schools of thought should be avoided unless they literally describe the position being taken. For example, I like Mark Levin’s pet name for leftists - “Statists” - because there is little or no ambiguity, or possibility of misunderstanding.
After all, we are talking about those who put their faith in the state, in the collective, vs. the individual. “Collectivist” or “redistributionist” are pretty good names too, but perhaps too limited to the economic aspects of social interaction. Leftists may even proudly call themselves “Statists”, as it sounds like “Statesman”.
With the names like “Progressive”, “Liberal”, “Socialist” or “Leftist”, the meaning is subjective because the name itself does not really describe the position.
For we “non-statists” it’s hard to find an ideal title - you can’t say “individualist”, because that sounds like a personality type. “Libertarian” would have been a good name, but has become associated with isolationism and pacifism.
I sometimes call myself a “limited government conservative” or “constitutional conservative”, but maybe “non-statist” is the best Incan come up with.
At least with an unfamiliar name like “non-statist”, most people won’t assume they know what I am - they’ll ask me and I’ll at least get to explain in my own terms.
The best example I know of how the conventional political titles have been rendered useless, is a disconnect that occurs whenever a self-described conservative political pundit is talking or writing about foriegn policy:
As “conservatives”, they would naturally stress that the US is not a Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, and that liberalism is a bad thing, and conservatism good. Yet, whenever the context is foriegn nations, human rights, and the need to coax developing nations toward the ideal - the term used tor that ideal is always “liberal democracy”!
What a confusing message to hear self-described conservative republicans lecturing about how developing nations should strive toward the ideal of liberal democracy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.