This is the only thing I can find. The jerks asking the questions are supposedly on the conservative side but are clearly open-ended critics of Trump. Peterson was much more careful and if he was critical, it was only about Trump’s timing in what he said and not what he said. The bozos interviewing cannot see the point. This is Peterson in my own rough but reasonably accurate transcription (from around 2:00 in):
“Truth is a tricky thing because you have to take the temporal context into account. There are white lies and black truths. Black truth is when you use the truth in a way that isn’t truthful. . . just like a white lie is a lie that isn’t harmful…
“What Trump did wrong … was he failed to specify the time and the space of the utterance. Because what he should have come out and done is said that I unequivocally denounce the white supremacist racism that emerged in Charlottesville, and then he should have shut up. And then two weeks later he could have said, well when we look at the political landscape as a whole that it’s pretty obvious there are reprehensible individuals acting out on both ends of the extreme. The Charlottesville week was not the week to make that point.”
And this is Peterson’s views on Trump’s intelligence.
He gets it, even if he is cautious about saying it.
A brief exchange in which Peterson comprehensively rebuts everything she premises her questions on. He worries about when he finally makes a mistake after which his credibility will fall apart. We out here will forgive him, but the question will be whether he then forgives himself.
But his style as much as his content is what is so formidable. He never backs down! He never accepts the premise of the person asking the question, since in dealing with the media, the person on the other side will almost always be an enemy who is trying to do him in. And really, who is going to be able to rebut Karl Jung who is the basis for much of what he says? You would have to be as much a genius as Jung was himself to know in which way Peterson was wrong or even misguided. Won’t find anyone like that on the media, or anywhere else either. As he says about what has drawn others to listen closely to what he says:
“I tell archetypal stories. I think that’s it.”
And as for the most important lesson he provides to young men causing them to pay attention to what he says:
“Rights are not as useful in regard to establishing what’s meaningful in your life as responsibility.”
This is the blurb that comes with the vid:
Jordan Peterson sits down with the CBC’s Wendy Mesley to talk about political polarization, Pepe the Frog and his support from the far right. He has a new book called 12 Rules for Life: an Antidote to Chaos. Peterson sparked controversy in 2016, when he spoke against a federal bill on gender expression and the University of Toronto’s policy requirement to address students by their gender pronoun of choice.
But not every interview is hostile: Jordan Peterson – What if Cathy Newman had been a Male Interviewer?
Always makes sense and speaks directly to the point.
The last of these comes with the actual title, “The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer”. Here is the opening text, but I have to say this is terrifying and in no sense politics as usual, unless this really is politics as usual, although we have never before seen it revealed so openly.
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
“Morally bankrupt” it most certainly is and then some. “Certain to backfire on those doing it” is very optimistic. If this is how things are, Nazi is not going too far in describing what is going on. If the evidence were not before our eyes of the way in which the media and the CIA have worked with the Democrats to undermine Trump’s authority you would think all of this is impossible.
But what is most depressing is that the Democrats know their constituency, which is made up of rusted-on fools plus any so-called independents who can be gulled into voting their way because of some issue of the moment driven by their media allies. I also liked this comment from DeadMessenger:
(1) Isn’t it weird that in America, our flag and our culture offend so many people, but our benefits don’t?
(2) How can the federal government ask U.S. citizens to pay back student loans, when illegal aliens are receiving a free education?
(3) Only in America are legal citizens labeled “racists” and “Nazis,” but illegal aliens are called “Dreamers”.
(4) Liberals say, “If confiscating all guns saves just one life, it’s worth it”. Well then, if deporting all illegals saves just one life, wouldn’t that be worth it?
(5) I can’t quite figure out how you can proudly wave the flag of another country, but consider it punishment to be sent back there.
(6) The Constitution: It doesn’t need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread.
(7) William F. Buckley said: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other points of view, and are then shocked and offended when they discover there are other points of view.”
(8) Joseph Sobran said: “‘Need’ now means wanting someone else’s money. ‘Greed’ means wanting to keep your own. ‘Compassion’ is when a politician arranges the transfer.”
All good, but playing to the base, that is, mostly us. But his enemies are his enemies not because of what he does or doesn’t do but because they are filled with hatreds and envy. None of that will disappear and all will be in play come the elections in 2018 and 2020.
Two things should happen. First, these tech providers must be open to being sued for suspending and forcibly closing accounts unless the company can prove in court that what was being said could not be legally said in public. Second, these are now part of modern social infrastructure in the same way as banks and hospitals. They must be compelled by law to accept and maintain on an equal basis anyone who wishes to participate in their services. This is not something the market can or will fix. There can be only one Facebook. It only works if everyone can join. If the proprietors of Facebook don’t want to work within the new rules, then they can sell up to someone else who does.
This is what the the Wall Street Journal said today:
Regardless of whether net neutrality protections continue, regulation of social-media platforms could help even the online playing field and foster innovation, creativity and free speech while guarding against malicious manipulation of content. Without regulation, the internet’s most sprawling content marketplaces will continue to favor deep pockets and endanger free expression.
It’s a big issue and will only get bigger unless something is done.
The first is a compilation of reactions to the Jordan Peterson v Cathy Newman interview on BBC4. The one below is Peterson being interviewed on Fox.
Quotes from the Fox interviews.
His single most important piece of advice: “Stop saying things that make you weak.”
Dealing with critics: “They are not just trying to shut you down but to discredit you. If you are very careful in what you say AND YOU DON’T BACK DOWN ultimately things turn around for you.”
On the question, are you dangerous: “Yeah!” . . . “You should be able to be a monster and then not be one.”
On one form of censorship now very common: “If you are a conservative it is highly probable that your youtube content will be de-monitised. . . . It will not be associated with advertising content” and therefore not be promoted and viewed.
Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.
“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.
“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”
“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.
“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”
The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”
And then there is the discussion on the pay gap between men and women, which of course refers to the difference in the averages. An old old story among economists for which the answers are all well known except to those who prefer not to know. But Peterson is a psychologist so takes a very different tack.
The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:
Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.
Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.
Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.
Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?
Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––
The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.
Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.
Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:
Peterson: There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.
Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.
Peterson: That’s true. And some women get paid more than men.
Newman: So you’re saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.
Peterson: No, I’m saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.
Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.
Peterson: But I didn’t deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.
Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women exists—but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.
Peterson: That’s one of the reasons.
Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldn’t that be fairer?
Peterson: I’ve done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might say––often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we’ve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.
Karen Straughan’s Take on Jordan Peterson’s Channel 4 Interview. It lasts 38 minutes but never wavered for a moment. So much to get and she gets it very well. Interesting first comment by Karen Straughan in the youtube comments:
Within ten minutes of this video going up, Channel 4 had hit me with a copyright takedown. I filed a dispute based on fair use and it’s now viewable again, but have lost my monetization privileges on this video for up to 30 days, the fuckers.
The beeb didn’t want to see their shame spread any farther, but too late for that. Good to know that the BBC is embarrassed by the interview, and so they should be.
FACEBOOK RESPONSE: A mate of mine put this post up on Facebook and this is the note I just received from him:
Facebook just marked as spam my post of your post
I’m not on Facebook so I don’t know how any of it works, but the response time had to have been less than an hour. These people are evil, genuinely evil.
Watching this unfold, with the united actions of the FBI, CIA, the media, the Democratic Party and even some Republicans, and then realising that none of this happened under Obama, the conclusion is that Obama and his cohorts represented, in their entirety, the values of “the deep state”. That is, Obama represented the values of the governing elites of the United States which completely includes 90% of the media. Why isn’t this reported as the scandal it is? That is why. This is what they want and who they are. Without the internet, you would not know a thing.
These are reactions to the Cathy Newman interview of Jordan Peterson. His own reaction, as discussed in the final video below, is that the interview is an example of “the instability of the times we are in.” It is a forewarning of the dark times ahead for us all.
These are a series of quotes from the last interview with Peterson not necessarily perfectly transcribed [and now for some reason no longer available]:
“She laid out two sets of ideological presuppositions, two sets actually, her set and my set. The set of ideological position she laid out from my side bore very little relation to what I think or say.”
“She would ask me a question that wasn’t really a question but a barb with bait on the end of it. She would say what I said which had nothing to do with what I had said. She was fabricating on the sly the person – the villain – that she hoped I would be and insisting that was me and denying that it was a lie. That is what the interview was.”
“I was watching her after the first minute like a clinician and watching what she was doing. And I truly don’t believe that anything she said in that entire interview was true on its own.”
The form of conversation was not one designed to further our knowledge of the truth which is the highest form of conversation. Indeed, there is quite a fascinating discussion of the nature of her approach to the discussion. “Playing the devil’s advocate and asking difficult questions are not the same thing.”
“Her claims became so preposterous and self-contradictory that it was difficult to remain completely detached. And this was the crux of the interview . . . she had asked me in her self-righteous manner just what gave me the right to offend someone and hurt their feelings, and I thought about six things at the same time, but the first thing I thought was, you’re a journalist, that’s the last question in the world you should ever ask someone, if you have any genuine integrity as a journalist because that’s all you have as a journalist. You have the right to offend people and hurt their feelings. So I called her out on that.”
“There was a three-fold ideological battle going on. There was a battle between her position which was radically neo-Marxist post-modernist. She was arguing against who she thought I was. And then there was the position I was trying to put forward which had virtually nothing to do with what she was discussing.”
“I was able to keep reasonably detatched during the interview because whoever she thought she was talking to bore very little resemblance to me.”
“But she couldn’t make her reputation and her living that way using those tactics – those were not tactics of seeking the truth but they were almost tactics of domination.”
But the outcome should not be seen as a win since “virtually everyone watching it online . . . are not happy with the way the interview went. . . . That should be crushing for her. . . . If we are forestalling a correction and we keep putting it off, then when it comes it will be much worse.”
Newman was driven by “ideologically motivated lies”.
In regard to his life’s work: “My conscious goal was the hope it would make people immune to ideological possession” an ambition which he himself notes he has not been successful at.
Anyway, don’t ignore the last of the videos the first half hour of which are Peterson’s own reflections. That is the most disturbing part of this entire episode and is worth your close attention. You should also listen to the last hour and a quarter as well but the analysis of the conversation is quite profound and something you will rarely encounter. He is a very dark prophet of our time. These are his own words about the kinds of outcome Cathy Newman, and indeed the entire post-modernist world of the neo-Marxist left, are leading us towards.
“We are playing with fire. Polarisation can only go on for so long before we start acting it out.”
I don’t think when we start acting these things out that the outcomes will be in any way positive at all. Meanwhile, here are the various videos but don’t forget the one that comes last.
And if you haven’t seen it yet, this is the original interview. And what makes this so remarkable is that the BBC was so certain of the outcome that they scheduled a half hour interview that went very very wrong, for them.
And the following provides some commentary about Cathy Newman and the entire outcome by Peterson. The first 33 minutes and then the rest is his discussing his philosophy and work.
And now that the above has disappeared, here is part of that video.
Law of Markets 