Peterson v Newman is a microcosm of the debate between right and left

The Cathy Newman / Jordan Peterson exchange (and the fallout after that) is a microcosm of what it is like as a right winger to engage mainstreamers. It shows exactly how the mainstream views you and your ideas if you disagree with them: Newman misrepresents Peterson’s answers 23 times in a half hour interview. Almost once every minute.

Mainstream arrogance

She pretends to summarize his answers, but she is not listening to him and is only projecting onto him what she thinks he must think. And since his views are different from hers, the holy mainstreamer, what she thinks of his ideas is clearly not pretty. She overtly shows this near the end of the interview, after all else had failed, when she exclaims “You’re just saying things though to provoke, aren’t you?” 

Realize, fully, the arrogance encapsulated in that statement: you cannot earnestly disagree with me on these things, so when you say you do that must be not because you think different but because you want to get people riled up. All while she is continually provoking Dr Peterson by twisting his words and attempting to associate him with views that are not his.


On Twitter, Dr Peterson commended Channel 4 on putting up the entire interview and enabling comments on it. It did not take long however, for Channel 4 and the rest of the mainstream media to push away the interview itself and focus instead on what they perceive as a “barrage of abuse and threats”. Peterson is now described as either a radical himself, or as someone who is admired by extremists, by the mainstream media who are happily jumping on that chance to ignore the interview and link Peterson to the alleged online abuse to discredit him.

The editor of Channel 4 has stated that the network is hiring security experts to assess the severity of the threats, although no examples of any actual credible threats are given anywhere. Mainstream media outlets casually lump the supposed threats in with what they call “misogynistic abuse” – in this case centered around 500 comments in which Newman is apparently called a “bitch”. As if a male interviewer who behaves the way she did would not be called the male equivalent of a bitch just as many times.

But the stage is set: the mainstream media no longer have to address the interview, other than mention it as a side note, which they do by calling Peterson’s rational arguments his “radical views” (although he actually barely shares any of his views in the interview, sticking mostly to researched facts and observations) and Peterson himself a “cartoon villain”.

Twitter user S.C.R.U.M.P. points out that the mainstream media realize that their narrative was “obliterated” in this interview, and (in a Twitter thread) details the expected following strategy aimed at neutralizing Dr Peterson:

To summarize:

  1. Link Peterson to the alt-right
  2. Ignore the debate and focus on the “online abuse” afterwards
  3. Frame Peterson as “transphobic” or “alt-right”, distoring his actual beliefs
  4. Ask Peterson to disavow his fanbase
  5. If he does, this will be taken as proof that the abuse exists, is problematic, and can be blamed on Peterson
  6. If he doesn’t, this will be taken as endorsement of harassment
  7. Endless hit pieces on Peterson in the mainstream media
  8. Ban Peterson from making mainstream TV and other media appearances
  9. Call to have Peterson banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube

Information monopoly

S.C.R.U.M.P. points out that that is exactly how the left handled Milo when he became too dangerous to their narrative. It worked to Milo’s advantage in many ways, but if we link this strategy to the establishment’s plans to reinstate their monopoly on information (including Facebook’s plan to suppress news which isn’t “broadly trusted”, but will undoubtedly be manipulated into “any non-mainstream news outlets”) the danger becomes clearer.

Dissenting voices are silenced, de-platformed and misrepresented, meaning they can no longer effectively defend themselves against whichever accusations the establishment comes up with. Ultimately, and according to the establishment’s plan, the media landscape will be as homogenous once again as it was before the internet. The flow of information will be under the complete control of the merged media / political elite and we will only hear what they want us to hear.


This interview is a masterclass in handling mainstream media and other mainstreamers. Realize that, as Dr Peterson points out, there is no need to be deliberately provoke, because when you formulate your honest opinions that is already provocative enough to send most normies into an hysterical rage, simply because the mainstream (the Overton window) has moved so far left.

Dr Peterson is intelligent and eloquent enough to handle this, but it is difficult not to become desperate when reading the mainstream response to this utterly devastating takedown of their own narrative (althought it helps to read to comments and social media for a more realistic perspective).

Ingrain this interview and its treatment in mainstream media into your consciousness. Whenever you see them framing someone as an extremist, as dangerous, as a racist, a bigot, a sexist or any of those other terms which the left thinks don’t warrant further inspection as soon as they are applied to someone – remember this interview, and remember to investigate for yourself. Whenever someone tells you that there is no media bias, that there is no culture war, show them this.

This is the debate between left and right, between the people and the elite, us and the establishment in bitesize format.

One comment

Leave a Reply

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