Thursday, 18 January 2018

Jordan Peterson tosses and gores a harpy called Cathy Newman


This interview on Channel 4 with Jordan Peterson is worth watching because Professor Peterson is a fascinating and deep man. He makes the point that you need to grow up to achieve happiness.

This is a harsh truth in a world of pueri aeterni. There are many reasons why men do not grow up these days. One is that suits the liberal state for them to remain infantile and passive.

The interviewer who instead of wanting to learn from such an interesting thinker, is very rude and hostile to him, is a tedious egalitarian harpy. Wikipedia says she was educated

at one of the grandest public (i.e. private) schools in England but she has (presumably put on) a demotic voice. She seems very stupid indeed but took a First at Oxford.
“Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” 

she asked at 22 minutes into the interview.
“Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable. […] You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”

Miss Newman was left speechless until her guest said, 

“Ha. Gotcha.”
“You have got me. You have got me. I’m trying to work that through my head. It took awhile. It took awhile. It took awhile."

Professor Petersen's performance under great pressure was flawless and reminded me of Enoch Powell tossing and goring Anglican bishops on TV in the 1970s. But I thought the important point was missed. Why should anyone have a right not to be offended? 


  1. I listen to Dr. Peterson's podcast all the time. It's amazing. Peterson is really changing the way I look at the world and is slowly encouraging me to not be afraid of expressing my views in public. I think back to your previous reply to me, in which you mentioned that you rarely found people who agreed with you at university.

    The same is true for me, though I was always too terrified of offending someone to fully state what I thought. On one level, this tendency might have been wise, but another level, it has certainly stunted my personal -- and professional -- growth and development.

    I've got to check out this interview. And I've got to check out the video of "Enoch Powell tossing and goring Anglican bishops on TV in the 1970s." Sounds like fun! I am reminded of this video of Sir Oswald Mosley "tossing and goring" (to use your phrase) a liberal reporter in 1975:

    1. Here we differ sharply. I have no affection for Sir Oswald Mosley who was a fascist.

    2. What is your objection to Mosley? I confess that I don’t know much about him. I have only seen some videos of him on YouTube and he seems to make some good points.

    3. Its more like an NKVD interrogation than an interview. Her line of questioning is pretty astonishing. She implies that being a personality liked by young men or simply having ideas that are of interest to young men like is sexism. This is how bad things are in the U.K. now. This ubiquitous hatred and suspicion of men, (but young white men in particular) is deeply sick and it has gotten totally out of control.

      Peterson does a lot of good stuff but in terms of politics he’s not on the right page. He basically sees Identitarian and nationalist movements in fundamentally the same way as Communists. To him the real enemy is “collectivism” which must be opposed by “individualism”. There are many others who see the world in these terms, Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molnyeaux would be other examples.

      If we were the monocultural societies we were in say 1960 this “anti-collectivist” spergery would still be stupid and irritating but it wouldn’t be a major threat. In 2018 it is pure poison. A man who looks at the West’s rapidly worsening demographic and political situation and proclaims the virtues of atomistic individualism and classical liberalism is someone suffering from a form of mental illness, in my view.

      What type of man honestly thinks that in a society of “radical individuals” nobody is ever going to try and rig the game and act as a group? What type of man seriously expects Pakistanis, Turks, Somalis and Afghans to follow a concept invented by a bunch of European philosophers 100s of years ago?

      When confronted with this question the Individualists never have a plausible answer. Their only response is to say “well, non-Europeans should be eschewing collectivism as well” while being completely impotent to the reality of the situation. Ethnic collectivism is the human norm. Telling Europeans to reject ethnic collectivism is the same as telling them to bring a water pistol to a gun fight. It's just too late in the day for this type of nonsense.

    4. "What type of man honestly thinks that in a society of “radical individuals” nobody is ever going to try and rig the game and act as a group? "

      You nailed it. This is his major ideological blind spot. It's deeply suicidal.

      I lost a lot of respect for Peterson over his disinvitation of Faith Goldy from the free speech panel. It showed him to be very weak and unprincipled. Guys like Peterson are never going to push back seriously against the Left. The only thing they do is come out with arguments and facts that were mainstream talking points 20 years ago, and pretend it’s revolutionary.

    5. I know little about Jordan Peterson but find him very interesting. He is not a political thinker and should not be judged as one. He has been forced to defend free speech because others have tried to take away his free speech.

      He is very influenced by Jung. I was reading Jung this week and reminded that Jung's views on women would be considered extremely sexist now as would Freud's. The idea that homosexuality is a bad thing would be borderline illegal to express.

      If Peterson opposes collectivism he is doing so from a psychologist's point of view. He I imagine thinks people should be authentic not subsumed by ideology as - for a good example - Miss Newman was in the interview. She in the interview was clearly, as he said in a later interview on the internet, a case of animus possession. Animus means the male part of a woman, based on her image of her father. It produces shrews if it possesses a woman in a negative way. Jung would have had a field day with that interview.

      The animus "manifests negatively in fixed ideas, collective opinions and unconscious, a priori assumptions that lay claim to absolute truth" - this sounds like an ideology adopted uncritically.

      Of course groups act as groups.

      Of course people think as groups. But psychologists want us to examine why we do so and be conscious when we are doing so. Immature people are drawn to authoritarian ideologies and organisations. Even the Catholic Church sometimes appeals for this reason to some. The Nazis and fascists fascinated immature men and mothers' boys.

      As for Mosley I saw his interview with Bill Grundy in the 1970s and watched recently some of his interview with Frost in the 1960s. He didn't toss or gore anyone. He talked fascism and didn't convince. I remember him telling Grundy 'Of course Parliament meets far too often'..

    6. Animus possession might explain not only 'Cathy' Newman's strange interview but also much of modern feminism.

    7. Jaime remember that I said that I was dismayed that people who had the same - rather 18th century legitimist conservative - philosophical premises as I do often draw repugnant political conclusions from them?

      I had in mind people who like Mosley.

    8. Well you say men like the blackshirts were immature mother's boys but if you want to talk about an unmanly philosophy with no balls (or teeth) then its High Toryism, the label you apply to yourself. I don't think I can think of a political organisation that has proved itself more impotent and useless at conserving anything than the British Tory party. Do we really need to list the failures over the last century? Groups like the Falangists or the Iron Guard were more manly and spiritually tougher than any Tory or Anglo conservative generally. So are Marxists and today's multicultural Left. Leftists are far more fanatical and can be dedicated to minority positions even in the face of great ridicule. That's a valuable, masculine character trait. After all, they triumphed from a minority position. Everything that was ridiculed in the 1980s as "loony left" is now the dominant view.

      Libertarian individualism is more masculine than conservatism. The trouble is that it is all premised on abstractions like the non-agression principle and "natural" rights that are non-organic and don't actually exist in the real world. Its also not transferrable to non-Western people and so it doesn't work when you have multiracial societies. Libertarians are unable to accept the reality that ethnic solidarity is the human norm rather than the unfettered individual. I'm not singling out Peterson for this but he is one of many of these Individualist personalities that has become popular with people put off by with the rabid SJW left. The other people I mentioned would probably be better examples. Ironically despite advocating for individualism they all have cult-like followers.

    9. What is more immature is the libertarian's blind belief in free market Capitalism. A system which has no ethical foundation beyond the accumulation of capital. Capitalism's morality is : "What's good is what sells." Both fascists and conservatives understand that Man on his own is easily led astray by his instincts. If allowed to, big business and the media will exploit the very weakest parts of his nature: our primal urges. Sex, food, comfort. The result is the disgusting degeneracy we see today: a dumbed down divided mass persuing their own gratification. If you want to see where the collective mind goes under capitalism then look the number of twitter followers Kim Kardashian has compared to say a worthy cause like the Methuselah foundation.

      Trad Cons of course understand this but never propose doing anything serious about it, because that would be "authoritarian" or "statist" or some such effeminate nonsense. The fascist or authoritarian nationalist says that the promotion of building up the individual and promoting healthy virtues has to be taken seriously. Therefore there must be oversight of the media, advertising and entertainment by men who have in mind the interests of the nation and its future. It can't be left up to merchants.

    10. I did not say that all or most fascists were mothers' boys. I agree that the far left in England have shown great dedication in pursuing their warped ideals. You could call it manliness. I don't suppose manliness necessarily implies independence of mind.

      The Tory party was always, in Alan Clark's words a 'blowsy whore'. He also said, probably truthfully, "I am not a fascist. Fascists are shopkeepers, I am a Nazi."

      Still the English conservatives, along with the liberals and Labour people, won the war whereas the Iron Guard and Falangists are no more. Yes of course it was a Pyrrhic victory, in the sense that we lost our power and independence, and yes Bolshevik Russia defeated Germany and would have done so without our help, but the old fashioned representative parliamentary systems turned out to be much more vital than the dictators and their acolytes.

      Then those parliamentary systems moved left, from fear of Communism and other reasons.

      Now we see the threat to parliamentary rule coming from the EU, international organisations and too much international law. And the threat to freedom comes from liberals, who should esteem freedom, socialists and progressive statists on the so called centre right - including people like Theresa May and Angela Merkel.

      And yes real conservatives are very few. Jacob Rees-Mogg and people like him would be considered left-wing by Churchill.

  2. Mosley was a fascist. I have absolute contempt for his desire for a fascist dictatorship in Great Britain.
    When I was growing up he was regarded with horror but historians thought his Keynesian economic policy in the 1930s was far sighted but the economic policy of the National Government is now considered favourably.

    1. I think to be fair to Mosley, he said that liberal democracy and the party system would ruin Britain and this is what has happened. Britain is now extremely morally and culturally degenerate and Britons will be a minority in Britain by about 2066. If it had just been Britain that had gone in this direction we could say that the fault wasn't with liberal democracy itself. However, every Western liberal democracy has gone in the same direction towards social and spiritual decline and demographic replacement. The ones exposed to it the longest are arguably worse off. A corporatist one party state would probably have been a much better system.

    2. We are very far apart indeed. I have no sympathy whatever for this stuff or for Mosley. There are certainly many ways in which Western Europe is decadent but none of them would be improved by fascism.

      I am worried that you thought I'd share your views. I am a High Tory who believes in freedom and parliamentary government.

    3. Ah I confused you with Jaime who thought I might like Mosley.

    4. Japan has liberal democracy, though grafted onto a very different culture and spirit, and has avoided the problems that Europe has. Instead it has economic recession or depression although the Japanese seem to live well despite this.

    5. Europeans' predisposition to individualism means they need government that promotes collectivism as a counterweight. More so than the Japanese. Also, Japan hasn't had mass immigration but isn't reproducing itself e.g. Hikkimori men. Tokyo is the loneliest, most atomised city in the world. Man has to be part of something greater or freedom means little.

      Parliamentary democracy has led to a colossal deterioration in all Western countries. People do not have a detailed enough understanding about multiple political issues to be able to make an informed choice about what they are voting for and neither do professional politicians. Ask the average voter to explain in detail why they are voting for someone, or against someone and they will give a very limited answer which will usually just be regurgitated from a TV news segment which stuck in their mind. It virtually guarantees terrible government. Mosley at least advocated for General Elections to be based on occupational franchise so that people would vote according to their vocation or area of expertise.

  3. Peterson: identity politics is “genocidal in its ultimate expression”

  4. This by Jordan Peterson is something the wretched 'Cathy' Newman might ponder.
    “What is your friend: the things you know, or the things you don't know. First of all, there's a lot more things you don't know. And second, the things you don't know is the birthplace of all your new knowledge! So if you make the things you don't know your friend, rather than the things you know, well then you're always on a quest in a sense. You're always looking for new information in the off chance that somebody who doesn't agree with you will tell you something you couldn't have figured out on your own! It's a completely different way of looking at the world. It's the antithesis of opinionated.”

  5. David in Ukraine23 January 2018 at 13:46

    Scott Adams (Dilbert's creator) comments on the interview here:

    1. Thank you. I saw it too. She clearly reacted in a very emotional way to something, but not to anything he said. Some deep fear in her, I suppose. Very curious and of interest to psychologists. I suppose this is what they mean by being triggered.