Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Why We Can't Hear Each Other

Dec. 14, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:16:04

Why We Can't Hear Each Other

The real vs the hyperreal.
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi folks, I think I'm live.
	Hopefully I'm live.
	Let me know in the chat if I'm live.
	I thought today we would have a very dull talk about the nature of the discourse in the West and how we are just simply not able to hear each other.
	Why it is that the powers that be, the ruling hegemonic power that enforces the sort of standard post-20th century narrative of the West, just can't hear and perceive the actual reality that is what the people who are objecting to it are actually living through.
	But they just don't understand that it isn't that they're bad people.
	It isn't that they are just malevolent and they're here to destroy things.
	The people on the outside of the current moral consensus are pointing to real things.
	They're pointing to real problems, pointing to all kinds of things that are true.
	And this is not denting the consensus that the, I guess would say, the establishment narrative has agreed upon.
	And they don't seem to want to listen.
	I think the problem is genuinely there is a kind of hyper-reality in which they live.
	And this to pierce into it essentially destroys all of it.
	And that's a terrifying thing for the people who live in this hyper-reality.
	Their entire world is going to be shattered if they concede any of it.
	They concede anything on the other side of it.
	And so we are constantly trapped in this perpetual cycle of lovely, beautiful lies that come down from above and then horrors, absolute horrific massacres, rapes, murders, just indignities, all sorts of terrible things on the ground level, on reality.
	And it's one of those things where this can't go on forever.
	And the people who are reinforcing the hyper narrative really have a responsibility to step back and perhaps concede where they might be wrong.
	But I don't think they're going to.
	But I think that philosophically we can actually explain much of what is happening here.
	Because I think a lot of what's happening is what I'm just going to call discoursism, where the thought process and reality of the people who are engaged in our oppression are just trapped in a realm of discourse where to them, it's only ever words that happen.
	And so words only ever connect to other words.
	They are signs and symbols that are imbued with different kinds of meaning.
	And that meaning doesn't actually have to be connected to reality.
	That meaning can just be connected to other symbols and signs.
	And therefore, if you are not interfacing with them on the level of those symbols and signs, it means nothing to them.
	They don't understand that there is a genuine world of difference and distinction outside of that which they perceive and believe.
	And so I preface this.
	I've, of course, to get to this point, been reading Baudrillard, probably pronounced differently, but I'm not French, so I don't care.
	And I only am self-taught, so I only ever read things.
	I never hear them pronounced by the people.
	Baudrillard?
	I think that's right.
	So let's have a talk about his Simulation theory, which I think is genuinely quite explanatory at this point.
	I've got some notes that I'm going to be referring to because, of course, this is all quite complex stuff.
	I was reading simulations, which is not his simulation and simulacra because honestly, couldn't find a good Kindle, I couldn't find a Kindle translation.
	I like my Kindle.
	I've decided Kindles are the way forward.
	I realize that makes me something of a heretic.
	Don't get me wrong, I like books just fine.
	It's just the Kindle is so convenient.
	So, you know, what am I going to do?
	But so, I've been reading this because this is basically the only English translation.
	But this is made up of, it's basically an abridged version of his more detailed work.
	But he's pretty straightforward out of the gate as to what he's trying to put across here.
	He's not in any way trying to be, it sounds mystical.
	The whole thing sounds very mystical, but he's actually trying to communicate it as clearly as possible.
	It's just what he's communicating is rather abstract.
	Oh, that's exactly how you say Bauldrillard.
	I'm glad to hear that.
	I very much appreciate that.
	Carl, you're too wonderful.
	They're lying.
	It's a printing press and they get 10k a month to keep the charade alive.
	They probably get more than that, to be honest.
	Anyway, so let's talk about his theory.
	So his theory of simulation and simulacra is a philosophical framework which describes how in modernity, and I guess what we can call post-modernity, the representations of reality that we see around us no longer actually describe or like reflect or embody something about the real world, but instead act as a replacement for it.
	And they distort it.
	And this means that they precede any kind of change.
	And this means that the distinction between the real and the represented ends up kind of becoming obsolete or collapsing into itself.
	Because, and this goes back to a much larger question of the nature of ideology.
	I spent a lot of time studying ideology for my masters.
	And so I think, and ideology is a field that is essentially entirely captured by Marxists as well, just to be clear.
	Because most people have not really got that much interest in discussing ideology.
	And it's the Marxists who are trying to figure out why exactly they kept failing at the communist revolution.
	And so for the last hundred or so years, they've been engaged in a very high level and thorough examination of the nature of ideology.
	And so what Baudrillard is saying here, again, he's a radical leftist, obviously, but what Baudrillard is saying here is that the simulation, the ideology, the hyper-reality can precede reality through the process of ideological reification, through the process of the ideology, which is a series of detached ideas, logical abstract ideas that,
	as Marx put it, come down from heaven to earth, or at least in the faulty way the Germans perceived ideology in his day.
	Well, when these ideas come down, they are processed through what Alphazer calls ideological state apparatus apparatuses, and they reformat the civilization in line with the ideology.
	And we see this all the time, right?
	You see this all the time.
	As in, look at all the gay pride stuff in the schools, right?
	That's ideology formatting the civilization.
	And then you see the charts.
	Oh, my God, look at all these trans people.
	Look at all these gay people.
	Look at all these bisexual people.
	It's not that they're actually trans, gay and bisexual.
	That number is going to be a vanishingly small percentage of any civilization.
	It's that the ideological state apparatuses, which are the churches, the schools, the media, the you know, anything that seems to be an influential power block in society that produces a form of worldview has been pumping out non-stop.
	Oh, yeah, you know, everyone's gay, everyone's this, it's just a spectrum, blah blah blah.
	And so, as a young, impressionable person, and all of the power structures around you are pumping all of this out, you might be like, Well, yeah, maybe I am, I don't know.
	You know, I mean, like, who am I to say that I'm not?
	And so, the ideology begins to format the civilization in its own image, in its own room.
	There was nothing real about this, like, there's nothing real about the nature of this, but the hyper-reality that the ideology has been established in begins to change the nature of the civilization and through these procedures.
	And the communists were always complaining: well, this is how the Christians are continually like reproducing the means of production.
	They're creating the next generation which believes in Christianity, which believes in the rule of law, which believes in the West and whatever else.
	These were the things that were produced by the Western ideological state apparatuses that allowed us to win World War II, that allowed us to win the Cold War, and that allowed us to be very proud.
	And if you think back to the sort of 90s culture of America and Britain, it was very confident, very, very confident, because frankly, it looked like we'd defeated all our enemies.
	So, we thought we were the winners of history, basically.
	And this is why you get Fukuyama being like, Well, this is the end of history, then we've won it.
	It's like, well, that'd be nice, but no, we haven't.
	And I don't think there's any such thing as winning the end of history.
	So, the but this is what the ideological state apparatuses of the West throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the early 2000s were telling each other.
	But of course, this is itself a form of hyper-reality.
	It doesn't actually connect to the real world.
	So, anyway, the point being, the simulations can precede reality in this way because they'll end up creating reality.
	And so, he calls these, he calls the he's got a breakdown of the process, which I'll go through in a second.
	But I think the reason this is important, and I do think this is important, is because we're seeing it everywhere.
	And in previous eras, it was something that was not directly challenged by reality.
	Because the hyper-reality and the reality, they're not connected.
	But that doesn't mean that the high, that doesn't mean they don't have an effect on one another.
	And it also doesn't mean that they have to have an effect on one another either.
	So, if the hyper-reality, it may well be different to the reality, but if it's not so sufficiently different that the reality is constantly interjecting into the hyper-reality with its events, then you can carry on with this false set of beliefs, this false view of the world indefinitely until reality has sufficiently changed in order to essentially force itself into the hyper-real.
	And the thing about ideology, as Althaza points out, is it doesn't have a history, right?
	And what he means when he says it doesn't have a history.
	This view, as in it's not located in a time and a place, and it just exists eternally in the now.
	And so, you can believe these things anytime, any place, forever, if you believe these things.
	If you buy into the signs and symbols and the stories that make up the hyper-reality, you can believe them at any time and any place.
	They're not connected to temporal progress as we understand it.
	So anyway, for Baudrillard, the simulacrum, which is of course the simulacra of the Western world, a simulacrum is a copy or distortion of an image that is meant to be a representation, is no longer clearly connected to the meanings of the thing that it's trying to represent.
	So a picture of, you know, if you look at some sort of 18th century oil painting, right, that's not a simulacrum, right?
	That's just a representation because that actually looks like the person that it's representing.
	And so when you see an oil painting of Wellington or something, well, yeah, that's actually how he looked.
	You know, there are lots of oil paintings of him and you, and or Napoleon or Nelson or whoever.
	You've got lots of different paintings of them.
	You've got busts of them and things like that.
	And it's very unlikely they're all dissorted in the same way.
	So there's probably a fairly good representation of reality contained in them.
	There's no reason to try and distort the way that these men looked.
	So there's no reason we can't assume this is a genuine representation of the original.
	So it has some kind of meaningful content that connects it to the man that it was representing.
	Well, a simulacrum isn't that, right?
	A simulacrum is an image or a representation in which the meaningful representation of the original and connection to the original has been disconnected, if there ever was any in the first place.
	And Baudrillard gives the example of Disneyland, right?
	He's like, look, Disneyland is, I mean, he was contemptuous of it, but it's a pretty incredible simulacrum.
	A kind of theme park version of a thing that never really existed.
	And so, and for him, he suggests that actually, you know, the Disneyland is a way of masking the fact that America is itself a kind of Disneyland that doesn't really exist in a real world.
	So America itself is a kind of hyper-reality to him.
	But Disneyland makes people think that that's the fake thing and that America is the real thing.
	I'm not going to go into it because it's a long thing, but the point being, it is a shared, essentially a shared delusion that we all buy into.
	When you go to Disneyland, you aren't sat there screaming, but these aren't what the pirates of the Caribbean were actually like.
	Why is beauty fallen in love with the beast or something like that?
	You buy into the fiction of it and you go through the events.
	You go through the ride of Disneyland without objection because you understand what this is all about.
	And then from this, he also connects to what he calls simulation.
	Now, simulation to him is the process by which signs, images, and representations, models come to generate the reality rather than describing it.
	The representations themselves don't necessarily point to a real object.
	The purpose of them is to create the reality themselves.
	And this is what is produced.
	And hyper-reality is what is produced by the simulation of the simulacra.
	So you can see how this builds one on top of the other.
	And hyper-reality is the condition where what feels real, what you perceive to be real, is constructed from signs and images, the simulations, the simulacra in the simulation.
	These are not necessarily real things, and they do not necessarily triangulate on a real thing you can point to in reality, but they feel as if they do.
	They feel as if reality is informed by these.
	And so this is reality constructed not just through media, but through sort of shibboleths or through representations or ideological shorthands.
	So, for example, there's a reason why whenever you hear someone talking about a political subject, there are certain shorthand terms, sort of keywords, that as soon as you hear them, you know that person and you know everything they believe on every subject ever, right?
	So if a person in their Twitter bio has their pronouns, you know everything politically that they think.
	You know they're for refugees welcome.
	You know they think Black Lives Matter.
	You know they think there's an infinite number of genders.
	You know that they think that trans women are women.
	You know that they're for open borders.
	You know that they're for the welfare state.
	You know that they're for the NHS.
	You know that they are against gun rights.
	You know that they're for abortion.
	You know everything about them because the hyper-reality in which they live is a series of connected symbols that doesn't necessarily connect to reality.
	You know everything about this.
	And these people are connecting primarily with the representations in the hyper-reality.
	Like to say, oh, she, her, and your bio or he, him, and your bio or they, them, whatever.
	I know that reality has got very little bearing on what that person actually believes about any subject.
	Literally any subject.
	It is entirely ideological.
	And this is something that you're well aware of.
	And they will say, well, look, I can do that with the based patriots.
	It's like, sure, you can.
	That's right.
	Everyone, I guess, on the internet lives in a kind of hyper-reality of their own.
	But at least the base patriots seem to have more of a grasp on the actual real world than not.
	You might say, well, these are bigoted.
	These are this.
	These are that.
	It's like, well, maybe.
	But maybe that's what reality is.
	Anyway, save that argument for another day.
	The point being is that there is at the moment this contest between people, I think, who are engaged in the real world and people who are engaged in a very powerful hegemonic hyper-reality narrative.
	And the people in the hyper-reality are really struggling to accept that the people who are not in the hyper-reality are telling the truth.
	Because this is constructed through signs and symbols and they are informed with meaning that is based in a sort of closed loop within the discourse.
	People coming from outside of that seem either like aliens or like heretics.
	And this is where the Piers Morgan Nick Fuentes discourse comes into it.
	We'll get into all of these things shortly.
	And this, to the people inside the hyper narrative, these people seem like alien freaks.
	Like, or just literally, you know, like Satan himself, who's Mephistophelian summoned himself into the study or something, right?
	Like they can barely believe these people exist and they don't know what to do about them.
	And the only solutions that they have exist within the hyper-reality.
	And so we'll get to all of that in a minute.
	So Baudrillard gives us a progression of how the representations actually detach from reality, right?
	So initially, you have a reflection of reality that is faithfully representing a thing.
	Now, let's take World War II, right?
	The people living through World War II went through some of the worst things that humans have gone through.
	And I'm not just talking about Jews in the Holocaust.
	Literally everyone going through World War II went through something that was just abominable, right?
	It's just abominable.
	The industrialized killing of human beings is always horrible.
	Like, the killing of human beings is never very pleasant.
	But if there is a moral telos to it that is metaphysical and not just material, at least it can be tolerable, right?
	As in, you go on a crusade to liberate the Holy Land.
	Okay, well, the first crusade was rough for the Crusaders, and it was rough for the people who they defeated when they got there.
	It was rough for everyone, but it becomes tolerable because at least you did it for a good reason.
	But when you have industrialized, mechanized warfare, the good reason becomes a lot more necessary, right?
	It becomes a lot bigger, it becomes a lot more depersonalized, and the carnage is just so much worse than it is when you have to hack people to death with swords.
	There's something so impersonal about the nature of modern warfare that it makes modern warfare not worth fighting for both sides.
	And so when you have people who go through this and they give you their reflection of reality, their representation, well, yeah, that probably does fairly accurately represent what happened.
	And that's the reality that was portrayed to the boomers as they grew up from the living memory of the people who went through it.
	And so I imagine it fairly faithfully represented the thing.
	But the next stage is that Baudrillard presents us with is the distortion of reality.
	And so this is where the image of reality that has been presented is altered or exaggerated through either propaganda, idealization, as in advertising, or through mistakes, through people deliberately lying, whatever it is.
	And I can't help but feel that the narrative that we have on World War II now is something of a distortion of reality, the sort of common pop culture narrative, the hyper-reality in which we live, where the Nazis are just the ultimate evil, and there's really nothing more to say about it.
	They're just cartoon villains.
	I'm not in any way sympathetic to Nazis, obviously, but I feel that we're not properly and adequately representing things.
	And there's a direct investment from certain political factions to misrepresent or distort and propagandize against the antagonists of World War II because they stand to lose something out of this, because a lot of their political clout comes from calling you a Nazi.
	And if we were to take a more sort of sober look, a less distorted look at what the Nazis were compared to the Soviets, compared to the Allies, then maybe it wouldn't be so easy to just hold them up and win an argument by pointing and saying Nazi, right?
	But the point that this that I'm making here is this brings us to the third step, which is the masking of the absence of reality.
	And Baudrard describes this as kind of like the realm of sorcery, right?
	Where the image pretends to represent something that no longer exists.
	And you know exactly what I'm thinking of when I say this.
	This is when they're screeching at Nick Fuentes, he's a Nazi.
	There are no Nazis.
	The Nazis are gone.
	They've been gone for 80 years.
	We defeated them.
	You might have a very degenerated echo of that.
	But even then, I don't think Fuentes and his Ilk actually like that because there was a lot in essence to become Nazi Germany that they are just frankly lacking in almost every way.
	And so when you get to this masking the absence of reality, you'll notice that we've moved entirely into the realm of discourse and symbols.
	Like there's nothing that Nick Fuentes does in his daily basis in his daily life.
	I imagine anyway.
	Unless, of course, he is organizing a troop of goose-stepping SS LARPers in his daily life, which I doubt he is.
	He looks like the kind of guy who doesn't get that much sunlight.
	Unless he's actually doing something in reality that is Nazi, you know, he's personally drawing up plans to kill Jews or something.
	I don't know.
	I don't even know what that would be.
	Then all of this is just happening in the realm of signs and symbols, right?
	So this is just the narrative, the hyper-reality that is created by the distorted terminology and the ideology that we are using.
	So nothing that we are talking about in the current discourse around Nick Fuentes is connecting to a real thing.
	And that's what makes this so bizarre.
	So you look at Nick Fuentes.
	He's kind of a skinny guy sat at his desk, just, you know, trolling people and saying things that are offensive.
	And it's like, okay, like the reality is he's just sat at a desk.
	He's just talking.
	But they're acting as if he's got stormtrooper divisions amassing on the border of Poland or something.
	It's like, right.
	You can see that this is disconnected from whatever the reality is.
	We've got a hyper narrative somewhere else that is just not really reflective of what is actually happening.
	We are dealing purely in the realm of symbols here.
	And then this brings us to the fourth stage, which is pure simulacrum, which is, I think, where we are now.
	The image has no relation to reality at all, right?
	It just refers to other images.
	Again, the image of Hitler, the image of the Allies, the image of this, the image of that.
	But if you look at the ground, like nothing's happening.
	There are no SS fucking divisions.
	There's no war in Europe.
	There's nothing going on.
	This is all in our minds.
	This is all a hyper-reality.
	And this is the hyper-reality that has, in the sort of Althasurian fashion, begun, has been churned out by the ideological state apparatuses.
	And the only way to get to kind of pierce into this hyper-reality was to literally take on the position of one of its antagonists.
	And that's the only thing that they're actually reacting to.
	We're going to get into some of the terrible things that are happening and how they fit into this.
	Because what this does, not only is the representation preceded reality by formatting reality through its own ideology, but then you get to what Baudrillard calls the death of the real.
	Now, that doesn't mean that reality disappears, but reality loses authority, right?
	The authority of reality to inform people's thoughts, decisions, and worldviews is completely diminished.
	And we see this all day, every day.
	Like every day, there is a rape by a foreigner of some girl in England, and yet that has no authority over the hyper-reality of refugees welcome.
	That has no impact whatsoever.
	And it's like, right, okay, that is crazy.
	It is absolutely crazy that genuine horrors are being permitted because of the narrative on refugees.
	And if it's just all signs and symbols, then the lefty lawyers, the human rights lawyers, the judges, the activists, they'll go, oh, we're so concerned about our hyper-real refugees.
	And then a bunch of 30-something guys like, oh, yeah, I'm being persecuted at home.
	I'll speak the words.
	I will fill in.
	I will connect the symbol to the symbol.
	And you will essentially have this kind of cathartic, oh, finally, I get to be the savior of someone.
	And it's like, right.
	But in reality, that guy with the thinning hair and four children back in Afghanistan probably is a criminal.
	There's a reason that you can't claim asylum in other countries.
	And you're just desperate to kind of close the loop on this.
	And it's like, okay, but the reality is that he'll probably do something terrible to someone who doesn't deserve it.
	This is the death of the real in our own political discourse now, where the reality of Afghans raping children has no authority over the narrative, the hyper narrative of refugees welcome.
	It is fucking insane that this is the world we're living in, to be honest.
	And so another point that Bergerard makes is that you can detect how power operates through these symbols.
	So and we see this all the time.
	Again, all the time.
	There's a reason that Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate and all those sort of people are on the fringes, right?
	There's a reason that they're never in the actual ideological state apparatus like the BBC, like the schools, like wherever.
	There's a reason that these people are kept to the side.
	It's because they understand that power operates through narratives in a world of symbols.
	And so they're concerned with media narratives, statistical abstractions, the discourse we've been having where the left are trying to disprove the concept of per capita, which wasn't a political concept, right?
	I don't know how many centuries have we had the concept of per capita?
	But now they've arrived at, oh, no, right.
	The concept of per capita is attacking our symbols.
	It's attacking our hyper-reality.
	Therefore, we must attack the concept of per capita.
	It's like, right, okay, that's weird.
	Like, that's just very bizarre.
	But that's the point.
	There's nothing that they won't try and defend themselves from.
	Nothing about reality has authority over the hyper-reality.
	And so even if it forces its way in, they will mount a defense regardless of the horrors, regardless of the evils that are being perpetrated.
	There's no evil too great.
	Like people always, people ask, well, how many raped children is too many?
	It's like, all of them.
	They will let every single child be raped to protect their hyper-real narratives.
	Don't you understand?
	Like, you can't be like, okay, well, you know, we've had 100 kids this year.
	Well, maybe if it's 200, then we'll think about it.
	They'll never do that.
	There's no limit.
	When every child is raped, they'll still say refugees welcome.
	They will never, there's no number.
	There's absolutely no number that they will ever get to.
	And so the power is maintained in the institutions through the narratives.
	And the mechanics of the institution work on these narratives.
	And this, I think, is important because this is why spectacle is dominating our lives, right?
	Especially with the internet.
	The internet makes hyper-reality a very powerful thing.
	Because obviously, if we're all just sat in our homes tweeting or watching YouTube videos or whatever, it becomes a medium in which the signs and symbols and narratives are very comfortable because that's all they can do.
	You can't do anything real on the internet.
	You can't really reach out and punch someone, which is why you've got so many internet tough guys.
	Nothing real can actually happen on the internet.
	The internet is merely a means of communication, which don't get me wrong, is a brilliant thing, but it means that the hyper-reality can live very, very comfortably.
	And you have these universes of discourse that don't necessarily connect to reality.
	And because you can curate your own universe of discourse, you can just block everyone.
	You can just block everything out.
	I don't need to hear from that.
	I don't need to hear from that.
	I have curated my own hyper-reality and I'm going to protect it viciously.
	And why shouldn't I?
	Why am I not entitled to do that?
	And so you have a world, a political world in this country, and in America as well, where it's just based on nothing.
	It's just not based on reality.
	It's not based on facts.
	It's not based on morality.
	It's based on a series of disconnected symbols with meanings of things that no longer exist.
	And this is what dominates everything about Western political discourse.
	And frankly, this is what we've got to try and destroy.
	So I'm going to give you an example here, right?
	Recently, there have been a bunch of rapes in Britain from Afghan migrants.
	And here is just, this is just horrific, right?
	You don't see anything in this.
	But what the horror is, is in the what's going to come is this is two young men coercing and dragging a 15-year-old girl into a park in Leamington Spa where they proceeded to both rape her.
	And she was crying and saying, you know, please don't, you're going to rape me, please don't.
	Genuinely a horror, right?
	So for like an hour or whatever, how long this took, there was genuinely like, I mean, I it all the words we have don't encapsulate the experience of it, right?
	Any word we use will insufficiently describe the feelings of terror, the feelings of violation, the feelings of helplessness, and the kind of self-hatred that will come into this person's being forever now at 15.
	Like if this had happened at like 50, you'd be like, okay, well, at least, you know, for most of my life, I was happy and then something terrible happened.
	No, at 15.
	So this person now has another 50 plus years of living with this.
	And this is just something that happens in Britain.
	This happened like three times, three separate incidents last week.
	But the video of this was just, I was just like, damn, man, you've just got a don't Fed post, right?
	You've just got, you've just got to, there's no, there's no point doing something stupid out of nothing.
	But this is something real that happened.
	And then, so that's, that's reality, right?
	That's the reality of what's happened.
	That's real.
	We are watching a real atrocity take place where there's basically very little sympathy from any of the people living in the hyper narrative and the hyper reality.
	Because like just a couple of days later, Zach Polanski, leader of the Greens, is I'm going to go to Calais.
	Oh, we need to bring small boat migrants across.
	We need to spend money to get small boat migrants across.
	And he was like, Welcome to the consequences of Farage and Brexit.
	Because of the Dublin Convention, lots of people I met in Calais are not allowed to claim asylum in France.
	So their only option is to die in Calais or risk a small boat and claim asylum in a non-EU country like the UK.
	It's like, right, okay.
	How does that connect to this?
	Like Zach is advocating to get men who will do this.
	Like these two may well be small boat migrants themselves.
	Like, and he's just like, yeah, so we need to spend money on these small boat migrants.
	Because in my world of signs, symbols, and discourse, there's no representation of the over-representation of these illegal immigrants to commit sexual crimes.
	The reality, the statistical reality is they are massively overrepresented in sex crimes.
	This happens all the time.
	We get literally like half a dozen of these a week coming up now.
	These men are overrepresented in sex crimes, but that doesn't have any meaning in Zach Polanski's hyper-reality.
	No, he doesn't believe this.
	He doesn't believe it.
	And so a lot of people come to the conclusion, well, he must just be evil then.
	It's like, well, no.
	I mean, don't worry, obviously, yes, I think he's evil because he's a Green Party politician.
	But this is about the simulation and the simulacrum not having any connection to what is actually happening.
	He has a narrative that refugees are just poor, powerless, persecuted people who have fled with their, you know, their wives and their children clutching their children, staggering through snow, overcoming all of these obstacles, going hardships and hunger to eventually get to France and the French government's just like, whoa, ha ha, we will never give you entry into our country for obscure bureaucratic reasons.
	Be gone.
	And so Zach's, oh my God, I've got to save these poor, innocent, vulnerable people.
	And that doesn't bear any resemblance to what's actually happened.
	They're mostly young men.
	They're obviously fucking around.
	We've seen their TikToks.
	We've seen the things they've done.
	They come over here, they break in, and disproportionately, they're sex criminals.
	So it's just, and also, like, they're not just going to die in Cali.
	They can just go home if they want.
	Like, they got here by walking here.
	They can just walk home.
	But none of that connects to anything.
	And so Zach Polanski finds himself in a position where he's defending these two.
	He finds himself in a position where he thinks it's good and right that these two young men are let into our country and we should pay for the privilege and just let them free to roam and to be as predatory as they want.
	Like there's just no getting around it.
	Like Zach Polanski is living.
	This is his hyper-reality.
	This is the reality.
	Like we see this all the time.
	And what does, what's the government say?
	Well, I mean, Jesus Christ.
	There's no difference between any groups of people.
	There's no cultural differences.
	There's no moral differences, ethical differences.
	There's no differences.
	And so if something is happening, then it's just all of that thing.
	So, oh, it's violence against women and girls.
	It's a national emergency.
	Oh, right.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Good point.
	Because, of course, the rape statistics have been going through the fucking roof.
	I wonder why that is.
	So I'm going to roll out specialist rape and sexual offenses teams in every police force.
	Oh, right, yeah, okay.
	Because it's Andrew Tate that's the problem, right?
	Like, boys are going to be taught how to be respectful to women and girls as part of the new national curriculum.
	But if these guys weren't in the schools, what good would it do?
	But they don't know what else to do.
	And so within the realm of the hyper narrative, the hyper reality that they are existing in, they can only say, right, okay, well, if there's, there's clearly a problem that men, just writ large, have with women writ large, just any men against any women.
	And therefore, we must have a very Abstract and unrepresentative discussion about this because we know something is happening, but we're not allowed to actually address it.
	Because the signs and symbols that we have would have to be significantly different for us to be able to accurately characterize the nature of the horrors that are happening in the country.
	And what that would do is intrude on this universe of discourse in which we're living.
	We would have to realign, okay, if that goes, then that goes.
	And we've got to everything that's connected to it is also suspect.
	And basically, Kirstan would find himself on the far right.
	And the entire narrative would collapse into the far right narrative.
	And so they're like, oh, Jesus Christ, you know, there's a problem because 45% of men in Britain, age 16, 24, have a positive view of Andrew Tate.
	So what we need is a bunch of hectoring school moms to lecture young men about how being a buff martial artist who doesn't play by the rules is actually lame and is actually not good and it's not cool whatsoever.
	And you really need to be paying attention to that.
	It's like, okay, well, look, I don't think that's going to work, guys.
	I don't think you're going to be able to get a bunch of middle-aged women to berate young men and explain to them that Andrew Tate is actually not cool.
	That's obviously not going to work.
	And anyone with any sense would be like, obviously, that's not going to work.
	But why are they doing it?
	If it's obviously not going to work, why are they doing it?
	And it's because the universe of symbols and signs and meaning in which they inhabit does not connect to reality.
	It does not connect to the real lived experience of the young men of why they're attracted to Andrew Tate in the first place.
	I mean, the very nature of having a bunch of women berating young men in schools about wanting masculinity is why Andrew Tate is popular in the first place.
	And that's they're just going to be like, yeah, we're going to have more of the same, more of the same, more of the same.
	What are you thinking?
	What are you thinking?
	And the answer, I think, can only be explained through Baudrillard.
	I think it's that they live in a world of symbols that don't connect to reality, that only connect to each other, and they don't have any other thought patterns in their head.
	They don't understand what reality actually is.
	And so there's nothing to do here but to continue on with it.
	And so the next thing we'll go on to is the Zoomers themselves.
	The Zoomers themselves.
	Now, everyone will be familiar with this Jean-Raspéle quote from Camp of the Saints.
	Very few people have actually read Camp of the Saints.
	And I do actually recommend it.
	It's a gripping read, genuinely gripping.
	I'll do a book club on it for lotuses.com at some point because there's so much to it.
	But this quote, everyone will be familiar with.
	Your universe has no meaning to them.
	They will not try to understand.
	They will be tired.
	They will be cold.
	They will make a fire with your beautiful oak door.
	And that is as true for the immigrants as it is for the Zoomers who are currently in revolt against the post-World War II hyper-reality.
	The Zoomers, to them, the universe has no meaning, right?
	This Nazis, worst thing ever, World War II nonsense, like has no meaning to them.
	They will not try to understand.
	They are tired.
	They are cold.
	They will make a fire with your beautiful hyper narrative.
	They don't care.
	And this is the issue that the boomers and mainstream types are engaging with now.
	Because, of course, this is something that we saw completely with the Piers Morgan interview with Nick Fuentes.
	I'm going to call you a racist.
	And Fuentes just readily admits it.
	Well, to Piers Morgan, that's the symbol that means end of discussion.
	To Piers Morgan, getting you to admit you're a racist or a misogynist or whatever, he views that as the victory.
	He views that as the point of the end of the discourse because it is establishing the enemy in that position that wins the argument in his hyper-reality.
	But of course, if your universe has no meaning to the Zuma, then Forens is like, yeah, I'm a racist.
	And what of it?
	Oh, well, let me get my Danny Finkelstein, whose parents were killed in the Holocaust.
	Let me bring him on to lecture you about, you know, don't you realize how bad the Nazis were?
	And he literally is like, I don't care.
	I don't care.
	What happened to your family 100 years ago or whatever has no relation to the world we live in now?
	For them, the reality is not people being murdered by Nazis.
	It is not people being shoved into death camps.
	It is not anything like that.
	What it is, is white men, young white men, being deliberately held at the bottom of society by being called Nazis, by being told they are the worst thing in the world and privileging every other group around them.
	Women, brown people, trans people, immigrants, whatever it is.
	Like every other group gets to have institutional advantages based on their identity criteria and white men do not.
	And so no kidding, they're like, well, you're scared of the Nazis.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	I'm currently being oppressed by a brown lesbian in HR.
	Like, fuck off talking about Nazis.
	That's what's actually real to me.
	Your universe has no meaning to me.
	And that's what we are watching in this.
	Because to Piers Morgan and the Boomer hyper narrative regarding World War II.
	And the thing is, one of the things to pay attention to with the boomers, right?
	You'll notice how they act as if they fought in World War II.
	Like, the boomers talk about World War II as if they personally were on the front lines.
	Just to be clear, none of the boomers fought in World War II.
	The baby boomer generation came after the end of the war.
	So none of them fought in it.
	It's just that they were indoctrinated and mired in the representation of World War II from their parents or their grandparents.
	And this would have been powerful, right?
	It would have been very, very powerful as they were growing up because everyone, it was real, obviously.
	They really went through World War II.
	And they had direct input from everyone around them who went through it because everyone went through this.
	The entire generation scarred by this huge war.
	And yet the Boomers were essentially living in paradise, right?
	The Boomers didn't go through this war.
	They didn't go through any of this.
	And so for them, the legends of the war become distorted into, oh, yeah, okay, this is the climactic battle against Sauron.
	It's like, okay, I mean, you can look at that.
	But what that means is to them, to the boomers, the Nazis have never been a concrete phenomenon.
	The Nazis have never been a real aspect of their lives.
	They were never on the front lines fighting Nazis.
	There's no reality.
	There's no underlying reality that the symbol connects to.
	And so it's always been this free-floating thing in the boomer mind.
	It's a symbol that just means villain.
	It just means enemy.
	And what's interesting is when Stephen Crowder here presses him, presses Piers Morgan about not having, not grilling him on Stalin.
	Well, Stalin is to the right what Hitler is to the left, right?
	He's still a symbol which just means villain, that doesn't have any underlying concrete reality to people of, say, Crowders age.
	I've still got this cough.
	Really itchy throat.
	This is why I haven't live streamed for ages, by the way.
	Yeah, I know that Piers is technically a Gen Xer.
	But the older Gen Xers are indistinguishable for the boomers because they lived in basically the same time where the same narrative had gripped and taken hold.
	They have a true belief in the institutions.
	And that's the difference.
	And what makes Generation X different to the boomers or the sort of, you know, the Piers Morgan oldest Generation X's?
	What makes the younger ones is that we don't have a true belief in the institutions.
	We don't have a true belief in the hyper narrative as being the only thing that's important.
	Because even in our day, there was something wrong with it, right?
	And this is why the thumbnail for this stream is The Matrix.
	This is why Fight Club is still something that people think of and talk about.
	This is why what's that one with the Lumberg and I can't remember the bloody name of it?
	But the point is, all Generation X media is, I hate the corporate world and I want to escape it.
	There's something unreal about this.
	It doesn't feel like it connects to reality.
	And this is why The Matrix is based on Bergerard, poorly.
	But either way, it doesn't really matter.
	The point is the impulse, the impetus, the feeling, the desire is there to say, well, hang on a second.
	I realize that I'm living in a world of unreality in narratives that don't really connect to what I'm actually living through, what I feel, what I am experiencing.
	Even by when I was like 20, that was a really clear and compelling feeling of the world.
	But I mean, what can we do?
	You know, it's like the institutions are massive and they are not openly hostile.
	And so what the Gen Xers of my sort of age had, the younger Gen X's, had an existential angst about what was happening.
	So, right, so I'm just going to spend the next 40 years working in, you know, poorly lit offices, staring at screens, making sure that spreadsheets I just don't care about at all are tallying correctly.
	And then I die?
	Is this it?
	And everyone's like, yeah, this is the best humanity can do.
	And so you can see why office space, that's right, thank you.
	You can see why so much of our media was disillusioned with the hyper-reality of modernity.
	And this is what The Matrix is all about.
	This is what Fight Club's all about.
	It's just, okay, no, there has to be something more.
	I don't need this junk.
	I don't need to, I don't want to follow these rules.
	I want to live authentically in something that's truly real.
	And so I love the memes of The Matrix, where it's, you know, Morpheus going, ooh, and he's like, Neo, come live in a dungeon and eat slop with me.
	Stop enjoying the steak.
	Stop enjoying your high productive life.
	It's like, yeah, to the Zoomer, I can see that you don't understand.
	I can totally see.
	I can completely understand what you think.
	that's wild but that's it's because we come from different environments Anyway, so getting back, getting back to this, Nazi, as with Soviet, is just a symbol which means villain at this point.
	Neither of them are in their historical context.
	They are is in their ideological contexts.
	So, remember, ideology having no history, it doesn't matter whether it connects to reality, it doesn't matter whether it's now or tomorrow or in 100 years' time or 100 years ago.
	The eternal villain slot has been filled.
	And this is why Nick Fuentes bothers them so much because he's willingly stepping into the villain position and saying, Okay, I'll take this on as an affirmative good.
	Well, fuck me.
	Their entire worldview is predicated against the villain.
	Like, they genuinely see themselves as kind of heroes of history.
	And so, what kind of response were you expecting?
	And the thing that they're all freaking out about is why, why?
	I mean, okay, fair enough.
	You've got some, you know, freak who's like, Yeah, I love Hitler, actually, blah, blah, blah.
	Okay, well, that's you know, there are the weird freaks everywhere.
	But why has he got millions of followers?
	Like, why are there millions of young men who are like, Yeah, Hitler was cool?
	Like, why is that happening?
	And this is freaking them out, and they don't know what to do about it.
	And so, you get like things like this on news line, and this is just remarkable.
	This is fucking remarkable imagery, right?
	Let's just look at what we're seeing here, right?
	So, you've got two English presenters here, and they're sort of protectively closing in on a Jewish lord.
	Danny Finkelstein is a conservative lord, and then Ash Sarkar is a Bangladeshi communist.
	And what's weird is that she has the moral whip hand over Finkelstein.
	Like, she's the one, like, look, I mean, you can see her just throughout this interview, the most relaxed, calm person in the world.
	She just looks so, in fact, maybe they can get there's a like there's bits where she's just lounging.
	I mean, the whole thing, you can see that she's just lounging because she's clearly got the authority over these people.
	Look at this, like, the smug smiles here.
	Like, see, like, she's in complete command of this circumstance, and yet the thing that they're all saying to one another, like the two guys on either side are like, oh, well, I'm so sorry this has happened to you, Ash Sarka, weren't you threatened on Instagram the other day?
	And she just kind of, oh, yeah, well, yeah, but you know, she batted away and says, Well, no, I don't think that person's living his best life.
	She doesn't think anything will come of it.
	She knows that that's all just hyper-reality on the internet.
	Danny Finkelstein views this hyper-reality as the true reality.
	Like, she is just maliciously benefiting from it.
	But Finkelstein is genuinely encapsulated in it.
	To him, the hyper-reality is real, and he is afraid.
	He doesn't know what to make of the hyper-reality being real.
	She does.
	She's actually a lot more used to this.
	And the people involved, like, they're desperate.
	Literally, oh, I'm so sorry.
	I'm so sorry.
	This is happening to you.
	Okay, yeah, right.
	So, a lord and a very privileged, pampered woman are the real victims of society.
	Look at the back.
	Evil, Nick Frontier, the evil, straight white young men who were expressly kept out of the conversation.
	Like, why don't they have a representative on this panel?
	How is it that BBC can claim to be the institution of Britain, the public institution of Britain, when it comes to media and not represent the straight white men on their panels?
	Why don't they deserve representation?
	Why don't they deserve to have their grievances aired?
	And yet they don't.
	No one there is there to defend them or to even explain from their position.
	No, we get the antagonist.
	The straight white men are just portrayed as the villains of history.
	And the true heroes of history are the Jewish lord and the Bangladeshi communist.
	It's like, sorry, I can't help but feel that you're missing something out here.
	Anyway, this is the hyper-reality in which they live.
	The actual reality in which you live, where you are oppressed, where you are actually held down, and these people in their gorgeous air-conditioned studio.
	I mean, look at this studio, it's an incredible studio.
	These people would claim to be oppressed by Nick Fuentes' opinions on his podcast, but they're living in the lap of luxury, as you can see.
	They're at the top of the institutions.
	I mean, literally, one of them is a fucking lord.
	He literally sits in the house of fucking lords.
	And yet, we're supposed to believe that somehow Nick Fuentes and the Groypers have more power than these people.
	Fuck off.
	Fuck, it's the reality is so detached from the hyper-reality they're living in that it's just embarrassing, frankly.
	It's just embarrassing.
	And this guy here is repeatedly saying, oh, I'm so sorry about all of this.
	I'm so sorry about all of this.
	As if he is taking responsibility for what Nick Fuentes is saying and doing.
	And he's like, Yeah, I know these are our problem.
	We're so sorry.
	It's like, well, I mean, maybe you shouldn't have literally pulled up the ladder after you and given it to these people instead.
	But whatever.
	What do I know, right?
	Anyway, about this point, we're going to watch now.
	He asks about what they should do.
	And pay attention to the framing, pay attention to the only thing that they have in their mind about how they can solve this problem.
	Should we be banning more speech?
	So I certainly think threatening people with a gun should be a banned form of speech.
	He can make me in reality.
	Taunting me about the whole thing.
	Look how fucking smug and confident she is with this.
	She knows this is what winning looks like, right?
	But the point is, what did the guy ask?
	Should we be banning more speech?
	Well, how does that solve any problem?
	What does that do?
	Nick Fuentes is already banned from everywhere.
	How can banning more speech be the answer if this is the consequence of someone who has been banned?
	He's a man basically.
	He got debanked.
	He couldn't travel.
	And it's only because of Elon Musk's ex and Rumble.
	Again, these are actually proper free speech platforms that have a genuine commitment to free speech.
	It's only because of these that this is becoming an issue.
	So the point is, okay, we just need to exercise power in our universe of discourse even harder.
	And then all of the problems go away.
	The reality changes based on the hyper-reality that precedes it.
	In that guy's fucking mind, he just doesn't understand what is happening, why he even says that.
	But he understands enough to say, right, okay, we just need to censor harder.
	If we can just guard the universe of discourse, the symbols and the signs and the meanings sufficiently, then we can carry on like this forever.
	Because as far as he's concerned, reality is as it's supposed to be.
	Because the reality that he believes in has no connection to the real world in which he fucking lives.
	And I just genuinely shocked at the insightfulness of Baudrillard on all of this.
	Like, this was written in 1981, by the way, you know, Baudrillard's work.
	Began, I think the earliest one was 1981.
	It's like, Jesus, how good do you have to be to presage all of this back then?
	Like, well done, man.
	That is genuinely incredible.
	Genuinely incredible.
	And so just you can see that there is nothing about reality.
	Here's the death of reality, the death of the authority of reality.
	They don't care, right?
	They don't care.
	They don't understand why you care.
	And Piers Morgan admitted, yeah, I didn't get anywhere with Nick Fuentes.
	Didn't get anywhere with him.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Stephen, here's what I can say.
	Like with the initial reaction that you did, I will concede, I didn't get him.
	I mean, other than him saying, I believe now, actually, in a satirical way.
	In other words, I don't think he really meant it.
	But when he said he did think at least six million Jews died in the Holocaust, he did it in a way that others, like Glenn Greenwalder, told me he didn't mean it.
	Whatever.
	It's up to him.
	It's down to him.
	I don't think I got anywhere with Nick Fuentes.
	I don't think I got anywhere to him changing his mind about anything.
	I certainly didn't get anywhere in stopping him unleashing his Groyper hounds on me or my family, whatever, whatever.
	I don't.
	Why would it not mean anything to him?
	It's because he doesn't exist in the universe of signs and symbols that Piers Morgan does.
	So when Piers Morgan is saying, well, look, I demand you agree with the moral content of the systems and the symbols that I am presenting.
	And Nick Fuentes says, well, no, this has no bearing on my life whatsoever.
	It has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
	Why would I care about any of the things you care about?
	Piers Morgan is just like, well, I just couldn't get anywhere.
	Just couldn't.
	There's nothing persuasive about what Piers Morgan is saying because nothing about what he says actually represents the reality in which these young men are living.
	And Piers is just like, well, I'm not going to change.
	Like, how can it mean?
	Like, Piers, you can ask yourself, what difference to reality does it make if Nick Fuentes does not believe in the Holocaust?
	What changes?
	Are the walls still above us?
	Are they still holding up the roof?
	Is the power still on?
	Are we still going to work?
	Are we still going to school?
	Are kids still going to school?
	Is there still food in my fridge?
	Like, what fucking happens if Nick Fuentes doesn't believe in the Holocaust?
	And the answer is nothing in reality.
	But in the hyper-reality of symbols and discourse, apparently everything changes.
	Apparently, the whole thing comes crumbling down.
	If Nick Fuentes doesn't believe in the Holocaust, and this is why Piers is like, well, I did my best.
	I couldn't get him to budge.
	I just tried to.
	I mean, this was just the most important thing.
	He said, it's only in the ideology of it that it matters to you.
	It's only in this universe of discourse that that matters.
	In reality, nothing matters about it.
	In reality, the words Nick Fuentes says are fucking empty.
	They are meaningless.
	They don't matter.
	Nick Fuentes is not a fucking historian.
	He is not a scholar.
	He is not someone whom others are actually, if you actually wanted to know about the subject, are going to go on the subject.
	Nick Fuentes uses Holocaust denial as a weapon against your hyper-reality because it's one of the things that you're actually vulnerable to.
	You make yourself vulnerable by putting excess weight on this how to describe it, this system of symbolism, right?
	That's the thing.
	It's in reality, nothing changes.
	But you are not connected to reality.
	You are a million miles away from reality.
	Nothing about what you're saying has any bearing on reality.
	Because to you, the Holocaust, again, it's just like Nazi being villain.
	Holocaust is essentially some kind of mythic occurrence that is just, okay, we just have that and we have that and these connect together.
	And that is a universe of discourse that still somehow applies in 2025.
	It's like, sorry, I'm not sure that it does.
	I'm not sure that you're actually persuading people based on that.
	And getting Lord Finkelstein in to be like, yeah, see, this is how oppressed Jews are because of the Holocaust.
	Like, he's a fucking lord.
	Like, you could have chosen anyone else that would have made the case more adequately than a fucking lord.
	I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.
	Anyway, so then you have Bondi Beach, right?
	So you have the that's all that narrative.
	Then you've got the, we'll go back to the narrative of the refugees quickly, just to because this happened today or last night.
	And so I woke up and was like, oh, fucking, what's happening?
	Well, mass shooting on Bondi Beach.
	Apparently, it's been described as terrorism.
	And that, in fact, let me get a summary up from Twitter.
	Okay, weirdly, it's not the most trending topic in the world.
	Right, there we go.
	Right, so mass shooting, Hanukkah event in Bondi Beach, right?
	So two gunmen open fire.
	Uh, Bondi Beach, uh, near a Hanukkah by the sea event, killing 11 people, injuring 29 others.
	Fucking awful.
	Here's a you see a bystander here is um here's a shooter.
	Bystander goes up, grabs him, gets the gun off him.
	Superb.
	What an actual hero, you know, to approach an armed man and actually disarm him, right?
	Awful, right?
	Genuinely awful.
	This is a real thing that is really happening.
	This is real horror that is happening.
	And so what do we get?
	Well, we get the kind of hyper-real narrative on top of it from people like Sadiq Khan.
	My thoughts and condolences, along with the rest of London, we are affected with everyone affected by the horrific attack of Bondi Beach.
	The Met police are increasing their visibility in our Jewish communities ahead of any Hanukkah events.
	Why would they be doing that?
	Why would they be doing that?
	Why do you need to increase your visibility?
	What's happening here, Sadiq?
	What is this about, Sadiq?
	I thought that London was a city that celebrates diversity and values the rich contribution of people of all backgrounds make.
	That's what makes it the greatest city in the world.
	Again, hyper-reality.
	Total fiction.
	Not connected to anything real.
	The reality is that London is full of segregated communities who don't particularly like each other, don't spend that much time actually engaging and interfacing with each other.
	And when something happens, it's awful.
	Like, I mean, this was the same narrative that they had for fucking Australia.
	This is the same fucking narrative.
	Oh, we celebrate our diversity and a rich contribution from all backgrounds.
	And then, oh, 11 people dead, 29 injured.
	Fuck.
	That's awful.
	And Sadiq has to concede, yeah, okay, I am going to up the security though.
	Why would you need to do that?
	Because you know that this universe of discourse is false.
	You know these symbols and signs that you're putting across here and the meaning that you imbue in them don't actually connect to the real world.
	And when the real world comes knocking in quite horrific ways, okay, I concede.
	I concede that a hyper-reality, it was bullshit in order to maintain a kind of structure of power, in order to maintain the ideological state apparatus and the way that they interface with the world around them and to impose this hyper narrative on this country.
	But I will concede that I'm full of shit, says Sadiq Khan.
	It's like, right.
	So all I'm saying is, I think that actually Baudrillan's simulation theory has a lot going for it in modern politics.
	I think it really does speak very clearly and reveals very clearly the genuine problems and the reason that no one gets heard.
	The reason that it's like they, I mean, again, the freaking out of the, like, Nick Fuentes, he's just so, he's just a young guy.
	He's 27.
	He's not like, you know, he's not like six foot seven, built like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and is able to like, you know, become like the Terminator or something.
	He's just some little guy with a microphone, and it has them all freaking out.
	Like, guys, there's something wrong with yourselves if lords and the BBC and whoever else are like getting around going, oh my God, this young kid said something.
	It's like, then the problem is you.
	Why are you so vulnerable to what this young guy says?
	Why are you so vulnerable to them not caring about your mythologies and your worldview or your hyper-reality?
	The problem is with you, guys, because what you're saying doesn't connect to what's actually happening.
	And when it does actually happen and invades it, you are forced to concede it.
	So do we have to live in the hyper-reality to begin with?
	Can't we live in the actual reality that could have prevented something like this from happening?
	That could have prevented something like this from happening.
	These things are not inevitable.
	These things are a consequence of policy.
	They're a series of choices to choose to live in the hyper-reality rather than in the reality.
	And we can make the distinction at any time we like.
	Fucking, I'm so angry, man.
	I'm so angry at the way that all of this goes.
	I hope that was interesting.
	I hope that I faithfully represented Baudry out there.
	Like I said, I have been reading him recently.
	And I do think that a lot of the points that he's making are just incredible, frankly.
	I think they really are.
	I think they really do describe.
	his framework really does describe the issue that we are living through right now.
	Donnie says, Carl, you're too wonderful.
	They're lying.
	It's a printing press.
	I read that one.
	Mobile Crusader says, warning frog detected, opinion discarded.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	That's the point.
	They literally don't care about what's happening outside of their universe of discourse.
	Johnny says, Merry Christmas.
	The simulation wants you to buy gold.
	Merry Christmas to you too.
	And to you, Jonah Jameson, J. Jonah Jameson.
	Pris for $50, thank you, man, says, Carl, I hope you're safe in the UK.
	I've decided to take up learning Japanese, try and learn something new and better myself.
	Do you have any plans on debating Dev like you did with Adam and Sich?
	He's been spurting out an X. I'm happy to debate Dev anytime that he wants.
	Generico says, all of leftism is not just the death of the real, but the deliberate execution.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Leftism is the normative engine that powers all of this.
	It makes demands of them.
	And so it informs where the thing goes.
	And so leftism loves all of this.
	And you'll notice that people who have identified these things are themselves all leftists or were themselves a leftist because they are trying.
	It's not that they're disinterested observers, just idly operating from curiosity.
	No, they're trying to achieve something here.
	Chris says, I wonder why anti-Second Amendment people are physically frail.
	Do you think they know what life was like for them before pew-pews, men covered in armor, abused at will?
	No.
	It's, well, for them, what it is, is that they are, should we say, domesticated, and they expect the owners, as in the state, to enforce the social contract so nothing ever happens to them.
	And so they don't have to take responsibility for their own defense.
	But there we go.
	Generica says it's based on the fake, it's based on the nine and why.
	Things can only oh fake and gay.
	Uh, things are gonna get faker and gayer until everything is I can't read that.
	Um, but yes, and that's the point.
	Like, they the thing is, the hyper-reality is comforting, right?
	It's it's easy, it's comprehensible.
	Often, reality is not comprehensible.
	Often, reality, uh, you know, is difficult.
	And uh, Lady Patience, a boomstick attack happened at the Bondi Hanukkah event.
	Yeah, I know, I know, and it's it's the reason it is possible for that to happen is because of the ideological state apparatuses enforcing the hyper-reality of the boomer truth regime.
	That's why.
	If a sensible civilization wouldn't have these problems, right?
	Like, we wouldn't have Afghan rapists raping children every fucking day.
	Like, this wouldn't happen because we would take sensible actions to prevent it.
	But because we live in the world of the hyper-real, these things have no authority over our decisions as to whether an Afghan rape isn't.
	I mean, literally, it's well, we'll, we'll, I mean, it's literally like from Demolition Man, where he's like, well, I know how to catch Samuel Felix.
	We'll just wait until he murders someone.
	It's like, that's genuinely our policy with rapists.
	Well, we'll just wait till they rape someone.
	It's like until every single one of them has raped someone.
	We can't do anything about any of them.
	Oh, brilliant.
	Okay, that's great.
	That's a great plan, Chief.
	Ohio Gaming says, let us go forward.
	It's like, yeah.
	Froggy Boomers, come on, baby, like my fire.
	Zoomers, as you wish, sir.
	Yeah, I know.
	Thank you again, Ohio Gaming.
	After Bondi today and some rum, I want to take a small chunk of land beginning with a G.
	Yeah.
	Remember that the real has no authority over the hyper-real, right?
	None of this will change their minds over whether the usual suspects should even be in your country.
	It is known what they're doing.
	It is known why they're doing it.
	It is known who they are targeting and why.
	And yet this will have no impact on the hyper narrative.
	So just and pay attention to it.
	Because they will literally call you a racist for raising it.
	And that is the fascinating thing to me.
	Hawk for $20, just thank you.
	Much appreciate Hawk.
	Hope things are $20 Australian dollars.
	So let's hope things are going quite well in Australia at the moment.
	I don't even know what I'm saying.
	They're not going well, are they?
	But like, hope things aren't too bad.
	Generico says Piers Morgan is the desert of the real.
	He's, no, no, no, no.
	Piers Morgan is like the last guardian of the Matrix.
	And like, Andrew Tate was smart to use the Matrix analogy.
	Because genuinely, there is genuinely something to the analogy that he makes there.
	As I think we've been explaining in this stream.
	Obviously, I don't think Tate reads the theory, but like there is something tangible to the analogy, which is why I've used it myself.
	But Piers Morgan is like, what's the key guy who they fight to get the key or whatever?
	I can't remember.
	It's been years since I've watched the second and third Matrix films.
	But he's like a guardian inside the Matrix.
	He's just not a very good guardian.
	He's like an aged, but a shit version.
	Fat and out of breath and not really able to fight.
	Kiswatz says, Anti-Oedipus Wencarl.
	I don't know.
	I haven't read that.
	I've never read it.
	What's that?
	We've got Capitalism Schizophrenia by French authors Guillé Deleuze and Felix Guttari.
	Okay.
	I'm you know what, right?
	I hate the fact that the French are so fucking clever.
	Like, they're genuinely an insightful people.
	They're not very creative, but they're very insightful.
	Like, the English are the ones who make things up, and the French have piercing insights into it, and it's kind of annoying.
	But, um, but anyway, either way, uh, I like I say, I genuinely think there's something to all this, and I think the death of the real is a real problem we are currently struggling with now, and that's what's permitting all of these atrocities.
	And until we can restore the authority of the real, then there's just nothing will change.
	Nothing will change until reality has a higher authority than the narratives and the hyper-reality that they live in.
	And that's how it's going to be forever.
	But anyway, thank you for joining me, folks.
	I'm going to go.
	If you're wondering, yeah, everyone is out of the house at the moment.
	And so I was like, right, okay, I've probably got a good couple of hours, which is unusual.
	So I'm going to do this because this has been on my mind for a while and I've wanted to get it done.
	But I'll be on the podcast tomorrow.
	No, I won't actually, because I'm interviewing Rupert Lowe.
	So I won't be on the podcast tomorrow.
	You should still tune in anyway.
	And I will see you soon.
	Thank you very much for all the support.

▲