Jordan Peterson Interviews Tommy Robinson

Youtube really does not want you to see this interview (recorded 30 June 2024).  So they do not allow it to be shared or embedded.  But that is okay because X/Twitter behaves so much better:

.@YouTube has censored my conversation with @TRobinsonNewEra. You can't comment. You can't like or share it. You can barely find it.

So here it is. @Tammy1Peterson and I just spoke to Tommy again. More on that soon. pic.twitter.com/17Kf8QxpuE

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) August 16, 2024

Now here is a followup interview from 16 August 2024 (posted just hours ago on Youtube).  Still shareable at this hour, but just to be safe, I'll embed the X/Twitter post below.

Crime and Punishment | Tommy Robinson pic.twitter.com/IFNZ1ZhpRC

— The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast (@JBPpod) August 29, 2024

Watch these videos on Youtube while you can because I believe, sooner or later, they will take them down completely.  Moving forward, I will embed the X/Twitter videos whenever I have a choice.  Youtube has proven time and again that they are not to be trusted.

Finally, you can see Robinson's documentary, Silenced, which they refer to in both of these videos, here.

Watching these videos and Silenced it is clear that Britain has become a theocracy with Dhimmi-servants running the government, the police, and the judiciary.  And frankly, short of widespread violence, it is going to stay that way.  The government seems completely immune to public outcry.  I am pessimistic that the British people will be able to muster the necessary will and strength to dislodge the theocratic government.

I am sorry, but if you jail citizens for making comments on Facebook, do not be surprised if you get protests, riots, and violence.  At this point the British government seems to believe that they can jail enough citizen dissidents to bring Facebook commentators to heel, and to quell the riots.  And I fear they may be correct.

But at some point we have to fight for our countries.  Yes, actually fight.  And if we do not, we will lose them.  That is where Britain is now.  That is the choice that the British people now face.

𓐵

Give It Back!

The Scam of Land Acknowledgments

Land Acknowledgments seem to be all the rage on the left.  Here is an example from my own alma mater:

Let's start with the passive voice.  This land was stolen from them.  Why do you not want to address who exactly stole the land?  Is it that if you also acknowledge who stole the land, it would make it more clear who has the ability to return it?

Well we know who stole it, right?  Our ancestors, most often through the workings of our government.

So here's my next question:  If you believe that this land was stolen (like this acknowledgment plainly states) and you are a good person, why not give it back?  Surely we could give some of it back?  I mean, Nevada is over eighty percent owned by the federal government.  Utah, Idaho, and Alaska all have over sixty percent federal ownership.  California?  Over forty-five percent.  Oregon?  Over fifty percent.  And how much land do state governments control?

So if you really meant it, at least some land could be returned.

Or maybe you are not a good person?  Because you have no intention of giving the land back to its rightful owners.  This is simply a performance to make you feel better about yourself and how virtuous you are.  Or how virtuous your intentions are anyway.

But even your intentions are not virtuous.  You have no intention of returning anything.  You just want, somehow, for Native Americans to believe that you have these intentions.  And to believe that, the Indians would have to be as dumb as you think they are.

Well, they're not.

Even if you do claim to recognize and respect their brilliance, gifts, and contributions past, present, and future.  They are a living legacy because as you acknowledge, their actual legacy was stolen.  You really believe that they are too stupid to recognize your condescension?

Unless you truly intend to return the land to its rightful inheritors, do not patronize our Native American brothers and sisters with this absurd and meaningless statement.

So what should be said instead?  Well I am not at all sure that anything can be said or even should be said.  Certainly nothing said is going to make the situation any better.

Don't say, do.  That is, give the land back.  Seriously?  Well, not really.  The above acknowledgment is from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.  Are the good people of North Carolina going to give the land that that campus occupies back to the above listed Native American tribes?

There is just no chance of that.

So I am not sure anything should be said whatsoever.

And given the long history and the long chain of promises made and promises broken, is there anything short of a large-scale land return that would suffice?  Short of land return, what are you going to do?  Promise better education and jobs on the reservations?  Tax credits?

Stop talking about stolen land.  Move on to something, anything, more realistic.

Or, pray be silent.

𓐵

What to Make of Vocal Fry

Self-indulgent insolence

Let's start with:  What is vocal fry?

The above clip, from Loudermilk, is five years old.  And it got a lot of discussion at the time.  I completely agree with the Loudermilk character (Ron Livingston) that people do not talk this way.  It is an affectation.

I never watched the Loudermilk show, but since seeing this clip on Youtube, I have noticed vocal fry everywhere.  And it is grating.  But worse than that, it is so obviously fake.

And this discussion predates Loudermilk.  Naomi Wolf was talking about this issue nine years ago.

So why bring this up now?  Here is today's Megyn Kelly Show:

My question for Eliana Johnson is:  Why would anyone pretend to talk this way?  And why would Kelly, or anyone else, take someone who does speak in this manner seriously?  No matter what one may say about the substance of Johnson's comments, it is extremely difficult to take her seriously.  Just listen to the two guests, and decide which of the two sounds more serious and believable.  Who sounds authentic?  And which of the three women might you trust?

No, Johnson is not as bad as the gal in Loudermilk's coffee shop.  She is smart enough to tone it down a bit.  But like Elizabeth Holmes, if we cannot trust her voice, how can we trust anything she says?

One final point on The Megyn Kelly Show; as I most often do, I listened to the podcast while out walking.  So I was not watching the three women on a screen.  I am sure this makes the vocal fry all the more pronounced and noticeable.  To find a good television host, Roger Ailes used to recommend that producers turn the sound off and just watch.  To really notice vocal fry, my recommendation is to turn the video off and just listen.  It hits you like a brick.

I once thought that these women are trying to sound like Katharine Hepburn.  And of course, failing miserably.  But if there's any truth in this, perhaps they are trying to sound smart and refined and sophisticated like Hepburn.  But it sounds so fake that the result is the opposite.

But I no longer believe this is the reason for vocal fry.

Listen to this particularly egregious example from Fashionably Divorced.  Just watch (listen) to ANY of her videos.  I'm sorry, but it's disgusting.  Or, just listen to NPR.  On this Youtube NPR compilation (without video), one recent comment is that vocal fry communicates condescension.  Now this sounds completely true to me.  Maybe it's not an attempt to sound refined and sophisticated, but rather an attempt to convey genuine contempt for your listeners.  Without doubt the Loudermilk barista has contempt for her customers.  Fashionably Divorced conveys condescension and smugness with every syllable.

And Lord, nothing shouts smug like vocal fry on NPR.

Upspeak is another irritating habit that women sometimes glom onto.  Also annoying; but I personally do not find it anywhere as annoying as fry.  Upspeak seems to come from a lack of confidence rather than the self-indulgent insolence of vocal fry.

Whether she is on the radio or standing right in front of you, how should one deal with this self-indulgent insolence?  How should we deal with that level of smugness and condescension?  My advice is don't deal with it.  Find a new coffee ship, turn the radio off, swipe left on the video, and if she is standing right in front of you, walk away.

Do not tolerate the insolence.

Update, Tuesday, 13 August 2024

From the very next Megyn Kelly Show:

Once you hear it, it's hard to un-hear it.

𓐵