Jordan Peterson, YouTube prophet

Props to Spandrell for noticing Jordan Peterson well before he was fashionable. RT on an interview between Moldbug and Peterson.

I found this interview with Russell Brand quite enjoyable.

First things first: Russell Brand is communist. Not saying that in a hateful way, just a statement of facts. Observe his creative nonsense ramblings, his dirty looks (skinny, pale, tattoos), his Rasputin-like gaze. He’s not hiding it at all. Personally I like an honest charismatic commie. They lie so brazenly obviously in the face of so many people that the fact that people believe them at all is a testament to the evolutionary effectiveness of leftism.

So how will Jordan Peterson fair against a commie? As it turns out, pretty good.

First half an hour is them warming up to each other. Peterson obviously has the frame, likely because he has all the momentum while I’m guessing Brand has lost a lot of his. As Brand later on says: Peterson has loyal fanbase, Brand does not.

30:00 ‘That’s what artists do.’ I tip my hat to your flattery skills, mr Peterson.

41:30 ‘It seems you care about truth, that you search for truth.’

42:00 Great little bit on how Brand confesses many people for whatever strange reason don’t like his commie interference and Peterson pats him on the back.

52:00 Jordan says what I said 2 posts ago.

1:01:00 ‘the right doesn’t care, the left fails to do what it tries to do.’ Yeah, no. Peterson is a centrist. Peterson later describes himself as high on openness to new experience which helps explain his centrism. But, similar to how agreeableness is cooked in favor of pretending agreeable people go along with good behavior while they in fact go along with bad behavior just as easy, openness to new experience is cooked in favor of pretending open people going along with good exotic behavior, while open people go along with bad exotic behavior just as easy. Which Peterson demonstrates by repeatedly flattering Brand.

1:10:30 Brand vocalizing both his hatred and admiration of the right in typical leftist fashion.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: while Jordan Peterson is an exceedingly intelligent man, his primary interest is not truth. Truth is sort of high on his list, yes, but spreading the gospel of Peterson is higher on his list. Quite understandably so, I might add. Truth is shouting against a storm, effectively spreading your gospel is like riding a storm.

Peterson’s story is quite good, quite solid. But he has quite some flaws in thinking, e.g. on Islam (on which he, like Pilate, washes his hands), on women (needs more Jim) and on individualism (indiloldualism). If I had more motivation I’d take more time explaining why Peterson has these flaws and why it is unlikely he will correct them, but whatevs. Moldbug has Peterson’s number.

OK I’ll leave you with one more observation. If I were to talk with Russell Brand, I’d tell him with a grin: ‘Russell, I rarely come across men who speak complete nonsense as eloquently as you.’ Naturally, he’d be irritated. But it would be completely true. If Peterson always speaks the truth, if Peterson always strives to find the truth, how come he has not said anything of the sort in the entire 90 minutes of conversation?


Answering Imperial Energy

OK I’ll take the quiz and throw out some answers.

Can USG be restructured? [Sure but it’s a coup-complete problem.]

1: What is your single, most important, goal or goals? [to secure the existence of my people and a future for my children.]

2: Are the goals practically realisable? [yes.]

3: How are these goals to be realised? [by doing what all procreating men before us have done.]

4: How many men do you need? How much money? What materials do you need, how many and how much will it cost? [a männerbund helps a bunch. Enough to take care of self, wife and kids. Money and property. Enough to take care of self, wife and kids.]

5: Who do you proximately and ultimately need to convince/ persuade in order to obtain the goals? [convincing a männerbund helps, but no need to convince or persuade anyone besides your girl, who wants to be convinced anyway. It’s more that you need to know how to be a dancing monkey.] 

6: What obstacles are in the way? What obstacles could exist in the future? [the black pill. Leftist singularity and/or death.]

7: What is plan A? What is plan B? What is plan C? [Plan A: see above. Plan B: kill someone and bang groupies in jail without condom. No plan C.]

8: Who is or who could be the “receiver”? [?]

9: What are the possible ways that the system could be “rebooted”? [Coup.]

10: Is the new design – the New Structure – likely to be permanent? What potential problems could affect the stability and transition of power from the first generation to the second? [No. Stuff like getting the most competent man in power, generational decline, aristocratic decadence.] 

11: If you need to build a “machine” in order to achieve the reboot, how do you turn off this “machine” once a re-structuring has been accomplished? [you can’t, that’s the point. Damn brahmins always want to control all the variables.]

12: How might the machine be corrupted or taken over by actors with goals contrary to the formal purpose? [same manner leftism has always done. Can’t control all the variables.]

Leftism brings balance to the force

Leftism is the battle of the weak vs the strong, which inevitably ends in the strong using the weak against the strong, but what else are the weak going to do.

I keep running into the problem of money creating more money. Principles of rent and interest, which I believe are more Gnon’s principles than just the Jews’ principles, make it so. The rich get richer, the poor stay poor. From what I see I’d agree with the proposition that income inequality naturally grows.

Is this a problem? Not so in the sense that an aristocracy ensuring its own interests is preferable to a leftist clique slowly destroying its host society. But like the Ancien régime any unchallenged elite will eventually succumb to decadence and corruption which in turn will lead to a tipping point where destruction is inevitable.

Hence the evolutionary niche for a natural enemy. Hence leftism. Hens hens.

Baudet’s trials

In case you were wondering who the top right figure in the above banner was, wonder no more: it is the intelligent and charming Thierry Baudet. Who? Thierry Baudet. An upcoming Dutch politician who is making waves by promoting Nexit, denouncing traditional Dutch parties as a cartel, tweeting that global warming is a scam and stating that border protection is a hallmark of a healthy nation. He is, in short, the intellectual Geert Wilders.

Lately the attacks towards Baudet have taken on a nastier tone. The media- & party cartel are intensifying efforts to ruin Baudet’s reputation: supposedly he is horrible horrible person. That they are unable to show any evidence showing Baudet is a horrible horrible person, that no such evidence exists and that the accusation is entirely fabricated, does not deter them. It is a battle of frame.

Baudet displays admirable composure under the pressure and will find that if he maintains frame, like Jordan Peterson, the Dutch will sway to his side. The Hague is a cesspool of radical leftism — a lot of Dutch are silently on the side of Baudet. Observe how the overwhelming majority of the Dutch are in favor of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet, observe how everyone laughed when Rene van der Gijp put on a wig and jokingly became Renate van der Gijp. The momentum of the radical left is over. The cartel knows this, feels this, and therefore launches an offense that is reminiscent of the demonization of Pim Fortuyn. The cartel’s plan, in no particular order, is to isolate Baudet, intimidate Baudet, infiltrate Baudet’s party, get Baudet to lose his cool, get a radical leftist to kill Baudet, make it seem like no one likes Baudet.

Truth is, no one likes Sylvana Simons, everyone likes Rene van der Gijp.

It is becoming perfectly obvious to many rightist and centrist Dutch voters that the EU is very bad news for the Netherlands, that there is both a media- and party cartel, that warmism is a tax scam, and that border protection is the hallmark of a healthy nation. This is why the following election will not be about economy or healthcare or whatever, it will be about whether you are in favor or against the party cartel. The campaign slogans almost write themselves.

On truth

It seems ‘truth’ has become a returning rallying point of this blog.

A couple things about truth are good to discuss.

First. Truth exists outside human experience.

Humans are not built for truth. Humans are instead build for survival; we interpret truth, reality, as demanded for our survival, but our interpretation falls short of the real thing, for reality is only a means to our top priority: gene replication. We pride ourselves with approximation of reality, but only because it aids us with survival.

For example. To build a house a contractor does not need to know that wood is made up of 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen, and 1% other elements. He merely need to know how to build four walls and a roof that does not collapse on you. But, to a chemist publishing articles on the make-up of wood, the above knowledge suddenly becomes very relevant, while the knowledge on how to build a house is irrelevant. Same pieces of woods, different purposes, different truth models. We learn only what we need to learn, both by necessity and by natural limitation. Practical truth thus only presents itself to humans in the form of feedback loops: trial and error.

Second. Truth for the sake of truth is like shouting against a storm. 

Our inability to reach ABSOLUTE TRUTH does not negate the power of our ability to approach truth, despite the relativistic nonsense leftists love to throw around: because we can’t know everything, we know nothing. Bullshit! As follows from the first point: we don’t need to know everything, we just need to know enough. And we know enough about plenty of stuff. The world is chock-full of truth, and men all around the world observe it daily.

But we have no interest in truth for the sake of truth. No one is interested in hearing random truths unless they stand to benefit from it. My wooden cupboard has a scratch on it. I ate some bacon. I’m slightly tired. All of this is true, but all of it is useless information to you, the reader.

Another problem is that men often benefit more from lies than from truth. Truth is often dangerous. Lies are comforting, binding, empowering — the right lies bring status, and status goes much further in gene replication than truth. Truth however is cold and uncaring. Men, having to perform like the dancing monkeys they are, haven’t much patience for harsh truth (it goes unsaid that women have no grasp of truth whatsoever. For women truth differs from moment to moment).

Of course truth is beneficial on a long enough timescale, but who has time for that? Some low time preference high IQ neoreactionaries perhaps. But generally people figure they only live about 80 years before they’re dead, add another 40 years if you care about your kids, which is still nothing in the grand scheme of things, so why bother?

The exception is of course when a man lives a lie so flagrant it is unsustainable. But a man can cope with quite a few flagrant lies before life becomes unsustainable.

So, most people are not interested. Speaking truth for the sake of speaking truth is like shouting in a storm, meaning people raise their shoulders and say: ‘eh, whatever.’ If it is not like that, something else is going on.

If people like listening to your truth, it in some way benefits them.

If people dislike listening to your truth, it in some way hurts them.

Take Socrates. Socrates had young admirers who enjoyed an eloquent man speaking truth to power. Conversely Socrates was hated among those in power who disliked being ridiculed for their point deer make horse lies. The only logical conclusion was that Socrates had to drink from a poisoned cup for speaking the truth and thereby he became the archetypal prophet of all truth-speakers. Truth-speakers often can’t help being an insufferable bunch.

Third. What remains is using truth as a holy weapon. 

So we’ve established that nobody cares about the concept of truth, much like how no one cares about freedom of speech. We don’t care if this world is a simulation, if this is the Matrix, if I’m actually talking to you in your dream. We work with the information we get, that is all. All else is tribal marking, religious warfare. What is true? What I say is true, what my enemies say is false. 

It is an interesting human trait that both my enemies and I find it very important to say we value truth, while experience shows we don’t care so much about truth. In communication, the word truth is a synonym for cooperation. The act of being beneficially truthful means you can trust me, means that what I say is useful information. I lie to my enemies, but to you, my friend, I speak the truth.

This is why shouting that you care about truth is a prerequisite to gain other people’s trust, which is why so many liars tell you how much they care about truth.

Thus truth by necessity becomes a holy weapon — if truth is on our side, so must God. Indeed, truth becomes a synonym for God. Or G-d. Or Allah. Whatever. Are you ready to discover what is true?

So there really is no escape from weaponizing truth.

*suddenly, a tiny devil appears out of thin air*

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘cool story Alf I’mma let you finish but here’s my 2000 word response on what truth means…’ 


‘Yeah that’s great but my version is better. That’s what weaponizing truth means.’

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘but Alf if your version of truth is to simply scold everyone who disagrees with you then you’re no better than a leftist!’


‘Well, there is another, simpler way to look at things, a very concise summary of all discussed above.’

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘what could that be!’


‘Don’t virtue signal. Don’t be a hypocrite. That is all.’


The tiny demon disappears with a loud pop, knowing it has been defeated… For today.

Part VIII — smoking in Ipswich



Colin took a deep drag of his cigarette as he looked at the newspaper in front of him with disbelief.


A cartoon underneath depicted a crazy-eyed Farage punching a shocked Sadiq Khan, the latter draped in the flag of England. ‘FARRAGED’ read the caption.  Normally Colin ignored the papers as much as possible, but this rattled him. Especially after the phone call he received last night. First a friend of Nigel calling help, now this? Something big was going on. Colin glanced around the shady harbor bar. It was his favorite place to visit in-between work. Nothing fancy, just friendly personnel, decent coffee and a bunch of sailors and fishermen drinking and smoking, minding their own business. If only things everywhere could be as peaceful as in this bar, Colin thought to himself. With the smoldering butt of his cigarette he lit another cig and read the article.

‘A GRISLY turn of events as UKIP-leader Nigel Farage without provocation PUMMELED Prime minister Sadiq Khan in the FACE during a diplomatic dinner gone awry. Doubts on the Brexit-instigator’s sanity were raised earlier but…’

Colin stopped reading as the bar door opened and a tall young man with sunglasses and a blue hat entered. Which is exactly what the voice on the phone said he’d be wearing. Colin held up a hand. The youngster came over and sat down. Colin, watching him intensely, caught him glancing at the newspaper. ‘You know anything about this?’ The youngster stayed quiet. Something about him seemed very familiar to Colin. ‘Who are you?’ The young man looked around, as to check no one was listening in. Colin pressed. ‘C’mon man, give me something. Who are you? Why did Nigel give you this number? Why should I help you?’ Slowly, the youngster took off his sunglasses and with no small surprise Colin realized he was sitting opposite the son of the uncrowned God-Emperor of the United States of America. ‘Holy shit. You are –‘
– ‘Yeah, I know.’
‘So that explains how you know Nigel.’
– ‘Yeah.’
‘And I guess this brawl’ -Colin pointed at the newspaper- ‘involved you.’
– ‘Yeah.’
– ‘Can you get me to the Netherlands?’
‘Uh, what? Probably. Yeah, sure. Sorry I kind of need to process this.’
– ‘I’m not sure this disguise will fool anyone looking for me, and I’m sure they’ll be looking for me. Can you get me to the continent without anyone ehm… Authoritative finding me?’

Colin straightened up. ‘Well… It just so happens mr Farage sent you to the right guy. I’ve got just the thing that will get you straight to mainland without anyone knowing.’ For the first time since he met him, Colin saw a glimmer of hope cross Barron’s face. ‘Great. How soon can we leave?’
‘Ehhh tomorrow, actually. Be here at 6 AM. ‘
– ‘OK. Great. Don’t tell anyone about this. See you tomorrow.’ Barron stood up, but did not leave before taking a last look at the newspaper. ‘And don’t believe everything they tell you in the paper’ he said. Colin smiled. ‘Don’t worry, never do.’

Once alone again, Colin ordered himself a pint and absentmindedly took a sip. So he was going to smuggle the son of the Donald to the continent? He lit a cigarette and blew out a big cloud. God damn, these were exciting times.

Lol Scott Alexander

Can not promise this is the last time I write about Scott Alexander, because:

a) his audience is large enough that making fun of him is worth it
b) he is a juicy target

It is not hard to see why Scott is a successful blogger. He writes a lot, he writes well, and his sentences seem intelligent. So what’s the deal with Scott Alexander?

The deal with Scott Alexander is that he is the kind of man who makes signals you’d normally associate with intelligence, much like smoke gives off the signals of fire. Yet when you take a closer look, there is no fire, just a bunch of nerdy men in the comment section who all really really do their best to pretend there is a fire.

Scott has a pretty straightforward business model.

On day 1 he paints a blue pill purple. He will say something along the lines of ‘I am not saying we live in an age of repressive censorship, but if we were living in an age of repressive censorship it would not be wise of me to say we live in an age of repressive censorship. Wink wink, nudge nudge.’ This makes all the non-leftists go: ‘woooo this guy is so edgy!’

Then, on day 2, he paints a red pill purple. He will say something along the lines of ‘although it seems like official truth is just a bunch of lies, it seems that in this instance official truth is in fact the truth.’ This makes all the leftists go: ‘wooo one of us, one of us.’

Rinse and repeat and you have his business model. Basically Scott Alexander’s entire blog is a never-ending exercise of playing good cop bad cop with himself and his commenters.

Scott Alexander constantly holds up 2 pills, like Morpheus, and whenever you go for one he will close that hand and offer you the other. It is a shtick and it will eventually get old. Unfortunately for Scott, I am sure that leftists dislike his shtick as much as I dislike his shtick, hence the not insignificant risk of Scott eventually getting himself killed, much like that other smart guy.

Rightists, leftists and centrists

There’s 3 types of political genetic strategies.

The first is the rightist. The rightist conquers and defends territory, uses nature’s hierarchy, builds civilization. He creates order. The rightist wants things to be fair, not because he cares about others, but because he knows it benefits him in the long run. He values honesty, loyalty, integrity. The rightist might be an asshole, but he is an honest asshole.

Being a successful rightist demands your value of being right to be greater than other people’s annoyance at you being right. This is risky. Ergo, rightists make up a minority of the population, say 10%.

The second is the leftist. The leftist is the evolutionary consequence of a recurring natural phenomenon, namely that in a prisoner’s dilemma it is very beneficial to defect. Leftism is entropy, the leftist creates chaos. The leftist says he values honesty, loyalty and integrity but only because he understands the power of an effective lie. Leftists are natural defectors, always on the lookout for a way to gain the system, the most popular current way being what Spandrell calls biological leninism.

Being a successful leftists demands you latch onto a greater body and leverage said body to your advantage. There are plenty of bodies to latch on to, so being a leftist is generally a sound strategy. I’d say leftists makes up about 20% of the population.

The third and final is the centrist. The centrist is about cooperation — not always honest, not always lying, just pragmatic cooperation. ‘Let’s just get along’ is the slogan of the centrist. Genes and life situation nudge the centrist in a rightist or leftist direction, but keeping the peace is always top priority.

Being a successful centrist demands not rocking the boat too much. It is quite a safe evolutionary strategy, hence centrists make up the bulk of the population, say 70%.

Leftists and rightists fight for control of society because both factions realize all flows downstream from power. Those in power decide, and those underneath that power follow. Centrists complain about radical leftists this and radical rightists that, but in the end their thinking processes are entirely dependent upon the Overton window as defined on the left side by radical leftists, on the right side by radical rightists. Or, spoken as a rightist hipster: centrists, otherwise known as normies, are a bunch of basic bitches.

Of course the right can not have too big of a mouth. After all, the right has been losing like there is no tomorrow. Centrists like winners and the left has been the clear winner of the past 200 years. Thus in normie society it is perfectly tolerable to be an outspoken leftist like Stephen Colbert but it is a faux-pas to be an outspoken rightist like Alex Jones.

Evolutionary entropy turns out to be a pretty powerful force.

On a final note, because the above strategies are genetic, people are very rarely swayed in opinion. No matter how watertight an argument is, if it doesn’t feel right it will be forgotten. Thus even a highly intelligent man like Jordan Peterson does not actually sway the masses in favor of rightism. He is simply a center-right intellectual explaining to fellow centrists that our current leftist overlords are moderately insane, which is only possible because our leftists overlords are extremely insane. Hence the relative ease with which he dismisses the label ‘racist’, which real rightists wear like a proud nick name.


If you’re partying in another’s garden don’t be surprised if you get kicked out

For fans waiting on the next installment of the Orb of Covfefe — it’s coming. Just gonna take a little bit longer. Fiction is hard.

In the meanwhile, let’s see what’s up with Dutch mixed fraternities nowadays… Oh, a chapter of the most important one is throwing a party? Sounds like fun, let’s check the invite!

Schermafbeelding 2018-01-29 om 17.05.18
The opinion of a woman #don’tdo

The opinion of a women #don’tdo? And beneath that: from groupsex to childluring, what scandal will you get involved in? Sounds like quite some party! Let’s check out the official invite, translated for your viewing pleasure.

“One can find sexual border-crossing behavior¹ in all cultures across the world. […] We of [fraternity] course find this beautiful. That we can assault women since 1958 without questions asked is a luxury other men do not get to enjoy. […] However, the weaker gender has started a countermovement: #metoo. […] To keep our traditions high we naturally have to put an end to this. And what better opportunity than the upcoming [fraternity] carnaval! Because we of [fraternity] know better than anyone else that women have nothing to say about their body during carnaval.

The opinion of a women #don’tdo!

Honestly it is a bit crude but I can’t help but chuckle. This invitation is what the Dutch would call ‘studentical’; brazen but funny. It is also the sort of invitation that women will be indignant over, but once it turns out the invitation is issued by powerful men they will not mind one iota.

Unfortunately these men are no longer powerful. As I have said before, fraternities are an unprincipled exception. Student societies derive their power from the universities, but the universities hates hates hates männerbunds that treat women like sex objects. In other words, we’d expect the above behavior to be intolerable.

And, surprise surprise, that is exactly what happened. The media picked it up (MYSOGUNISTIC OUTRAGE), the university has cut funding and the fraternity has to grovel if they ever want it back. If you’re partying in another’s garden, don’t be surprised if you’re kicked out.


¹ Isn’t it interesting that ‘border-crossing behavior’ is a well-known Dutch phrase for bad behavior?

What really grinds my gears

Is the appropriation of genuine connection by mindless corporations.

Friendly chatter heartwarming stories

Which is not to say corporations are evil. Unchecked leftists are evil. Unchecked mindless corporations merely latch onto that evil for profit. They don’t care, they just want to make a buck. And what makes a buck? Warm fuzzy feelings. What causes warm fuzzy feelings? Why, laughing with your grandma, having a blast with your friends, you know, everything that’s illegal nowadays.

So when I flick through an expensive-looking magazine and I see some ad of a father giving his father’s watch to his son, it annoys me, because patriarchal love is illegal outside those make-belief ads. Similarly, tv commercials of happy families having dinner. Having mom cook family dinner for children past the age of 12 is illegal in 1st world countries, hadn’t you heard?

We are bombarded on a daily base with horrible fakeness.

The problem with the modern world is that in absence of a genuine sense of belonging it turns out we prefer a fake sense of belonging to no sense of belonging. Our brains adapt surprisingly well to the latter, or at least try their utmost best. People rather belong to a tribe that is make-belief than face the realisation that they don’t belong to any tribe at all.

Thus, when most people watch a commercial they want to feel like they are the actress, as opposed to the actress being a complete stranger having nothing whatsoever in common with you. The same goes for really any semi-famous person you watch on tv.

We roleplay above all else, of course while telling ourselves the exact opposite. We are invested in our roleplaying, which gives us a sense of identity, which gives us a sense of belonging. We are dancing monkeys in denial of our nature because truth is cold, rotten and lonely. We are by necessity egotistical as fuck.

So we learn that man but a collection of buttons wired to brain and muscle. Press the right buttons and the right brain centres flare up. Input, output, stimulation, reward. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley were both right, but Huxley was more right than Orwell. Sedation works better than force.

Perhaps also because we live in the era of sedation. We live in the technological zenith of addictive FeelsGood. Gaming, porn, drugs, tv. It’s everywhere. Every man has his drug¹.

Of course the entire point is that some FeelsGood you are allowed to have, some not. You are allowed FeelsGood that pacifies you long-term. You are not allowed FeelsGood that activates you long-term, at least not without keeping it a secret.

For instance, it is possible to have a FeelsGood longterm relationship, but you better keep it a secret that you consider your girl your property. Similarly, it is possible to have a functioning männerbund, but you better not tell anyone you’re more loyal to your boys than to the state. Everything real, everything genuine has to happen in secret or risk open conflict with the powers that be.

Hence, everything public that makes us feel good is fake, controlled opposition. Take the following ad from Apple:

Two things stand out to me. One, the ad follows the fantasy of the übermensch. The Rock lifts weights, flies a plane, presents his own fashion line, cooks with the best chefs, plays mandolin, flies in space and, I’d almost forget, acts in movies. That a man should be able to do every- and anything, or he is no real man, seems to pretty boilerplate these days. Typical false life script, an abuse of the fact that we admire men with energy in abundance.

The second thing is subtler. Do you notice how Dwayne carries himself, how he treats other males? When he gets in an Uber, the owner changes seats so Dwayne gets to drive the car. When he drops into a cockpit, he not only gets to fly the airplane, he gets to decide where it goes. To say that he is alpha in this ad would be an understatement — he is an emperor.

And this, my friends, is how you know it’s controlled opposition: because men are not allowed to behave as such in real life. Dwayne gets to do it, because Dwayne is part of the system that forbids it. He is granted an unprincipled exception to act like an emperor in an advertisement.

Normal white males have pathologically little chance to boss others around. Your wife bosses you around, otherwise you are sexist. In the workplace you simultaneously have a boss and don’t have a boss, because hierarchy does not shake hands with equality. Division of power is done not by competence, but by victim status. You are outranked by your female colleagues, who in turn are outranked by Sylvana Simons, whom no one likes but no one dares to turn away.

All of which is swept under the rug as Corporation INC promises you Love & Purpose if you just buy this latest car (or lease it, because private property is so 20th century!²).

So, burn it all down. Build a parallel universe y’all.


¹ As do most females, but for females it’s men and spending money.

² ‘Leasing’ is a horrible word. Call it what it is: renting. Soon enough we’ll be forced to rent everything, including girlfriend and kids.