Welcome Caribbean rhythms episode 116 there is incident Russia everyone talking about Assassination in Moscow of Dugan daughter and nobody knows if she was the target or if Dugan himself what I am almost sure of Is even if this was not done on the orders of a American security state ghoul It was done to please them in other words whether it was Russia Russia, so-called Nazi nationalists who oppose Putin, people forget this, Putin's opposition in Russia are not nice liberals, they are mainly Russian ultra-nationalists who seek to extol, put the Russian ethnic above all others in the Russian Federation, which I think is a mistake, it would break apart the Russian Federation and in other words the historical Russian Empire.

And his other opponents are the communists, and he does not really have so-called liberal opponents in the way you think of them. The man promoted by the West, Navalny, would actually be more severe against a place like Ukraine. But leaving this aside, why do I think this was done, if not at the orders of somebody like Victoria Nuland, then to please them to gain, let's say, further market share, you know, Ukrainian intelligence or someone allied with them, thinking how can we gain favor with the West. And the reason is Dugin really not so important at all in Russia. His notoriety is entirely a creation of Western media obsessions with the idea that there There must be someone like Eminence Gris behind, you know, power behind the throne.

They watch a lot of these movies like Good Shepherd. But in fact, in Russia, if you want somebody like that, it would be this man Surkov, whereas Dugin really not so important at all. He's an abstruse theorist. Do you really think Putin, my friend the bureaucrat had good posts about this, do you really think someone Putin would consult Dugan on nomos of the earth theory of Eurasian land mass before deciding to attack Ukraine. You do not need Dugan theory to attack Ukraine. Putin attack Ukraine because NATO put army in Ukraine. This is why. And because Ukraine government start to shell people in Donbass which they have been doing for eight years, but they increased it greatly, trying to provoke Putin to invade, and I believe

to use the Ukrainian people as kamikazes, to parade their dead bodies so that people like Victoria Nuland can glory in their, you know, why do they do this? Because their leader, I was going to say Kerensky, but it's not Kerensky, it's Zelensky, yes, Zelensky, who pretends to be Jewish in order to court favor with American Jewish donors and so forth. But Zelensky is an actor who knows what people like Newland and others have on him. He apparently has tens of millions of dollars property inside the United States, nobody knows how he got this on a salary of actor in Ukraine. In any case, this nutshell about Ukraine, about everyone talking on this, I believe Again, when you see McMullen, Bill Kristol, Hillary Clinton, these types, talking about

international, void nationalist, outright conspiracy, they genuinely believe somebody like Dugan is behind it all, in the same way they believe Bannon is behind Trump, which is another falsehood. But they think these Rasputin-like theorists are leading an international uprising against liberal world order, which isn't true at all. Dugan describes a tiny fraction of what you know as the outright. I don't even agree with him on almost anything, but that's the point. In fact, the Duganists don't like me and generally attack me. But the people in Washington, D.C., New York Times subscribers and others, live in this fantasy world where before, in the early 2000s, they believed that Leo Strauss was running a Nazi conspiracy in the White House.

It's always the same story, wild conspiracy tales are the establishment's idiotic mainstay and Dugan is just their latest obsession and I believe Ukrainian potato intelligence of some kind decided let's take out Dugan and please Evan McMuffin and David Frum and Victoria Nuland and all the people in Washington, D.C. who are frothing at the mouth for blood. Anyway, I don't want to talk about Ukraine on this show, this show about Mulholland Drive, my favorite movie. It is a little bit late because I had to go to, I tell you the truth, I had to go today to Five Men's Burger, this show is a few hours late, okay, what do you want me to do? I have to eat also, okay? I am not a god, I need to intake energy. So I like double borgar cheese with mayo, ketchup, mustard, and pickle.

Anyway, have you ever been in the middle of the street at night, have you ever felt like hunter? But not in forests, but in an abandoned city. Nietzsche said he liked this, the abandoned city plazas. We imagine Heraclitus in the plazas of Ephesus, in the portico of the temple of Artemis. I'm sorry if I repeat myself, to me it's a very romantic image. But if you wander the streets at night, and if you have a target, a hobby, it can make life worthwhile. I mean, even if you can put these desires, as some nerdoids want you to put them into science or art, engineering or some other kind of work which is very rare for men actually almost and it's almost never there for women because they're so much less likely to be obsessed by hunt but I believe even men who had a strong

spiritualized sense of the hunt that they also carried it out in person literally in empty night streets or even in the gutter for example Kant it may be Maybe he's at Kant on his famous walks, or you don't know about his other walks, and he would have from a distance pursued a bakery woman on back alleys, this kind of thing. And I believe this, I'm not encouraging anyone. And maybe it was not Kant, the Chinaman of Konigsberg, maybe he was too dull and hoity-toity to have such instinct or to pursue it. Maybe he just like masturbate alone. But really you don't think somebody like Gauss or Schopenhauer wouldn't get a hobby. So I'm not counting genuine so-called gigachad writers, which would include almost all Italians

or people like the physicist Feynman who were successful womanizers, which is by the way not extremely uncommon among men of science, even mathematicians who are famously autistic and nerdy, but the ones who are not complete nerdoids can be quite good with women. I like this article I keep telling you about, Perelman, Manifold Destiny, from the New Yorker, Grigori Perelman. He is one of my heroes, he is an incel, but mention is made in this article of a mid-best man of great valor, Richard Hamilton, a womanizing mathematician, sailor, a yachtsman, and sportsman, a mathematician who, he actually had much of insight also for solving the Poincare conjecture. And I encourage you again to read this article to see, especially the sorry state of so-called

Chinese science, which is mostly plagiarism, combined with petty, painstaking, detailed workings out of irrelevant corollaries from the work of others. But keep this in mind next time you see these kind of IQ maps and maps of most published scholarly articles by country, because the entire scientific world is actually held together only by Northwest Europe and United States, with some contribution from potato lands like Russia and parts of East Europe. Anyway, not counting such type of... There's a type of womanizing scientist or mathematician, and not counting many Italians or some French in history of arts and letters, who I believe were also personal hunter perverts, even if they were successful with women, but I ask you, don't think...

Even men highly spiritualized and intellectualized, who had a highly spiritualized sense of hunt, like, again, Gauss or Schopenhauer, You don't think they would, from dark corners of streets, observe and make a target and a hobby of... Yes, it's a woman, okay, so, I mean, gays usually don't have this. Not as much, anyway. They said Donatello pursued a boy in this way. And you get such obsessions in ancient Greece, where, okay, so I take it back, some gays do have it. The reason the Peci-stratid tyrannical dynasty fell in 510 BC or so was because of dispute. There's some pederastic dispute over a boy where the tyrant's brother became obsessed in this way And he insulted an aristocratic boy with overbearing advances and the boy's lover plotted to kill him I mean the tyrant's brother

and this what led to coming of democracy in in Athens because of fall of tyranny and this Remind you very much this very much like politic today in Afghanistan You know, almost war—all war and disputes in Afghanistan among Pashtuns start over things like this. You know, so the ancient Greeks were, like, throat-slitting Pashtuns very much. But they say the Taliban arose in part to stop such things, but, you know, I tell you, Islam is usually actually a liberalizing force when it comes to—I mean, by comparison to traditional cultures. If you think Islam stops these things, keep in mind that you take Gulf Arabs is extreme common among them, and in medieval Arab poetry almost none of it is about women, okay? So one of my favorite statistics is false paternity rates in Africa actually increase

very much whenever native animistic religion is replaced by either Islam or Christianity. But so anyway, yes, I mean, among gays, maybe this kind of obsession exists, but usually is rarer and is often intensified maybe by the more poetic among them over dead youths, especially. Hadrian was like this. The Roman emperor who made a cult over Antinous who died in his youth, and then also the poet Stefan Goerge did some of the same over another dead youth he had been obsessed with. oh my God, I hope this, I don't know if I, I hope this not get to gay, this show, they will report me and I will have 20 pederast Englishmen pursue me. Wherever the Englishman explorer go, he must also bugger boys. I'm sorry does this offend you, but at least in recent times, even recent centuries,

there's been a change in such, let's say, in social relation among gays to where they're either creative incels like Wittgensteins or otherwise they find complete dissolution of their minds and spirits. I mean, if Wittgenstein was alive today, he would probably just have been sucking hundreds of cocks and getting fucked by hundreds and not writing anything, probably. Whereas for normal people, and by the way, let me make an aside here, because on maybe two shows ago, I don't remember, I attacked Macron, I called him a pathetic, but I didn't elaborate, and I need to explain this. And I'm not explaining it because I like the gays, but we shouldn't just descend into name calling because it's not enough. It's like when Republicans call Obama a socialist, socialist, socialist for,

how was it, 12 years, eight years, I don't remember, they kept, you overuse a word that doesn't mean anything anymore. A lot of you are doing this with the word degenerate, degenerate, it loses its meaning, you know? So I don't want to just call him a pathetic, I want to remind you there is a reason. When you have what I mean is nobodies like Macron or Rubio or Obama and they are suddenly elevated to the highest offices or you see them running for president and no one had ever heard of them before, I mean Obama was just such a fake this is the girl candidate and yes this show will be on Mulholland Drive but he was such a total invention of a media illusion machine in the way Trump was not by the way, Trump's running for president

It was entirely normal, predicted by many people over decades. Roger Stone thought he would run in 1980s. Camille Paglia knew he would run. He was a common household mention on many shows as an image of charm and success. He has volcanic, ice nigger charm. He created his own audience, his own audience. He was a master of media himself by his own abilities, able to make personalities and masses orbit around him demagogically by magnetic charm. With Apprentice he moved from media sensation real estate billionaire baller to the most successful reality TV star and then he became master of Twitter as well. In a country like America, you know, it's not Rome, okay, you have a powerful general or this. This is the kind of man whose height of American, let's say, personality production, his ascent

to presidency was entirely predictable and normal, but much less normal is a shady nobody like Obama. You know, it's not Stevie Wonder, you know, it's not Magic Jordan, it's not even Clarence Thomas, who Clarence Thomas as a man has more charm and gravity than, I mean, it's some Kenyan dweeb with a librarian effect. You should hear what a dork he sound when he's, he has some early audio book or something like this and he's trying to talk like an American black man with American black vernacular and he's saying things like, mofogo. He sounds absurd. He has a librarian effect, as Steve Saylor observed, if he had been born in Bahamas or something like he would have been just a Dominican librarian. And nobody had ever heard of him.

By all reports, the most trusted sources, he was just a regular of men's country in in Chicago. And the point is he's not unique in American politics. It's unfortunately very common phenomenon. You see Hestert, who had a similar unexplained rise. He was a nobody and suddenly he's Speaker of the House. How this happened? Well, it come out later how it happened. He was a diddler of boys. So this is why I say Macron is a pathetic in that show. It was not just a slur. He has to do with the Capricorn One fake political life of Western nations now. There are many more, I'm not mentioning Foley, Rubio, Phone Boy Rubio, all of these. What kind of people need to rule from shadows? People who rule from shadows are not smart. They're not really powerful. They're cowards. Believe me, every

political actor, every man who go into politic, they don't want to be the power behind the throne. That's a trope of intellectuals and Hollywood. People go into politic because because they want to be adored and to feel glory like someone like Lee Kuan Yew, the father of the nation, beloved by the people, or even Putin. And these aren't even, of course, the best examples. Or like they think Trump receives, and this explains their great jealousy of him. They rule from shadows because they're malicious and weak. But they don't need closeted gays anymore, it appears, to work as a blackmail. Of all that type of rule, Biden is the end result, where they don't even have to pretend anymore that people will just take anything.

They don't have to bother to push forward rent boys like Rubio or Obama, who did casting couch for who knows who, but they don't need to do that anymore. I believe next cycle, they will maybe even forego Kamala, because she's so unpleasant, and they will just run a flashlight. They should run a flashlight or a blow-up doll for president. I think 40% at least of their brain-dead Americans, the leftoids, will vote for this. Even if it's a flashlight, if it's the leftist candidate, they will vote for it. This is the girl indeed. But seriously, obsession makes life worthwhile. I believe this. Of course most girls are unworthy of this kind of focus, but it's a very rare kind of man who can find obsession in forms of heavenly spheres, and even then I think a

real-life target hobby is necessary. So it's almost as if, obviously hunting an obese woman is to be ruled out. I mean, can you imagine, I mean, there are some people, I read somewhere there was an obese woman secretary who worked in his office and he liked to jerk off thinking about her eating chocolate cake. Obviously this is to be dismissed, it's inappropriate, it's an unhistorical application, and this poses a civilizational, fuck, I don't want the opposite. Can you imagine? Some of you love this idea of having a woman to be so in love with you that she pursues you and stalks you and lavishes attention. Many of you read Hardiste and you think this is a wonderful thing. I find this to be against nature, highly annoying. I lose all interest immediately.

It happened to me a few time and once with this girl and I'm not humble bragging, but she kept at it for many months despite my protestations. I tell her, first of all, she was well by her sell-by date, it was not something that flattered me, but I tell her I don't feel well, the Zionists are poisoning me and so on, leave me alone, and she continues for more than six months or more, and the only way I can get rid of this, you know, if you ghost, it doesn't necessarily work, they can escalate, they can call family or whatever, so you have to unload them on a different man if you can that's the best way to or you excuse you can do what's a guy in the last days of disco did the main character I think and tell them that you're gay or some combination or you do something so outrageous that

they'll just stop it or otherwise this can go forever even after they're married they will you know they will see so I don't know one time I took one of like this to Mercer kitchen in Judark which you know I didn't know any better better at the time, but it's a fine place anyway if you're there to take a slaw for a drink. And I couldn't get rid of it, I just kept talking the whole time about how the waiter is so handsome, you know. I wasn't doing this to be quirky, I just wanted to get rid of it. You never act out in restaurants, remember you can live without inhibitions, you can let loose, you can assert yourself, you can walk into the kitchen to demand a pickle, you can call 911 as you sit down on the sidewalk in front of Vietnamese restaurants and say that they poisoned you.

You can have it all! I will be right back. Poland Drive, one of my favorite movies, one of the most intense experiences I think you can have watching cinema. But before I talk on it at some length, I wanted to say in general something about David Lynch and maybe art or so-called postmodern art in general. Because I think Lynch is sometimes unfairly categorized as a postmodern artist when he is in fact a realist. And the same with, okay, I'm not comparing myself in terms of quality, so you think I'm arrogant, but my book I don't like so much when I see literary critics or journalists call it postmodern. Surrealist is not postmodern, and surrealism itself is misunderstood, I think, because again, highly verbal literary critics want to judge it by its manifestos, by its central

text, which is a mistake, right? If you take André Breton, who was French author who penned the Surrealist Manifesto in the 1920s, but that's not the definitive text on what surrealism is, okay? There is no definitive text besides the fact that there was a rival surrealist school with a rival manifesto, but actually neither of these purely literary manifesto battles in my opinion capture what surrealism is. It's an organic historical development and you can see this best example you can take from Breton himself, so for example, the painter Giorgio de Chirico, who I've talked before, maybe my favorite painter, he's sometimes classified as a pre-surrealist or an early one or the father of surrealism, but in the mid-1920s when his style changed, Breton and

the people around him denounced de Chirico, so for all purposes he was expelled from the surrealist label or brand or call it what you will, I mean at least they didn't do it retroactively and say that he had never been one. That's what hyper-emotional stupid people would do today. But they only loved his earlier paintings, which, by the way, I think in this they're right. There is a spiritual hollowness, I think, in de Kirikou's work after maybe 1925 or so. It's only in the 1910s that his, it's called his metaphysical period, and he produces paintings of vibrant, demonic energy. These are religious paintings, the imagery of Nietzschean pagan metaphysics, and some are even called evangelical interior and so on.

If you want to see real paganism, you don't look at Asatru or the people role-playing sacrifices to Odin or to Hercules. You look at these paintings to see inner meaning of Nietzschean mythology. Or as I try to say in a bit, you look at work of David Lynch, who has a naive, direct understanding of animism, where something you would call gods appear just in a very casual way, very puzzling way, but that's okay. But most of these paintings of the Kirikou, I mean from the 1910s, they tell the story of a shocking eruption of ancient mystery religion into our own time. So this was the experience for Andre Breton himself when he saw Giorgio de Chirico painting for the first time. It's a famous scene in history of art, I think.

He jumped out of a tram because he thought he had seen the eruption of a new religion. And I don't know actually if this is Breton or somebody else, maybe I'm not remembering this episode right. But you can see there is a Man Ray photograph from 1930 with Andre Breton in front of Giorgio the painting called The Enigma of a Day, which maybe you go look at it, it's such powerful painting very close to my taste, this painting and others, like the industrial smokestacks on abandoned plaza with classical statue, it reminds you of a world that is to come soon, we are going to make it happen, it reminds you of it, but so, okay, the Kiriko is in in many ways, not just precursor, but you can say then spiritual founder of Surrealism.

But later this group decided to expel him, so the definition of what is surrealist or not is in dispute, even at that time, and in any case it's not decided by a group that writes something. Surrealism was an organic outgrowth of work of a man called Guillaume Apollinaire, he's He's a French poet, part Polish descent, and around him, a number of different artists and musicians congregated and he promoted their works. And it was like all organic movements, something that developed casually, you can say. No central control. It came out just like Apollinaire and Giorgio de Chirico themselves came out of an earlier artistic movement called symbolism. And what I'm trying to say is nothing better shows the uselessness of defining a literary

or artistic or even a religious movement than by a central written text. I think on previous show I often forget what I say as soon as I say it, but I forgive if I repeat myself, but I say this was Samuel Huntington's mistake to think you can understand civilizational spheres by their texts to understand the Buddhist world by supposed adherence to Buddhist texts. Or many make a mistake to think they can understand Afghanistan and Indonesia and a gang banger in Paris by reference to the Koran. It's stupid. It's baby's first human map. It's retarded. It appeals so much, however, it appeals to academic and intellectual word cell and logocentric types, who think the human experience can be referred to texts, when in fact I think

it's the opposite, nothing very significant in human life can be understood this way. But people love first principles, it makes it so easy to think you can understand something. So again, the same way to the people now who bombed Duggan's daughter, which is almost certainly either the CIA itself giving orders or Ukrainian idiots doing it for the benefit of the sea. And by the way, yes, not all Ukrainian are idiots. I didn't mean that. The Ukrainian people themselves are being sacrificed by the Ukrainian idiots in charge of that country who are all, as far as I know, they are controlled agents. But the people who did it, whether they're Russian idiots or Ukrainian idiots, I don't know, but they did it to please people like Victoria Nuland, okay, why?

Because they believe, they actually believe Dugin is ideologue of the worldwide outright neo-Nazi uprising directed from Moscow, when in fact Dugin texts describe nothing about the Russian state at the moment, and at most describes a fraction of a fraction of right-wing thinking in the West. And it's really not the fraction they should be worrying about. So anyway, where was I, I forgive for talk politic, but there's big difference between surrealism and post-modernism, and I was dinner once with Kamil Paglia. I was sitting next to her and I had a chance to ask her opinion on David Lynch. It was a pathetic dinner, by the way. I didn't organize it, believe me. There were slurs sitting at the table and every question they interrupted me talking to her.

I wanted to have a nice private conversation. They managed to ask questions that always it turns into a grandstanding declaration about themselves and their own relationships. I mean, can the academic female cell brain take a moment and think of something not relating to their own wills or to politics and activism, which is the same thing. So of course they can't, which why Paglia refuses in general to give interviews in United States mostly. In Europe she say at least they try to ask her occasionally her opinions on this or that painting or novel. And I'm surprised that her book Glittering Images has not done better. It's exactly the kind of criticism to be welcomed and I think people are hungry for it.

It's a format where she has a painting reproduced, I think, on just one page, and then she has two to three pages of appreciative commentary on this. And appreciation criticism is really the only kind worth anything, because it helps you become engrossed in the art further, or it tells you how it relates to the artist's life and some other works, or it's useful when it mentions other artists or thinkers he may be in some kind of dialogue with or his history and time, but the other kind of criticism which seeks to explain the art, this represents that, that's really the critic pretending to be above the artist or the writer, because if the critic's explanation or deconstruction of the artwork is true, then that text of criticism is what the artist himself should

have done instead of making the artwork. But he did the artwork because he wanted to say or show something and he knew no other way of doing it. But now comes the critic and says, no, it's really about this other thing. And of course this very different from what aphoristic philosophers like Nietzsche or Schopenhauer or Siran do when they discuss what a book or painting or a piece of music means to them and how it fits into their own views of the world at large, that's very different. But that's not a critic. So anyway, I knew what she would answer, what Paglia would say about Lynch, because I know her opinion on postmodern art, and I figured that because she had never talked about David Lynch, she would have maybe classified him as a postmodern, on which I agree with her

that postmodern art is a kind of game-playing, very cerebral kind of art, that instead of embracing timeless human archetypes and evoking genuine emotions, it seeks just to place the artist as a kind of smirky critic, ironically detached from what he's depicting. So again it turns it into a kind of word game, a self-referential cerebral puzzle, which is a huge mistake. I mean, it's fake art. I love humor, and actually I love irony, and in real life, in political satire especially, they are indispensable. So you know, if you are a frog, you should absolutely do not listen to the mob chorus of blue checks and journalists who are lately enjoining us to be sincere and to list our sincere demands and what do you believe and there's no thank you.

The purpose of some is that is to show you our stuffed shirts and to show you for pedantic fools and to be replaced. But on the other hand, using them, I mean humor and irony in a painting or a novel, irony and ironic humor, you have to be very careful in a genuine artistic production even in a humorous novel, because if you use them to show that you are a part and superior from what you are treating, this is a kind of smirky, faggot move. Like faggot, I don't care about that you're aware, that you're self-aware, and that's just the thing. The post-modernist artist is always hyper-conscious and self-aware. That's the virtue they claim for themselves, always striving to show off his self-referential self-awareness.

So, you have something like Waiting for Godot, which isn't postmodern, properly speaking. It's the end of modernism. But Paglia is right about this as well. It's just this kind of very dour, self-referential, pseudo-art. Art as a scrawny handmaiden to a defunct, existential, so-called philosophy. An intellectual's pose. A word sells contortion that was, it was made obsolete, actually, by vitalistic brashness of American popular culture, in which an intellectual avant-garde, like existed after about 1890, in which that intellectual biome, let's say, no longer really makes any sense. I mean, you know, faggots that ended with Stalingrad, but you don't want to see this. That's another discussion. It's not my fault. I just bring the news.

That's entirely almost the pose of such art, whereas the true surrealist is not at all like this. absurdism, and there is shocking juxtaposition of objects and ideas you would not expect next to one another. So again, in Giorgio de Chirico, he put bananas next to classical dilapidated sculptures and to industrial smokestacks, not to speak of otherworldly designs from the other surrealists. You know them, Dali and Max Ernst and so on. But in all these cases, in the best case, the surrealist forgets himself and immerses himself in what he's depicting like any true artist does, which is the dream state in this case, but not so the postmodernist artist. I mean, imagine trying to enjoy, you know, sex ores with this attitude and the whole

point of postmodern art is to redefine the artistic experience away from something akin to immersive sex ores or vision fantasy to instead something like a hyperconscious social approval game. say more on this. I take a smoke break. I encourage you away from Cuban tobaccos which may be laced with pesticides and the Casa Plasencia in Nicaragua. I think they are the only organic tobacco producers in the world. I will be right back. We are back and we must pledge total allegiance to Chadnet. Chadnet is best website. History of Internet, ChatNet, please you must look this, so where was I? I think Paglia is totally correct about post-modernists. It's actually even worse than she says, I'll say more in a moment, but I think she unfairly

categorizes Borges or David Lynch as a kind of post-modernist. They're both saved by two things, they're wild humor and a sense of overpowering mystery. The most effective Borges humor is when he very assertive states logical impossibility, and I understand that when faced with such absurdity also appears in Lynch, the absurdity, it can be possible to confuse it for insincere game playing. But I don't think Borges or Lynch in tension. I think they're trying to break chains of day logic, transport reader or watcher to night state of Waking Dream, and the sense of mystery, of overawing mystery, which you can get most of all, for example, in Borges' story Death and the Compass. You look up this story, one of my favorite detective stories, my favorite story from Borges. And with mystery,

it's easy to make a similar confusion because the thing fatal to any mystery story is the resolution, so the best mystery tale will not resolve openly, will leave mystery vague so the mind keeps reaching and searching, but when you do this it can be easy for some reader to assume you are being cryptic for the sake of it, or that you are trying to confuse the reader, in other words, again, game playing. In a best mystery there is a known resolution on part of author or artist, but is not revealed in full because, okay, again, you take example of Giorgio de Chirico, this painter I mentioned his life, and I think he grew up on Corfu, he was an Italian Greek. And he tells story of as a small boy he snuck into the Orthodox Church to see what was behind the altar, what was hidden.

And he tells of his great disappointment to see what was there. And so in his art you see a constant veiling and menacing mystery that is never revealed. But I think the point of such prophetic art is like Heraclitus say, nature loves to hide. And so the truth in this majesty can never really appear to paltry human rational mind in explicit form, because when it does, it's something that's already desiccated and therefore a distortion of the fullness of truth. But so in surrealism, a genuine surrealist doesn't place himself above either the audience or especially doesn't place himself and the audience in a kind of distance from the material he's treating, and this latter pose is the signature of all so-called postmodernist art,

true surrealist art is engrossing and merely seeks to transplant dream logic and dream feel into some representation that overwhelms you, but this can be very effective because dreams, you can choose your explanation, but no one can deny some dreams are incredibly moving, emotional, powerful, cathartic even. And almost all calm dreams, they evoke lost memories, a kind of feel of recovered memory, and whether this is because in subconscious there is access to Jungian archetypes, or as I believe, you see they keep doing this, they attack me every time I do show, I can normally talk like a normal person, but okay, where was I? I don't know if in dreams you see Jungian archetypes, and that's where the sense of recovered memory comes from.

Or what I believe is that for some people at least memories are memories of past and future lives, but they can be emotionally moving. This is indisputable for whatever reason. And it's just as indisputable that postmodernist art is not moving at all. It's not meant to be. So I think, again, Paglia correct about postmodern art so-called, but she doesn't go far enough because for what she says, that it's cerebral in a bad sense, cerebral game-playing, very smirky, always playing to expectations of a verbal intelligentsia, people who live in a logocentric world, who live by the false claim that the text of criticism can replace the immediate experience or understanding of an object or idea that you'd get from a

genuine work of art, which again, if that was the case, the critic is placing himself above the artist. If the artist could have written this explanatory text instead, then he would have done that instead of the original artwork. But in postmodernism, and therefore almost all academic art and literary criticism, any immediate relationship with the work of art and still more so with nature or ideas, any direct relationship or understanding is denied to exist by assumption. And the experience of any art, as of any nature, is something to be mediated by just this middleman peddler, not of ideas, but actually of signals of social status, the art critic. So I remember once from hearing a modern art theorist talk about this vague question, what is art?

And the definition he says, well, you take an object, any object, even a urinal, a piece of wood if you want, if you want to be less shocking, a chair, not a urinal, a chair. And in normal life, it's not a work of art, but if you put it in a gallery or a museum, art, and that's the definition of art. This is what some say, and although it sounds like it's art just because we say it is, I think there is actually a half-legitimate point buried in this claim. His point was that when you put it in art gallery, it triggers or even forces a viewer to see it in a way he has not seen it before. And I suppose what he meant at best, although he didn't use Schopenhauerian language and he would have hated to be thought

this way, but Schopenhauer make point better, following Kant, that if you see an object for its own qualities or for the idea in itself, to do so you have to separate it from its uses. So in other words, you have to separate what you're contemplating, the object, you have to separate it from the string of associations and motives that relate it to your own individual striving will. When you are under the stress of motives and striving, you can't see things for what they they are. Animals usually are like this. He likes to point out they have their head always toward the earth, toward the ground, the source of all motives and striving and struggle for survival and supremacy, whereas for men he can look to the heavens, which has nothing to do with his own life, and this,

you could say, origin of contemplation. He likes to give example of statue Apollo of Belvedere, whose head seems removed from its body, able to contemplate. So that's what it means, or this rather the first step is to remove it from everydayness, is to remove it from, you could say, the stream of struggle that all objects enter when they enter the stream of existence, and that's the way to see something for itself, and it's the origin of artistic contemplation, and Heidegger has a refutation of this when he talks about the painting of worn shoes of a peasant woman. But if you read this Heidegger essay, it's really just he contorts himself so much to reach the same point that his hated Schopenhauer does. I don't much like Heidegger. I don't respect his thoughts.

The whole of his book, Being and Time, is really a restatement and plagiarism of the first half of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, despite all of Heidegger's vicious attacks on Schopenhauer. But that's for another time. So this guy, who I don't remember who he was or his name, but he was very much a modern art theorist. This was his definition of art, that if you take any object and put it into an art gallery, it's art. So therefore there shouldn't be any discussion of an artist's talent or, excuse me, when When you go to an art gallery and you laugh at modern art, which seems so trivial. This was his defense of it. To which I would say if you need that, if in order to see an object for itself in a

new way, to take it out of everydayness, and you need it to be in an art gallery or a museum for you to see that, I have some bad news for you. Because of course that ability to see an object or idea for itself is only the first step for either an artist or a philosopher. But then to render it to the viewer or to the reader as you have perceived it, that's the trick and that's something else. And here philosophy and art are the same but differ very much in method, whereas merely placing it in a museum or a gallery, and this is what I'm trying to say, it's not really for these people. It's not really removing it from the chain of willful motives and associations that blinds you to an object's inherent beauties and therefore inner truth and quality.

actually for these people, what they're doing is they're placing it into a different level of petty social desires. For them, there's actually no art. Art has no content in it. It makes them feel nothing. It's all interchangeable, because for them it's not about the art, but about the social scene around art. And they want to be part of an art intelligentsia, you see, and to live like artists. They see in Hollywood depictions of artists in Montmartre Bohemians 1910 or this kind of thing, or to be part of a self-appointed cultural elite, to be respected, to get a profile, a New York review of books and so forth. These are their desires and ambitions and the artworks are interchangeable props to this end. And I've met many such people.

I knew art hoe, I had friends who also dated similar art hoe, the worst kind of art hoe with mild BPD, but you know I tried to show her some of my favorite paintings and ask her what this makes you feel, and at least she was honest and smart enough to know at least that she couldn't bullshit on this, so she said it makes me feel nothing. It makes them feel absolutely nothing, and I know people's tastes differ, and I think as art appreciator you should be able to sense other tastes too and what's good about them, But okay, let's say fine, she was not attuned that day to be sensitive to something like Kiriko or whatever else I showed her, I don't remember, although I don't know how somebody does not respond emotionally to Francis Bacon and so on.

But okay, let's say, so I tell her, show me yours, show me the thing you like. And she did so, and I got the sense she was showing them to me by complete random, so I asked her, what's this, how does this make you feel? What make you feel? And there was no answer, okay, this was what she showed me, because in fact they feel nothing. All she could talk about were the social relations orbiting around this or that photograph, where it had been displayed, if she even remembered that. So it was a prop actually only to show me that she had high taste, and I found the same in every so-called art critic, art fag, every apparent critic of contemporary art and so on. not say modern art because I think high modernist art can be very good. I've already named

a few, but things like Orphism and Futurism are very good. I don't know how they cannot affect you in a strong way. But as for contemporary art scenes, right now it's mostly this, what I just said. And of course the perfect fit for it is the self-referential, ironic, smirky, entirely fake social art, I call it social art, known as postmodernism, which I think nothing to do with art as understood in history. It's not meant to be enjoyed that way. It's not meant to be enjoyed at all in itself. It's simply a symbol and prop for a certain kind of person's social and career ambitions. Do you know the ketchup dance? I may have played it on this show before. Okay, look, I play for you the ketchup dance. I play for

you ketchup dance now. Okay, how's this feel? For me, it's a very good feel. I like primal energy, primal chimp energy. It is chimp energy, literally. It's a war of monkeys and such. It's especially effective if you use big sound system or good earphone and get worked up for it. The sound overwhelm you. So I remember a long time ago I saw this advertised as some kind of performance and I say, wow, they're doing ketchup dance that's going to be intense. I call girl, she was nice girl, we go ketchup dance, and it was the weakest tea thing I'd ever seen. I was very embarrassed to show somebody else this. She must have thought I was complete faggot to show her this. But she understood, she say, these are polite kids, they will never show you true passion. At least she understood that.

They would be ashamed to show that. But as opposed to performance I just played for you, what I saw on stage, this was a long time ago, was slow tempo, they had weak voices, and they were all wearing black in the performance. I saw like black turtleneck when you're supposed to be naked or in loincloths, it's a fight between demons and monkeys or something like this. But they're wearing this black turtleneck, okay? And they had this choreography, this very sprightly jokey dance, just doing literal gay style hand motions and dance moves. It was one of the most offensive things I'd ever seen. And to be fair, as this dance itself was apparently reimagined in its original form, I mean, it was reimagined by a Dutch anthropologist or explorer in 1920s, I think,

something like this. I don't remember detail, but that's okay. I mean, the pre-1950s explorers to these areas were committed, you know, often committed primitivists. They believed in it. So even if it's not authentic Indonesian culture, it might be even better. It might be Nietzschean-inspired Dionysian primitivism. The same type of energy that went into Orf, Carmina Burana, or the antics of D'Annunzio with his balcony salute, and then some other historical things that copied D'Annunzio and that and so on. And then you see later Lenny Riefenstahl's glorification of the Sudanese Nuba, the tribesmen, beautiful people, one of the biggest fuck yous to zog ever, right? That's right, fuck you faggots, we're going to keep doing this under other forms. That's Lenny Riefenstahl

Sadie. So anyway, right? So it's in this original form, the ketchup dance is primal Dionysian experience of terror, of nature. But this performance I saw, this is why I go on this tangent because it was basically suburban and upper middle class faggot urban kids. And that's where the faggotry comes from, by the way, in American culture. It's not the upper class, it's the upper middle class. It's the people like Zukerface and so on. But these really just smirky, completely pissed-dry, weakly ironic kids and their ironic gay director who decided to... I mean, I know what they were thinking, right? They must have heard this original performance I played for you, or something that was equally primal, but they decided, oh no, we can't appear that way in front of an audience.

We can't appear too forceful in our passions. We can't show any genuine passion or be possessed by these vitalistic spirits. That's cringe. This is the key to all postmodern art and postmodern humor. We have to smirk and we have to signal to the audience that we are in on it with them, with the audience that is, that we are both, us and the audience, we're above it all. We're above this silly material and it would just be so low class and ungenteel to show any direct engagement with it. We're all just sharing a social relationship here and a nice cultural night, cultural night, it's culture night, you know, where the same, you see, Hasid's takes their daughters to Symphony Hall for acculturation night, like where the art acts like, you know, if we were ladies doing coffee, reading night,

and there are art books on the coffee table, and we're having tea and coffee, you know, coffee and cake, and we're having polite conversation, just lightly touching on this name in art and that name lightly touching. And that's basically what postmodern art is, okay? It's a polite lady's reading night. It's art reduced to status aspiration prop for an upper middle class that pretends to swallow now a whole culture, to distort it into... So the humor on Saturday Night Live in the last few years, if you've had the patience to watch it, I mean, Saturday Night Live had been bad for a long while, but the humor just got intolerable and unwatchable in recent years because its premise was the same. Other comedians like Larry David, many others, they were willing to make fools of themselves

to let themselves be possessed by various buffoonish things. But the comedians on SNL recently, it was again the premise, the conspiracy of the comedian with the audience above the matter at hand. And when you're that concerned with asserting your superiority and showing how you're cool and untouched compared to what you're supposed to show, that kills humor also, just as postmodernism kills any art. It's not even an intellectual or artistic movement or set of movements or theories, it's just a gang sign for the brutal social self-assertion of a faggot striver class. So anyway, I will be right back to talk about David Lynch and Mulholland Drive in particular, because this movie, it may be absurdist, it may be disjointed, but it's entirely different in both intenations.

It's an overwhelming nightmare. I will be right back. I believe David Lynch is an obsessed man, and this is good. Some of my favorite movies are story of obsession, like Taxi Driver, I like Nightcrawler. I think if we make movies soon, because not much budget is required for something like this, maybe we do this kind. And it doesn't need to have any overt right-wing message, nothing one of the third-rate movie critics would ever notice. Nothing they would notice in any case. No overt, ham-handed message. But in some way, merely depicting obsession that reaches beyond everyday life is almost transgressive right-wing act today because, and this is topic for another time, but so much of leftist program depends on a cult of normalization. Nothing matters where you

accept everything done to you. Why does it matter to you, man? That's weird. Why you care? So much of it depend on having a totally desiccated spirit. But this for another time. I think Lynch has some of the best villains who, how can you put it, they embrace full the romance of obsession. Frank Booth from Blue Velvet is like this. Is Frank Booth the voice of the uprising of white ethnic America? Ha ha. Do you like this? But whatever he is, so he is a villain, but you can tell that in that movie Blue Velvet he is entrancing for the main character because Dennis Hopper in that movie, he is a man haunted by demonic and otherworldly memories and desires. He's not just a criminal, he's half-psychotic, prophetic man apart somehow. And in Mulholland Drive, there is not really

such central villain, but it's a story of a blonde and a brunette and a mystery of them trying to find this amnesiac brunette's identity. And you know, I will take this next long two segments to talk it, what I think about it, what I think is correct interpretation, because there used to be blogs and forums, entire long blogs, forums dedicated to debating the meaning of Mulholland Drive when it came out, because it is very disjointed movie. And yet, while I think this interesting and it's inevitable question, because brain tried to figure out what's going on, and this is invited by Lynch, but I think any final resolution to the mystery would be fatal. And the main interpretation that occurs to you, maybe as soon as first viewing, and which

seems to be accepted online and by critics, is that first half is the wish-fulfillment dream of the blonde girl in the second half, Diane Selvin, the failed actress. But even if this is true, which unfortunately it might be, because in this case I say unfortunately to turn into a rather cheap, hem-handed psychodrama, but I don't think in the end it truly takes away from what make movie great. What make movie great isn't the resolution of the mystery one way or another, or you know, does it have a point. It's instead the most amazing ode to the menace of mystery in film, the equivalent mood from kiriko, mystery and melancholy of a street, look this up, but in film. So evocative of lost memories, and especially in the first half, Hollywood and Los Angeles

as a beautiful dream with unspoken menace in the shadows, is one of the, I say one of, but I hardly know another movie that's so exhilarating and thriving toward openness to wonder of life, and of, as Nietzsche would say, showing the world being deep, the earth is deep. And when it's replaced by Nightmare of Second Half, and maybe true character of what you've been watching is revealed, you don't still, you don't feel awoken or feel tawdry everyday reality intruding. It becomes one of those painful but strangely beautiful nightmares that's so intense, it's purgative of emotion. You know, I found some people, they do this. I don't take valerian, for example, the herb, because it gives me very twisted dreams, murderous dreams even. It's awful, with emotions so exaggerated that...

But apparently some people take a dose of valerian on purpose before sleep, So in order to purge emotions, and I think they may be right, if something is bothering you, if you're anxious or upset and you don't know why, you consider doing this maybe, it's refreshing to wake up screaming nightmare. Or even if it doesn't get to that, something, even a lie, may be revealed to you, but your emotions will be refreshed because it doesn't matter if it is a lie or a ridiculous point, The intensity of this drug will lead to a purgation of whatever emotion has been building up in you. No one knows how Valerian works, by the way, it's an odd, a very odd drug. Sometimes it doesn't work to put you to sleep at all. It excites you and sometimes it's the only thing that calms you down when nothing else

can work. If you get a whole herb variety, even whole food makes a very plain, cheap variety. It works, it has to smell. It doesn't smell so good. Some people, I don't want to say what it smells like, but it smells like apothecary of maybe witch from Hensel and Gretel. But regarding Mulholland Drive, it's a great movie and will remain so regardless of any meaning, in fact in spite of it. Even if, as I believe, the dream interpretation, oh it was a dream, I mean that's Hollywood cliché, right, but even if the dream interpretation is a form of misdirection by Lynch, which I think it is, but even if it has a more profound so-called meaning, its greatness is aside from that. It's in the mood, the experience he immediately creates and sustains without interruption

in the intense world-opening power of its images and mystery and in its humor. And there's a sequence of scenes from, let's say, the point where Betty and Rita, the blonde and the brunette in the first half, right, there's a sequence of scenes from around the the time when Rita first decides that it will be Rita by seeing the poster in the bathroom of Rita Hayworth in the shower scene. So from that time, the sequence of scenes centering around you, if you think the bumbling hitman who wrestles with the obese woman, which is very funny on its own, in the movie director who get his ass kicked by Billy Ray Cyrus and so on, those sequence of scenes around that, even Steve Saylor say it may be one of most perfect sequence of scenes Hollywood ever put out.

And this is made all the more amazing by the fact that there's something seriously wrong with every single one of these scenes. Bad absurd dialogue, absurd situation, camera focusing on weird thing like during the famous espresso spitting scene in the boardroom and so on. In every case there's something out of place, exaggerated, seemingly unnecessary that could have been taken out of a bad soap opera maybe and yet it still works. Sailor is Right, it's probably the most engrossing sequence in any cinema I can remember. It just absorbs your attention like nothing else. And I will return to eulogy appreciation of this movie in a bit, but I know many of you are eager to hear what I think right interpretations, so I will begin to do some of this now.

So remember, movie was originally meant, I think, 13-part miniseries for ABC, and it was scrapped Because, get this, by the way, there's a good article on how it was made and the controversy around it, article from 1999. I think New Yorker, which is a mid-width magazine, but they sometimes have good informations like this or the Grigory Perelman article I mentioned before. But otherwise New Yorker is one of the worst mid-width publications. But it was going to be a big show on television and there was a lot of excitement around it. and Disney and ABC, they spent seven million dollars on just the pilot and the production of pilot, and apparently everyone in Hollywood at the time was begging to be allowed to be

on its writing staff, but then ABC sued, so the two hour plus pilot, and they focus grouped it and they chickened out. I have actually friends from Hollywood who give me information sometimes, but he's very elusive. He disappeared long period. I was going to talk to him about production of Mulholland Drive before doing this episode, but we are not able to get in touch recent. If I talk to him and add more to story, I'll see on future episode. Maybe he come to talk even. Who knows? But basically it was going to be a big series, the big series in late 1990s or 2000s. By the way, I think there is other series with similar feel from early 1990s called Wild Palms. It's a wonderful idea, very bad executed, but the mood is sometimes right.

I think James Belushi is acting in it, if I remember right. But it's very topical, you could say, topical for our time, because it's about virtual reality and a cult that begin to take over Los Angeles and the world by using virtual reality and a drug that goes along with it and could have been wonderful show but unfortunately just not done right but this was going to be the big big series of late 1990s or 2000 and it got killed because Lynch wouldn't compromise enough on making it Normie friendly. And there's a very funny part of the article. I will read for you now from this article. So this is after they canceled the show. ABC went with Krentz's argument that they needed to switch to a younger audience, but not with his show, namely Mulholland Drive.

The article is explaining now why they canceled it, or actually what happened instead, what they replaced it with. Instead, its strategy for going young on Thursdays was to air a new drama called Wasteland at 9 p.m. Wasteland was created by Kevin Williamson, and no, this is not the Kevin Williamson, let's kill Whitey from National Review online, it's a different Kevin. This is the writer responsible for Scream movies and the WB's popular show Dawson's Creek. At the New Amsterdam Theatre, Tarsis rolled a few minutes of tape that showed six 20-somethings living in New York cities, wearing black knit shirts, gliding around to the Smash Mouth song All Star, and contriving to have sex with one another. In a week year for new shows, Wasteland is distinguished chiefly by its similarity

to such other new Friends clones as Fox's Time of Your Life, five twenty-somethings in New York, the WB's DC, five twenty-somethings in Washington, the WB's Jack and Jill, six twenty-somethings in New York, and NBC's Cold Feet, three twenty-somethings couples, somewhere or other, you know. So this, by the way, the show that replaced Mulholland Drive, of Waste Land, I think it got cancelled after three shows. And there are many other funny parts in this article, such as they didn't like that Lynch was showing people smoking in a positive way. Oh no, at ABC we don't like to endorse smoking, so they tried to make him cut that. He wanted to have a tight shot on some dog shit in a certain scene. They say, no, this is not appropriate. We don't want to have dog shit and so on.

But the point is they're all timorous people afraid of losing investment money because they put it through middle America focus groups and fat normies, they say they don't like it, which this is a little bit different from recent model, right, or people on the right, the post-Trump right, they have this model of a virtuous popular audience that is put upon by pedophile homo-elites who just want to cram tranny education and anti-racism hour down their throats, but I think both can be true. In other words, you do have the tranny-loving elites and so forth and the anti-white propaganda, which is horrible more so than anything you found in communist propaganda. I mean, David Wolf, Law and Order is just communist propaganda plus. It's hate, whitey on every episode, Law and Order.

But on the other hand, trusting in the strength of so-called salt of the earth normal people to withstand this propaganda, you lose because, okay, they may not want Tranny, Netflix, Mulatta, After Screw special, but they do want Friends. They just love Friends, which, you know, Friends so revolted me when I saw one or two episode friends that they said, I understand Al-Qaeda, I understand, I want to join Al-Qaeda. Who wants to live like this? But Al-Qaeda on the other hand are hick idiots also in the end. So it was a television series that was cancelled, and so what remained was the pilot which was butchered by ABC, and I think, thankfully, you know, it never aired, the butchered version of Mulholland Drive, you know.

And you could say it suffered from this process of it being a miniseries and then having to be turned into a movie, because then it's necessarily something patched together, maybe at the last minute. But you can look at it another way. He say later, so I'm reading now from his response to an interview, I think Filmmaker magazine. David Lynch is talking now, Mulholland Drive started as an open-ended pilot. At a certain point, ABC saw that open-ended pilot and hated it. That could have been seen as a huge negative, but in fact it was a blessing. About a year later, Studio Canal is a French company, bought it from all the parties that were involved from the beginning, and it came time for me to really commit to making it into a feature movie.

I had zero idea how I was going to do that, so it was a time of high anxiety. One night I sat down, the ideas came in, and it was the most beautiful experience. Everything was seen from a different angle, everything was then restructured and we did additional shooting. Now looking back I see that the film always wanted to be this way, it just took this strange beginning to cause it to be what it is. So this might explain some of the disjointed nature of movie, but a good artist can remake anything and rework a partial something into something else that's complete and beautiful. So I don't think this takes away from movie, it's testament to his high talent. There's something else Lynch says in this interview that should be remembered in any commentary of Mulholland Drive.

So the interviewer asks him, this is I think your first of your movies to in some way address movie making as a subject. Did your experience making films in Hollywood or in casting your lead actresses inspire this movie? And listen of what Lynch answers. He says, it had nothing to do with it. I can relate to it, but it didn't come from personal experience. Sunset Boulevard is one of my favorite films. It's about Hollywood, but not the whole truth of Hollywood. The ideas in Mulholland Drive lead us into a section of the world of Hollywood, but the characters are not representational of all actors. They are just these particular actors or directors or whatever, and so you've got to be really careful." Right, okay, so he's against, I like this very much because he's against actually symbolic

art, representational in the sense that it's an allegory, that the character stands for something else, some other type in a kind of explicit metaphorical sense. I'm very much against allegorical art and symbolic art. I think when you, for example, are a painter and you want the figures you're painting to stand in for something else, this woman represents justice with a capital J and it's being violated by, okay, whatever, you get it. But the point with any such art is that the connection the viewer makes has to be made rationally by a different type of part of brain than perceives something visually, or in music than perceives something musically, or even in a novel where you perceive by means of the images and action of the plot.

So really what you're doing is making your own art subservient to political commentary or philosophical commentary which takes place verbally and is often not that profound when it's this kind of allegorical thing, oh this stands for that. So whatever message you want to send I think it has to be perceived and understood by qualities inherent in medium you're using and it has to be seen through the senses immediately. And in case of cinema I say before it should be visually and in mood and dream emotion but not so much through speech. I just hate the description, when you see movie critics play the movie as word-loving or book-loving, you know it's pretentious crap that tries to play to the vanities of said critics.

Again, I think this is problem of postmodern art, it replaces direct aesthetic understanding of ideas and apprehension of the immediate truth. It replaces this with social, rational, verbal discourse, it's a huge failure of art. So anyway, Lynch is thankfully against this, and the other thing you should know from production of Mulholland Drive is that its editor, Mary Sweeney, I think, who was married to Lynch for a while, and she made a whole thing in interviews about how the movie is a marvel of editing, and I think she got a word for this, it doesn't matter. But she say the editing, excuse me, not the editing, the final cut of movie depended on something called virtual editing. She doesn't really elaborate, but she say it was very important.

And I think this is key to understand this movie, I mean its secret interpretation and so on, because I think again the interpretation generally given, which is that the first half is a dream of the Naomi Watts character, from the second half I think is wrong. And again this view may become naturally on first viewing, but only because of Hollyweird conditioning to look for dream explanations, which besides turning it into heavy-handed psychodrama is old cliché, oh it was a dream. But the arguments for it being a dream are there, so I'll just quickly say them. In the first half, the character Rita is beautiful, but totally dependent on Betty. In the second half, it's Diane, in other words, in reality, it's Diane who's dependent on Camilla Rhodes, played by the same two actresses.

In the first half, the director gets cuckolded and then beaten up by Billy Ray Cyrus. But in the second half, he's the one who cuckolds, in a sense, Diane, the Naomi Watts character, taking away her lover. In the first half, this same director notices Betty and wants to hire her, but he can't because of a vast mob conspiracy that forces his hand to hire one Camilla, who in this case is played by Melissa George, not Laura Herring. Presumably, this all happens why? Because Diane Selwyn, the Naomi Watts character from the second half is having these series of wish fulfilment. In reality she's dependent but she dreams of herself as totally in control, you could say, or determining the fate of Camilla Rhodes, who is this amnesiac who doesn't even know who she is.

other elements I'm counting for you as, again, other forms of wish fulfilment. And Camilla Rhodes, the person who appears by that name in the dream part, in the dream first half, presumably to protect the illusion of the purity of their love affair, whereas in the second half that actress who plays Camilla Rhodes in the dream, the actress Melissa George, is actually an unknown interloper who's a rival for, you know, her lover's affection. at a particularly humiliating point for the Naomi Watts character. Again, this all makes sense if you watch the movie or recently watched it. But I will quickly run through this compelling evidence for Dream Explanation. During this humiliating dinner party in the second half,

there is a scene with Espresso Cup where Naomi Watts, now playing Diane Selwyn, she's under extreme stress and humiliation of losing her lover and also having the failure of her career become so clear. And at this moment, she notices a man. He's played by Angelo Badalamenti, who's actually, by the way, the score musician for this movie and other Lynch movies too. And of course, in the first dream part, he appears associated with a coffee cup also, in the famous espresso scene, because of, presumably under the dream explanation, the negative association that Diane had in reality, where she's holding the espresso cup and she sees this man at the moment where her lover, Camilla, announced her engagement to the director that snubbed her in real life also and so forth.

The dream interpretation, as you can see, makes sense both at macro and micro detail level, it seems. And there are other details too. On the other hand, there are many things that don't fit with this explanation. First of all, I will just say the things that don't fit generally. If it's a dream, you could make the case just as easily is that the dream is Camilla's and not Diane's. And if you look into it more closely, this appears even more so. It then becomes a story not about guilt over a murder. That's the dream explanation, right? She feels guilt because she ordered a hit on her lover who spurned her, and she's a failed actress, and she kills the successful actress, right? But seen from the other point of view that it's Camilla's and not Diane's dream,

It's a story not about guilt over a murder, for which there's actually no evidence that it happened, by the way. In either scenario, there's no evidence that any murder took place. But instead it becomes a story about guilt of causing suicide of a lover, which obviously is something that did happen. And in this case, if you know you remember, the movie starts with Rita on Mulholland Drive. and all the wonderful scenes that follow happen every time Rita goes to sleep or covers her eyes. And Betty only appears after Rita and disappears before Rita, I mean in the first half, and many other such things. But anyway, as I say, there are many things that don't fit the dream explanation at all, whichever way you look at it.

I start from some speculative general thing and then I will go to specific scenes. So first of all, the dream would turn the Hollywood mob scenario into a paranoid fantasy of Diane's to explain her own failure. So you'd have to believe that Lynch is saying the Hollywood machinations and mob machines that miscast the director's movie, right, the mob and the weird cowboy demonic character, they put a lot of pressure on this hipster director played by Justin Theroux, and it It is this conspiracy that denies Betty the role and that leads to the famous, this is the girl scene, you know. You'd have to believe that this is all made up by Diane. So the dream explanation then exonerates Hollywood. And I don't think this can be so. I don't think this would have been Lynch's intention.

And furthermore, this may be more speculative, but dreams don't actually work like that, where you don't recognize your own name, at least as far as I know. I'd like to have maybe a genuine Jungian psychiatrist analyze this as a dream state. I don't think it would add up. Whether you think it's Diane's dream or Camilla's, neither one has a moment of recognition of their own name. And this, despite the fact that Lynch goes out of his way to make, for example, The Waitress in the Winkies, right, she looks a lot like Diane in the second half of the movie. But more important, character does not work this way. character of Diane isn't the same as the character of Betty. They are totally different natures, totally different characters. Dreams don't work this way. You don't imagine, you may

actually forget your name and you may imagine yourself as somebody else, yes, unless, again I add, unless your name is brought up during the dream by the way. So you may imagine yourself as someone else entirely or as a third person protagonist in a movie type dream. I've had such dreams. But your character, who you are, never changes. And I think this is important because you may have heard of Bunuel, he is Spanish surrealist filmmaker. His last movie is called That Obscure Object of Desire, and famously you have a case there where the same character is played by two different actresses, and no explanation is given, and no, it's not a dream. And in Mulholland Drive, you have this same device, the same character

played by two actresses, in this case Melissa George and Laura Herring, they're both playing the character Camilla Rhodes in the first and second half of the movies, but also the same actress Naomi Watts is playing two different characters, Betty and Diane, who are so vastly different from each other that I think it's really one of the all-time best acting feats I've ever seen in this movie and it's yet another shame and a disgrace that she did not win Best Actress Oscar that year, but it's to be expected. But I think this old surrealist device is a much better clue to understand what's going on in the movie. I think for listeners and for myself, let's take a quick break again. And I return, I will try to show you with more specific scene evidence, concrete evidences

of why I don't think dream explanation is true in the end, and many other things I will say on this movie. I will be right back. Yes, I'm back and I continue with some things that don't fit Dream explanation Mulholland Drive. There are some replacement you can say of actors and some other thing in first half versus second half of movie and they don't really make sense in this Dream scenario business which I think is a misdirection. One of most significant has to do with Adam Kesher, the director played by Justin through. It has to do with his assistant. In the first half movie, you can say roughly first half, his assistant is Cynthia. And there's an odd scene that seems unrelated to the whole dream explanation. What is this weird scene with Cynthia where she's seductively

inviting Adam to stay with her at her place while he's in hiding? And by the way, I've done this. I've hidden downtown cheap hotel. It's very easy to do in some cities. Most cities in the world you can do. Buenos Aires is excellent to do. They are an anonymous, almost hotel. It's harder to do in America. They always try to ask you for ID and credit card but I strongly recommend you find hole in wall hotel in your city where you can hide with cash on moment notice. But okay, so anyway, there is this scene, right, and this assistant Cynthia is inviting the director to her place and he calls her little doggy and refuses. He say, run along little doggy. Right, she's his assistant, but in second half of movie, the supposed reality under the dream explanation, right,

in the second half of movie in any case, it's this man Wilkins who's Adam Kesher's assistant. He's at the party. Cynthia's not at the party, he's at the party. Now this seemed to be important clue, why? This is unexplainable by dream scenario. It just seems like something irrelevant added in, but it's not irrelevant. David Lynch goes out of his way to show you it's not irrelevant in various visual and other cues. He emphasizes it. If you remember in first half, Coco yells about the dog shit droppings in the yard. What does she yell? She says, Wilkins, Wilkins, take care of that dog or something like this. She say, Wilkins this and that. Okay, so Wilkins lives at Coco's apartments and he is Adam Kesher's assistant. But in fact, what you've thought of as the first half of the movie,

which is, I think, actually an incorrect categorization, it's incorrect to understand this movie, I think, as having a first and second half. I'll say more in a moment. But in that first half so-called, it's Cynthia who's Adam Kesher's assistant, and she probably, in that scene you're seeing where she's talking to the director, she lives at Coco's because that's where Adam Kesher's assistant lives. And that's why Kesher does not want to go stay with her. He calls her little doggy, right, because she has a dog. And she lives in apartments where his mother lives, so he doesn't want to be there, right? So in that particular scene, she's this and so forth. But in the scene you saw earlier, which you thought of as still part of the first half

of the movie, it's Wilkins that Coco is screaming about. And at the end of the movie, it's Wilkins who's the assistant, not Cynthia. Okay, so what explains this? Before I tell you, I will note a few further other oddities that don't really fit the dream explanation you might have sensed or heard of. Betty come to Hollywood because she won Jitterbug contest. But the contest is for teenagers, and she is a 30-year-old actress. When you see her in second half, she's definitely playing a 30-year-old woman. Her character is 30-year-old. But in the first half, you have a 30-year-old actress, Naomi Watts, playing a teenager. It's obvious she's an adolescent from many things, not just jitterbug. The movie she auditions for, right? Why would an older man be going to jail because of their

affair in that mock scene they auditioned? It's because she's an adolescent. And he also, aside from when they're playacting, he treats her as an adolescent outside of their acting. So this should be some already big clue. There's something seriously off with the timing, let's say in this movie, right, because the second half you actually have a movie shown in flashbacks, but the flashbacks cover maybe a decade, whereas in the first half it covered three days, and in the first half Betty is teenager. And many have also noted the props are all wrong. You think it's the 1990s or the 2000s because Adam Kesher, the director driving a Porsche convertible, a new model, and he's using hands-free phone, but the car tailgating him is 1950s

okay, that's not enough, but many, many of the props you see are from different time, different era, from decades past. The phones that are used, the fridge that you see, many of the poster, healthy enzymes, many things. Anyway, before I try to give provisional other explanation I will keep going. There are very odd discontinuities and oddities in the first half that are not explainable by dream scenario or not explainable very easily at all. In In the beginning, you have the red-haired woman who's leaving the apartment complex. She looks toward the apartment complex in one scene as Laura Herring's character is heading in, okay? But she doesn't do anything. She doesn't seem to think it's odd that this person who had been under the brush sleeping is running into the apartment complex.

I don't know. Is that odd? Laura, more significant and incontestable proof, I give you now, Laura Haring's character at this very beginning, when she is descending from Mulholland Drive toward Los Angeles after car accident, in one scene there's blood on one side of face or head, but in other scene during this, another cut during this same scene, there is not that blood. In one scene, there's a bowl of fruit on table as the person you think is Aunt Ruth is leaving the apartment. When Betty arrives, there is a bowl of fruit on the table. But there's no bowl of fruit when Laura Herring character is hiding under that same table and this supposed Aunt Ruth is coming to retrieve her keys. Lynch goes out of his way to show this. There are also other things.

The most significant, in my opinion, is the boardroom scene, the butler. Every time the butler goes out of the room to get espresso or whatever, it's actually a different butler. Lynch goes out of his way to show you this. He zooms in on the hands, so you can see in one scene he has a pimple in one hand. But in the other scene or cut, I'm not movie fag, I don't really know technical words, but you understand what I'm trying to say. One time he come into room, he's got pimple on hand, the camera focuses on that specifically. In the next one, the camera focuses on it and there's no pimple on hand. And these things would only be explainable under a dream scenario in the most vague and general way, as in, oh, it's a dream, so he's just trying to show that zany and discontinuous like a dream.

In the same way that TV newscasters, when Assad does something and they don't want to explain that he might be a rational actor and might be doing something for a reason, They say, oh, he's a crazy tyrant, you can't look into why he does things, he's just a crazy tyrant, don't look into it, he's crazy. Is this kind of very general hand-wavy explanation, but the specific and obsessive focus of these scenes tell you it's not, it's not that, there must be a particular explanation. In the article I mentioned, Lynch really tried to go with studio over the dog poop thing in particular, the dog shit, he demanded a tight shot of it. That's true, pure autism, but why is he demanding that? He was adamant not to take that out of the pilot. He was

adamant, I think, not take out the opening scenes where Laura Herring is descending, even though the studio complains, they say this is too slow. I mean, can you believe That was one of the big reasons they cancelled the show on ABC because they thought the initial car wreck scene and the way she mysteriously descends down the hill, that it was too slow. So you know, it's okay, I'll tell you what I think the more convincing explanation is for the weirdness as well as these discontinuities and there are other ones too and so forth. None of it is a dream at all, there is no scene in the movie that's a dream. What you are seeing are different drafts of a movie that some of the characters in Mulholland Drive are making. So think a movie within a movie, right?

This is a device you see in theaters sometime. In Hamlet, famously, there is a play within a play. But imagine you have a movie about shooting a movie, which Mulholland Drive certainly is. It's about Hollywood actresses and there are multiple shooting movies in the movie. I mean, you see it right there. That's what it is. Then imagine that the movie director, for whatever reason, edits what you see in such a way that you don't see the springs, you don't see those scenes introduced, right? Because if it's in a theater, you see them setting up the play within a play and you see that. But if it's a movie, you don't really have a way to see that unless they're explicitly introduced. If the director just decides to cut to a scene from the movie that the characters in the

are shooting with no announcement or explanation, you'd have no way of knowing, right? You'd have to figure it out. And I think that what's going on in Mulholland Drive and when Mary Sweeney is the editor, when she talks about virtual editing and starts dropping all kinds of hints about the editing, and I think maybe this movie's work of genius editing in that scenes from different drafts of movies that are made in Hollywood over at least a decade, at least one decade period, these scenes are cleverly spliced to create many optical illusions so that your brain assumes you see one thing, but it's really not. When the character you think is Aunt Ruth, but who is really in a previous draft of the movie, probably Louise Bonner, and she's looking in and you're seeing the camera cut to Laura

Herring running into the apartment complex, the reason the red-haired woman does not notice is because you're seeing two separate drafts, but that's spliced, so you think it's one. So in the beginning, you're actually seeing two different characters played by the same actors. This ends from Mulholland Drive. And the apartment in which one of them ends up is not the same as where Betty ends up. It's from a different movie. In the movie where Laura Herring, first character, ends up under the table without the fruit bowl, That is not Entruth's apartment, that is Louise Bonner's apartment in a previous draft. And you don't really see the character known as Rita, really you don't see her at all in this movie you're seeing Mulholland Drive, you don't see her at all until the shower

scene, until she's actually named. And in many other cases where the names of the characters are not explicitly stated, you have no direct way of knowing if it's Rita or Betty you're seeing or actually if it's Diane or Camilla. So the most ambitious version of this explanation, and it's not my own, it belongs to a literal internet schizophrenic by the name Plisk and Boon, I will link his blog later, although it's basically unreadable. He has this basic idea that I think he gets the basic idea right and he has a lot of evidence of the kind I've been mentioning, but the blog itself is unreadable schizophrenia. But the most ambitious version understands the central story you are seeing in the first have as actually entirely an optical illusion of editing.

In other words, that it's compound drafts of two other movies that are spliced and edited in a way to create this illusion of a new story for the viewer. I don't know if I would go this far, but this ingenious explanation, in any case, whatever the details, it may be wrong or off here, I think it's the true general explanation or close to it. It's in keeping with what Lynch does in some of his other movies. For example, Inland Empire is also about the making of a movie, wherein during the process of making a movie, a murder is discovered in a previous production of it in Europe, whatever that means, he leaves it vague, a murder is discovered. And the central character of Inland Empire, Laura Dern, she's the actress playing the

central character, but she herself in the movie is an actress, possibly schizophrenic, becomes so possessed by the character she's supposed to play that she starts to confuse the movie for reality. She can no longer distinguish between what's in movie and what's real. And I think if you want to go with a materialist so-called explanation or a psychological one, this is the more plausible one, that an actress, because of mental disease or in this case brain injury, right, Laura Herring character has brain injury because of that accident, And that she can no longer distinguish between a character she's supposed to play and reality. And this agrees with the lines and concerns about her loss of identity and no longer knowing who she is. And here I will add my own innovations.

I don't think with Lynch actually you can rely on psychological or materialist explanations. I don't think you can rule out the supernatural. Because ideas of possession and the supernatural are obviously there in his other work. For example, Twin Peaks and so on, and the full supernatural meaning of Twin Peaks appears especially in the recent season he did for Showtime, I think he did it. It's wonderful television, it's the best season of Twin Peaks, you should watch this. But it reveals fully that David Lynch is not a psychologist interested in psychodrama and dreams and so on, he is genuine believer in the supernatural, and in beings he does not called gods or demons, but who are obviously coming through apertures and possessing people in our world.

And in Inland Empire, there is also very much supernatural element with beings, demons or gods if you want, who in the beginning of Inland Empire, one of them goes to clearly their leader and asks for an opening. He says, I need an opening, and he has possessed a religious, evangelical face. I need an opening. it's very clear the mechanism where the opening is they come into the world possessing actors who foolishly chose to play a part in a script where the part, the character is demonic conjuring, you see. So I believe in this. I mean, imagine if you are an occult group and you could teach a screenwriter literally to conjure a being through an aperture. So what I mean is that the actor playing the part ritualistically, the character is written

so that the actor would come to be inhabited by this character who is a... OK, so I'll say what I think. It has to remain vague for now, but what I think Holland Drive is about, because even if you agree with the compound draft and different drafts and movie with a movie-spliced explanation, these are after all just devices, and it'd be interesting, but again, I'm much against, well, what does this mean? What is overarching reason behind movie? Because it doesn't really change your experience of it. What matters is how these devices affect the direct, immediate, immersive experience of watching the movie. So this is the only thing that matters. And so I'll tell you what a certain frog told me. I won't name him, he doesn't want to be named anymore. But some of you may remember him.

He's an early member of frog Twitter group Proper. He's a very nice visual artist himself. In fact, we might work together soon on some cartoons of power. Some cartoons of power. But he didn't even want to speculate about what is overarching meaning in terms of dreams and such, or this character is a metaphor for that, that would be the lowest kind. But he just told me plainly, the sense I got from it is of the old destroying, corrupting, vampirizing the young. That's what Mulholland Drive is about. Not in any explanation sense, but you see it concretely in terms of idea exposed to your immediate perceptive understanding. It's funny because America, unlike every other, let's say, European nation in history, America has divided capitals.

Usually in the nations the capital is the financial, political, and cultural center in one, but in America they are divided between New York, D.C., and Los Angeles with Chicago as possibly a fourth capital. So the usual tale in European literature about the rise of a young man, the Bildungsroman type model like Stendhal's red and the black, he moved from countryside to capital. And also the same thing happened in my favorite story, Belle Amie. But in America, where would he move? A story about Washington DC would just be very bleak. DC is really Hollywood for ugly people. New York maybe would have to get title America effective capital for this purpose. But Los Angeles and Hollywood is the location of America's most glamorous cultural output, right?

It's the prime export of America to come from there. And you see how politicians and others want to court attention and social relation of celebrities. You know, Bezos, richest man in the world, but all he wants to do with money is to hang with celebrities from Hollywood, like a stricken, celebrity-stricken TikTok high school kid. I don't defend this. It's lame, but it's what it is. America's most glamorous cultural center is Hollywood, maybe still is. But all the Bildungsroman type story about moving to Hollywood are dystopian, which makes me wonder about this. Is this really so, or is it an attack by elites from other United States cultural centers, New York literary elite, attacking Hollywood? I don't know. It's interesting for another time.

something I was thinking, does it need to be this way? But that's for another time. But I think this frog, though, is right about Mulholland Drive, the movie, the old seeking to tarnish youth and suck out all the life of youth. I think in the end, this is feeling movie leaves you with. And if you look at other movies that inspired David Lynch, you see even more so, it must be the central concern here. For example, Sunset Boulevard is very much the model, the model for Mulholland Drive, right? First of all, they're parallel to each other, I think, in Los Angeles, and Laura Herring's character descends from Mulholland Drive to Sunset Boulevard in opening scenes. So what is Sunset Boulevard? It's story of a failed or struggling screenwriter who is on run from creditors or whatever police

seeking to repossess his car. So he ends up by chance in this really old mansion on Sunset Boulevard, overgrown with vines, almost like Dracula castle or Hansel and Gretel house in forest. And inside is this witch Norma Desmond, a totally over-the-top performance. She has been international movie star from silent era, whose career was killed by arrival of talkies or movies with talk sound. So she retreats into this ghost fantasy world of her past, where she replays her glory days over and over again, and the people, the only people she invites into her house are the undead, they are themselves ghosts from Hollywood past. I think Buster Keaton, if I don't confuse his, they come to play bridge in black-tie events and so forth. So she lays her hooks into the screenwriter

that happened to seek refuge in her castle, and she turns him into a kept man. And that's the story. But really it's a story of vampirism of the young by the old, because there is a subplot in movie where screenwriter meets this younger woman who is a reader of scripts, they begin a kind of sort of affair and they make plans to write the movies themselves and this aspect of the... there is a scene where he insists, I need to get out of here, I need to be with people my own age. But of course what happens is that through various BPD intrigues, Norma Desmond, again the aging actress in this castle in Sunset Boulevard, she ruins the prospects of these young people's relationships, their love affairs.

She kills one of the last chances this screenwriter had to make his own career, and finally she kills him when he tries to get away. And her recompense is, yes, okay, it's implied that she gets arrested at the end. But you don't see that. What you see actually is her preening yet again finally before the cameras, as if she has returned to the glory of her fame from before. So really, what is actually shown in Sunset Boulevard is she has left this younger man a dried husk literally killed him, stolen his life essence, and now enjoys time again in the light of fame. And there are old Sunset Boulevard advertisement posters where this aspect is emphasized. A big picture of Norma Desmond, and right next to her, played by Gloria Swanson, whatever. But right next to her is the screenwriter

and his younger love interest next to one another. and there's a kind of canned grasping around the younger people, a kind of witch-like, vampiric, canned grasping, and this grasping hand, a big theme in Sunset Boulevard movie. There's another movie about this in a different way that was also important for David Lynch in making Mulholland Drive. This persona by Bergman is without a doubt a big inspiration for Lynch in general, but for Mulholland Drive. When I talk to Camille Paglia, I try to tell her this. I tell her, don't dismiss Mulholland Drive, which I think she had never watched at that point. I tell her, don't dismiss it, don't dismiss Lynch, just because you assume he's a post-modernist or a cerebral Borges-like jokester or this. Because some people could say the same

about the weirdness of Persona, which I know is your favorite movie. It's her favorite movie. And it's also one of my favorite movies. And in fact, there's a crucial scene, Mulholland Drive, It's very much consciously lifted out of persona. And the movies are really about the same thing, which is okay if... Excuse me. If I remember her explanation of persona, Paglia's, right? She says it's about vampirism and the mystery of character. A man's character is his demon, right? Okay, so this is what persona is about. The plot they... Not lately. Briefly, the plot is this. It's an actress. She goes into a catatonic state. This is persona now. She stops speaking. And she goes to a remote location on a beach where she is taken care of by a nurse.

And the nurse is sort of kind of a petty character. She's plain and plucky, and the actress is silent, mysterious, femme fatale type. And what takes place is this what makes movie into a vitalistic example of high modernism, despite all the, you could say there's postmodern signs, self-referential about movie making and so on. It's not post-modern gameplay. This is why Paglia likes it, and rightly so. Because the encounter between these two women becomes a tonic struggle of will. And one character overpowering and replacing another. As the character of the silent actress begins to overpower that of the nurse, or you could make the case, some people could make the case even for the opposite. But regardless, the two characters enter into a vampiric struggle with each other.

And it is this tonic, passionate conflict of character. It's very operatic. There's one scene where they are next to each other and look into a mirror and have One has totally replaced the other right and that scene is very much so in Mulholland Drive Exactly lifted out of persona where Rita is made to look like Betty and the two of them This is just before they engage in coitus and lesbian coitus You see but it is the dark-haired femme fatale Rita who ends up but vampirizing the blonde innocent Betty. Right, think for a moment the progression as you see the movie naively aside from any dreams or drafts of explanations and so forth. Just watching movie directly naively chronologically. You get blonde plucky innocent girl come from Deep River Ontario to Hollywood to try make it.

She meet half catatonic femme fatale, tries to help her, gets warned that this person is trouble. happens the femme fatale has this weird occult blue key with her right and it opens a gate and a fissure on the other end sometime later the life is all drained out of the young and the older femme fatale has used it all up the life essence she has sucked all the life out of the younger girl and used it to re-establish herself her fame and her position in life so i believe the movie could very well be about occult practices in holly weird whereby the life force of the young who flock to that city is sucked out, it's repurposed in this way, even to the point where it reestablishes the temporal timeline of other people's lives, let me put it that way.

Remember in the Ninth Gate, if you've seen this movie by Polanski, and Polanski was very acquainted with satanic element of, let's say, that society in the same way that Stanley Kubrick was, for which reason he was killed. But if you see Ninth Gate, toward the end, Boris Balkan, the satanist, the man who sends, I think it's Johnny Depp, the Johnny Depp character to find the lost satanic books. So the smart satanist Boris Balkan, played I think by Frank Langella, and he's at this castle and he's insulting the Eyes Wide Shut style party, the party of debauched roleplaying Epstein Satanists right and he says you disgrace the master with these orgies of aging flesh You are role players. You have no idea what this book is about what it can actually do. He say what can it do?

Absolute power to determine my own destiny, which I assume from other things in movie. He means literally to change Timelines and change fate of his life and on a smaller scale you have same deal made the rosemary's baby where an actor is willing to give his wife to Satan to advance his career. But this whole speculation, what remains in Mulholland Drive on the other hand, all these supernatural speculations aside, is very much, what remains indisputably, is very much the vampirism of the gerontocracy. The wasting and destruction of the dreams of youth by the old and decrepit. To the point where this rather obviously hits your face in closing scenes, right? Where Naomi Watts' character commits suicide. Why? Because she's tormented by demonic images of the two old people

who had greeted her when she arrived in Los Angeles. And that itself is an image of absolute malice and evil, you know, when they're in the limousine and smile to each other in the car. And the men behind Winky, the black-faced demon, who they say openly he is behind it all, out of whose box these two demonic old decrepit entities emerged to lead her to death, after other alts had already desiccated her body and spirit. But this black-faced demon, an image of total depravity, total disease, rotting of the flesh, used total vampirism of Hollywood, disgusting old Weinstein and Epstein types on the young, you see. But this isn't ultimately a moral lesson or attack in movie. It's not something that you could be solved by a political or social activism.

It's shown instead as what I call the eternal longhouse in the book. the eternal scheming vampiric old seeking to sully and suck dry all youth out of world. And I think Mulholland Drive tells this timeless tale of mankind in a very naive way, full of longing, which is why, aside from any psychological or other explanations, it acts so powerfully on emotion and to immerse you in this catonic ageless struggle, the naivety of youth and its corruption by the old, that you remember this yourself maybe like in half light from world behind this one. So we discuss before Lynch's own clues, it could be misdirection, but I think it cannot and must not ever have an explanation. The series of clues in a detective story that goes nowhere, there must be room for thought to go on.

And actually I think this key to all my favorite art and cinema, I think it's hiding someone like Tarkovsky. He gives maximum space for transcendental inscrutability, not just in the movie as a whole, but in extremely long takes that hypnotize and stimulate deep mystery. Marx says something once about how in art, when you can see what the artist is doing, it's like spring sticking out of a sofa. So Tarantino, for example, is spring sticking out of everywhere, but not in Lynch, or in Tarkovsky, Bunuel, or Kurosawa, or Teshigahara. meaning in Mulholland Drive would be fatal to it. It's to me the darkest of dark mysteries, the most soul-extinguishing, chest-piercing anxiety dream ever in American cinema. It is just enough of a plot, you have to

work for it, which brings your attention to making progress, oh I can follow this thread, but you follow it only into a thick blackness and evil beyond, of empty night roads only lit up as far as your headlights swallowing up. The Ariadne's thread disappears into black highway infinity of pain this movie is a great attack on explanation demanders I believe my favorite part is in credits the ice-cold humming ambient soundtrack without any comfort it erases everything forever I am scared of this movie I scared of what it conjures until next time BAP out