Thought-Crime Jordan Peterson Vs Cathy Newman & The Baader-Meinhof Gang


#1

Ash Sharp
Editor

I say now that it is impossible to deny that the majority of news media in the Western world is little more than a machine for manufacturing Neo-Marxist opinions.

The reason I say this with such certainty is that the body of evidence to support this conclusion is now insurmountable. The idea of an impartial media no longer exists. The proof of this is revealed whenever the topic of identity politics comes up; when you see Daily Mail columnists stumping for feminist ideology, we are in serious trouble. Welcome to Pravda reality.

Thought-Criminal Jordan Peterson Versus Cathy Newman & The Baader-Meinhof Gang

The catalyst comes from a simply stunning interview that took place on British television last week. If you haven't seen the utter demolition of feminist thought conducted -or should I say committed- by Jordan Peterson yet; you are late to the fun.

For analysis of the absolute hammering that Channel 4 News' Cathy Newman took in this 30-minute conversation, look no further than Douglas Murray in the Spectator.

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. - Douglas Murray

As is so often the case, when a feminist gets shown to be a public fraud the engines of spin fire up. The justification for the damage control exercise was laid at the end of the interview with Peterson itself. Newman points out that critics of Peterson get lambasted online, and claims "there's a lot of it [abuse] out there." I'm sure you can see where this is going.

Mr. de Pear is basing this drama on using the search function to find instances of the word 'bitch' in the comments below the Youtube video. Of over 50,000 comments, 500 occurrences were found. If we are charitable and assume that all of these comments are directly calling Newman a bitch, we have 1% of the comments being misogynistic. As we know that there are many uses of the word bitch that are not directed at Newman, let alone the many different contexts, and not to mention that this is the comments section of YouTube which is both a cess-pit and full of people calling each other 'bitch' all day every day.

Apparently, this outpouring of hate was amusing to Newman, who was snapped by her producer laughing at the so-called threats as the police were called.

The police have evidently decided not to proceed with charging anyone, or you can be certain that would be front page news. Instead, Channel 4 has hired a 'security expert' to deal with the imminent fedora-Jihad.

Speaking of the news, what angle do you suppose the media are taking? Of course, the reasoned and polite Peterson thrashing the living daylights out of their colleague for the world to see is not newsworthy. Alleged abuse? Now we're talking.

Quick as a flash, the media rallies around their wounded comrade to build the narrative that regardless of the content of the debate -in which Newman effectively tried to call Peterson a white supremacist while apologizing for Maoist philosophy- the real story, as always, is online misogyny.

Thought-Criminal Jordan Peterson Versus Cathy Newman & The Baader-Meinhof Gang

The reality that Peterson calmly broke down the hail of inept leftist barbs from Newman with grace, politeness and factual positions is irrelevant. The important thing to note is that Peterson is On The Wrong Side Of History And Might Be A Thought Criminal Associated With The Alt-Right And That Is Bad. Please consult your local commissariat for re-education if you found yourself swayed by any unauthorized arguments.

The bizarreness continued as Twitter commentators have had a field day pointing out inconsistencies. Indeed, why is it that left wingers get a free pass from behaving terribly, but moderate centrists (or worse) like Jordan Peterson get pilloried? The double standards are quite surreal and signify a dangerous trend in Western society.

The answer is clear. The leftist needs to be shielded from critique at all costs. When the leftist ideology is exposed by an expert interlocutor like Peterson, there is no chance of a victory by fair means. Peterson knows this and has offered Newman another bite at the cherry, which has as much chance of happening as I have of winning an Olympic medal.

In the absence of evidence or champions in the realm of debate to fight the cause fairly, the leftist narrative must thus be protected by foul tactics instead. These tactics include but are not limited to misdirection, denigration, slander, and misrepresentation. In this way, two goals are achieved.

First, Jordan Peterson is further pushed to the 'right' of the political spectrum, by a mass-media assault on what it even means to be in the center. Only the far-right engage in such misogyny, only the far-right are 'transphobic' so, therefore, Peterson must be at best an enabler and at worst far-right himself. Nevermind that he has been an academic at liberal institutions for over three decades and has taught for years about the dangers of National-Socialist thought. The Overton Window is dragged to the left by framing Peterson's supporters as uniformly far-right. This happens because Peterson's positions in this instance are unassailable through debate or dialectic.

Second, the brand of Jordan Peterson is tainted by association with events that are roundly branded as controversial by the media. The idea that the state should mandate what words come out of your mouth should be controversial, not the resistance to it. The idea that men and women are biologically different and that results in different life outcomes but should not entail unfair treatment to either sex is only controversial if you are at some level corrupted by Neo-Marxist ideology.

It is now mandatory for the hive-minded and spiritually bereft media complex to reference these events every time Peterson makes an appearance. There is a great line from the discussion with Newman where she asks what right Peterson has to comment on such matters that she feels must only be spoken of from a feminist perspective. He replies;

"Because I am a clinical psychologist."

This answer seems to be a perfect one; except that to Neo-Marxists, professional competence always comes second to the pursuit of ideological purity. This is the equality of outcomes that is demanded by leftists- your skill, your person, is second to your ideological purity.

In the media and in future encounters with the Neo-Marxists who operate and control the flow of mass-market information, Peterson is as good as a Nazi. The redefinition and misrepresentation of language itself will continue until morale is destroyed. There is an angering game one can play when presented with a story like this one. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and Peterson was interrogating Newman in this combative style, pushing and poking at feminist thought. The outcry against such misogyny would ring across the planet- and yet it would still only be a battle of ideas. As I said in a recent piece about art on this site, Identity Politics has infected our society to the extent that what we perceive as a mainstream television interview is impossible for the media to analyze without resorting to this Neo-Marxist ideological framework. The fact that Peterson can defend his ideas against Newman's weak critical theory interrogation is a clear sign that Peterson is oppressing her. Viva feminism, indeed.

While this drama has been playing out I noticed a parallel bleeding through. Last night I watched a film called the Baader-Meinhof Complex. I highly recommend you see this film to gather an insight into how the mind of the radical leftist actually works- as a former anarchist myself I recognize many of the logical reasonings of the Rote Armee Fraktion in the thought processes of myself and my former associates.

The leftist ideologues of the Baader-Meinhof gang believed in the Communist struggle against Western Imperialism in Vietnam and Israel, and therefore alliances with Islamic terrorists was perfectly logical. The deaths of Vietnamese civilians was cause to bomb civilians, police and military targets in Germany. The primary issue with ideologues -particularly leftist ideologues- is that they see ideology everywhere except within themselves.

The point is that the Baader-Meinhof gang follow the same fundamental principles of thought that the leftist critics of Peterson follow. While I do not imagine Cathy Newman as being some kind of modern Ulrike Meinhof ready to denounce her opponents as pigs who can be legitimately murdered, the posing of her ideological positions as reasonable despite their extremity is interesting to me. Newman appeared offended by the idea that the ideology of trans-activists was Maoist. The concept that leftist ideology today is related to that murderous diktat followed by Mao, Stalin, and the Baader-Meinhof is alien to her. I hope she would not be offended if I said that this attitude is that of the useful idiot- a partisan mouthpiece for political positions that she does not understand in full. If Newman did understand her own professed ideology, then she might well not hold those beliefs any longer.

Feminism is Neo-Marxist.

I do not intend these words to offend, but then as Peterson points out in the interview, in order to think I must accept I may offend someone. Newman and her ilk are engaged in a permanent struggle to paint themselves as the moral superior to everyone else, as all subscribers to Marxism must. In this way, you -the consumer of news products- are being forced to accept their position to be true, or else you are a bigot, a sexist, et cetera.

This is exactly what Mao, Che Guevara, and the Baader-Meinhof gang did too, to various degrees. While the modern supremacist will clearly delineate that they believe the black or the Jew is the Untermensch, the Neo-Marxist is more subtle but more deadly by far. The totalitarian left understands that human emotions are powerful and the manipulation of these, coupled with the desire within us to be doing a 'moral'act -whatever our perception of that concept is- this is a powerful method of creating compliance. In the cause of righteousness, Baader-Meinhof terrorists kidnapped, bombed and hijacked. With the best of intentions -according to him, at least- Mao gave the order to liquidate and starve millions, and millions complied.


Thorwald Proll, Horst Söhnlein, Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin.

As I've said in these pages before, now that the attempt to control the world through economics has failed, the Neo-Marxists live through control of culture. The difference between Newman's special pleading and Ulrike Meinhof's rigid and violent dogma is not as huge as any of us might like to think. The core concept both Newman and Meinhof considered true is that someone, somewhere, is a victim. For the noble goal of saving that victim, all manner of tyranny against perceived oppressors is not only justifiable but eminently desirable. In the 1970s when there was a possibility of Communist hegemony, guns and bombs were used. Today, the gun is out of fashion but the pen -or keyboard- is more powerful than ever.

As Peterson himself writes;

The dangers of self-deception about past events, far from trivial in the personal case, are tremendously magnified in the social arena. The careless use of memory can lead directly to the grave abuse of people.

Conducted daily through the media and politicized social media complex is a reframing of history, even up to events of a few moments ago. In thirty years, who will choose to watch a thirty-minute interview between a now-elderly psychologist and feminist journalist? A few, perhaps. How many more will know the story, but only know the story as it is stored in our collective cultural memory and its replacement/augmentative structure, the internet?

The narrative shaped today will persist like never before in human history, which is why it is so important to not allow this abuse of reality by mainstream media ideologues to pass without protest.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://republicstandard.com/jordan-peterson-versus-cathy-newman-the-baader-meinhof-gang/

In celebration of the woman march, I present you this debate
#2

Watch how the cognitive dissonance is being triggered from the interviewer. It is a masterful display of psychology from Dr. Peterson.


#3

I am not a professional clinical psychologist… I’m not even an armature clinical psychologist and in fact I think the vast majority of those who call themselves professional are diluted in their self appraisal so I have some… rather strong limits in my ability to put up with people like the interviewer. I could quit clearly see what she was attempting to do, although I honestly think she believed her argument but I could never hold my composure the way he does. I think this is, by and large a failing of the right in defending their positions and for people like myself, she would get, eventually, an angry reaction because she is not listening or does not want to listen because it would call her position into question. We can see the very same technique of the interviewer applied by certain individuals on this forum… and unfortunately the reaction to them is less control than that of Dr. Peterson.


#4

I like Jordan Peterson a lot and I don’t get why so many women get angry with him. If they actually listed to what he was saying it might actually help them improve. The interviewer really has a chip on her shoulder and is fighting and arguing with him instead of listening to what he is saying. What’s funny about this is that this talking head is probably making more money than most men in her field, she admits that she’s successful, agrees that she has fought for her success, and then refuses to accept that other women should be willing to do the same.


#5

Cathy Newman is that way. Every time I have heard her in interviews about women, wages, equaltiy etc and she is talking to a male she is always antagonistic and of course if she is talking to a women, they tend to be part of the same feminist perspective so the interviewer and interviewee complement each other…


#6

More cognitive dissonance


#7

I thought the pussy hats were banned this year because they made trannys feel bad?


#8

Soros already paid for this year’s shipment of pussy hats. Additional colors may come next year, or even post-ops pussy hat


#9

That would be nice to see. A big black inverted dong on top of these idiots heads. I might take them even more seriously than I do now.


#10

Bits of the wage gap


#11

This is bloody brilliant (Jordan Peterson voice), and I think you are onto some important things here. Naturally, the Cathedral media are playing the “wounded victim” card. They have to do this: they need to gin up some cheap sympathy for their cause and, of course, try to paint Peterson as an Alt-Right Bogey-Wizard. The manipulation is so transparent it’s disgusting.

Now this is simply fascinating. I’m not familiar with this, and I had no idea they teamed up with Islamic terrorists. It sort of puts me in mind of progressives today, by which I mean it seems entirely of a piece with their behavior in courting Muslims. Hijabs at the (leftist) women’s waddle–I mean, march–amirite?


#12

Thanks again, it was just one of those happy co-incidences. The Peterson interview came first, and then ‘The Culture War’ (who is a smart person who I wish would write for Republic Standard, but alas) commented on a PJW thread with

You really need to watch the film The Baader Meinhof Complex to give yourself a crash course on the true story of the birth modern terrorism. I don't think you've seen it because I think you would make the connection yourself if you had. This is history repeating itself. pic.twitter.com/U4L284ZCg4

— The Culture War (@The_Culture_War) December 3, 2017

And by jingo, they nailed it. I recognised my younger self in the attitudes of the Baader-Meinhof immediately, and while I had not come across the RAF as a group, the ideology was similar. Israel ‘oppresses’ Palestine, so therefore anti-semitism is in some form justified in return, and so on. The fact that the Islamists of Hamas are more brutal than a drunk Bibi Netenyahu with a handful of viagra never mattered- Bibi is the demagogue with the F-16, the righteous carry the kalashnikov.

This attitude is very common from my experience of being a leftist with leftist friends.


#13

#14

This is actually getting to be quite interesting in its intensity. Clearly in an open debate and exchange of ideas Peterson dominated in a clear, polite and calm way. Their is a corollary on this forum of someone who does not know how to actually debate and looses his wig when he is pressed…


#15

lol drumpf, tho.

I win.


#16

This reminds me of my favorite film:
20108186_1433207206746565_4152425425108668128_n

Seriously, though, there is this part of me that wonders what the heck happened to the left. Back in the Bush years, they were the cool kids, the smart set. How the hell did they get so dopey, whiny, and hysterical?


#17

that looks like the best movie of all time.

My path through the left began with student protests in '99 while reading sociology. Through that I discovered the history of anarchism and while I always figured it was theoretical I understood the role of the fringe-left to be pushing society towards a genuine progress. The UK not being a nation of people predisposed to revolution, I did not and still do not see much beyond possible economic reform out of necessity- even if Commie Corbyn gets into 10 Downing St.

Still, I was more concerned during the 2000s of the slide to soft authoritarianism I saw from Western leaders like Blair, Bush II, and the neocon/neolib paradigm. I still maintain neoliberalism is a disease, really. I basically maintained that view while going into regular jack-off jobs, hating the system but not having any better ideas, so I played guitar instead and became a fairly cookie-cutter leftist (i.e not knowing what I was talking about, but able to argue the toss with anyone- my friends were a mix of right and left. No one called anyone else a rapist.) you know, the green party type hippy who wanted to save the planet for weed. Chris Hedges was read unironically. I guess my politics was Occupy Wall St. without the social justice- because believe it or not, I had no idea what that even meant. I looked at politics as essentially a method to run the economy- wars,environment, all are conducted through the economic system. I quite liked the ideas of the Venus Project, for example.

At some point discourse changed. in late 2014 I began seeing a girl that was a feminist, and in all honesty I had never encountered this ideology up close before. She was 23 at the time, while I was 34. What an eye-opener. She pulled the

If you believe women should be equal to men then you’re a feminist

card. I was curious, so I wanted to know what i was signing up for. I looked at the evidence, as I had always done, but this time I found the arguments less convincing. The screaming demon that replaced what I thought was a slightly weird but talented girl was quite an introduction to ideological transgression, and so the fall from idealism began.

How we got here I don’t know- in honesty I don’t think we’ve ever been away, it’s just the growing and interlocking tesselation of public discourse has exposed ideologies like never before. The student marches I went on were rallied by hardcore socialist revolutionaries. They were no doubt just as ardent feminists as my ex, if not more so. It’s just a profitable and desirable tactic to be a victim now. When your ideas are weak, you need to either get better ideas or cry about victimisation. The left has broadly chosen the latter. Leftists who can take the crucible of inspecting their own philosophies honestly don’t remain on the left very long. Leftists like this guy rapidly pushed me towards looking to invest in my own UH64.

dicksonderp


#18

I liked the Occupy Movement… My only objection to them is that they were standing in front of the wrong buildings… instead of ChaseManhatten it should have been the US Capitol and more specifically the WhiteHouse. Of course the underlying social justice themes are an abstraction to the real problems but then again obfuscation is the name of the game with the left… as you say… what do they really have to talk about.


#19

There is a legitimate critique to be made from even a moderate left position of neoclassical economics that doesn’t necessitate falling into tired Marxist ideas.

instead of ChaseManhatten it should have been the US Capitol and more specifically the WhiteHouse.

Yeah, the banksters acted like banksters should act- in the interests of their shareholders no matter what. The government bailout of private enterprise? Socialism. Should have given them the finger and said, if you fall, you fall. We’re a capitalist nation. Buh bye.


#20

While that is an easy to say and on paper, a logical argument… the thought itself always leads us down the path of Marx. Their is no way that government can lay down anything other ‘fair play’ laws and not fall into the trap of crony capitalism and from their it is a slippery slope… I thought I saw it quite clearly in the US but the UK has given me a whole new perspective on what ‘government’ and socialism means to the British people. Almost every politician in the UK is left of Hillary Clinton… except of course Nigel Farage :wink: