well well well ,if it aint the same old LOTT \SALEM s LOTT/ that jesus complained about 2000 years ago the financiers and money lenders , those thieving old bastard fucking jews .money and accet asset grabing mother and granny fuckers .Fuck the western capitalist they are pure shit .jj7
@26Keano But due to the USA's position in the world market, they have to have many financial institutions like the Fed, since US economy going under will have a domino effect. It's really just the role of the US currency as de facto world currency that authorizes all that crap. But that role may be very necessary for the world market system to function.
It was essential for Ayn Rand to feel superior in some way physically or intellectually to exist in the capitalist society , so she came up with this super philosophy(intellectual) because physically she looked like half man half woman.(confused type!!!
@newamannu Why attempt an ad-homeneim attack on her gender identity when her philosophy has so many flaws in it already? It can't be applied well by ANYONE, let alone herself.
That is, he paints Clinton as some sort of "victim". Oh, pity Bill Clinton, he tried so hard to do the right thing, and they conned him! This is rubbish. Bill Clinton is and always has been just another one of those elites. Oh, if only Bill Clinton hadn't listen to those evil free-marketeers! Well, Bill Clinton didn't set the stage for the financial crisis through repeal of Glass-Steagall for any other reason other than his own incomeptence and/or corrupt motives. Come on ...
Any talk here about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act? Am I missing something? That was critical in setting the stage for our current quagmire. Curtis is an excellent filmmaker, but I fear he may have missed the mark ...
genuinely, who could believe any of her shit? apart from people needing to justify their own blatant selfishness by some form of perceivably deeper theoretical framing
ayn rand is a pretentious quasi academic and her ideologies, despite being conveniently smokescreened by verbosity and arbitrary references to morality, are obviously total junk
i dont see why people don't understand- 1000s of years ago when humans lived in small extended family tribes there genuinely was more consensus and the tribe still functioned. Of course there were chieftans and shamans etc. but because of the small number of people genuine direct democracy was possible and what would happen is eventually when the tribe got too big- the democracy would fail and the tribe would split forming 2 new tribes like an organism
WOW. This is UNHEARD OF. Oh I don't mean her philosophy, I mean the reporter. He actually asked her if he may interrupt now. What kind of reporter is that? I've never heard of an interviewer actually asking permission to interrupt someone. Today they just call the interviewee a Nazi and turn off their microphone.
Ayn Rand sets up a straw man version of altruism as the whole basis of her philosophy. Why is it that we EITHER have to sacrifice others to ourselves OR sacrifice ourselves for the sake of others? There have to be more options than that narrow, binary choice. Caring about others is important, but not to the sacrifice of yourself. And living your own life is important, but not at the cost of the destruction of the earth and society.
@evelynrose75 Rousseau said some things that I really agree with in his 'discourse on inequality' in the 17th century, and they still are true today. That we need some self-esteem, but the kind of ego-based self-esteem we have now is very harmful.
@anonymouslol She seems to lump a very wide variety of behaviours under the categories "altruism" or "egoism," which are limited to calculated "exchanges" of value. Following social norms, for example, isn't a directly person-to-person exchange, but it is something we do all the time because it makes a livable world - and we need others to be present with us to give meaning to our actions. We have an interest in others' well-being, but we don't need to always help them.
@mikem1234 Actually, if you read up on Auguste Comte, who coined the word "altruism", or the teachings of Jesus, particularly the camel going through the eye of a needle parable, she is spot on in her interpretation of "altruism". And Rand never claimed that we should sacrifice others to ourselves; in fact, quite the opposite- as John Galt said ...
@GoingGoingGalt I hear what she's saying and to me it sounds like "altruism is a rip off," and it is a "sacrifice of the self, with no expected gain in return." That is is essentially her argument, isn't it? What I'm saying is that altruistic behaviour isn't always at a cost to yourself, that it is self-fulfilling and brings unexpected rewards when reciprocal. It doesn't need to happen all the time, but having a sense that we can at the very least trust others is a good thing.
@mikem1234 Again, Auguste Comte, the man who thought up altruism, says exactly what Ayn Rand says (only with praise, not condemnation). Given that this is the man who thought up altruism, I think we should take his word over yours.
Rand never says you can't trust others. Where are you getting these statements? It sounds like one big straw man
@GoingGoingGalt Auguste Comte was the originator of altruism, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is altruistic in our culture agrees with his version of altruism, or even refers to it...ideas change. If Ayn Rand was specifically referring to his (early) formulation of altruism, and certain stereotypically altruistic behaviours I might be able to agree with her that that is bad. But it begs the question, is all the help we get really 'deserved'? Did we deserve it from our parents growing up?
@mikem1234 That's like saying that even though Marxism originated from Marx and Engels, not every Marxist has to agree with their version. That's total bullshit; if you disagree with some aspects, you form another viewpoint. That's where we get Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism. This isn't that hard to grasp. If you disagree with Comte on altruism, you represent a completely different idea.
@GoingGoingGalt Yeah, but what I was saying is that she implicitly includes things that are like, and related to altruism, such as social capital, class struggle and all forms of co-operation. She would deny that we owe something of ourselves to others - even dead others who set the intellectual climate for our ideas. I found it dishonest that Rand only acknowledged a debt to Aristotle when a lot of her philosophy can be traced back to earlier Enlightenment philosophers.
@mikem1234 Yes, but you see, she said she owed a debt to Aristotle because he was a philosopher that influenced her, so she is using many of his ideas. For the record, she does believe in intellectual property, so she would be for acknowledging the people who helped our world with their ideas (btw look up what Ayn Rand said about the Renaissance-she doesn't merely gloss over the Enlightenment philosophers).
She doesn't disagree with you, unless youre trying to say that we owe something...
@mikem1234 As for deserving something or not, John Galt says " Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No—if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes—if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. Suffering as such is not a value; only man's fight against suffering, is. "
@GoingGoingGalt Long story short, the social contract or exchange theory of altruism (or in general, of human sociality) is a very limited 'model' that reduces the complexities of real life - things we can't always quantify and account for in our actions - an either/or binary. Nietzsche, as I remember, said that 'egoism is noble' - can you tell me how this is different from Rand's view?
@mikem1234 I stand by my original statement calling you shockingly ignorant. Do you really think you can reduce Nietzsche's entire philosophy to a single sentence. I may disagree with him, but he probably deserves a little more than that. Look up Nietzsche-Ayn Rand Lexicon and click the first link to find out. I'm not sure what youre trying to prove with the first part of your statement.
@GoingGoingGalt No of course Nietzsche's philosophy is complex, I just took a line from an aphorism in Beyond Good and Evil that relates to the theme of egoism/altruism, but you have to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Genealogy of Morals, Gay Science, and so on to really make sense of his views. What I meant with the first part is that Ayn Rand seems to have a liberal social contract theory of how we are social that I don't agree with because it sees us as basically anti-social.
@mikem1234 As to being anti social, again John Galt says "Man is a social animal, but not in the same sense as the mystics think of him." Hardly anti social I must say.
@mikem1234 (continued)... Rational men are "men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal's lust, men who neither make sacrifice nor accept them". However I don't imagine you criticizing Nietzsche, who Rand rejected specifically because he believed exactly what you accuse Rand of believing.
@mikem1234 exactly what I was thinking throughout all the Ayn Rand segments. Her philosophy was extremist. Any form of extremism is a mistake and is easily misleading if you don't think critically about what's being fed to you. A life of balance (which is what you're saying) is the best way to live.
@jazbek She says under some circumstances - when you are sure the person deserves your help and when you can be sure, also paradoxically, that helping them will bring a benefit to yourself - it is okay to be altruistic, but she always privileges egoism from the very beginning. She doesn't ask: how is the ego and personality formed through social relations? Because for her theory to work, it can't be. The balance is you are both an 'I' (subject) and a 'me' (object): search "George Herbert Mead."
@ManlySlut Imo Adam Curtis' perspective is very far from Peter Joseph and Jacques Fresco's (Zeitgeist, Venus Project) because that is entirely based on cybernetics and ecology. But they share a criticism of the status quo, obviously.
@mikem1234 Simply put, shall we continue to persue our own self interest and ignore our dependency of the environment, or should we all work collectively for a better world?
@ManlySlut No, we shouldn't. I don't think Adam Curtis was saying he believes in total free will, but there is a degree of free will in the human species that the rest of nature doesn't have. We have to eat to live, but we can choose what we eat and how we make it in a way that's totally unique. We need to drink water, but we can purify it and add it to other things - we're not completely dependent. What do you think of my comment above?
@mikem1234 Curtis' perspective is the free market. I would argue that a free market can never work. Free market implies selling water, food, air. The very things we need to survive. Selling land in order to give people somewhere to live, rather than collectively owning the land and thinking of new places to live (underground, underwater, space). Spending too much time on this game of made up credit is wasting away our finite Earth.
@ManlySlut do you notice that when a child or an adult is given something without the sacriface it takes to work to earn the money or whatever the cost is for an object they desire that they do not take care of said object as well as they would if they had earned it. If you expect people to take care of something that they do look at or feel that it is their's they will unconsciously say when it comes to the care of it that it is x's job or y's turn instead of their's
@mikeoli I don't believe that's because of ownership. If I gave you something I worked my life on to create that was completely unique, or a precious gemstone that no one else knew about, or even a pineapple if there were only 10 in existence left, you wouldn't treat it poorly would you?
Treatment is directly proportional to value, whether that's determined on the market, money, or traditional value -- inversely proportionate to abundance.
We treat air and water very poorly. Is it a problem?
@ManlySlut I don't think Curtis is a free-marketer at all. He critiques the psychological effects of it on us - how we consume vast amounts because of excessive advertising, instead of considering issues like social class that really affect us. That's his argument in 'Century of the Self.' And in 'The Take' he criticizes the liberal view of freedom and markets used by Isiah Berlin. Pretty much the entire film is a deconstruction of market ideology - that we are all utility-maximizing machines.
@ManlySlut Yeah, haha. Slip of the mind. The Take is a very different documentary about how a group of Argentinian workers make use of an abandoned factory after they are laid off. The Trap is all about how French Revolution values of equality and fraternity come into conflict with the other one - freedom, as envisioned by free-market ideologists. They actually depend on a strong state to get going and sustain their activities, since private property is artificial, not natural.
@mikem1234 Yeah, I really liked the trap because it's two ideologies that use the same language, yet have completely contradicting philosophies. The real deception is the lie of freedom itself!
As soon as you accept a philosophy as a maxim, you have missed the point of philosophy. Philosophy, like science, is an endeavour which should not lead to ABSOLUTE answers, merely more questions. This is where Rand failed. Once you believe you have the answers, this can only lead to disaster
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."
@mustang607, there is a major difference between a primal bartering society and an explicitly exchange based society. As the fundamentals of economics laid out by Aristotle understood, there is a major difference between a cash mediated society of exchange for sharing produced goods and one where money is made by parasitically gaining from others' productive activities. The post-industrial society of consumerist exchange has destroyed the potential for true civic virtue.
100 years ago a man invented wireless electricity which would be broadcast through the air over 30 miles. Why, a century later, are we only seeing it in gadgets and gimmicks? Because there was no money to be made. Why provide a service which any man or woman can have for free? Money is a means to an end. Others are willing to do what you tell them to because of it. Money is power over those that think they need it. Don't expect the advent of computers or robots to change that...
I note the elequent poerty of the editing but it also has the effect of making the serious banal and Alan doesn't help by making this in to a short march to Foucault's down beat theory of modernity destorying enligtenment. Some of us are still struggling to change the world Adam's showed us M L King Jr's observation that he and many other are "mal-adjusted" to the use and pratice of aribtary power. Adam's has given up but for some us we have no choice but to fight back and keep fighting.
@IrishClaudius the build up of his message is slow, but it's not his personal resignation that is the message at all! that would be a poor documentary indeed.
@IrishClaudius the build up of his message is slow, but it's not his personal resignation that is the message at all! that would be a poor documentary indeed.
@themower read the opening message of the last part of this series ; "we gave up on thinking we can change the world" NOT TRUE he has backed it up with an interview in the london Guradian which said that the same thing about Egypt - which is wholly wong the reviolutionry DID change the world .
@themowe Adam's statement is clear enough Why No One Believes You Can Change The World For The Better Anymore” by the end this is NOT revoked. But The Arab Spring disproves his theory.
consider how the unannounced and uninstructed ping-pong game illustrates natures tendency to organize through paths of least resistance. the mass may be made up of individuals but when placed within a context for action, "a game if you will", a very narrow band of behavior is initiated effortlessly, and often without question or critical interpretation on the actor's parts. a range of specific actions are easily defined and elicited by placing a multitude of actors in a "situation". interwebzARG
Yet another mercilessly irresponsible hatchet job on Rand. This documentary barely touches on the substance of her ideas, instead resorting to the standard dosage of misrepresentation, overgeneralization and of course character assasination.
I find it interesting and ironic that you are using cyber utopian ideas when that is exactly what the film maker is predominately arguing against in these three films. The Internet can not overcome human nature, in a straight battle between the two the Internet will lose. I doubt we will ever over come our need for social structure and hierarchy as that is the system our species evolved from/with, we are highly social and have a need for dominance/leadership.
it's the other way around, where the pastor milks the poor congregation for every penny he can.
Conclusion of the Matter
The big problem is that with all these false prophets exploiting Christianity to get rich. The Truth of God's Word is being brushed aside, distorted and forgotten altogether. People will say anything these days to get rich, filthy rich. The popular trend of our day is to talk about spirituality without actually being Spiritual. and to offer hope without ?Foundation?
goodbye building committee! Committees are dangerous because they give people power to clip the wings of the preacher, afflict him and split churches right down the middle. I've seen it too many times. The Authority of the New Testament Church is the Bible. If men are in control, then you have a cult. Jesus said that the greatest amongst you will be your servant. Hence, the pastor ought to be the biggest servant of the congregation, sacrificial giving to help his people. In most churches it's
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
-Margaret Mead
"This Process by which The IMF/International MAFIA Federation; and The Private World Banks is so Simple that the Mind is Repelled"
If I took over a pastorate, the first thing I'd do is get rid of all church committees, especially the pulpit committee. Temporary committees are ok, like a building committee; but when the building is completed, goodby
A religion that comes of thought, and study, and deliberate conviction, sticks best. The revivalized convert who is scared in the direction of heaven because he sees hell yawn suddenly behind him, not only regains confidence when his scare is over, but is ashamed of himself for being scared, and often becomes more hopelessly and malignantly wicked than he was before.
- Letter San Francisco Alta California, November 15,1868
The altar cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next. - Notebook, 1898
@niklasbastholmhansen ... are actually doing the decision making or retain power after the fact. for however much mediaspace they occupy and however much power they like to appear they have, i do not think that politicians are a very independently potent group in washington, but rather, the (international) economic and financial structures of the world
I agree, but then we agree on the problem: Centralization of power will inevitably lead to corruption, and corruption works best when the other side of the transaction has a lot of money: Introducing...Bankers. I really did enjoy this video. Thanks for the chat!
@niklasbastholmhansen ... and, however, though it may be the case that the chinese government is in charge of the chinese economy, specifically chinese investment strategies, in china, i do not feel that it is the same case in the us. and, just because it was us "politicians" (when, in fact, i think it would be more correct to say us government) may have given the power to tax income to itself and may have created the fed, *almost 100 years ago*, does not mean that politicians today, or then,
@niklasbastholmhansen ... not disagree with the assertion that the electoral system has no legitimacy insofar as it is representative of The People. What makes sense, then (if we are analyzing in terms of power structures), is that some other institution holds the power that politicians are purported to have. witness the portrayal of the lewinsky scandal in the video against the backdrop of the looming financial crisis in asia.
I have enjoyed the first part of this video. However it is deeply flawed, at the very core. the problem is not with financial markets and the power they had the problem(and still the problem) was(is) the fact that politicians have this power int he first place and can distribute this power to the bankers. HOW EFFIN DIFFICULT IS IT TO UNDERSTAND??? The problem is and has always been with politicians trying to run the world, they suffer from a fatal conceit...
@niklasbastholmhansen dude i think you're missing the point completely there is an essential premise here of politicians NOT having the power that the economic governance structure ("bankers") does
Hi Connorrowe100. yes but who gave them the power?? you are right, the bankers have it but the interesting question is how they got the power, not the very well-established fact that they have it. They have the power because of 2 fundamental reasons:
1. The gov. has created a bank controlled monopoly in the production of currency. Currency is one of the two sides in every transaction. They have gotten the power to set the value of the currency and the power to distribute it.
You see, the interesting part of the movie(the reason why I really enjoyed it) is how the movie very clearly shows the fact that planning never works. Endless bubbles and problems everywhere as a result of politicians seeking to pick the winners, favor their banker donors and banker friends. The problems you see in the movie did not arise from bankers, and certainly not from computers....The problem was because of politicians. Notice how perfectly organized people were
Respond to this video... in the anarchistic example of organization in the form of the computer game. No instructions, no governing body, just incentives(I want my team to win) and a system(the game) to follow your incentives. This is a perfect illustration of the balance and harmony that decentralization brings, with or without computers. Decentralization taken to the extreme is anarchy. The fundamental error is their lack of understanding that they actually made a great movie.
@niklasbastholmhansen In part 2 or part 3 (I don't remember) he covers some attempts in the 60's to create community's with no politics and no leadership and how they all broke down because leadership, domineering and politics are inescapable parts of human social interaction. I found it pretty telling that in the pong computer game it shows in the film you can clearly hear certain individuals in the crown taking on leadership roles and shouting out the correct colour for the rest to follow...
I will have not watched them yet. I will however make a prediction for you. The experiments were probably made within a state since every piece of land is claimed by a state, rendering the test completely useless as a comparison. On your second point, you are right about domineering, powerplay, and politics having been with humanity forever. Anarchism is to me is not a preferred organization of society since as you say it has so far always evolved back into a state.. Anarchism
find the information they need to educate themselves. Think about Google now, and what that invention has done for us. THink about wikipedia. Think about what we will have access to in 3o years, probably completely free...
Information will be so readily available that propaganda is impossible. It is already impossible with many of us. We see right through it. They will find that anarchism works perfectly in your private life, and there is a lot of litterature suggesting
@styot Anarchism is a development stage in human history. At some point in time(probably hundreds of years from now) people will start to realize that granting politicians power over us does not solve any problems, it systematically creates problems that it then claims to be the solution for. This development stage requires that people become educated and not misinformed as they are today. It can not be brought about throw policy, it will happen slowly as people find it easier and easier to
Decentralization of power works, because it is impossible to manage a society. It is impossible. It simply can not be done. If you think you can, you will create bubbles and inefficiencies, especially if you make use of computers. Using computers to help you do something which is fundamentally a bad idea will just make you more efficient in making bad decisions, making the bubbles EVEN bigger. Solution: Planning society does not work, anarchy does. Peace!
@niklasbastholmhansen i agree with you that decentralization/anarchy/whatever you want to call it is a solution, however i disagree with you as to who the potential enemies are to such a position, namely that it is the politicians that wield power. think about who the politicians are and what they represent, and try to find a person who seriously believes that they are much more than a farce or scandal waiting to happen. if you are for anarchy and complete decentralization then i feel you would
who knew satan would actually be green? the worlds financial communities interests are served over the interest of the whole, how could that possibly go wrong? it seems so logical that the weak and disadvantaged should die off for the sake weak and advantaged. because that's the only difference and, it's partially biological. so greed is good and fuck your neighbor before he fucks you. what's the # for a suicide hotline? or will that call be answered with some of that sweet Rand philosophy. ahh!
"selfishness and greed were responsible for the financial crisis of the 1930s"
Stopped watching there. Trying to link Rands philosophy with the great depression is fallacious. As we all know it was failure of the federal reserve (A monopoly propped by the state) that caused it.
If Ayn Rand had her way the Federal Reserve wouldn't have existed, hence there would have been no depression. So in fact you trying to link Ayn rands Ideas with the depression argues against your cause.
@mooeythemooseman It's a shame to judge it so harshly after only a few minutes, it's a master piece of documentary work. The third part "The Monkey In The Machine and the Machine in the Monkey" is especially good, an extremely thought provoking and informative hour of documentary work. I also think in this first part he gave a pretty fair account of Ayn Rand on the whole, he shows why her idea's on selfishness didn't work in her own life and why they don't work in society or economics.
THANK YOU THANK YOU :) I was feeling so miserable that I wouldnt get to see this unless I was in UK. THANK YOU for this I love you for uploading this :)
Holy shit! This guy at 5:55 is brainwashing students at Stanford!
Check out:
w w w. johnmccaskey. c o m
riethc 7 months ago
Comment removed
riethc 7 months ago
0:20 Play, rewind, play
Nice try, Curtis.
riethc 7 months ago
She was a sociopath. A moderate one, but still. But then decided her total self-absorption needed a philosophical justification.
Batmensch 7 months ago
"I will not die, it is the world that will end." 5:30
The stupidity of Rand's philosophy in a nutshell.
riethc 7 months ago
@riethc That's actually Greek philosophy, which is where she got it from.
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt Which philosopher?
riethc 7 months ago
@riethc Epicurus, but let me clarify, she was a paraphrasing him
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@riethc Also, in context, it's more poetic than it is philisophical
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
Comment removed
riethc 7 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt Is this the one?
“Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.”
riethc 7 months ago
@riethc Rough translation, but yes
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoingGoingGalt It seems to have a very different meaning from Rand's quote.
riethc 7 months ago
@riethc Not really, actually
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
The affair ending is funny because his leaving her was consistent with her world view but she didn't get it. Or maybe she did???
eotto2001 7 months ago
well well well ,if it aint the same old LOTT \SALEM s LOTT/ that jesus complained about 2000 years ago the financiers and money lenders , those thieving old bastard fucking jews .money and accet asset grabing mother and granny fuckers .Fuck the western capitalist they are pure shit .jj7
maddogj7 7 months ago
@26Keano But due to the USA's position in the world market, they have to have many financial institutions like the Fed, since US economy going under will have a domino effect. It's really just the role of the US currency as de facto world currency that authorizes all that crap. But that role may be very necessary for the world market system to function.
mikem1234 7 months ago
It was essential for Ayn Rand to feel superior in some way physically or intellectually to exist in the capitalist society , so she came up with this super philosophy(intellectual) because physically she looked like half man half woman.(confused type!!!
newamannu 7 months ago
Comment removed
mikem1234 7 months ago
Comment removed
mikem1234 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@newamannu Why attempt an ad-homeneim attack on her gender identity when her philosophy has so many flaws in it already? It can't be applied well by ANYONE, let alone herself.
mikem1234 7 months ago
23:52 First I laughed, then my laugh turned into a sob.
jxhensley 7 months ago 3
That is, he paints Clinton as some sort of "victim". Oh, pity Bill Clinton, he tried so hard to do the right thing, and they conned him! This is rubbish. Bill Clinton is and always has been just another one of those elites. Oh, if only Bill Clinton hadn't listen to those evil free-marketeers! Well, Bill Clinton didn't set the stage for the financial crisis through repeal of Glass-Steagall for any other reason other than his own incomeptence and/or corrupt motives. Come on ...
bsadewitz 7 months ago
Any talk here about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act? Am I missing something? That was critical in setting the stage for our current quagmire. Curtis is an excellent filmmaker, but I fear he may have missed the mark ...
bsadewitz 7 months ago
this woman's horrible ideas are the reason the economy fell apart in 2008, paulson, all the ceos, greenspan before him all objectivists
How'd that work out
override367 7 months ago
genuinely, who could believe any of her shit? apart from people needing to justify their own blatant selfishness by some form of perceivably deeper theoretical framing
swordsmoove 7 months ago
ayn rand is a pretentious quasi academic and her ideologies, despite being conveniently smokescreened by verbosity and arbitrary references to morality, are obviously total junk
swordsmoove 7 months ago
It is amazing how our hindsight allows us to pick out the fallacies in this documentary about what we now know of this "new economy"
TacticalCitySlicker 7 months ago
What is up with this video I us to could watch it on my ipone now it says it can't play on mobile bullshit.
Lady1991ist 7 months ago
i dont see why people don't understand- 1000s of years ago when humans lived in small extended family tribes there genuinely was more consensus and the tribe still functioned. Of course there were chieftans and shamans etc. but because of the small number of people genuine direct democracy was possible and what would happen is eventually when the tribe got too big- the democracy would fail and the tribe would split forming 2 new tribes like an organism
1x93cm 7 months ago 2
don't trust any logic that doesn't see we are spiritual beings, or thinks that earth is reality.
Preliminimal 8 months ago
@Preliminimal I could not agree more with what you wrote
mikeoli 8 months ago
@Preliminimal yes
Vertsk8er419 8 months ago
43:05 = Burial - Forgive <3
Zaenax 8 months ago
song at 58:03..anyone know?
206dam 8 months ago
Comment removed
206dam 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheTTBT 8 months ago
Check out the similarities between:
Kondratiev Winter (Nicholai Kondratiev - Supercycle")
Marshall McLuhan's "War and Peace in the Global Village"
2001 a Space Odyssey - Kubrick
and The 10 Thunder Portmanteau's from James Joyce's book Finnegan's Wake
43:06 - Brian Eno - An Ascent: this song is the closing titles in "traffic" and appears in "28 Days Later".
I listen to this while I work as a technician, stuffing Teddy Bears for Sony.
Go Flames
TheTTBT 8 months ago
behold: THE HIVE MIND!!!
117gotmilk 8 months ago
@117gotmilk excellent post
mikeoli 8 months ago
@mikeoli thats what i got out of this video :P
117gotmilk 8 months ago
3:30
WOW. This is UNHEARD OF. Oh I don't mean her philosophy, I mean the reporter. He actually asked her if he may interrupt now. What kind of reporter is that? I've never heard of an interviewer actually asking permission to interrupt someone. Today they just call the interviewee a Nazi and turn off their microphone.
TheRoomy 8 months ago
Her comments are a direct contradiction of JESUS, she is in my opinion wrong
mikeoli 8 months ago
i wish the sound effects weren't loaded.
PwyllHeadofAnnwn 8 months ago
Comment removed
nem700 8 months ago
Comment removed
nem700 8 months ago
whats that first song?
nem700 8 months ago
anyone know the song playing at 58:03??
206dam 8 months ago
Anyone know the song playing at 58:03?
206dam 8 months ago
Welp, the market HAS shaped America. It kinda sucks for us on the bottom.
Spartan256 8 months ago
Ayn Rand sets up a straw man version of altruism as the whole basis of her philosophy. Why is it that we EITHER have to sacrifice others to ourselves OR sacrifice ourselves for the sake of others? There have to be more options than that narrow, binary choice. Caring about others is important, but not to the sacrifice of yourself. And living your own life is important, but not at the cost of the destruction of the earth and society.
mikem1234 8 months ago 26
@mikem1234 Completely agree.
evelynrose75 8 months ago
@evelynrose75 Rousseau said some things that I really agree with in his 'discourse on inequality' in the 17th century, and they still are true today. That we need some self-esteem, but the kind of ego-based self-esteem we have now is very harmful.
mikem1234 8 months ago
@mikem1234 Finding the grey area between all ideologies would benefit society more than anything.
itsthearistocrat 8 months ago
@mikem1234 Ayn Rand is garbage.
anonymouslol 7 months ago
@anonymouslol She seems to lump a very wide variety of behaviours under the categories "altruism" or "egoism," which are limited to calculated "exchanges" of value. Following social norms, for example, isn't a directly person-to-person exchange, but it is something we do all the time because it makes a livable world - and we need others to be present with us to give meaning to our actions. We have an interest in others' well-being, but we don't need to always help them.
mikem1234 7 months ago
@mikem1234 Actually, if you read up on Auguste Comte, who coined the word "altruism", or the teachings of Jesus, particularly the camel going through the eye of a needle parable, she is spot on in her interpretation of "altruism". And Rand never claimed that we should sacrifice others to ourselves; in fact, quite the opposite- as John Galt said ...
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt I hear what she's saying and to me it sounds like "altruism is a rip off," and it is a "sacrifice of the self, with no expected gain in return." That is is essentially her argument, isn't it? What I'm saying is that altruistic behaviour isn't always at a cost to yourself, that it is self-fulfilling and brings unexpected rewards when reciprocal. It doesn't need to happen all the time, but having a sense that we can at the very least trust others is a good thing.
mikem1234 7 months ago
@mikem1234 Again, Auguste Comte, the man who thought up altruism, says exactly what Ayn Rand says (only with praise, not condemnation). Given that this is the man who thought up altruism, I think we should take his word over yours.
Rand never says you can't trust others. Where are you getting these statements? It sounds like one big straw man
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt Auguste Comte was the originator of altruism, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is altruistic in our culture agrees with his version of altruism, or even refers to it...ideas change. If Ayn Rand was specifically referring to his (early) formulation of altruism, and certain stereotypically altruistic behaviours I might be able to agree with her that that is bad. But it begs the question, is all the help we get really 'deserved'? Did we deserve it from our parents growing up?
mikem1234 7 months ago
@mikem1234 That's like saying that even though Marxism originated from Marx and Engels, not every Marxist has to agree with their version. That's total bullshit; if you disagree with some aspects, you form another viewpoint. That's where we get Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism. This isn't that hard to grasp. If you disagree with Comte on altruism, you represent a completely different idea.
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt Yeah, but what I was saying is that she implicitly includes things that are like, and related to altruism, such as social capital, class struggle and all forms of co-operation. She would deny that we owe something of ourselves to others - even dead others who set the intellectual climate for our ideas. I found it dishonest that Rand only acknowledged a debt to Aristotle when a lot of her philosophy can be traced back to earlier Enlightenment philosophers.
mikem1234 7 months ago
@mikem1234 Yes, but you see, she said she owed a debt to Aristotle because he was a philosopher that influenced her, so she is using many of his ideas. For the record, she does believe in intellectual property, so she would be for acknowledging the people who helped our world with their ideas (btw look up what Ayn Rand said about the Renaissance-she doesn't merely gloss over the Enlightenment philosophers).
She doesn't disagree with you, unless youre trying to say that we owe something...
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@mikem1234 ...to everyone, regardless of what they do or don't do for us. That's pretty absurd
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@mikem1234 As for deserving something or not, John Galt says " Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No—if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes—if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. Suffering as such is not a value; only man's fight against suffering, is. "
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt Long story short, the social contract or exchange theory of altruism (or in general, of human sociality) is a very limited 'model' that reduces the complexities of real life - things we can't always quantify and account for in our actions - an either/or binary. Nietzsche, as I remember, said that 'egoism is noble' - can you tell me how this is different from Rand's view?
mikem1234 7 months ago
@mikem1234 I stand by my original statement calling you shockingly ignorant. Do you really think you can reduce Nietzsche's entire philosophy to a single sentence. I may disagree with him, but he probably deserves a little more than that. Look up Nietzsche-Ayn Rand Lexicon and click the first link to find out. I'm not sure what youre trying to prove with the first part of your statement.
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt No of course Nietzsche's philosophy is complex, I just took a line from an aphorism in Beyond Good and Evil that relates to the theme of egoism/altruism, but you have to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Genealogy of Morals, Gay Science, and so on to really make sense of his views. What I meant with the first part is that Ayn Rand seems to have a liberal social contract theory of how we are social that I don't agree with because it sees us as basically anti-social.
mikem1234 7 months ago
@mikem1234 As to being anti social, again John Galt says "Man is a social animal, but not in the same sense as the mystics think of him." Hardly anti social I must say.
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@mikem1234 (continued)... Rational men are "men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal's lust, men who neither make sacrifice nor accept them". However I don't imagine you criticizing Nietzsche, who Rand rejected specifically because he believed exactly what you accuse Rand of believing.
You are shockingly ignorant
GoingGoingGalt 7 months ago
@mikem1234 exactly what I was thinking throughout all the Ayn Rand segments. Her philosophy was extremist. Any form of extremism is a mistake and is easily misleading if you don't think critically about what's being fed to you. A life of balance (which is what you're saying) is the best way to live.
jazbek 7 months ago
@jazbek She says under some circumstances - when you are sure the person deserves your help and when you can be sure, also paradoxically, that helping them will bring a benefit to yourself - it is okay to be altruistic, but she always privileges egoism from the very beginning. She doesn't ask: how is the ego and personality formed through social relations? Because for her theory to work, it can't be. The balance is you are both an 'I' (subject) and a 'me' (object): search "George Herbert Mead."
mikem1234 7 months ago
Comment removed
mikem1234 8 months ago
No alternative? Zeitgeist!!
ManlySlut 8 months ago
@ManlySlut Imo Adam Curtis' perspective is very far from Peter Joseph and Jacques Fresco's (Zeitgeist, Venus Project) because that is entirely based on cybernetics and ecology. But they share a criticism of the status quo, obviously.
mikem1234 8 months ago
@mikem1234 Simply put, shall we continue to persue our own self interest and ignore our dependency of the environment, or should we all work collectively for a better world?
ManlySlut 8 months ago
@ManlySlut No, we shouldn't. I don't think Adam Curtis was saying he believes in total free will, but there is a degree of free will in the human species that the rest of nature doesn't have. We have to eat to live, but we can choose what we eat and how we make it in a way that's totally unique. We need to drink water, but we can purify it and add it to other things - we're not completely dependent. What do you think of my comment above?
mikem1234 8 months ago
@mikem1234 Curtis' perspective is the free market. I would argue that a free market can never work. Free market implies selling water, food, air. The very things we need to survive. Selling land in order to give people somewhere to live, rather than collectively owning the land and thinking of new places to live (underground, underwater, space). Spending too much time on this game of made up credit is wasting away our finite Earth.
ManlySlut 8 months ago
@ManlySlut what is equally owned is equally treated poorly
mikeoli 8 months ago
@mikeoli I don't understand your statement.
ManlySlut 8 months ago
@ManlySlut do you notice that when a child or an adult is given something without the sacriface it takes to work to earn the money or whatever the cost is for an object they desire that they do not take care of said object as well as they would if they had earned it. If you expect people to take care of something that they do look at or feel that it is their's they will unconsciously say when it comes to the care of it that it is x's job or y's turn instead of their's
mikeoli 8 months ago
@mikeoli I don't believe that's because of ownership. If I gave you something I worked my life on to create that was completely unique, or a precious gemstone that no one else knew about, or even a pineapple if there were only 10 in existence left, you wouldn't treat it poorly would you?
Treatment is directly proportional to value, whether that's determined on the market, money, or traditional value -- inversely proportionate to abundance.
We treat air and water very poorly. Is it a problem?
ManlySlut 8 months ago
@ManlySlut I don't think Curtis is a free-marketer at all. He critiques the psychological effects of it on us - how we consume vast amounts because of excessive advertising, instead of considering issues like social class that really affect us. That's his argument in 'Century of the Self.' And in 'The Take' he criticizes the liberal view of freedom and markets used by Isiah Berlin. Pretty much the entire film is a deconstruction of market ideology - that we are all utility-maximizing machines.
mikem1234 8 months ago
@mikem1234 I think you mean 'The Trap' but I'll see it again nonetheless.
The way I see it, humans are symbiotic with nature, the machine within the monkey, like he says. So we should know what really matters, not money.
ManlySlut 8 months ago
@ManlySlut Yeah, haha. Slip of the mind. The Take is a very different documentary about how a group of Argentinian workers make use of an abandoned factory after they are laid off. The Trap is all about how French Revolution values of equality and fraternity come into conflict with the other one - freedom, as envisioned by free-market ideologists. They actually depend on a strong state to get going and sustain their activities, since private property is artificial, not natural.
mikem1234 8 months ago
@mikem1234 Yeah, I really liked the trap because it's two ideologies that use the same language, yet have completely contradicting philosophies. The real deception is the lie of freedom itself!
ManlySlut 7 months ago
As soon as you accept a philosophy as a maxim, you have missed the point of philosophy. Philosophy, like science, is an endeavour which should not lead to ABSOLUTE answers, merely more questions. This is where Rand failed. Once you believe you have the answers, this can only lead to disaster
zoetrope35 8 months ago 3
oh boy oh boy oh boy new adam curtis
mmulconrey 8 months ago
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."
mustang607 8 months ago
@mustang607, there is a major difference between a primal bartering society and an explicitly exchange based society. As the fundamentals of economics laid out by Aristotle understood, there is a major difference between a cash mediated society of exchange for sharing produced goods and one where money is made by parasitically gaining from others' productive activities. The post-industrial society of consumerist exchange has destroyed the potential for true civic virtue.
brcx300 8 months ago
What a vile woman....
adehmark 8 months ago
The final minute of "Right Where It Belongs"- Nine Inch Nails, is used at 58:02
jzd19 8 months ago
42:00 very interesting. this is what will happen to europe, then the US
1989kirby 8 months ago
39.20: double speech... :(
Snowmurai 8 months ago
100 years ago a man invented wireless electricity which would be broadcast through the air over 30 miles. Why, a century later, are we only seeing it in gadgets and gimmicks? Because there was no money to be made. Why provide a service which any man or woman can have for free? Money is a means to an end. Others are willing to do what you tell them to because of it. Money is power over those that think they need it. Don't expect the advent of computers or robots to change that...
PROMuffy 8 months ago in playlist All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace 8
Comment removed
NOLA556 7 months ago
Oh, the irony of Rand complaining of alienation...
juikm 8 months ago
What is the name of the song at 24:20 ?
intherealmofsenses 8 months ago
@intherealmofsenses "Monkey 23" by The Kills.
Quarronaut 8 months ago
LOL @ Adam Curtis
/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg
Leobons 8 months ago
hill is so cute
z0rgz0rg 8 months ago
I note the elequent poerty of the editing but it also has the effect of making the serious banal and Alan doesn't help by making this in to a short march to Foucault's down beat theory of modernity destorying enligtenment. Some of us are still struggling to change the world Adam's showed us M L King Jr's observation that he and many other are "mal-adjusted" to the use and pratice of aribtary power. Adam's has given up but for some us we have no choice but to fight back and keep fighting.
IrishClaudius 8 months ago
@IrishClaudius the build up of his message is slow, but it's not his personal resignation that is the message at all! that would be a poor documentary indeed.
themower 8 months ago
@IrishClaudius the build up of his message is slow, but it's not his personal resignation that is the message at all! that would be a poor documentary indeed.
themower 8 months ago
@themower read the opening message of the last part of this series ; "we gave up on thinking we can change the world" NOT TRUE he has backed it up with an interview in the london Guradian which said that the same thing about Egypt - which is wholly wong the reviolutionry DID change the world .
IrishClaudius 7 months ago
@themowe Adam's statement is clear enough Why No One Believes You Can Change The World For The Better Anymore” by the end this is NOT revoked. But The Arab Spring disproves his theory.
IrishClaudius 7 months ago
@IrishClaudius Calling the game a little early, aren't you? The Arab Spring isn't quite wrapped up yet.
jxhensley 7 months ago 2
@jxhensley And it is also too early to say what the effcets of the french revolution will be...
IrishClaudius 7 months ago
The video ends abruptly. What's up with that?
frostellie 8 months ago
Comment removed
insidethegod 8 months ago
Comment removed
insidethegod 8 months ago
consider how the unannounced and uninstructed ping-pong game illustrates natures tendency to organize through paths of least resistance. the mass may be made up of individuals but when placed within a context for action, "a game if you will", a very narrow band of behavior is initiated effortlessly, and often without question or critical interpretation on the actor's parts. a range of specific actions are easily defined and elicited by placing a multitude of actors in a "situation". interwebzARG
insidethegod 8 months ago
Yet another mercilessly irresponsible hatchet job on Rand. This documentary barely touches on the substance of her ideas, instead resorting to the standard dosage of misrepresentation, overgeneralization and of course character assasination.
Fathoms2004 8 months ago
@Fathoms2004 Randroid I presume? You have no legitimate criticisms, just complaints of a "hatchet job".
enemy2k10 8 months ago
Read
Shock Wave Rider
Last and First Men
Decent interval.
Adam Curtis is an apologist and fraud.
The Internet was set up as a Kill Grid by Murderous Established Money Family Cartels.
Investigate the facts for yourself . . . you are being watched, modeled and harvested.
The western monetary cartels are holding the East Asian Economies hostage with earthquake weapons
911 was a controlled demolition by the western money interest first dropped in James Burke "Trigger Effect"
lazyfreedom98 8 months ago
28:40 that is not altruism! she was doing it so Ayn wouldn't have an affair with her husband!
Frettsy 8 months ago
@Frettsy No, she allowed her husband to leave her to make Ayn happy. It's the perfect definition of altruism.
ilovemingers 7 months ago
@ilovemingers that's not why she did it. she did it for some reason of her own self-interest.
Frettsy 7 months ago
The song that begins at 30:44... what is it??? Any one know???
kbone91 8 months ago
This docu-parody totally sums up my opinion: watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg
:D
FlyingDemons 8 months ago
Watching "The Loving Trap" is a a great supplement to this documentary.
Doublicon 8 months ago
I find it interesting and ironic that you are using cyber utopian ideas when that is exactly what the film maker is predominately arguing against in these three films. The Internet can not overcome human nature, in a straight battle between the two the Internet will lose. I doubt we will ever over come our need for social structure and hierarchy as that is the system our species evolved from/with, we are highly social and have a need for dominance/leadership.
styot 8 months ago
it's the other way around, where the pastor milks the poor congregation for every penny he can.
Conclusion of the Matter
The big problem is that with all these false prophets exploiting Christianity to get rich. The Truth of God's Word is being brushed aside, distorted and forgotten altogether. People will say anything these days to get rich, filthy rich. The popular trend of our day is to talk about spirituality without actually being Spiritual. and to offer hope without ?Foundation?
rclark23 8 months ago
goodbye building committee! Committees are dangerous because they give people power to clip the wings of the preacher, afflict him and split churches right down the middle. I've seen it too many times. The Authority of the New Testament Church is the Bible. If men are in control, then you have a cult. Jesus said that the greatest amongst you will be your servant. Hence, the pastor ought to be the biggest servant of the congregation, sacrificial giving to help his people. In most churches it's
rclark23 8 months ago
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
-Margaret Mead
"This Process by which The IMF/International MAFIA Federation; and The Private World Banks is so Simple that the Mind is Repelled"
If I took over a pastorate, the first thing I'd do is get rid of all church committees, especially the pulpit committee. Temporary committees are ok, like a building committee; but when the building is completed, goodby
rclark23 8 months ago
A religion that comes of thought, and study, and deliberate conviction, sticks best. The revivalized convert who is scared in the direction of heaven because he sees hell yawn suddenly behind him, not only regains confidence when his scare is over, but is ashamed of himself for being scared, and often becomes more hopelessly and malignantly wicked than he was before.
- Letter San Francisco Alta California, November 15,1868
The altar cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next. - Notebook, 1898
rclark23 8 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen ... are actually doing the decision making or retain power after the fact. for however much mediaspace they occupy and however much power they like to appear they have, i do not think that politicians are a very independently potent group in washington, but rather, the (international) economic and financial structures of the world
connorrowe100 8 months ago
@connorrowe100
I agree, but then we agree on the problem: Centralization of power will inevitably lead to corruption, and corruption works best when the other side of the transaction has a lot of money: Introducing...Bankers. I really did enjoy this video. Thanks for the chat!
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen ... and, however, though it may be the case that the chinese government is in charge of the chinese economy, specifically chinese investment strategies, in china, i do not feel that it is the same case in the us. and, just because it was us "politicians" (when, in fact, i think it would be more correct to say us government) may have given the power to tax income to itself and may have created the fed, *almost 100 years ago*, does not mean that politicians today, or then,
connorrowe100 8 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen ... not disagree with the assertion that the electoral system has no legitimacy insofar as it is representative of The People. What makes sense, then (if we are analyzing in terms of power structures), is that some other institution holds the power that politicians are purported to have. witness the portrayal of the lewinsky scandal in the video against the backdrop of the looming financial crisis in asia.
connorrowe100 8 months ago
Comment removed
connorrowe100 8 months ago
Comment removed
Porthbot 8 months ago
I have enjoyed the first part of this video. However it is deeply flawed, at the very core. the problem is not with financial markets and the power they had the problem(and still the problem) was(is) the fact that politicians have this power int he first place and can distribute this power to the bankers. HOW EFFIN DIFFICULT IS IT TO UNDERSTAND??? The problem is and has always been with politicians trying to run the world, they suffer from a fatal conceit...
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen dude i think you're missing the point completely there is an essential premise here of politicians NOT having the power that the economic governance structure ("bankers") does
connorrowe100 8 months ago
@connorrowe100
Hi Connorrowe100. yes but who gave them the power?? you are right, the bankers have it but the interesting question is how they got the power, not the very well-established fact that they have it. They have the power because of 2 fundamental reasons:
1. The gov. has created a bank controlled monopoly in the production of currency. Currency is one of the two sides in every transaction. They have gotten the power to set the value of the currency and the power to distribute it.
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
Respond to this video...
You see, the interesting part of the movie(the reason why I really enjoyed it) is how the movie very clearly shows the fact that planning never works. Endless bubbles and problems everywhere as a result of politicians seeking to pick the winners, favor their banker donors and banker friends. The problems you see in the movie did not arise from bankers, and certainly not from computers....The problem was because of politicians. Notice how perfectly organized people were
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
Respond to this video... in the anarchistic example of organization in the form of the computer game. No instructions, no governing body, just incentives(I want my team to win) and a system(the game) to follow your incentives. This is a perfect illustration of the balance and harmony that decentralization brings, with or without computers. Decentralization taken to the extreme is anarchy. The fundamental error is their lack of understanding that they actually made a great movie.
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen In part 2 or part 3 (I don't remember) he covers some attempts in the 60's to create community's with no politics and no leadership and how they all broke down because leadership, domineering and politics are inescapable parts of human social interaction. I found it pretty telling that in the pong computer game it shows in the film you can clearly hear certain individuals in the crown taking on leadership roles and shouting out the correct colour for the rest to follow...
styot 8 months ago
@styot
I will have not watched them yet. I will however make a prediction for you. The experiments were probably made within a state since every piece of land is claimed by a state, rendering the test completely useless as a comparison. On your second point, you are right about domineering, powerplay, and politics having been with humanity forever. Anarchism is to me is not a preferred organization of society since as you say it has so far always evolved back into a state.. Anarchism
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen
find the information they need to educate themselves. Think about Google now, and what that invention has done for us. THink about wikipedia. Think about what we will have access to in 3o years, probably completely free...
Information will be so readily available that propaganda is impossible. It is already impossible with many of us. We see right through it. They will find that anarchism works perfectly in your private life, and there is a lot of litterature suggesting
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen
that it will work for societies. Cheers, and thanks for the chat :)
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
@styot Anarchism is a development stage in human history. At some point in time(probably hundreds of years from now) people will start to realize that granting politicians power over us does not solve any problems, it systematically creates problems that it then claims to be the solution for. This development stage requires that people become educated and not misinformed as they are today. It can not be brought about throw policy, it will happen slowly as people find it easier and easier to
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
Respond to this video...
Decentralization of power works, because it is impossible to manage a society. It is impossible. It simply can not be done. If you think you can, you will create bubbles and inefficiencies, especially if you make use of computers. Using computers to help you do something which is fundamentally a bad idea will just make you more efficient in making bad decisions, making the bubbles EVEN bigger. Solution: Planning society does not work, anarchy does. Peace!
niklasbastholmhansen 8 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen i agree with you that decentralization/anarchy/whatever you want to call it is a solution, however i disagree with you as to who the potential enemies are to such a position, namely that it is the politicians that wield power. think about who the politicians are and what they represent, and try to find a person who seriously believes that they are much more than a farce or scandal waiting to happen. if you are for anarchy and complete decentralization then i feel you would
connorrowe100 8 months ago
Such an amazing soundtrack! So many amazing songs, I can name most of them off hand!
bitbloop 8 months ago
@bitbloop can u tell them to me please? i recognise loads too but can't work out any names... :) whats the one at the beginning called?
yoshianan 8 months ago
@yoshianan Ahhh... Not too sure about the first one... but I know most of the others.
Best Friends - Angelo Badalamenti
In Dreams - Roy Orbison
Forgive - Burial
Aua - Stereo Total
Right Where It Belongs - NIN
Corona Radiata - NIN
bitbloop 8 months ago
@bitbloop thankx
yoshianan 8 months ago
By the end of this episode, I just pictured the leader of China doing Mr Burns' "Excellent haha.. ahahahahaha. ahahahahahahahaha"
KironVB 8 months ago
joerogan
SirDennisSheehan 8 months ago
Is that George W. Bush talking to the president of China at 55:25? I didn't know he'd traveled to other countries!
ashleyisachild 8 months ago
Great stuff!!!
BrentAltonNally 8 months ago
Will somebody please force the president to watch this so he can understand what the fuck is going on.
IamAgrocerybag 8 months ago 2
How did they get hilary clinton for the intro?
mackie73 8 months ago
SKYNET
donkeydonkey33 8 months ago
seems simple, but i wonder what sort of person dislikes an important documentary like this? 27 dislikes for important information.
MaladaptiveCatalyst 8 months ago
who knew satan would actually be green? the worlds financial communities interests are served over the interest of the whole, how could that possibly go wrong? it seems so logical that the weak and disadvantaged should die off for the sake weak and advantaged. because that's the only difference and, it's partially biological. so greed is good and fuck your neighbor before he fucks you. what's the # for a suicide hotline? or will that call be answered with some of that sweet Rand philosophy. ahh!
PS3Juggalo 8 months ago
What is the music on the 35:20?
DunkelStern 8 months ago
@DunkelStern The music at 35:20 is 'Welcome to Lunar Industries' by Clint Mansell. From the OST to the movie 'Moon'.
Andronicus99 8 months ago
Glados, is that you?
btullis99 8 months ago
Roe Jogan Twitter
Constantine909 8 months ago 27
"selfishness and greed were responsible for the financial crisis of the 1930s"
Stopped watching there. Trying to link Rands philosophy with the great depression is fallacious. As we all know it was failure of the federal reserve (A monopoly propped by the state) that caused it.
If Ayn Rand had her way the Federal Reserve wouldn't have existed, hence there would have been no depression. So in fact you trying to link Ayn rands Ideas with the depression argues against your cause.
mooeythemooseman 8 months ago
@mooeythemooseman
na, haven't stopped watching there. Documentary is pretty good so far apart from that.
mooeythemooseman 8 months ago
@mooeythemooseman AMEN!
ROTGANZENvideo 8 months ago
@mooeythemooseman It's a shame to judge it so harshly after only a few minutes, it's a master piece of documentary work. The third part "The Monkey In The Machine and the Machine in the Monkey" is especially good, an extremely thought provoking and informative hour of documentary work. I also think in this first part he gave a pretty fair account of Ayn Rand on the whole, he shows why her idea's on selfishness didn't work in her own life and why they don't work in society or economics.
styot 8 months ago
THANK YOU THANK YOU :) I was feeling so miserable that I wouldnt get to see this unless I was in UK. THANK YOU for this I love you for uploading this :)
abstractmoi 8 months ago
We will never have a sane world as long as we depend on the human abstraction known as money.
MrSammo1 8 months ago 17