RadixJournal - Richard Spencer - Unconscious Cinema - Less Human Than Human

Oct. 29, 2017 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer

01:48:48

Unconscious Cinema - Less Human Than Human

Mark Brahmin and Richard Spencer discuss Blade Runner (1982) and its sequel, Blade Runner 2049 (2017). This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Blade Runner.
	One of the things that I like about Blade Runner, and I'm talking about the original here, it's an amazing film.
	But one of the things that I really like about it is that it was the first time that I think I might have given my interpretation to someone in high school and they were like, oh my god, man, you just blew my mind.
	And uh...
	I saw it when I was not.
	He's a replicant dude.
	Yeah.
	I had the same experience.
	Don't give it away!
	Yeah, exactly.
	It actually deteriorated into a violent argument.
	Not a violent argument, but it deteriorated into an impassioned argument in my case.
	It's pretty funny.
	It's funny.
	You have the exact same impression.
	Because we're roughly the same age, so I think we'll have analogous stories.
	Very similar stories.
	Yeah.
	So when I was growing up in high school, we were watching this stuff on VHS.
	In the 90s.
	And so the film was 10 or 12, 15 years old.
	And I discovered it on VHS.
	I was way too young to see it when it was first released.
	And I just thought it was awesome.
	The whole world that was created was cyberpunk and really badass.
	It was well ahead of its time.
	And, again, it was one of those, like, blow-your-mind moments where I was talking to a classmate of mine, and, you know, I said, like, you know, well, I think the ultimate message is that Deckard is a replicant.
	And the guy was just, like, staring at me, and he, like, had to sit down.
	He was like...
	Wait.
	Like, whoa, whoa.
	Oh, my God.
	This is like pre-internet.
	In today's day and age, there are a million reviews.
	There are like a million fan theories about every movie that comes out, or popular ones at least.
	But yeah, it is a kind of mind-blowing movie.
	It's an amazing aesthetic film in its own right.
	And Ridley Scott...
	Who struggles as a filmmaker in many ways, in terms of storytelling and other things, does not struggle when it comes to visuals and set and costume design and shot composition and mise-en-scene.
	Absolutely amazing.
	The world that he creates is unique and provocative and also really pretty timeless.
	Ridley Scott's films, when you think about some of the big ones, Alien, Blade Runner, even some of his lesser films, like these overstuffed historical dramas, they still hold up.
	And they look good 20, 30 years on.
	And in a way that other films will often look junky or something.
	So, you know, an amazing job there.
	And so this film became, like, it was not successful originally.
	It became an underground legend.
	And it built up this cult fan base.
	And part of that, I think, was the ambiguity of the film.
	It wasn't just the amazing visuals, like these models and the flames bursting forth of this city that always seems to be raining.
	And he's living in some weird...
	You know, it's not just that.
	I think it's also this idea that there seems to be a lot more going on, that A, there's that question of Descartes' real identity, you know, have you ever given yourself these tests?
	Like, who are you really?
	What do you remember?
	What's the meaning of the unicorn?
	And then also, I think because of some of these, the symbolism, which maybe even...
	Maybe even ham-fisted or too on the nose.
	But the fact that Rudger Hauer's character at the end of the original Blade Runner is literally impaling his hand with a nail.
	He is becoming a Christ-like figure.
	He releases a dove at the end.
	He basically saves...
	Humanity, to a degree, or perhaps it's not humanity, represented by Deckard.
	I mean, it's very ambiguous.
	And releases a dove and kind of lives for someone else and regrets that his own experience is being lost in time, like tears and rain.
	It's a beautiful, poetic line.
	But there does seem like, again, I think that's one of the reasons why Blade Runner has this cult falling and probably will.
	I mean, it will probably have a cult falling 30 years from now in the sense that the visuals are I think everything you've said is accurate.
	The film, I mean...
	Visually, it's an outstanding film, obviously.
	That first frame, though, in particular, is really compelling.
	And so much is conveyed in that first frame.
	You basically see it's kind of this...
	The other thing I would add, too, is that the music for the film is outstanding.
	And that, I think, is one of the true innovations of the film.
	And it's also one of...
	The things that separate it aesthetically from other of Ridley Scott's efforts.
	I mean, the music is just this very, like, sublime, sort of wane, you know, sorrowful, you know, dirge-like in some ways music.
	Very innovative music.
	That is a good point.
	It's Vangelis or Vangelis.
	I think it's Vangelis.
	Vangelis?
	Vangelis, yeah.
	Maybe Vangelis.
	But it's interesting because it is kind of almost contradictory.
	It has a kraftwerk or even synth pop electronic aspect to it, but at the same time, it's deeply sad and full of regrets and melancholy, which you wouldn't usually associate with electronic music, which you would associate with, you know, Yes.
	know kind of thing but he actually does it in a way that is sorrowful and that's remarkable yes So it's definitely one of the great virtues of the film.
	But the cinematography is obviously outstanding.
	And actually, as a technical achievement, it's more impressive in a lot of ways than the most recent film.
	You know, just from kind of the difficulty in achieving that aesthetic from a purely technical filmmaking production perspective.
	You know, nowadays, one of the things that probably people who haven't been involved with film or know much about the actual making of films, nowadays...
	Essentially, everyone can look at a monitor on the set and see more or less, you know, what the film is going to look like.
	And then from there, it goes to an editor who has all these, you know, who is a kind of panoply of, or rather an array of things that he can use to adjust the image, to make it exactly perfect.
	And that was absolutely less the case when Blade Runner was made.
	In fact, it may have been the case that they didn't have monitoring at all.
	Or if they did have a video monitor, it was some very primitive-looking image that everyone else on the set saw.
	So in other words, the DP had to know exactly what he was doing.
	You know what I mean?
	And they were shooting on film as opposed to shooting on video.
	So he had to go around the set with a light meter and know exactly.
	You know, anticipate exactly how the film would react.
	You know, obviously there was some processing that they could do after the film was shot, but, you know, it's nothing compared to the extent to which they may modify the film now.
	And it's sort of the irony now is that the whole challenge of the most recent effort is to kind of recreate this look, which is a very cinematic and filmic look, you know, produced on film in a very kind of exacting and difficult manner.
	Now their challenge is to reproduce that look, but they've got all these advantages in that effort to reproduce the look.
	But there is this sort of irony in filmmaking in general that they'll even shoot these videos at 24 frames per second for no objective reason.
	I mean, it doesn't make the image.
	I mean, you could shoot a video or a film like Lord of the Rings.
	You know, on 60 frames per second.
	And ostensibly, you're getting a clearer, more vivid image.
	But the truth is, a lot of our aesthetics is tied to this kind of nostalgia, right?
	And kind of the look of film at some certain point, you know, during the development of cinema, we're attached to this look of film, which is this kind of 24 frames per second.
	Look.
	You're almost going for a more antiquated look when you're making something filmic.
	Yeah.
	In any case, that's neither here nor there.
	Well, it's an important issue because what are the films that are making billions of dollars that are entering the public imagination?
	There are these reboots, effectively, of older genres, and there's this kind of attempt to evoke nostalgia.
	Through CGI.
	I mean, I'm thinking of Star Wars in particular.
	That they have all of these new technologies at their disposal, but they're basically like going back to 70s era stuff, like lightsabers, you know, like modeling.
	They're trying to recreate the energy of a 1977 film that was using stop motion animation.
	And other models, like in wires and, you know, these big dark rooms, which was done.
	I mean, whatever you think about Star Wars, you know, for the budget, for its budget, what George Lucas achieved in this, you know, final battle scene or something is nothing short of miraculous.
	With just the energy, just these flying spaceships everywhere and laser battles.
	I mean, it's incredible.
	And the fact that it still holds up and looks cool now is also remarkable.
	But yeah, it's like we've reached this level of, you know, we now have, you know, supercomputers and effectively, you know, people can, you know, they could make an entire movie in CGI.
	But we're trying, what we're ironically trying to do is to recapture that lost authenticity of another age.
	I think it's also the case with this film, which is...
	Nevertheless, a science fiction film, right?
	So I think the first film was definitely an aesthetic achievement.
	Now, I mean, I think that on this topic of aesthetics, there's a lot of things that we could talk about.
	I mean, the film is, it's a noir film.
	It's a dark film.
	And on some level, it's a, you know, it's kind of a gloomy, nocturnal film, right?
	And the film itself, it contains these very tragic themes.
	So there is kind of a, I would argue, kind of a demoralizing even aspect to watching the film.
	And the film as an experience is kind of a, it operates as kind of a depressive, right?
	No question.
	Remember, it's 2001.
	Was this made about 15 years after 2001 or 15 to 20 years after Kubrick's 2001?
	But you can see what has happened in the meantime.
	There was basically a countercultural revolt and a loss of optimism and so on.
	The late 1960s and 70s.
	And you even have some, like, direct references to 2001 with, like, the telephone conversation between Deckard and Rachel, where, you know, in 2001, he's talking to his kids in this almost kind of, you know, 1960s Mad Men era type way.
	And in this one, you know, he's trying to pick up a...
	His robot bride in this, you know, like totally graffiti-laden, cracked and scratched up, you know, telemonitor, you know, and so on.
	You know, as opposed to the 2001, which is this, you know, clean, it did include advertising and corporations, but it was kind of clean and futuristic and forward-looking.
	Optimistic.
	Lots of pessimism there, too, but a generally Faustian sense of what we're going to achieve in space.
	And in this one, it's this terrestrial sense of corporate domination in the worst.
	We have a kind of Asian-like future, as opposed to a Faustian-Nazi future, which was definitely present in 2001.
	It's this very different future of, again, a future which we all live in a dystopic Tokyo.
	Yeah, no, I would argue too.
	I mean, probably there's a darker mind behind 2001 than either Philip K. Dick or Ridley Scott.
	But I guess that's neither here nor there.
	But I mean, certainly there's this kind of sterile, kind of clinical appearance to that film.
	Very white.
	On the spacecraft.
	So I take your point.
	Yeah, I mean, but it's almost like, you know, not to dwell too long on this film, because we've got a very interesting film to discuss.
	It's almost like 2001, that this sort of bright exterior is the thing that kind of conceals kind of inner cynicism.
	Whereas Blade Runner to some extent is a more genuine film in the sense that it's...
	It is kind of a tragic, dark, gloomy film, and dealing with tragic themes.
	2001 does have a lot more cynicism than one might imagine, no question.
	The fact is, it is like corporate technocrats lying to the public, and obviously going on from there.
	But you can't really imagine...
	The Blade Runner world existing in 2001, I mean, I would imagine a kind of happy technological suburbs is how everyone lives in 2001.
	In Blade Runner, you see this just massive humanity with next to no money living in a kind of techno-poverty in these Tokyo-like...
	In which also the connection to the natural world is explored as a real loss.
	I mean, that's certainly a theme in the Dick novella.
	But this idea that animals are effectively gone, that we're living on protein farms and fake food and noodles and all this kind of stuff, and that we're just totally disconnected from the natural world, is presented far more bluntly in Blade Runner than in Kubrick's film.
	Yeah, well, regarding first impressions of the film and just kind of a general impression of the first film, what I would remark is that, I mean, obviously the most striking theme, or rather the most striking scene, and also theme, is the scene with a Rucker Howard's death scene at the end of the film.
	And within that, you know, to some extent, it seems like that scene may have occurred as kind of a happy accident.
	Right.
	And we can go into that a little more.
	But I think that Ridley Scott, with that scene, I mean, I think that that is the scene that really is kind of the master scene of the film and is one of the most remarkable scenes probably in cinema history.
	And all of it has to do with this kind of subtext, which seems to have appeared kind of from a Jungian source and may not have even necessarily been intended.
	Though, I mean, Ridley Scott must have had some...
	But effectively, you see this Aryan man who's kind of a Superman as he's developed, as the figure of the replicant is developed in that first film.
	He's this Aryan Superman kind of dying in this Asianized ruin of Los Angeles.
	And it's striking.
	And I think it's really what makes the film a film that we now talk about.
	Yeah.
	Let's go here, because I think I can actually pick up on some themes that you just gestured towards and then segue to the new film, because that is what we want to focus on.
	But it's Roy Batty and his, you know, the Tears in Rain monologue, which is a really beautiful...
	I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
	Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
	I've watched sea beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser gates.
	All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
	Time to Die.
	That was actually written by Rutger Hauer.
	It was added in.
	It shows the power of, you know, improvisation.
	Really?
	And how Ridley Scott maybe, you know, again, he's a hugely successful visual filmmaker, like no question.
	But he might, could do with some help when it comes to...
	You know, the screenplay when it comes to the deeper philosophy of his films.
	But I think it's also no coincidence, and it's evocative as well, that he, you know, discusses Tannhäuser Gate, which is, of course, seemingly a reference to Wagner's opera, uh, Tannhäuser, which is about a pilgrimage.
	Um, by the way, we could go into that deeper.
	I'm not, I'm not sure there's a direct reference, but it is this reference to, you know, a great European past and, and obviously a composer who's, uh, you know, one of, you know, obviously the greatest artists in European history, but, but is also one beloved, famously beloved by, uh, fascist and national socialist and has a kind of, you know, deeply Aryan quality, someone who was himself quite antisemitic.
	Um, just the fact that Roy Batty set the word "Tannhäuser" does seem, it adds an Aryan-like quality to him if it wasn't there He's stronger than Deckard, he's faster, he's smarter, he's more ruthless and brutal, but also more compassionate.
	Whereas Deckard is literally a hired gun, Roy Batty seems to have a greater sense of...
	Of being his savior and of saying, of not just simply killing him.
	And he's a childlike figure in a way as well.
	That was the acting, and his acting along with also his, I'm forgetting her name at the moment.
	What was...
	Oh, gosh.
	What is it?
	Daryl Hannah, what was her character's name?
	I'm forgetting at the moment.
	Was it Pris, the first name?
	Yeah, Pris, which is also an interesting name choice.
	But they almost were children, the way they would look at each other and make faces and kind of frown and things like that, and pout.
	So he's both a child, but then he's also a greater, more humane person than Deckard, who is just a cynical hired gun.
	Whatever the replicants represented in Philip Dick's novella, it's hard not to see them as Aryan-like figures in Blade Runner, the original Blade Runner, in the sense that they stand out.
	They're in this Asiatic, decrepit world of ant people, and they stand out as the true charismatic and beautiful...
	villainous Arians you know within this world and even Decker played by Harrison Ford is kind of you know he's kind of a lesser man He's very far from being an idealist.
	He only finds love in robots.
	He's talented, but kind of a lesser human, whereas Roy Batty and company become supermen, you know, in that sense.
	And, you know, I don't quite know what to make of it, but it's worth thinking about this title of the new film, you know, Blade Runner 2049, and not a lot of emphasis has been put on that.
	In critical reviews that I've seen, I think the title is usually just treated as, oh, well, it's just a futuristic title, like 2001, or Death Race 2000, or whatever.
	It's just a futuristic number like that.
	But I'm not so sure.
	2049 is one year below 2050.
	And 2050 has almost always been this magical date that is seen as the day that whites become a minority in the United States.
	Actually, with the radical transformation in Western Europe, 2050 is also becoming a date as well.
	I think it's technically now 2042 or something when whites will become a minority, but that's...
	Not particularly important.
	It is basically 2050 that is seen as the time.
	That's when everything will change.
	This was announced by Bill Clinton.
	There's organizations like Project 2050 and all these kinds of things.
	The fact that this is occurring at 2049 seems to indicate that we're just on the verge of this transformation.
	This is the year before it all changes.
	And it is interesting that within the film, one of the key aspects of this is that the replicants are not so much becoming sentient, but becoming...
	Aware of themselves as a collective and effectively politically aware.
	And so, you know, this is definitely played up in the film.
	I mean, I think it's a quite explicit theme in the sense that K...
	The new replicant, played by Ryan Gosling, is a good dog.
	He's literally referred to as such by his overseer, Robin Wright.
	He says, attaboy!
	There are other references to dogs, effectively, that he is a retriever who obeys.
	And so on.
	But it seems like one of the fundamental themes as the movie progresses is basically replicants becoming self-aware and self-conscious.
	Not so much self-aware, because they're already self-aware.
	I think that's also a cliche of techno-futuristic movies.
	It's become self-aware.
	It's become self-aware, but it's more than being self-aware.
	It's that it's conscious of Itself as part of a collective, as having a history, as having connections to others, and as having a collective memory.
	And so there does seem to be this underlying theme in 2049 of...
	2050 is going to roll around and there's going to be a robot revolution.
	There's going to be a replicant revolt in which this now family of replicants who think of themselves as a people and therefore think of themselves politically.
	They've been this underappreciated class of slaves, effectively, and they are going to achieve a political expression.
	And it's hard not to see that connected with 2050.
	I don't believe that the replicants are just a cheap and easy stand-in for Mexicans or something.
	There are some lines in here, like, all civilizations are built through a slave caste.
	That was Neander Wallace's line, we need more slaves, effectively.
	I don't think it's that simple.
	But I'm not saying it's not there.
	I think that's actually a pressing theme that's just on the level of consciousness.
	I think people watching this film will kind of get it without really articulating it.
	No, I think that that's probably a correct reading.
	So, in other words, I think that the writers of the film, maybe less so the director, the writers of the film were probably keyed in on that.
	I mean, we'll get into this, but I think it is probably a misreading of the film to see the film as a, you know, a wink to the alt-right, for example.
	It's like, this is when, you know, whites are going to, you know, take over the society and reestablish themselves as a, you know, identitarian group.
	Don't think that that message is in there necessarily.
	I think related messages are in there.
	Well, let's go there.
	Let me, maybe just for the sake of being the devil's advocate, let me put forward that reading.
	All right.
	So, okay.
	So in the original Blade Runner, the replicants are actually Aryans.
	And they shouldn't be viewed as...
	Just pathetic little robots like R2-D2.
	They are better than human.
	They should not be also dismissed as mere robots.
	They aren't robots, in fact.
	This is another unique thing about Blade Runner, which, to its credit, it has a real original conception of the replicant.
	In other films, like The Terminator, replicants are...
	You know, steel skeletons with rubber skin or maybe organic skin.
	And even in a film like AI, you know, the David figure, you can open him up and, you know, you can change his oil.
	Not literally, you know, effectively.
	He has a chip in his head.
	You know, he's more obviously a robot.
	The replicants of the Blade Runner universe are much less obviously robots.
	I mean, they've been genetically engineered.
	You can't really tell the difference.
	That's why you have to engage in all these elaborate testing techniques, the Voight-Kamp test, in the sense that they've had all their little parts created, subcontracted out.
	It's actually probably an accurate vision of what a replicant making would look like.
	There are thousands of subcontractors who will create organs and so on.
	It will all be put together by a super corporation.
	And genetically engineered, so it is a living being.
	It does not have a steel skeleton or something like that and a microchip in its brain.
	It has actual organs.
	It bleeds.
	It has emotions.
	It can't help but have that.
	It's been genetically engineered, so it is a clone of a human being.
	So it is not just some discardable robot.
	So you have this figure.
	They are more human than human.
	They are supermen.
	And so in this ant-like world of Asiatic world, you have these blonde-haired Aryans walking around who are better than the rest of humanity.
	And they want to achieve consciousness and recognition.
	And then in Blade Runner 2049, if we extend this interpretation...
	Effectively, this group of people that are better than humans.
	And so these people who are supermen are treated like golden retrievers.
	And so the process that takes place in Blade Runner 2049 is that they achieve consciousness through memory.
	Even if these memories are synthetic, even if they've been implanted, even if they've been generated by someone else, that doesn't make them any less real.
	And so, you know, one of the turning points of the film is that Kay or Joe, you know, he begins to think that his memories are actually real and that he might be the one.
	He might be this miracle child who was born of a replicant.
	And he discovers that he wasn't, that it was actually a daughter.
	And that, in fact, what's happening is that she's been creating these memories that she's implanting in all of these replicants, millions of them, effectively.
	And that they are going to, through this...
	Collective myth of a miracle birth through their collective consciousness, which they develop through memory, and through that miracle of someone actually being born, that these people aren't just created slaves, that they are born symbolically through her, that they have a Christ figure, they have a collective memory, a collective story that they're all a part of, and that they can now become a people.
	They are being recognized.
	And so, again, using this argument, which I think does have a lot of truth to it, that this is an alt-right film in the sense that it shows these supermen, these Aryan whites, having a story, having meaning to their life, and then being on the verge of a revolution in which they will rule, because they're better.
	And so that is, again, that is my provocative reading.
	I think that there is actually a lot of basis to that.
	I don't think that's what the writers were setting out to go after.
	But there are reasons to believe that.
	even if this were meant for, say, like, this is an Hispanic myth about the illegal immigrant laborers being one day they will become a people or something.
	Even if you want to say that, that doesn't mean that we can't see it through our Look, I think that that reading...
	Is a very understandable reading.
	I think that the identity, I think that really the whole meaning of the film obviously hinges on the identity of the androids to the extent that it can be determined.
	You know, in the first book, or rather in the book that Philip K. Dick wrote, it does seem that they were intended as these kind of Semitic figures.
	I think that that is established in the book.
	And they're also contrasted.
	In the book, the androids are contrasted with a religion that resembles Christianity in some sort of vague way.
	I think very imperfectly.
	I don't think that the metaphor...
	It's kind of an imperfect metaphor that Philip K. Dick develops in the book.
	But there's a Mercer figure who is a Christ-like figure in the book, and he's especially...
	He's especially kind of the patron saint of these specials, these people who have been made less intelligent by a radiation-infected Earth.
	And so he kind of is similar to Christ.
	He's kind of this like hero of the rabble, right?
	And he's contrasted with these androids that are...
	The Tyrell Corporation there is called the Rosen Corporation.
	And, you know, one of the primary figures, the love interest, as in the film, her first name is Rachel.
	So it's Rachel Rosen.
	She's named after the corporation.
	And, I mean, it seems pretty obvious that...
	Ridley Scott wanted to invert that.
	He wanted to change the identity of the replicants because he didn't want there to be an anti-Semitic reading of the film.
	So he made it the Tyrell Corporation, you know, very kind of waspy or Aryan sounding name.
	And so the whole meaning, you know, from the book to the first film is inverted.
	Right?
	So in other words, whereas it's similar to AI, you have Jews, or you have robots as a metaphor for Jews.
	In the first book, it appears that androids are this kind of metaphor for Jews, you know, including their powers of Krypsis, right?
	They blend in with humanity.
	Now that changes.
	Because I think Ridley Scott probably was afraid of making the film seem anti-Semitic in any way.
	So he kind of goes in the other direction.
	He basically turns it from AI into the Terminator, at least thematically, right?
	I mean, obviously, all three films are very different, with Blade Runner aesthetically being the best of the three films.
	So they become sort of these Aryan figures.
	It's mixed, though.
	Even in that film, it's kind of mixed.
	Because, you know, Rutger Howard is clearly this kind of Aryan, Mars-like figure.
	I think he's designed as kind of like a battle unit.
	He's a war unit, right?
	But in the film, the androids have different functions.
	One is this pleasure unit, right?
	The Daryl Hannah character is a prostitute, effectively.
	She's been designed as a waifu.
	And then there's Rachel, who is this kind of dark, still kind of a Semitic figure, even though she's Rachel Tyrell now.
	I mean, she's not necessarily an Aryan figure.
	She has this kind of social dimension.
	Whatever.
	So it's kind of a mixed...
	In other words...
	Her name, Rachel, and then her look with the raven hair, I would agree.
	She is by no means an obvious Aryan type, even though the actress herself is not Jewish, at least to my knowledge.
	Just her look and everything about her, it does indicate a certain kind of Semitic look.
	Yeah, and ostensibly she's kind of this, you know, Queen Esther, right?
	Yeah.
	Or Dinah, who is another figure in the Bible who plays a kind of similar role vis-a-vis these Aryan tribes.
	So what I would say is that Ridley Scott's vision is kind of a more muddled.
	Not entirely muddled.
	I mean, I think that generally they come off as these sort of Aryan Superman figures.
	I think that that's generally true.
	I mean, they're all Caucasian, certainly.
	And Rutger Hauer is clearly this sort of Aryan figure, right?
	And so what I would say is that, and I think a lot of that is due to, I think that there probably was, I wouldn't even necessarily call it a racial consciousness in Philip K. Dick's work, but there is this sort of religious consciousness, right?
	I would argue kind of an incote, a religious consciousness.
	And I mean, one of the flaws with that book is that Mercer, who is the Christ figure, is not also a replicant, because we remember that Jesus was a Jew, right?
	And so...
	Unless he is.
	I mean, it does actually turn out that Mercer is a fabrication, so maybe that is, you know, maybe that theme sort of exists in a kind of obtruse way in that book.
	But regardless, there's a clearer sense in that book of who's who, right?
	There's a clearer sense of identity from the writer's perspective, who, you know, maybe the guy, Philip K. Dick, was kind of this...
	Drug addict, who I think, you know, I mean, the guy obviously was a very good writer, so I don't mean to be too critical of him.
	But he, I guess he did have, for a period of his life, he had this delusion that he had become the prophet Elijah, who I'm not closely familiar with that character, but if he fits a biblical type, I get the idea.
	He's sort of, you know, a prophet figure.
	And so...
	He might have been into Gnosticism, which seems to be a completely valid reading of the first book.
	But he at least has some kind of in-quote identity that's a religious identity, effectively.
	And in the book, I mean, it's probably, I'm sure it's one of the compelling, one of the reasons the book was compelling, that people were like, ah, this has subversive themes, I like this book.
	You know what I mean?
	Similar, actually, but by more of an accident.
	To the film, which also contained kind of accidentally in some ways these subversive themes.
	I think the Philip K. book dick, or rather the Philip K. Dick book.
	Geez, that sounded profane, even though it wasn't officially.
	Well, hold on.
	Before we go even any further with this, just give...
	Give our listeners a synopsis of the original book in a nutshell.
	I'm sure many of them, probably most of them, haven't read it or even read any dick at all.
	I'm going to omit elements.
	I'll cleave to the relevant elements that contrast it from the film in the dimension that we're discussing.
	But effectively...
	Generally, the setting is the same, right?
	You know, Decker is a—I believe that's also his name.
	Yeah, it is.
	Also, his name in the book is a replicant, and he—no, he's not a replicant.
	Sorry.
	He's a man, and he actually even takes the test to determine that he is a man.
	But he's one of these people that haven't migrated from Earth, right?
	See, Earth has become— In a radiated environment.
	So ostensibly, it's no longer inhabitable, but people remain.
	And as in the film, they're being encouraged to move to these colonies.
	So as a consequence, people in this world, some of them develop into what are called specials.
	They've basically been mutated in...
	In bad ways, they're less intelligent, right, effectively.
	And Decker remains.
	And it's unclear in the book why he remains, but I think it's just because the guy's attached through some kind of nostalgia.
	Maybe it's implied, you know, he himself is becoming irradiated or he's, you know.
	In any case, he remains on Earth.
	He is also a Blade Runner.
	They don't refer to it as a Blade Runner in the book.
	He is tasked with the same job, right?
	He's retiring replicants.
	That's his job.
	And he works as this kind of freelancer.
	So he has to kill a certain number of replicants to kind of support his lifestyle.
	Mercer is a figure in the world who is, again, a Christ-like figure who is this patron saint of the specials, effectively.
	And what happens in the book is that people are able to kind of commune collectively with Mercer.
	I think they're called Empathy Box.
	They hold on to these Empathy Boxes, and they all are transported into the mind of Mercer, who again is this Christlike figure.
	And the experience specifically that they relive of Mercer's life is him ascending this hill as rocks are being thrown down at him.
	I mean, it's in some way similar to the Stations of the Cross, for example, right?
	The guy is suffering this abuse.
	And it's also implied in the film that...
	Or rather, it's implied in the book that the people, somewhat, again, somewhat sort of vaguely implied in the book that the adversaries are these androids, effectively, right?
	So it draws a contrast between a Christ-like figure and these androids who are effectively Jews.
	Ostensibly, at least.
	And I mean, I think that we can say that that is a theme in that book.
	So it's inverted, again, by Ridley Scott.
	Whereas the androids in the book were Jews, they become almost by accident to some extent, or by happenstance, they become Aryan.
	Though, again, I think it was somewhat deliberate because I think that Ridley Scott...
	He didn't want to have an anti-Semitic depiction, so he made them, especially Rutger Hauer, he made them kind of this uber Aryan, right?
	And Ridley Scott is himself an Aryan figure within Hollywood, you could say.
	Like, his films are...
	Sometimes dystopic and very leery of corporate power and so on, like Alien is certainly that way, and Blade Runner and other things.
	But he also clearly has a love of the badass.
	You know, this is the guy who made Black Hawk Down, and even films that have a lot of PC elements like Kingdom of Heaven or something are still kind of glorifying.
	Knightly badassery, you know, in its way.
	I think he probably couldn't help himself.
	You know, he wants to...
	He gravitates more towards that Arian Mars-like knightly figure than doing a depiction of, you know, something far more complicated, which is, you know, Jewish crypsis and...
	And so on.
	Yeah, and he's a visual stylist, right?
	Which is kind of...
	And this is sort of a characteristic of...
	This is also Arian.
	Yeah, it's kind of...
	That's an Arian director, right?
	We think of Christopher Nolan.
	We think of Ridley Scott.
	We think of Michael Mann, who I think is...
	I don't like Michael Mann as a filmmaker, but he's a visual stylist.
	But he's also very shallow, right?
	Now, the Jewish filmmaker...
	Is kind of an opposite type.
	He is not necessarily a visual stylist, but he deeply encodes his works with symbols, right?
	And so I think that we can see that difference between Aryan and Jewish filmmakers.
	And I think that you can see that across a kind of a broad survey of many filmmakers, Jewish or Aryan.
	And what I would say is that...
	Ridley Scott, you know, he's a good visual stylist.
	I think, you know, in the medium of film, though, Jews are greatly assisted by the fact that they're surrounded by these Aryan technicians, in most cases, or technicians, they're not necessarily Aryan, but these skilled technicians, right?
	So they don't necessarily have to be visual stylists to make visually compelling films.
	And I'm not even, you know, you know, I think that...
	Spielberg has fallen off, and I don't think, I certainly don't put him in, as a visual stylist, I certainly don't put him in the same category as the three guys I mentioned.
	But he is this kind of mainstream, big Hollywood filmmaker who makes, you know, films that are comparable to, like, say, a James Cameron in terms of visual aesthetic, right?
	Maybe a little inferior to James Cameron, but...
	Purely on the visual level, right?
	Now, is that a consequence of the guy's own visual ability, or is he looking at all these reels from these talented directors and photographies that are basically creating the look for him?
	With the individual case, who cares?
	I mean, the guy might be talented.
	You know, it doesn't matter.
	He's obviously talented visually.
	I mean, there's no question.
	You don't need to belabor the point on this.
	I mean, look, the Jewish intelligence profile is basically hyper-intelligence in terms of verbal abilities and then much less in terms of spatial abilities.
	And that's where it manifests itself.
	Right.
	Right.
	And it's the opposite for Asians who are less verb on average, less verbally talented, but then spatially aware.
	And you can actually see this in Semitic art, which is non representational.
	It is not it is.
	ornate or decorative or abstract.
	And you can even see this in modern art, which was a, you know, which waged war against representation effectively, which is the ultimate Aryan quality.
	I mean, the character...
	Kairos boy, that just original depiction of a live human being in stone.
	Like, that is who we are.
	Ancient and modern alike, that is who we are.
	That we want to represent reality in both a realistic but also idealized way.
	Kind of combine idealism and realism.
	Incarnate.
	Idealism incarnate.
	And it is a deeply Jewish, you could say deeply Semitic trait to not engage in representation, but engage in decoration or abstraction or so on.
	And so there is this kind of anti there is this kind of Semitic Aryan feud going on in the world of art with obviously the the Semitic qualities predominating in the 20th century, especially being kind of just like an outright route in the sense that to become a serious artist means to deconstruct or totally reject re-presentation.
	That's changing a little bit Postmodernism Whatever you want to say about it Well, yeah, so my only point...
	Is that in the medium of film, the sort of the Jewish deficiency in this area is greatly mitigated, right?
	Because you can have a director of photography who is very skilled and will give the, you know, I mean, it's not...
	Entirely mitigated, obviously.
	If you have a visual director, you're going to get a better-looking film.
	There's no question about it, right?
	Because ultimately the director is kind of comprising the montage in his mind.
	He's thinking visually, storytelling visually, so you can't just have a good cameraman.
	You also have to be visually talented, which obviously Spielberg is.
	But I think it's mitigated.
	So that was my only remark.
	But this is the thing.
	It's that, look, it's hard to make a purely abstract film that is watchable or commercially viable.
	So obviously there has to be representation in film.
	That being said, whereas an Aryan mind like Ridley Scott overemphasizes just pure sensuality or...
	He's really amazing at costumes and sets and the look and everything.
	The shot, the photography.
	He's amazing at that kind of stuff.
	But where the Semitic mind is perhaps superior, you could argue, in the sense that they are able to encode messages because they're used to aesthetics as reading, effectively.
	And so we like to look at something and admire its beauty or...
	Aesthetic qualities.
	Oh, this is so interesting.
	Oh, this is so dark and mysterious or whatever.
	The Semitic mind is more apt to read something.
	So that is to both encode a message in a visual or to read, interpret a message in a visual.
	And so that's something that Ridley Scott, I think, really...
	This is not his forte.
	I think, actually, whenever there are messages within Alien or Blade Runner, it's almost like...
	Unconscious or, like, unintentional, you could say.
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, no.
	So we have a huge blind spot in that area, and that is something that we need to shore up.
	Because my argument would be that that is the more important area, right?
	Right.
	On the subtextual level, that's when you're affecting people on a subconscious level.
	So we need to shore that up, and we need to figure that out.
	And we will figure that out.
	We're essentially in an ethnic war.
	Right.
	But now that we've figured it out, sorry, we figured it out.
	And so what we need to combine is that Apollonian visual ability with that subtextual power, right?
	Right.
	And to make it, you know, solid from inside out.
	And so, yeah, so Ridley Scott, guys like these visual directors have huge blind spots that where Jews are...
	Don't have those blind spots.
	And in the field of film, not only do they not have that blind spot, which again, I would argue is the most important.
	Aspect of filmmaking, you're creating these parables that contain morals that are effectively instructions, right, that you're giving to people, right?
	And you're doing it in a highly sophisticated way, and you're addressing their subconscious with these symbols that they're not even fully aware of, but that actually do contain, you know, sort of finite meanings, right?
	This is what Jews are able to do to their credit.
	Right?
	And so they are, I would say, objectively better storytellers at this moment than we are.
	We have to focus our energy in creating parables that contain the same sort of density of meaning that Jews do.
	You know what I'm saying?
	But yeah, I mean, look, as artists, as visual artists, there's no one can beat us.
	I mean, but, you know, ultimately at some point it becomes a technical ability.
	I hate to say it.
	You know what I'm saying?
	The other thing I would remark is another very good example of this is look at the cathedrals of Europe, right?
	Beautiful.
	And I'm sure that there were many Aryan artists involved.
	This is not my area of expertise, so I don't know their names.
	No one knows their names.
	That's one of the mysterious.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It's one of the mysterious aspects of the Middle Ages, this collective work of art.
	Well, honestly, we could even look at Renaissance painting.
	Oh yeah, sure.
	Where everyone knows their names.
	Yeah, where it's full of Christian themes, right?
	Yeah.
	So whereas you have these Aryan artists making brilliant works, they're encoding the works with effectively Jewish symbolism, right?
	So there you go.
	Right.
	What is the more important dimension?
	The more important dimension is the dimension that Jews excel at right now, obviously.
	You know what I mean?
	If we understand that culture, you know...
	So in other words, yeah, we can't just be making pretty pictures here.
	And that's why, actually, a lot of the sort of Aryan directors are only as good as their script, right?
	They're only as good as their script.
	This goes especially for guys like, and I wouldn't even say he's a good visual stylist, but he picks good scripts.
	He's a decent visual stylist.
	Clint Eastwood, right?
	The guy can't direct his way out of a paper bag.
	That's the other thing that Jews excel at, is that they're fantastic directors of actors, right?
	And acting is the ability to lie, effectively, right?
	It's a mimicry.
	It's a type of mimicry.
	And Jews...
	Well, they're better liars.
	I mean, I hate to say it to Jews.
	I mean, it's actually a compliment.
	It's honestly, honest to God, a compliment.
	They're better liars.
	And, you know, Nietzsche ranks the prince above the Jew in terms of, you know, I mean, so ostensibly we also can develop this ability as well, right?
	And certainly we can.
	Obviously we can.
	You know what I mean?
	But this is, in fact, we can develop to the greatest extent if we desire, right?
	I mean, how far you want to go with that is another question.
	So what I would say is, I mean, look at Donald Trump, for example, just to use one example.
	As a businessman, he effectively rose to power in a kind of Jewish manner.
	So in other words, Donald Trump was able, through some intelligence and some sort of raw innate ability, the guy was able to adapt in a Jewish manner and develop kind of Jewish traits to become successful in business, to his credit.
	Honestly.
	So I think that the guy is, when people call the guy a liar, I think the guy is a, he's a sphinx.
	He's this highly sort of deceptive type.
	There's no question about it.
	No one knows what the fuck the guy's thinking.
	Honestly.
	You know, we hope for the best.
	Honestly, we in the alt-right hope for the best, but we have no idea what the guy is thinking.
	Right?
	And so the guy developed this ability.
	And so what I would argue, I would make the comparison to chefs in cooking, right?
	I would make the following comparison.
	On average, women are better cooks than men, right?
	But the best chefs are men, right?
	The best chefs by far are men.
	And what I would say is the comparison also applies to Jews vis-a-vis Aryans.
	Now, you know, hopefully no one finds this insulting.
	I'm sure the whole conversation is terribly insulting.
	But what I would say is that whereas Jews in general in business are more skilled, no question about it, than Aryans.
	You know what I mean?
	On average.
	But then you have an Aryan who's just like, fuck it, I'm going to adapt this skill and I'm going to refine it just out of some whatever.
	And the guy...
	Achieves a status like Trump, where he's got all these satellite Jews doing his bidding or whatever.
	So we have the ability.
	In some way, we Aryans are more raw ability and blank slate.
	So we can develop in directions and specialize in directions and become highly skilled in these areas.
	Yeah.
	You know what I'm saying?
	So that's the only thing I would remark.
	That's why it's useful for you and I to have these conversations, because some we know down the line, some director or some writer is going to pick up on these ideas and be like, fuck it.
	Yeah, we're in ethnic warfare.
	I'm going to start encoding my films with these little malevolent messages that are like, actually, Aryans are superior.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Yeah.
	And the only one who will be able to identify it or choose, but they've been doing it the whole goddamn time.
	So it's like, you know, they wouldn't necessarily want to call out anyone on this.
	But on the other hand, I mean, look, we both need honesty, but we also need to be moving in a subterranean manner.
	We need to be moving in all areas, right?
	Right.
	So we need to be gaining power through all means upon all platforms.
	And one of those platforms, you know, is there's a filmmaker in Hollywood right now who has the ability to apply the ideas that we're discussing and will do it at some point.
	There's no question in my mind, you know what I'm saying?
	And so, you know, but here the problem was, you know, obviously that we just didn't know the score, right?
	We love these lovable Jews.
	They're lovable people.
	But they are, as it turns out, they're antagonistic to our ethnic interests, unfortunately.
	You know, we wish, guys, we wish you'd change that up, honestly.
	We wish you'd slow your roll.
	It'd be much cooler.
	And believe me, it would be much better in general.
	But I think that that, you know, so getting back to this film, though, and just continuing, because we went on a big tangent there.
	What film were we discussing again?
	Which I'm sure the alt-righters fucking love.
	People like it when we go on Massive Digression.
	This is much better than talking about fucking Blade Runner.
	How many Jews were making that?
	Yeah.
	I'm sure they like this.
	I'm sure they like this little tangent.
	But what I would say is that the following, and honestly, my whole discussion here is full of praise, honestly, for Jews in terms of how...
	You know, talented they are in the manner, I mean, that they've kind of created this whole situation, but just the way that they make art, I mean...
	In a very intelligent and sophisticated way where they develop these parables.
	I mean, you think about it.
	Christians have been addicted to a Jewish parable.
	I mean, the greatest story of all time.
	You're not shitting me.
	These guys will not fucking let the thing go.
	You know what I'm saying?
	They're like, that was a good story.
	I mean, of course, the hook with that story is, you know, you're going to go to hell if you don't believe this thing's true.
	It's quite a hook.
	It's similar to the film The Ring.
	I don't know if you've seen that.
	But in any case, what I would say is the following.
	Getting back to Blade Runner, and I'll just summarize, because I think we've been very long-winded, though in a very interesting way, I'm sure.
	The book, Replicants are Jews.
	In Ridley Scott's film...
	The replicants are ambiguous, right?
	And the reason they're ambiguous, I mean, they're kind of Aryan-ish, right?
	So we'll say they're Aryan, right?
	And especially, I mean, so even if the film happens as a kind of accident, you know, this Aryan filmmaker kind of stumbled into this brilliant scene and this work, you know, there's...
	The Jungian reading, certainly, of that scene with Roy Batty dying amid the Asianized ruins is, I mean, that's, you know, that is a scene that makes the whole film and defines kind of the meaning of the film, at least on a Jungian level, right?
	Yeah.
	And it makes people conscious on a Jungian level of, like, the passing of the great race, as it were, right?
	And I mean, that's the whole upshot of that scene, the passing of the great race.
	That's how it could be.
	That's that could be the like sort of the title of that scene.
	Now, the third film, it gets more ambiguous, but.
	So the opposite of what I said 45 minutes ago.
	No, but what you said was still actually very valuable.
	Oh, yeah.
	I was joking.
	Yeah, but go.
	Go with it.
	Go, like, tease it out.
	Well, what you said is actually kind of the conventional view in the alt-right, it seems, right?
	Where everyone has identified this is the best film ever made.
	And I'm not saying...
	My critique is not that it's not a good film.
	I think that it is, as far as films go, it's a pretty good film.
	But as far as, like, is this your, you know, is this the sort of the film that you want to clothe yourself in and say, this is my, you know, this speaks to me.
	This is about our people.
	I don't think that that's the case.
	And we can, that leads into another discussion that we can have in a moment.
	But so rather, instead, I'll prove my case.
	I would say this Staline figure is a Judaic figure.
	In my mind.
	Okay, and she is the dream weaver.
	And so she's Kay, or Ryan Gosling's character, Joe.
	He meets her about halfway through the movie.
	And he's investigating Deckard, searching for Deckard, effectively.
	And he meets this dream weaver who is implanting dreams.
	And it's in a very poignant scene.
	I mean, he shows her his memory of finding this wooden horse in the furnace.
	And she says, no, that memory is real.
	And in that moment, actually, Ryan Gosling.
	It's almost this emotional response of, like, I am the one.
	Like, this is, I suffered this.
	I've been lied to all my life as well.
	And it's a very poignant scene.
	So he meets her.
	But then I think he recognizes, you know, as the film progresses, that he is not the one.
	He is not the chosen one.
	He is just the protector.
	And that he's going to help.
	You know, his people get to this next stage, and effectively this girl is the daughter of Deckard and Rachel, and she is the miracle baby.
	So she plays kind of two roles.
	She's this minor figure, and then she becomes like the ultimate culmination of the film as well.
	Yeah, and I mean, briefly before I go into this, one thing that I will remark on is that as a figure, She's very similar to the Greek figure Mnemosyne, who is the embodiment of memory.
	Right?
	She represents the embodiment of memory.
	And she, her daughters are the muses, right?
	It's a very profound metaphor.
	Her daughters are the muses, right?
	Who Apollo is the leader of the muses, right?
	And the muses are, they represent the arts and sciences and, you know, all the kind of achievements of Aryan man.
	That's what they represent, right, effectively?
	Yeah.
	And what that, so what that metaphor tells us is that without, you know, memory, Is the mother of these things, right?
	So, in other words, our memory is a very important thing.
	Our racial memory is a very important thing.
	And this is another advantage that Jews have vis-a-vis Aryans.
	Their racial memory is fucking profound, dude.
	I mean, these guys are writing down everything, man.
	And honestly...
	No, seriously, another hats off to you, brothers.
	Well done.
	So what I would say, and now getting back to this character of Staline, well, actually, just to finish that point, so she represents this memory.
	She is kind of this embodiment of memory, this Selene figure in the second Blade Runner film.
	And thus, from her may come a race, thus may be birthed a race of these new men, of these superior men, who are these androids, who now have reproductive powers.
	And they're going to, I mean, that's the other kind of, that's the other sort of thing that should just be stated from the top.
	If you had no, if you didn't look into the film at all, right, if you didn't look for deeper messages in the film at all, one thing that should become immediately apparent is that the replicants are going to win.
	They're going to, you know what I mean, because they're superior to man.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	So there's a character where the female police chief, you know, is trying to prevent it, right?
	She wants to prevent it.
	She wants to prevent it because it's a genetic competition, right?
	So we're dealing with racial competition.
	It's straight out of one of those terrible Kevin MacDonald books.
	And so you can feel my guilt.
	I don't know why I feel that.
	So in other case, or rather, in other words, So directly, with no deeper reading of the film, what you understand, even if you just take it at face value, the film says, okay, the white race is effectively doomed.
	The androids are going to replace the white race.
	Or not even the white race, the human race.
	They're going to replace the human race.
	Well, she says the world is built on walls.
	And I wouldn't even be surprised if that were a reference to Trump.
	I mean, Trump started talking about walls in 2015.
	Oh, sure.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And the world is built on walls, and if you don't have walls, you'll have a war.
	But the funny thing about it is that, and this also leads one to have that esoteric reading of the replicants as, like, Mexicans or something, you know, the illegal immigrants who are just our slaves, but one day there will be a people.
	But she's also, like, right.
	I mean, it's like...
	These replicants are clearly dangerous, and they're going to destroy humanity if they don't stay in their place.
	And that she, you know, even if you think that what she's doing is morally justified, like she's right in her fears.
	It's kind of like an AI where there are these, you know, really dumb...
	You know, redneck-like humans who are really anti-robot.
	And that is depicted in the film as, oh, these guys, these bigots, you know, they hate robots.
	This is just like Nazis hating Jewish people, blah, blah, blah.
	But, like, they're correct.
	You know, the robots do take over at the end.
	And so, like, they were actually, you know, they were getting at something.
	Anyway.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Go on.
	So, I mean, so I think the film that this film is most similar to thematically is AI.
	No question.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And so, who prevail through a kind of...
	There's even direct references to AI in the film, right?
	Yeah.
	Sort of this former Vegas that...
	Harrison Ford is now inhabiting is like, it's like they saved the set pieces, though I'm sure it's computer graphics.
	They saved the computer graphics from AI, where there's this very similar, you know, these giant, these kind of like colossus prostitutes effectively in that scene.
	And I think in the AI, they even have like cars like driving through the vagina or whatever the case is.
	But it's showing...
	So the open mouth.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's showing a decadent...
	Basically a declining Aryan civilization.
	Yeah.
	Honestly, it's blowing its load in Vegas at strippers and sex bots and stupid nonsense.
	While a Jewish race perseveres, right?
	That's the theme in that film.
	I mean, in AI, it's very stark in the sense that at the end of the film...
	All of humanity is gone except for these hyper-developed, you know, effectively Jewish robots.
	Yeah.
	So there's a genocide theme, a white genocide theme in that film.
	And what I would say, though, is this film contains the same theme.
	So one thing I'll discuss first is that I think one of the reasons that people...
	In the alt-right, for example, grabbed onto this film and said, hey, this is my story.
	We live in a degenerate society.
	We're concerned about reproductive concerns.
	We want to become a people and have a culture and continue through, ride the tiger, as it's said, or just continue through, have a continuance that exists beyond this degenerating culture.
	So those themes are very attractive, and they are, in fact, of course, traditionalist themes.
	I mean, whether they're from the Jewish perspective or they're from the Aryan perspective, they're, of course, traditionalist themes.
	And it's one of the things that's made the biblical works, for example, so intoxicating to Aryans, is that you have these repeated scenes where, you know, they're escaping from...
	You know, Sodom and Gomorrah, you know, Babylon's in decline, Egypt's in decline.
	These are these declining civilizations that are kind of getting their comeuppance from God, right?
	Well, esoterically, we understand God to...
	You know, represent Jews collectively, right?
	So, in other words, God is causing the problem, and the Jews are escaping from these evil degenerates, even though we're doing it, you know what I mean?
	That's basically the esoteric meaning in those parables, right?
	But what is appealing to Arians is that often they've been in degenerating conditions, whatever the cause might be, right?
	Now, again, I'm not saying it, but in the Bible, it is implied esoterically that God is causing these conditions of degeneracy, right?
	Didn't say, you know, read the Bible.
	But what is appealing is that these people are escaping.
	They're becoming a people, and they're getting the fuck out of Dodge, essentially.
	And they're like, this shit is degenerate.
	I mean, they acknowledge this shit's degenerate, right?
	That's what's appealing.
	So whether it's, you know, the fall of Babylon, the fall of Egypt, or the fall of Rome, as is implied in Revelations, right?
	I mean, that's one, you know, you didn't need Edward Gibbon to tell you that Christianity was adversarial to the Romans.
	Read Revelations.
	The thing is basically just saying that.
	The fall of Rome.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And it's a highly encoded text as well, obviously.
	So what is attractive to the Christian is that he's like, yeah, this place is degenerate.
	We need a method of survival.
	We need to become a people and escape from this degenerate thing.
	That's not what we think.
	We think that's anti-civilizational.
	That's save yourself, run away, right?
	We create civilizations.
	We want to create civilizations.
	We don't want to run from failing ones.
	Even if we do have to, for some period, go into a kind of more insular mode for whatever reason, we want to be able to preserve so that we can seed civilization, right?
	And create civilization.
	There is this almost like schadenfreude at the heart of these...
	Christians who are deeply Judaized.
	And also this sense of weakness.
	Like, oh, we're just existing in this world.
	It's totally out of our control.
	We just need to, like Noah, get into an ark and save ourselves.
	And all these other sinners are going to just be wiped out in a flood of degeneracy or whatever.
	And we'll just be the good ones in our little suburban home.
	I don't know.
	I get that.
	I understand why a healthy person would feel like that.
	I feel like that often.
	The world's out of my hands.
	All I can do is try to save myself.
	I get it.
	But I don't know what to say.
	Arians, we want to save our people.
	We don't want to just let in a schadenfreude manner.
	And I do think that a lot of that Christian moralizing just hides.
	Resentment and envy and schadenfreude is a mask on it.
	But we want to save humanity.
	I mean, we want to save our people.
	And we want to build a civilization.
	And ultimately, I mean, I don't dare I say it.
	I mean, we want to rule.
	We want to rule the world.
	And not everybody wants to rule the world, as the song goes.
	But we do.
	Well, we have to rule it to exist.
	We have to rule it to exist.
	We're going to get fucked by these other people.
	I mean, it's not, you know...
	Yeah, we're a tiny minority globally.
	So it's all well and good to think of like, oh, my family will survive this degenerative spiral.
	And maybe one has to do that.
	Again, I don't want to totally countersignal this.
	But it is wrong.
	That isn't who we are.
	We're the ones who structure...
	The entire planet.
	And if one isn't willing to go there, like, if one isn't willing to be the dominant force, then I do, I would suggest that people just take up gardening.
	You know, this idea that we're, you know, that what's going to save us are, you know, some...
	You know, some Amish community down south or something where they're politically incorrect and they all cleave together and have their families.
	That is ultimately not going to save us.
	That is all well and good, and I wish all those people all the best.
	I genuinely do.
	But the white race will be saved when we have global political power over others.
	And I know that sounds just brutal or LARPy or whatever, but this is who we are.
	And our greatest flourishing comes when we have, again, that geopolitical ability to rule.
	And we're going to have to do it or either we are going to survive as like tiny little power.
	And I don't want that.
	Yeah.
	Well, look, and I mean, ultimately, we do require peaceful solutions, Richard.
	And the reason I'm going to say that, no, seriously.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Look, I'm sure, you know, in the future...
	I hate to say it, there's probably going to be violence likely in the future.
	I hope to God, no.
	Yes.
	But I think that the cultural dimension is important because, look, let's say that we are able to overcome our adversary through whatever, you know, through however means, by whatever means.
	We will not retain that power unless we understand Unless we're creating a culture that is moralizing and promoting ourselves, right?
	So we have to find the secret to that, which we are discovering, and we will find.
	So ultimately, the solution, whatever violence occurs in the future, God forbid, whatever violence occurs in the future, the long-term solution is a cultural solution.
	We're artists who are developing these parables that speak to us.
	You know what I mean?
	And that's really going to be it.
	I mean, it sounds like, well, that's bullshit.
	I mean, you know, the power of parables and stories is evidenced by Jews through the people of the book.
	Yeah.
	You know what I'm saying?
	That power, we have to take that power now.
	You know what I'm saying?
	It's a very potent thing.
	And it's something that once we...
	Get our shit together.
	We'll do better than anyone else.
	Obviously.
	We'll be like the Donald Trump of fucking parable.
	We'll be the best.
	Maybe we'll be a little more subtle in some of our works.
	No, no, no.
	That would be weak.
	You're going to like it very much.
	It's going to be very nice.
	Everyone's telling me they love our parables.
	Anyways, I'm sure everyone's waiting with bated breath.
	All right, go.
	Blow our minds.
	Mind blown.
	All right, so the first bit of evidence, which is the thinnest I will produce, but is nevertheless compelling, is that Staline...
	Steline, Steline, however you pronounce the name.
	I don't actually remember it being pronounced in the movie.
	Do you remember?
	No, I don't think it was.
	You could just see it on the building, wasn't it?
	Oh, okay.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So it's the name of her or her corporation or both.
	Probably both, right?
	Yeah.
	That seems to be kind of a pattern of naming in that series with the Wallace Corporation, the Terrell Corporation.
	So in any case, Her name means starlet, right?
	Now, possibly this could be a reference to a Semitic goddess named Ishtar, whose name also means star.
	But in general, it may be a reference to the Chaldeans, right?
	Which is a proto-Jewish group.
	The group from which the Jews are derived, the Chaldeans.
	The reason I say that is because they were astrologers and star worshippers, right?
	Now, the other thing that I'll say is that Green was the director on it.
	There's a Jew who is a Jewish man, I should say, who was a scriptwriter on the film.
	And he likely encoded this.
	If I had to guess, right?
	He was one of two screenwriters, I believe, in the film.
	So Green got in there, and he introduced another theme or dimension to the film.
	And the other more compelling bit of evidence is that the name of Kay is Joe, which I believe is probably a reference to Joseph, who is the figure in the Bible who secures Israel.
	He secures the future of the Jews, right?
	Right.
	And he's a less important figure than Judah, though, who continues.
	He's someone who kind of sacrifices himself to secure the Jews.
	Exactly as occurs in the film, right?
	Joe sacrifices himself.
	So what we have, all writers, is a Jewish family.
	The Jews win.
	No, no.
	So the other thing that I think is interesting...
	In talking about, which we've already sort of touched upon, is what is the danger, though, of inserting our own narrative, or our own perspective into the film, as you sort of alluded to?
	Why can't we just say, well, fuck it, maybe that's the case, but I'm going to pretend that that, you know, even, look, maybe it's not the case.
	I've advanced a theory, maybe someone will disprove it.
	Maybe it's a tenuous theory.
	I think that there's a probability.
	I'm not saying 100%.
	I advance the Aryan version of...
	Of your theory.
	But you also advance the fact that due to naming conventions, that at least in the screenwriter's mind, this is not about saving us.
	Well, look, it could become a universalist work in that regard, right?
	Right.
	Because what I would also argue is that Villeneuve probably is not even aware of what I'm saying, right?
	To the extent that the guy's in Arian.
	Like, in other words, I don't think Green would even give the guy that...
	You know what I mean?
	I don't think he would be like, yeah.
	He's aware of it.
	He is a highly intelligent filmmaker.
	I think he is intelligent.
	He is not your average Hollywood hack who wants to direct some Marvel film.
	You know, superheroes punching each other in space battles.
	Look, Richard, I'm going to back you up on that, all right?
	He is a highly intelligent filmmaker.
	No, I'm going to back you up.
	So he's closer.
	He's closer.
	On the most vapid end of the scale, in my opinion, you have Michael Mann, right?
	Right.
	And then you have guys like Ridley Scott.
	And then you have guys like Villeneuve.
	And then you have guys like...
	Denis Villeneuve.
	Christopher Nolan is another guy who I think is a very intelligent conscious.
	I don't think these guys...
	I think these guys could do better.
	You hear me, Christopher?
	Yeah.
	Christopher, this means you.
	Yeah, we're talking to you now, you fucking bitches.
	You fucking cocksuckers.
	Stop cucking!
	So they can invest more meaning into their films.
	You have the power, my friends.
	You can do it, and you can do it as discreetly as you desire.
	What I'm...
	How would they do that?
	How would they do it?
	Is it a naming convention in the sense of...
	That would be one way.
	And that would be highly antagonistic to choose because they're highly conscious of the naming aspect of film, right?
	So they would pick up on it, but then there would be no...
	It's like, how can they talk about it?
	Because it's something that they kind of continue through their work and it can be pointed out.
	It will be pointed out by us during this series.
	You know, in any case, moving on.
	I don't want to give these guys—I don't want to get these shitlords too excited here.
	So what I would say is— So if the ultimate survivor, if the woman's name who is the ultimate survivor is named, like, Alexandria or something.
	Well, let me give you an example, Richard.
	I thought of a very sublime example.
	It's the fact that, like, let's say you're an African.
	Living in Africa, and you conceive of this God that's, like, identical in every feature to Jesus Christ, right?
	Yeah.
	But then you call the guy Mercer, like, I worship Mercer, I worship Mercer, I worship whoever.
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah.
	You're going to hell.
	You're going to hell.
	I mean, it's effectively that—so the naming, the importance of names you see in Christianity is vitally important, right?
	So— The name Jesus Christ, I mean, that name is encoded with great meaning, right?
	So you have to say that name, or you're not a Christian.
	You have to say, I worship Jesus Christ, right?
	So that's one example.
	And so, you know, look, so it's obviously very powerful, these sort of, and this is what I would argue, this is the Logos, right?
	This is the power of the Logos, right?
	In Christianity, they talk about the Logos, and people are going to spurg the fuck out.
	This is my idea, which is correct.
	It's correct.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	People are going to spurg out on the counter.
	No one can give me a coherent answer as to what the Logos is.
	It's like, it's the order of God, or whatever.
	Simple shit.
	No one's actually...
	What the Logos refers to, if you actually look up the word, it's discourse.
	It's language, right?
	Yeah.
	How have Jews become powerful?
	It's through language.
	It's very obvious.
	You know, they've controlled the language.
	They call Richard Spencer a black supremacist.
	Or, you know, white supremacist.
	They called me that.
	See, we've got to improve the language.
	But, no, but, yeah.
	So, I mean, I think that that is something.
	Christopher Nolan, if you need to hire me as a writer on the side, we got it, dude.
	I'll hook you up.
	Your shit will be going insane.
	And not only that, you'll be making timeless works.
	Because that's effectively what Jews have achieved through encoding their works, is they've made these timeless works.
	The Bible included.
	In any case...
	This is a fascinating discussion, but the other thing I would say...
	Talk about this.
	What is the danger of Aryans leading themselves into what are ultimately Semitic symbols and text and stories?
	All right.
	Well, first of all, one of the dangers is that these works are encoded with meanings that are not...
	That's not necessarily the meanings that Aryans are giving them, right?
	In fact, in some cases, they're the inverse meaning, right?
	I mean, we can just use the example of the film that we're discussing.
	The meaning is actually inverted, right?
	So these all-right guys are like, oh, it means there's going to be this Aryan resistance in 2049, and then we're going to breed babies through this touchy-feely Jewish figure.
	I mean, that's not exactly what is being said in the film, but you get my point.
	So, in other words, you look foolish.
	You lose your credibility.
	You have no credibility.
	Because it's actually not the case.
	Things are actually true or they're untrue.
	And this is the case symbolically as well.
	A symbol has a finite meaning, just like a word has a finite meaning.
	You can't just use words willy-nilly in a sentence and then think that you're actually saying something coherent.
	Symbols have to be aligned in a parable or in an artwork in a coherent fashion that means something specific.
	That meaning is fixed.
	As I've said, I've advanced the theory that this film is essentially showing yet another example of Jews escaping and surviving a decadent civilization.
	That's the theme of the film, in my view.
	What I would say, though, is that...
	The danger of, like, becoming one of these sort of, like, pretend Jews or, like, LARPing as a Jew and pretending the story's really about you is that on—my feeling is that probably on a subconscious and subliminal level, people just sense it to be false.
	They know it to be false, right?
	Yeah.
	It's one of the problems with Christianity, you know?
	I mean— It's one of many problems with Christianity, but one of the problems, and people will have said this to me before, they say, you know, I like Richard, but if he were a Christian, that would be great.
	Then this movement would go somewhere or whatever, right?
	And the problem with that is that Christians, you could never have a leader like Richard in the alt-right who's a Christian.
	Because the problem is the Christian has no credibility.
	He doesn't even know what the hell he's talking about.
	He's completely misinterpreted the Bible.
	He's, you know, the Bible was not intended to help him.
	That's what, the mistake, you can't just kind of like take art or take culture or take a religion and just kind of put it on like a cloak, like a magical cloak that's going to defend you, if it is actually a poisonous cloak, right?
	Right.
	I mean, you know, we have to, this shit has power.
	This is like magic, for lack of a better word.
	Right.
	And do we think that it's any coincidence that the major racial figures are either agnostic or atheistic?
	I've described myself as a tragic atheist because I recognize the tragic and in many ways terrible qualities of the death of God and the fact that we've lost faith.
	I'm not like Dawkins.
	I think it's all great.
	We're going to be all wonderful and liberal now that we've gotten rid of Christianity.
	I don't believe that at all.
	But there does seem to be a connection with leaders who don't present themselves as, I am a Christian first.
	And that's not to say that there aren't leaders who are Christian and understand themselves in a Christian way, say, in Europe.
	Even there, when they claim to be defending, say, Hungary in the case of Viktor Orban or white Christians in Russia or something, there is something else that they are defending.
	They aren't just defending Christianity.
	Because if you are defending Christianity, you are defending a global religion for all humankind.
	There is no reason whatsoever for you to want to protect your people or to have closed borders or anything like that.
	If you're a Hungarian Christian or you're a Russian Christian, you aren't just a Christian.
	And in the United States, it's hard for me to name a Christian leader who, again, who puts Christianity first and who isn't just gone, eclipsed the left in terms of their global understanding of who they are.
	Yeah.
	No.
	I mean, even the ones who were like, you know, Billy Graham Jr., Jerry Falwell Jr., even these guys who were kind of right-wing in some way.
	And I don't, again, just to be clear, I am not against these people.
	I would work with them.
	I don't have any, like, I don't have any major, like, qualms with them.
	But...
	The fact that they're nationalistic seems to be just kind of as a sidecar riding along of their Christianity, or it seems to be a side issue, something that isn't actually connected with what they truly believe.
	And most every dominant Christian leader is a globalist.
	I mean, it just is what it is.
	I don't really grasp how people can...
	Keep putting forward this idea that we have to put religion first or so on.
	And then just look at all of the leaders who do this and see who they are.
	Yeah.
	No, no.
	I agree.
	I just wanted to mention quickly, because I know it will be a point of criticism, is that Logos, I understand, was not invented in, you know...
	In Christianity.
	I understand that it predates Christianity.
	Sure.
	But the meaning of it does not change, right?
	It existed in philosophy.
	And from philosophy came Christianity, right?
	Right.
	I mean, you know, Christianity was obviously deeply influenced by philosophy.
	So I just wanted to get that out of the way.
	But the other thing that I would say, Richard, is that, yeah, so I think that we agree.
	So there's an absence of—there's a kind of, like, intuitive absence of credibility when someone, you know, is LARPing about the, you know, the ancient kings of Israel and, like, is somehow identifying with, you know, these first century Jews who were, you know, contested by Herod or whatever.
	I mean, it's just— You know, Nietzsche called it ahistorical, and that's very correct.
	They're in this sort of this kind of loop, right, where it's only their matter, when it's only their life, ultimately, that matters.
	It's a personal salvation cult, right?
	It's a personal salvation cult.
	So they say, hey, well, you know, if I can just kind of figure out, like, how Jesus was behaving or whatever, you know, that's a huge problem.
	You destroy your own memory.
	That's the big problem.
	So we were talking about this Greek goddess that embodies memory.
	Christianity is memory-destroying.
	It's ahistorical.
	Christianity comes to blot out, especially people that would be interested in their ancestry and history.
	It especially affects those people.
	It kind of inserts itself between them and their ancestors.
	It's not that they have Aryan ancestors now.
	They have Jewish ancestors.
	They're related to King David in some way.
	Who the fuck knows?
	That's bad.
	That's not your...
	Culture, right?
	Now, it's not—I don't want to call it appropriation because it's not appropriation.
	It's appropriating us.
	Yeah, it was deliberately given to us, right?
	It was given to us because they do want to assert themselves as these kind of spiritual primogenitors, these fathers of us.
	It's effectively what the psychological phenomenon is, right?
	Yeah.
	And so with a work like this, I mean, I don't I think that this work is kind of a mixed work in the sense I'm talking about the film now.
	It's a mixed sense in the sense that it's, you know, I think this guy Green probably inserted these Jewish themes into the movie.
	But the movie is kind of it's a little bit of a mixed bag.
	But I mean, ultimately, I think that it does contain a Jewish message.
	And so I don't I would encourage people not.
	To get too excited about it for the reasons that I just articulated to Richard.
	But what I would say is that, I mean, you can look at the film objectively, and this is what people need to start doing.
	Look at the film objectively and say, is this an effective work of art?
	Is this an effective communication?
	How can I learn these skills?
	How can I adapt these skills, these storytelling abilities, whether they're coming from an Aryan source or a Jewish source or whatever the case may be?
	So it does have value.
	Evaluating these works does have value, right?
	I mean, you're a very weak person if you can't appreciate the talent of a Jewish artist or a Jewish storyteller.
	If you can't appreciate that, you're a very weak, psychologically weak person.
	I mean, we have to live in the world in an objective way.
	And otherwise, I mean, imagine that you're in the forest, right?
	And you have to survive, right?
	You don't delude yourself about what is actually the case, what is actually your status, and what is actually the situation around you.
	You make a sober assessment of it, right?
	And you figure out how to survive in that setting.
	And this applies also.
	mean, these things, there's actually, these things are going to prove to be a goldmine of, you know, important discussions that Richard and I can have, you know, with these, these films being a kind of a jumping off point, because actually, because Jews actually are racially conscious, and they actually talk about interesting themes in their films, whereas Aryans, right?
	I mean, they could be, they could be highly fucking intelligent, and, you know, obviously a guy like Ridley Scott and whoever...
	We have geniuses in our race, but we're not...
	At a racially conscious point, we're moving toward that racially conscious point.
	Yeah.
	And we got to figure what's what, right?
	So if you're going to start bellyaching about, like, oh, they're talking about a Jewish film again.
	I mean, really, dude, come on.
	Don't be such a pussy.
	I'm sorry.
	I had to throw that.
	I actually said this.
	Having said that, I do want to, because I did hear Mike Enoch talk on this subject about, like, you know, fuck Hollywood.
	Right.
	And I understand that.
	I think that that is legitimate on some level in the sense that, like, yeah, I mean, we know...
	I get it, but you have to see it through our eyes.
	Like, it's one thing to go into these films asleep.
	Just as a quick digression, Denis Villeneuve is...
	Supposedly, I think he's been hired to make a Dune movie, which is fascinating.
	And one of the central themes is the sleeper awakes.
	The beginnings of this film demonstrates Ryan Gosling K. He is literally asleep in his car, and he wakes up.
	They'll get green as a screenwriter on that one, too.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, look, there are metaphors, even if this film is, again, it is ultimately immoralizing for Jewish people.
	There are aspects of all of these films, Dune, Blade Runner, all this, that we can take and use as our metaphors.
	I mean, one of the best metaphors we have is taking the red pill, which comes from...
	Made by a Jewish filmmaker is The Matrix.
	We can culturally appropriate this stuff.
	And that idea of a sleeper awakening and awakening to a true enlightenment, that is obviously something that we need to pick up on.
	I think there's a difference between going into a movie theater and being asleep in the dark.
	In the dark, literally.
	Or figuratively.
	Literally and figuratively.
	But there's something else to being awake in the theater.
	And in a way, gaining something from it.
	Understanding what the culture makers want.
	I think there's actually a great benefit to going into these things awake.
	Now, that doesn't mean that we should, like, toss out criticism or say, like, and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't understand Hollywood as, like, at some level, like, rotten in its core.
	But at the same time, like, this, the Hollywood creates the cultural metaphors.
	For most all of Americans, and indeed a huge portion of all of humanity.
	And to not understand those, to not be in the loop in that sense, one is losing something.
	One has to go and...
	The only way out is through.
	You have to marinate in it in order to fully understand it, and in order to fully pull yourself out of it.
	Yeah.
	No, you know, and the truth is not everyone necessarily needs to do it.
	I mean, I think that people, I think that everyone should listen to our podcast, 100%.
	Yes.
	All of humanity, in fact.
	Well, hopefully they will through one of these filmmakers who picks up on this, right?
	Yeah.
	I think everyone should listen to our podcast.
	I think that the—and, you know, hey, consider us, like, taking the bullet for you.
	We have to watch these movies.
	The other thing is that I think that—and I don't think everyone's required to make these analyses.
	It's not relevant to most people.
	I mean, some people are more politically minded, and that's more their game.
	And I think that we should play to our strengths and the things that naturally interest us.
	So I think it's completely fine if someone is like, you know what, I'm not going to see another movie in my life.
	Unless it's like I've heard from Mark Brom and Richard that the thing is 100% Aryan kosher.
	In which case, you know, in Conan the Barbarian, it's almost there.
	But so one other thing that I wanted to remark on is that the other criticism I would make, and it's not even necessarily a criticism per se, though it is a discussion and maybe ultimately a criticism, is that the aesthetic of both films, but particularly the last film, or actually particularly the first film, where again, we have this, it's a very noir.
	Right.
	And in fact, I mean, it's a it's a beautiful film because it's not a black and white noir film.
	It's a color noir film.
	Right.
	So it's a beautiful it's it's similar to, you know, the Renaissance paintings where they're applying this curious skewer skewer technique where everything is kind of.
	You know, there's more shadow than there is light, right?
	It's this very kind of beautiful effect that's created.
	So, I mean, it goes beyond a noir film in that regard.
	And, you know, and so it's a beautiful film.
	It's a gloomy, dark, phonic, underworld, kind of Plutonian film that we're looking at that's describing degeneracy, right?
	It's very dark and depressive, as we've already mentioned.
	So one other question that I would posit to the thinkers is that tragedy is another thing that we have to look at.
	Now, tragedy ostensibly is a form of catharsis that's sort of kind of a dogma that we've accepted, right?
	And it may very well be a kind of catharsis.
	It may be kind of like a type of resting, right?
	If you have a good cry, then you're kind of like relaxed or you've kind of rested in some manner.
	You know, certainly, you know, people at funerals are going to get very upset and cry.
	But, you know, generally, though, I question...
	Whether if the most important and useful works to us are works that are tragedies.
	And in particular, as is suggested in a Jungian manner, where the Aryan dies in some ruin among this Asianized population.
	Now, I don't know.
	I mean, I think that that...
	I mean, it's like Siegfried's death, right, in the Ring Cycle or Siegfried.
	It's similar.
	It's very similar, in fact.
	And what I would argue is that the Apollonian would say no, right?
	We want to show our greatest works of art.
	And I think that artists can work in any genre and all genres.
	Our greatest works of art will be works showing triumph.
	Showing victory over our enemies, right?
	There's a wonderful, probably the greatest example of this is Apollo slaying Python, right?
	Or Jupiter overthrowing Saturn.
	So those things where we depict Arian figures defeating Semitic figures is essentially what I'm saying.
	Are the most important works to us, and those will be the most valuable.
	I'm talking to you artists now, and I'm talking to whoever, appreciators of art, to give you kind of criteria to evaluate art.
	The other thing I would say is that, you know, that's not to say, look, tragedy may have some value, but tragedy...
	Certainly does.
	Yeah, but it should be encoded.
	Because I think that what happens often in Jewish works where they depict tragedy is that it's not really a tragedy.
	It's a tragedy for Aryans.
	But the thing is so encoded that it has an esoteric message essentially saying that the Jew prevailed or whatever.
	And so I think that if you are going to depict tragedy...
	The audience has to be an informed, intelligent audience, right?
	So it just doesn't end up being kind of a depressive thing.
	And that's one of the things that we have to cultivate.
	We have to cultivate minds, right, so that they can appreciate art in a way where they understand an encoded message.
	And they say, yeah, that thing is actually fucking completely badass.
	But in general, I think that tales of triumph are the most valuable thing to us.
	And I would use the Bible as an example.
	It's the one sort of consistent theme and note, much to its credit, that runs through that work is the triumph of the Jews.
	Art is a prophecy, right?
	Apollo, the god of art, is a prophet as well.
	We have to create prophecies through art.
	And that's it.
	That's effectively what Jews have done through their biblical works.
	Right?

▲