Davis Aurini - Livestream 20220211 "Explaining the False Dichotomy of Modernism" or, "Why all the Mainstream Right Always Cucks"

Feb. 12, 2022 - Davis Aurini

02:31:50

Livestream 20220211 "Explaining the False Dichotomy of Modernism" or, "Why all the Mainstream Right Always Cucks"

My continuing examination of the false, Hegllian, Marxist, ghostic, heretical, Free-Masonic, checkerboard, left-right, black/white, 'magician's force' version of reality that enslaves us to incompetent and arrogant masters.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And there we go.
	Are you gonna focus?
	Beautiful.
	Looks like we have a live stream.
	I'm afraid the tablet issue from last week does not appear to be resolved.
	Or maybe it is.
	Maybe it is.
	Okay, we're trying out a different charging cable this time.
	I swear to God, I have three of these damn things.
	But I can't find.
	Like, I'm working on my second broken backup right now.
	So it's been charging all week.
	I managed to get to 2%.
	And now it just got to 3% when I changed the cable in about 10 minutes.
	So we're going to go light on this.
	I'm going to try and see if it nicens up.
	If it's just the cable that wasn't charging it before.
	But, you know, worse comes to worse.
	I will have to keep checking the computer to see your comments.
	So, topic of tonight's stream.
	Don't quite remember what pity title I came up with.
	It was something like, like the big philosophical concept I want to discuss is the reactivity between modernism and postmodernism and how it puts us into this false dialectic all the time.
	A false dialectic, which is, like magician's force, very useful for controlling the outcome.
	Like everybody becomes controlled opposition.
	Left, right, you're just pawns on the black and white Freemasonic checkerboard.
	But that's not a very sexy title.
	That sounds really boring and abstract.
	So the secondary title in the Fractured Fairy Tales tradition is Why the Mainstream Right Keeps Cucking.
	And I'm going to get to that, but first, I guess we'll start off with a few current events.
	And this does sort of lead into it.
	Specifically, the honking.
	The honkling.
	The honkling in Ottawa and everywhere else in Canada.
	The honking will outlast your sanity if you love the lockdowns.
	Now I was watching some Devonstack.
	And you know, we all love Devonstack around here.
	But as I said last time, I'm kind of more interested in where I disagree with people than where I agree with them.
	And Devon Stack's take on the whole thing was, well, it was a little bit too black-pilled.
	Even though that's what he calls himself.
	Namely, that it was just another waste of time.
	It's like, yeah, you're getting the energy out, but what are we accomplishing?
	He made some excellent points, though.
	One of the points he made was that Ezra Levant of Rebel News was at the Ottawa street festival that has scared the prime minister into running away from the country.
	And Ezra Levant said something akin to, you know, like watch, watch his, I think it's his second latest live stream to see the full clip.
	Ezra Levant says something similar to what Conservative Talk Radio was saying over a week ago.
	A week ago, Conservative Talk Radio was saying, well, good for you, truckers.
	You stood up for what's right, but you've made your point.
	It's time to go home now.
	No, they haven't made their point.
	There's still lockdown mandates.
	There's still vaccine passports.
	There's still all of this garbage.
	So, no, apparently they haven't made their point.
	And then Ezra Levant, you know, one of our guides, right, says something akin to Trudeau's not going to meet with us, but at least we all got here and we came together.
	He had a really good feeling.
	As if he wants to let it drop.
	He doesn't want to be an instigator.
	He doesn't want to maybe say something that would get Joe Rogan to apologize to the mob.
	Yeah, there's this universal cuckservatism.
	It is so bloody frustrating, isn't it?
	And so, Devin, who does not live in Canada, okay?
	And I think that's the difference, is that, like, living in Canada and being frustrated with all of this, oh, I'm seeing something different.
	I am seeing something quite different.
	In fact, I think I think the wave just broke.
	Or whatever colloquialism you want to use there.
	Like, I think something just snapped.
	I'll tell you what.
	I think the boomer has awakened.
	You need to understand something about these people that we're going up against.
	This is a big reason I reject the big conspiracy theory.
	The 1,000-year-old straight-out of the Egyptian pyramids.
	They've been plotting all the moves.
	It's just a big chess game.
	Because that doesn't fit the evidence.
	If the conspiracy was this well organized and controlled, if it was a Xanatos gambit, to borrow from TV tropes, then we wouldn't have Justin Trudeau in charge.
	The man is an absolute idiot and a coward.
	He does not have the testicular fortitude to actually navigate on the national level.
	You know, one of the jokes Americans will often make at Canadians' expense, and it's not an entirely unjustified joke either.
	Let's see if we can get this thing to load without crashing out the device.
	oh yeah it's loading is that see i gotta Oh, we're at 4% battery.
	This is exciting.
	Gotta maneuver.
	This stupid cord isn't very long.
	Thank you very much, Ilya.
	Alright, so we're gonna shut down the screen again.
	Few comments there, but I'm gonna save it for the good ones.
	Yes, you keep charging, baby.
	You get up to the 15%, then we'll be really excited.
	One of the jokes that Americans will often make at Canadians' expense is that, yeah, you guys don't need a military.
	We're protecting you.
	And I hate to say it, but there's a lot of truth to that.
	Right?
	Like, Canada has one country we border with.
	It's the United States, and they border us even on the Russian side of things.
	So we really, like, in theory, we don't need a military.
	In practice, good Canadian leaders have developed a very precision strike military.
	So yeah, it's not a big military, but when we go in, we go in hard.
	Right?
	For many years, the top sniper kill belonged to a Canadian.
	And so as a smaller country, like we only have one-tenth the population of the United States.
	Less than half the population of Britain, which, well, that's a whole other thing, but as a smaller nation, the way that hard Canadian leaders navigate international diplomacy has actually been very, very admirable.
	Even Chrétien, right?
	Which, yeah, yeah, he was a liberal, but I'm not, I'm not, I'm not a light switch brain.
	Chrétien did a lot of interesting maneuvering.
	Didn't support the troops enough, but he wasn't an idiot.
	Justin Trudeau is an absolute nincompoop.
	He's got no idea what he's doing.
	He's a drama kid walking around in an outfit.
	And up until now, he didn't realize this was the big boy's table.
	Right?
	He thought he was just playing silly poker games, the casino, and no, Trudeau.
	This is the poker game with the mafiosos where if you can't pay off the debt, you sleep with the fishes.
	This is big boy politics, Trudeau.
	And the man seems temperamentally incapable of recognizing that.
	So no, this is not some sort of Illuminati conspiracy where they know all the moving parts.
	No, this is a conspiracy of dunces.
	It's not that there's some...
	If there was a masterful cabal, a centrally organized...
	Again, I'm not saying there aren't people behind the scenes.
	Obviously, there's always people behind the scenes.
	But if this were a masterful, centrally organized, vent true elder vampire conspiracy, they would not allow a moron like Biden or his drug addict son on the throne.
	They would not allow a cosplaying retard like Trudeau to occupy Ottawa.
	They would not allow a, like somebody like Dr. Fauci, you know, they'd have the leash on him.
	Instead of him running roughshod and, you know, leaving paper trails all over the damn place of trying to build super germs and getting DARPA involved in it.
	So no, it's not a huge conspiracy.
	It's a conspiracy of dunces.
	A bunch of dunces that will only hire other dunces and come up with dunce plans.
	Like the real secret of this conspiracy is how stupid the whole thing is.
	And that, that realization is what has finally awakened the boomer.
	a bunch of truck drivers honking their horns has driven the dunces into an absolute panic attack okay like under see here you're you're thinking you're thinking like non-crazy person See, you're thinking, wow, if I was in charge of a first world nation and I was sending troops into combat zones and negotiating free trade deals,
	like I would just be scared shitless 24-7 because of how important all of this stuff is.
	Right?
	So, sorry, you're a normal, healthy person.
	These are dunces.
	They thought it was all make-believe.
	They thought it was all, oh, I'm going to have 50% of my cabinet be women.
	I'm a good feminist.
	That's the people we have in charge.
	And so, yes, a bunch of honking horns actually scared the crap out of these people.
	And the Governor General's office, from what I hear, right, I don't exactly work there, but I hear they're getting 3,000 calls a day demanding that they remove Trudeau.
	This has them running absolutely terrified.
	And it's finally broken on mainstream media.
	And this is what I'm saying.
	The boomer has awakened.
	That 50% of the people in the hospital are there with COVID, not because of COVID.
	And so, the boomer is feeling very stupid because we've been telling them this for a year now.
	Like six months a year, the data's been out there.
	And it only finally...
	No!
	The people in charge must know what they're doing.
	No, the people in charge wouldn't blatantly lie about COVID statistics.
	No, they wouldn't rush a vaccine to the market just for fun and profit.
	No, they're not pushing the passport because they want to install Chinese-style social credit scores.
	Oh, fuck, they are.
	And so the crucial thing about all of this, okay?
	Like, Devonstack is looking at this and saying, oh, it's just a pointless protest.
	No, no, this is a protest that is, these people are having panic attacks.
	Right?
	Trudeau has aged 10 years in the past two weeks.
	Yet these people are absolutely terrified and panicking.
	Oh, by the way, isn't it lovely?
	I got to point this out as well.
	The chief of police in Ottawa was born in Jamaica.
	As Aristotle said, the tyrant is friends to the foreigner.
	Right?
	The person that wants to rule over his people unjustly loves the foreigner.
	and will promote the foreigner to high positions because the foreigner has no loyalty to the people of the nation.
	And so here we go.
	We've got some random Jamaican is the chief of police.
	People that immigrate to a country and then suck up to the authorities are like the new kid in class who sucks up to the teacher.
	It's disgusting.
	None of us would, I don't know, immigrate to Japan and then take on the role of being the chief of police.
	That's, no, that's disgusting.
	You just came here.
	You don't know our culture.
	You don't know.
	What are you doing taking this position of authority?
	And yet this toadying little slime ball from Jamaica thinks that, oh yeah, yeah, he can be chief of police.
	He can administer the law in a country he wasn't born in that he has no real ties to and that he does not love.
	Try living here for three generations before you take on a position of government authority.
	Thomas Aquinas said that, by the way.
	Thomas Aquinas said it takes three generations to become part of a polity.
	So if you're a Catholic, you better believe that.
	And even if you're a Protestant, most of you better believe it.
	That's not quite from the papal seat, but it's pretty darn close.
	And even if you aren't Christian, Aquinas is a lot smarter than you are.
	So just trust the guy.
	So yeah, we are like the avalanche is starting.
	The big danger right now is that they give us back all the things they took from us.
	Except the things they took from us are our basic rights to work, to choose what sort of medical treatment we receive.
	Which again, this is in the Nuremberg Code, okay?
	You cannot force somebody to take a medical treatment.
	You cannot say, oh, I know better than you.
	I'm going to tell you what to do with your own body.
	You do not get to do that.
	All these things they took from us were never theirs to take in the first place.
	These are things granted to us by God.
	And so them saying, oops, sorry, you honk those horns really loud.
	Here's your God-given rights back.
	Okay, now we're going to talk about the punishment for you stealing them in the first place.
	It is insufficient that they back off of all this COVID nonsense.
	We must see these people prosecuted.
	And so when I wrote a letter to the Governor General demanding the immediate removal of Trudeau, I also added, furthermore, he needs to be investigated for treason.
	And if the governor general is not willing to do this, then perhaps she needs to be investigated for treason as well.
	The boomer has finally awakened, folks.
	Oh, just please keep the ball rolling.
	Now let's check these comments.
	Keep on truckin' damn straight.
	Toe-tuck companies are refusing to...
	And by the way, let me say, like, on the off chance that any intel people, or I'm pretty sure I'm not really on the radar anymore, but on the off chance, if you guys go along with this, there's paper trails behind all of this.
	Right?
	If you're the cop going out and giving people tickets because of this, there are paper trails.
	And it's, we're probably not going to walk up half the country.
	But do you want to be the corporal working in the mailroom at Treblinka who winds up in Nuremberg?
	Like, yeah, you're just the corporal.
	I get it.
	You're just following orders.
	But yeah, last time we had a war crimes tribunal, we decided that just following orders was not an excuse.
	So if you are a cop or a civil servant or a peace officer or one of those glowies in the dark and you're just following orders, you'll probably get away with it.
	Or you might wind up in a very small and cold prison cell in Nuremberg.
	So maybe it'd be a good idea to get transferred to a different unit.
	Just saying.
	Better to be on the side of the people that deliver your food and groceries.
	Better to be on the side of the people that have served this country honorably.
	Better to be on the side of your average Canadian, not the Confederacy of Dunces.
	Anyway.
	That all being said, now I said I was going to tie Devin Stack's ready dismissal of all of this to the main topic of the stream.
	I was going to tie Devin Stack's ready dismissal of all of this to the main topic of the stream.
	Well, how do I introduce the new topic of the stream?
	I'm going to introduce it with the concept of magician's force.
	So this is an interesting trick that stage magicians will use.
	There was a series of novels by Robert Asprin about an actual wizard in an anachronistic medieval setting.
	And anachronistic in that it was medieval, but it was also a modern setting.
	Right?
	Like, he introduced the Italian mafia at one point into a medieval setting just because he felt like it.
	And so, one of the things that this kid gets taught, he's an apprentice magician, and he gets taught early on that 99% of being a magician is not the actual magic.
	It's actually all stage magic.
	Right?
	It's all about controlling the perceptions of how your magic is perceived.
	And one of the one of the tricks is magician's force.
	So let's say you have a trick where you've got one egg that's just a normal egg, right?
	You crack it and the yolk comes out.
	Then you've got another egg where you've somehow hidden a little baby chicken.
	Chickadee?
	The heck, is it a chick?
	Is it just a chick?
	Whatever.
	You've got a baby chicken inside the other one.
	And so you go to the audience member and say, choose an egg.
	And let's say they choose the real egg.
	By your choice, it is condemned and you throw it on the ground and the yolk smashes and then you open up the one with the live chick and this one is saved.
	If they choose the live chick, by your word, this one is saved.
	And you do the exact same thing.
	So it creates the illusion that they made a choice.
	And one aspect of the Hegelian dialectic, which, again, when we're talking about Hegelian dialectic, when we're talking about neo-Marxist theory, we are talking about Gnosticism.
	We're talking about dark alchemy.
	We are talking about a heretical religion of self-worship.
	And one of their tricks is the false dichotomy.
	It's the magician's choice.
	It's the choice that forces us into black or white, left or right politics.
	Blind faith that, yay, we got a trucker protest, the world is fixed, or it's just a protest, it's not going to do anything.
	As opposed to seeing the actual complexity of the world.
	The black and white chessboard is Freemasonic Gnostic poison.
	False dichotomy.
	And it's worth considering where this came from.
	So when you consider the antecedent to postmodern, modernism.
	So when I say modernism, I'm not talking about the current year, Goy.
	Okay, I'm not talking about this.
	I'm talking about the philosophical school.
	Which, you know, roughly, don't quote me on this.
	You're talking like 19th century, mid-20th century.
	Modernism was the assumption, the belief that we could take the measure of all things.
	Right?
	Like if you take that, especially the Gilded Era perception, that we had just about figured out everything in physics.
	We have just about got all of it.
	We just need a slightly better protractor, and then we can measure all of God's creation.
	It's a ticking stopwatch.
	We'll have perfect knowledge.
	We can scientifically order society.
	You know, like even, you look at Marx, that whole the science of history.
	Scientific socialism.
	Yeah, these are all modernist assumptions.
	In the early 20th century, two major things happened to completely overthrow the modernist perspective.
	Right, so just to reiterate, you have these incredible accomplishments of the scientific method.
	Where'd the scientific method come from?
	It came from God.
	It came from the church, the church that established the university system.
	Science directly comes from faith in God, in a Christian God in particular.
	God loves us and he doesn't trick us and we don't need secret rituals to appease him.
	But he's laid out a reality that we don't immediately know how reality works, but reality isn't going to play tricks on us.
	If we study reality and we have faith in him, things will start to make sense.
	That's where you get the scientific method from.
	But the scientific method, especially during the, you know, 18th and 19th centuries.
	You know, 18th century, you really see the, suddenly technological developments in military become very, very important.
	And then 19th century, you wind up with the Industrial Revolution.
	So all of a sudden, this, it used to be, you know, it used to be monks that were studying how, like, Mendelian genetics, for example.
	You know, Mendel was a monk.
	And he just wanted to, I wonder how life works, this wonderful life that God created, I wonder how it works.
	And he wound up discovering all these mathematical relationships inside of it.
	Newton was the same way, wanting to understand God's perception of reality, like God's creation, and he finds all of these mathematical relationships.
	But it was almost like hobbyists.
	They weren't trying to accomplish anything with this.
	They just wanted to know how God's reality worked, right?
	I don't know that much about Mendel, but, like, maybe Mendel was trying to make a slightly tastier rye for the beer that the brothers brewed.
	But he didn't have a, a, um, how to put it?
	Like the purpose was understanding God, not the utility in understanding God.
	But then in the 18th century, all of a sudden, well, like military technology started advancing fast enough that it was actually really important for a general to pay attention to the scientific analysis of this stuff.
	And then 19th century, boom, you've got the Industrial Revolution.
	And so around this time, science becomes decoupled from God.
	Newton and Mendel studying science because they love God.
	19th century Industrial Revolution, you study science to make money.
	Don't need God anymore.
	And so by the end of the 19th century, people are thinking, well, it's like God just, you know, here's the clockwinder.
	Set the universe in motion.
	And we're going to, just using our faculty of reason, we're going to come up with the perfect understanding of reality, scientific socialism, etc., etc.
	Scientific capitalism.
	This idea that you could completely remove the spirit from things.
	The spirit of God, the human spirit.
	No, it's just all mathematical relationships.
	And then something interesting happens in the 20th.
	me just check the comments quickly and we're at 11% folks Okay, so we fixed the problem.
	It's just a bad cable.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, a few comments, but nothing, okay, yeah, turn, turn, whatever, you just, you just keep charging.
	Just keep charging, please.
	Thank you.
	So, 20th century.
	Two major things happen.
	The first is Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
	That's actually the more crucial one.
	And the second is Einsteinian relativity.
	Goethe's incompleteness theorem, which, as I've mentioned before, when I fully groked it, that's when I became a Catholic.
	I was an atheist before that.
	And what Gödel wound up doing was, you know, Bertrand Russell had put down principles of mathematics.
	These are all the rules of set theory that define mathematics.
	Right?
	Like, you want to use math?
	You want to build a house?
	Want to have a computer?
	Use this stuff.
	This is all of it.
	This is all the useful mathematics in there.
	And, you know, he ends the book saying, you know what?
	I can't prove that this stuff is true.
	I can't.
	I can only prove that it's true within the assumptions of the system.
	I can't prove that the assumptions of the system are true.
	So I'll leave that accomplishment to one of my progenitors.
	So Kurt Godell goes to try and do that, to try and prove that mathematics is true.
	Seems pretty easy to do, isn't it?
	And he does, like, it's so crazy.
	He proves.
	And this is mathematical proof, okay?
	So when you have a mathematical proof, there is no possibility of you being wrong.
	Right?
	It's the only thing that you are 100% correct about.
	He proved it, meaning this is never going to change.
	This is now something we know about the structure of the universe and metaphysics itself.
	He proved that it's impossible to prove mathematics true.
	And Einstein's accomplishment, proving relativity, that there's no absolute frame of reference, is kind of just a lesser but easier to understand version of the exact same thing.
	And of course, these move into philosophy.
	Not just because Philosophy absorbs whatever popular concepts are flowing around the world at the time.
	But because we're talking about the understanding of reason itself, which is what mathematics is.
	Mathematics is just distilled reason.
	And then finding out that reason can't prove that reason is true.
	Then, this, you know, flip the dominoes, it goes into the physical realm.
	And so, in the physical realm, now we can't prove that there's any set thing.
	Distance, location, time, size are all just relative.
	The only constant is the speed of light.
	So, something that just measures the differences between things is like math doesn't exist, only the multiply and divide symbols exist.
	Everything else is like, just your opinion, man.
	And this, on top of all the failures, right?
	Like, so trying to apply these scientific methods to social organization wound up with a system rife with abuses.
	Because it turns out that a system that does not have a spirit within it is going to be a failed system.
	That no scientific method, no mathematical analysis is going to be so excellent that using it without ethics and soul is going to be effective.
	Which, by the way, all of this perfectly fits into what Carl Jung was saying about the age of Aquarius, about the century, the millennium of Antichrist, followed by the time when we bring Christ and Antichrist together.
	I mean, that is our challenge right now: is that they have perfected the soulless modernist system into the artificial intelligence, right?
	This is what the absolute psychopaths, the stupid psychopaths like Dr. Fauci, like Justin Trudeau, are trying to install in society.
	They're trying to install the perfectly organized system that can't guide itself.
	They're trying to put AI in charge of everything.
	When what we discovered, what the whole point of Goebbels' incompleteness theorem, the point of all of this, is that no, you can't put a logical system in charge, you need to have the spirit in charge.
	And so, welcome to Age of Aquarius, water bearer, water that bears both Christ and Antichrist within it.
	spirit and system.
	But the reaction we got to modernism being a failure was post-modernism, which is the principled deconstruction of everything.
	It's not just there's a time for deconstruction, right?
	There's a time to sow and there's a time to reap.
	There's a time to build things up and then there's a time to take them down.
	But just as modernism is this endless desire for mechanical certitude over everyone and everything, postmodernism is this endless desire to deconstruct everything.
	Even when it doesn't need to be deconstructed.
	It's principled deconstruction.
	There's your Christ and Antichrist, in a sense.
	There's your Hegelian dialectic.
	There's your forced left-wing, right-wing progress tradition.
	New, old.
	It's a false model, and we're moving into the age of Aquarius the Water Bearer.
	Now, let's check these comments.
	I know I'm getting a little bit weird here.
	complaining just yet.
	Now what I'm gonna do next is give you some concrete examples of what I'm talking about.
	Like some practical examples.
	Practical examples.
	Practical examples in politics.
	And after that, I'm going to move on to why Joe Rogan cucked out.
	And Count Dancula, for that matter.
	So, the practical example I'm going to use is multiculturalism.
	Now, this was brought up in the latest stream from New Discourses.
	And he applied.
	Now, I didn't actually get to finish that stream.
	Don't want to put words in his mouth.
	And obviously I love the guy's streams.
	I believe he was using a contemporary definition of it.
	Whereas the original Canadian definition really highlights the fact that it's not a black and white thing.
	That black and white, the chessboard, the Hegelian dialectic, that's dark alchemy.
	that that is not how the universe works.
	So I'm not going to try and repeat...
	Like, you know what the current definition of multiculturalism is.
	It's essentially that America will be stronger if everybody in the world moves to America and refuses to assimilate to any cultural norms.
	We're just going to have like massive diversity all over the place so that we can have endless conflict and through the conflict we will achieve the we will what's the saying?
	We will inimatize the escaton.
	Yeah.
	Now that's actually not where multiculturalism originally came from.
	Multiculturalism was developed in Canada because of the unique challenges that we had as a country.
	And in Canada, multiculturalism means four things.
	English, French, native, and Métis.
	Those are the four cultures that make up Canada.
	You know what?
	Nothing else is covered in there.
	Guess what?
	Italian's not covered in there.
	So we learned English.
	There is no room for Italian in multicultural Canada.
	You can be of Italian descent.
	But I'm English-Canadian.
	And see, this is the interesting thing I want to emphasize.
	Because is saying that Canada is made up of four distinct cultures, is that racist or non-racist?
	It doesn't immediately categorize into either of them.
	Furthermore, it's not geographic.
	One of the reasons that you should play Europa Universalis IV is because when you start a game set in 1430, the modern political boundaries of Europe are non-obvious.
	The false dichotomy we are presented with these days says on the one hand, you've got this idealistic form of ethno-nationalism where every ethnos has its own nationality.
	It has its own national boundaries, its own culture, and you want to go really extreme.
	They don't even talk to anybody else.
	They just do their thing.
	Versus Globo Homo, where everybody is globally homogenized into one giant mixed brown McDonald's fatty-fat culture.
	And neither of those are good or tenable.
	They're both, I mean, the first one is so much order that it stagnates and declines.
	You aren't even allowed to learn from other cultures.
	Actually, brief aside here.
	So I was just getting into Attack on Titan.
	I'm on the second season now.
	And it struck me that one of the things that the Japanese love to do is they love to use the European medieval setting and then do their own thing with it.
	They love to culturally appropriate the medieval European setting and do something new.
	Same thing in Goblin Slayer.
	And it's absolutely fantastic if, you know, as the homogenized, the radical left wants to ban cultural appropriation.
	Well, then you would ban half of the animes out there, which are culturally stealing from Europeans, but they're creating a product that I absolutely love.
	So if you went to the...
	But on the radical right side of ethno-nationalism, you get the exact same thing, where you're not allowed to borrow from other cultures because it's polluting your culture.
	So...
	So, extreme order, extreme chaos, either way is death.
	Alias, that's the room for Italian food or only boiled vegetables.
	Okay, to complete that, to finish what I was saying, yeah, you look at the map of Europa, Universal, Salisbury, and you realize that, no, it's not, it's a spectrum.
	Where does the forest end and the plains begin?
	Doesn't mean that forests and plains and mountains and lakes aren't separate things, but there's always fuzzy borders.
	And what truly strikes me about multiculturalism in Canada is that if you look at the French and the English, you can generally geographically define those.
	The fuzzy border between the two of them isn't...
	It's at least a straight fuzzy line, or a curvy fuzzy line.
	It's at least a line of fuzziness.
	But then you've got the Métis and you've got the natives.
	And suddenly geographical boundaries are gone.
	So the idea that we can simply categorize things in a modernist sense, that we can take scientific modernism and just delineate everything with no issues, no confusion, and the whole thing will be complete.
	No, no.
	It's always going to be incomplete.
	There is no perfect solution.
	And so that original idea of having multiculturalism in Canada, but having it, it's simultaneously open to a bunch of cultures, and yet it only defines certain ones as being open to.
	That's actually how you rule a nation successfully.
	Major component of EU4 that I absolutely love.
	It keeps track of the different cultures in the different regions that are under the directives of your polity.
	And, generally speaking, there's not really.
	There's seldom a good reason to steamroll and indoctrinate all the cultures into one global homo under your empire.
	You can do it in the game, but there's in rare circumstances is that beneficial?
	So yes, if you were a medieval monarch, you were ruling multiple people.
	Every village is going to be a little bit different from the others, and the way to rule appropriately is not to enforce one single universal Globo Homo culture, nor is it to define the boundary of your territory, as everybody that thinks the same way I do and everybody outside can get fucked.
	It's about not being black and white.
	It's about having these subtle variations, this open to newness, but also this establishment of what you stand for.
	But it seems like in the modern day we have forgotten that.
	And so now multicultural, as it's being applied currently, means every culture, as opposed to the four cultures that got a claim on the political entity that is the government of Canada.
	And again, my ancestors are Italian.
	So we didn't get to have a claim on the Canadian government unless if we became either French-Canadian or English-Canadian.
	Thank God we became the English.
	Just joking.
	Joking, Quebecers, I'm joking.
	Now I need to get more ice.
	Please, questions, problems, concerns, rebuttals, please toss them into the comments.
	It looks like I can charge this stupid thing now.
	Ilya Leonid says the Holy Roman Empire had hundreds of ethnicities under its scepter.
	Well, so did France, so did Spain, so did England.
	I mean, heck, even the oh goodness, I know, everybody talks about this one.
	It's like the six nations around the Great Lakes, just south of the Great Lakes.
	They had six nations under one banner.
	I mean, it's actually really interesting.
	It's really interesting to me that the Native Americans were, they were at, like, the Greek level of political organization.
	So like if you take the Greek epics, which as I understand it mainly happened like after the Bronze Age collapse.
	And now the Bronze Age.
	Okay, so the Bronze Age, I would view the Bronze Age polities as really just centralized city-states that controlled a lot of land around them.
	So if you want to talk about a ethno-nationalism, Bronze Age was probably the height of ethno-nationalism.
	That, you know, one language, one religion, one culture, etc.
	And you had these different places all over the Middle East.
	And they're trading tin and copper to make bronze.
	And you could argue that each one of those is ethno-nationalist.
	And yet they're also involved in a global trade for vital resources.
	Now, shortly after the Bronze Age collapse happens, with ironically the sea people who were extremely multicultural and diverse, right?
	Like they were made up of all sorts of different people.
	They weren't one people.
	They were all sorts of people.
	And then if you look at the Greek history, the Greek epics, And Rome as well.
	Like, Rome starts off as, like, literally Rome, and then they conquer everybody on the peninsula.
	And Rome becomes modern day Italy.
	The Greeks did the same thing.
	All these different city-states around, I believe, the Black Sea.
	I'd have to, I forget which one's the Black Sea.
	I'd have to look at a map.
	All these different city-states of similar cultures, similar polities, but eventually they kind of band together and haven't done my history in a while.
	I'm just riffing off the top of my head.
	Hope I don't say anything too stupid.
	But when you look at what the Native Americans were doing right before the Europeans arrived, is they were roughly at, they were about to hit the classics level of civilization.
	And given that the continent didn't get conquered for like, what, like a lot longer than 2,000 years.
	But it's just interesting like this.
	Something was developing.
	It's not like they were...
	They were still basically living at the Stone Age level, but they were at the Stone Age about to hit Bronze Age.
	So that's really interesting to think about.
	So that's really interesting to think about.
	Now, I said I was going to connect this to why is it that all the e-celebs cuck?
	Joe Rogan recently did his apology tour because he has said the N-word a whole bunch of times.
	And for the record, he never called anybody a necrophiliac.
	He just said the word.
	He said, the N-word is necrophiliac.
	Which, you know, oh, I've said it before.
	If I think somebody's acting like an N-word, I'll tell them.
	But better not get kicked off a D-live because it's a magical word.
	I don't know if we've been through all of that before.
	It's tedious and it's stupid.
	And so why, in God's name, did Joe Rogan not adopt my own New Year's resolution and tell them to go fuck themselves?
	He didn't even call anybody an N-word.
	He just said, the N-word.
	I imagine like a big N-word flying through the sky and systemically oppressing people.
	Not even like the N-word, but just the N-word in quotes.
	N-word.
	Just flow 3D model floating through the sky, oppressing anybody.
	All of us Italian people being oppressed by the N-word.
	And then he cucks.
	He cucks.
	Then we've got Count Dankula.
	Who, what was he?
	He apparently posted something like.
	All of these people in Hong Kong that are resisting the Chinese government, they'd make great Britons.
	Not like Great Britain, but like they would make good British subjects.
	Well, I guess they are subject to the crown, but.
	And here we see this.
	We see this black and white.
	We see this Hegelian dialectic that has just infected absolutely everything.
	It's been weaponized.
	Hey, Laramie, glad to have you, brother.
	What's this?
	Hey, toss me a lemon.
	Thank you, Turner and Hooch.
	Ilya comments, the Native Americans were getting to the stage where they could start undertaking large sediments built out of stone.
	Yeah, like the beginning of political organization.
	There was a theory a while back I read that there's an intermediate megalithic stage before the Copper Age.
	That makes a lot of sense.
	Yeah, because the Treaty of Six Nations, they were all right next to each other, same language, same customs.
	And if extra credits, back before they got that real weenie to be in charge of it, if they can be believed, the brilliance was like this.
	Man, I read a very similar story about the Celtic invasion of Ireland and how the Irish became Irish.
	Where it was a holy man who holy men should not be political leaders.
	The Holy Man figured out that we should take that jerk that everybody hates that bullies people and make him the leader.
	And then he'll stop being a bully.
	And it actually worked really well.
	So yeah, going from the tribal to the megalithic where we learn to play politics.
	Like, it's not the smartest guy should be in charge.
	It's the biggest jerk should be in charge.
	To put it simply.
	They've got a good series.
	I'm not an expert on the history, but it strikes me as good.
	Their old stuff used to be pretty solid.
	So yeah, megalithic stage in between stone and copper.
	That makes a lot of sense.
	It's like they were just getting there.
	Which isn't even that far behind, right?
	It's just so interesting.
	they were transitioning.
	Like I point that out, like that undermines That undermines racist claims going both ways, right?
	It undermines the racist claim that, oh, they were at tune with the earth and white people are the problem.
	No, shut up.
	They were people and they were entering the megalithic stage.
	But also undermines the, oh, you know, whatever, they're people.
	Humans are humans.
	God, that's the other.
	This black and white thinking.
	This Hegelian dialectic.
	That everybody is oppressor or oppressed.
	As opposed to, no, we're all kind of both.
	We're humans.
	Humans do what humans do.
	Let's, you know, maybe study it so we can learn more about the way humans do things.
	But the idea that you're going to find a primitive tribe in perfect harmony with nature where there is no sin.
	Nope.
	No, you aren't going to find that.
	They're all full of sinners.
	Let's see.
	And so are we, right?
	On the other hand, like, we are not superior to them because we've got muskets.
	We're just better at making muskets.
	That's all.
	The poor shall always be with you.
	Okay?
	So long as we're on this planet, we're going to have sinners.
	There's not going to be a civil life.
	Technology does not make us non-sinful.
	Technology is good.
	We should keep developing it, but it's not going to cure the moral problem.
	So, no, we're not better than the savage, but the savage isn't better than us.
	Anyway.
	Let's say.
	God, I need a longer chord that works.
	Oh, it just turned green.
	The battery just turned green.
	We're at 15%.
	That's so exciting.
	Help me, man.
	Hey, thank you for the comments.
	Sets.
	That's a good breakdown of modernist postmodernism.
	Pre-modernism looked at God as the ultimate arbiter of the world.
	Modernism eschewed this paradigm in favor of human triumph, the age of enlightenment.
	Bang on.
	We got studying God made us so good at reason and science that we forgot about God.
	With the atrocities of World War II, I would say more World War I, but yeah, World War I and II.
	It's like these were the fruits of studying science without understanding God.
	And it's not like we didn't have wars using advanced technology in the 18th and 19th centuries, is it?
	We absolutely did, but we still had a concept of war is politics by other means.
	War needs to accomplish an objective.
	It needs to be...
	It's an unfortunate reality of life that we get sick, we die, we sin, and there is war.
	And we make the best of it.
	And yet with modernism, we suddenly thought that we were above nature and that war could become ideological.
	So yeah, we had World War I, World War II completely ran out of control.
	Ten times, if not a hundred times, the number of deaths there should have been.
	I mean, like, look at the modern conception of World War II, where we're fighting the Red Skull.
	No, it was...
	God, this really pisses me off as a soldier, too.
	Like, war is glorious.
	General Lee said, it's a good thing war is so horrible, otherwise men would come to love it too much.
	One of the things I love about that series, Attack on Titan, is the whole thing is a meditation on duty, honor, soldiering, following orders, gambling, all of that.
	And the reason we make movies about it, it's so exciting, and yet to do it is so damned dangerous.
	And so you talk about the Boer War.
	You talk about, oh, what's that Turkish war that happened right before World War I?
	A lot of legends came out of that war.
	Right?
	Like I said, you had high literary culture, and a lot of legendary figures came out of that war.
	Nobody pretended that it was a war between good and evil.
	It was a war.
	You go to kill the enemy, and they're trying to kill you.
	And honor, horror, heartbreak, triumph, all those things happened.
	But there wasn't this psychotic morality play that got shoved into World War I and World War II, which, like, turning them into ideological wars, that cranked up the death toll tenfold, a hundredfold.
	And even now, we need to rewrite history to turn, even World War I Germany, like trying to turn them into the greatest villains that ever lived.
	No, they weren't.
	Because only a failed human, only fallen man, would have a regular war.
	We're above war.
	So we only do ideologically pure wars now, right?
	Man, it's one of those things.
	Like, when you...
	There's just something so satisfying about combat, but you can so seldom engage in it.
	It's like the forbidden fruit.
	Only going to have it once in a while.
	It's like sex, except, well, you know.
	Are you seeing the problem with the modern day?
	You seeing the problem?
	No war, endless sex, as opposed to healthy amounts of both.
	Anyway, to carry on with Help Me Man.
	With the atrocities of World War II, however, humanity realized that if such atrocities are possible, then they cannot be considered to be a higher form.
	Then humanity cannot be considered to be a higher form of being.
	Yeah, yeah, science and reason did not elevate us to godhood.
	Postmodernism, in its wake, completely disregards everything.
	Ah, so if science and reason won't make us demigods, fuck everything.
	Postmodernism is aimless, objectiveless, and ultimately deterministic.
	And that's a funny thing.
	You see how they're both deterministic.
	Modernism, science is everything.
	It will make us demigods by becoming completely deterministic.
	And postmodernism, nothing matters.
	Science is a load of crap.
	Science is like just your opinion, man.
	So just go and fornicate.
	Still deterministic.
	This could be represented in films rather aptly.
	Consider something like Snow Piercer.
	It's a terrible film in my view.
	I haven't seen it.
	You're not making me want to.
	Where the train is not only a teleological object, but a symbolic one.
	Representing humanity.
	Yeah, that's the movie where it's like there's one train going around the planet because there's an ecological catastrophe, so now we all ride on the train.
	But the tyrants in booth number one tyrannize all of us.
	So like they're the source of human evil.
	It's the tyrants.
	It's the capitalists.
	It's the whatever that make.
	If only we killed those people, the universe would be beautiful.
	Where the train is a teleological object.
	Not only a teleological object, but also a symbolic one representing humanity no longer in control of their destination.
	This contrasts to traveling by foot, where man is in charge of his destiny.
	Bang on, man.
	And I'll tell you what, that helped that helped sum it all up.
	So, why is it that we see guys like Rogan and Dankula cucking to basic bitch civic nationalism?
	And a major part of the reason is because in resisting the postmodernists, so many of us have adopted a radical modernist position.
	Rather than being neo-reactionary, we are being reactionary and adopting a stance that is impossible to execute, even if we could go back 100 years in time and give it a good college try back then.
	It is the false dichotomy.
	It's magician's choice.
	heads i win tails he lose you know one thing that strikes me when i'm i'm reading histories of the faith there
	There's a story I read where the you know, the local priest came into the chapel and one of the local farmers was just always in the chapel by himself.
	And one day the priest asked him, why are you always here?
	You don't have to be here.
	And the farmer just said, I'm looking at the good God, and he's looking at me.
	That fucking simple.
	Whereas if you, heck man, even what sort of religious discourse are we having these days?
	Right?
	Even forgetting the Catholic versus Protestant, like forgetting all of that, even within the Catholic Church, and like Francis is right for all the wrong reasons.
	The Pope really needs, yeah, let's not get involved in that or liberation theology or any of it.
	He's right for all the wrong reasons.
	That it's the trads versus the progressives.
	It's constant, are you white or black?
	Are you pure enough?
	Are you doing the right thing?
	Should we do this or should we do that?
	There's no room left on a checkerboard for a man to look at his creator and his creator to look back to himself.
	There's No room in the story of racism and identity politics to be proud of the amalgam of your nation and want it to do well without also having to come up with some sort of criteria list defining what is and isn't your nation.
	The great trick they've pulled is destroying the middle path.
	Destroying the third option.
	And I would remind you, I would remind you, all the great stories of our time, not of previous times, but of our time.
	All the great stories of our time are about the hero that chooses the third path.
	Batman is forced to save his love interest or his business partner, his protege, and he finds a way to do both by refusing that false dichotomy that comes from the villain.
	that is what the age of aquarius represents is rejecting this false dichotomy of tradition or progress of left or right of of blind acceptance or constant criticism.
	It's that third way.
	And let's see here.
	Public Frog says, I'm going to disagree with you, friend.
	He says, what cranked up the death toll on World War I and II was the technology.
	We had this technology for a long time.
	Technology was building up.
	The death toll, which by the way, it started with the American Civil War, incidentally.
	That would have been World War I, except it only happened in America.
	But the Civil War, the death toll was way bigger than it should have been.
	Not because of technology, but because of the two sides refusing to give in.
	And by the way, it would have been a lot worse if the South hadn't given in and said, yeah, we're beat and we're not happy about it, but the North, you're still our brothers.
	Right?
	Like, we.
	Like, you're our honorable opponent.
	And so we will accept defeat at your hands.
	Whereas World War I and II, it's like there is no honorable defeat.
	You're fighting demons.
	And so you keep fighting way beyond the point where it makes any goddamn sense.
	That's what's so striking about World War I and II, is that the wars made no sense whatsoever.
	And World War II especially, we had to concoct a, we had to take pieces of true history and put together a supervillain to justify the incredible bloodshed of that war.
	When it was literally over Germany claiming that they had the right to administer areas that had German-speaking people in it.
	That's what the war was about.
	And we wound up nuking two cities in Asia because of that fucking war.
	How does that make any sense?
	Nuking two cities full of civilians, let alone firebombing Dresden, let alone bombing London, let alone the death camps in Germany and in North America.
	We took citizens and put them in a fucking death camp because Germany thought that they should own a province where most people spoke German.
	Thank God Hitler was a supervillain.
	Otherwise, we are all the monsters, aren't we?
	Anyway, sorry, it's rambling.
	There is no honor of getting killed.
	Damn it.
	An extinct animal has no behavior, moral or otherwise.
	What are your thoughts on Cormac McCarthy?
	Um...
	If he put quotation marks around the dialogue, people would realize he was a terrible writer.
	I think he's terrible.
	I think he's absolute crap.
	Oh, God, this thing's also broken.
	So, if you're just tuning in for the post-stream, and I think we're mostly done discussing the ideas of the stream.
	I think we're going to switch to discussing fiction.
	If that interests you, carry on.
	But I think I've said everything I've got to say there.
	It's like the law and order versus chaos and creativity.
	It's that middle way, man.
	That middle way.
	You can demand the traditions of your country without hating other people.
	And finding that middle way is our task if we're going to defeat this Hegelian monster, this heretical faith of Marxism that threatens to tear the whole world apart while putting it into slavish tyranny.
	Now, yeah, Cormac McCarthy is an absolute frickin' hack.
	Now, Grant, now, let me, he's written more than I have.
	Well, he's written more novels than I have.
	So all the power to him.
	does write and it's hard to write anything.
	And so I do, I respect the hustle.
	He's got good hustle.
	That being said, he's an awful writer.
	And it's, take one of his books, take any of his books, and put quotation marks around the character's dialogue, and suddenly you will realize how awful the dialogue is.
	The guy intentionally leaves out quotation marks because it makes it sound deep and profound.
	Personally, I refuse to read that stuff.
	If you're not going to...
	It's nice when a woman doesn't wear too much makeup.
	But a woman that intentionally looks like a bag of shit because she's too good to wear makeup, that's something else entirely.
	And that's kind of what he's doing with it.
	And also, it's the sheer absolute nihilism of his books are just too much for me.
	I think it really represents the postmodernist, nihilistic, radical left view of reality.
	Note, I'm not saying liberal.
	Right?
	I just had a very lovely conversation with my liberal friend who is not into comments because she's having sex tonight.
	Good for her.
	My.
	Liberal friend.
	I love liberals.
	Creative, experimental, etc.
	That's great.
	The leftist mindset, the Cormac McCarthy mindset, is summed up perfectly in the road, which the setting of the book is that a solar storm killed all of the, I don't know, mitochondria, all the little single cellular organisms on earth have been killed.
	And the earth is just dying now.
	And all you have left are people fighting one another over the last remaining tins of food.
	All the plants are dead, the animals are dying, and that's it.
	It's depressing and nihilistic.
	And so even the fact that the guy saves his kid at the end, well, the kid's still going to starve to death.
	Everyone's going to starve to death.
	Earth is over.
	It's just going to take 20 or 30 years.
	And that there's a really cheesy ad I heard for like the some libertarian party in Canada where it's like they want to say who gets the biggest piece of the pie.
	We want to make the pie bigger for everyone.
	You know, libertarianism 101.
	But this is literally, this is like literally, there's only one pie and it's shrinking and the best you can do is cannibalize your other humans before you get cannibalized.
	And that seems to be Cormac McCarthy's view in all of his books.
	And it's really depressing and I don't believe it represents reality.
	Maybe it's a misunderstanding of what's the second law of thermodynamics, you know, gray soup.
	Misunderstanding of that, I'd argue.
	But yeah, I'm not a fan of his.
	Let's see.
	Sorry, just getting that catching up the comments here.
	Laramie comments, the Pope is going hard against Trads.
	Yes, there's little less than a million of us in a world of 2.5 billion Nova Sordo-Catholics.
	I say Trad Cats are the buckle of the belt when it comes to Christendom.
	And that's why Satan's focusing so hard on it.
	Yeah, I...
	Let me put it this way.
	It's like he threw the first punch and then it's angry that somebody else is punching back.
	Okay?
	So the guy's shutting down exorcism.
	Yeah, the Pope is completely out of control.
	He needs to repent and come back to the faith.
	Be really nice if he did that.
	But I would also, if fighting for Tradcaf means doing everything you can to preserve your church, like if it means a meaningful battle, that's great.
	If it means posting snarky memes that do nothing but piss people off and it's just purity testing, etc., which I like, I know that you don't do, Laramie.
	I'm saying there's a kernel of truth to what the Pope says.
	Of course there is.
	Of course there is.
	There's a kernel of truth of the people that just adopt radcath positions to be self-righteous bigots.
	Right?
	Like, I was going to say like most Protestants.
	So there's a kernel of truth to it.
	Like, don't.
	The point of religion is not to feel better than other people, okay?
	The point of religion is to look at the good God while he looks at you.
	But aside from that, yeah, it's...
	I mean, it's the exact same thing with the right wing, where the right wing is being goaded into taking stupid positions and charging like a bull at a red sheet.
	And it's such a catch-22 if you stay in the black and white world.
	And that's the real trick.
	The real trick is not to charge, it's like, so why did Joe Rogan cook?
	Why did he cuck?
	Because he's been trapped in the black and white world where he charges at the red sheet, which he knows is a mistake, or he passively sits and does nothing and apologizes for saying the N-word.
	Why does Count Dankula cuck?
	Because the only way to be, it's heads I win, tails you lose.
	It's that dichotomy that's false.
	I hope that makes sense.
	I hope that I know it's not exactly a path forward.
	I think it's the starting of one.
	Soylennial says, Never understood what the age of Aquarius stuff was.
	So there's these ages.
	I've briefly covered it before.
	I'd like to give it a full working that it deserves, as opposed to like kind of half-ass it.
	The age, what was the age before the age of Pisces?
	Oh, goodness.
	I should know this.
	It was the age of Mars, of the Ram, I believe.
	Yeah, so the Age Before Pisces was, it culminated with the Roman Empire taking over the known world, right?
	Empire becomes the new norm.
	And then through empire, we get the age of Pisces, which is the two fish.
	The first fish is Christ, and we learn empathy for the lowest.
	Brilliant scene in that song, Do the Evolution by Pearl Jam, where it cuts, it has a Roman emperor and his son looking over at all they survey.
	Rome has taken over the world, and they're looking down onto the field of, oh, what was it called?
	Golgotha, we'll call it.
	It might have actually been Golgotha, but I'm pretty sure that was in the Middle East.
	Anyway, they're looking upon the field where all the traitors and disobedient slaves were sent to die.
	And it was just a field full of crucifixes.
	Hundreds of bodies, hundreds of the lowest, below, the most shameful of death, dying pathetically as a testament to the power of Rome.
	And then the age of Aquarius arrives, and God himself comes to earth and dies the death of a traitor or a slave, the lowest of the low.
	And this was so repugnant to the Romans.
	It was like blasphemy to them that they wound up killing a lot of Christians because of it.
	And yet that first half of the age of Pisces, after, like we were kind of talking about like the Stone Age, megalithic, Bronze Age, Age of Pisces, which there's other ages before that, obviously.
	Taurus, for one.
	Pisces, first we have the fish of Christ, whereas we learn empathy for the lowest.
	We learn that even the slave is a human being.
	And in fact, maybe we shouldn't have slavery.
	That's not a good thing.
	And then in the second half, we get the other fish, the anti-Christ fish of science and technology.
	And ultimately, we forget about God.
	The God that taught us to understand everybody as an individual.
	We forget about him and treat everybody as a human resource by the end of the second millennium of the age of Pisces.
	Right?
	Each of these is about 2,000 years.
	And so after Age of Pisces, which I like, arguably, this is the conflict.
	This is the big conflict between do we love God?
	Do we love Christ?
	Do we love the infant baby in the manger?
	Do we love our neighbor as ourselves?
	Or do we love what the system can provide for us?
	Do we love the order?
	Do we love the easy pornography?
	The social credit score?
	Which one do you love?
	Do you love the person or do you love the system?
	Because the big push from the powers that be right now is to steamroll the individual and replace you with the system, to turn you into a vaccine passport.
	The age that comes after the age of the two fish, of Christ and Antichrist, is the age of the water bearer, the one that carries the water that contains both Christ and Antichrist and resolves the contradictions between them.
	And again, the fact that we're coming, like the Hegelian dialectic is so constantly dominating everything.
	The fact that the right wing is just as enmeshed in this false Hegelian, Freemasonic, checkerboard, heretical, Gnostic dialectic of dark alchemy.
	Age of Aquarius, the water bearer.
	It bears both Christ and Antichrist within it.
	It resolves differences.
	That, yes, we can have Christ and we can have technology.
	We can have a good society and we can have tolerance for sin within the society.
	You know, I would say one of the big errors that we make on the right is our inability to distinguish the difference between sin and sin.
	Sin literally just means missing the mark, missing the bullseye.
	And there's many reasons you could miss the bullseye.
	You could miss the bullseye because you were never trained.
	Because you're still unskilled in your learning.
	You could miss the bullseye because you didn't know there was a bullseye that you were supposed to shoot at.
	And you could miss the bullseye because you're not even bothering to aim at it in the first place.
	Or, or you could miss the bullseye because you were born with a crippled body.
	And those are all very different things.
	Some of them are deserving of more empathy and tolerance than others.
	And I think, that's just my personal opinion, but I think there is major moral advancement.
	The science of psychology I would say it has more than sufficiently proved that there are people of different temperaments.
	So in the same way with Christ, we recognize the slave was just as human as the emperor.
	I think there is something similar that comes from psychology, that physically you don't expect a cripple to be as strong as somebody who isn't crippled.
	You're not going to call them lazy for not lifting the same load.
	And I think one of the things that comes from psychology is recognizing that the differences in human temperament, the genetic, fundamental biological differences, means that you can't expect the same standard of behavior out of all people.
	Now, if the Antichrist would like to use that to categorize everybody, what we would do would use that to say that, yes, this is the ideal way you should be.
	You should be physically courageous.
	You should not be overweight.
	However, some people are better at being courageous, not because of moral virtue, but because of biological temperament.
	And some people struggle more with obesity than other people do.
	And I think that is a major realization we've come to in the 20th century that it's acceptable to hold different people to different moral standards.
	The problem is that so long as we continue to affirm the moral ideal.
	That's one of these false dichotomies.
	Either you accept everybody the way they are or you demand everybody live up to an impossible standard.
	No, no, we affirm the impossible standard and we accept that some challenges are more challenging for people than other people.
	That's the Water Bearer.
	And Lloyd, glad to have you.
	Let me take a quick bathroom break.
	We'll be right back.
	All right.
	We are back.
	Thank you for the patience.
	Oh yeah, to reiterate, the Age of Pisces is the two fish.
	It's the two fish.
	One covers the first bulletin, the other covers the second.
	This is going to Carl Jung, which I don't know, makes a lot of sense to me.
	Should actually sit down and actually finish one of these books I'm working on, shouldn't I?
	Eh, I'll see.
	I'm more focused on making money for myself right now.
	Technology has replaced religion in this paradigm.
	And that's it's but that the either-or is the paradigm.
	To say technology has replaced religion, it's like, why not both?
	Right?
	Like, we, like, technology literally came from religion.
	The idea of future historians are going to have to sit down to students and say, no, no, no, you don't get it.
	Like, these freaking weirdos in the 20th century actually thought religion and science were two different things.
	That's how frickin' crazy they were.
	And I think that's that's what we're resolving in Age of Aquarius.
	Thoughts on Kafka?
	I absolutely love him.
	Actually, well, you know what?
	I'll tell you I really love about Kafka is he's he incorporates the moral culpability of his protagonists.
	And I'll left my stupid vape upstairs, didn't I?
	So yeah, Kafka, we're living in a hostile system and the game's rigged against you.
	You can't trust anything.
	Everyone's lying to you.
	The government hates you.
	But Kafka doesn't make, even though his protagonists are complete, like they are a victim of circumstance.
	They are being oppressed by the system.
	The trial is my favorite one because I know a little bit too much about the legal system.
	I'm rather sick of knowing about the legal system.
	But when you go into the legal system, you've got no idea how it works.
	Alright, that's why you hire a lawyer, is because none of it makes any sense.
	There's all these stages, and it's like, oh, yeah, you're probably innocent, but we probably really shouldn't go to trial.
	And, you know, maybe you should say this, not that other thing.
	And it's like, why can't I just tell the fucking truth?
	Ugh.
	So, I mean, like, the one where the Grieco returns into the insect is cool and all, but The Trial is my favorite one.
	But he doesn't, like, it is so tempting to make it into oppressor-oppressed, and yet he doesn't do that.
	It's like he very much his protagonists are also flawed human beings.
	So, yeah, they're being oppressed by a tyrannical system, but they themselves are not innocent as doves.
	If it was, if it was a current year guy writer putting this together, they would make him completely innocent.
	And the big problem with modern cinema: there's no flaws in any of the characters, they're not interesting.
	Winning Smile says, if the supervillain of the 20th century wouldn't have been stopped, we'd all be sprecking Deutsch and wear Leiderhorsen right now.
	I know, yeah.
	He wanted to take over.
	No, he didn't.
	Good Lord, number of people that think he wanted to take over the world.
	Oh, so Elenio says that cannibal scene in the basement haunts me in that movie.
	I haven't actually seen the movie.
	I just, it's not really interested.
	Same thing goes for No Country for Old Men.
	No Country for Old Men had a lot of good scenes, but it's funny.
	It's like anybody that likes the movie is smart.
	But there's the people that don't like the movie.
	There's like most people, I didn't get it.
	Why'd the good guy die halfway through?
	Oh, no, he still has the point.
	He was trying to say something.
	And then you get the people, and that's honestly kind of where I am, where it's like, I get what the movie was doing.
	It had some interesting stuff, but it wasn't paced correctly, and I'm unsatisfied with all of it.
	Although I can, I will say it was a lot better.
	It was a lot more.
	I disagree with its core idea, though.
	The core idea of No Country for Old Men is that somehow in the 1970s a new type of evil appeared.
	And that the old men, it's no country for them anymore because they can't understand the new evil that Chigger represents.
	And Chigger is just the embodiment of nihilism and entropy in the universe.
	So I guess it really is this.
	In the what's it called?
	The apocalypse one about like empty road or lone road or as I walk these broken road, whatever the fuck it's called.
	Like the innate entropy of existence is personified by the EM wave that kills all life on the planet Earth.
	And now the humans that are still alive just get to watch life die.
	In No Country for Old Men, entropy is embodied by Chigger, who is just this...
	He's not even...
	Like, if you take the Discworld novels, which I hope you've read, they're fantastic.
	Read the Discworld novels.
	In the Discworld Novels, Death himself is personified and is a frequent character that pops up.
	And Death personified is, like, yeah, it's Death, but at least it has the decency to tell you its name.
	Whereas Chigger is entropy personified, and yet he's also a fallible man.
	Like, he breaks his arm, and what happens after the end of the story?
	Because he just broke his arm, and he's trying to get away.
	He took a kid's bike, and will he get away or will he get arrested?
	So he's not even the Archangel of Death, which, like, at least if the Archangel of Death shows up, well, I guess your death meant something.
	No, if Chigger kills you, he's just entropy, man.
	Unthinking entropy.
	What's that?
	I forget the philosopher.
	I talked about the sense of, like, when you're confronted with a tidal wave, where you're something that's completely beyond you, a tidal wave's about to kill you, and you can just feel awe.
	Like, it's not a personalized attack on you.
	It's just the inevitability of fortune.
	And I, I'm sorry, I just, I completely, it seems to be this assumption that life is meaningless and we should just give up.
	And it's just not me, man.
	You know, I was watching...
	Here's just some off-the-top-of-my-sword speculation about mortality.
	First of all, yeah, that series, Attack on Titan, is seriously good.
	Glad I started watching it.
	One of my old army buddies told me I should watch it.
	And one of the things that just really strikes me about it, and I've only had a few opportunities in my life to engage in combat.
	And good lord, it makes your blood flow.
	It's so awesome.
	And watching, it's really well done.
	Basically, it's a military drama.
	And it really just seems to me that we are, like, there's got to be something to that, being called to combat.
	Just something so wonderful about it.
	And yet you can't do it willy-nilly.
	It's not like one of those video games where you get to get, you get shot five times and you're like, oh, I'll just put a stim pack in and then you're okay.
	No, the reality is, even minor injuries take a really long time to repair, could potentially be lethal, and you'll often never regain full capacity.
	I mean, I can't play guitar anymore since fighting that dog.
	Wouldn't trade it for the fight.
	The fight was worth it.
	Good lord, that was a great fight.
	But how many more of those can I have?
	You know, like maybe two or three before I'm completely disabled?
	You can't have 20 fights before you level up to level 2.
	And yet, good lord, there's just something so glorious about this.
	Aren't we called to this?
	And yet, at the same time, none of this makes sense.
	Like, the battle doesn't make sense without sacrifice.
	A battle where you didn't have to worry about your friends getting turned into pink mist and bone chips next to you wouldn't be a battle worth having.
	It would just be LARPing.
	And so, maybe, maybe our incarnation in this reality is to, or our creation by God, whatever it is, is to exist, and exist well, and exist heroically.
	whether that be as a soldier, as a lover, as a husband, as a father, as an artist, as being a guy that has a wife that loves him and you've got a fence that you just built on your piece of property, and you've got a nice piece of property.
	Something as simple as that.
	And, you know, maybe we get to the other side, and we find out that it's just a big video game.
	Right?
	It's like a movie where you have to pretend that the movie is real so you can feel the emotions of the movie.
	And we get to the other side and we find out it was just all a big RPG.
	We were doing it for fun.
	Well, if that's the case, then you'd better play to win.
	don't want to play to be a nihilist.
	Like, that's just, you screw it, man.
	You had a perfectly good video game set up for you.
	You got a 2% completion score.
	Well done, dickhead.
	McCarthy is just way too nihilistic in that sense.
	There are trad cats and trad incorporated cats.
	You're talking about the latter.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	You know, I posted something on Gab recently that it got a lot of likes.
	What was I saying?
	It was...
	Oh, right.
	I was calling out TPUSA.
	Is it TPUSA?
	Who's that?
	Charlie Kirk.
	See, a friend of mine, who is totally cool and not an idiot, linked me to Charlie Kerr, and Charlie Kirk was saying something we'd all agree with.
	And I said to her, you know, I just can't deal with Charlie Kirk.
	She's like, why not?
	I'm like, oh, the guy's 100% cuck.
	And so then I linked her.
	didn't know, so I linked it through a video, um, and, and so I, I posted this thing on Gab saying, you know, it's like there's, in the right we've got, I've got zero time, we've We've got the grifters.
	Kirk is absolute cuck sellout grifter And then we got the people that just want to fight with everybody all the time, right?
	Who that they're, it's like they're, you know, the smart, stupid, lazy, hardworking.
	That the best people that they really want are the smart and lazy people.
	Okay, those are the best people.
	The worst people are the stupid and hard-working.
	Go get your enemy to hire those people.
	And so the stupid and hard-working people on the right, that just start stupid, dumb fights with everybody, and they're right after the grifters.
	But the, I point out, like, the people that are hypocrites, like if they're not a scam artist or a grifter, I don't care.
	Right?
	I don't care about Catboy Cammy.
	Don't care.
	Do not care.
	I don't live up to the ideal.
	I certainly don't expect anybody else to.
	I expect people to have integrity and to be interesting, not pure.
	Right?
	That the whole purity spiral needs to go fuck itself.
	Find somebody that's roughly at your level of purity.
	That would be my advice.
	Because I'm not going to pretend to be more pure than I am.
	I'm not going to become more.
	Maybe I will, but you know, that's up to God, not me.
	And I got a lot of love for that.
	I got a lot of likes.
	So I think that's actually more widespread.
	I've just, there are so many loud voices on the right that want to constantly purity test and constantly sow division.
	And not just on the right, but constantly want to denounce people on the left as being subhuman.
	When it's like, no, they're also made in the eyes of God.
	Okay, so if they're still on this planet earth, they presumably can still be redeemed.
	So going around calling people names is not a very productive way of resolving the Christ and Antichrist fish.
	Healthy Man says, Thank you for your perspective.
	Well, thank you.
	I do appreciate it.
	I'm sorry you can't write them all in like one block like you used to, but I don't know, D-Life hasn't canceled me yet, so I think we'll keep doing it.
	I had something to add in reference to this trifecta, Bloody Meridian, No Country, and The Counselor, but oh, and he literally, this isn't, it's not easy to type out.
	Yeah, I know.
	You know what?
	Even if I don't like the movies, at least they're good enough we can talk about them.
	I would rather a movie that I don't like but I can talk about than whatever the fuck Disney is putting out these days or Marvel or whatever or Star Wars.
	Like, Jesus Christ.
	Cheater sees himself as the agicator of fate.
	He meets out what he believes is the debt owed by people who, once again, in his view, only act out of self-interest.
	When he confronts Carla, his worldview is questioned, for he kills not because he's compelled, but out of right, right, at the very end of the movie.
	So he's been doing the whole coin flip and saying, pick your fate to everybody.
	And he meets Carla at the end and she says, you're going to do whatever you're going to do.
	I'm not going to participate in your stupid game.
	And it's only immediately after that that he gets into the car accident and suddenly he becomes a vulnerable human.
	His yeah, I did a thing ages.
	I did something ages ago on the reverse, arguing that a cop that respected the badge was invulnerable, that that badge does give you supernatural powers if you respect it.
	And this is kind of the reverse, is that his nihilism kept him safe until he was forced to admit he wasn't a nihilist, until the immovable object hit the unstoppable force.
	He is passive, allowing people to choose head or tails until she forces him to self-reflect that he's the one forcing them to choose.
	In this moment, he's no longer the arbiter of destiny, but a mortal like everyone else.
	Yeah, it's the collapse of Goebel's incompleteness theorem.
	Again, the accident is preceded by him looking in the rearview mirror, suggesting he knows what he did was wrong.
	He killed Carl out of selfishness, not a higher duty.
	The accident represents that it was he who did wrong in the world, and his debt must now be owed.
	In a sense, this makes Chigger the antithesis to Christ, who calls for boundless forgiveness of debts.
	Chigger does not know which of Carl's acts were self-serving, but he convinces himself anyway that what he did was right.
	this, the toss of the coin is ultimately voided, and his position of destiny turns into an element of luck.
	Yeah, you know, maybe I should give that movie another shot, because it actually, it undermines...
	See, if we were to look at the road as being the victory of fate, the victory of entropy...
	In no country for old men, even entropy has to admit it is but a law.
	And for the law of entropy to be true would mean that even the law of entropy can be questioned, which Isaac Arthur has a series of videos about civilizations at the end of time, like at the end of entropy, where he discusses the possible loopholes to entropy.
	So like this isn't just tricky wordplay when I say that if entropy is a law, then entropy even applies to itself, undermining the law.
	That's not just tricky wordplay.
	That's not me being an English major, as a history major for the record.
	That actually is a foundational aspect of physical reality, that if entropy is true to our understanding of it, even entropy will be undermined by entropy, creating possibilities for existence beyond entropy.
	So, maybe I'm being too harsh.
	Maybe I'm, I'm probably, I just don't like his writing style, goddammit.
	I just don't like his writing style, goddammit.
	And, you know, I'm going to finish off...
	I'm going to finish off with my thoughts on Game of Thrones.
	Because why the fuck not?
	So, George R.R. Martin, God bless him, although that would piss him off, openly stated that Game of Thrones was supposed to be the anti-Lord of the Rings.
	But the problem with doing an anti-high fantasy narrative is that it's not going to give you a happy ending.
	In the last book that he actually published, one of the things that happened to the character Tyrion was that he started becoming the imp.
	The battle he participated in didn't wind up with a cool scar across his cheek.
	It wound up with his nose being completely severed and giving him a skeletal appearance.
	And additionally, he wasn't handsome Peter Dinklich in the books.
	At best, he was okay before he got his nose sliced off.
	His face was quite misshapen.
	his eyes were two different colors he becomes an absolute monster in the last of the published books He gets a couple of his teeth knocked out.
	So he got this guy, nose sliced open, couple of teeth knocked out.
	He actually has another dwarf character that falls in love with him.
	Right?
	That says, even though you're disempowered monarchy and your face looks like an abortion, you got a kind heart and I would love that.
	And he rejects her to pursue power and revenge.
	So rather than whatever Tyrion was in the TV series, in the books, he was becoming the monster.
	It was at the stage where he was like, oh, please turn around, Tyrion.
	No, he's not going to turn around.
	He murdered his father.
	He's got a mutilated, scarred face.
	He didn't kill his nephew, but he's happy the kid's dead.
	He's become a monster.
	Game of Thrones was intended to end on a complete down note.
	And it would have been so much fucking better if it had.
	It would have at least been interesting.
	Like, it would have pissed us off.
	But, you know, the same way we've been discussing McCarthy here, we could at least discuss it.
	It would be interesting.
	It would have been like the last episode of Seinfeld.
	So what was the false promise?
	Some of the false promises were the false, like the intentional false promises.
	Game of Thrones started with a whole bunch of false promises.
	One, we were promised the king that will come again.
	Right?
	That, oh, what's his name?
	The Black Watch!
	That kid.
	That he is, he's the trueborn king.
	He will ascend to the throne.
	He will be the Aragorn that brings peace and joy to the kingdom.
	How's it end?
	He gets sent back to the wall to go be an incel all over again.
	We were promised some big epic battle between these mysterious forces of evil, the White Walkers.
	What are they?
	and the series ends, the Battle of the White Walkers is not some giant alliance between elves and dwarves and humans and even the...
	No.
	It's some shitty little battle that happens in the hinterlands of the empire that people in the capital don't even know about.
	So yeah, the big world-changing, life-saving event, it's like footnote in history that in 200 years most historians won't think, they'll think, oh, it's just a legend they made up in the north.
	You've got Sansa.
	Sansa, the one who idiotically believed in romance and Arthurian legend, who becomes an absolutely cynical monster by the end of the story.
	The new king of Westeros is a cripple whose dick doesn't work and spends most of his time getting stoned on drugs and uttering weird poetry about history.
	Not even sure what time he lives in.
	Queen Daenerys, who was promised to save everything, winds up being the tyrant that almost destroys everything.
	And whatever that legend about the sun worshipper god that had to get the sword that would save the kingdom, he had to stab him into the heart of his beloved, which is a pretty fucked up story, but that's actually pretty par for mythology.
	Well, that winds up being Black Watch Kid stabbing the heart of the only woman he loves because she's a tyrant.
	They get these dragons.
	You get these three dragons at the beginning of the story.
	Surely it means something for prophecy.
	Nah, not really.
	And then you get Arya.
	Aria who spends all this time training to be the best badass assassin, whatever.
	And she's really got no role to play in the end game.
	And she looks at her remaining family.
	She's got Psycho Sansa.
	And why can't I remember the guy's name?
	Black Watch Kid is just being a total cuck beta.
	And her other Brother is a stoned cripple, and she says, You know what?
	I'm a peace out and become a pirate.
	And the ending, the ending done properly.
	Oh, and the stoned, paralyzed king, his number one advisor is a bitter alcoholic little troll with his nose gone,
	so he's got those two disgusting holes in his face, who is just spiteful and revenge-happy, but he is so effective at being an administrator that even though he just basically just tortures everybody that he doesn't like, but he maintains power.
	And so the resolution of the entire book series is that you've got an evil but stable kingdom at the end of the story.
	All the heroes get smashed apart by fate.
	And the best we can do is a kingdom that's slightly more evil but slightly more stable than the one we started out with in book one.
	That was where Game of Thrones was supposed to go.
	Disappointment, bitterness, harsh lessons, but nothing really learned aside from, you know, this is humanity.
	And yeah, that would have pissed everybody off.
	It would have really pissed off.
	That's why, I think that's why Martin stopped writing the books.
	It's because people were already getting pissed off of where they're going.
	Jon Snow, thank you.
	Jon Snow.
	Jon Snow, like the ultimate fucking cuck, isn't he?
	Like, literally, the best thing that happens to Jon Snow is that little redhead.
	You know, nothing, John.
	So at least that girl lived life.
	And she winds up dying during a battle where he totally cooks out.
	Might at the same time, what are you going to do?
	She's a total firebrand.
	Yeah, we need to smile.
	Yeah, either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
	Contrast this to Lord of the Rings.
	And again, Martin wrote this to be the anti-Lord of the Rings.
	In Lord of the Rings, it's a pity.
	It's a pity that my uncle didn't kill him.
	Pity.
	Pity is what stayed his hand.
	Can you give life to those who have died unjustly?
	No?
	then don't be so quick to give death to those who deserve it.
	One of the things that stands out to me about Lord of the Rings, you've got Aragorn and Merry and Pippin and, oh, that.
	really cute blonde girl.
	And you've got those protagonists that represent the heroic ideal.
	Merry and Pippin are really my...
	I love at the end of Lord of the Rings where Merry and Pippin come back to the Shire and now they're these badass heroic knights.
	They were a couple of douchebags when they left, but now they became heroic knights.
	You've got that main heroic narrative going on.
	But then on the other hand, you have Frodo, Gollum, and Samwise.
	And SamWise is a simple man.
	He really reminds me of Chief O'Brien in Star Trek The Next Generation in Deep Space Nine.
	He's simple.
	He's simple, occasionally to the point of being arrogant, ignorant.
	One of the great things about DS9 is the bond that formed between the over-intellectual Bashir, who, like, I always empathized with that character, and the obnoxiously ignorant O'Brien.
	Like, that contrast in their friendship was wonderful.
	You know, in fact, Samwise partially contributes to the condemnation of Gollum.
	Like, right at that moment when Gollum needs a bit of softness, Samwise shows up with his belligerent, ignoramous attitude.
	You've got Gollum that is just so pathetically corrupted by evil.
	He's a pathetic, disgusting character.
	And you've got Frodo, who starts off idealistic, and yet by the end of the book, he is completely broken as a man.
	He's...
	Sam literally, but more metaphorically, needs to carry him.
	And so the great battle with evil is not the knights.
	It's not Aragorn and Marion Pippin and that sexy Celtic chick.
	They're not the ones that fight evil.
	It's a dumb, stupid day laborer and an effete nobility that's just broken and pretty much useless and a complete drug addict in the pit of hell that defeat evil.
	And so Gollum winds up getting his just desserts.
	You know, so Frodo says it's a pity that Bilbo didn't kill him.
	And Gandalf says it's a pity that held his hand.
	And it's not man that condemns Gollum, but God himself.
	Gollum, Gollum, you know that C.S. Lewis saying that the gates of hell are closed from the inside.
	Well, it's Gollum that joyously dives into the fires of Mount Doom to achieve his precious, to hold on to that sin that condemns him into hell.
	And so, yeah, the most important battle, the only battle that actually matters in that entire book is fought by three people that aren't even remotely heroic.
	They close this as Sam, but Sam's not even that nice of a guy.
	And so there's this, everything lines up.
	There's this poetry to all of it.
	Game of Thrones was supposed to be a deconstruction.
	And there's a time to build, and there's a time to tear down.
	There's a time for deconstruction, and it should have been a fucking deconstruction.
	The ending of Game of Thrones should have left us all exhausted and disgusted with all the characters.
	The only character that should have been close to heroic was the assassin, Arya, who decides to F off and become a pirate or something.
	Problem is they, oh wait, audiences like happy endings.
	You fucking pussies.
	You moral cowards that you want to, you don't want to tell a heroic epic.
	Because that's too naive.
	That's too silly.
	It's too much faith in God.
	We don't do that.
	We're going to have sex and murder.
	Okay.
	So do a deconstruction.
	Well, no, audiences want a happy ending.
	Now, the problem with Game of Thrones, they tried to have it both ways.
	Whereas if they tried to take George R.R. Martin's shit sandwich and then put some whipping cream and a cherry on top of it.
	It's like, no, make a good shit sandwich.
	Make a bitter, cynical deconstruction of Lord of the Rings.
	Do it!
	Do it, you fucking pussies!
	But no, no, they tried to make it happy at the end.
	No, not glad, real, not...
	Oh yeah, Eowind!
	Oh god, sexy Eoen.
	Oh my goodness, she is so sexy.
	I just want to find an Eohin in my life.
	Oh, yeah, Jamie Lannister.
	Actually, that's...
	Jamie Lannister is...
	See, like, when they finished the TV series, they were following the notes of Martin, but they didn't know what the hell they were...
	They obviously didn't know what the hell they were doing.
	So I think Jamie Lannister is the first case in literary history where we have a face-heel-heel turn.
	And that's...
	The whole point of Jamie Lannister is he starts off as, like, the ideal hit.
	He appears the ideal chivalrous knight.
	Then it turns out the guy's such a shitbag he's banging his own sister.
	He joined the king's guard to bang the queen's wife and to disobey his father and then he quits the queen the, the king's guard and then, and then he or sorry, then he murders the king because the king's an ass, it's.
	He is such a shitbag that can never do the right thing and it's like everything he does, it's like almost the right thing, like murdering the evil king was a good thing, but you're a king's guard that swore to protect the king, so you're an oathbreaker and you only joined it to bang the king's wife, your sister.
	And you joined it in defiance of your father, and yet you still want to sire a legacy.
	And it's just like endless contradiction.
	And again, he meets Brienne of Tarth.
	There's a scene in the books where him and Brienne are, they're bathing in the same room, like they're naked together.
	Now he just has his arm cut off, so he doesn't get an erection because he's all feverish.
	But there's this element in Brienne that Brienne wants to believe in a knight.
	And Jamie, you've been released from your oaths as a King's Guard.
	And so here's this woman.
	She is not physically pretty, but she is smart and ladylike, and she's, and if, to all three of the women listening right now, a woman that is smart, ladylike, feminine, oh.
	but you're not a 10 out of 10 physically, guess what?
	Beauty's a light switch away.
	No, they.
	There are 10 out of 10s that I could not do anything physically for.
	I'm sorry, you have a repulsive personality.
	And the inverse, if they've got a beautiful personality, you can, you don't have to be 10 out of 10.
	You don't have to be 10 out of 10.
	Every character has an opportunity to be a hero, and they turn it down.
	And so for Jamie Lannister, that scene where he is there with Brienne of Tarth, here is a maid that really just wants a knight.
	And you've got the opportunity to go off and, you know, romance her, marry her, get a stronghold, and live an honest life.
	Besides, like, 10 more years, all women are ugly.
	Who cares?
	He has that opportunity, and he turns it down.
	He's like, he's a broken narcissist.
	And so, of course, at the end, he betrays everything and goes and dies pathetically with his psychotic sister.
	Like, they're the most beautiful people, but they're the ugliest on the inside.
	Of course he does that.
	And so the whole thing could have been this amazing comedy of errors.
	That all of these characters are so flawed.
	And just a really cynical statement.
	Yeah, welcome to humanity.
	Nothing but us chickens down here.
	And that would have been really cool.
	But of course they puss out and try and put a happy ending on everything.
	Helping that goes on.
	Jamie's decline from the best swordsman in West Rose to a relatively sad display of human being with occasional moments of clarity reifies how he had no mental resolve.
	He never had to overcome anything.
	He was born skilled and adept, and when he lost his adeptness, he did not have the mental resolve to retrain as a left-handed fighter.
	Yeah, he made some like efforts, but he didn't really do it.
	His entire arc was pointless.
	He became a worthless character after season three, maybe four.
	And that's the thing.
	Like the point of his character was supposed to be, yeah, he was a shitty, spoiled kid.
	The moment he lost his advantage, he didn't find that humanity in him.
	There's the there's like five grim fairy tales about like the woman that's pretty or the guy that's strong, and that take they get that taken away from them and they're forced to actually grow a soul and that gets given back to them.
	That's the that's the main story, and this is this is supposed to be this aversion that Jamie has the opportunity to grow a soul, and he says, nah, I'd rather fuck my sister.
	And if you if they actually fucking done that, yes, we'd all be upset at the ending, but we would still be talking about Game of Thrones.
	The same way we're talking about Cormac McCarthy.
	Instead, it's just yeah, it's like it's like a girl that gets you all wound up during the night, and the night ends with a really lame hand job where it's like, I think I would have just rathered the build-up, right?
	Like, I wish I'd stopped watching after four seasons.
	You know, or you could have told me you hated me.
	At least that would be memorable.
	But this, like, it's just pathetic.
	Oh, geez, I just, I wish they'd gone full bore and actually done the anti-narrative they promised, as opposed to trying to have it both ways.
	Anyway, that being said, we go on for two hours and 20 minutes.
	I think that's plenty of time for a live stream.
	Any final comments, questions, problems, concerns?
	please voice them down below.
	That's the thing.
	As much as I hate Cormac McCarthy, at least he's doing something.
	Game of Thrones didn't do anything.
	It chickened out from actually doing anything.
	I like things that actually show luckliness.
	I do like the work of H.R. Geiger.
	I think actual, genuine, there's at least something to that.
	There's some integrity to it.
	Whereas this.
	Game of Thrones is like brutalist architecture that they went over and painted happy colors all over.
	right and just like like what it either built do namby pamby do brutalist Do one or the other.
	it's this halfway shoulda can't stand alias has haven't read any of his books but doesn't he have a doesn't cormac mccardley have a four-year-old style of right Yeah, in my opinion, yes.
	He doesn't put quotation marks around the dialogue.
	And so every line is like, we were walking down the road when Child said to me, Father, how much further shall we walk down the road?
	Which sounds really deep without the quotation mark.
	He put quotations marks.
	We were walking down the road when Child said to me, Father, how much further shall we walk down the road?
	And boom, it sounds artificial as shit.
	He's awful at writing dialogue and he hides it by not using quotation marks, just pretentious as shit.
	And as a writer, I cannot stand pretentious dialogue.
	My major pet peeve.
	People that use an in front of a word that starts with H. Fuck your style guide.
	It's not an historian.
	It's a historian.
	Get it right, pricks.
	And also, you use the masculine pronoun for unknown or mixed groups with the human species.
	Humans are a masculine noun.
	You want to use the female pronouns?
	Go write books about cattle or felines.
	If you're writing about dogs or humans, you use the masculine pronoun.
	You filthy degenerates, study Latin.
	Carpe futurum, tene traditum.
	Thank you so much for listening, folks.
	God bless every single one of you.

▲