All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
32:00
1485 Capitalism: A Love Story - The Freedomain Radio Review

Violence: A Love Story.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope you're doing very well. This is a review of an important documentary by Michael Moore entitled, as I'm sure you're aware, Capitalism, A Love Story.
First and foremost, I hope that you will take the time to go and see the film.
I think it's an important film and I think it could actually be very helpful.
To the freedom movement, as long as we are clear and conscious of the myriad errors, obfuscations, and I think occasionally outright lies that the film contains, it's still an important film, which has a lot of righteous moral anger against the predations of corporatism or the state fascistic capitalism that we have at the moment.
I think it's really, really important to see the film, to understand the film, so I'll give you my two cents on it, and I hope that you will find it useful.
First of all, of course, is the title.
The word capitalism is used in the film, but he does not describe capitalism anywhere.
Capitalism is non-coercive exchange of goods.
It's simply respect for property rights and the right of free trade.
That's all it is. But everything he describes in the film is the complete opposite of that.
But, you know, this kind of Orwellian, freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom, is to be expected from mainstream culture.
The polluters of language have done a fantastic job of turning lead into protein and protein into lead.
So that's to be expected. There's no much point getting upset about it.
If that didn't happen, we'd be completely shocked.
So he accepts the definition of capitalism and unfortunately intersperses it with the free market and then goes on to describe everything that is not free in the modern corporatist slash fascistic slash state capitalism or mercantilism form of economic organization or predation and disorganization,
really. So he starts talking about propaganda, and I'm always fascinated when left-wingers start talking about propaganda, because it really is amazing the degree to which they'll just fly right over this huge crater, the smoking hole in the brains of children that is caused by two things, public school and religious indoctrination.
So I'm always fascinated because left-wingers, you know, regularly hump the legs of public school teachers.
I've seen it on film.
They just love the public school system.
They love public school teachers.
They couldn't pay them enough. They can't praise them enough.
And so when left-wingers start talking about the fundamental illusions or delusions within society about the reality of the system that people live in, The first place that anyone would go to, like if you were some space alien coming down to the world and someone said, these people grow up believing or end up believing as adults lots of things that are completely false and detrimental to their own interests.
Well, I would say, of course, the first thing that I would say, well, how was their early parenting?
That would be the first thing that I would ask.
But the second thing that I would ask, which is only slightly less important, is, well, who is in charge of the children's education?
If people grow up believing things that are false, lies and destructive, who is in charge of their education?
So if people grow up believing that the government is the solution to all problems, I would first of all guess that it is the government who is in charge of their education, and lo and behold, we would be right.
So whenever left-wingers start talking about propaganda, they have this huge problem, which is where the hell does this propaganda come from?
Does it come from commercials?
Well, I haven't seen a lot of commercials praising the free market.
Does it come from popular media?
Good heavens no! Every villain in every children's film is a rich person or a capitalist or a land developer or someone like that.
There's just no way that it comes from anywhere except the public school system.
But, of course, the left-wingers, because they have the fetish for the public school system, which makes sense.
Left-wing ideology, like right-wing ideology, is so innately laced with bullshit that you have to have propagandists to support it.
It's like religion. Without propaganda it wouldn't last a generation.
So they love the propagandists who promote the ridiculous ideology of left-wingism, but they can't criticize those people.
So they just talk about this vague, nebulous propaganda that everyone ends up believing all of this stuff.
But they have to skirt right over the public school system, and he doesn't, of course, doesn't address it at all within this documentary.
And, of course, he sits down with a couple of priests.
Which is just astounding.
Priests complaining about pro-free market indoctrination?
I mean, come on!
For priests to complain about indoctrination is like Al Capone to complain about racketeering from a very less successful mob group.
It really is just amazing.
I mean, for people to complain about propaganda when propaganda is the only reason they get those silly tea cozies on their head in the first place, the indoctrination and exploitation of children, well, that's just mind-blowing, but what can you say?
It just is what it is.
Now, the economic errors within the film are fairly rife.
He says, for instance, that the reason that America was so wealthy, or had such a great growth after the Second World War, was because three countries in the world had been bombed into smithereens.
Italy, well to some degree less Italy, but of course Germany and Japan had had their industrial bases, and to a large degree their working populations decimated.
And so that's why America was wealthy, but that's all.
I mean, that's nonsense. It's completely counterfactual.
First of all, it only took a couple of years for Japan and Germany to resurrect their industrial bases.
And it did so largely, not as a result of the Marshall Plan.
Germany's economic base was recovering long before the first dollar of the Marshall Plan was even spent.
But because they had free market economists as their ministers of economics and finance, and so they just let the market do its thing, right?
In the same way that there were supposed to be all of these bills in America that were going to find jobs for all the GIs coming home from the Second World War, but by the time they even got around to figuring out what they should be doing, the market had already swallowed and snapped up and put to good use everyone who'd come back from the war.
So when people generally got out of the way, of the free market after the Second World War, which is why the world became more wealthy.
The idea that destroying other countries makes you more wealthy is ridiculous, because by that logic, if you live in a neighborhood of 10,000 people and everybody's house, and you live on an island with 10,000 people and you all trade and interact, And everyone's house but yours burns down, then you should be enormously wealthy.
But you would realize that you would not be enormously wealthy because you would lose the opportunity to trade with those whose houses have been destroyed and all of their resources would be put into rebuilding rather than increasing wealth.
So this is just nonsense that is generally spoken.
It comes from this idea that the free market profits from war.
Which is, again, it's completely false.
And it is, I think it arises out of a fairly good place in people's hearts though, which is why on earth, since nobody wants war, do we keep having wars while someone's profiting from it and Profits is the free market, and therefore the free market is bad, and if we get rid of profits, we'll get rid of war.
I mean, it's a ridiculous thing.
It's akin to a child attempting to win a game of hide-and-seek by saying, I can't see you!
I mean, it's primitive and it's ridiculous, but I think it comes from a fairly good place, which is a desire to eliminate the scourge and plague and evils of war, which makes perfect sense to me.
It's just retarded and ridiculous and embarrassing to see the reasons that people put forward for these things, but again, at least they're anti-war.
Now, I think the film is really, I think, powerful at an emotional level.
And, you know, full props to Michael Moore for doing this.
I mean, that's not easy to do, to stare into the The ruin and destruction of people's lives that has arisen out of these economic catastrophes in America and around the world, but of course he's focusing on America.
I mean, that takes some stones.
It is really hard to look into the hell of people's destroyed lives and show it unflinchingly on the screen.
So, you know, people getting evicted, people burning their own possessions because the bank is coming to take over their farm.
People being paid $1,000 to clean up their own farm and then move out to hand it over to the bank.
This stuff is really heartbreaking, and I think it's really important to see that the effects of these, particularly Federal Reserve economic decisions, the manipulations of the interest rates combined with the overprinting of money, It has massive tragic and destructive effects at a very personal level on people's lives.
And I think it's really important to see that.
It is tragic and it is heartbreaking.
Of course, you don't see filmmakers making films, many at least.
I've never seen one. For instance, recently in New York, where they keep raising the property taxes, little old ladies have had to go and work for the state to pay off their property taxes because they can't afford on fixed income the increases in property taxes, so they become serfs or chattel to the state.
And you don't see people who've been turfed out of their homes.
because of increases in property taxes or increases in taxes as a whole or for being hit with a reassessed tax bill because that is also tragic and destructive and evil and in a way more so because it's more regular than what has happened in the housing market so it is tragic and it is awful and I think it generates righteous anger against the predators who have brought this about so that's really powerful I also found it very moving To see his description or hear it,
see and hear his description of his childhood in the 50s and the golden age, right?
Everybody has a golden age where they look back and they say, if only we could get back to that wonderful place, the world would be a much better place to live in.
His golden age is after the Second World War.
I think it was probably in the 50s.
I don't know how old he is, but I think he's getting up there.
And it was either the late 50s, probably early 60s.
He talks about his father, who was a factory worker at GM, of course, that his father bought a house with a single income, I think had three kids, his wife or Michael's mother stayed at home, and was able to pay off that house On a factory worker's salary within four to five years, by the time Michael Moore was in kindergarten.
And that, of course, is just mind-blowing.
And I've heard of this kind of stuff before.
I remember talking many years ago to a guy who was talking about being a teacher in the 60s.
He says, you know, I got my first job as a teacher and I was paid $9,000.
So I went to buy a house in downtown Toronto, which, you know, is primo real estate location.
So I went to go buy a house.
I was making $9,000 a year.
The house cost $12,000.
I mean, that's just mind-blowing.
That is just mind-blowing.
And to think, I mean, I don't know how much teachers make now.
Starting teachers, probably $40,000 or $50,000, which means a house would be $60,000, $70,000, $75,000.
To buy a house in a prime real estate location would be $60,000 or $75,000.
I mean, the cheapest house you can get in downtown Toronto is eight to nine hundred thousand dollars, so more than ten times what it used to be relative to someone's salary at a time when taxes were far lower.
So it was a kind of golden age in many ways.
The poor were getting out of poverty, but of course there were the wars in Korea, there were the wars in Vietnam, there was the overthrow of the democratically elected ruler of Iran, which started and they installed the Shah, which led to Khomeini, which led to Everything messed up in that country.
Almost everything. And of course, the racism and denial of rights to women and children and minorities.
All that kind of stuff. So there is this belief that there is a golden age.
And of course, when you're a kid and you're growing up in a house with nice toys and he said, you know, his dad would get a new car every three years as well as being able to pay off his house.
That stuff's all very important.
It's kind of a golden age. If we could just get back to that, that would be great.
Well, of course, it looks like a golden age when you are a kid, right?
I remember saying to my mom, I think it was a recession in 1980 when I was 14, and I think I said to my mom, you know, I don't understand this recession thing.
What does it mean? She said, well, It's not a recession to you because I still have a job, right?
There's sort of important things to remember about life, that when you're shielded from things as a kid, you don't see the war, you don't see the racism, you don't see the South, you don't see all of the terrible stuff that's going on.
It's a little easier to see that it's a golden age.
But I thought it was very moving when he talked about that stuff.
And it's really, really important to see.
This is a life that I think would be worth looking back at, figuring out how it came about and trying to improve it, right?
To have all the good stuff with as little of the bad stuff as possible.
And I think that was a very moving and important part to see.
This is what drives people.
This is what motivates people. Then, of course, he says the problem was that the tax cuts to the rich were cut from 90% down to, I don't know, 30 or 40%, and then Reagan came in and busted the unions, and that was the start of all the bad stuff in the world, and this is how we end up.
And then what happened was they cut regulations to Wall Street.
Wall Street went to a gambling casino madness, and then everything went to hell in a handbasket, and that's how we got here.
And that, of course, is not even revisionist history.
That's just like Narnia history.
It's not even close to the truth, right, to what actually happened.
The federal government grew by two-thirds under Reagan.
It wasn't like Reagan cut a whole bunch of stuff.
There were some tax cuts for sure, and the tax cuts produced some wealth.
But people believe that the tax cuts produced, you know, the real estate boom in the 80s, the tech boom in the 90s, the real estate boom again in the noughties or whatever we're in now.
But this, of course, is not true at all.
This is all to do with monetary policy.
This is all to do with the overprinting of money, the manipulation of interest rates.
That is the entirety of it.
Everything which affects the entire economic system, which is not regional, has to do with the currency, because the currency is the only thing that affects the entire economic system.
So it's like if the temperature in the entire lake changes, then the fish everywhere will die.
If the fish die just in one place, then you say, oh, there must be some effluent or some pollution or some localized disease.
But if all the fish die, you know that it's something that is affecting Everything.
The entire ecosystem. And that is currency.
Always and forever in any economic system.
The only thing which can affect the entire economic system is currency and interest rates.
And those two things are entirely communistic within the United States.
They're entirely controlled by the government and the private bank called the Federal Reserve, which is about as federal as Federal Express.
So, this lack of understanding about the degree to which everything in the American economy is determined by or fundamentally influenced pervasively, all pervasively, by monetary policy and interest rates.
If you don't understand that, then you're going to look for all these things like, well, they cut taxes and that's why we have a boom, which makes no sense at all.
The cut in regulations is also something that makes no sense at all.
Regulations have been around for a long time.
At the SEC, there have been huge restrictions on banks' activities.
And yes, some regulations were cut, other regulations were added, but if the regulations which he says were cut, if I remember rightly, in the early 90s, if that was the problem, that the regulations were cut in the early 90s, then before the early 90s we should have had a very stable economy, and of course it wasn't true at all.
Stagflation in the 1970s, you had booms and busts in the 1980s, you had the biggest stock market crash I think in 86 to date, and so it wasn't the case at all.
The regulations that were cut It did not follow a period of intense stability within the economy, so it wasn't the regulations fundamentally.
But there is this desire that there are these bad people and if we don't regulate them, if we don't force them, if we don't bully them, if we don't restrain them with the chains of law, they're just going to run rampant and take us over and so on.
That's not true. It wasn't a lack of regulations that caused all of these problems.
It was simply that too much money floating around the economic system, massive debts.
You have wars, right?
A war followed by the overprinting of money fundamentally distorts the economy in very many ways.
And the massive expansion of government that occurred to some degree under Clinton to a very large degree under George Bush the younger of the eight-year period and is only massively accelerating under Obama.
Massive expansions in the size and power of state, massive state debts, brutal wars, huge increases in the numbers of prisoners and incarcerations.
This is, I mean, this is the fundamental reasons for the economic instability.
Of course, again, going back to monetary policy and interest rates is the very foundational cause.
But, I mean, that's too complicated for a lefty filmmaker.
So if we just go back to, you know, Reagan was a cowboy who cut taxes and that's why we're in this mess.
This is what people So, one example that he gives in the film is of predatory capitalism.
There was a bunch of judges who cut a deal with a privatized prison or youth care facility or whatever, a juvenile prison.
And in return for sentencing the children for long stays in the private prison, they got paid off millions of dollars by the private prison owners.
And he says this is capitalism, and of course I mean, where do you even begin?
It is the fundamental mistake that every form of profit is exploitation, and this is fundamentally a Marxist idea, that anytime you make more than what you're paying people to do, you are exploiting them, right?
That if you sell something for $20 an hour and you pay the guy who makes it $15 an hour, you're stealing $5 an hour from him, which It's complete nonsense.
The $5 an hour is the organization, the sales, the marketing, the investment in fixed equipment, the capital machinery, the factories, the trucks, the insurance.
That's what you're being paid for.
There is no free lunch for the worker or for the employer.
Sorry to use these terms, but the idea that the employer is not a worker is...
Crazy. I mean, employers work enormously hard and often a lot harder than the workers, but that's sort of neither here nor there.
So if you look at this equation, What do we have?
We have a state court system.
We have state funding.
We have a currency run by the state.
We have interest rates run by the state.
We have a contract with a private prison that is written by the state, signed by the state, enforced by the state.
And then you have state roads that lead to it and all that kind of stuff.
And then finally you have state agencies that are supposed to regulate and control and make sure that the kids are kept safe and all that.
Finally, you have some guy profiting from all of this.
But it's nine tenths the government, and then one tenths private profit.
And this is of course called the free market.
I mean, it's complete madness.
It's complete nonsense. And, again, but you want to dumb it down for people to get angry, to feel like there's someone that they can hate.
And the idea that everyone who makes money is exploitive, well, of course Michael Moore makes good money.
He's made, what, 250 million dollars over the course of his career?
Gross! I mean, obviously not net.
And... well, his movies have.
So, is that exploitation?
Well, no, of course not. I mean, that's a reasonable profit for effective propaganda, like the church.
So I'll just sort of end up by saying that he, you know, like so many people with the golden age fantasy, you know, that back then everything was great and then things just kind of went suddenly wrong and then blah blah blah blah blah.
And people have this about Communism too, right?
If the Mensheviks had stayed in power rather than the Bolsheviks.
Oh, if only Trotsky had managed to get his way and hadn't been killed.
Or, you know, if only Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin.
If only, if only, if only, there was this golden age.
And these things, when you look back into them, they're completely and thoroughly debunked.
There's no... I mean, Lenin was a murderous sociopath, just as Stalin was.
But it takes a while to consolidate power, right?
People look back at the golden age of the United States, of America, and say, well, the founding fathers and the government was small.
And it's like, well, of course the government was small.
They just had a revolution.
They had just kicked out the British.
They had massive debts.
They had a war-weary army that they couldn't pay.
So of course the government was small.
Why was the government small? Because the government Was weak, right?
It's like saying that a hitman who's tied up is not dangerous, right?
He's a really nice guy.
He hasn't killed anyone in hours.
Well, that's because he's tied up.
When you untie him, right, so he's still a hitman, he's just restrained.
And it certainly is my thesis that if you look back in American history, The American government was always as large as it possibly could be.
It just takes a while to pay off your debts, consolidate your power, gain the allegiance of people by waving fancy phrases at them, like we the people, though not asking any of them to ratify the Constitution and doing it behind closed doors.
The government is always as large as it possibly can be.
It just takes a while to really grow the government.
You know, it's a filthy weed that takes cultivation.
So this idea that the government was smaller, oh it was so small way back then and that's good, the government was not small back then.
It was as large as it possibly could be given the circumstances, and we know that because the moment the circumstances allowed or encouraged the growth of government, the government immediately grew.
I mean, calling the American government small in its founding is like calling a baby short.
Well, a baby is not short.
A baby is as tall as a baby can be, given the circumstances, and as soon as you feed the baby, and the baby has access to exercise, the baby will grow.
It's not a small baby, and it was not a small government.
It was just new and weak.
So, this golden age leads people to look to the past To solutions, to say, well, what's the closest to my particular bigoted ideology?
Let's go back there and resurrect that.
And that's how we'll make the future.
But that's not how you make the future in any productive or lasting or moral sense.
You don't look to a golden age.
You don't look to the past to create the future, right?
Any more than you would in the computer industry, look to a TRS-80 and say, that should be our new server architecture.
What you do is you look at morality and principles and virtue to design your system.
You don't go look at the mistakes of the past and say, you know, let's take the stake out of the heart of the 1950s and have it resurrect and come and lead us into the future.
It's very tempting for people who don't understand principles.
They just look back and say, well, that was a sunny day.
Let's go live there for the rest of time.
Well, that's nonsense. You look at principles, you look at virtues.
For designing a system, and you need philosophy, not ideology, propaganda, religion, statism, blah blah, all of the bigoted prejudices that people have, you refer to first principles.
So he goes back to Frank Lindell and Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights a year before he died.
FDR was talking about a second Bill of Rights which guarantees everyone the right to a job and health care and housing and education and, you know, just a shower of free goodies to everyone.
And again, I don't know for sure Where to judge, how to judge where these people are coming from.
Of course, if we could grow a tree that would magically shower free healthcare, great education, pixie dust, fairies, you know, butts that you could put in a thong and look good.
I mean, who wouldn't plant that tree and water it?
Of course, if we could wave a wand and have all of these great things drop from the sky, we would all do that, and that would be a wonderful thing.
Children would be loved, and wives would be happy, and husbands would be happy, and everybody would be singing kumbaya around the fantasy geyser goody tree.
But that's unfortunately not how reality even remotely works, and in fact the desire to go to that utopian world creates a political elite that has a lot of guns and tells people what to do.
Creates the opposite, right?
To look for heaven is to live here in hell.
So he goes back and says, well, we should have that second Bill of Rights and then we'd have a great society.
And again, this is just, it's mind-bending and it's mind-blowing.
It's just mind-blowing.
The degree to which people bitterly complain about the government and almost everything, That Michael Moore is enraged and railing about, right?
The 700 billion dollar bailout to the banks.
Everything that he's enraged and railing about in the movie is the direct result of government coercion.
The direct result of government coercion.
I mean, do you not think that the banks knew that these toxic mortgage-backed securities were going to bring them down?
Of course they did. They're not idiots.
They're good with math.
They know when the line goes into the red.
They already knew that they would be bailed out.
I mean, these deals were all in place long before the shit hit the fan, right?
So they knew they were going to get bailed out.
So, I mean, if you can gamble with somebody else's money, make the profit, keep the profits, and then have somebody else subsidize the losses and give you even more money at the end, if you're an amoral rat bastard, like most people are, why wouldn't you, right?
Not because people are innately amoral, it's just that I think the science of morality is still being worked on fairly extensively by myself and, of course, others.
So, everything that he describes is the result of corruption and predation within the government.
And he did the same thing in Sicko, where all of the mistakes and messes were governmental, almost all of them, and with a couple of digs at the insurance companies, which the government has virtual control over, but all of the stuff was government-based.
The government wouldn't pay for the worker who got black lung from helping out on the 9-11 site.
So the government is bad, the government is corrupt, the government is messed up, the government is doing all these terrible things, right?
So that's sort of the one, it's a split screen of absolute insanity, right?
On this side we have, ugh, government is bad, and on the other side, you know, we need the government to come in and save us.
I mean, it's psychologically fascinating, right, to see this intense, you know, psychologists call this splitting, right?
You know, where your mom is really good and really bad, right?
And in fairy tales you see this, like, I have a mother, a great mother who's not around, but this stepmother is really bad.
Well, you know, psychologically, or in reality, it's the same person, but you split them into two because you have a variety of reasons.
I'm not a psychologist, so these are just amateur ramblings, of course.
So this reality that people say, government really, really bad, government is terrible and corrupt and does all these terrible things, and then they slip over to this side and they say, so we need to give the government huge amounts of power in order to make the world better and to rescue us from bad government.
We need good government to rescue us from bad government.
And that to me is just an astounding, astounding statement.
I mean, it really, really is.
It's like a guy saying, you know, the doctor says, you have lung cancer, and he's like, oh man, that's terrible.
I better switch from two packs a day to four packs a day so I can get better.
I mean, it's crazy, but, you know, has very sort of interesting psychological roots, and we don't sort of have to go into those, but...
When you see that, it really is a kind of flip that just leaves you absolutely shutterbiked, jaw-dropped astounded.
And I think it's really, really interesting to watch.
The idea that the government is now, the government that has screwed everything up and that, you know, starts wars, throws tons of people in prisons, corrupts the money supply, you know, preys with the banks upon the poor and the vulnerable, kicking them out of their homes.
I mean, it's...
I mean, that this is the institution that is going to save us is really, really astounding.
Let's give the Mafia more guns because we're almost out of business because they're preying on us so much.
So let's give the Mafia more guns so that we can create utopia.
That is just a completely deranged and insane fantasy.
So I think that's really, really important to look at.
We're going to give the government the power to give us good jobs in healthcare and housing and education.
We're basically going to become serfs to this government that he has spent, I don't know what, five films bitterly complaining about.
You know, the government didn't listen to Roger and me.
The government doesn't listen to the people.
The government passes bills that the people don't want them to pass.
The government steals from the people.
And there's this great scene where he goes to the banks to get the money back.
And he says, this money has been stolen from the people.
So put it in this bag and take it in my Brinks truck and then take it back to the Treasury.
Right? And that to me is completely bizarre.
Right? I mean...
It's like saying, the Mafia has stolen my money and then spent it at a restaurant, so I'm gonna go to the restaurant, get the money back and return it to the Mafia, and then the crime is wiped clean.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no. When it's in the Treasury, it's already been stolen from the people, so returning it to the Treasury is not returning it to the people, right?
It is returning it to the people who've stolen it from the people, but again, you can't really expect for him to say that, that kind of stuff, because his market is people on the left, people who work for the government, and so they have to believe that there's some virtue that is possible.
Through this. So just to sum up, and thank you for your patience, I was going to keep this short, but I think there's a lot to talk about in the film, which is why I really recommend going to see it.
I mean, the film fundamentally should be called violence, a love story, coercion, a love story, the gun in the room, a love story, the gun in the hand, the gun to the temple, the gun in the mouth, A love story.
And that's really what he's talking about.
The fetish that we have for solving problems is violence.
We simply can't think of solutions that involve less violence.
I mean, my argument, of course, is this comes out of parenting.
People say, well, I have to hit my kids so that they'll be well behaved.
Well, I can't hit my kids?
Okay, then I have to yell at them.
Oh, I can't yell at them? Okay, well, I have to give them timeouts.
Oh, I can't give them timeouts?
Well, I have to lock them in the room or deny them dinner.
We simply can't think of non-aggressive ways to raise our parents, or very few of us can.
To raise our children, sorry.
And because of that, we simply can't think of non-coercive ways to organize society.
I mean, it really comes right out of those early experiences, in my humble and amateur opinion, but passionately and repeatedly argued for over the past almost half decade.
So, this is why these kinds of films that people are going to vote to make the situation or the system a better place is nonsense.
We simply have to improve the parenting and not treat our children aggressively.
Thus, those children will grow up without the default position for solving any problem being aggression.
Right? Bingo bango bongo, the world is free.
It is a multi-generational project.
I certainly won't live to see a free society.
I doubt you will too. But the massive steps that we can take in the right direction through the encouragement of peaceful win-win negotiations with children that It's the yellow brick road that leads to the wizard of happiness in the future.
Thank you so much for watching.
I look forward to your comments.
Please send me some emails if you've seen the film and have more things to discuss.
And if this is a popular video, I'll be happy to read them out and provide some minor commentary on the next version of this.
So thank you so much for watching.
▲
Export Selection