Continuing, although Samuel L. Jackson, portraying the film's heartless black killer Jules,

delivered that speech with memorable aplomb, it was both sacrilegious and inauthentically racial.

He was posing as a profane preacher and Jules omits the Amen conclusion.

Yet hipster moviegoers embraced it, mistaking it for an actual biblical quote, which Hegsef did not,

because they believed in its vengeful

ethos, the violent sadism that became Tarantino's trademark.

Okay, I'm very interested following the train of logic here, because Armid White has not

disowned his earlier opinion.

He's still anti-pulp fiction.

Is that what I'm getting here?

He's accusing the movie of like hipster nihilism or whatever. And he says that the audience also misread it in some way.

It's possible, although it may be that he's so upset about people making fun of Pete Hegseth that his view of Tarantino and Pulp Fiction is just sort of immaterial at this point.

Okay. Well, keep going. I want to see where this goes. I have not read the conclusion. Because what I'm getting is Pete Hagseth was in the right to quote this. That we can take that as a given. And so I think much depends on what he thinks about Pulp Fiction, how he believes Pete Hegseth has reinterpreted it.

Well, right.

And how we, the listeners also receive this.

Well, right.

Like, imagine if the argument is that, well, Pete Hegseth was channeling hipster nihilism.

And in doing so, he was actually satirizing the chest beating militarism that he himself

embodies as the newly titled Secretary of War.

I think not.

Viewers of Tarantino's only military set film and glorious bastards

realized that Tarantino evidently had no actual military experience.

...