Culture Wars/Current Controversies

Michael Brooks and Ben Burgis Critique the Intellectual Dark Web

I am not a fan of Jacobin boys like Michael Brooks and Ben Burgis and their left-statist/social-democratic/reformist/Berniebro perspective, but I would have to share their disdain for the “Intellectual Dark Web.” The problem I see with the IDW people who are more leftward in their origins is that they seem to be following the same trajectory as the neocons (i.e. former leftists who became Republicans or conservatives because the left became “too left” on certain things, like anti-Zionism, anti-Cold War, or Third Worldist). At this point, the former liberals and leftists around the IDW seem to have moved into the orbit of actual neocons like Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro, although there also seems to be a conflict between the neocon/corporate libertarian/liberal wing of the IDW and the more Alt-Right-leaning sectors of the IDW. Ultimately, this kind of stuff merely blends into Trumpism (and Dave Rubin, whose show is kind of the nexus of the IDW, even had Donald Trump, Jr. on his program which couldn’t have been done for any other purpose than to brown-nose Trump himself).

4 replies »

  1. If you were to engage the jacobin boys in a debate how would you oppose them? I personally would attack them on there slave morality presuppositions in the sense that ultimately they are trying to be good apostate “Christians.” I would take the Nietzsche-Foucault tract and use it against them in the same way thad russell awhile back did so or Foucault himself used against Noam chomsky himself. When I mean christians I don’t mean of course historical cavlinists or traditional catholics but christians in the sense they have this whig view of history (they do..they don’t admit it, they think the poor are a problem which can and needs to be solved if only we could create the political/social “will,” and that man ought/can live in a harmious civlization free from crisis in the future. The list of things which the jacobin boys believe in I think are basically only plausible if christ rose form the dead which of course they are also atheists (although when they interveiw cornel west they seem to find there long lost christian soul). How would you oppose them if in the unlikely chance you were engaged in some form of debate against them? Would you view them as better or worse then a ben shapiro or dave rubin. Personally i like Ben shaprio and rubin better merely because culturally i agree with them even tho on foregin policy I might not. What are you thoughts.

    • thad russell awhile back did so

      To what are you referring? Do you have a link?

      Would you view them as better or worse then a ben shapiro or dave rubin.

      I like them better than Shapiro, who is a neocon Zion-first douchebag and who has written in favor of ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. Rubin just seems to be a liberlatarian. No real ideological preference between him and the Jacobin boys. It’s basically Cato Institute vs. Bernie Sanders.

      As to how I would debate them, I would focus on the role of the state in society/civilization. They seem to hold to the Marxist view that the state is merely an expression of class power that is otherwise neutral with no values or interests of its own. That’s probably an oversimplification of their views, but a debate between me and them would essentially be a replay of the Bakunin vs. Marx feud. I would probably have some significant differences with them on class theory, the nature of modern capitalism, geopolitics/international relations, the historic role of communism, the nature of social democracy, etc. They don’t seem to push the IdPol stuff to the nth degree, but I’d probably have some differences with them over who the “oppressed” actually is. We would disagree on Donald Trump, whom they probably see as a fascist but who I see as a somewhere between a Rockefeller Republican like Nixon, a Blue Dog Democrat, or an Ed Koch Democrat.

  2. Thanks for the reply.., here is thad russel and Michael brooks. This is the discussion between the two of them.

    Also of interest to me and somewhat more to the topic i was thinking of is thad russels “against rationalism” with the zerobooks podcast. This isnt explicitly the jacpbin boys but they are so often affiliated that its hard to tell the difference. One of thad russel points here was he thinks rationalism is imperialistic by definition whixh of course includes the marxists.

    • I listened to that podcast. Their discussion illustrates very well the problem with both orthodox libertarianism and conventional socialism and reminds me of why I am neither one. Both of them seem to buy into the false dichotomy of “statism vs corporatism” without recognizing the relationship between the two.

      The left-anarchist critique of concentrated power would certainly be relevant to their discussion, and Brooks indicated that he is at least aware of it. I wish he would follow up on it more, although given the condition of the left-anarchist milieu I can’t blame him for not doing so.

      Brooks said that he wants less government in some ways, but more government in others, but it doesn’t work that way. The nature of the state is to perpetually expand (US history is Exhibit A) and to attempt to continually intrude into every aspect of social life.

      Russell doesn’t really have much of a comeback to Brooks’ claims about exploitation in the “private sector,” although he could if he had a more in-depth critique of what the state actually is and its actual economic functions.

Leave a Reply to Keith Preston Cancel reply