Andrew Clavin’s Obama: The Great Divider mocks Pokémon Go’s AR mechanics as a metaphor for modern political narratives, then pivots to Barack Obama’s 2016 Dallas police memorial speech, framing his systemic racism claims as divisive and citing Heather MacDonald’s The War on Cops to link BLM and Obama policies to rising crime. The episode dissects Hillary Clinton’s shaky campaign—Bernie Sanders’ grudging endorsement, Loretta Lynch’s email testimony stonewalling, and Trump’s polling resilience despite minimal spending—while a Norwegian listener sparks a debate on moral relativism, where Clavin argues secularism erodes objective ethics, comparing it to Europe’s cultural decline. Ending with literary recommendations like The Great Gatsby as antidotes to modern chaos, the episode ties Obama’s legacy to America’s fractured moral and political landscape. [Automatically generated summary]
Everyone is playing Pokemon Go, unless they're doing something productive or worthwhile.
Then they're not.
Pokemon Go is the new game based on the Pokemon franchise, which was invented by Satoshi Tajiri, a Japanese name that, when translated, means, I will get revenge on you for Hiroshima, you round-eyed louses, by creating a game that saps your vital energy with meaningless pursuits.
In Pokemon games, opponents select bizarre little creatures and set them off against each other in absurdly silly confrontations.
No, wait, that's the American primary system.
No, it's Pokemon.
I'm not sure.
Anyway, Pokemon Go downloads the game to your smartphone and attaches it to your camera and GPS, creating a system called augmented reality.
Augmented reality looks like the world around you, but is really a fantasy.
It's like watching the news on ABC.
When you look through the phone's camera, you see what's in front of you, only now there are Pokemon creatures here and there, and by throwing your magic Pokemon ball at them, you can catch them and begin training them for battle.
Augmented reality and regular reality are different.
In augmented reality, you might see a gigantic, colorful beast thrashing wildly through the streets, and you might feel this is just the creature you need to save the world.
In regular reality, it's just Donald Trump, and you've been played for a sucker.
In augmented reality, a lovely, cuddly yellow figure named Pikachu accompanies a young boy through the magical world of imagination.
In regular reality, Pikachu is no longer allowed to accompany young boys because of an incident in Tampa back in 1997.
He's now pictured on a law enforcement website with the caption, Pikachu, so keep your curtains closed when you're undressing.
In augmented reality, a fire-breathing lizard can be hunted down, trapped, and carried away as a prisoner.
In regular reality, the FBI feels there's not enough evidence to secure an indictment against the fire-breathing lizard, and so she remains at large, running for president.
Pokemon Go is a game you can play anywhere, while walking down the street, while driving your car, while lying in the street after being run down by the guy playing in his car, or while simply relaxing in your car later with your face embedded in the windshield.
It's a game suitable for people of all ages, from eight to nine, and for all levels of emotional maturity, from thumb-suckingly childish to, man, that's it.
But some journalists and other household pests see a possibility that Pokemon Go technology might soon be put to more serious uses.
Instead of looking at your phone and seeing imaginary creatures like caterpie and squirtle and charmander, you'll be able to look in your phone and see imaginary social problems like climate change and police racism and unequal pay for women, and they'll look almost exactly as if they're real.
The new game will be called Democrat Go.
Just go.
Really, go.
Forces Pulling Us Apart00:08:58
We beg you.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
And I have balloons!
I have balloons!
It's my birthday, so we have balloons.
That's what I get for my birthday.
I'm very fond of balloons.
You know, I just loved doing that show yesterday, having Larry Gatlin on the show.
It was really fun.
And today we'll make up for that by being incredibly depressing, so that'll help.
You can watch 15 minutes live on Facebook and then come over to the Daily Wire and listen to the rest or subscribe and you can watch the rest and be part of the mailbag because today is not just my birthday.
It's mailbag day.
Yay!
And this, I have a feeling we're going to get to exactly one question today.
A guy asked a question, a guy from Norway asked a question that I feel is not just an important question, I feel it's the actual question of the age.
It's the big question of the age, and I will answer it.
So you're going to have to come back because that'll happen after we go off on Facebook.
All right, so they gathered in Dallas yesterday to memorialize the five police officers who were killed by a racist, insane person.
And our president, I have to say, the president just made a beautiful, wise, unifying speech.
Unfortunately, it was the last president.
At times, it seems like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together.
Argument turns too easily into animosity.
Disagreement escalates too quickly into dehumanization.
Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.
And this has strained our bonds of understanding and common purpose.
But Americans, I think, have a great advantage.
To renew our unity, we only need to remember our values.
We have never been held together by blood or background.
We are bound by things of the spirit, by shared commitments to common ideals.
At our best, we practice empathy, imagining ourselves in the lives and circumstances of others.
This is the bridge across our nation's deepest divisions.
Come back and be president again, we miss you.
I have to say, I know he did things, he did things I disagreed with as president.
He's just a decent person.
Even the fact that he never makes speeches like this, he has never gotten.
Remember when he was president?
I mean, did Jimmy Carter shut up for 10 minutes during his presidency, picking on him constantly?
He has never, never been tempted to come out and hit Obama, who he must despise.
I just have to believe he despises him.
Maybe it's just me, but maybe that's me who would despise him, mistaking that for George W.
But he had to come out for this because he's a Texan and this is Dallas, and so this is his home state.
And that was real wisdom when he says, you know, we judge other people by their worst example and ourselves by our best intentions.
That is the definition of bigotry.
That is the way we all are set to operate.
And I truly believe that many of us, if not all of us, spend a huge amount of mental energy proving to ourselves that other people are worse than we are.
And here, which brings me to our present president, who came out and made this speech, and everybody I know had the exact same reaction to it.
It started out going, yeah, pretty good.
You know, you're doing well.
And then all of a sudden, out comes, first of all, he mentions himself something like 50 times in this.
But then out comes that Obama we know and love who just has to politicize everything and show everybody how much smarter than us he is.
Here he is.
We also know what Chief Brown has said is true.
That so much of the tensions between police departments and minority communities that they serve is because we ask the police to do too much and we ask too little of ourselves.
As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools.
We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment.
We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs.
We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.
And then we tell the police, you're a social worker.
You're the parent.
You're the teacher.
You're the drug counselor.
We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs and do so without causing any political blowback or inconvenience.
Don't make a mistake that might disturb our own peace of mind.
And then we feign surprise when periodically the tensions boil over.
I detest this guy.
I really, you know, I know, I know, this is the moment when we're supposed to say, oh, yes, he brought us together.
And I was watching even the right-wing commentators were saying, first of all, the thing about the Glock, you can get a Glock more easily than a book.
What world?
I mean, this is like everything he says takes place in the world of Obama land.
Twitter reacted.
I love the reaction on Twitter.
Twitter was Glock a book.
And so they just started renaming books with Glock.
So they had a Glockwork Orange and they had to kill a Glocking Bird.
And my personal favorite was the hunt for Red Glocktober.
But you know, the thing is, I can't, I don't care what speech he made, even if he hadn't done that.
He's not to blame for there being crazy people.
There are always crazy people.
But he is to blame for inciting this hatred of the police.
And by the way, the police are one of our most respected institutions, along with the military.
So a lot of what Obama does, it's a very weird thing.
Obama's a very popular president personally, but everybody says the country's going in the wrong direction.
It's like, yeah, you know, who's piloting this ship?
You know, it's like, it's not Obama.
He's standing over there making speeches about the police.
But these things that he says, he is the one who has said there is systemic racism, that policing has systemic racism in it, which is not true.
And I will leave this.
Heather McDonald, who is one of the best reporters in the country, as I've said again and again, I asked her today, I emailed her and asked her if she would come on the show, and she will try to hope, I hope, soon.
She was having, like, all these people at think tanks, these brilliant people, their computers keep going down.
Maybe they just don't want to talk to us.
I don't know.
But even when they come on, they don't have like Skype.
You know, these guys, these guys have genius IQs.
It's like, how do you work with the Skype thing?
But anyway, Heather is brilliant, and she has been relentlessly reporting the facts.
She works for, she's at the Manhattan Institute.
She writes for City Journal.
She's got a new book out, which is called something like the War Against the Police.
I don't have it in front of me, but it's doing really well.
It was like number two on Amazon for several days in a row.
She wrote a piece today for the Wall Street Journal.
Let me just read you a little bit of it because she's the expert on this situation.
For two years, American police departments have endured relentless attacks from the Obama administration, its media allies, and the Black Lives Matter movement, alleging that U.S. law enforcement is a racist, deadly threat to African Americans.
A handful of disturbing videos depicting police shootings helped galvanize widespread hostility to law enforcement officers and cops began backing away from the proactive policing that stops crime but has been repeatedly denounced as racial oppression.
The result, especially in the first half of this year, has been an appalling increase in shootings and murders in many cities across America.
Most of the victims in this poisonous era spawned by Black Lives Matter have been black.
Now, the consequences of this stream of falsehoods about police may be spinning out of control with the assassination of five police officers in Dallas last week and the attacks on cops in other cities since then.
Make no mistake, assertions about systemic, deadly police racism are false.
That has been true throughout the period following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014.
Recall that the cop involved was ultimately exonerated by the Justice Department, but no number of studies debunking this fiction has penetrated the conventional storyline.
And that's what we've been talking about all week: about setting the story, how the left uses the news media and the entertainment media and our universities to teach a narrative.
And that's what we're going to get back to that when we get to the mailbag.
That is one of the most important questions of the age: who sets the narrative and how does it affect you?
Because it affects even you.
Even when you're sitting there going, I hate the mainstream media, it is in your head much, much more than you know.
The war on cops, thank you.
Setting the Narrative00:07:12
That's great.
The War on Cops by Heather MacDonald, who is just, she is just such a good reporter and relentless and so courageous.
I mean, she goes into the worst neighborhoods to make these reports, and she's just absolutely terrific.
All right, the war on cops.
Good.
So, meanwhile, our friends on the left, talking about real criminals, Bernie Sanders came out and endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday.
This is one of my favorite moments in the campaign so far.
I mean, he comes out and he endorses her, but he clearly, I mean, you could just hear what he's thinking underneath the words.
And listen to the words.
The words themselves aren't that friendly.
I am proud of the campaign we ran here in New Hampshire and across the country.
Our campaign won the primaries and caucuses in 22 states.
And when the roll call at the Democratic National Convention is announced, it will show that we won almost 1,800 delegates.
I hate to wait.
1,100 delegates, far more than almost anyone thought we could win.
But it is not enough to win the nomination.
Secretary Clinton goes into the convention with 389 more pledged delegates than we have.
I hate to be speaking.
I hate to be.
And a lot more superdelegates.
Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process.
Was it just me, or could you hear what he was thinking underneath us?
I don't know.
Maybe it's me.
I just felt like I knew what he was saying underneath that.
You know, it was all about how much he won.
And yeah, she got those super delegates, which we know he thinks is rigged.
And she's standing behind him.
This is one of the things I love about she may become president of the United States, but she is so spattered with crud.
You know, the FBI has called her a liar.
You know, he's endorsing her, but says basically she stole the election.
And she's standing behind with that frozen Hillary smile on her face.
It's like, I'll take any humiliation if I can just get the power and the money.
I don't care how much.
Oh my gosh.
So anyway, and this is the other thing.
While she's doing this, our wonderfully blandly sinister Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, is called before Congress, and they're questioning her about Comey's statement, you know, and all this.
And do you agree?
Listen to her.
This is the chief law officer in the country, and she's stonewalling Congress.
This is her testimony.
Have we got her?
Yeah.
Secretary Clinton stated that she never sent or received information marked as classified on her server.
Director Comey stated that was not true.
Do you agree with Director Comey?
You know, Director Comey has chosen to provide great detail into the basis for his recommendations that were ultimately provided to me.
He's chosen to provide detailed statements, and I would refer you to those statements.
I, as Attorney General, am not able to provide any further comment on the facts or the substance of the investigation.
Well, General Lynch, I think you would agree that the ultimate responsibility for a prosecutorial decision does not rest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but with the Department of Justice, which you head.
Have you not taken a close look at the work done by Director Comey, especially given the extreme national interest in this issue, to make a determination yourself whether you and those working for you agree or disagree with Director Comey?
As I've indicated, I received the recommendation of the team, and that team was composed of prosecutors and agents.
It was a unanimous recommendation as to how to resolve the investigation to the information that they had received.
Do you agree with the conclusion?
And I accepted that recommendation.
I saw no reason not to accept it.
And again, I reiterate my pride and faith in their work.
Secretary Clinton stated that she did not email any classified material, and Director Comey stated there was classified material emailed.
Do you agree with Director Comey's conclusion about that?
Again, I would have to refer you to Director Comey's statements for the basis for his recommendation.
You'll never get me, copper.
Oh, wait, I am the copper, but you'll still never get me.
It doesn't matter.
All right, we have to say goodbye to our friends on Facebook.
Come to the Daily Wire because we're going to do the mailbag and answer the most important question of the age.
And where else can you hear that?
Okay, but this is beginning to tell.
The thing is, it's beginning to tell on Hillary.
The new swing state polls released Wednesday by Quinnipac University show Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania and tied in the critical battleground state of Ohio.
In three of the states that matter most in November, the surveys point to a race much closer than the national polls, which have Clinton pegged to a significant mid-single-digit advantage over Trump, except not, because now there is a new poll from McClatchy Marist.
Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump has withered to three percentage points.
Clinton has a, now leads Trump by 42 to 39 percent, which is almost nothing.
While Republicans and Democrats are solidly behind their candidates, Independents are divided.
Clinton does somewhat better in a four-way race with the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.
Now, we should point out that this is Clinton collapsing and not Trump surging.
But Trump is doing nothing.
He's not spending any money.
I mean, he's sitting at home playing darts and talking about Saddam Hussein.
He's like three points away.
It's insane.
So I don't know.
The narrative that he has no chance, I'm not buying it.
Of course he has a chance.
Of course he does.
These are the two worst candidates.
We have picked the two worst candidates in America to run for the highest office in the land, as you do.
And I just think that like, you know, it could go anyway.
And she is really, she has had some of the worst political weeks in my memory of anybody.
But he's done nothing.
He hasn't capitalized on this.
He hasn't spent any money.
You know, there are no attack ads on the air.
There's nothing.
There's a little bit of dough.
His super PACs are spending and his campaign is spending money basically paying themselves.
And he's still drawing closer to her.
Shapiro says Trump has a ceiling.
Believing in Something00:08:03
I don't believe in things like that, to be honest with you.
I don't think there are any ceilings.
I think the minute, you know, when this becomes a contest, people are going to take a look.
I think what John Nolte said when he was on the show, he said that it's going to come down to the conventions and the debates.
It's probably true.
I mean, because there's nothing else.
Although the debate may have to take place in federal prison because they're still investigating Hillary.
And she did, you know, she provably committed perjury in front of Congress.
That's one thing.
And the other thing is, what was she hiding on those emails?
Was she, you know, she was hiding the trade deal, the money deals she makes, those money deals she makes with the Clinton Foundation.
Maybe those will come out.
All right.
That's enough.
That's enough.
This election is up for grabs.
It's time for the mailbag.
Yay.
So the question that I got that I think is from Ivar in Norway.
And he says, I agree with what you say about the importance of having a religious, morally aware people in order to have a society of men who can govern themselves.
The problem is that even though I admire Christianity, I don't actually believe it to be true.
Most people here in Norway do not believe in God, yet our morals are certainly Christian.
Can these Christian morals stand on their own without the religion and the belief in God?
If not, would you consider it immoral for me to pretend to be a Christian to better promote the values and morals I believe are necessary for people to be happy?
So to me, this is the question of the age.
This is what the last pope, Pope Benedict XVI, was always talking about.
He was talking about moral relativism and what an enemy to mankind it is and how it's destroying Europe.
And it is destroying Europe because people can't stand up.
You can't stand up for moral relativism against the onslaught of Islamics, Islamism.
You have to believe in something.
And what this guy, Ivar, is saying is a real problem.
I've read a lot of books about this.
There's a book called Education's In by a Yale professor, Anthony Cronman, Why We Should Call Ourselves Christian by Marcelo Perra, an Italian thinker, and he was a congressman over there of some kind, maybe a senator.
He says the same thing.
We have to pretend to be Christian because our Christian values are real, but the Christian God is not, essentially.
And there's another one.
Whatever happened to modernism?
Why are we in this post-postmodern world of relativism?
And all of these writers, these are big thinkers, these are big brains who are writing about this stuff.
And all of them come to the same place where they say, obviously, you can't have values without God, but I can't believe in God.
And I think that that's a valuable, there's valuable honesty in that.
First of all, you should not believe in anything that you don't think is true.
I don't believe anybody should embrace any religion without believing it to be the case.
You should not embrace it.
In answer to the question that he asked, should you pretend?
No, you shouldn't.
But you are in a position where what you believe is irrational.
And so when you ask the question, can these morals stand?
No, they can't.
They can stand for a while.
They will stand for a while, but ultimately they'll begin to be eroded because people pay attention to rational thinking.
They don't mean to, they don't want to, but over time, things that are irrational collapse.
It takes a generation.
You know, a generation of people raised in the Christian world will remain Christian, but ultimately they'll start saying, well, who can say whether it's best to have Sharia law or British-based law?
Who can say?
Because you believe one thing, I believe another.
Nothing's good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
And that idea collapses.
So here's the situation you're in.
You're in a situation where what you believe is irrational.
You believe in the values that can only be supported by the existence of God.
And let's leave Christianity aside for a minute.
You believe in the values that can only exist.
They can only be objectively real if something like the Judeo-Christian God exists, but you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Now, when you believe in something contradictory like that, you have to ask yourself which side of that equation is wrong.
It can only be one or the other.
Either there's nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so, and there's no God, or there is something good and bad, and there is a God.
So you believe in something irrational, and you have to ask yourself why, why?
We talk about this narrative thing all the time.
Why do you think the left is so intensely, fights so intensely to seize the narrative?
When they come out and they talk about climate change, they don't say, look, here are the facts, and here's a chart, and here's this thing going here.
They say, if you disagree with this, you're a climate denier.
You're like a Holocaust.
You're an idiot.
You're a fool.
Why are they working so hard?
I mean, if climate change were, you know, catastrophic man-made climate change were really a problem, they wouldn't be screaming at you like that.
They would come out with the charts.
We'd all believe them.
We'd say, oh, I see, that is a problem.
They can't do it.
So what they do is they try to set the narrative, okay?
They have to do that.
And why do they think that that's so important?
The reason they think that's so important is all of us, without knowing it, live in an intellectual current.
When I use the word narrative, what I'm really talking about is the intellectual current of our time.
It's the way thinking is carrying us.
It's carrying us along.
And it's really, really hard to step out of that flow.
It's really, really hard.
You know, think about, these are things that have happened throughout history.
You think about the term the Middle Ages or medieval, which means the same thing.
If you see that Quentin Tarantino picture, Pulp Fiction, he says, I'm going to go medieval on you.
I'm going to go medieval.
Meaning, I'm going to torture you.
Most of the torture devices that you see that you associate with the Middle Ages are made up.
They were made up for exhibits.
The whole idea of the Middle Ages was made up.
It was made up by the people of the Renaissance who wanted to say, well, there was the classical age of Rome and Greece, and then there was the Middle Ages when nothing really was happening, and the evil church was stepping on everybody, and now there's today with us wonderful people.
It was a propaganda campaign.
And the reason you think of the Catholic Church as being against knowledge, as being against advanced, is because of that campaign.
When you study it, what you realize was the Catholic Church was busy during those years civilizing the savage German tribes that came down and are now the British and the French and all these other people that have set civilizational standards.
So the Middle Ages is a narrative, a narrative that was sold to you.
If you want to see how powerful narrative is, think about George Washington holding slaves.
Think about good people having abortions.
That will tell you.
You look at George Washington, a man of intense virtue, a man who gave away a kingdom.
He gave away a kingdom, just handed it back to people because he believed so much in freedom.
That's how much virtue George Washington had.
And yet when his slaves escaped, he couldn't understand why.
Why'd they run away?
I was so nice to the guy.
He couldn't understand it because he was flowing in that intellectual stream that said slavery was okay.
That said slavery was just something that had been dropped on them by the British.
They were stuck on it.
They needed it for economic reasons.
He couldn't, even George Washington, for all his virtue, could not step out of that flow.
People, good people who commit abortion, basically, who fight for abortion, who fight for abortion rights, and who aren't bad people.
I know in the give and take and battle of politics, we like to think of them as evil.
Some of them are evil, but most of them are not.
Most of them are doing what they think is right.
They don't know that 20 years, 30 years, 40 years from now, they're going to be looked at the way we look at slaveholders.
They don't know that.
They think this is the right thing because it gives women freedom.
That's how powerful that flow is.
The narrative that God is out of date, the narrative that science has disproved God, that science has made God irrational or irrelevant, is a narrative that is being pushed on us since the 18th century.
I mean, great philosophers, great thinkers, people, and at some point it was actually a rational reaction to the discovery of science.
Oh, things don't really work the way passages in the Bible seem to say that they work.
You know, the things aren't created by speaking them into being.
They're created over this slow, natural process and all this.
All of which, by the way, I believe.
I believe in science.
I believe that science is true.
And I believe that there are things in the Bible that are supposed to be taken metaphorically, not literally.
But it's just a narrative.
When you ask yourself why a smart guy like this fellow writing into us, why he believes in something, he's believing in something that's irrational.
He believes that those values are true, but the God who supports those values, he can't believe in, why not?
And I would just suggest to you that if you hold a contradictory or irrational belief, you study why.
You look at why.
Why Great Works Resonate00:03:26
And if it's just the narrative, climb out.
Climb out the same way the first fish climbed onto land to get us here.
That's how evolution takes place.
It takes place when you climb out of the flow that's carrying you along helplessly in one way.
You climb out and you walk and think and act for yourself.
There it is.
I've answered the question of the age.
I think that's it for one male.
That's enough for one damn male.
If I'm going to solve the questions of the age, I think I can just move on to stuff I like.
So all through this week, we've been doing stuff I like.
Great works of literature you can read in a couple of hours.
I actually think this is kind of important because I know for myself, I've lost my attention span.
I mean, I've gone to see, I've maybe seen the play Hamlet, oh, I don't know, it's got to be like 10 times, and it's a four-hour play.
And nowadays, when I go to a play, I ask the lady who's taking my ticket, how long is this play?
And if it's 90 minutes, I think, ah, good, because 90 minutes is about it for me.
After that, I'm like, you know, where's the popcorn?
What's going on?
I love TV because it's an hour.
Who has more than an hour a day to entertain themselves?
So I've lost my attention span.
I still do read novels that are like a thousand pages long because they're so great.
They're so powerful and terrific.
And you can read them 25 pages at a time.
So it is short.
But here are a couple of things.
Here are some things I've suggested.
I suggested the Rubiat of Omer, the Rubiats of Omer Khayam, brilliant poem that you can read in a few hours.
Yesterday was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Excellent, excellent, and amazingly entertaining book that's virtually a short story.
If you've never read The Great Gatsby, you should read The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
I'm told that in Ted 2, I haven't seen, I saw Ted 1, I think there was enough TED for me.
I'm told in TED 2, someone says, who wrote The Great Gatsby, and he says, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and he says, wait, what has Scott Fitzgerald ever done to you?
A cheap joke, but not my joke, it's Ted.
However, The Great Gatsby is really one of the great novels of all time, and certainly one of the greatest of American novels.
And it's a very, very powerfully romantic book.
It's a love story.
And when I first read it, I didn't realize, I kind of was so busy getting involved with the language and the literary aspects of it that I didn't realize how romantic it was until I saw the Robert Redford movie.
And then I went back and read it again.
In fact, when I was writing, I wrote a novel called Man and Wife that I wanted to be short.
I wanted it to be condensed.
And so I would write about five pages, and then I would read a few passages from The Great Gatsby and go back and rewrite the five pages.
And the five pages would become a paragraph because the book is so condensed, so powerfully condensed.
It's the story of a self-made man, a guy who comes from the West and tries to and falls in love with Eastern upper class people and just is constantly yearning for that moment when he was accepted for a few moments into the world of the Eastern upper class.
If you want to see why the left loves Europe and what they're yearning for, read The Great Gatsby because that's what it is.
It's the story of basically a gangster who yearns to become part of the American upper class.
Brilliant, brilliant love story, brilliant book.
All right, only one more day before the Clavenless weekend begins.
So store up, I want you to store water and supplies and guns.