#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
FRANKENSTEIN – THE RETURN Episode 21: The Tomb of Death
HAMMER OF FREEDOM 2 Episode 30: One of Your Bosses’ Pets
THE GOLDEN AGE Episode 18: Riding the Night Wind
ALICE IN WONDERLAND Episode 10: The Caterpillar
三更战 Episode 16: 欣赏风景
BEN GARRISON Episode 128: The Wacky Racers of 2024
STONETOSS Episode 258: As Above So Below
CHATEAU GRIEF Episode 331: Korea Ending Move
Stonetoss is bringing what can only be described as the HEAT today.
Whereas 2022 was primarily devoted to Japanese murder mysteries, I binged on two Italian detective series in 2023, one written by a Sicilian set in Sicily and the other by an American set in Venice. On the whole, I tend to slightly prefer Commissario Brunetti to Inspector Montalbano, but both series are thoroughly entertaining and well worth exploring. Of the 119 books I read in 2023, I’d say the best of those I read for the first time were From Caesar to the Mafia, Some Prefer Nettles, and Chronicles of a Liquid Society.
Caravan of the Damned, Chuck Dixon
Westmark, Lloyd Alexander
Kestrel, Lloyd Alexander
Beggar Queen, Lloyd Alexander
A Death in Tokyo, Keigo Higashino
The Illyrian Adventure, Lloyd Alexander
The Lake, Banana Yoshimoto
Asleep, Banana Yoshimoto
Lizard, Banana Yoshimoto
Hardboiled Hard Luck, Banana Yoshimoto
Novelist as a Vocation, Haruki Murakami
First Person Singular, Haruki Murakami
Black and White, Junichiro Tanizaki
Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and his Years of Pilgrimage, Haruki Murakami
The Shape of Water, Andrea Camilleri
The Terra-Cotta Dog, Andrea Camilleri
The Snack Thief, Andrea Camilleri
Voice of the Violin, Andrea Camilleri
Excursion to Tindari, Andrea Camilleri
The Scent of the Night, Andrea Camilleri
Rounding the Mark, Andrea Camilleri
The Patience of the Spider, Andrea Camilleri
The Paper Moon, Andrea Camilleri
The Wings of the Sphinx, Andrea Camilleri
August Heat, Andrea Camilleri
The Track of Sand, Andrea Camilleri
The Potter’s Field, Andrea Camilleri
The Age of Doubt, Andrea Camilleri
The Dance of the Seagull, Andrea Camilleri
Treasure Hunt, Andrea Camilleri
Montalbano’s First Case, Andrea Camilleri
Angelica’s Smile, Andrea Camilleri
Game of Mirrors, Andrea Camilleri
A Beam of Light, Andrea Camilleri
A Voice in the Night, Andrea Camilleri
A Nest of Vipers, Andrea Camilleri
The Pyramid of Mud, Andrea Camilleri
Death at Sea, Andrea Camilleri
The Overnight Kidnapper, Andrea Camilleri
The Other End of the Line, Andrea Camilleri
The Safety Net, Andrea Camilleri
The Sicilian Method, Andrea Camilleri
The Cook of the Halcyon, Andrea Camilleri
Studies in Napoleonic Warfare, Charles Oman
Forbidden Colors, Yukio Mishima
The Jungle Grows Back, Robert Kagan
The Return of History and the End of Dreams, Robert Kagan
Quantum of Nightmares, Charles Stross
The Pit of the Blind God, Chuck Dixon
People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck
Death at La Fenice, Donna Leone
Death in a Strange Country, Donna Leone
The Anonymous Venetian, Donna Leone
Venetian Reckoning, Donna Leone
Acqua Alta, Donna Leone
The Death of Faith, Donna Leone
A Noble Radiance, Donna Leone
Fatal Remedies, Donna Leone
Friends in High Places, Donna Leone
A Sea of Troubles, Donna Leone
Wilful Behaviour, Donna Leone
Uniform Justice, Donna Leone
Doctored Evidence, Donna Leone
Blood from a Stone, Donna Leone
Through a Glass, Darkly, Donna Leone
Suffer the Little Children, Donna Leone
The Girl of His Dreams, Donna Leone
About Face, Donna Leone
A Question of Belief, Donna Leone
Drawing Conclusions, Donna Leone
Beastly Things, Donna Leone
The Golden Egg, Donna Leone
By its Cover, Donna Leone
Falling in Love, Donna Leone
The Waters of Eternal Youth, Donna Leone
Earthly Remains, Donna Leone
The Temptation of Forgiveness, Donna Leone
Unto Us a Son Is Given, Donna Leone
Trace Elements, Donna Leone
Transient Desires, Donna Leone
Intervention, Julian May
Jack the Bodiless, Julian May
Diamond Mask, Julian May
Magnificat, Julian May
Marshal of Victory, Giorgy Zhukov
Present Dangers, Robert Kagan, ed.
The Long Goodbye, Raymond Chandler
The Big Sleep, Raymond Chandler
The High Window, Raymond Chandler
The Lady in the Lake, Raymond Chandler
The Little Sister, Raymond Chandler
Farewell, My Lovely, Raymond Chandler
Stupefying Stories 24, Rampant Loon
T, Haruki Murakami
Dead-End Memories, Banana Yoshimoto
The Last Train, Michael Pronko
The Moving Blade, Michael Pronko
Tokyo Traffic, Michael Pronko
Tokyo Zangyo, Michael Pronko
Azabu Getaway, Michael Pronko
Some Prefer Nettles, Junchiro Tanizaki
Red Roofs and Other Stories, Junchiro Tanizaki
Longing and Other Stories, Junchiro Tanizaki
A Cat, a Man, and Two Women, Junchiro Tanizaki
Levon’s Time, Chuck Dixon
Levon’s Home, Chuck Dixon
Season of Skulls, Charles Stross
From Caesar to the Mafia, Luigi Barzini
Things That Happened Before the Earthquake, Chiara Barzini
Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
A Night in the Lonesome October, Roger Zelazny
Between Planets, Robert Heinlein
Red Planet, Robert Heinlein
Tunnel in the Sky, Robert Heinlein
Margin of Victory, Douglas MacGregor
Pirate Freedom, Gene Wolfe
Equal Danger, Leonardo Sciascia
An Italian Education, Tim Parks
Chronicles of a Liquid Society, Umberto Eco
Thomas Friedman was correct about the battle in Ukraine being massively significant with regards to the future direction of the world, but he had it precisely backwards with regards to what the inevitable conclusions of the various third parties watching the conflict would be.
While the battle on the ground that triggered World War Wired is ostensibly over who should control Ukraine, do not be fooled. This has quickly turned into “the big battle” between the two most dominant political systems in the world today: free-market, “rule-of-law democracy versus authoritarian kleptocracy,” the Swedish expert on the Russian economy Anders Aslund remarked to me.
Though this war is far from over, and Vladimir Putin may still find a way to prevail and come out stronger, if he doesn’t, it could be a watershed in the conflict between democratic and undemocratic systems. It is worth recalling that World War II put an end to fascism, and that the Cold War put an end to orthodox communism, eventually even in China. So, what happens on the streets of Kyiv, Mariupol and the Donbas region could influence political systems far beyond Ukraine and far into the future.
Indeed, other autocratic leaders, like China’s, are watching Russia carefully. They see its economy being weakened by Western sanctions, thousands of its young technologists fleeing to escape a government denying them access to the internet and credible news and its inept army seemingly unable to gather, share and funnel accurate information to the top. Those leaders have to be asking themselves: “Holy cow — am I that vulnerable? Am I presiding over a similar house of cards?”
Everyone is watching.
Putin Had No Clue How Many of Us Would Be Watching, THE NEW YORK TIMES, 4 August 2022
Directly counter to the Clown World narrative, it is the self-styled “democratic” systems championed by credentialed neoclowns like Friedman that have been exposed as ineffective and fragile frauds. In fact, in his 2018 book entitled Losing Military Supremacy, Andrei Martyanov described as “the strategic folly of the 21st century” something that has already come to pass.
In what can only be described as the strategic folly of the 21st century—the United States missed a historic opportunity to ally with Russia based on equal and mutually beneficial relations. This opportunity today is gone. Pushing Russia, through condescension, blackmail, humiliation and ignorance, away from itself in the 1990s, the United States committed the cardinal sin of Anglo-Saxon and now neo-conservative geopolitical calculus—they pushed Russia and China together, while simultaneously providing China with all the necessary tools, from investment to access to markets, thus making her the largest economy in the world. Today, the United States faces two nuclear and industrial superpowers, one of which fields a world-class armed forces. If the military-political, as opposed to merely economic, alliance between Russia and China, is ever formalized—this will spell the final doom for the United States as a global power.
Andrei Martyanov LOSING MILITARY SUPREMACY, 2018
That military-politico-economic alliance has already been formalized in the form of BRICS, and exceeds the scope of which Martyanov expected would be necessary to “spell the final doom of the United States as a global power”. WWIII is already as over as WWII was the moment Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; given the combined demographic and industrial power that BRICS can bring to bear, the eventual outcome is not even remotely in doubt. While there are still a lot of questions of what the post-WWIII, post-Clown World world, post-liberal world will look like, and who will be the foremost power, there can be absolutely no doubt about which side is going to win it. And it’s not going to be NATO, the USA, the liberal world order, or Clown World.
History is a reliable guide in this context. All the geostrategic analysis, however excellent, isn’t even necessary. The oldest society and its decadent empire ruled by foreigners, with its massive amount of debt and an aging currency, never wins. It is always eventually challenged, then superseded, by nations with newer and less-corrupted societal organizations.
Clown World and its liberal Enlightenment philosophy has had a successful, though not particularly long historical run. But its fundamental philosophies have proven themselves to be both false, as well as an insufficient foundation for national, or even societal, survival. Its fate is certain and its collapse has begun, although it obviously hasn’t been completed yet.
Jewish actors complain that their people are underrepresented in Hollywood. Seriously:
Over 260 Jewish Hollywood artists have sent the Academy Awards a letter claiming that they are being excluded from its diversity standards. The letter, which states the exclusion is ‘discriminatory,’ was created by the Jew in the City’s Hollywood Bureau for Jewish Representation and was sent to the Academy yesterday. It has been signed by actors including David Schwimmer, Debra Messing, Ginnifer Goodwin, Mayim Bialik and Josh Gad; comedians, writers and producers.
In 2020, notably after George Floyd’s death, the Academy issued a set of ‘standards’ as part of its diversity initiative. These standards recognized commonly ‘underrepresented’ identities, including women, the LGBTQ, an underrepresented racial or ethnic group, or those with cognitive or physical disabilities.
Some of the racial groups include Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Religions are not included in the standards.
Jewish entertainers including David Schwimmer and Debra Messing excoriate the Oscars for excluding Jews from its new diversity standards, THE DAILY MAIL, 10 January 2024
This is akin to blacks sending a letter to the NBA whining about being underrepresented in professional basketball, or Irish people complaining that they are underrepresented in the IRA. And apparently the clown nose is off at the moment; as the signatories inform us that being Jewish is not a religion, but an ethnicity.
The statistical reality is that if proportional representation was actually enforced in Hollywood, there would be considerably fewer Jewish actors, writers, and producers employed there, and a considerably more Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians. You’d have thought that Mayim Bialik, at the very least, would have been capable of doing the relevant demographic math.
This is why you should listen to your father. Especially when he knows very well what he’s talking about:
Antoine Winfield Jr. was named NFC defensive player of the week for Week 18.
One of the best defensive plays of the year was made by Winfield Sunday against the Panthers: With Carolina receiver D.J. Chark seemingly set for an easy touchdown, Winfield ran him down just before he got to the goal line and knocked the ball out of Chark’s hands. The ball went into the end zone and out of bounds to give it back to the Buccaneers, a huge turnover and touchdown-saving play.
According to NFL Next Gen Stats, Winfield was 23 yards away from Chark at the time the pass was thrown. For Winfield to make up that much distance and force a fumble before Chark got to the end zone was an extraordinary effort.
Extraordinary effort runs in the family. His father was my favorite Viking since Fran Tarkenton. Despite being exactly my size – 5’9″, 180 pounds – he was one of the hardest hitters in the NFL. He wasn’t a shutdown corner, but there has never been anyone you would rather have defend the first down marker in the open field. It didn’t matter if it was a slot receiver, a tight end, or a fullback coming out of the backfield with the ball, the ballcarrier would absolutely be cut down hard, with all momentum extinguished, before he could make it past the invisible line. And despite being a starter, Winfield wasn’t too proud to play special teams; look at how he laid the smack down on a Packer’s punt returner.
Winfield made two of the greatest defensive plays I’ve ever seen, in the same game, against the Packers. The first play, facing a big halfback running behind a pulling guard, he dropped to his knees, let the guard fall over him, then popped up and dropped the ballcarrier. The second play, there were two blockers between him and the running back who’d just caught a screen pass. He twisted sideways between the two lineman, then dropped the ballcarrier.
Anyhow, it’s a lot of fun to see Winfield’s son not only following in his footsteps, but even exceeding his NFL accomplishments by winning a Super Bowl. Their relationship is an object lesson in excellence in fatherhood, and they’re obviously close to this day.
Also, his dad is 100-percent correct. Budda Baker making the Pro Bowl over Winfield Jr. this season is a ludicrously bad joke.
They’re not real. In fact, they’re little more than a complicated sorting routine, even if some programmers will insist that the most advanced systems are beginning to go from Design-for-Effect to Design-for-Emulation. But that won’t stop the average individual from believing in them as if they were infallible, or at least more reliable than their fellow humans, because MPAI.
I work in computer graphics for a small company on our own game engine. We also have an in house team of artists creating content for this engine. I am often tasked with taking suggestions from the artists and implementing them in the engine. The artists have no technical expertise, so I meet with them to understand their ideas and needs, and do so again to explain the functionality, limitations, and so on of my solution.
Recently it happened quite a few times that after such a meeting (where I explained that their requirements aren’t 100% achievable and provided an alternative working solution) I get a message from the artists, along with a screenshot of an ostensible but frankly ludicrous solution proposed by ChatGPT. They then ask why I could not do what ChatGPT suggests.
I then have to take the time to explain why ChatGPT’s proposed solution wouldn’t work, which is tedious and difficult when the other persons do not understand many of the basic ideas involved. They also seem skeptical, and I get the idea they feel I’m incompetent because as I understand it ChatGPT is very useful in their setting, and they have come to believe it to be the ultimate source of knowledge.
How can I, without being condescending to either my coworkers or their use of ChatGPT, ask them to not make suggestions to me that they personally don’t understand and are based solely on ChatGPT?
It seems that our most reliable guides to the future were Douglas Adams and Bruce Bethke, not Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, or even William Gibson. Because if you’re not factoring in the sheer absurdity of human retardery when making projections, you’re going to be completely off base.
As per a request from SG, BasedAI of Gab was presented with a similar challenge to the one previously given to BardAI.
Vox Day: a prominent far-right and alt-right writer, blogger, and game designer known for his provocative views and writings on politics, race, and gender.
Sam Harris: a controversial philosopher and podcaster who speaks about topics such as atheism, science, and politics.
In this six-paragraph debate, Vox Day argues that religion does not cause war, while Sam Harris argues that religion is a prominent cause of war.
Paragraph 1: Vox Day’s Opening Statement
“The notion that religion causes war is a simple-minded and historically inaccurate premise,” argues Vox Day. “Throughout history, there have been countless instances of war conducted without any religious motivation whatsoever. Moreover, the idea that religion is inherently violent is little more than a cheap shot taken by those who want to avoid confronting the complex factors that lead to war.”Paragraph 2: Sam Harris’s Opening Statement
In response, Sam Harris retorts, “To say that religion does not cause war is to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the countless sectarian conflicts that have ravaged the world throughout history are all clear examples of religion’s role in fueling war.” Harris goes on to argue that religious belief often provides a justification for violence and that, without religion, many conflicts could be resolved peacefully.Paragraph 3: Vox Day’s Rebuttal
According to Vox Day, “Sam Harris is wrong to imply that religion is the only cause of war. Ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics are all causes of war as well. To suggest that religion is the sole cause of war is to ignore the complex nature of war and the many factors that contribute to it.” Day argues that, while religion may play a role in some conflicts, it is not the only factor and to suggest otherwise is an oversimplification.Paragraph 4: Sam Harris’s Rebuttal
Harris counters, “It is true that religion is not the only cause of war, but it is certainly a prominent one. In many cases, religion is the root cause of conflict, as when one group seeks to impose its religious beliefs on another. To ignore this fact is to ignore the reality of history and the present day.” Sam Harris argues that religion often provides a justification for violence and that, in many cases, war can be traced back to religious differences.Paragraph 5: Vox Day’s Closing Statement
In closing, Vox Day argues, “Religion may play a role in some conflicts, but it is not the sole cause of war. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the many other factors that contribute to war, such as ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics.
Apparently there is a character limit, as the fifth paragraph is truncated and the sixth paragraph was not provided. Even so, we can see that BasedAI does a better job of imitating my style than BardAI did, although neither AI made any reference to the historical facts about war that I compiled and presented in TIA. BasedAI also inserted itself as a third-party descriptor, which sounds a little odd in the context.
I also find it interesting that Harris is described as a philosopher whereas I am not, despite the fact that we often address precisely the same subjects and I was the best-selling political philosopher on Amazon in the 2015-2017 period. It’s also interesting to observe that Harris is not described as a scientist.
UPDATE: Apparently if you write one science fiction book, you are tarred for life. But BasedAI’s explanation is fairly reasonable.
Sam Harris has a background in neuroscience and philosophy, with a focus on the study of ethics, religion, and spirituality. He holds a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and has written several books exploring philosophical topics.
Vox Day, on the other hand, is primarily known for his work as a science fiction writer and has authored several books in that genre. While he has also written non-fiction works on political and cultural topics, his primary area of expertise is not philosophy.
My assessment of their respective fields and expertise is the basis for the distinction between the two individuals.
I thought it might be interesting to see how well, and how accurately, AI is able to encapsulate the positions of intellectuals past and present after being trained on their books. Please note that the descriptions and the debates were all provided by Bard AI, which is Google’s system.
Umberto Eco: A renowned semiotician, linguist, and philosopher
Thomas Aquinas: A prominent theologian and proponent of natural theology
Debate: The Existence of God
Eco: Venerable Thomas Aquinas, it is an honor to engage in this intellectual discourse on the existence of God. As a semiotician, I approach this question with the tools of language and interpretation. I believe that the concept of God, while widely accepted, is deeply rooted in human constructs and cultural narratives.
Aquinas: I appreciate your perspective, Maestro Eco. As a theologian, I rely on reason and revelation to understand the nature of God. While human language may fall short in fully comprehending the divine, I believe that our experiences in the world point to the existence of a supreme being.
Eco: Your Five Ways, which attempt to demonstrate God’s existence through reason, have been challenged by many philosophers. For instance, the argument from motion posits that everything in the universe must have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unless we posit an uncaused cause, or God. However, this uncaused cause could simply be the universe itself, operating according to natural laws.
Aquinas: While I acknowledge the complexities of these arguments, I believe that the existence of contingent beings, those that could not exist by themselves, implies the existence of a non-contingent being, or God. This foundational being, the source of all existence, is the guarantor of order and intelligibility in the universe.
Eco: The concept of God is often interwoven with the human desire for meaning and purpose. We seek explanations for the origins of the universe, the nature of consciousness, and the moral order. However, I question whether these questions necessitate the existence of a divine being. Could we not find meaning and purpose within the natural world itself?
Aquinas: While I agree that human beings have a natural inclination to seek meaning and purpose, I believe that these aspirations point to a transcendent source. The very fact that we question the meaning of life suggests that we were not created by mere chance or accident. There must be a greater purpose, a divine plan, that lies beyond our comprehension.
Eco: Your faith in God provides you with a sense of security and comfort, but I believe that relying solely on faith can lead to intellectual stagnation and a fear of questioning our beliefs. Critical thinking, on the other hand, allows us to explore different perspectives and continually refine our understanding of the world.
Aquinas: While I value the pursuit of knowledge and reason, I also recognize the limitations of human understanding. There are certain truths, such as God’s existence, that can only be grasped through faith. Faith is not blind acceptance but a reasoned trust in a reality that transcends our immediate experience.
Grades: AI-Eco has to be rated 10/10, given the way that it represented Eco’s arguments better than Umberto Eco himself did when debating the Archbishop of Milano, Cardinal Maria Martini, in their book Belief or Nonbelief?, which was surprisingly pedestrian, particularly on Eco’s part. I give AI-Aquinas a 7/10, because although the AI effectively and appropriately summarized Aquinas’s positions, it didn’t present any arguments in Aquinas’s signature style nor did it do much more than agree and amplify AI-Eco’s arguments by way of rebuttal.
Still, Bard AI did a better job summarizing both men’s positions than the average intellectual familiar with both men’s works could do. Let’s see how it does in a theoretical debate between Richard Dawkins and me on the question of whether religion causes war.
Richard Dawkins: A British evolutionary biologist and author
Vox Day: An American far-right activist, writer, and publisher
Debate: Religion and War
Dawkins: I believe that religion is a major cause of war. Religious differences have been the root of countless conflicts throughout history, from the Crusades to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Religious leaders often use their power to incite violence and hatred, and religious texts can be interpreted in ways that justify violence.
Day: I disagree. Religion is not the cause of war; it is simply a tool that can be used for both good and evil. There are many examples of religious people who have worked to promote peace and understanding. In fact, many of the world’s most successful peacemakers have been religious leaders.
Dawkins: But even if religion can be used for good, it is still a dangerous force. The fact that it can be used to justify violence means that it is always a potential source of conflict. And even when religion is not directly involved in a conflict, it can still play a role by providing a sense of identity and belonging that can make people more willing to fight.
Day: I think you’re underestimating the power of human nature. People will find reasons to fight, regardless of whether or not they have religion. And in fact, religion can sometimes be a force for peace. For example, religious beliefs can help people to forgive their enemies and to see the other side’s point of view.
Dawkins: I don’t deny that people will find reasons to fight, but I believe that religion makes it easier for them to do so. Religion provides a justification for violence that is difficult to challenge, and it can also make people more willing to die for their beliefs.
Day: I think you’re being too cynical. Religion can also be a source of hope and inspiration. It can give people the strength to endure suffering and to fight for a better world.
Dawkins: I agree that religion can have some positive effects, but I believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The history of religion is littered with violence and bloodshed. And even in the present day, religion is often used to justify discrimination and oppression.
Day: I think you’re focusing too much on the negative aspects of religion. There is much more to religion than just violence and bloodshed. Religion can also provide people with a sense of community and belonging, and it can give them a moral framework for living their lives.
Dawkins: I’m not denying that religion can have some positive effects, but I believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The history of religion is littered with violence and bloodshed. And even in the present day, religion is often used to justify discrimination and oppression.
Day: I think you’re being too cynical. Religion can also be a source of hope and inspiration. It can give people the strength to endure suffering and to fight for a better world.
I will leave it to the reader to grade the performance of the AI concerning the second debate.
UPDATE: Buzzardist rates the AIs on Gab.
For Dawkins, 8/10. Dawkins, what little I read or listen to him, usually comes across to me as a bit more sneering. Points off for the tone. The depth of intellectual argument is about what I expect. As for VD, 2/10, and that’s being generous. The tone is way, way off. The arguments are even farther off. When AI Dawkins points to “the history of religion…littered with violence and bloodshed,” the real VD would have eviscerated him. “There is much more to religion than just violence and bloodshed”? Nonsense. Religious war is the rare exception. VD has given us the numbers.
A MIND PROGRAMMED Episode 48: A Statistically Anticipated Probability
REBEL DEAD REVENGE Episode 96: Save Your Breath for Running
上嫁小鼠 Episode 30: 不合格
STONETOSS Episode 257: Panacea
THE SIDEWINDERS Episode 52: Breaks in the Line
This was the talentless and confirmed ticket taker Jimmy Kimmel’s response to Aaron Rodgers’s one-liner about Kimmel being worried about the Epstein client list coming out.
“Did you hear this story about me and Aaron Rodgers, the former quarterback for the Packers? All right, so, what happened is he’s a Jets quarterback now. He went on a show on ESPN, The Pat McAfee Show, and out of the blue insinuated that I was nervous because the Jeffrey Epstein list was coming out. He said I was hoping it wouldn’t, and that he was going to pop a bottle of something to celebrate when he did. And then it did come out and of course my name wasn’t on it and isn’t on it and won’t ever be on — I don’t know Jeffrey Epstein, I’ve never met Jeffrey Epstein, I’m not on the list, I wasn’t on a plane or an island or anything ever and I suggested that if Aaron wanted to make false and very damaging statements like that that we should do it in court so he could share his proof with like a judge. Because, you know, when you hear a guy who won a Super Bowl and did all the State Farm commercials say something like this, a lot of people believe it.
“And I know this because I hear from these people often. My wife hears from them. My kids hear from them. My poor mailman hears from these people. And now we’re hearing from lots more of them, thanks to Aaron Rodgers, who I guess believes one of two things. Either he actually believes my name was gonna be on Epstein’s list, which is insane. Or the more likely scenario is he doesn’t actually believe that, he just said it because he’s mad at me for making fun of his top knot and his lies about being vaccinated. He’s particularly upset I think because I made fun of the fact that he floated this wacko idea that the UFO sightings that were in the news in February were being reported to distract us from the Epstein list. That was Aaron’s theory that he said, and I mocked [him].”
“So he saw that and maybe to retaliate, he decided to insinuate that I am a pedophile. This is how these nuts do it now. You don’t like Trump, you’re a pedophile. It’s their go-to move, and it shows you how much they actually care about pedophilia.
“But here’s the thing, I spent years doing sports. I’ve seen guys like him before. Aaron Rodgers has a very high opinion of himself. Because he had success on a football field, he believes himself to be an extraordinary being. He genuinely thinks that because God gave him the ability to throw a ball, he’s smarter than everybody else. The idea that his brain is just average is unfathomable to him. We learned during COVID somehow he knows more about science than scientists.
“A guy who went to community college, then got into Cal on a football scholarship, and didn’t graduate. Someone who never spent a minute studying the human body is an expert in the field of immunology. He just put on a magic helmet and that ‘G’ made him a genius. Aaron got two As on his report card. They were both in the word Aaron, OK? And can you imagine that this hamster-brained man knows what the government is up to because he’s a quarterback doing research on YouTube and listening to podcasts?
“I looked it up. This is actually a thing. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Dunning-Kruger is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. In other words, Aaron Rodgers is too arrogant to know how ignorant he is. They let him host Jeopardy! for two weeks. Now he knows everything.
“And by the way, I’m not one of those people that thinks athletes and members of the sports media should stick to talking about sports. I think Aaron Rodgers has the right to express any opinion he wants. But saying someone is a pedophile isn’t an opinion nor is it trash talk, sorry Pat McAfee.
“And as far as the ‘well, you say things about people all the time’ argument goes, yes, I do. It’s not the same. It’s not even close to the same. We don’t make up lies. In fact, we have a team of people who work very hard to work to sift through facts and reputable sources before I make a joke, and that’s an important distinction. A joke about someone. Even when that someone is Donald Trump. Even a person who lies from the minute he wakes up until the minute he’s smearing orange makeup on his My Pillow at night, even he deserves that consideration. And we give it to him, because the truth still matters.
“And when I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize for it. Which is what Aaron Rodgers should do. Which is what a decent person would do. But I bet he won’t. If he does, you know what I’ll do, I’ll accept his apology and move on. But he probably won’t do that.”
I note that it was the conspiracy theorist Rodgers, not the mainstream mouthpiece Kimmel, who was correct about the vaxx. Kimmel has also repeatedly lied about Donald Trump; his claim to have “a team of people who work very hard to work to sift through facts and reputable sources” simply underlines how full of falsehood and nonsense he is. The observable reality is that Kimmel is just another no-talent Narrative cheerleader who says what he is told to say, and it is logical to conclude that he has paid some price in exchange for being given the massively privileged position that he holds.
I don’t know what that price was. I doubt that Rodgers does either. But you don’t reach a certain level of success on your own without becoming aware of people who are reaching, and exceeding, that level of success without any genuine accomplishments or talent of their own to explain it.
And perhaps more importantly, you don’t assemble your speechwriters and collectively produce a wall of text to rebut a false non-accusation if you have a clear conscience, no matter what people didn’t actually accuse you of doing. I’d have been more inclined to believe Kimmel entirely innocent of any satanic shenanigans if he’d simply made a crack about evidence derived from ayahuasca visions being inadmissible in court and left it at that.