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.
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
Always grateful for advice from @DouglasKMurray but I won’t be suing or taking out a super-injunction. I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with @jordanbpeterson as did 100s of 1000s of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech. Stay tuned Douglas.— Cathy Newman (@cathynewman) January 17, 2018
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.
Such is the scale of threat we @Channel4News are having to get security specialists in to carry out an analysis. I will not hesitate to get the police involved if necessary. What a terrible indictment of the times we live in.— Ben de Pear (@bendepear) January 19, 2018
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.
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.
News media personalities were quick to shift to the "misogyny abuse" narrative.— ☢S.C.R.U.M.P. - Call of Bants (@CheekiScrump) January 21, 2018
Its all they have. Cathy Newman acted in bad faith. She continuously attempted to put words in his mouth, deliberately misquoting him.
She was wholly unprofessional & SHOULD get harsh criticism. pic.twitter.com/PtF8mdoQyV
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.
My friend @RektRolfe hit the nail on the head:— ☢S.C.R.U.M.P. - Call of Bants (@CheekiScrump) January 21, 2018
If a conservative says ANYTHING & gets hounded online, the narrative is "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech."
But as soon as its somone on the left that goes out of the window. Its "harassment & abuse.: pic.twitter.com/K1lWOIDTeT
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.
How about, instead, we talk again, and try to have a real conversation? You know, where reasonable people try to exchange information instead of where two primates clash for dominance? @cathynewman— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 21, 2018
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.
Save your clicks, here is the hilarious top hits from this garbage. pic.twitter.com/Z0V8FXs0oZ— Ash Sharp 🇬🇧 🇵🇱 (@6crip) January 21, 2018
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?