It's even funnier if you know the broader context of the argument he's drawing on and just sort of bungling because he probably read an article about it in some magazine once and is riffing off his drug and coma addled memory: it's basically this weird evopsych nonsense about "every culture independently invented dragons because they're a sort of primal imprint of sources of danger" that's basically trying to "explain" something that's actually the result of dumbshit 19th century eurocentric anthropologists calling any sort of mythical creature that had representations that were anything even remotely like european dragon art "dragons."

Like it's taking a premise that's not even true to begin with, and then coming up with a dumbshit mystic explanation that makes it real instead of just chauvinist dipshittery, and then he's also just completely bungling retelling this quack theory and presenting his own fractured understanding of someone else's absolute nonsense as some sort of profound truth.