Jordan Peterson Interviews Tommy Robinson

Youtube really does not want you to see this interview (recorded 30 June 2024).  So they took it down.  Peterson re-posted it on 4 October 2025:

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.

Let's start with the particularly egregious 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.

𓐵

Narcissism as a Mass Psychosis

Will tattoo madness ever end?

Nigel Jones writing in The Spectator:

The sheer uglification of public spaces by tattoos is reaching intolerable levels.  Those who prowl the streets with hideous inky splodges crawling up their thick necks are not a pretty sight.  These are not the picturesquely decorated heroes of Moby Dick or jolly Jack Tars with tales of Tangiers and Trafalgar:  They are making a visual statement of their own crass stupidity.  Modern mass tattoos do have one useful purpose, however:  They silently tell us that the wearer is a moron without putting us to the trouble of speaking to them to verify that fact.

I have made the very same point on this website.  As for women with tattoos, when I encounter one, which these days is quite frequent, I am overwhelmed with a sense of loss.  It's like watching the burning of a beautiful painting or the desecration of some sacred place.  Tattoos are not merely ugly, they are heartbreaking.

Filipinas further undermine their own natural beauty

The cancer of women's tattoos has also come to the Philippines.  What I have noticed here is that women who lighten their skin are much more likely to acquire tattoos than women with the lovely and natural morena (brown) skin.  Of course the correlation is that women who want to fit in with the porcelain-skin-crowd are also much more likely to follow any trend.  The result is the double eyesore of artificially whitened skin emblazoned with indelible ink.  It's tragic.

Now the Filipina perspective seems to be:  Because of the expense involved, white skin is the reserve of those who can afford it.  Likewise tattoos.  But other than celebrities, upper class women here (as everywhere) are not running out to get some ink.  Decidedly not.  So sure, Filipinas may want white skin to emulate the upper class.  But they get tattooed to fit in with their peers.

Raging Narcissism

As I have written previously:  Acquiring a tattoo is a fundamentally narcissistic pursuit.  It might be argued that one or two tattoos are a personal artistic indulgence or remembrance.  But to get a sleeve or more, that has the look at me quality of the true narcissist.  Tattoos have become a manifestation of narcissism:  Look at me, look at me!

The self-esteem movement, followed by social media proliferation have turned a whole generation into raging narcissists.

Tattoos were sure to follow.

To go back to Nigel Jones' point, what I find so very sad about the acquisition of tattoos is that people willingly mutilate themselves, make themselves ugly, sacrifice their own beauty, and desecrate their bodies...for attention.  Even if at least half of the attention is disapproving.  Such is the strong pull of narcissism.  It is like an addictive drug.

Clearly we are doing something wrong when raising our children.

𓐵

Individual Accountability Warfare, Part Two

How to deal with a dangerous world

Back in May, I wrote about Individual Accountability Warfare.  This is what it looks like.  And the results.  Here's my question:  Would ANY Democrat act this way?  Name one, just one.  But is this story about Trump true?  I certainly hope so.

THIS is how President Trump handled terrorists. It’s why in his last 18 months we didn’t lose a single American soldier in Afghanistan.

President Trump kept America safe because he made our enemies FEAR us.

FULL Interview LINK in BIO. pic.twitter.com/WM5C7MPjZh

— Wesley Hunt (@WesleyHuntTX) July 3, 2024

𓐵

Internet Portal

How do you face the internet?

Here is a slightly edited version of how I do it.  I have found that if you want a portal that works well for your needs, you have to create your own.

News Fox News New York Post Wall Street Journal New York Times Washington Post Opinion & Commentary Tucker Carlson Network City Journal DailyWire Frontpage Magazine Instapundit The Spectator Bruce Bawer Theodore Dalrymple Dinesh D'Souza The Free Press Glenn Greenwald David Horowitz Andrew Klavan Michael Knowles Heather Mac Donald Douglas Murray National Review The New Criterion Jordan Peterson Prager University Dave Rubin Christopher Rufo Ben Shapiro Mark Steyn John Stossel Matt Walsh Technology 9to5Mac Judner Aura Marques Brownlee Lewis Hilsenteger Dave Lee Apple Apple.com AppleID iCloud Support | Profile System Status _______________________________________

Reference American Heritage Dictionary Britannica.com Cambridge Dictionary Chambers Dictionary Collins Dictionary Dictionary.com DuckDuckGo | Bing Food & Recipes (Dropbox) Google | Maps | Translate IRS.gov Merriam-Webster OneLook.com OED.com TimeandDate.com Wikipedia.org Web Tools Disqus DocuSign ExpressVPN Google Voice Name.com Twitter Video Acorn TV ITV.com Netflix Rumble YouTube Email Gmail ProtonMail Shopping & Banking Amazon Shipping FedEx UPS USPS

____________________________________________________________________

𓐵

President Michelle

The Obama Theory

Here's a question:  Why has Obama not called on Biden's cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Biden?

Answer:  Because it would automatically make Kamala Harris President and therefore the presumptive nominee for the 2024 election.  And Obama does not want her to be the nominee.

Is there any other possible answer?

But this begs a second question:  Who then does Obama want?

Answer:  Himself.

But okay, since he is constitutionally ineligible, he'll settle for...Michelle.

Of course.

Of course this is the explanation for everything we are currently seeing with Biden.  This explains why they (all of them) have been hiding Biden's true condition.  To keep Kamala out and leave the slot open for Michelle.

Plus this:  As Vice President, Kamala may very well make a big stink if she is not chosen as Biden's replacement.  Of course she will.  She will cry racism!  And sexism!  And this would absolutely work, if the Democrats were considering Gavin Newsom.  And choosing Newsom over Harris will definitely lose the Democrats even more black voters.  But none of this is a problem if Michelle is the replacement.

But there is another reason as well.  Michelle will make a terrible candidate.  As popular as she may be on the left, she's just not very likable.  I think the Obama's are perfectly well aware of this.  So their goal is to limit the amount of time that she has to be a candidate.

And as far as I am aware, the latest they can leave the slot open is until the Democratic Convention.  Which will conveniently provide the opportunity to slip her in over Harris.  Harris will not be happy, but she will be unable to cry racism or sexism.

Obviously both Obamas will vehemently declare that Michelle does not want the job.  But at the last minute, for the sake of the party and for the sake of the country, she will relent, and grudgingly accept the nomination.  They might even extend the convention a day or two for dramatic effect.  I can imagine an intervention by Oprah.  The press will eat it up.

And there are a number of reasons Michelle is a good choice.  The Democrat base absolutely loves her.  She provides a palatable defenestration of Harris, without losing black voters.  And further, Michelle will reverse the black voter exodus to Trump.  But most importantly it is to insure that Barack Obama gets to remain SPOTUS.

Shadow President of the United States

But there is one other little thing.  Consider the Democratic alternatives.  Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, the loathsome Gretchen Whitmer, the long shot J.B. Pritzker; maybe there are others.  Hillary?  None of these guys can beat Donald Trump.  Even from a jail cell, Trump beats these clowns.  No, Michelle is the only viable candidate who can hold the Democratic coalition together and beat Trump.  And this is before we even consider whether the election will be fair.

So my prediction is that Michelle will be the nominee and she will be the next president.  Say it with me:

President Michelle.

𓐵

Feudalism 2030, Part Two

More on the coming Neo-Feudalism

Back in April, I wrote about what I see coming and described it as Neo-Feudalism.  Well someone else has seen it.

It's a fascinating conversation from beginning to end.  Oliver first uses the term feudalism at 58:30.  He goes on to use neo-feudalism as well.  He calls feudalism a natural state, and I do not disagree.

But afterwards he is more positive that I am on our ability to fend off the powers pushing for feudalism.  He feels duty bound to be optimistic about our fight.  But you know, people prefer a positive message, and maybe he is simply giving it to them.  In any case, it is impossible for me to share his optimism.

I believe neo-feudalism will be feudalism dressed up as some kind of progressive, technological utopia, with the trappings but not the substance of democracy.  That is, sure there will be elections.  But they will not mean anything other than providing the populace with the illusion that they are participating in a democratic system.  And most people today do not have enough capacity for critical thought to see through it.

𓐵

Schumer's Photo

The real problem with Chuck Schumer's Father's Day photo

My question is:  If the man will lie about something this simple and innocent and commonplace, can you just imagine what else he would (and does) lie about?  The answer can only be:  Just about everything.

And of course, he's bad enough.  But for the life of me, I just cannot imagine the type of person who would vote for someone like this.  Repeatedly.  As bad as he is, Schumer's not the real problem.  You are.

You absolutely have the government you deserve.  And I can only take solace in the fact that it is going to get worse...for you.  As the Instapundits like to say (quoting H.L. Mencken):  Gooder and harder.  You deserve it all.

𓐵

Three Questions

Three questions we should all ask ourselves about Israel