About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

29 Replies to “Astonishing interview of Dr. Peterson”

    • I also kind of got the impression that she was, despite herself and her progressive programming, impressed by him and his arguments. But regardless, he himself did a simply flawless job of explaining himself and handling himself under fire. Love this guy (maybe there is some hope for Canada if it can still produce people like him).

  1. Jordan did a fantastic job of not getting angry or flustered with that typical nasty feminist left wing BBC presenter. God, what a bitch! I don’t know how many times I’ve seen them do the same thing to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders and Patrick Moore and anybody else who’s not perfectly politically correct. They have no interest in understanding anything but just sit there playing “heckle the conservative” hoping he’ll eventually give up and decide it’s not worth it.

    But Dr. Peterson came off like a million dollars, in my humble opinion. He’s not screwing around about what he’s doing and could very well end up a rich and famous celebrity who actually changes the world. That’s what he’s trying to do, anyway. And Lord is he smart!
    I think Jordan Peterson is the smartest most articulate human being I have ever listened to, and I’ve listened to a lot…

    The thing about Jordan Peterson is that he’s bloody well right and the postmodernists are bloody well wrong. It comes down to that. The entire left wing movement is now literally suffering from a mental illness – like brainwashed glassy-eyed cult followers…

  2. One thing: notice how not once does he step outside the discussion to admonish her strategies of deflection, oversimplification, and selective hearing. Not once does he say “There you go again…” instead he just takes it all on her own rules and wins even more convincingly because of it. This is a classic.

  3. It was a terrible interview. She was ridiculous. It was straw man after straw man.

    But Peterson acted admirably, and remained calm and collected throughout.

    It was also clear she was impressed with him.

  4. So the Media are not ‘Interviewing’ but presenting their own Narrative-spin of events. Attempting to Berate, Belittle and Censure their target. The facts are not important.

    Tommy Robinson in 2013 was then the leader of the English Defense League. The same technique was used on him.
    https://youtu.be/sZHbXhstXG4

    A few years later, we learned of thousands of young girls were groomed by Muslim gangs.
    https://youtu.be/sZHbXhstXG4

    • Forgive me for this PC I know what you mean and this is not a contradiction but a kind of musing on one line you wrote.

      It isn’t that the facts are not important.

      It is that the facts are extremely important and must be spun away from in order to preserve the government-media narrative.

      The facts are not important in the conventional sense of Socratic thought though, you are right. This is now a vestigial aspect of reporting news. An attempt to get at the truth no matter where it may lead. This has been abandoned for the postmodern, international socialist agenda. And the facts, while still equally important, are so in a dramatically different way.

      They are now something for which to punish people, should they propagate or disseminate, and ultimately, even be aware of.

      • “It is that the facts are extremely important and must be spun away from in order to preserve the government-media narrative.”

        Yes, you don’t wan’t your audience to walk into facts. Questioning would be reserved and cautious. Because if they do, they may wake up and no longer remain controlled and blinded by their emotions. No need for watching gladiatorial sports, a brutality real or faked, for excitement that demoralizes and keep the status quo.

        But we are in The Marxist Spring. There is jubilation and caution thrown to the wind.

        So happily, this interviewer walked straight into every reality-bomb after each pronounment of an Article of Faith. Whatever was said in her earpiece, they still could not get an angry reaction; and the misrepresentations – femsplaining of his arguments – returned and bit her on her butt. Outclassed in every single way.

        So why wouldn’t her body sing that she wanted to mate with him? Life gravitates to life even if it is only a little seed.

  5. “So you’re saying we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters”

    She wasn’t listening to a thing he said the whole damn time. She was only scanning for phrases to twist and spit back at him accusingly. It was ABZURD! 😉

  6. BREITBART – Repeated attempts to skewer clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson fell flat in a remarkable interview with Britain’s Channel 4 news, reports the Spectator.

    Douglas Murray writes of the interview for the Spectator’s Coffee House blog:

    In the magazine this week (out tomorrow) I have written a piece about the Canadian Professor Jordan Peterson. He has been in the UK over the last week to talk about his new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Among many other things – much more of which I go into in the piece – his visit showed up the UK’s broadcast media in a very bad light.

    On Saturday morning, Peterson made an appearance on Radio 4’s Today programme. They gave him a hurried four minutes at the end of the show. They could have quizzed him on almost anything and got a point of view different from almost any other they had ever allowed their listeners to hear. Instead they decided to treat him in an alternately jocular and hostile manner. First: ‘Look at this whacky Canadian from out of town’. Then: ‘warning signs: heretic’. The Today programme wasted the opportunity.

    But they scored a veritable home-run compared to the interview Cathy Newman did with him yesterday for Channel 4 News. The full half-hour interview is available online. If I was Channel 4 I would take it down. If I was Cathy Newman I would sue or seek a super-injunction. I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/01/17/youve-got-me-feminist-cathy-newman-crumbles-in-channel-4-interview-with-controversial-prof-jordan-peterson/

    Whatever else anybody might think of him, Professor Peterson is a man of remarkable learning and experience, and does not appear to have arrived at any of his views by the now common means of ‘I reckon’. Yet Newman, who approaches the interview with the trademark sourness she employs for everyone she expects to disagree with, treats this is just another chance to burnish her own social justice credentials and expose her guest as a bigot. Big mistake.

    Storming straight in with the differences between the sexes, in the opening minutes it is clear that Professor Peterson is willing to back up all his views with references, data and calm analysis. By 4 minutes in Cathy Newman is saying ‘What gives you the right to say that?’. One answer to which is ‘Because you invited me on your show.’ Another being ‘Because I have years of experience in these fields as a psychologist and academic as well as being a human being with eyes.’ Peterson is too polite to say this. But it becomes clear that in the face of the facts Channel 4’s prize interviewer has nothing more than stances. And not even especially intelligent stances.

    By 11 minutes in she is saying ‘I think I take issue with (that)’, before demonstrating that she can’t. Soon she is reduced to dropping the bombshell observation that ‘all women are different’. By 16.45 there is a palpable win, as Peterson points out that Newman has exactly the disagreeable and aggressive qualities that allow certain types of people to succeed. By 19.30 she is having to throw out things to him that he hasn’t even said, such as ‘You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies’. A minute later and she is reduced to countering empirical evidence with anecdote. Peterson presents the data about men in general and Newman responds with the ‘I know plenty of men who aren’t (like that)’ card. Shortly after that (at 22.25) Newman is reduced to spluttering and then silence. She tries to pull herself together. But she can think of nothing to say. She tries to whip herself back up to a fever of indignation, but that doesn’t work either. And then finally she tries to finish off the interview in the same way the Today programme did by taking up a half-humorous evolutionary case-study Peterson has written about (lobsters) and used it to try to present him as some kind of madman or imbecile.

    The general British broadcast media treatment of Peterson was not just ignorant and parochial (and aren’t some ‘internationalists’ just the most parochial people of all?). It showed that it has become acceptable for an interviewer to go in with nothing other than an ambition to demonstrate their moral superiority at the expense of the interviewee. This may be fun and help burnish the sense of moral preening of the presenter. But it allows the audience to learn nothing. Indeed the only thing it does do is to replace serious discussion with an embedding of existing prejudices. It is in places like this that the ‘division’ that we hear so much occurs. If you happen to share Cathy Newman’s views then you want her not only to show them but to crush or expose any and all enemies. But if yesterday’s interview is anything to go by, all she has is attitudes. And lazy attitudes at that. In the face of facts she is reduced to talking about people she knows.

    That isn’t news. It isn’t even interviewing. It is grandstanding. This nation’s broadcasters should feel ashamed.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/watch-cathy-newmans-catastrophic-interview-with-jordan-peterson/

    • Douglas Murray doesn’t match the standard of the writers on this blog.. But, that’s the nickle and dime of hired-hands in Newspapers.

      “That isn’t news. It isn’t even interviewing. It is grandstanding. This nation’s broadcasters should feel ashamed.””

      Agent provocateurs:. This is how TV Chanels carve out an audience of hardcore who do not want to think. Demoralized and then build up. (That’s exactly how adverizing works).

      Fake News; because, the 24/7 news outlets have to be sensational and biased. There are fewer Journalists, as there are fewer Librarians. These professions are going and replaced by Infotainers and propagandists inducing the fear of the End of The World. Like Ghost Hunter, Religious and Medium/Channeling programs do. All revolving themselves with the fascination of imminent death..

      Chanel 4 focuses on the rapidly growing LGBTQ+ Identity-Culture..
      http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/c4-announces-new-season-50-shades-of-gay

      http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx

      Cathy Newman’s only crime that I saw, was that her mask slipped,. She revealed her wrinkly Kim Kardashian bottom, in that she actually genuinely smiled at a man. The little girl came out. She saw her Father.

      It is this, that many will not forgive. For the ratings may be sky high,. But she is no longer believable. She gave value and purpose to a male. The Taming of the Shrew. Eve respected Adam. That is a no no.

      Even an Islamist does not make females equal.

      • “This may be fun and help burnish the sense of moral preening of the presenter. But it allows the audience to learn nothing. Indeed the only thing it does do is to replace serious discussion with an embedding of existing prejudices”

        Yet we learned everything. Why is this ‘Move along, nothing to see here,’ shovelled to the Spectator Readership?

        A Transexual reveals in a glimpse of insight that they are still a man. The Homosexual, their lost childhood. The Muslims themselves before their submissions..

        Why would intellectuals not want you to see yourself for yourself?

        Gad Saad follows their arguments https://youtu.be/YetzM2_SKKY

      • A Masterclass in Psychology. Healing the sick. Bringing out the human at the end, into everyone’s the living room. . Beyond the plastic of vanity and pride.

        This Hate-filled world of accusing others of the same hate they have in their heart.

        To tip toe around fragile egos. How much more suffering a young boy or girl face with a single parent like this?

        “It showed that it has become acceptable for an interviewer to go in with nothing other than an ambition to demonstrate their moral superiority at the expense of the interviewee. ”

        Tell it as it is damn-it. The Class Envy of Marxist Ideology. This is no Lone Wolf, individually driven. This conspiracy of silence on totalitarian collectivism.

      • “Cathy Newman’s only crime that I saw, was that her mask slipped,. She revealed her wrinkly Kim Kardashian bottom, in that she actually genuinely smiled at a man. The little girl came out. She saw her Father.

        It is this, that many will not forgive.”

        “Channel 4 has called in security experts after presenter Cathy Newman was hit by a wave of online abuse following an interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist.

        “Ben de Pear, editor of Channel 4 News, told his Twitter followers Ms Newman had been subjected to “vicious misogynistic abuse” following her interview with Jordan Peterson.

        He said: “Our [Channel 4 News] on-screen journalists expect to be held to account for their journalism but the level of vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat to [Cathy Newman] is an unacceptable response.”
        https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/channel-4-calls-in-security-experts-after-presenter-cathy-newman-suffers-online-abuse-over-jordan-a3745241.html

        I suspect The Far Left posing as The Right are trolling her big-time.

        • Agree with all.

          It would be a classic leftist tactic to pose as supporters and behave badly. Any of Soros’ think tanks would churn that out and celebrate with drugs and booze.

          Also with her mask slipping and suddenly seeing masculinity as she has always wanted it to be.

  7. the guardian Channel 4 calls in security experts after presenter suffers online abuse

    Cathy Newman subjected to ‘vicious misogynistic abuse’ after interview with psychologist

    Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the “alt-right”.

    Ben de Pear, the editor of Channel 4 News, said Newman had been subjected to “vicious misogynistic abuse”. Having to calling in security specialists was a “terrible indictment of the times we live in”, he said.

    Newman interviewed the psychologist, Jordan Peterson, about gender on Tuesday. A video of the full 30-minute interview has been watched more than 1.6m times on the Channel 4 News YouTube page and has attracted more than 36,000 comments.

    Peterson rose to prominence in 2016 when he released a video lecture series in which he said that his right to free speech meant he would not use gender-neutral pronouns for transgender students at the University of Toronto. He was in the UK promoting a new book called 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

    The combative Channel 4 interview led to praise for Peterson and criticism for Newman on some right-leaning sites. James Delingpole, a Breitbart columnist, said the interview marked a “pivotal victory in the culture wars” and that the “weaknesses of the regressive left have never been more cruelly or damningly expose”. Douglas Murray in the Spectator said: “I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.”

    Newman has faced a wave of abuse and threats online, including on Twitter. There is no suggestion that Peterson, Delingpole or Murray are behind the threats or instigated them.

    De Pear said on Twitter on Friday: “Our Channel 4 News on-screen journalists expect to be held to account for their journalism but the level of vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat to Cathy Newman is an unacceptable response to a robust and engaging debate with Jordan Peterson.

    “Such is the scale of threat, we are having to get security specialists in to carry out an analysis. I will not hesitate to get the police involved if necessary. What a terrible indictment of the times we live in.”

    Newman retweeted De Pear’s posts. In response to Murray’s column – in which he said Newman should get Channel 4 to remove the video from the internet because of how “catastrophic” it was – she said earlier in the week: “Always grateful for advice from Douglas Murray but I won’t be suing or taking out a super-injunction. I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with Jordan Peterson as did hundreds of thousands of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech. Stay tuned Douglas.”

    Channel 4 News said: “Following her interview with psychology professor Jordan Peterson broadcast earlier this week, our presenter Cathy Newman has been the target of unwarranted and unacceptable misogynistic abuse and threats.

    “As journalists in the public eye, our presenters expect criticism, but we will not tolerate this level of abuse towards our staff. We have taken immediate steps to ensure Cathy’s safety and security and continue to offer her our full support on this matter.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/19/channel-4-calls-in-security-experts-after-cathy-newman-suffers-online-abuse

Leave a Reply

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

*