Dr Peterson, Ms. DimBulb, and a Lobster Walk into a Bar

[The title of this post was lifted and changed; with apologies to a YouTube channel, The Saad Truth, found here. Since seeing his title, all others seem too tame now, which will become apparent in the course of this takedown – on the off chance you haven’t yet witnessed this humiliation.]

Being an American, I was (gratefully) unaware of this BBC Channel Four news babe. Or journalista, if you prefer. Ignorance of her future work is greatly to be desired since, as is the case for much of the American MSM, she appears to suffer from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance. Combined with her inability to hear or to parse Dr. Peterson’s statements, these deficits should, one thinks, serve her well in her chosen profession (and we all know how old that profession is).

Dr. Peterson evidently appeared on this wymyn’s program in aid of selling his book,

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

Our GoV link for the book is here.

The book can be pre-ordered, to arrive tomorrow, if you want the Kindle version.

An editorial review (by one of my favorite culture critics) says:

Jordan Peterson is the most important and influential Canadian thinker since Marshall McLuhan. His international fame and impact continue to grow exponentially. Peterson’s bold interdisciplinary synthesis of psychology, anthropology, science, politics and comparative religion is forming the template for the genuinely humanistic university of the future.” —Camille Paglia

For those too young to remember McLuhan, he no doubt has a wiki page. For those old enough to remember his predictions, you know how prescient he was.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Channel Four is no doubt off somewhere licking its wounds and wondering if they’re mortal afflictions. Those lacerations certainly are as wide as a church door. Well, at the very least, a small country church door.

My acquaintance with Dr Peterson’s work is fairly recent, but I plan to make up for my ignorance with an in-depth study of his writings. I do wish his early research on the sons of alcoholics was more widely available. Yes, the many articles are co-authored with other young scholars, but just based on their breadth, they deserve wider dissemination.

We’ll be posting more of his talks in the future.

I welcome your comments on this video or on his work in general.

68 thoughts on “Dr Peterson, Ms. DimBulb, and a Lobster Walk into a Bar

  1. I always find it a joy to listen to this man. Real knowledge and clear logic are inherently wonderful.

    Canada may have nutty political leaders right now but it also has some wonderful dissidents. And Peterson is no deliberate dissident, he just tells the truth.

    • Peterson is no deliberate dissident, he just tells the truth.

      All genuine dissidents are accidental. By that I mean they don’t make dissension their life’s work but rather their work, if it’s truly authentic, makes dissidents of them. Sometimes martyrs.

  2. The BBC “journalista” is off on sick leave seeking counselling from the supposed multiple misogynistic twitter posts that she received after her debacle. Quite honestly anyone who saw the video could not be bothered as she was in self destruct mode after 10 mins and IMHO it is the BBC who thinks that she needs counselling as their icon feminist has badly let them down. I wonder if Dr Peterson was asked to counsel her?

  3. @GoV: Putting myself in SJW shoes, I doubt that “the lacerations are as wide as a church door”.

    This is because I suspect an SJW is so pleased to see an aggressive media harridan interrupting and harassing a white male, even if the harridan in question is sadly:-)) neither black nor apparently Muslim nor lesbian, that the SJW will not notice the content of what was said at all.

    In addition, Peterson unfortunately showed good manners and graciousness at the end of the interview, which SJWs would see as legitimising her behaviour.

    Note for those not conversant with the complexity of UK accents: the woman is by her voice from a lower class in the UK than the one to which Peterson belongs in Canada.

    So British SJWs at least would be happy on identifying her voice that such a person showed no class deference/politeness to an “enemy”.

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, this article is quite useful:


    especially the quote below:

    “This has led him to be branded a member of the alt-right – although his support for socialised healthcare, redistribution of wealth towards the poorest and the decriminalisation of drugs suggests this is far from the whole story. He defines himself as a “classic British liberal”. But he also says – when challenged for being a reactionary – that “being reactionary is the new radicalism”.”

    So with the UN forecasting 40% of hu- man- ity/hu-wymn-ity as being Black by 2100, are SJWs just getting with the strength ahead of time, the same way the US Democrats think they can win elections by cobbling together their rainbow coalitions?

    • Note for those not conversant with the complexity of UK accents: the woman is by her voice from a lower class in the UK than the one to which Peterson belongs in Canada.

      Yes, that accent was noticeable immediately. When I asked the B about it, he told me that the plummy upper-class vowels are no longer required/allowed. Too bad, since with the old accent came the old manners. At one point he had to call her “silly” – which she definitely was. Droolingly so

      • Good speech and good manners may really be only human dignity of a host who willingly extends dignity to a guest. The ending of human dignity is not the beginning of equality.

        Ms Newman may not have even been aware that she was a clod, at best.

      • Eh? She has a standard southern English educated accent, but that’s all. Why is that lower in class than Peterson’s educated Canadian? Reading too much into it.

  4. Just a small correction Dymphna – Channel Four isn’t BBC (there is a BBC4 online channel for kids but it’s not the same). Channel Four is one of the five main UK channels of which two are BBC.

    • Is Channel Four also subsidized by the government or is it a commercial enterprise? If the former, there’s not a whole lot of difference.

      • It’s part-subsidized. All British TV channels are leftwing, and C4 is more so than most. It is topheavy with arrogant oh-so-right-on politicised presenters like this one. Few people watch it.

      • Channel Four is a commercial station funded by advertising. Not that it makes any difference as all mainstream news and current affairs programming tends to have a PC bias, whether or not it’s hosted by a commercial enterprise.

        The BBC is not directly funded by the government out of general taxation; instead it is funded by a licence fee for all who use tv services, either broadcast or online. This means it is not quite the government propaganda tool many outside the UK seem to imagine. Although its news reporting is hardly unbiased, anymore than any other part of the mainstream media, its patronage of the arts, especially music, make it for me and many others an indispensable part of the nations cultural life.

      • True and more left wing than Auntie. The middle class Newman (Cathy) spent 4 months early on in her career at the Washington Post, so you Americans must take some of the blame for her.

  5. she appears to suffer from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance

    And she i’n’t very bright neether, as some of us Brits say. No surprise to learn that she “read English” at Oxford. Dr. Peterson played it perfectly: calm, polite and understatedly erudite. In fact, he must have wondered whether his interlocutrix was an alt-right undercover agent.

    • He’s had plenty of experience with her type before. Usually they show up in gangs to shout obscenities. So she was an easy opponent. I think he knew exactly what she was.

  6. Just loved that title, Dymphna! Almost as much as I enjoyed watching a polite, functional mind demolish the importunate driveling of a BBC intellectual pygmy.

    • Ah, Seneca III — you were one of our readers I had in mind when I borrowed that title.

      But I’ve been told the BEEB and Channel Four are different entities, though one finds them to have a cookie-cutter similarity. This cookie was only half-baked when they took her off the pan.

      • Ah, yes, correct. Mind you, not different in ideology or intent and only slghtly different in the way they are funded and the difference is in the word ‘largely’…

        “Although largely commercially self-funded, it is ultimately publicly owned; originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), the station is now owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation, a public corporation of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport.

        …so guess who funds the balance?

  7. Total, abject humiliation … and such an absolute joy to behold.

    Cathy Newman was subsequently subjected to such a barrage of “misogynistic” comment that the Channel 4 editor, Ben de Pear (whose name should tell you all you need to know) had to call in security experts.

    We live in hope that she’ll learn a lesson in humility … but that is perhaps wishful and delusional thinking in the case of deranged Lefties.

  8. thanks for presenting Mr. Peterson, in line with Mc Luhan and Paglia.Some of the sharpest knives in the drawer of reason.
    That stupid but fullmouthed BBC babe could have taken an even better paid job as prosecutor in a fascist court. In the oldest profession you mention, she could maybe take a chance with me if the price was right, but I will not drift away into arguments about the flaws of human flesh at advanced ages.

    • and if I am notmistaken, Naomi Klein is Canadian too.
      Many of the topics discussed here are in her book: The Shock ….

  9. This woman should have her pay reduced. This is painful to watch and not the best intro to Peterson’s thinking, though valuable for his model of calm perseverance. I had to stop when she said something like: You’re saying we organize our society along the lines of lobsters.

    • not the best intro to Peterson’s thinking, though valuable for his model of calm perseverance.

      Aside from the fact that he was there to promote his book, a tome which she seemed to not at all understand, your observation is the reason I posted this one. She increased his following immensely. I do hope you stayed around for the part where he calls her “silly”.

  10. Ah, yes, Marshall McLuhan. I remember The Medium Is The Massage from my college films course. Interesting factoid: The title was a mistake. When the book came back from the typesetter’s, it had on the cover “Massage” as it still does. The title was supposed to have read “The Medium is the Message” but the typesetter had made an error. When Marshall saw the typo he exclaimed, “Leave it alone! It’s great, and right on target!”

    One of my favorite McLuhanisms is : “This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.” Could have come straight out of the Dr. Strangelove movie script.

    Check out https://marshallmcluhan.com/ for more info. Now I need to dig up a copy of Understanding Media and reacquaint myself with him.

  11. Come to think of it, to say that the ending of human dignity is not the same as the beginning of more equality….There is more to it than that.

    The end of human dignity does not create human equality, instead it creates human irrelevance. Human irrelevance of you and me is the objective of those who wish to rule us all.

  12. When watching this interview, my first thought was, she can’t be real, she must be playing Devil’s Advocate.

  13. Friday 19th of January, I (with 2000 others) watched him in Rijswijk, The Netherlands. The man is a living miracle with an almost divine status, the only star in the West worth the qualification ‘genuinely authentic’.

    • Interestingly, an Edmonton Theatre has decided to block a Peterson scheduled lecture in Edmonton:
      Executive director of the theatre has determined that :
      “the lecture didn’t align with their values as an organization.”`
      This is despite the fact that according to Peterson, the topic of the lecture had not yet been determined.
      I think these organizations need to realize that all of their attempts to squelch Peterson`s views are simply winning him more support and making them look like anti-free speech totalitarians.

  14. I think it was not so much “her inability to hear or to parse Dr. Peterson’s statements”
    as that she pretty clearly came into the ‘ interview ‘ with an agenda, and so was not really listening to him … she was pretty much rehearsing in her mind her next attack question.

    Yes, she ‘heard’ what he said – but she wasn’t listening to him.

    (So it wasn’t really an interview, was it? She thought she already knew all the answers about who Peterson is, and what he thinks – answers she’d imbibed from her lefty sources in her pre-show ‘prep’)

    An aside on Marshall McLuhan : later in his life he was received into the Catholic Church by Fr. John Mole, OMI (very much a ‘Traditionalist’ R.C. priest – i.e. a Latin Mass fan). Subsequently, in a radio interview his son did, the son said it was his father’s opinion that the modern mass media was engaged in a ” Luciferian conspiracy against the Truth “.

    Any wonder that some Catholic priests have called the television box “the Devil’s tabernacle”?

  15. I don’t want to say this woman was destroyed in this debate. Let’s just say sho looked like me trying to get a hit off of Sandy Koufax.

    • You are quite right Joe, this was n’t an interview this was a debate and and “this woman” certainly came off second best. The art of interview is almost lost to modern television.

  16. I thought at the end of the interview Ms Newman quite fancied Dr Peterson.

    Her accent? Who cares? It’s what she says that’s important.

    • Her accent is of passing sociological interest. There was a time when only the correct vowels assured one employment in broadcasting. Now those same vowels are an impediment.

      That factoid is significant to those of us who like to observe such changes and then attempt to parse their meaning.

      In the U.S., regional accents are still considered a strike against one…only the vaguely mid East-Coast accent is acceptable.

      • I’ve got a pretty strong North Yorkshire accent and I’m sure you’ll not find the like amongst any TV faces. After saying than Melvyn Bragg has a pronounced North Western twang but that doesn’t seem to have inhibited his television career – though maybe he’s never strayed far from the politically correct.

        • She’s referring to the BBC of fifty years ago. When I lived in England in the ’60s, a working-class or regional accent was considered unacceptable for announcers and program hosts on the air. Sometime after I left England all that changed (maybe during the Red Labour days in the late ’70s), and I’m told that nowadays the exact reverse is true — if you have a plummy Oxford accent, you will NOT be hired by the BBC.

          • That was fundamentally why the BBC destroyed Top Gear, one of, if not the most successful and economically profitable programs they ever had.

            Those crazed Lefties loathed Jeremy Clarkson with such a passion that they happily butchered the Golden Goose in a frenzy of hatred for a middle-class, middle-aged, hilariously irreverent ex-Public Schoolboy who spoke the Queen’s English and lived in the country. He was Satan himself in their eyes.

            And look at the disaster they replaced him with, accent and all. I’m surprised the licence-payers didn’t sue them for catastrophic mismanagement of their licence fees.

  17. I bet this is how DR. Peterson treats his patients. Hope he sends her the bill. And she never understood that Peterson was making publicity for his book. Free. On C4 (like the explosive). Where also many idiots watch. Maybe few will start watching him on YouTube. If they don’t get sane, they will commit suicide. Win-win situation. Rare sharp mind, this guy.

    • He no longer maintains a clinical practice. I don’t think he dares do so, considering the insurance rates such a practice would now require. But he did it long enough (15+ years) to have acquired a large tranche of anecdotal material, which we all now get to enjoy in the many asides during his lectures.

      • He did it on C4. With that Blondie. Without insurance. I am following for some years few brilliant minds. He is one of my favourites.

      • I am sure he prepared himself as he should meet a person with mental disorder. He knew the patient and the details of her disorder. He was pure and simple, DR. Peterson, not a guest. DR.

        • Good point. And she can’t sue him for malpractice since she invited him on *her* show in order to crucify him. As Dr Peterson might say, “good luck with that!”

    • And she never understood that Peterson was making publicity for his book. Oh, she understood well that he had come on to talk about his book…she’d read/skimmed it for the juicy bits with which she’d planned to nail him. Only the tables were neatly turned by him. She was playing checkers; he was winning at chess.

  18. Scott Adams has an interesting take on this exchange. He says (I’m paraphrasing) that Dr. Peterson’s comments and responses reasonable, articulate and logical and so she had to listen to them. But she couldn’t accept them because they ran counter to her ideology. And so, at least ten times, she hallucinated his answer. She wasn’t always trying to “get” him –although she was doing that at times as well–but really she seemed to think, numbers of times, that she was repeating or paraphrasing what he said when she was hallucinating a response from him. Cognitive dissonance in action.

    One does see this, at times, in ideologues.

    • Afterthought. A female Mathematics graduate from Oxford University goes for a job interview. The interviewer runs through her CV, pauses for a moment then poses this question: “Ahh, a 2.1 from Oxford I see. Tell me, how much more time will we have to pay you for in order for you to complete the same amount of work as a man? Stunning silence follows.

  19. Here is a new interview that might give newcomers to Peterson an idea of his work. The title is a bit misleading. He goes way beyond the analysis of the news chick. The interviewer is very smart, very good at what he does and has extensive knowledge of Peterson’s work:


    • Have read it. Thank you. It is very good. Dr Peterson is one of the lights in the present era, and there are not a lot of them. We should be grateful that there are such ones.

  20. Th BBC’s Carrie Gracie recently resigned as China editor because Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen (among others) was paid more.

    I’m no great fan of Bowen’s (he’s no great friend of Israel), but he’s worked in war zones, and been shot in the head. China seems relatively peaceful.

    • China seems relatively peaceful.

      Ah, those inscrutable Chinese. Buying up great swaths of British Columbia, of American coastal portage, of real estate in Florida and Australia. Then there is the wholesale buying of minerals and mineral rights in Africa, not to mention the numbers of Chinese students throughout the West.

      China appears to be the only country paying attention to the global demographic implosion due circa mid-century. Like India, it has lots and lots of excess male cannon fodder but far better materiel and technology. The second half of the 21st century and following belongs to China. Teach your childer Mandarin…

      • yes, there are many chinese students in my westernmost town of Germany too.When I cross their ways in the city, I always think how pleasant and polite they are compared to those harpies pushing prams in headscarves and their owners.One chinese student in a chin. restaurant asked me if it would be considered impolite to drink soup out of a soup dish.( make a noise here) .Yes I said, but not from a cup. This is to show some consideration for our attitudes, be it honest or just flattery,who cares.

  21. Its like the old Huxley-Wilberforce debate, except – deliciously – the ‘outworn creed’ feeling threatened here is the secular gospel according to Marx! Peterson is the voice of the future, free of the meaningless. arbitrary constraints of that contemporary creed of political correctness. Whilst Cathy Newman was the spirited defender of cultural Marxism, Jordan Peterson was the methodical demolisher of that unscientific political mythology.

    Wonderfully, the magisterial Peterson drew his would-be interrogatrix and tormentor, entirely against her will, into something that, at times, threatened to resemble an actual debate, in which she could no longer hide her profound ignorance of his scientific discipline, and her ideological assumptions were exposed as the usual polemical claptrap of the lazy and over-indulged apparatchiks of an intellectually bankrupt (secular) creed.

    Huxley’s justified and effective put-down to the Bishop’s mediaeval views back in 1860 can aptly be applied to this deluded proponent of those profoundly irrational principles to which so many now genuflect: Huxley characterised the man of blind faith as ‘a man – – – who, not content with – – – success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he had no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.’

    What better way to dismiss any person prone to such righteous pettifogging and empty propagandist point-scoring? The spirit of this great rebuke to irrationality was indeed succinctly repeated by Peterson in his observation that the journalist was being ‘Silly.’ Good to see pompous know-it-all lefty hacks having their huge egos punctured!

    No wonder the poor deflated thing had to go ‘off sick’ – she was obviously nursing a shrivelled vanity. Complaining about various intemperate comments online is just an excuse: Why did she feel obliged to notice these barbs? Simply because, of course, they gave her an excuse for throwing a sickie that wasn’t an admission of the bitterness of her failure to dominate a man. The doctrinal misandry of such women is intolerant of males who dissent from the strictures of such generalised hatred and contempt – it upsets her delicately balanced political system whenever the male disagrees with her. Which of course he must, if only by the mere impertinence of his presence before the unwelcoming altar of her deluded creed.

    Witch-hunts abound once more; so men must burn, not marry.

    But this time instead one Witchfinder, at least, was frustrated. Her sour revulsion from anything that seemed like a male apologia deranged her system to such an extent that she was incapable of functioning for some time after, eaten up with bitterness – bested in fair fight, but incapable of admitting defeat on a point of political principle. It is a tragedy that such warped and dangerous minds have control over our lives. Truth is persecuted. We are entering another Dark Age.

Comments are closed.