View from
The Left

The Decline of the Intellectual Dark Web

(George Skidmore / Wikimedia)

“…if one truly believes that the better argument can and should win the day, more formidable ammunition will be needed on the part of the Intellectual Dark Web.”


Few movements were as interesting and culturally impactful in 2018 as the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW). Profiled in a much debated May, 2018 article in The New York Timesmany saw the IDW as a cohesive and fresh movement that was pushing against stale political correctness and puritanism on behalf of free speech, open debate, and other liberal virtues. Of course, this interpretation produced a great deal of criticism, with many damning the dark web for its perceived ties to the far-right; however, later commentators defended it as a fundamentally neutral or even a mostly progressive group of intellectuals who were simply pushing back against a dangerous but trendy variant of post-modern leftism. But as 2018 gave way to 2019, the criticisms became fiercer, and the tensions became more prominent. Sympathetic outlets such as Quillette began running pieces criticizing major IDW figures for not taking the Left and its arguments sufficiently seriously. Conservative outlets like The Federalist described the IDW as “collapsing under its contradictions.” Then came several embarrassing revelations and take downs, from Jordan Peterson’s quasi-admission that—despite being a consistent critic of some vague position called “post-modern neo-Marxism”—he had not read Marx for a very long time, a revelation notably explored by writers such as Ben Burgis. Then, there was Ben Shapiro’s disastrous interview with Andrew Neil. Finally, there were a number of studies and articles released, which suggested that—contrary to the IDW’s professions of ideological neutrality—many of its members served as gateways to far-right literature. This is, of course, not necessarily their fault; IDW members, after all, have no direct control over algorithms moving viewers and readers from Dave Rubin to Stefan Molyneux. Heterodox Academy—another IDW-friendly outlet—explained this phenomenon, while unpacking its own study on how Jordan Peterson’s viewers often gravitate to more extreme positions:

“For instance, Peterson wants us to remember the horrors of the communist regimes of Stalin and Mao in order to prevent us from repeating said horrors. He worries that many popular strains of leftist ideology predispose adherents, whether they recognize it or not, towards forcibly imposing their will on others via the state, suppressing dissent, etc. These are defensible arguments to make. Yet there is probably a way to do that without directly analogizing those one disagrees with to Stalin or Mao (which is also a popular tactic on the alt-right). Peterson et al. might similarly consider avoiding dismissive and derogatory labels like ‘SJW’ or ‘regressive left.’ This kind of language is extremely common on the alt-right. Indeed, opposition to ‘social justice warriors’ seems to be one of the main associations people in that arena draw between themselves and Jordan Peterson…Granted, Peterson’s opponents readily brand him—and his colleagues—as ‘racist,’ ‘sexist’ ‘transphobic,’ etc. It can be difficult not to villainize or caricature them in turn. Yet Peterson et al. explicitly aspire towards a higher level of discourse and rationality than they perceive among many of their interlocutors. Embodying and modeling these alternative forms of discourse, even in the face of such attacks, may help Peterson be more successful in his aim of pulling people away from the fringes instead of towards them.”

The consequence of these varied developments is impossible to predict, but there is little doubt it has not proven beneficial to the IDW. While claims by some commentators that interest in the IDW is declining should be greeted with skepticism until further research is conducted, the deepening criticism even from sympathetic analysts suggests it is worth looking at where things have gone wrong with the IDW. In this short article, I will present a few of the ways I believe the IDW undermined itself—or strayed from having the sort of impact many of its members aspired to. 

1. Narrowness of Focus

Many have struggled to define the IDW and specify who belongs in it. One of the reasons for this difficulty is the lack of a shared political or philosophical program among its members. Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro tend to support more social conservative policies, while Sam Harris, Stephen Hicks, and Christina Hoff Sommers tend to support  deepening liberalization and even anti-traditionalism. There are post-modern conservatives like Dave Rubin (analyzed by me here) whose pastiche-like set of beliefs seems to “evolve” from interview to interview. And there are even self-professed progressives like Bret Weinstein. As has been expertly observed by Nate Hochman in National Reviewabout the only thing that unites the various members of the IDW is an opposition to a certain strand of leftism. This is often vaguely defined at the theoretical level—being variously described as the post-modern, intersectional, radical feminists, Marxist, cultural Marxist, or even post-modern neo-Marxist. But it is highly specified concretely, with all members of the IDW taking issue with all forms of political correctness and perceived (and real) threats to freedom of speech. 

About the only thing all members of the IDW agree on is that a certain species of college activism is annoying and (apparently) constitutes a major threat to liberal freedoms in the 21st century. This may be of continual fascination to a certain type of conservative personality who, as David French put it, is embedded in the right-wing outrage machine.

The problem with this lack of theoretical precision—combined with a hyper-attentiveness to concrete sins—is that it seriously narrows the shared focus of the IDW. About the only thing all members of the IDW agree on is that a certain species of college activism is annoying and (apparently) constitutes a major threat to liberal freedoms in the 21st century. This may be of continual fascination to a certain type of conservative personality who, as David French put it, is embedded in the right-wing outrage machine. But for everyone else, there is a limit to how informative the hundredth story mocking 20-somethings at elite campuses marching for “Womyn’s rights” and so on is. This might not be a problem if these one-sided anecdotes were complemented by a more sustained and rigorous analysis of the philosophies or cultural conditions engendering political correctness and “wokeness.” But what one tends to get is often highly superficial: from books that skim over immensely challenging philosophical controversies in a few scantly referenced paragraphs to totalizing accounts that ignore all the diversity and serious conflicts within liberal leftists and radical circles. This brings me to my next point.

2. Neutrality and Freedom of Speech 

Another problem is a claim made by the movement’s defenders that the IDW is somehow a politically neutral movement of concerned intellectuals who simply want to defend  free speech. First, this ignores the fact that disputes over free speech have never been purely neutral. Indeed as Jordan Peterson himself wisely points out, it took millennia of agitation and cultural change to merely establish the political conditions where freedom of speech was thinkable on a mass scale. For much of human history, the working assumption was that considerable restrictions on speech were permissible to prevent immoral, disruptive, or anti-dogmatic behavior. Even in liberal societies today, there are serious restrictions imposed on freedom of speech. Many of these are uncontroversial such as prohibitions on the spread of child pornography or slander and libel laws. Then, there are more complex cases going back through the 20th century. Is it permissible to place restrictions on the spread of Communist ideas, such as during the McCarthy era? Should pornography produced by consenting adults be restricted, as both social conservatives and radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnon have argued from very different political standpoints? Should women be allowed to publicly accuse men of sexual harassment in online forums without going through legal channels? There is no easy answer to some of these questions, and different communities will come up with different solutions. But there remains no context where limitless speech was ever permitted, so the claim that the “neutral” position is somehow to support freedom for all forms of speech is simply wrong.

More to the point, though, the IDW can be accused of focusing relentlessly on threats to freedom of speech from one end of the political spectrum. This relates to the narrowness of focus I discussed above. As an “engaged leftist” (described by me here), I emphatically agree with the IDW’s insistence that our freedom to say and criticize whomever we wish must be defended and even expanded. If members of the political left pose a threat to that freedom, it should be criticized even by other leftists. But the Left hardly holds a monopoly on that front. Various post-modern conservatives such as Viktor Orbán and Poland’s Law and Justice party have gone well beyond a little campus activism, and they are actively using the state’s power to restrict speech rights. Donald Trump has of course threatened to sue journalists and other critics repeatedly, while his allies have insisted that forms of religious and political speech from unwelcome minorities can be quashed. Some have even pointed out, ironically, how campus speech is under threat from the Right. These are serious concerns about powerful figures using their authority to quash freedom of speech, and the IDW has paid relatively little attention to them. There are some admirable exceptions to this, which are to be commended. But a failure to take note of these issues from both sides of the political spectrum seriously undermines the claim that the IDW is simply a neutral movement of concerned citizens.

3. Intellectual Pretensions and a Failure to take the Other Side Seriously

The last and most varied point is that the IDW often has pretensions towards academic seriousness but falls short of the standards required. As I have already discussed this point elsewhere, I will just briefly summarize here. Some members of the IDW are highly intelligent and accomplished scholars and deserve to be taken seriously; Jordan Peterson, the subject of our forthcoming book, comes to mind. Others mostly seem to be winging it and may feel that if they appeal to complex-sounding but mostly empty neologisms like post-modern neo-Marxism or cultural Marxism that these terms can stand in for serious analysis. But a common problem with both the serious intellectuals and the pretentious wannabes is that they do not engage with the arguments of their opponents very effectively. Oftentimes, their claims consist of anecdotal appeals, broad generalizations about nuanced theoretical and historical traditions, or specious arguments that the Left’s claims are having a devastating effect on society. The last is an especially common trope and was well-deconstructed by the Spanish Christian philosopher Miguel de Unamuno in his classic book The Tragic Sense of Life. A common IDW argument against so called post-modern or Marxist theory runs that it has a damaging effect on society and its moral certainties. Ignoring the fact that post-moderns and Marxists are often badly misinterpreted by the IDW, let us say that this was accurate. Even if these arguments are morally and socially damaging, it says nothing about whether the claims of post-modern or Marxists theorists are right or wrong. An argument may be morally devastating to our most cherished convictions and, nevertheless, be true. Actually showcasing why Derrida, Foucault and so on are incorrect would mean going well beyond just highlighting their influence on a bunch of cynical campus activists. Instead, it would be necessary to demonstrate why their claims about language, power, existence, and so on are flawed. If it turns out that Derrida, Foucault, and Judith Butler actually make compelling arguments against our convictions, then we really only have two options with any integrity. Either retreat into dogma or come up with a better set of convictions.

This is not to say that the arguments of the IDW all fall into this category. Some of their claims about the need for meaning in life, social stability, and order have currency and warrant being taken seriously. There are even some leftists, such as ContraPoints, who have taken up the call for an engaged left that argues systematically against the positions of conservative and classical liberal thinkers. But the IDW´s influence on broader cultural debates will always be limited if it does not up its game intellectually, especially when it comes to political and theoretical arguments operating at a high level of sophistication and precision. The thinkers of the IDW may be convincing a few people who are already predisposed to support their positions, but so far that is about it. So if one truly believes that the better argument can and should win the day, more formidable ammunition will be needed on the part of the Intellectual Dark Web.

Matt McManus is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Tec de Monterrey, and the author of Making Human Dignity Central to International Human Rights Law and The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism. His new projects include co-authoring a critical monograph on Jordan Peterson and a book on liberal rights for Palgrave MacMillan. Matt can be reached at or added on twitter vie @mattpolprof

19 thoughts on “The Decline of the Intellectual Dark Web

  1. Lol.
    But, the question remains: if the primary messages of the IDW boil down to mushy-logic, unsupported arguments, conflation and simply preaching to the predisposed choir; why the compulsion to respond to them at all, let alone so thoroughly in kind?


    1. And your attitude is exactly what the IDW is seeking to surpass. Peterson will steelman the positions of the Left and the Right…and then poke holes in both…in order to show that both are needed. Rogan talks with everyone and, while not an intellectual, is very good at identifying a weak argument and calling bs. For the Right, listening to Eric Weinstein has been enlightening. He is very good at identifying structural changes in society that individuals can not control. Furthermore, he readily concedes to Ben Shapiro that having children out of wedlock, not completing high school, etc. are factors well within individual agency and they impact individual and societal outcomes in major ways. Ben Shapiro replies in kind to Weinstein…and Ben is known for his “good Trump, bad Trump” monologues.

  2. Did a monkey sit down at the key board to write this article? Obviously, whoever wrote the piece is intimidated by the IDW. Why I don”t know? Fortunately, we live in a country that protects free speech (deplatfornming sucks) and I’m thankful for that regardless of the political leaning.

    1. I agree with you about deplatforming being ridiculous, and I agree with some IDW points with regards to that and religion. But Rubin is an intellectual lightweight, not deserving to be part of the group.

  3. This was a pretty good article, I am a fan of a few members of the IDW but your critique touched on a few of my own issues with the group. Specifically there are times where the criticism coming out of the IDW crosses into what can only be described as hyperbole which does not forward the conversation and may click with the algorithms on places like youtube to connect people with more extreme content. There is a motivation for sensationalism in places like youtube though that splits the left/right divide in its preference for loaded language, I would cite for example the titles of many of David Pakman’s youtube videos. He is a pretty reasonable progressive in presentation but his video titles are oftentimes comically sensational. It is also very true that the lack of a true common and broad set of ideals may be keeping the IDW from making a more concerted effort/impact as a group. They may remain a loosely associated group of thinkers, fade away, or evolve, only time will tell. They could certainly do a better job of turning a critical eye toward rightward threats to free speech but most members do discuss it (J.P. or Sam Harris for example) just perhaps not enough. And in their defense/as the referenced study mentioned it can be hard not to emotionally react to a group of people who mischaracterize and attack you, oftentimes intentionally and maliciously. The temptation (and effectiveness) of fighting fire with fire can be hard to ignore.That being said all movements ebb and surge and I sincerely doubt the IDW will be going anywhere anytime soon. I enjoy much of their work and hope they can use the (good faith) critiques out there to improve individually and as a group… just as I hope many that they critique can do the same.

  4. Feels like every article you write about Jordan Peterson or the IDW os one where you’ve decided your conclusion and are trying to work backwards to make sure your argument fits it. Also the fact that you would criticize Dave Rubin for evolving and trying to better himself and his beliefs says a lot about you. You are just spare parts aren’t ya bud?

    1. You may be right about the backwards work. But Rubin is no intellectual. The point is that his worldview seems not well thought out or based on careful examination of policy details. Rather, it’s all a reaction to “the left”.

  5. “View from THE LEFT”, says it all. This notion of “sides”, is silliness. Smoke and mirrors. Intellectualism cannot be of The Right, a priori. And your biggest mouths out there, prove it with every lecture/broadcast/appearance. The IDW, is staging a long term commercial for The Left. So easy, seeing through it. Ben Shapiro does nothing more than lie down on his stomach and let his adversaries have their way (idiots in Q&A, who don’t know their apps from their elbows., don’t count; if I want to watch a Bum of the Month Club, I’ll ‘tube Joe Louis); as for Peterson, if you’d stop kneejerking reactions to his statements about women, you’d be forced to notice he’s doing nothing but feminizing men…by way of Disney, no less, which would be worth an “LOL” if it wasn’t so juvenile a tool. Neither of these persons would know a man if they were suddenly without security and mugged by one. And the idea The Right can win in a fair fight versus the bag of tricks any “B”-student of the social sciences can spar with by the age of 21…come, now! Pull the other one! There is no dialoging outside tribe, team, echo chamber or Member’s Only. It’s very nice and oh-so full of hugs and hot milk to believe in the long since-murdered ideal of “compromise”, but half a dead baby grants nothing to anyone, Solomon. Too many feel safe due to the illusion created by the daily reality of words on a screen. But violence and mass rioting and a snowballing “Don’t Give a Procreation”-attitude, makes the old twaddle of “it’s a dangerous world”, foundational. No Web, dark or light or plaid with matching jeans, is going to present palatable interchange of opposing worldviews, as anything other than a planned distraction. ‘Fact being, in his urgent idiocy, Lose the Beto had the right idea…except the first O’Rourke of his line to come over, needed to have it. It’s too late, now. And in the end (pardon me!), it’s AOC Screamo Left and Bernie Huff a Thought Left and Make as Much Sense as Your Town Council Discussing Stuff That Will Negatively Impact You Left, and Pretend Tolerance/Pretend Conservatism Left. The truth being, The Right, has very little to do with numbers, stats, percentiles, math in general or campaign finance reform. The only one who appear to, are the shaded Leftists who are speaking of it in high profile fashion. The grass roots view, has a rather more “social issues and lose the $-signs”-caste about it…and we’ll draw the Curtain of Charity, there. As all the (brace for impact) FAKES present as socially progressive, these, to the actual We The People, don’t count. High-minded discussion is nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. We have Leftists who would erect Auschwitzes for The Right, and pretenders. I prefer the former. The worst possible Enemy, is one who feigns the role of peacemaker. The final truth being, war never ends. You’d think intellectuals would grasp this, but the brain is a marvelous tool for escape.

  6. Interestingly, the author – in sketching out a discursive analysis to frame the IDW from inception – makes two fundamental errors in the first paragraph of the introduction. Few people, who were sufficiently attentive, saw the IDW as “cohesive” – their internal contradictions, paradoxical and oppositional aspects being part of what was to forge their validating counter-pointing emergence. And secondly, one should note that they weren’t only pushing back against “a dangerous but trendy variant of post-modern leftism,” they pushed against ALL political and ideological marginaltities, using historiography, data informing science and rationalist logic against the hegemony of cultural subjectivism, scientistic rhetoric and self-advocating narcisissm.

    1. The one thing that pushed them all together is that they were, “cancelled,” by bigots.

      The rise of the IDW is one of the few good things that the left’s bigotry has produced.

      Since the plateau of the IDW one can see their ideas flowing through society ever more and those that have been demonized for disagreeing now have many tools to deal with it appropriately.

  7. What an awfol article.
    Does a very bad work of describing this movement not to mention the takes mentioned here are so dull and irrelevant

  8. The purpose of the IDW is simple: It seeks to engage people across the various political aisle by steel manning not strawmanning – anyone’s position. Do its members always sufficiently meet their own standard? No. Nevertheless, if one evaluates their behavior relative to traditional media, they do a much better job.

  9. The purpose of the IDW is simple: It seeks to engage people across the political aisle by steelmanning – not strawmanning – anyone’s position. Do its members always sufficiently meet their own standard? No. Nevertheless, if one evaluates their behavior relative to traditional media, they do a much better job.

  10. Actually Peterson’s “lobster argument” does “demonstrate why [Derrida, Foucault, and Judith Butler’s] claims about language, power, existence, and so on are flawed.”
    The lobster argument e.g. as presented in Rule 1 of ’12 Rules’ is that the dominance hierarchy is a fundamental way animals e.g. from lobsters up to humans organize themselves. Winners win and losers lose, and “nature” “wants” it that way. Winning is associated with increased serotonin which is associated with confidence which is associated with more winning (losing has the opposite spiral). This results in one guys getting all the girls. Which is obviously true, right? Just look around. (And btw if sexual preference isn’t discriminatory, I don’t know what is!)
    Now although the situation is “unfair” to the betas, gammas and deltas, the obnoxious dominance of the alphas is good for the species in two ways: the successful are even more likely to survive and perpetuate the species; and existence of the pecking order which is obvious to all provides stability, so that the inevitable competition e.g. over the best habitat won’t result in very many fatal conflicts.
    Even Jesus frames this, the Pareto Principle, “To he who has much, will much be given. And from he who has little will even that little be taken away.” Which is pretty damn harsh, but there it is. We should get over it, somehow.
    Why lobsters? Because lobsters are so ancient and so successful as a life form. Supporting the idea that the dominance hierarchy was in place even before the reptilian brain; it is just fundamental to our existence from the biological point of view.
    THEREFORE dominance hierarchy does NOT arise from any human conception, nor could it be eliminated through any human intervention. Life forms from lobster on up organise into dominance hierarchies, whether it’s common law, or lord of the flies, it’s some version of stronger and weaker jostling into a relatively stable situation.
    THEREFORE the idea that hierarchy among humans could be eliminated through any reduxed version of proletarian revolution or post-modern critique or ANY human activity of ANY kind is absurd, illogical, and contrary not only to historical example but also contrary to our very biology. We should just get over it, and work on being refining the jostling and smoothing the edges and redressing imbalances when they get destructive. Not trying one more time to reinvent the system because that always just makes it worse. And it’s not “all about power.” It’s about power, and balance of power as two essential dynamics within the community. Constant tweaking is better than reinvention.
    So the post-modernists can just go and fouc themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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