Moral insolvency? Meet reputation.

I am an admirer of Jordan Peterson since 2017, when he came to my attention as a free speech advocate. This will be the 38th time I’ve used the “Jordan Peterson” tag.

I have watched hundreds of hours of his videos, most of them recordings of his psychology lectures at the University of Toronto. These predate his notoriety by many years. Bona fides. Established.

I’ve watched many dozens of hours of interviews, both friendly and hostile.

I shook his hand during a 30 second encounter after he spoke in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I thanked him for his intellectual courage.

My judgment, then, is based on more than average exposure to his ideas:

[T]he more of him you see the more you will be convinced he is intelligent, articulate, polymathic, grounded, kind, thoughtful and humbly aware of his own exhaustively examined faults. It’s not possible to spend a little time listening to him and come to any other intellectually honest conclusion.

I followed, with sadness and hope, his wife’s lingering, very close brush with death. I am well aware of his resulting, life-threatening dependency struggles with (prescribed) benzodiazepine, and his simultaneous bout with the CCP virus.

These concurrent catastrophes would have been the undoing of a lesser man, especially if he did not have determined assistance. His daughter provided that assistance.

I know her severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis cannot be gratuitously dismissed, as it was by a Prog-porn scribbler we’ll get to in a moment, as “according to her blog.” Easily available documentation refutes the imprecation. Including what Peterson wrote about it in his multi-million copy best seller.

Mikhaila Peterson’s dogged search for a cure for her own ailment made her eminently qualified to assist her father. As it turned out, quite obviously more qualified than most physicians in North America.

All this pain is used in an extended, snide, mendacious, drive-by kneecapping of Peterson and his daughter in a recent article written in the UK.

It occurs to me that the volume of historical video from both Peterson and his daughter is at least partially protective. Lesser beings would be de-platformed, cancelled… ruined. Instead, the millions who have seen their videos can easily identify the lies.

More people know the truth than have ever heard of the author of this latest dishonorable screed. I will not supply a link to it. I’ll mention neither the name of the author nor of the editor. That information is available in the links below, but the perps do not deserve any traffic from me.

Crucifying Jordan Peterson provides a comprehensive look at the UK article. It includes this quote:

“If anyone were in any doubt why people nowadays go to longform podcasts for intelligent reflection on contemporary issues rather than to the legacy media, where they know to expect only conventional platitudes, disinformation and lies, then a comparison of this article with the unedited audio interview now available on Mikhaila Peterson’s YouTube channel would be a good place to start.”

Why, you might ask, would Peterson agree to an interview knowing from experience the Maim Scream Media™ wants his head on a pike?

Peterson is asking that of himself.

The set up letter from the “commissioning editor” is included in Peterson’s self-examination, and is useful in understanding the true depth and stench of the pit in which these “journalists” marinate in their own excretions. Peterson was savvy enough to record the entire interview on which the article is purportedly based. We can hope, under the defamation law of the UK, that some legal action may thus be possible.

This vicious, deceitful, personal abuse speaks to the perpetrators’ arrogant ignorance; as Kate notes at Small Dead Anmials: Dear S_____ T____;

The question ending that letter to the editor is likely to remain unanswered by the perps, but I’ll try – “Business as usual.”

A Pecksniff of journalists

On the home page, when TOC was a Google blog, there was a slightly altered quotation from Humbert Wolfe’s 1930 book of poems, The Uncelestial City. Due to limitations in my WordPress theme, (at least with my OS, browser and add-ons) that now appears on the Blogroll and Contact pages.

It occurs to me that few people who visit TOC since the WordPress conversion ever click over to those pages, so I offer Wolfe’s little poem here as presently relevant:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist
thank God! The Main Stream journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
– After Humbert Wolfe (1886 – 1940)

In case you’re wondering, the alteration I made was from “British journalist” to “Main Stream Journalist.”

ABE books has 32 copies starting at $17.50 should you be interested. Since Amazon’s jettison of Parler, do not buy it there.

For “pecksniff” see here.

Frontrunning Winston Smith

In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, Winston Smith (AKA “6079 Smith W”) was an editor in the Ministry of Truth Records Department. This employment required him to rewrite historical documents as necessary to validate Big Brother’s propaganda.

I don’t know how many people had the same job as #6079 in the novel, but our reality has a pecksniff* of “journalists” beavering away at altering the past and implementing Newspeak

[T]he Party has an ingenious plan to break the link with the real past by introducing a language barrier. When “all real knowledge of Oldspeak [disappears] . . . the whole literature of the past will have been destroyed” (56). After a few generations, when people are no longer capable of decoding information from the past, there will no longer even be a need to censor the history that has the potential for breeding unorthodox ideas — it will be completely out of the public’s reach.

That’s why we’re told there is no such thing as biological sex, for example. And why there has been an attempt to redefine “packing the court”.

In the universe our Maim Scream Media™ imagine, Hunter Biden is a paragon of virtue, and Joe Biden never bragged about coercing the Ukraine to fire a prosector investigating Burisma, Hunter’s employer. In that universe the New York Post does not exist, so a Tweet about a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden would not require a suspension. Twitter and Facebook would not have to suppress any reference to either story, sparing the Maim Scream Media™ the trouble.

As to revisionism, when the Leftist rag Salon published a story alleging Tom Cotton was not an Army Ranger last week, Newsweek scuttled into their archives:
Newsweek Edits 2015 Story on Army Rangers to Conform to New Attack on Tom Cotton

Prior to that, Winston Smith was sighted at the Washington Post, rewriting a 2019 story:
The Washington Post Tried To Memory-Hole Kamala Harris’ Bad Joke About Inmates Begging for Food and Water

Meanwhile, as noted yesterday, “journalists” are proclaiming themselves sacred guardians of the 1st Amendment as cover to justify censorship and deplatforming. Because, you know, only “real journalists” can be trusted to convey right think.

Winston Smith was at least uncomfortable about his job. In fact, he was tortured for his temerity.

The Columbia School of Journalism has not called for that. Yet. It’ll have to start with fines.

In this phantasmal universe, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the DNC never financed a report, written by a corrupt foreign agent, leading to a multi-million dollar investigation that turned up nothing. Nor were many of her ideological foes subjected to illegal surveillance and FISA warrants obtained by trusted Federal agencies via obvious lies to a court.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton never had a private email server violating basic security protocols and ignoring Federal records requirements.

Democrats and their scribblers are not the first to inhabit such a universe. Ask Nikolai Yezhov… well you can’t, because he was disappeared.

Now you see him – now you don’t.
Yezhov oversaw Stalin’s purges as head of the NKVD from 1936 to 1938, when Stalin had him secretly arrested and tried, then executed. He’s the short guy (his nickname was “The Dwarf”) who is blocking a view of the water in the shot on the left.

*Pecksniff is my appropriation (from Dickens’ Martin Chuzzlewit character) for a group of journalists. Like a nest of vipers, a cackle of hyenas, or a wake of vultures.

An unctuous hypocrite, a person who affects benevolence or pretends to have high moral principles; (also) a person who interferes officiously in the business of others. Frequently attributive. Also (occasionally) as adjective.

MSM check their privilege: find it wanting

Journalists Mobilize Against Free Speech
Read the whole thing, but following are a few excerpts.

Motivated by self-dealing arrogance and venality, the Maim Scream Media™ has a goal.

That goal is reducing the Bill of Rights to a single clause. Here’s Steve Coll, two-time Pulitzer winning dean of Columbia Journalism School:

“Those of us in journalism have to come to terms with the fact that free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism.”

Translated, “Free speech is only sacred when we utter it. We are actually the “sacred” part.” The fact that virtue beaconing, click baiting partisans already wield journalism as a weapon against freedom of religion (unless the religion is environmentalism or social justice), speech (if they disagree with it), press (any competition), assembly (of the non-SJW kind), and petitioning the government (regarding election fraud, abortion, or firearms, for example) seems petty in comparison to the journalists’ sacred calling, right?

To paraphrase Monty Python, “Gentlemen, you can’t have a free conscience here, this is journalism class.”

“When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting ‘free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,’” wrote [Richard] Stengel, the undersecretary of state for public affairs and public diplomacy during the second Obama administration. “But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.”

Outlier? This used to be called exceptionalism. And Stengel should look up “championing,” too.

“All speech is not equal,” Stengel writes. “And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails.”

Some speech is more equal than other speech. And I’m sure Stengel has in mind just the right people to guard the guardrails.

And then we have Masha Gessen at the New Yorker:

“The news media have traditionally borne the responsibility for insuring that the actual purpose of the First Amendment is fulfilled,” they write. “Yet Americans are content to leave this essential component of democracy to profit-driven corporations with next to no regulatory oversight.”

Very clever. Pretending the New Yorker seeks no profit and bashing capitalism, arrogating the purpose of the 1st Amendment to the New Yorker, and making regulation of the competition seem a disinterested, and holy, quest – all in one clueless sentence. Or, maybe it’s a plea for nationalization of the “real journalists.” Except that they would then get their ‘fair’ share of the filthy lucre laundered by taxpayers, it’s hard to imagine what would be different.

Now come Anand Giridharadas and Oliver Darcy; seeking rent.

Giridharadas is an “MSNBC talking head, New York University journalism professor, and former New York Times writer, Vice talk-show host, and Aspen Institute fellow.

CNN reporter Darcy was “promoting a CNN segment dedicated to the urgent issue of throwing other cable networks off television.”

[Giridharadas-] “It’s time for this question to be front and center: Should Fox News be allowed to exist?. Brain-mashing as a business model shouldn’t be legal.”

[Darcy-] “Just a reminder that neither @Verizon, @ATT, nor @comcast have answered any questions about why they beam channels like OAN & Newsmax into millions of homes. Do they have any second thoughts about distributing these channels given their election denialism content? They won’t say.”

I’d favor just letting Fox self-immolate and let people use their remotes to change channels.

But, Parler wasn’t the end of this.

Rallying the Tropes

The Left Aims to Pressure Big Tech to Silence Conservatives

That headline misses the real point. Oh, that’s part of it, but the real agenda is even more corrupt. Scarborough is advancing AOC’s call for regulating thought. Maim Scream Media™ just wants to write the regulations.

Normally a vicious attack by some noxious leftwing blowhards on a leftwing corporatist institution warms my heart, but this is actually an attempt by an increasingly irrelevant group of mendacious talking heads to weaponize the First Amendment against a rival which is eating their lunch.

And note that a Duck-Duck-Go search for – AOC’s call for regulating media – and the same search on Google search using the ‘!g’ parameter via Duck-Duck-Go, returns no reporting on AOC’s demand from CBS, NBC, NPR, ABC, NYT, WaPo, etc. etc..

Fox News, Reason Magazine, Forbes, and foreign papers, yes. But not the fifth columnists hiding behind a narrow definition of the word “press” in the First Amendment.