When Channel 4 invited Professor Jordan Peterson to be pulverised to a pulp by the mythical might of its star presenter Cathy Newman, it was re-enacting the battle between David and Goliath.

David and Goliath is the archetypal story of an ordinary shepherd boy destroying the ideological might and rhetorical bombast of the armour-plated establishment with a single slingshot. No wonder it has captured the imagination of millions of readers over two and a half thousand years across cultures and continents.

Prof Peterson adores archetypes. His writings and lectures and podcasts abound with references to Jungian and biblical archetypes. In the psychology of Carl Jung, an archetype is a primitive and pervasive idea, image, or symbol, inherited from our earliest ancestors, that forms part of our collective unconscious. It explains why we are drawn to certain stories more than others. My wife wrote her M Phil dissertation on the American writer William Faulkner and one of her chapters explored the Jungian archetype of the ‘Terrible Mother’.

The Newman-Peterson gladiatorial duel has been watched on YouTube around three million times and in less than a week has generated firepower in terms of mainstream media analysis, popular memes and social media exchanges, sufficient to sink a battleship. ‘It’s the most satisfying piece of poetic justice since the Comet came unstuck in that tunnel in Atlas Shrugged,’ writes James Delingpole hinting at its archetypal significance.

The victory of David over Goliath marks a pivotal victory in the unremitting wars between Israel and the Philistines – an incident in which an ordinary person confronts a giant and exposes his weakness by calling out the giant’s hyped-up muscle and might as fake and fraudulent. ‘Giants are not what we think they are. The same qualities that appear to give them strength are often the source of great weakness,’ observes Malcolm Gladwell in his book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants.

Every time I visit Israel, I go to the Valley of Elah. It is the vast plain where the Israelites fought the Philistines through the proxy of their representatives: David and Goliath. I’ve read and re-read the biblical story. I’ve re-imagined the strategy and subterfuge, the sights and smells, the cheers and the jeers.

David is the youngest of eight brothers. A shepherd. He doubles up as a lunch-box carrier delivering bread and cheese to his brothers on the battlefield. David is the archetypal underdog. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, former Harvard professor and now professor at the University of Toronto. This qualifies him to be part of the Establishment, not the underdog. But as a ‘classical liberal’ (which in today’s context is to be ‘conservative’), his fellow-professionals treat him as a pariah with a contagious disease. His single-handed skirmish against forcing him to use made-up pronouns for made-up genders put him at odds with the entire university and political establishment in Canada. Worst of all, as a white male, he lies at the bottom of the dungheap of intersectionality.

Goliath is Godzilla. He is 9ft 9in and is bellowing out threats and obscenities like a World Wide Wrestling Federation champion. Plus, he wears a bronze helmet and a bronze coat of mail, bronze shin guards, with bronze plates covering his feet. His three weapons are optimised for close combat: an armour-piercing javelin, a sword and a harpoon with shaft ‘as thick as a weaver’s beam’.

Goliath’s greatest weapon is his ability to generate terror through ideological slogan shouting and hurling ad hominem grenades. ‘All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him and were much afraid,’ the Bible reports.

Cathy Newman is classic establishment. Schooling at Charterhouse, one of Britain’s poshest public schools. Mainstream media. Channel 4. Oxford. Fierce feminist. Combative interrogator. Previous stints with The Independent, Financial Times and The Washington Post. Above all, her womanhood puts her nearly at the top of the intersectionality hierarchy (she’d be at the pinnacle if she had the added virtues of a black/brown skin and was lesbian).

In David’s archetypal battle with Goliath, the underdog chooses not to use the formidable weaponry, which is the default choice of the establishment. King Saul urges David to carry his sword and armour so at least he’ll have a fighting chance. David refuses. ‘I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them,’ he tells Saul. He takes his staff and five smooth stones and puts them in his shepherd’s pouch as ammunition for his sling.

What happens next is the stuff of heroic legends and archetypal myths. David slips a stone into his sling and aims it at Goliath’s exposed forehead. Goliath crashes to the ground. David rushes towards the giant, seizes his sword and chops off his head. The Philistines see that their champion is dead, and flee.

Over the decades the Left has grown to the stature of Goliath. The Left is the Establishment. Goliath-Leftism controls school and university, media, Parliament (even the so-called Conservatives), Hollywood and the church (even the so-called Evangelicals). ‘For at least the last hundred years, the world’s most dynamic religion has been neither Christianity nor Islam. It is leftism,’ writes Dennis Prager.

‘It dominates the thinking of Europe, much of Latin America, Canada, and Asia, as well as the thinking of the political and intellectual elites of most of the world. Outside of the Muslim world, it is virtually the only way in which news is reported and virtually the only way in which young people are educated from elementary school through university,’ Prager adds.

Virtually nobody dares to take on the Left in its own gladiatorial bear pits. Those who do die the death of a thousand cruel caricatures (alt-right, homophobe, Islamophobe, sexist, bigot, racist, misogynist, transphobe) and are burned at the media stake as heretics.

But in the ultimate analysis the heavy armour and artillery of the Left is simply a delusional and fictional inferno of hysterical and apocalyptic fearmongering based on a wretchedly flawed and failed ideology. A well-trained projectile warrior with a slingshot and a few pebbles of facts, logic, and philosophical nous can demolish a dubious façade of straw men, meaningless slogans, monumental untruths, moral relativism, the scaffolding of victimhood and an intellect crippled by a lack of regular interaction with truth.

Medical experts now tell us that the biblical Goliath is suffering from a serious medical condition called acromegaly. The pituitary gland overproduces a growth hormone – which explains Goliath’s giant size. Acromegaly has a common side effect – severely restricted sight or double vision. Goliath cannot clearly see David coming towards him with his slingshot. He is comfortable in his armour – which actually renders him slow and sluggish. David wins because he chooses not to play by Goliath’s rules.

Cathy Newman loses because her vision is so blurred and distorted by Leftism and feminism that she cannot clearly see Jordan Peterson coming towards her with the most elemental pebble-like truths, i.e. men and women are different. Most conservatives see the Left as giants that cannot be defeated. But the very thing that gives the Left its size – its hardcore fundamentalist ideology that brooks no interrogation, facts, or truth – is also the source of its greatest weakness.

That is why Delingpole is correct in suggesting that Peterson’s archetypal battle with Newman ‘marks a pivotal victory in the culture wars – an incident in which the weaknesses of the regressive left have never been more cruelly or damningly exposed’.


    • I don’t either, she was bested on the day. But how many articles do we need about what was, at the end of the day a book promotion? I understand that The Right wish to discredit Channel 4 because they don’t like view, but how many more articles does that need?

      • Ha! As though the Left don’t spin out stories ad nauseum for their perceived political advantage. The Left like to dish it out but always whine when on the receiving end. You better get used to it.

          • I think you mean a book promo.

            Interesting how you are trying to play down the significance of the interview. Do you really not see what others can see? Was David’s victory over Goliath nothing more than a little backyard scrap between a couple of belligerent guys, and it didn’t really matter who won?

          • Peterson wanted a meaningful discussion, so he didn’t win.
            Newman did lose, though. And it was such hard work for her, while Peterson observed, as clinical psychologists do.
            And we could observe the clinical psychologist observing.

          • Are you familiar with reductionism? This is where complex subjects are dissected until one particular feature or thread can be identified which can be manipulated so as to suit a conclusion that the reductionist wants to be reached. In this case, you are reducing Professor Peterson’s motive for taking part in the interview to the solitary desire to promote his book, when in the real world this was almost certainly only one of many factors which formed part of his considerations when deciding to do the interview.

            In fact, Professor Peterson himself describes a case of Cathy Newman’s reductionism fairly early in the interview, when they are discussing what is described as the “gender gap” in salaries. As the Professor explained, it is just not intellectually correct to conclude that the apparent differences in salaries between men and women doing similar jobs must be due entirely to there being a patriarchy that is set on preserving a falsehood that men are more capable than women. From memory, I think he explained that in his studies in this area he and his team have identified 18 different factors influencing differential salary levels, of which gender was merely one, and not a very important one at that.

          • Not sure about the point of this comment? (Are you sure that is the definition of Reductionism?) And in case you hadn’t noticed, I said he gave a great interview, and clearly bested her.

          • Well, the point is that you’ve gone down the same path used by Leftists the world over of attempting to take any weight or impact out of encounters that you have lost by falsely attributing them with trivial or banal status. Yes, Professor Peterson has just written a book, and yes the interview almost certainly would not have happened if he hadn’t got a new book out on the shelves, but you are perpetrating a fallacy of origins, from the same stable as the ad hominem fallacy, by attempting to establish that as the interview included the promotion of a book, no part of the discussion can possibly be of any significance or importance because, well, it was only a book promotion.

            And yes, reductionism has a broader meaning than that which I gave, but in the specific instance of identifying what it was that in this case you were trying to do the abbreviated definition that I used was what was required.

          • What have I lost? What have ‘the left’ lost. It did, does, will have have a banal status, other than inspiring an odd amount of guff from right and left.

          • The Left have lost some of the aura of respectableness they have worked obsessively over the years to get attached to the simplistic rhetoric they have falsely been passing off as profound and reasoned argument. It will only be fellow-Leftists who will refuse to see that Cathy Newman was made to look like an intellectual novice by Jordan Peterson – like someone who doesn’t actually have the wherewithal to be able to engage in an adult discussion about subjects which are impacted by the irrational political prejudices she treats as though they are certainties.

            To those who saw the interview from a previously unaligned position, what will be seen is an important and supposedly mature Channel 4 journalist behaving like a mental teenager when confronted by a grown-up who wasn’t prepared to allow himself to be bullied by the combination of adult status and adolescent intolerance – the combination that the Left uses all the time to cow its critics into an acceptance of powerlessness.

            This particular incident may not seem very much in its own right, but, as they say, tall oaks from little acorns grow.

          • And the request that you deal with the issue of your possible use of a fallacy of origins? Are you going to engage with this?

          • It must have been Channel 4’s decision to promote the book, if that is indeed what they were doing. I didn’t see any promotion; Peterson’s lectures in London and his book were a convenient occasion to bring him to the studio to be destroyed, with the gratifying result that we saw.

      • Seriously!
        I refer you to the msm in the US who have pushed the Russian collusion narrative daily for over a year now but what else would you expect from ideological zealots.

      • We need a couple of thousand more articles on this, because as Dr Gomes points out this replicates an ‘archetypal’ story and the potential of such archetypes in unending. That is why they are archetypes.

      • Yes, Agreed. A book promotion but so much more. This is just the beginning of the push back against political correctness and FOR free speech. This man is so important.

          • You’ll find, Colonel, that one of the Left’s instant go-tos whenever they hear something they don’t like is to attempt to ridicule it by claiming that there is only a binary choice between the two extremes of a particular state of affairs. In this case it’s the claim that speech is either free or it’s not free, and so anything other than having ones tongue cut out allows one to speak, meaning that one has freedom of speech.

            I had friend Guevara take a similar line about authoritarianism a few days ago. His line was that if you have any freedoms whatsoever you cannot be living under authoritarianism.

            For anyone interested, this piece of false reasoning is covered by by Dishonest Trick Number 18 in Robert Thouless’s “Straight and Crooked Thinking” – “The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between the two extremes presented”

          • Are they victims, though? The radical feminists would claim that they are, but I wonder if the genuinely believe this or whether they are just attempting once again to destabilise Western society by stirring up the apolitical masses by creating fake injustices which so many are eager to embrace as it allows them to avoid having to take responsibility for their own lack of successes in life.

          • Well, like so much else that you seem to claim to “know”, you are incorrect. Leftism may, theoretically, be about the eventual construction of Utopia, but there is no place whatsoever in modern Leftism for supporting the following of a path to Utopia that consists of arguing for moderation or improvement of the methods of liberal market democracy.

            No, Leftists live a lie every day, because they have to pretend that their political recommendations are genuine actions designed to make one-step improvements, when in reality they are devious actions designed to harm and destabilise liberal market democracy so as to bring about its collapse, at which stage the idea is that the Left rides in like a white knight and imposes the sort of totalitarian dictatorialism that the Left claims to be the pre-requisite for achieving Paradise on Earth.

      • A book promotion may be what it was intended to be, but what actually transpired was a vivid demonstration of how one side of the political fence, the Left, has rejected any idea that feelings need to be supported by logic, facts and reasoning before they become be worthy of inclusion as central features of the serious considerations that go on in the arena of grown-up politics.

      • Perhaps, had Channel 4 not perpetuated the issue by trying to twist the narrative by falsely claiming that Mx. Newman had received so many online threats, it might have quietened down quite a few articles earlier. Their own deceit, however, just keep its rolling.

  1. Very good article.

    One small quibble, affecting the gist and fundamentals of your position nor article not at all :

    Medical experts now tell us that the biblical Goliath is suffering from a serious medical condition called acromegaly

    Acromegaly is only one potential cause of the condition more properly called gigantism. One of the most common sure, but not the only one.

  2. (she’d be at the pinnacle if she had the added virtues of a black/brown skin and was lesbian)….a man of God said this? Religion is now dead, thankfully.

    • So you are lauding the divisive ‘virtues’ of intersectionality? You believe a certain melanin pigmentation or a certain sexual orientation makes someone superior or more moral?

        • You are putting words in his mouth, just like Cathy Newman did. Peterson is an intellectual. He chooses his words very carefully.

        • The author is saying that is the way ‘intersectionality’ works. He is not saying that is the way the ‘world’ works.

          • A distinction which the modern Leftist arguer will fail to recognise or accept, because to do so would be to take one of his/her/its barbs away, and as we all know, anything that takes one of the Left’s barbs away cannot possibly be correct.

    • It’s the truth ! This is the state to which the “left” have reduces us . The truth should set us free but in the insane world of the liberal left it condemns us to abuse and hatred !

      • Truth is always hated and abused, that does not mean we should change our stand against the lies of Leftism.

      • The leftist social engineering which has introduced Islam in quantity into Europe has been a ghastly error. Like most leftist engineering, but especially so.

        The left’s hatred of Western, which is to say Christian Civilisation, has blinded it to the disaster that Islam is and increasingly will be to the West and our country in particular.

        There will come a time when Christian Europe will be looked back on wistfully as a golden age even by leftists,

        Probably when they are having their throats cut by adherents of the Religion of Peace.’

        • “The left’s hatred of Western, which is to say Christian Civilisation, has blinded it to the disaster that Islam is and increasingly will be to the West and our country in particular.”

          Oh I think that the disaster brought about by Islam is by Leftist design, not an unexpected by-product of Leftist engineering. The millions of useful idiots oiling the Left’s advance are almost certainly unaware of the real intentions of the Left’s organ-grinders, but the organ-grinders themselves are of course fully aware of the strategy for Western destabilisation and collapse which is Stage 1 of the Left’s planned acquisition of power.

        • Yes, I agree, but people like Ms Jenni Wren who loathe Christianity, will fall prostrate before Islam and jump into bed with the most abominable forms of female oppression.

    • How do you define ‘man of God’? What is the job description of a ‘man of God’ if not to be prophetic and like the biblical prophets call out the big lies and idolatrous systems of our day. The Reverend is simply doing his job and fulfilling the biblical description of a ‘man of God’. Coming to think of it, he is not doing anything special.

      ‘Religion is now dead’. Do you live in cloud cuckoo land? Islam is growing and taking over all of Europe and all of Europe is bending backwards to satisfy its ever increasing demands. Religion is dead! You much be joking!

    • If by ‘religion’ you mean Christianity and if you qualify that it is Christianity in Western Europe, you are correct. But if by ‘religion’ you include other religions like Islam, you could not be more crashingly wrong. This morning’s newspapers report that ‘Muhammad’ is now the most popular name for a baby in Germany. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. Sorry, Jenni, I’m sure you find that very disappointing.

      • If by ‘religion’ you mean Christianity and if you qualify that it is Christianity in Western Europe, you are correct


        People treat Nietzsche’s “God is dead” stuff as if it were somehow “meaningful”.

        Meanwhile, Roman Missal : “We proclaim your Death, O Lord

    • “Religion is now dead, thankfully.”

      What? Leftism is the most intrusive religion that the world has ever seen.

  3. Lovely analogies. However, I think Peterson’s victory was in one small battle, and the war is still being lost. Look at the official responses to The Presidents Club Charity Dinner allegations – anyone near it almost died in the stampede to distance themselves from the event and the ensuing mob-rule #metoo brigade. There is not just one Goliath – there is an army of them, and they reside openly in just about every opinion-forming body in the land- schoolteachers, universities, newspapers, terrestrial TV news, charities, think-tanks, local government, Parliament and the House of Lords. The dominant quasi-religious dogma for the last 50 years has been leftist doctrine, and unfortunately it shows no sign of releasing its grip any time soon.

    • Let us not be pessimistic. We have the power of the truth and Truth always wins! Small victories mean the beginning of the end of Leftism. Look at all those who are fighting these battles against Leftism… they are helping us to see the truth and ultimately the truth will prevail.

      • Quite right. Even the Guardian (d’Ancona) are championing the exchange between Peterson and Newman as a victory and step in the right direction for free speech and open debate. And most of the btl comments are strongly in favour of that view as well as supportive of Peterson / critical of the weakness of Newman’s debating skills.
        … a veritable earthquake has occurred.

      • In these times, I think of the truth as a culverted river – just because it’s been forgotten about by most people doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and you ignore its power at your peril.

    • A Mx. Jane Merrick has written in the Telegraph in criticism of the President’s Club Charity Dinner.
      It is being ripped to shreds in the comments section over the hypocrisy of women, with most citing instances of women being just as depraved as the men she critices.

    • So then let those among us who know better pick up the pace. Let us contend for the truth with increased vigor, intelligence, and moral integrity. We can be relentlessly upbeat knowing that, ultimately, the Truth will win out. We just don’t know when.

  4. My daughter encouraged me to watch a Channel 4 series ‘Derry Girls’, which is riotously funny. I would love to see Newman pitch her nonsense against these outrageously non-PC girls. They’d have her sobbing in the shreds of her vanity.

  5. Peterson has now analysed CN’s interview – it’s very, very interesting. Google ‘Jordan Peterson analyzes Cathy Newman Dose of Truth youtube’. It’s the first quarter of a long vid, but the whole thing is worth listening to is you have the time.

  6. The left get owned in a televised discussion.
    The left then redirect the story so they are the victims.
    The perpetrator is vilified and made persona non grata.
    The mob is invoked and moral outrage and threats are implied.
    His engagements are cancelled due to safety concerns.
    His book is boycotted and removed from stores.
    Nobody in the UK will now invite him back.
    Government caves and bans him from the UK.
    The UK moves further from the light.

        • Lonely at the top. Jesus understands.
          I think it was Augustine of Hippo who wrote: “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

    • Nanny May is giving another speech about the evils of people being allowed to express themselves on the internet. We all know what this rotten government means when it talks about “extremism”.

      • The current so called conservative government are far more dangerous in pushing the marxist narrative than Corbyn. You can see him and his fanatics coming whereas this government is doing the same whilst flying a false flag.

    • UKCitizen – maybe we have reached a tipping point.

      Peterson has said he gets stopped in the street and thanked for his videos, with ‘you have helped me turn my life around – you showed me the right direction – etc. Mostly, but not all, young men.

      What a surprise!

    • You have just described Vox Day’s ‘What is an SJW’ perfectly. No attempt at discussion, no allusion to the truth, just mob rule and destruction of anything that goes against the narrative.
      Good comment.

    • The scurrilous attempt by Channel 4 to subvert the issue with false claims of abuse of Newman have been shown for what they are.

      “Cathy Newman’s feminist fans aimed 30 times more violent sexist abuse at Peterson & his supporters than vice-versa”

      And these shameless, lying blackguards claim to be running a news programme.

      • Theresa May is supposed to be keen on tackling the problem of fake news. Will she hold up Channel 4 as an example of what is wrong?

        Actually I think that there is more chance of her appointing Cathy Newman to be the head of a new quango for “exposing” fake news.

    • And Jules Gomes and TCW are truly pointing toward the light. And I am gratified (if surprised) that so many commenters are supportive of his words and those of Prof. Peterson. There are not as many PC trolls here as I would have suspected, just a couple of attention-hounds who are against everything decent.

  7. Paul Weston’s video re Peterson / Newman is the best out there. Weston doesn’t just take Cathy Newman to task, he targets the Left in its entirety. And its funny to boot! Re the Gotcha moment finally dawning on Ms Newman “”’as the cogs ground slowly within the treacly mush of her proapagandised brain” See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6OBI5JBITM

  8. Excellent article, Dr Gomes! To add to your list of why Prof Jordan Peterson is at the bottom of the ‘dungheap of intersectionality,’ he also claims to believe in God. This would qualify him as a despicable worm in the eyes of the Left. In one of his podcasts he says: ‘I knew that the cross was simultaneously, the point of greatest suffering, the point of death and transformation, and the symbolic centre of the world.’ Cathy Newman is most likely an agnostic or an atheist. This makes polishes her Establishment credentials even more and pushes her many notches higher on this ladder of intersectionality. It makes her immensely respectable in the eyes of the Left.

    • Very true. I would like to add that had her brains and beauty been employed to serve the Truth, she would not have looked so miserable. I found the interview most hilarious and pitiable at the same time. She was interviewing one of the most acclaimed intellectuals of our time and all that she could do was to ask the same Leftist questions over and over again, without pausing to respond to Jordan Peterson’s answers. She looked and sounded like a stuck record player. It was really funny because her shallowness showed so badly that she looked pitiable. Channel 4’s strategy to assign the interview to her than to Krishnan Gurumurthy (not that he is better than her) must have been to let look Cathy a female victim of Jordan Peterson’s conservative views. This is so very Leftist… turning things around and making truth look like a lie… this is the devil’s strategy and it has been and will continually be exposed.

      • “Brains and beauty”: you cast a lot of doubt over the quality of her brains. As for beauty, she was very presentable dressed, coiffed, etc, as you would expect, but the structure of her face is quite masculine if you imagine it without the makeup and careful hairstyle.

      • “this is the devil’s strategy and it has been and will continually be exposed.”

        Let us hope you are right. I’m quietly confident that you are, but the thing about Leftism is that in essence it’s an adolescent construction, requiring an immaturity of thought that precludes the admission of doubt or fallibility.

        The mature mind can never persuade a Leftist of the weaknesses of the Left’s position because the mature mind doesn’t speak the same language as the Leftist mental adolescent’s.

        And so, to my mind, the only acceptable answer is for mature minds to recognise that there can be no survival for humanity if we continue to allow the cultural and educational hierarchies to follow the concept that the only workable society is one consisting of a large mob of effectively powerless perma-children, being herded and controlled by an authoritarian elite.

    • Shame, isn’t it, because what it shows is that Cathy Newman (like many of her colleagues and those on the Beeb, Sky and ITV) don’t have a single independent thought in their head and are, at best, puppets worked this way and that by their skilled marionettists. I think many of us who watch these broadcasts know that they are being played but the fact that they allow it shows each and every one of these leftist presenters to be weak willed and stupid.

    • I don’t know what Cathy Newman thinks on the subject of the existence of God but the left would have no problem with her believing in God if she were a Muslim.

  9. I haven’t yet seen this interview (probably because it’ll make me angry) but I know what it’s like to debate with SJW’s. They’re like monoprogrammed systems – robots run off a single line of code, unable to compute anything which runs outside an existing line of argument. Confuse them with facts, turn the argument on its head or run the debate from source information or external factors and the SJW just cannot compute. If you look hard enough, you can see their minds furiously working in overload. That is why many of them go for the insults or, in journalism, repetition. Give an SJW something else to think of and if they don’t have it in their memory banks, they’re stumped.

    • It was kind of funny when I saw it without knowing the ending. Now, knowing the ending, I can’t help smiling.
      Newman lost as she failed in her Feminist objectives.
      Peterson has said since that he hasn’t won because his objective was to have a meaningful discussion, which he didn’t have. He also said that he would like a follow up discussion where they would hopefully have meaningful discussion.

      • I’d say that’s wishful thinking on Peterson’s behalf. If he wants a meaningful debate, maybe he should try another source – perhaps TCW?

      • Actually Peterson was gracious to her, he could have finished her off with his towering intellect and his ability to argue and debate… she was such silly little thing acting like a giant… really funny.

    • It’s worth watching. My favourite part was when he described differences in males and females and that males were more disagreeable and females were more agreeable in temperament. But that there was some overlap and she was clearly in the disagreeable camp. She then had to agree with him that she was disagreeable! He also asked her why it was OK for him to be made uncomfortable with her confrontational style of interview, but not OK for him to be confrontational.

      • He also said being smart was another indicator of success…I’m getting the impression she was either the result of some sort of affirmative action or her ‘disagreeableness’ was sufficient is size to compensate for the lack of smarts..

      • Cathy made a fool of herself by sticking to her Leftist, Feminist agenda (which means destructive agenda) because it backfired on her in such a hilarious manner… I would love to watch this interview again to see how the mighty Channel 4 have fallen.

    • You REALLY ought to, you need to treat yourself, it is everything you describe but in colour and with Peterson very calmly and reasonably gently, picking her up when she runs off the rug and places her back in the middle like she is an disobedient grumpy baby .and there is even an actual ‘got ya!’ moment as well..
      Even better than the abbot being skewered by the brillo in the labour leadership interviews.

    • SJWs in debates are basically Roomba vacuum cleaners. All they know to do is wander around the room sucking. If something gets in their way they simple head off mindlessly in another direction still sucking.

  10. Once again Reverend Jules Gomes thank you for a well written piece.
    We need more moments like this to halt and then roll back the tide of PC and the left-liberal world view that is so damaging to the west.

  11. Well, yes, but . . . we have to ask what has changed as a result of the interview?

    The Leftist philistines haven’t ‘fled the field’ as per the story. If anything, they’ve dug themselves into their bunkers even more deeply, and they’ve come out fighting dirty (with the mysterious alt-right “threats” supposedly made against Newman which don’t actually exist.)

    Leftism isn’t a Goliath, it’s more like an army of billions of unfeeling automatons like the machines in the 2004 film ‘I Robot.’

  12. Part of this phenomenom reveals the hunger for an effective political leader with the guts to stand up and challenge the Left. Search for one in the so-called Conservative party in vain. And UKIP is self destructing with the underwhelming Bolton.

    • He’ll be gone soon. Then hopefully we can do what we didn’t last time and elect Kurten, get behind him, finally unite as a party and move forwards. Bolton has been as effective as a rice paper condom.

    • But not a man who sneers and exhibits his passive aggression on a female presenter
      Like the Presidents Club he should be shut down

      • So you are saying that Cathy Newman should also be shut down like Hen Nights with male strippers? All in the interests of Gender Equality of course.

      • Your posts indicate that you are the president of the Sneerers Club. So are you jealous of Peterson or just confused by his success?

  13. There must be no sympathy for Newman. She set out to destroy Professor Peterson, his reputation, his career, his family, his friends, his life – with ridicule, lies, accusations and labels. Having failed miserably, she is not repentant in the least. Far from it, she is trying to paint herself as the victim. She will try to destroy others in the future – many time over (the whole of Channel 4 is like this). She should be shown no mercy but exposed for what she is – corrupt, malicious, poisonous, evil and an enemy of the truth.

    • Yes, regrettable though it is, I fear you are right. It seems to me that there is nothing that can be done in the way of human decency – of friendliness, accommodation, or pleasantness that will result in the modern Left accepting that they must respect their critics as fellow human beings. History is littered with similar fanatics who were just as self-righteous as the modern Left, and just as unwilling to accept that they possess the same flaws as every other human being possesses.

      They must be defeated, because otherwise they will defeat the rest of us, and this is unthinkable.

    • Hear! Hear! I wish I had my regiment of tanks so I could crush her and ilk completely. I agree. ‘There must be no sympathy for Newman.’

    • Have you seen the breakdown of the ‘threats’? There were far, far more threats from RadFems against Peterson.

      “Cathy Newman’s feminist fans aimed 30 times more violent sexist abuse at Peterson & his supporters than vice-versa.
      This is a stunt the Feminists always try to do when they lose, when they are the worst for it.

      • The victim card is very useful at least with Newman’s like thinkers. This stratagem does imply that Newman was up against a more powerful opponent however.

        I think it is highly significant that it is Newman who was in the interviewer / presenter chair.

        While I can think of plenty of people with Newman-style assumptions in such positions, I can’t think of a single Peterson-style person in a similar position on British TV.

  14. I’m very interested in an interview (*) with Professor Peterson done a couple of days into the furore over the first interview. In it he suggests that what he thinks ought to happen is that he and Cathy Newman do a second interview, on camera, in which there is an actual discussion taking place, in contrast to what happened the first time.

    I don’t know whether Mr Peterson considers such a suggestion to be a serious possibility, or if he is speaking tongue in cheek, and just keeping up the pressure on the Leftist SJW’s and radical feminists as represented by Ms Newman. It seems to me that there is more likelihood of coming across a hen with teeth than for anyone from Ms Newman’s side of the fence accepting that they need to enter discussions with an acceptance that there is a danger that their reasoned arguments may be inadequate to avoid being defeated.


    • Very true. The problem with Newman (and her ilk) is that they face people with a plethora of ideas, opinions and facts where they can only bark out ‘EXTERMINATE!’
      This is why they will always lose. Until they break loose the strings and operate as a thinking human being, they will continue to lose.

      • But they won’t always lose, because propaganda and “exterminate” are far more powerful persuaders of the average person than logic, facts and valid reasoning.This is why commercial advertising has become so all-embracing.

  15. Peterson was described to me by somebody who knows him as the stupid man’s smart person. (With good reason I was told.) However, even though he is not the sharpest tack in the box he has been canny enough to have found a lucrative bandwagon to jump aboard and since his academic work is neither respected, ground breaking or significant, who could blame him for trying cash in as best and for however long as he is able?

    I don’t blame him; a sucker is born every minute.

    Peterson is a man who has obviously embraced his inner lobster. How he manges to write and utter such twaddle and keep a straight face, resisting the temptation to burst into laughter spontaneously, is remarkable. Such self-control, if nothing else, deserves praise.

      • It probably is the best the turtle can do, unfortunately, because insults and name-calling are probably at the pinnacle of the argumentational abilities he she or it possesses.

        • I think you must be new to this site. I feel that I should warn you that this site is ALL about insults, name calling and such like. Venting spleen is this website’s raison d’etre. If you read more of articles and especially the comment stream you will realise I am telling you no lies.

          Personally I think this is a good thing.

          Cathartic even.

          • No, I’m not new to the site, and insults and name-calling are the hallmarks of Leftist argument when they can’t be bothered to put the effort into concocting a pack of lies and misrepresentations in support of their case.

            None of this is totally exclusive to the Left of course, but it’s all the Left seems to be capable of doing, which I suppose is indicative of the fact that the claims the Left wishes to make are incapable of justification within any of the mature, intellectual processes by which proper people enhance their knowledge and understanding, and resolve their differences.

      • Of course not. But its is pretty much all that a character like Jordan Peterson merits as far as I am concerned.

          • Every man and woman deserves the right to hold their own opinon. You know mine in respect to Jordan Peterson and I know yours about me. That’s what living in a free country should be all about and I am glad to have given you a chuckle.


          • Hear, hear.

            God save the Queen!

            (Although there is no God, of course, and I am not a monarchist but a republican).

          • I quite like the Queen and Phillip, I don’t go for much else.

            As for a Creator, I like to stand outside on a dark night and wonder.

          • If we’re being honest I admire the Queen for her unblemished record of tireless public service and Meghan Markle, soon to be Dutchess of Somewhere-or-other, for different reasons.

            Prince Harry is a VERY lucky fellow.

            Sadly, given Ms Markle’s politics and views, it can only be a matter of time before she begins getting slated on this blog, which is a pity.

    • If you were 1/zillionth as clever as Peterson, you would find something more productive to do and not spend most of your time in a basement living a pathetic life as a troll.

      • Says a man who has wasted hours and hours reading articles and making copious pointless comments on this very site. Pot – kettle; kettle – pot. You make me smile, General. Thank you.

      • That would take too long and, to be honest, would be as useless an endevour as trying to disuade the devout from believing in religion or any cultist from disengaging from their cult. You folks have quaffed too much of the Kool-aid to be saved, although your credulity, silliness, tempers and tantrums still have the power to amuse.

        • HAHAHAHA… I could rebuff all of his arguments, but it would take too long and you’re all too thick and gullible to understand.

          Great work.

          Tell me. How often do you find in discussions that you may have with people that screaming, ‘you’re just too stupid to understand,’ works?

          Calling people names has been shown to be a disastrously bad way to campaign or convince people of the merits of one’s viewpoint. I’d refer you to the Remain side in the Brexit debate and to Saint Hillary of Clinton the establishment’s pre-anointed 45th President of the USA – whoops.

          • Amen, brother. And I bet you feel much relieved after releasing that waft of malodorous gas.

            Better out than in, as they say.

            (EU membersip excluded of course.)

        • You who presume to sit in judgment on the academic credentials of a man rather than answer his arguments. You need to learn to spell. ‘Endevour’ and ‘disuade’ in the preceding post are hurting my eyes.

          • Fair comment.

            In mitigation: I am a poor and careless typist, dyslexic, with a spellcheck that doesn’t work (on this site) in my Opera browser and nearsight that leaves much to be desired, even when corrected by prescription lenses.

            I aplogise for previous and doubtless future errors in grammar, punctuation, syntax and spelling. The impressionable, young, punctilious and those of nervous disposition are best advised not to read my comments.

        • Ed Miliband taught there too. And Perterson was only guesting as an assistant professor I believe who had to return to his native Canada in order to get tenure.

          • The University of California at Berkeley is worse. The place is rife with lefties, gays and, sexually-liberated, politically-correct, pro-choice feminists, armed to the gills with Apple Macs built by sweated labour in China.

            The horror…

            (On the briught side I feel that it’s only fair to mention that a good number of the aforementioned feminists do put out on a regular basis… so not all bad… from my perspective at least.)

          • Harvard was founded by white protestants in order to train clergy. It has gradually but thoroughly left these roots behind, like so many of the elite Ivy League institutions.

      • No. But then Peterson is only a clinical psychologist “working” in the soft sciences. There are academics and academics and as far as academia is concerned Perterson is a serf rather than some kind of Platonic philosopher king.

        I am tempted to list some left-wing professors in economics and similar who are highly critical of Brexit and/or Doanld Trump, but I doubt that many on this forum would be interested in their opinions evon though they might be superficially academically distinguised.

        • It is true that there is considerable evidence out there that many people with significant academic credentials are very, very much in error. Academic credentials show an ability to do well in school; but they can write many books and be 100% wrong. Each must be evaluated on their rationality, their use of true and accepted facts, and on their moral judgment— not on how many letters are behind their name.

          • Agreed. Please endevour not to make me agree with you again since such a state of affairs is probably displeasing to both of us.

          • But how can I stop when you provide such a perfectly droll response! The entertainment value alone is priceless.

    • Having given due consideration to your post, and having taken time to mull over its points, I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that you’re wishfull thinking is utter bollocks.

    • Peterson responded to Cathy’s questions / attacks by the simple expedient of being carefully academic in his replies.

      He had the considerable advantage of knowing what he was talking about when Cathy knew only her ideology.

      • A brief and casual interview is never the best way to question someone like Peterson about their ideas. If public broadcasters want to mount an entertaining programme and offer Peterson a platform to have his say, an hour-long debate with a more informed invited audience would be better in my opinion.

        (Much as has happened previously with worse and even more controversial and sometimes repellent figures, e.g., Professor David Marsland.)

        I would watch a programme like that with a box of tissues to mop tears of mirth from my eyes as Jordan Peterson tied himself up in knots when properly and effectively questioned.

          • Most of the articles and almost the entire comment stream are what I hade in mind, including a small number of my own more hasty and less scrupulous contributions.

            I only lie when absolutely necessary, usually in order to spare a person (or persons) pain or distress and never to make money, achieve celebrity, or notoriety, à la a character like Jordan Peterson, and not credulous of gullible enough to give credence to fabrications.

            Jordan Peterson will probably end up leading a cult. And is already, in my opinion, best described by a word with a very similar similar spelling.

    • I am shocked at your ignorance and audacity which I think go together that without watching Peterson or listening to any of his lectures you are pontificating. It needs brains to understand him and also an unbiased mindset to appreciate what he is trying to say. Young people who are left without a sense of purpose and are lost in many ways in the Western world are finding purpose for their life listening to him and you think he is stupid? Did you ever study psychology or philosophy or did you ever have any decent education? Being a Leftist, you may not need these. To be Leftist all you need is regurgitate what the celebs and mainstream media are shouting at the top of their voices. If you have not read or heard Peterson, it would be really decent to shut your mouth and not pontificate.

      • You read like a gay teenager defending his first serious ne’er-do-well same-sex boyfriend, Mr Lydia. I am afraid that I do not rate psychology and the soft sciences as highly as the hard and the pure sciences and, as far as the former are concerned don’t rate Peterson at all.

        Certainly as a social commentator anyway. As a comedian on the other hand, well, that of course is an entirely different story.

    • Impoverished tripe, even for you. If you were as clever as you think you are you probably would not have written that.

  16. I’ve finally watched the interview and Peterson was excellent. Newman had no idea how to deal with him or how to control him. When he gave her facts and statistics, she quickly changed the conversation in order to gain some, for want of a better word, harder ground for herself but was beaten down on every topic of conversation.
    How the left can have a problem with that interview, I find semi-mystifying. He wasn’t rude, he wasn’t provocative and he worded every answer carefully. However, the left would have wanted Newman to get him to agree that the pay gap was unfair and was all about gender; they’d have wanted Newman to force him to apologise on trans-gender law. The fact that Peterson stood by his views and analysis (based on many years research) was admirable.
    One of Newman’s early assertions was crazy. She seemed to be suggesting that, just because Peterson’s audience was mostly male, he was divisive. How can anyone in the public eye control who listens to/watches/reads their work? It’s an absolute impossibility and crazy to suggest that it can be controlled.
    Newman would do well to watch that interview back and/or read the transcript. She’d then realise that the accusations she threw at Peterson, on what she deemed he had said or not, were false. Though she won’t do either. The lefty in her wouldn’t allow that.

    • “How the left can have a problem with that interview, I find semi-mystifying. He wasn’t rude, he wasn’t provocative and he worded every answer carefully.”

      Well, he didn’t surrender to the Left, nor did he eat humble pie and admit that the feelings-derived political outlook of the Left is infinitely superior to the factual, logical, observational, reasoned and intellectually valid political outlook that Peterson and his supporters consider to be the more appropriate of the two.

      To the Left this makes him a heretic, for whom anything short of being hanged, drawn and quartered is nothing less than he deserves.

    • *Does best Cathy Newman voice*

      So what you’re saying is that Peterson should be locked up for attempted murder.

    • Its because he did so well, so objectively, that Channel 4 News resorted to trying to twist the narrative by claiming Newman had received threats from Peterson supporters. A claim which has been proved to have been just the opposite of the truth, with RadFems threatening Peterson.

      • Whenever these claims of online bullying – as if that’s a real thing that an adult shouldn’t be able to deal with by simply muting or blocking – are made the evidence is never produced. Where are the screen caps of these death threats and vile misogynist abuse that they claim? IF they had them they’d publish them.

        I’ve had Scot Nats organise pile-ons on me on twitter during the indy referendum and since. As soon as the discussion turns south and it’s clear that they aren’t there to discuss but abuse I simply mute them. I’ll discuss things robustly with anyone and never back down unless I’ve posted something that is subsequently shown to be demonstrably false. I mute rather than block as that way they continue to scream into the void.

  17. Absolutely not as it was
    Mysogynist transphobe Peterson sneered and passively aggressively attacked poor Cathy, showing him up as the bully he is
    He should be ashamed

    • Well, you have been well and truly flushed out into the open. I bet you regret having written that.

      • Control freaks like telemachus and “assiciates” are also caught in the grip of a repetition compulsion. They repeat the same pattern again and again in their attempt to master their anxiety and cope with the trauma they feel. Characteristically, the repetition compulsion takes on a life of its own. Rather than feel calmer and therefore have a diminished need to be controlling, their behaviour locks them into the same pattern in an insatiable way. Successes at controlling do not register on their internal scoreboard. They have to fight off the same perceived threat* again and again with increasing rigidity and intransigence.

        *People who hold different political views and express them in places like this

        • Such repetition is a symptom of compulsivity… which is always the result of insecurity and anxiety.

    • Haven’t you written one of your usual 600 word polemics about it? Shame, I needed something to add another layer to the Mirror and the Guardian I’ve got at the bottom of my bird cage.

      • Not the real David Lindsay but telemachus and “associates”. That just one of many inept disguises. If it had been written in bold type it could have appeared under yet another name.

        • Thanks Colonel. So we may have a contribution from the real David Lindsay to look forward to. Goody, goody gum drops!

      • Bad idea to ask for lessons in how to do so.

        Passive-aggressives (and I am one myself BTW) need no advice in how to do so, whilst others might be directly harmed by its availability.

        PS Dr Peterson is NOT a passive-aggressive.

    • Tell me, at what point in that interview did Peterson, as you put it, ‘passively, aggressively’ attack Cathy Newman and at what point was he being misogynistic? I watched it in its entirety and saw no misogyny, though I detected misandry from the rabid feminist opposite him.
      I’ll hazard a guess and say that not only did you not watch the interview but have taken comments from Cathy Newman’s supporters and, in typical SJW fashion, have run with the usual bandwagoning.
      If you’re going to comment then at least do it from the perspective of knowledge.

      • “If you’re going to comment then at least do it from the perspective of knowledge.”

        He’d be unique among Leftists if he were to follow this piece of advice.

        • It does not require knowledge to reply to posters whose stance is not one of fact but one of ad hominem

          • Which reply? Which poster(s)? What stance? Why do you consider it to be an ad hominem fallacy?

            You have three hours, starting from ……… now!

          • Look in the mirror, hypocrite. You are the one who accused Peterson of being a “mysogynist transphobe”!! Name calling and personal insults are the refuge of those with no rational arguments.

      • From start to finish, he treated Cathy as if the interview was beneath him. He constantly sought to undermine the interviewer rather than put arguments. He delighted when Cathy transiently lost her words and from that point simply sneered

        • Well it wasn’t really an interview to start with. Cathy Newman and Channel 4 thought they could damage his reputation and following by doing a hatchet job on him, but if they considered at all in advance what might happen, then they misjudged how this highly capable and articulate man would be likely to react to someone trying to bully him from a position of zero competence in the subject purportedly under discussion.

          It certainly wasn’t pretty, but I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s not before time that someone has chosen to confront the aggressive and mentally adolescent Left rather than back off and apologise to it.

        • To which I reply that you did not watch the interview. He was polite, informative and answered all her questions, including some stupid ones below the dignity of a presenter (asking whether he was divisive because most of his admirers are male should go down in the dung heap with some of the worst questions asked by anyone).

        • Since you appear to be struggling with the task set to you by Simon Stephenson, let me set a social experiment of my own.
          When your leftist friends have their next get-together (or whatever march you’re preparing for), tell them that you’ve joined UKIP.
          Your neighbours will be calling your ambulance before you’ve had time to tell them you were joking.

        • So what you’re saying is that he refused to capitulate to her browbeating and used facts and logical arguments to defend himself.
          She deserved what she got: ‘Ha! Gotcha!’ Made my day. :o)

          • Sorry the freedom loving breibart that is complaining about their hate preaching editor being banned has banned me so much for their free speech! You must ask yourself what are they scared of in what I say? Anyway you asked for my evidence I guess if good lies all you need to do is read goods articles they are full of the lies I quoted

        • He behaved like any academic would to a student who turned up for a tutorial unprepared for the topic. Newman deserved far more than she got for her total lack of unpreparedness and inability to see any viewpoint but her own.

          • Quite right. Peterson came over as an academic being academic.

            Newman relied on parroting leftist ideology which is academically lacking.

            In fairness to Newman, there was most likely an office full of researchers in the background who seem to have let her down.

            Still, it was up to her to see through what she was given, and she didn’t.

    • The fact that you use the phrase, ‘passively aggressively’, tells a story in itself. Passive aggressive behaviour has become leftist speak for anyone who dares to politely contradict their viewpoint. It is particularly useful for feminists (or those defending them) after losing a debate with any man, especially one of superior intellect, as Cathy found out.

    • It is truly heartening to see that someone of your outlook has nothing more than this with which to answer Jordan Peterson. It demonstrates how comprehensively he triumphed.

    • I think he’s an interesting chap, charismatic and very articulate. But I find him very elusive. Trying to pin down exactly what he is saying on almost anything is quite challenging. He also has an amazing ability to play both sides of the table, and attracts an enthusiastic ‘below the line’ following not just on sites like this, but also on the Guardian. Few manage to do that!

      • “Trying to pin down exactly what he is saying on almost anything is quite challenging”

        There are, I’ll admit, academics who appear to be incapable of making any statement that clarifies matters for their listeners. I don’t think that Professor Peterson is one of these. I think he’s perfectly capable of making statements that are informative and clarifying to lay audiences, but he’s also only too aware that there are tens of thousands of Leftists out there who consider themselves to be at war with him, and who will be scouring through every public comment he makes, about anything, looking to see if there is something that can fairly or unfairly be weaponised against him. And do, shrewd guy that he is, he makes sure that he doesn’t give them anything than can be weaponised against him, even though this may limit his ability to pass on knowledge and understandings.

        This, of course, is a little-discussed consequence of the stance the Left has taken . Free speech, although nominally still in place, is in reality severely curtailed by the abusive strategy that the Left employs against anyone who opposes it.

        • The other mystifying thing about him is the adulation and faith he inspires. As explified by that post.

          • Here’s what it looks like from my end at this time :

            This user is blocked.

            This user is blocked.

            This user is blocked.

            [Cassandra’s post]

            This user is blocked.

            [simonstephenson’s post]

            This user is blocked.

            This user is blocked.

            This user is blocked.

            This user is blocked.

            [Charitas Lydia, simonstephenson, you]

          • Nothing mystifying about this–Peterson speaks truth to power and he distills the best of the world’s scholarship and wisdom for the ordinary person–particularly the young male, who is starving for such rich nourishment.

          • Really? He is interesting and entertaining, but when you boil down what he is saying does it really differ that much from the rest of the ‘self help’ industry? You know, stand up straight, be the best you you can be etc. I like the bit about cats though. In the end isn’t he something of a latter day Polonius?

          • Sean, if you want to judge this man you should have the ability to compete with him. So let’s try an experiment. You go ahead and post a YouTube video or an article and let’s see how many followers you can attract. Then come back and pontificate.

          • Why? I refer you to Professor Peterson’s second rule, which amounts to stand on your own two feet and don’t define yourself in relation to others. I’m sorry I don’t do uncritical followership.

          • In your case you don’t define yourself in relation to others, because you simply can’t. You are isolated as you expose your lack of ability to think logically as is evidenced by the response to your silly comments on this website.

          • I think Polonious is denigrated unfairly. I actually think his advice is quite correct and needed.

            But then `I think there is nothing wrong with Colonel Blimp either.

          • I’m afraid Shakespeare wrote Polonious as a stupid old fool, oblivious to what was going on all around him, while spouting idiotic truisms. Little did the bard know that ‘to thine own self be true’ would become the foundation of a burgeoning self help industry!

          • I don’t think there is anything idiotic about that advice, which I suppose assumes Hamlet is a decent cove.

      • You are probably confusing Professor Jordan Peterson with Professor Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury. ‘Trying to pin down exactly what he is saying on almost anything…’ is impossible.

        • An interview of the ArchDruid by Cathy Newman might be an interesting experiment in vacuous PC waffle …

          So what you’re saying, in a very real sense, is that we should never pre-judge the contents of a question, even in the most respectful manner, before responding to what you’ve said whilst considering all boundaries between the rich and the poor, lest we shrug our shoulders and lower our expectations.

  18. A bit stupid of Newman and her employers to think that an academic trained to defend his views orally as well as in print would be a soft target. Incidentally it is not the prerogative of the person to whom you are talking to chose the pronouns you use. The language you use is personal to you although we do value courtesy of address as a sign of respect for others. Women sometimes object to being called “my dear” by men and say “I’m not your dear.” This is precisely wrong however much the woman objects. It is the man who chooses who is dear to him. This example has probably become redundant as men cringe under feminist bullying but it does illustrate the extent to which feminists are incapable of understanding the simplest of interactions between two people.

    • Exactly right. Peterson’s argument also wasn’t with the people whom he’d have to address it was with the state mandating that he must do so through a coercive and punitive law which ultimately leads to a reduction in permissible thoughts without which you cannot have fully informed and robust debates.

      • Precisely. This was something that Cathy Newman seemed to be incapable of understanding. But then, her political outlook is one that demands craven obeisance to the dictates of authority, so I suppose that it’s not unreasonable for her to be nonplussed by someone making the distinction between (a) encouraging people to be mature enough to decide autonomously to behave in a good way, and (b) enabling the State to instruct people that they must behave in a good way.

        • She would object to being cravenly submissive to authority if it was ( say) the British National Party or the EDL rather than the leftist political class we have at present.

          • Would she, I wonder? One has to consider the possibility that as with, for example, some of the court of Henry VIII, she’d fly the flag of whichever grouping happened to be in the ascendancy at the time. Sir Richard Rich, if C.J. Sansom describes him fairly, springs to mind.

        • But then, her political outlook is one that demands craven obeisance to the dictates of authority …

          In other words, only obeying orders.. Now where have I heard that expression before?

          • It’s not just being willing to “only obey orders”, it’s believing that it is quite OK to have a society in which the unquestioning obedience to orders is the overarching rule under which the hoi polloi is required to live.

    • Women sometimes object to being called “my dear” by men

      … and if so are particularly stupid with regard to Englishmen who might be quite happy to use the same expression towards anyone whose company is enjoyed.

      It’s just the equivalent in English of the French “mon cher“, “ma chère“.

  19. One of the most subtle skilled cross examinations I’ve seen was a Barrister who befriended his advisory made him feel that he was on his side, went through a string of questions which appeared kind and supportive and then finally striking like a cobra onto and unsuspecting victim lulled into a false sense of security.

    The usual way is a hostile battle which is difficult to get someone to lower their guard and open up, and this is the way Newman went.

    It’s sad because it would have been much easier for her to have taken a less hostile position, after all it’s not a courtroom, and then elicit a string of questions and answers leading her to where she needed to be, but it would appear Newman has precious legal training, and no idea of subtlety.

    In fact I wonder if she has reached her position by bullying shouting demanding, and claiming discrimination and victimisation.

    The interview struck me as a ill prepared interviewer who had an agenda and a point to make, desperate to make that point in the shortest time, and with total belief she was the only one with the right answer – she and her team failed to do their research.

    It goes back to the pathological condition of Left wing denial, they simply cannot accept that there even is another possibility, let alone that it might have more validity than theirs.

    And now we see those on the Left denying the reality of what happened. That Newman did not lose catastrophically, but that Peterson somehow bullied her and his patriarchal views oppressed hers, and of course he should be cast into the outer darkness.

    Beware readers because it is from this thinking that the greatest slaughters the world has ever seen are born from. The inability of the Left to even countenance that it might be wrong, let alone IS wrong has led communist & Fascist dictators to slaughter tens of millions of people who are blamed for their delusions failing to work they way they are supposed to and that is the real danger.

    • She did say that she had been objectionable in order to get to her position, agreeing with Peterson when he said that being difficult ( or words to that effect) was an asset in a career.

      • Exactly Cassandra, the fact she had a position is the entire problem! A good interviewer would have reached where they wanted to take the interview without being quite so hostile. All she succeeded in doing was in getting Peterson on his guard when he dropped politeness and went for her throat.

        • Perhaps the most effective interviewer I have ever heard was Jimmy Young (on Radio 2). I do not know what his position was on matters political, but he is the only interviewer who I have heard who managed to stop Mrs. Thatcher, at the peak of her powers, and his style was friendly and chatty, while his, “Hang about, Margaret, you haven’t answered the question.” interjection got Mrs. T back to the question he had asked.

    • “It goes back to the pathological condition of Left wing denial, they simply cannot accept that there even is another possibility, let alone that it might have more validity than theirs.”

      But is it a pathological adult condition on the part of the Left, or is it that they are locked in a pre-adult mentality (their cognitive development having been arrested short of Piaget’s Formal Operational Stage, perhaps?), having never reached or experienced the stage of appreciating man’s imperfections, and therefore having no awareness of the fact that true adults argue everything conditionally, because they accept that they are fallible?

  20. ‘So what you are saying is’. This expression will stick forever with Cathy Newman. After watching the interview I spent some time watching Andrew Marr and a couple of leading left presenters and found that with only slight variations their technique was identical. My advice to anyone contemplating an interview with one of these characters would be to out the technique the minute you spot it.

  21. Here is Jordan Petersons analysis of the interview with Cathy Newman It’s worth a watch. Two hours long, but 90 minutes is the discussion of what he actually came to Britain for, to promote his book, which is apparently now a best seller.


  22. One of Professor Jordon Peterson’s more telling quotes is
    “The problem with nice people is that they have never been in any situation that will turn them into the monsters they are capable of being”
    Well with Cathy he demonstrated that he has been in such situations. Far from reacting civilly to a perfectly reasonably conducted interview he took the opportunity to try to demolish a female interviewer. And then compounded his baseness by ensuring maximum publicity of this misogyny on YouTube

    • So what you’re saying is, he didn’t roll over and allow himself to be subjugated by her Leftist BS. I agree.

    • Had it been a “perfectly reasonably conducted interview” I’m sure he would have found more areas to be sympathetic to the concerns of his interviewer. But it wasn’t such an interview. In fact, it wasn’t really an interview at all, because the presenter was interested only in broadcasting her own political views on camera, and adopted the stance throughout of “No Professor, don’t you see that you must be wrong because what you say is directly contrary to everything I believe in, and what I believe in has been proved beyond doubt to be correct”.

    • I think you exhibit a very limited understanding of human nature (apart from taking Prof Peterson’s quotes completely out of context). Many of the Nazis were nice people; Germany was one of the most civilised nations on the planet. The Nazi camp commandants were very nice to their wives, children and dogs. And yet, they dehumanised and butchered the Jews. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote: “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts.”

      • That’s Christian doctrine, but not that of Rousseau (‘We are naturally good. It is society which makes us bad’) from which so much stupidity and evil has arisen.

        There was a chap on the One Show this week wittering on about the purity of living of Amazonian tribes.

        If he knew anything about them he would know that they are far from being the Noble Savages he seems to think.

        Yes, Rousseau and Locke have a very great deal to answer for,

        • In theological terms and in the history of the Church, those who espouse this “naturally good” theory are guilty of the heresy of Pelagianism. It is one very weak leg of the ideology of secular humanism. The proof of human evil is (and has been) everywhere in all times and in all cultures.

    • That’s turning reality on its head. He was attacked by this woman and if he won, which he did, it was through being dispassionate and rigorous in an academic way when she was the reverse.

      She simply wasn’t up to his intellectual standard.

    • To anybody normal with two eyes and two ears who actually watched the interview, your final paragraph is just utter nonsense.

    • Yes, that’s it. People on the right really should lie down and let people on the left steamroller right over them. Anything else is ‘base’.
      Grow up.

  23. I saw it as an interview that Cathy could not possibly win. By winning I mean the usual expectation of the progressive that any dissenting view was easily destroyed .
    Peterson kept the interview to the real. He knew his subject and she did not .Thus forcing her to re interpret his words in the light of her progressive world view.
    All he had to do was to insist on returning to the text ( his words ) . Her failure was inevitable and it has been compounded by her adopting a victim status when in reality it was her incompetence.
    This is the way the progressive left needs to be confronted. It has two main weak points. Like Goliath. First is it’s inability to accept that a different view can exist in a progressive world. Second is the real killer. it is unreal and based on an unreal interpretation of human behaviour and history.
    The progressive needs to read Homer and Sun Tzu. But then the progressive would cease to be one.
    The Conservative confronting the progressive establishment needs to act like Odysseus retaking Ithica, Slowly and carefully and always looking for an edge and allies that can be trusted to the end. Oh and not backing down helps .

    • Very good comment. Thank you.

      When you write:-

      “By winning I mean the usual expectation of the progressive that any dissenting view was easily destroyed “

      I think that the “usual expectation” has been built upon an awareness that a combination in confrontation of (a) the status/power of an adult and (b) the disrespect, irresponsibility, emotionality and intellectual lawlessness of a tantrum-displaying teenager is something that most fully-mature adults find it impossible to compete with. It’s difficult enough to deal with in genuine teenagers, but give them the social clout that comes with reaching the age of adulthood and it can easily become impossible.

      • ‘Progressives’ get very upset very easily when their beliefs are challenged because believing them is part of who they are. Attack them, expose them, and you are doing the same to the believer. Their self image as embodying moral and intellectual superiority takes a dive.

        Conservatives who have a realistic view of humanity including themselves as capable of wickedness are not vulnerable in this way.

        • Yes, thanks Cassandra. The concept that there are grown-up people who are personally linked to their beliefs – who, as you say, feel like they are being attacked personally if anyone in their company attacks their beliefs – is, I’m afraid to say, not one that I have been conscious of, until now, that is! Thanks again.

          • The description I like is “so ego-invested in their own opinions such that any challenge to them is regarded as a personal attack.” It is a sign of narcissism and emotional immaturity. Such people freak out when critiqued and resort easily to ad hominems and personal insults. What they do not seem to realize is that this only makes them look bad, not the person they are insulting.

  24. It is immensely satisfying to see Dr Peterson’s ideas infusing into the international public sphere of debate. He is unique in that here is a man, incredibly intelligent, principled but moreso and university academic with courage, strength and integrity. Rare as hens teeth as Dad used to say. I bumped into his videos last year when the c-16 controversy started in Canada and have consumed much of his incredible output with great pleasure. He is giving us an intellectual basis to attack the ‘PC gone mad’ syndrome that hitherto has been almost impossible to effectively counter due to the layers and layers of obfuscation which protect it’s resentful, deceitful, destructive Marxist kernel. Destroy society and build the utopia from the ashes.

    PS Interestingly the Guardian Feminist writer Kate ‘very stable genius’ Bevan purposely blocked her ‘…i would have punched him’ Tweet. From site HEqual “…Bevan didn’t apologise for her conduct, and instead mocked those calling out her behaviour, and then engaged in a blocking spree. After this failed, she then decided to protect her tweets so only her followers can view them.” She looks very aged, perhaps the effect of years of bitterness, spite and stress of maintaining the sort of contradictions her tweeting of a violent fantasy lashing out at the person who exposes it, demonstrates.

  25. Thanks again, Rev. Gomes! Your are David, with your slingshot zooming to the forehead of Leftist ideology. The Left have no ultimate defense against the Truth. Goliath is a giant but he slow and very wrong– and must fall.

  26. Most people commenting on this subject in the past few days have completely missed the point. The crux of the matter is that Cathy Newman identifies as a victim of death threats.

    Who gave the Rev’d Dr Jules Gomes or anyone else the right to decide that mere facts should trump her feelings?

  27. Cathy Newman’s fatal mistake was the same as Goliaths: she faced Peterson on her own.
    The strength of the left lies not in any intellectual advantage, but in numbers; they hunt in packs. They are in fact pretty good at detecting logic, and the moment they do so, they drown it out in a howling cacophony. ‘Sexist!’ ‘Homophobe!’ and ‘Transphobe!’ combine with a hail of non sequiturs so bewilderingly illogical that one hardly knows which to answer first, not that anyone is listening anymore.
    But dear young Cathy went out alone like some peroxide Goliath, all power dressing and Chanel handbag, to face that most merciless of enemies: the truth.
    She deployed every fallacy in the progressive arsenal: ad hominem, ad lapidem, ad ignorantiam, ad nauseam… but each was effortlessly and ruthlessly exposed. It became excruciating to watch. I almost found myself supporting euthanasia, wishing Jordan would put her out of her misery. In more civilised times he would have been called ungentlemanly, but today Jordan Peterson is an inspiration.

    “Let faith be my shield and let joy be my steed
    ‘Gainst the dragons of anger, the ogres of greed
    And let me set free with the sword of uncouth
    From the castle of darkness the power of the truth.”

    • Brilliant comment! You are so right. The Left hunt in packs. On their own they are immediately decimated. Their fallacies are immediately debunked and exposed. Truth triumphs! Falsehood meets a Goliath-like death.

Comments are closed.