Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 14, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:46:33

The Truth Behind Elysium

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, hello, ladies and gentlemen.
	It is Stefan Molymey from Freedom Aid Radio.
	I hope you're doing well.
	So, it's time to rake Elysium.
	Elysium? Oh, God, I don't even know how to say it.
	I didn't even watch the movie, but I may have drifted off at times.
	So, let me just preface the review by saying that I thought Good Will Hunting was one of the great films of all time.
	One of the great films of all time.
	It worked on so many levels. So smart, so insightful, so emotionally true and resonant, and so...
	Accurate regarding the degree to which intellectual ability can be thwarted by emotional trauma and how emotional trauma holds back the human species in desperately Lilliputian-like Gulliver-restrained ways.
	So, a massive fan.
	And since then, watching Matt Damon's career has been...
	Financially satisfying for the studio executives and pretty frustrating for those of us who actually want to see him exercise his considerable artistic intelligence in the pursuit of valuable truths.
	He has become, statistically, the most bankable movie star on the planet.
	In other words, if you put Matt Damon in a movie, it is most likely that it is going to make the most money.
	He makes the most dollar per pound of any movie star in history.
	Downward grin, pug-faced, thug-like charm works on everyone.
	Of course, he's a very physical actor like Tom Cruise, but he can also do some very sensitive roles and all that, so he's a great actor, a great writer, and I think it's tragic the degree to which, for the past 20-odd years, he's been stuffed into increasingly cartoon-like And where once he,
	I think, quite accurately and movingly explored the complexities of childhood trauma and the human psyche, now he's literally at the point where he's been rendered impotent and, frankly, a tool for sociopaths by strapping him into a robot suit to fight aliens.
	I mean, it's just ridiculous how tragic the degree to which money has co-opted his talent and turned him into...
	A cartoon.
	It really is ridiculous.
	It literally is akin to watching Shakespeare write Cheerios commercials.
	No offense to Cheerios. Not a great use of his talents.
	Or watching Dostoevsky write The Fast and the Furious 23.
	It's tragic. A similar thing happened to F. Scott Fitzgerald.
	Almost happened to Ayn Rand. You know, when they get absorbed into the movie industry, they're turned into money-making tools, pandering to the lowest common denominator, run by sociopaths designed to provoke male disposability and war lust.
	Anyway. Let's get to Elysium, the film itself.
	Yes, super spoiler alert.
	There's really not much to spoil.
	It's like pointing at a rotten pile of three-week-old fruit in the Moroccan sun and saying, be careful, there are spoilers in there.
	No, no, all spoiled to begin with.
	So I do not have much respect for the film.
	And I actually quite liked the director's last film, District 9.
	I thought it was quite intelligent. This is...
	Okay, so let's just start with some of the basics.
	Reality. Look, I'm a writer.
	I've written novels. I've written plays.
	I've written poems. Not quite as successful as these guys, but that's fine.
	The world has shunted me into the area where I can do the most good, which is not writing novels, but talking about philosophy...
	Fine. Fine. I'll do what the world wants, what the future needs.
	Fair enough. Even those who've rejected my art have done a great service to the world, and it is much better that I am a philosopher and not an artist.
	So, no... I mean, people are, oh, a thwarted actor, a thwarted writer.
	No, no, no. When movies are great and successful, like The Matrix, no problem.
	Respect the talent. Props!
	To the brothers and sisters who put that stuff together.
	But seriously, can we get any kind of reality when it comes to physical injury?
	I'm not saying we have to have a massive amount of reality.
	Can we get a tiny amount of reality when it comes to physical injury?
	So, Matt Damon takes a radiation blast that's going to kill him in five days.
	In other words, his skin is going to start falling off and he staggers home.
	He can barely walk.
	And he has to take this medicine, which is basically just going to control a few symptoms, and he's going to die in five days.
	That's the MacGuffin.
	That's a ticking time bomb of the movie, and it's just ridiculous.
	So he can barely walk.
	He's throwing up. But the moment he puts on this suit, suddenly he's like a superhero.
	And what's funny is that he can't walk coming home from his radiation poisoning.
	The suit does not really extend to his legs, but nonetheless he can pull off the most amazing acrobatics and fight scenes and so on, humanly imaginable, when he's dying of radiation poisoning.
	So, that's a cheat, right?
	So, I don't mind, yeah, put the time pressure on and, you know, enhance the, quote, virtues of male disposability at the end by having him die for the sins of humanity, blah, blah, blah.
	Okay, fine, but... If you're going to set this whole thing up where he's incredibly weak from radiation poisoning, don't then just make him super strong all over.
	And look, I mean, as somebody who's just gone through chemo, you could have strapped 12 RoboCups on my back and it still would not have changed my general strength, focus, and energy.
	So anyway, I just set it up...
	That he's dying and he's incredibly weak and throwing up and sick.
	He's so radioactive.
	He can give other people radiation poisoning with a hug.
	But then don't make him a superhero with no reference to the fact.
	It's just a cheat.
	And it's ridiculous.
	It's illogical. And it just shows you the insanity of the studio system.
	And also Matt Damon, who I guess with Ben Affleck, took great specific detailed care over the script for Good Will Hunting.
	Now, let's that sort of stuff happen.
	Why doesn't he say to the director, look, this is stupid.
	We set him up that he's dying and staggering and can't even get himself off the ground and suddenly becomes a superhero, able to do the most amazing things with no...
	Like, just because of a suit? Like, a suit that basically is his arms?
	Like, that doesn't make any sense.
	And, um...
	But nobody says that, right?
	And that's just stupid.
	Now, the other thing that's kind of ridiculous, well, supremely ridiculous is, so pretty early in the movie, the first fight scene with the bearded, tall African dwarf, the bad guy, Matt Damon's character takes like a six-inch knife straight into his gut.
	And, you know, that's going to pierce his stomach, his intestines, his bowels, and all this acid is going to leak into his body, and it's a mess, right?
	So what does he do? Well, he staggers with radiation poisoning and a massive, probably fatal wound to his belly.
	He walks, and of course, you know, this is the sort of patented Bruce Willis.
	Nobody gets slowly beat up at a film like Bruce Willis, but this patented staggering walk, you know?
	Well, I've got radiation poisoning, I'm dying, I've taken a massive knife to the belly, and that's going to make me stumble a little, you know?
	I mean, and the amount you would bleed, I mean, it was just, oh my god, I mean, belly wounds are just horrendous, right?
	Yeah. You know, my medical training comes from George Clooney in Three Kings, but I assume that there's some validity to it.
	Well, he played a doctor too, right?
	Yes, okay, cemented.
	Now we know. But he goes to his ex-girlfriend or whatever, and she puts a cotton pad on him.
	And this cotton pad, I guess, must have some pretty magical healing properties.
	Because the wound is never referenced again in the entire movie.
	You know, he gets punched in the stomach, he gets beaten up, he gets thrown all over the place.
	And the fact that not two days ago or a day ago he had a massive wound to the belly is never referenced again.
	I mean, come on, guys.
	I mean, you got $120 million to make the film.
	How about you spend $120 million and $5 for someone to bring some basic medical common sense?
	If you get a massive six-inch slashing wound injected into your belly, you are not going to be engaged in mixed martial arts type fights within a day or two.
	I mean, even if you had stitches, they'd just pull.
	I mean, it takes months to recover from that kind of stuff.
	Like months literally of lying around.
	And so this all just ridiculous and it shows the lack of care and attention to any kind of detail.
	That goes on in these films.
	Now, I mean, they're obviously smarter marketers than I am because I guess they make more money than I do.
	But the reality is that if it's smart marketing, which I'm fine with it being that way, then what they're basically doing is they're appealing to kids who are about eight years old.
	I was saying Marxism is sort of for like 16-year-olds, right?
	So – and not that 16-year-olds read Das Kapital, at least not in the original Aramaic, German.
	But it's just that it appeals to that kind of stuff, right?
	So the idea that there's this oppressive authority that is exploiting the workers and – I mean this appeals to 16 – like badly raised, petulant 16-year-olds who – You don't want to do their chores.
	Mom and dad are just oppressive.
	Also, it appeals to young people because when you're young, you have very little – tragically, because of the shitty public schools, you have very little human capital.
	For the first five years of your working life, all your jobs are crap and all your bosses are awful.
	Just because people who are really good at being bosses don't end up running pizza joints or restaurants or whatever, harassing paperboys for the local newspaper or whatever.
	Good managers don't stay running low-rent, minimum-wage people.
	Good managers become regional managers at McDonald's.
	They don't end up managing some local...
	So the odds of you having a good manager when you're a teenager are virtually non-existent.
	And also, you have very little value to your managers because you're very replaceable.
	Matt Damon, not replaceable in a film.
	If Matt Damon cancels, pretty much people will be done with the project.
	But if you're like flipping burgers at a burger joint, you are kind of replaceable.
	And so Marxism has an appeal to people who are at the beginning of their careers and have bad relationships with their parents and also probably those who've had some form of religious indoctrination because the idea that there's an oppressive authority that you need to escape from through atheism comes from those who've been raised with sort of an Old Testament version of religion, which is why socialism tends to be a little bit stronger in Judaism than it is even in Christianity.
	So... That's what I mean when I say...
	And I was talking about the Zeitgeist as not a 12-year-old, but...
	Because that's when you play with robots, right?
	So... But this stuff, this is socialism for, like, literally eight-year-olds.
	Because when you're eight, I mean, I remember this sort of playing war.
	Oh, you got me, and then you jump up and you're fine, right?
	There's no continuity.
	Like, you know, I got bullets to the chest, and then you sort of go through your death scene, and then you jump up and you're playing something else, right?
	Well, that's the level of continuity of injury that is occurring in this film, right?
	I mean, it literally is appealing to the sense of invulnerability and make-believe injuries that characterizes fighting play among eight-year-old children.
	I mean, by the time you're 10 or 11, you're kind of past that stuff, and...
	You know, like I remember also when we were getting just towards the end of our war play, you know, if somebody would get, oh, I've been shot in the belly and then they jump back up and people would say, dude, you've been shot in the belly, lie down, you have to wait for a medic, right?
	Like once you couldn't shrug off the injuries, once you got sort of like nine or ten and then it sort of petered out.
	But once you get sort of 9 or 10, people don't let you fake recover from injuries that you claim to have sustained.
	You know, like if you get shot in the leg, you have to limp, right?
	You can't just sort of jump up and be healed, right?
	Because your girlfriend puts a gauze pad on your leg, right?
	And so there's an injury and then it vanishes and is never referenced again.
	That is something that...
	It occurs at about the level, sort of mental level of about eight or so, and after that, it tends to...
	I mean, I've got a whole scene in one of my novels about children's war play and so on, and the children are seven, seven and a half, eight years old, because that's when...
	And they're just starting to put lots of realism into their war play, so sort of eight and so...
	So that's the level that they're pushing the film at because anybody who's over eight is going to say, wait a second, I mean, he's dying of radiation.
	He's got this horrible wound to his belly.
	So what's he doing all these massive flips and fights for?
	The other thing that's the case when you're sort of eight years old as well is that you have almost no respect for competence.
	I mean, this is characteristic of...
	Of childhood that you just don't have much respect for competence, right?
	So my daughter, lover, fantastic girl, not a singer.
	Not a singer. I mean, she can hit the notes, but only with a club.
	And so not a singer, but she thinks she's a really good singer, right?
	So listening to Kelly Clarkson, she's like, oh, I'd like to sing like that.
	It's like, I'd like to sing like that too, but jeans did not give me the pipes.
	And so, you know, I mean, I like her singing.
	I like the passion she puts into it and all that, but, you know, recording contracts are not a hop, skip, and a jump away.
	They are a complete vocal rewiring away, you know?
	You'd have to auto-tune her to the point where she sounded like a Zylon.
	So, but she doesn't really, you know, she thinks she's good at everything, right?
	And that's fine. I mean, you know, I give her the reality.
	I don't say you're a good singer. I say I like it when you sing, which is true.
	I do like it when she sings. I think it's great.
	But... There's no real respect for expertise or competence when you're very young.
	Because you don't have the wisdom or experience to understand the knowledge gap or the 10,000 hours it takes to become good at anything.
	And of course, as you're a kid, you don't want to sit there and say, well, I'm pretty much crap at everything, which is kind of true.
	And so... The other thing that happens is, you know, in a film like The Matrix, they need somebody to be, say, a helicopter pilot.
	You know, the cheat is to say, well, I was a helicopter pilot many years ago, so here I go, right?
	And then, you know, you need somebody to be a submarine.
	Ah, I used to pilot submarines many years ago.
	That's kind of a cheat. But in The Matrix, they explain it, but of course, we download your skills, and that's a really cool way of doing it.
	The Matrix was infinitely better.
	You know, like, it wasn't like Nero just suddenly became this great martial artist.
	He downloaded it and then was able to do it, and he was surprised that he could.
	So they actually work on the skills acquisition in The Matrix and make it believable, which is fantastic.
	I mean, that's respect for causality that is essential to good fantasy.
	I mean, other than Lord of the Rings, where why don't they just use the eagles to fly the hobbits to Mount Doom?
	Because then you have a book that's about eight pages long.
	Anyway. So, in this movie, Matt Damon, who's like a factory worker and a car thief who has no particular exposure, he's not ex-military, as far as I know.
	I missed the first few minutes, sorry.
	But he gets into, like, firefights, like with guns, with middle-aged professional military men Who we assume have 20, at least 20 years of experience and training in the military.
	And naturally, he wins.
	Again, this is very young.
	Six, seven, eight years old, where you don't notice differences in competence when you're very young.
	I mean, you just don't.
	Everything seems kind of equal.
	And that's because in your peers, nobody's particularly good at anything for the most part.
	Because you're too young to really have accumulated any expertise.
	And so, to a very young kid, it would not seem particularly unbelievable that a factory worker could engage in combat with professional, 20 years experienced soldiers and win.
	That is... I mean, that's ridiculous.
	I mean, literally, it's like believing that I could go into the ring with Muhammad Ali, having never been in a fight in my life, and be fine.
	Or that I could sit down and play some 3D shooter with Fatality or some other fantastic video game player, and I'd never been exposed to video games in the past, really, and I could somehow, we could draw or I could win.
	I mean, it's ridiculous. It's like me and Yehudi Menuhin having a violin off and it being a drawer, even though I barely touched a violin.
	Actually, I personally did play violin for 10 years when I was younger in an orchestra, but, you know, if I had never played an instrument, I ain't going to sort of – I'm going to grab a guitar and jump up with Stevie Ray Vaughan and jam with him.
	Right? Because there's respect for competence.
	And fighting is a highly skilled activity that a lot depends on training, a lot depends on equipment, a lot depends on experience.
	And I mean, some of it depends on luck, right?
	So the Red Baron, Baron von Richthofen in the First World War was the most successful, I think the most successful fighter pilot in the First World War.
	And when he started, I mean, maybe he did a lot of flying beforehand, but he happened to survive his first few fights, which then gave him a considerable edge over his future fights.
	And the more he happened to survive, the better he got.
	There's some happenstance in happening to survive and so on.
	I mean, a lot of war is accidental.
	I mean, what is it, 20% of deaths are by friendly fire or something.
	So a lot of war is accidental, no matter how skilled you are.
	But there's a lot of skill involved.
	And the idea that somebody with no training or experience can go up in a firefight against multiple very experienced soldiers and win is, again, six, seven, eight years old.
	That's believable.
	It's not believable to anyone else.
	And, of course, no sane parent is going to let their 6-, 7-, or 8-year-old watch this movie.
	It's too creepy.
	It's too violent. It's too disturbed.
	It's too dystopian.
	And so what the movie is appealing to is teenagers with a sort of mental or emotional age of, you know, 6 to 8 or maybe 9 years old, which is tragically...
	Quite a lot of people, right?
	Because that's the marketing. They do a lot of research into who's going to watch the film.
	And they know that there's a massive cohort of teenagers with a mental or emotional age of six to nine years old.
	And that's what they're sort of appealing to.
	Where it's just, you know, you stagger like a bloodthirsty camel from oasis to oasis of fight to fight.
	I don't really care much about anything else.
	Now, as far as the socialism goes, well, there's a big, you know, usual dystopian tent city or shanty town on the planet's Earth, on the surface, and then up in space is this giant space station where everything is beautiful, you know, the ultimate gated community where everything is beautiful and everyone's got swimming pools and everybody's perfectly coiffed and has designer clothes on and everything's clean and wonderful and so on.
	And, you know, people try to get to this.
	I guess this is sort of the stereotypical view of how America is viewed by Mexicans, right?
	So it's all about immigration, socialized healthcare, and socialism as a whole, and male disposability, as always.
	And we'll sort of get into those themes, but...
	So people, you know, refugees, Spanish-speaking refugees try and cross the ultimate border, which is coming out of space, like off the planet into space, into the space station, and they get shot down.
	And one of the reasons they're trying to get up there is that on Elysium they have these magical pods where you put sick people in and you push a button and they're well again.
	And so they're trying to get there, right?
	Up to this, the magical healing machines that only the rich have access to, which I guess is sort of a metaphor for socialized medicine or whatever, right?
	Or, sorry, non-socialized medicine where only the rich can afford medicine.
	And one of the...
	One of the themes that I would not remotely credit the writers with understanding, but I think was quite true anyway, was Jodie Foster in...
	I don't know. Was she channeling that French woman who's the head of the IMF who recently got dinged for corruption or something like that?
	I can't remember her name. Christine...
	Something like that.
	I might have put one too many in there, but something like that.
	But she was doing this just weird, bird-like, quirky, funny accent kind of thing.
	And... I mean, first of all, she looks fabulous for 50, even though I'm sure CGI was used to keep her butt up.
	But nonetheless, it was really great.
	She has some toned calves, and certainly high def is kinder to her than it was to Kevin Costner in Superman.
	High def is not the friends of ancient actors who all begin to look like the moon with hair transplants.
	But anyway... She plays this head of homeland security, right?
	So she's the paramilitary, and then there's like the total military.
	And then there's the civilian leadership.
	So she shoots down a bunch of shuttles that are coming up to try and get healthcare for the people on the earth, the Mexicans, pretty much.
	And she shoots them down, 48, 46, 48 people.
	She kills them. And the civilian leadership gets really angry with her and says, basically, don't do it again or we'll fire you.
	So basically, she murders 48 people with missiles.
	She orders the murder of 48 people with missiles.
	And the civilian leadership basically doesn't even fire her, doesn't proceed with criminal charges against her.
	But simply kind of puts forward this empty warning about, like, don't do that again, okay?
	Please? Oh, come on!
	Now we've got to clean up the space.
	And the fact that the civilian leadership is unwilling to exercise moral authority over the paramilitary leadership, represented by Jodie Foster's character...
	Unleashes a series of events wherein there's a military coup.
	And I think that's actually quite true.
	that letting people like George Bush, who committed the international crime of aggression, which is the most serious crime, war crime of all, the unprovoked invasion of another country, you know,
	the fact that the civilian leadership is unwilling or unable, it's unwilling the fact that the civilian leadership is unwilling or unable, it's unwilling to proceed with any charges against George Bush for the war crime of aggression, is going to continue to lead an expansion of the I mean, it means that the government has no moral authority.
	And this is very true.
	I mean, certainly among the young, the government has almost no moral authority because the moment the government says, well, you know, we want to arrest people who smoke drugs, so how about arresting people who get a million people killed by starting unjust invasions?
	Well, no, we're going to give those people pensions in a library.
	It's like the refusal of the feminists to condemn Clinton because he was pro-abortion.
	It just kills any credibility that the organizations have.
	And the government has, at least among the young, almost no moral authority.
	Because all you have to do is bring that basic fact up and everything else falls apart.
	I mean, the only people who cling to the moral justification of the state after its refusal to prosecute war criminals, but rather to give them a pension and speech opportunities and presidential libraries and book deals and so on.
	The fact is that the government then has no moral authority.
	I mean, and once the government has no moral authority in the absence of alternatives, then you engage in a cat and mouse.
	Like when your parents have no moral authority left if they've been bad parents when you're young and you become a teenager, you start to get them authority.
	It just becomes a war of attrition and the parents end up always losing because you have more power now and they have no moral authority.
	Right.
	And so it just becomes a war of attrition.
	When the government loses whatever vestiges of moral authority it did have, it becomes a war of attrition between the civilian government and the military-industrial complex and the civilian government inevitably loses.
	If you look at Rome or Sparta or Nazi Germany or Russia or whatever, I mean, it's just the same pattern over and over again.
	And I think that was unconsciously but I think accurately portrayed that when the civilian government loses control and loses moral authority or fails to exercise moral authority over clear murderers who have violated the law, then the paramilitary uses the cynicism of the general population about the moral authority of the government to continue to increase its power and you end up with a coup of some kind or another.
	Whether it's a soft quasi-democratic coup like in Germany or in Russia or it is a genuine coup like in other countries, you really do open the gates of hell when you let senior civilian officials in the government literally get away with mass murder.
	You open the gates of hell because the sociopaths are like, great, okay, so there's nothing in our way.
	Nothing to stop us.
	No moral fiber.
	No moral outrage.
	No moral standards.
	Everything is just verbal manipulation and bullshit and boy, are we ever good at that.
	So they just move in and take over and who on earth is going to resist?
	How can you possibly resist tiny incremental crimes if you have no outrage about massive international genocidal crimes?
	How on earth are people going to get upset fundamentally about Benghazi or the IRS scandals or the NSA or any of that stuff?
	How are people going to get upset about that if they weren't upset about Iraq?
	I mean, come on.
	The breaking point with a growing military fascistic state is never a parking ticket.
	And these things are parking tickets relative to what happened in 2003 and beyond.
	So, I thought that was fairly not, I don't think it was consciously portrayed, but I think it was quite accurately portrayed.
	Other silly things. So the bad guy with the Seth African accent, I think very well portrayed by the actor.
	The anthropological view of the true psychopath was very interesting, right?
	So he would reach for the child of a woman and the woman would protect you and say, ah, you see, protective gestures from the woman, eh?
	And that was cool.
	Like, I mean, the way he would play with people and notice their reactions and be quite delighted with seeing how the species that he felt no part of operated.
	I thought that was very interesting. But, you know, he gets his face half blown off and he goes into one of these medical miracle machines and it regrows his face.
	Complete with facial hair.
	I thought that was just amazing.
	I mean, that was just amazing.
	I guess they wanted him to have a beard in the movie.
	And I thought it was great that they re-grew his face and that re-growing included facial hair.
	And again, this is six or seven years of age.
	This is what people think of in terms of, oh, well, he had a beard, it's re-growing his face, therefore he will have a beard again because his face had a beard before.
	That's the level of primitive thinking that would not laugh at that ridiculousness.
	Of course, if you regrow somebody's face with their DNA, it's not going to have facial hair on it.
	Right? You know, it would be like regrowing somebody's arm and they have a scar on it.
	Again, I mean, the scar is not genetic and a beard does not encode itself in the DNA and it's not all going to be the right length and so on, right?
	Like, I mean, that's just ridiculous that it will regrow the face and put the beard in.
	I mean, come on. I mean, again, but this is the level of thinking that occurs in the people who go to these movies.
	They would say, well, he had a beard before, he had his face regrown, so of course he has a beard back.
	But, oh my goodness, that's just, I mean, that's crazy.
	That literally is completely and totally mad.
	That's like, well, you know, somebody lost a leg and they had a fracture in the leg which healed.
	Let's regrow their leg, but let's make sure we regrow the fracture as well.
	I mean, no, the fracture is not genetic, right?
	Anyway, I mean, I hate to sort of pick at this stuff, but that literally is the level at which these things are operating.
	I mean, it really is completely mad.
	And this is the level at which people are unable to process any kind of basic reality in these movies.
	Now, let's talk about Matt Damon's...
	So he basically creates these robots, and it's the robots who...
	It's the robots who oppress the people, right?
	The upper classes create these robots, and the robots are used to oppress the people.
	Now, of course, there's some truth in that, in that the upper classes run the public schools or define the ideological agendas of the public schools, which produces police who are basically robots.
	I mean, the police just obey whatever people tell them to do, which is like following a programmed instruction.
	And, you know, how many police will say, sorry, this doesn't jibe with the Constitution.
	I can't possibly enforce this.
	I mean, there's a very few who sort of do take that stuff seriously.
	And I think that's actually pretty cool because what they do is they help remind us that you can't ever have a system that relies on that because there are so very, very few of those people, right?
	So when the police were told to take everyone's guns with the New Orleans Katrina disaster, how many of them said, I'm sorry, no, that's a violation of the Second Amendment.
	Can't do it.
	Sorry. Not possible.
	Well, no, they just went and took people's guns.
	So, I mean, the fact that the police are robots, it serves two functions.
	One is it allows Matt Damon to rip the head off a robot, not a human being.
	And second, I mean, I think it jibes with people's basic intuitive understanding that the police are kind of just like robots and don't have any conscience of their own and don't have any standards.
	Externals are just being told what to do.
	And I mean, police, I mean, throughout the world are functionally indistinguishable from the worst aspects of a police state because they'll just do what people tell them to.
	And I got to get my pension.
	So I'll oppress whoever because people point at them, right?
	I'd say, do this. So I think that was kind of true.
	So he's in a factory where they create these robots, and the robot bodies that he's helping to create go into a room, and then I guess they're doused with radiation for some reason.
	And one of the pallets, like one of the bases of the robot rack, a rack of robot bodies, gets turned and stuck, and the door won't close.
	And this is holding up production, right?
	So he's told...
	So the foreman comes over and says, dude, you're holding up production.
	And he's like, well, this pallet has shifted.
	And he's like, well, get in there and fix it.
	Now, he doesn't want to go in there because he doesn't want to get exposed to the radiation that comes when the door closes.
	And the guy basically says, well, you can go in there and fix it or you're fired.
	And, you know, gosh, a Hollywood movie with a mean boss.
	Who would have thought it? They're not all quite working, girl.
	So he's terrified, but he doesn't want to get fired because he's on parole or something like that.
	He doesn't want to get fired. So he goes in, and he shifts the pallet, and the door closes, and he gets dosed with this radiation.
	He's going to die. And, you know, the mean guy from Prison Break says, oh, you know, when he sees him, Matt Damon lying there, oh, you know, move him off those, I don't want to change the sheets.
	You know, again, this is just cliched, stereotypical, you know, evil guy CEO nonsense, right?
	And you don't see much of the government, really.
	I mean, it's mostly just these localized evil CEOs, right?
	And... What happens is, after Matt Damon gets dosed with this radiation, they have to shut the entire factory down.
	So clearly, it was a bad economic decision, right?
	I mean, you get a piece of metal and you prop the door open.
	You go in, you adjust the pallet, and then you come out and you remove it, right?
	So it's all so ridiculously solvable, right?
	That it's, you know, it's just bad writing.
	Because if you are afraid of dying because a door closes, get a fucking piece of metal and prop the door open.
	It's not brain surgery, right?
	But no, he's got to follow the script of Mean Boss and he's got to get the radiation poisoning so that he's willing to put the suit on, so he's willing to do all these fights, so you've got an action movie and all this stuff, right?
	And... What's funny about it, and what's tragic about it, is this is the level of ideological unreality that people live in.
	Let me sort of explain what I mean.
	So about 20 years ago or so, there was a movie made of the Twilight Zone series.
	And one of the sequences about a kid who could wish anything was fantastic, terrifying.
	One of them, which was fairly bland about a racist getting his comeuppance, was...
	The lead in that sequence or in that novelette or vignette was played by an actor named Vic Morrow.
	Now, in the shooting of the movie, there was a terrible accident where a helicopter crashed into a bunch of actors and Vic Morrow got killed.
	And this was all over the news.
	And, I mean, it was just a complete mess and disaster.
	Now, think of the amount of dangerous things that movies do when they're shooting movies.
	I mean, just look at your Average Fast and the Furious movie.
	How does nobody get hurt in that?
	I mean, it's incredible, right? Now, Matt Damon has done endless, dull, broken record, repetitive action movies and has sustained no injuries.
	I mean, no significant injuries.
	And I've never heard of anyone sustaining any real injuries on a Matt Damon movie.
	So the movies are obsessed with people's safety.
	And there's a variety of reasons for that.
	I mean, some of it, I'm sure, is basic humanity, although the pedophilia described by one of the Feldman kids might speak to the contrary.
	But... There's lawsuits and insurance and all this kind of stuff, right?
	So the movie sets have to be spectacularly safe.
	And that's what to me is fascinating, is they're shooting a movie about a foreman and corporation's completely callous disregard for workplace safety, whereas in the movie they're completely obsessed with workplace safety.
	I can't explain to you.
	I'm going to try.
	I really can't explain to you how deeply insane that is.
	There is a movie portraying, and you see this endlessly portrayed in movies, the callousness to worker safety of the characters in the movie, in a movie set where everybody is obsessed with worker safety and workplace safety.
	You see endless portrayals in movies of the exact opposite principles that movies and movie sets work on.
	Do you see how insane that is?
	So you literally have a director saying, okay, let's shoot the scene where nobody cares about the workers.
	Now listen, guys, this is a dangerous scene, safety first.
	Now let's shoot the scene where nobody cares about workers.
	Safety first, remember everyone.
	Do not get injured at all.
	Don't do anything dangerous.
	Shut down production if you have to, if you see even a shred of danger to any of the workers or actors.
	In the scene which we've shot a million times before about how nobody cares about the safety of workers and actors.
	Let's be super safe while shooting the scene about how nobody cares about safety.
	But you get how insane that is?
	You're so stuck in ideology that you can't actually look around at the actual environment you're working in and have that influence your artistic decisions.
	This is how incredibly powerful ideology is in that it can...
	Matt Damon's got like a 20-plus year career in movies, never been hurt, and yet he must film a scene where nobody cares about worker safety.
	His entire experience and the experience literally of the set and the health and safety obsessions of everyone in the set around him vanish when he goes into the matrix of ideology.
	Even his immediate surroundings...
	Completely vanish. Isn't that an astounding phenomenon when you think about it?
	It literally is like genuinely filming a movie about how there's no light in the world anywhere.
	And not as an allegory, but as a reality that you are reflecting.
	And you're shooting in the middle of the Arctic in the middle of summer.
	On a sunny day. And you're literally saying, hey, let's shoot the movie about the reality that there's no light anywhere in the world.
	Now pass me those sunglasses because it's too bright out here.
	That's literally how unreal it is.
	And Matt Damon, of course, who is one of the highest paid actors in history, endlessly playing these roles where he's underpaid and underappreciated.
	Again, that's just ideologies. It's just ideology.
	And it's incredible how when people plug into ideology, literally the world winks out of existence.
	The world literally winks out of existence and is replaced by ideology.
	And the contradictions between the ideology and the world that they're actually physically surrounded by registers nowhere in their consciousness.
	That's the incredible power of ideology.
	It can erase the exact opposite empirical evidence of your multi-decade immediate empirical experience.
	It can do all of that, and you won't even notice it.
	So Matt Damon, incredibly high-paid, all of the workers incredibly well-protected, and incredibly highly paid, will make all these movies about how workers are oppressed and nobody cares about their safety.
	Because that's ideology, and you make those ideological statements.
	Now, of course, you make these ideological statements for a variety of reasons.
	Art can reduce people's resentment, or it can stoke people's resentment.
	And unfortunately, almost all of modern art is about stoking and provoking people's resentment.
	Because that's what they want in the moment.
	Because that's what they want in the moment.
	Why... Is Matt Damon a factory worker?
	Because that's the only real value that he can offer to an employer.
	Now, I'm going to talk about something here.
	It's going to be perhaps a little unusual for people, perhaps a little annoying for people, but that's all right.
	That's central to my job description to be an annoying gadfly.
	I'm Now, I've talked a lot about statism and licensing and restrictions upon freedom and why you're unemployed and so on.
	And that, I believe, I fully accept.
	There's huge barriers to getting employed and getting ahead.
	That having been said, there is also, in the modern world, with almost no prior precedence, one has the capacity to be an entrepreneur.
	In the modern world. Because you can start by technical writing, doing websites, podcasting, video blogging with commercials.
	I mean, you can set up your own TV station with literally a webcam and a cable modem.
	The research you can do on the web is...
	Free, pretty much. You can do great research.
	You can put together a show, as I have done, and you can, you know, not starve, right?
	You can do all right.
	You can work from home with a wide variety of – you can get jobs anywhere in the world if you're willing to network and so on.
	There's lots of websites like LinkedIn where people work their networks and work to be entrepreneurs and you can get involved and grow a business without massive amounts of capital that would be needed.
	Like if you want to start a car factory, you need $10 billion.
	Same thing with starting a competitor to AMD or Intel.
	But if you want to start a business, and look, I know this.
	We started a business.
	I was the co-founder and started a business.
	We started literally with nothing, and then we needed a one-time injection of $80,000.
	Now, $80,000 is not nothing, but we started the business and got to the $80,000.
	And people made like 4,000% return on that investment.
	They invested in what I was doing.
	But we got to that from nothing.
	And we were able to grow the business to a couple of million bucks a year and so on.
	And that's without...
	I mean, I had to sign a bunch of personal guarantees for bank loans and stuff like that along the way, which made it quite exciting.
	But with very little business experience, some understanding of economics and really good computer programming experience since I've been doing it since I was like 11 or 12, I was able to start a business.
	I've been able to start this show with what?
	With very little business.
	You know, I've spent maybe $10,000 on hardware and software over the years.
	And, you know, I now have an employee and so on.
	But I started doing a show in my car, like profiting from my commute.
	I mean, God, how easy is that?
	I mean, it was either that or phone sex.
	I'm not great at phones.
	I'm not bad at it. I'm not great at it.
	But... Nobody believes I'm called Candy.
	So you have this capacity for entrepreneurship and there's no faster way to add to human capital than to pursue entrepreneurship.
	You just become incredibly valuable.
	Now, in my own experience and my own history, I have tried to provide significant opportunities to people I care about.
	So, as a business executive, I hired friends or tried to hire friends and tried to give them opportunities to become really good at what they do, to expand their skill set, to blah, blah, blah, right?
	And without exception, they rejected these offers.
	I might hire them, but they wouldn't show any interest in the business side or any interest in growing.
	They just sort of did their own little thing and wanted to leave at 5 o'clock.
	I got a job interview for a friend of mine, and he didn't even show up.
	I had a guy I became fairly close with.
	Who was interested in learning more than just the technical side, but he just ended up preferring going drinking with his buddies than staying and really learning about the business.
	And so in my experience, even when you offer significant opportunities to people, one guy I know who'd not been an entrepreneur, I offered him some significant opportunities to get involved in our business and to develop a product that was an offshoot product.
	And even though we offered to fund it, he just wasn't a very skilled programmer, but just no interest in doing the entrepreneurial stuff.
	Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people got to do the entrepreneurial stuff.
	I'm not saying that at all.
	They don't have to do the entrepreneurial stuff at all.
	But then you end up as a wage slave, right?
	I mean, that's the way it works.
	If you don't want to do the entrepreneurial thing, then you're going to end up as a wage slave.
	And being a wage slave, it sucks in the long run.
	I mean, you really can't make any particular coin.
	And it's pretty rough all around.
	And you end up being told what to do and you don't set your own agenda and you don't end up with any kind of control over your business and you don't end up developing your human capital that much and so on.
	So you never end up really making very much money at all relative to what you can make as an entrepreneur.
	And even more importantly, you end up without...
	The sense of freedom and control and efficacy, right?
	As you go up in an organization, statistically and according to research, your stress goes down, right?
	You just become less stressed because you have more control.
	And so in my experience, people that I've tried to provide these kinds of opportunities to have basically not really been interested in that, right?
	They just don't accept it.
	And I was, you know, I got a pretty good, I had a pretty good opportunity to be able to help people in this area.
	They just, they didn't take it.
	They didn't want it. Now, that's sort of a courage thing.
	And don't even get me started in a number of people in my life that I've tried to get into therapy when they encounter significant life difficulties or life problems who just won't do it.
	And so their shitty lives continue, or the shitty aspects of their lives continue.
	Let alone the number of people I've tried to get to exercise, let alone the number of people I've tried to get to read philosophy, or even listen to a number of friends I even tried to get to listen to my show.
	These are not people in my life anymore, right?
	And so there's a lot of people who, even when offered opportunity, will back away, will...
	We'll stay small. We'll refuse to embrace it.
	I don't know if they're right or not to, and maybe they're just not that smart, right?
	But, I mean, you know, I wasn't that smart.
	I remember, gosh, when I was in, I don't know, grade 10 or grade 11, I took a computer science course, and I was programming all the time at home, but I really wasn't that smart.
	I remember getting one assignment where you had to write a program that would give the minimum amount of change for a certain dollar transaction, $5.
	What's the smallest number of coins you can give in return?
	I way overcomplicated this.
	Of course, the algorithm is very simple, right?
	You take the largest denomination of coins and you reduce the amount until the last amount is smaller than that and then you move to the next smaller and the next smaller until you run out, right?
	But I didn't figure that out.
	I was trying all these weird projection calculations.
	I mean, I wasn't smart about it because I wasn't as simple as smart, right?
	And so I wouldn't say that I didn't sort of have this massive human capital, which is why I became an entrepreneur.
	I have this human capital now because I became an entrepreneur.
	You know, necessity is the mother of invention and panic is the driver of intelligence and skills acquisition in many times, right?
	In many ways. So, in Elysium, you see this repetitive reality that people see, which is there are massive external barriers to you achieving your dreams.
	And I don't really believe that that's quite as true as people like to think it is.
	I think that people are looking for an excuse as to why they can't pursue their dreams.
	And they like the idea of a rigid and ossified class structure.
	The man keeps them down rather than I... Did not seize the day when the day was offered to me or when opportunities came along to seize the day.
	Look, I was terrified a lot of the time as an entrepreneur.
	It's stressful.
	I don't feel that anymore.
	But, you know, it was exciting and it was great.
	But it was also, you know, pretty stressful and pretty fear-inducing because, you know, when you kind of grew up broke and you're broke now and you signed a, you know, I'm going to pay $10,000 if the business fails.
	I mean, you can't even imagine paying that off when you're, you know, 27 or whatever and recently out of college.
	And there was some even higher than that that I ended up getting involved in.
	And, you know, when you have responsibility for employees and all that, I mean, it's hard.
	It's a hard situation to be in.
	And I think a lot of people have had some kind of opportunity present itself or some possibility.
	It doesn't have to be somebody coming along and saying, I'm going to make you a star, baby.
	It can be any number of things.
	But I think a lot of people have.
	Opportunities that show up in their life and they fade away and they reject them because it's scary in the moment to have those kinds of opportunities and people back away from those opportunities and they fail to rise to the occasion.
	And then later, they end up stuck in these jobs.
	So, the momentary relief of bypassing or rejecting an opportunity and all the fear that that's going to bring up in you, that fades away.
	And then later in life, you're like working for the man and you're stuck and maybe you're kind of broke and you've got no opportunities now.
	And your possibility of pursuing opportunities has diminished because you need that steady paycheck, you got two kids, you got a mortgage, you got car payments, you got whatever.
	And so your possibility of taking those opportunities has diminished.
	And so you're left with the negative consequences of avoiding opportunity or avoiding possibility.
	And rather than say, well, I made my bet, I'm going to lie in it.
	These are the choices that I made, and it kind of sucks, but hey, you know, I'm responsible for my choices.
	People, I think, are drawn to art where opportunity and success is impossible.
	Nobody can succeed.
	The culture is too structured, too ossified, too sedimentary, too brittle, too controlled, and you just got no opportunity.
	for pursuing your goals or achieving your dreams.
	But there are new actors who make it every day, new businesses that grow every day, new opportunities that arise every day.
	And this one is the first one that I've done entirely on my own and I'm pleased with it and so on.
	But if I hadn't done it, I mean, you know, I'd still be in the business world, which meant...
	Like, I'm subjected to the audience, which is kind of what I want.
	That's sort of the measure of effect.
	That's good. I'm glad that you like or don't like the show.
	I'm glad that I'm a slave to the audience.
	That's about as free as you can be.
	And... If I hadn't taken the opportunity, I'd still be working in the business world and subject to the ethics of the business world, which, you know, are not particularly high.
	I don't think they're low relative to, you know, they're higher than they would be instead of academia or in business, sorry, in government.
	But in business, there's still all these problems of people not telling the truth and this, that, and the other.
	Basically falsifying things, promising things to clients that are virtually impossible to deliver and so on.
	So I'd still be stuck in that and I'd probably be fairly high up in some organization now and I don't particularly want to be CEO. But I was chief technical officer and I might be chief operating officer or something like that.
	From where I came from, which was a broke-ass household where my mom was like a secretary and then unemployed for 30 years, it's not bad.
	It's not bad at all where I've come from.
	But that has been sort of the relentless seeking out of opportunities and dealing with the emotional anxiety that comes from breaking out of a class structure.
	I mean, some of it is legal, some of it is governmental.
	Yeah, absolutely. But some of it is in your head.
	Some of class is in your head.
	And people who won't change their class because of the anxiety that provokes in their head and how their social sphere is going to react to it.
	Because, you know, if you have social spheres, lower class, you've got a whole bunch of people who haven't taken opportunities or haven't created opportunities or haven't outgrown their origins.
	So if you do it, suddenly they can't say it's impossible.
	It's the man, it's the structure, it's the corporations, the government, whatever, right?
	If you break out of a class, it provokes a lot of anxiety and a lot of hostility.
	In those around you who never broke out of that paradigm.
	And so that's why it's hard to break out.
	When I broke out of my lower class, I mean, almost nobody came with me.
	I mean, they all just wanted to stay small.
	Even when I sort of give them opportunities in the business world and show them, yeah, do therapy, you know, and gain self-knowledge, read about economics, read about business, learn about some particular skill, go out and screw your courage to the sticking place and get out of You know, the ossified tadpole hole you were born into.
	Well, most people don't want to come.
	They want to stay there. And then later on in life, they realize, maybe even unconsciously, the consequences of that, frankly, of that cowardice.
	And then rather than say, well, I should have taken that opportunity and learning from it, and maybe even taking an opportunity later in life, it's not impossible.
	What they do is they are drawn to representations of the world that say the class is too rigid to escape.
	And movies like Elysium provide that drug that they need, which says I could never break free.
	I say, yes, you're born in a cage, but the door is open.
	Look, open and close.
	Look, we can go in and out. Yeah, we're born in a cage and it's scary to leave, but the door is unlocked.
	No, no, no. They always want to go to prison movies where the door is not unlocked and you can't get out.
	Because it became true for them because they did not work to escape that.
	So I think movies like Elysium are movies where class is portrayed as very rigid.
	And you can't break out of it.
	And the rich control everything and you have no opportunities and so on.
	It's not true.
	There's lots of class mobility left even in America.
	Upper classes fall down, the lower classes go up.
	It's becoming less true over time, but that's largely because of movies like Elysium, which stoke class resentments.
	And class resentments is basically, I'm too scared to change my station, so I want to pretend that there's no way to change my station, so that I was not fearful, I was prudent, I was wise.
	And this addiction from cowards for justification for their cowardice drives a massive amount of media.
	And it's enormously tragic, and this is why I have a special hate on for these kinds of films.
	Now, another aspect of annoying media liberal hypocrisy is, boy, you can just go gangbusters in this world by stoking people's resentment of the rich.
	Oh my god!
	I guess there's a fairly famous exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald, who said, the rich are different from you and me, and Ernest Hemingway, who said, yeah, they have more money.
	I think there may be more to it than that.
	But this resentment of wealth, this resentment of the rich, really is catastrophic.
	I mean, people have a very ambivalent relationship with success.
	So, You know, people may hate that Freddie Mercury was so rich or, you know, had such a great voice or was such a great musician or a great songwriter or whatever.
	But boy, you've got to love his music, right?
	I mean, I guess there are people at karaoke who'd like to be the lead singers of a band, but they just don't have the pipes or the whatever, right?
	And so they'd probably go to rock concerts and they resent the singers and all that who were up there.
	But of course, the only reason they want to be singers is because other singers have been successful, you know, much more successful than they have.
	There's an old Gore Vidal saying where he said, it is not enough to succeed, our friends must also fail.
	I meant 60, kind of crappy.
	But it's ironic and just shows you the madness of ideology, again, of propaganda.
	People will endlessly go to movies demonizing the rich, starring actors paid in the millions, or tens of millions, I guess sometimes.
	Again, you're going to put that on the back-boiled part of your brain and let it simmer for a little bit.
	So people will endlessly go To movies demonizing the rich.
	And they will primarily go because of famous movie stars who are paid millions and millions and millions of dollars.
	I mean, isn't that remarkable?
	I don't like the rich, and I'm going to go and see movies starring Matt Damon about how the rich are bad.
	And I'm only going to see it because I really like Matt Damon, who is incredibly rich as a result of the movies he made about how rich people are bad.
	And Matt Damon's salary is only paid for by all the people who want to see his movies about how bad the rich people are.
	His wealth comes from people voluntarily giving him their money in the tens of millions in order for him to do movies demonizing the rich.
	I think he also did the Narrative work for some film about the financial crisis that was entirely false.
	Now, Matt Damon, I mean, he is a – I mean, what do I know about the guy?
	I don't know the guy at all, right? But one thing I do know is that he has been entirely pro-public school teachers.
	Oh, there's a radical position to take.
	I am for government schools.
	Oh, boy, that'll get you demonized up the yin-yang.
	What a brave moral crusader he is.
	I'm against banks and greed, and I'm for our heroic public school teachers.
	Way to take a stand, Matt!
	Well, of course, you know, he's not going to get paid a lot of money unless he has fashionable causes, like Leonardo DiCaprio, and all these guys have got to have their fashionable causes.
	And naturally, he's got four kids, and after praising public schools of the yin-yang, He is taking his own children and putting them where?
	Where? Oh, I wonder if you can guess.
	In an incredibly elite private school.
	Now, I mean, I get it.
	I mean, public schools suck.
	And there may be security issues.
	I'm sure some people would kidnap his kids for ransom or whatever.
	But, you know, he could send private security to a public school.
	I'm sure that would be fine with them in order for them to have the prestige.
	So the security issue could be dealt with very easily, but he just doesn't want his kids anywhere near a public school.
	I mean, this is so common, it's ridiculous, right?
	I mean, you look at any famous celebrity or anyone with any, even a mediocre amount of celebrity who is for public schools and you find out where they put their own kids and, I mean, it's lunatic.
	They don't have them within a million miles of a public school.
	But this demonization of the rich, to me, is a very interesting phenomenon.
	The rich, of course, have been forced at gunpoint to pay for a significant amount of social costs.
	The top 5% of owners pay 40% of the taxes.
	People get a lot of free stuff out of the rich.
	The more they use force to extract money from the rich...
	The more they seem to resent the rich.
	Now, that's natural, right?
	The evildoers resent the victims, right?
	Because when you do evil against the innocent, and being rich is innocent, I mean, for the most part.
	I mean, assuming that there's some vestige of the free market that's helped produce that wealth.
	But the evildoer hates the victim because the victim...
	Lives as a provocative conscience in the evildoer's mind.
	I mean, Macbeth hates King Duncan.
	Played the role. Macbeth hates King Duncan because King Duncan, the ghost in his mind of the murder he committed, prevents him from sleeping.
	Anyway. So there is no amount of sacrifice of the wealthy.
	That will turn around the resentment of the poor or the middle class.
	Now, by poor, I generally mean less intelligent.
	It's not a one-to-one ratio, of course, right?
	But there's a general trend.
	Now, the less intelligent people are, And I don't necessarily mean just sort of native physical biological intelligence.
	I actually mean the less informed, the less well-read, the less curious, the less educated, whether self or otherwise, which results in unintelligent analysis of reality.
	So the less intelligent people are, the more they resent the success of others and For two reasons.
	One, their own lazy anti-intellectual habits prevent them from gathering the kind of human capital that will get them well-paid, number one.
	And number two, they don't follow the economic realities of the acquisition of wealth.
	Again, I'm just talking free market stuff, but the acquisition of wealth is the provision of value, fundamentally, unless you inherit it or whatever, in which case you just provided value to your parents, right?
	But the acquisition of wealth is the provision of value.
	People donate to me because what I say has value to them.
	My donations is a measure of the value that I'm providing.
	And that value is on two levels.
	One is the content of what I'm saying.
	And the other is helping people to connect virtue in theory with virtue in practice.
	So if you say, for instance, we don't need a welfare state because charity will take care of things like...
	I got an email a week or two ago saying, yeah, I've listened to a lot of your show and I totally agree with you that charity will take care of education.
	You know, the educational needs of the poor will be served by charity.
	And upon my query, he confessed that he'd never donated a penny to this show.
	So I'd listened to thousands of podcasts with the associated download costs and server costs and all that.
	So he'd listened to thousands of podcasts and And he fully agreed with me that charity would provide education for the children of the poor or whoever, right?
	And he had not donated.
	And that is simply, again, the disconnect between what you believe and what you do.
	My main focus is simply to Take away the abstractions from the abstractions, right?
	This is why I focus on the non-aggression principle and spanking or aggression against children.
	This is something people can actually do.
	You are not a philosopher if you only listen or read about it.
	You have no virtue if you only listen or read about it.
	Having virtuous opinions without virtuous actions is actually a discredit to virtue.
	I mean, if you come up with some fabulous diet and then someone who's 400 pounds claims that they are a strict adherent of your diet and have been for years and they're 400 pounds and they say, well, I used to be 300 pounds.
	I mean, that's a negative advertisement to your diet, right?
	People are going to say, oh my God, this guy has followed this diet and he's gained 100 pounds and 300 to 400 pounds.
	This diet is terrible. Now, if your diet is good, then the person has not followed it and has gained weight or has not followed the totality of the instructions around diet and exercise.
	It's not exercising or whatever. So if you have a diet that works, you actually don't want people to proclaim their adherence to your diet if they're not actually living it, if they're not actually doing it.
	Because then they are negative advertisements.
	If some spaghetti-armed man claims that he works out and takes your protein supplements, then people are going to say, well, my God, there must be stripping muscle, if not bone marrow, from his whole system.
	That's terrible. You do not want people to claim to be an adherent of your system if they're not actually an adherent of your system.
	But they discredit your system.
	One of the greatest and most powerful ways that you can discredit any philosophy, whether it's mine or hopefully just good philosophy, the best way to discredit anybody's system is to claim to be an adherent of that system but not actually follow it.
	All systems that aim in changing behavior Use ideas as a precursor to the change of behavior.
	You change your knowledge about what to eat in order to change what you eat.
	And you study philosophy in order to change your behavior, in order to change your actions.
	And reading about the Fed, foreign policy, monetary policy, the IMF, And then saying you're an adherent of philosopher is like saying that you're losing weight by reading diet books.
	Now, all of that is just a precursor, and I mean necessary but certainly not sufficient.
	You need knowledge in order to act rightly, but knowledge without acting rightly is a perfect way to discredit knowledge.
	You are actually an enemy of philosophy if you claim to study philosophy without changing your behavior.
	You are, what do they call it, a shill?
	A word almost exclusively used by fools.
	And yeah, I mean, I roll my eyes when I see people who are big fans of what I do and don't live it at all.
	I can't change their behavior.
	I can simply point out that they are discrediting philosophy in the eyes of anybody.
	I mean anybody.
	And if you study someone's diet...
	And claim to be following it when you're actually not following it, then the person who writes the diet book would, if they could, tell you to shut the fuck up about the diet because you're actually driving people away from getting healthy by proclaiming that you're following a diet that you're not.
	If you have read the books but not changed your actions, then you are discrediting the theory because you've not put it in practice and it is a way of expressing hatred to philosophy to study it without living it.
	In the same way that there's almost nothing worse you can do for a diet than to proclaim you are living it when you're not.
	There was a cartoon I saw on Facebook the other day.
	The average CEO salary, I can't remember, eight or nine million dollars a year.
	And they said if the average CEO goes to the bathroom four times a day for 60 seconds each time, then the CEO earns more money going to the bathroom than he does the daily wage of the average worker.
	So the CEO makes more money going to the bathroom than the average worker does in a day.
	I mean, this is idiotic.
	I mean, of course nobody gets paid for going to the bathroom.
	Of course nobody... I mean, people don't get paid for going...
	So saying that you get paid for going to the bathroom is ridiculous.
	I guess nobody gets paid for going to the bathroom unless you're in some sort of medical study where you are providing urine.
	But nobody gets paid for going to the bathroom.
	And anybody who says, well, the CEO gets paid more for going to the bathroom than the average worker...
	Gets paid is a slave's way of looking at income.
	It is an idiot's way of looking at income.
	So when you say the CEO gets paid a hundred times the wages of the average worker, CEOs do not get paid.
	Workers do not get paid.
	It's confusing things in such a fundamental way that all it does is a confession to everyone that you have no idea how money works or how the economy works or how the market works, in which case you really shouldn't be talking about it.
	You should not be talking about economic issues if you have no understanding of economics.
	CEOs do not get paid.
	Workers do not get paid. CEOs create value.
	And they take back a portion of the value that they create in salary.
	I mean, how could this...
	Right, so if you say, rather than CEOs get paid 100 times more than workers, if you say, CEOs create 100 times more value than workers, it's probably closer to 150, but anyway, CEOs create 100 times more value than workers.
	That's economically accurate.
	Matt Damon does not get paid $15 million for a movie.
	Matt Damon generates $50 million worth of value for a movie.
	The movie gets paid more than Matt Damon does.
	Otherwise, the transaction would not occur.
	If he was only able to gain $10 million worth of value to a movie...
	Then he would not be paid $15 million because then they would lose $5 million in the transaction.
	And because there's some risk in the art world, the movie world, and so on, audiences are fickle, people might not like the script, and also something might happen right before the movie that makes the movie not make money.
	Something similar might happen in the real world that might be a problem for the movie.
	So, Matt Damon, you know, an extra gets paid $5 an hour, $10 an hour.
	Matt Damon gets paid $15 million.
	You know, like there's just some big pool of money and Matt Damon gets some ridiculously disproportionate amount of that money.
	But that's just not even remotely true.
	It's a great deal.
	We're getting Matt Damon for $15 million because he's going to allow the movie to open probably $50 million or more richer.
	Is this complicated?
	Is this hard to understand?
	And this is the basic idea, what's called the redistribution of income or whatever.
	It's the idea, and again, only fools generally have this opinion, this idea that there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world and if someone is getting more, someone else is getting less.
	But the reality is, job security is predicated by high CEO salaries.
	Because, again, we're talking free market principles, not some of the garbage that goes on with state fascist corporatism like Enron and so on.
	But in a free market, the higher wage you can offer a CEO, the better talent you can attract.
	And that means that the industry is growing.
	That means that economic opportunities are there.
	So if you're going to pay a CEO $10 million a year, you want that CEO. To produce $30, $40, $50 million of value a year.
	And best value is growth, right?
	And where there's growth, there is job security if you're doing a good job.
	And so high CEO salaries should be cheered by workers because that means that the workers are in a growth industry which can attract the best talent and so on, right?
	The extras should cheer Matt Damon's salary because it means that their grainy faces are going to be seen in the background, which otherwise they wouldn't be, probably.
	The movie might not even get made.
	And so this resentment of the rich comes from this idea that there's money out there, you didn't get yours and somebody else stole yours.
	I don't know. Maybe it comes from dating.
	Like if somebody else dates that woman you have a crush on, you don't get to date her.
	At least I hope not, if she's not.
	Two-timing or three-timing.
	It also comes out of probably, again, this is sort of six, seven, eight years old.
	My daughter is going through, I think, the natural phase, which she needs to be gently coaxed out of over time, which is even if she's not playing with a toy, if another kid wants to play with that toy, suddenly she desperately needs it and must have it and must keep it and all that kind of stuff.
	I was at a swimming pool the other day and she had a ball that she hadn't played with for like an hour.
	She was learning how to swim. A father and his daughter started throwing the ball back and forth and suddenly she wanted to swim over and get the ball away from them.
	We could talk about it, but this is the idea that it's, you know, their gain is my loss.
	And it's true. I mean, if you're playing with your brother and you both want to play with the Rubik's Cube, if he gets it, you don't.
	You don't really have the capacity to go out and earn your own Rubik's Cube or make one or something like that.
	And of course, most of sibling conflicts are over zero-sum situations, right?
	Which is... There's only one computer.
	If you're using it, I can't use it and vice versa.
	And people have that feeling about money, right?
	There is that sibling. I remember this when I was a kid.
	The sibling drive for equality.
	If your sibling gets too much, that's bad, right?
	I mean, try it with a sibling.
	You know, if you've got two kids, try giving one of them two cookies and the other one no cookie, right?
	But this is how generally people feel about economics.
	Again, people get really stuck.
	I think they basically get stuck mentally when they go into public school.
	And they advance a little bit beyond that, but in terms of economics, it's just terrible.
	I mean, they really get stuck in this, if he's got more, I get less.
	Whereas, if you were to say to your sibling, give me the Rubik's Cube for ten minutes, and I will make three.
	And we will never have to fight over it again, and we will, in addition, have one to sell.
	That would be pretty cool, right?
	Like, you don't get a lot of fight. Like, let's say you get your Justin Bieber CD, and you don't generally fight over who gets the Justin Bieber CD because you rip it, right?
	And then you put the files on two music players.
	Or you copy the CD. Not to be recommended.
	I know it's illegal. I'm just saying if it were to happen in this theoretical example.
	But you don't fight over those resources that can be reproduced.
	And money is something you can photocopy.
	I mean, if you take a digital picture, which you both want, you just copy it, right?
	There's a legal example.
	Yay! Right.
	Here, I'll make you a copy. Then you don't fight over it.
	Because there's more there than there was before.
	There's two where there was one and the second one has not taken anything from the first.
	But that's money. But people, they grow up with toys and limited, say, electronics resources and And so what happens is they end up with this zero-sum game mentality.
	Well, if you're playing with the iPad, I can't play with the iPad.
	As opposed to saying, hey, give me the iPad for five minutes and we'll have three.
	One each and one to sell.
	So we end up with an iPad each and, you know, a couple hundred bucks from selling it.
	Well, who wouldn't then give the iPad over?
	Whereas if it's just one iPad and zero-sum and whatever, right?
	So people get stuck at that level and then they look at people with a lot of money and they don't see that what they're getting paid is a small proportion of the value they're creating.
	I mean, economically, it has to be.
	In the long run, at least.
	The ideal economics of it is that you cannot pay a CEO more value than the CEO is creating.
	I mean, this is why you don't promote the janitor into being the CEO. And so when people look at income as a reflection of the value that they're creating, then income actually makes some kind of sense, right?
	Why is the extra only getting five bucks an hour?
	Because he's completely replaceable.
	He's just a backdrop. And he individually is driving maybe $10 worth of the value of the movie, or $15.
	Why is Matt Damon getting $15 million?
	Because when Matt Damon's in the movie, it's going to open big, right?
	Because it's a Matt Damon movie.
	And there's a certain level of quality associated with the Matt Damon movie and this and that and the other.
	Certainly, dear God, there's been a huge amount of predictability recently.
	And unfortunately, he's become one of these actors that no longer disappears into roles, but has become sort of, at least to me, sort of a caricature of himself.
	And that's a real shame.
	Edward Norton is someone who disappears into roles.
	I mean, he can make a really bad film like Stone, gripping just to watch his performance.
	He really disappears into roles, but most actors...
	I don't do that anymore.
	They just play themselves and become a known quantity like the next box of Cheerios tastes the same as the last and the next movie looks the same as the last and you know, you all get it, right?
	I mean, so much of our life comes out of sibling relationships or peer relationships as children.
	It's a highly unexplored area.
	I mean, lots of people have talked about parents in the state and parents in God, and that's so obvious, right?
	But I've argued in the past that Satan is actually a sibling and corporations, like the state is parents, corporations are siblings.
	But there's fundamental lack of understanding or lack of intellectual development regarding pay and value.
	Nobody gets paid. All we do is create value.
	And when you get that somebody's getting paid for creating value, you get that they're not taking anything from you.
	Because the value that they're creating is the value that they're creating.
	It's not taken from you.
	It's not a zero-sum game.
	It is the creation of value, and therefore, something exists which did not exist before.
	I mean, the example of the factory worker who gets paid $15 an hour, well, he is creating $50 worth of value for his employer, and the employer then takes $10 or $15 of that away to pay for the cost of the factory the worker did not create.
	What's that line from the Sting song or the police song?
	Rehumanize yourself. Great song.
	I work all day at the factory, building a machine that's not for me.
	There must be a reason that I can't see.
	You've got to humanize yourself.
	The factory is the key word, right?
	The person who saved, invested, took the risk of, designed, built the factory, is the one who is creating the majority of that $15 worth of value that the worker can create.
	If the worker is just doing the same motions as he does in a factory in a field, he's not going to make anything.
	Put the factory around him, suddenly he can make some good coin.
	When... No, a lot of the socialists complain about the...
	Before, there were these artisans who knew how to build everything, and then they were put into an assembly line in a factory, and now all they knew how to do was to put one Wheel on the car rather than build the whole car and all that.
	And the reality is, of course, that...
	I mean, any intelligent factory owner moves people around to avoid boredom and lack of attention that comes from that boredom.
	But the reality is that Henry Ford was able to immediately offer double the wages.
	Why? Why was he able to offer double the wages?
	Because this is an incredibly efficient way of building cars.
	And it has always struck me as, you know, socialists all...
	Say that they're for the working class and they respect the working class and they really care about the working class, but they don't actually like to really listen to the working class who tend to vote with their feet.
	When Henry Ford was able to double wages for people, and yes, I'm sure the work was a little more boring, but probably not a huge amount, then people sort of lined up around the block to work for Henry Ford.
	There's an example of the values of the working class.
	Ah, but we know better than the working class.
	Oh, you paternalizing bastards.
	You know, I've mentioned it before about the reporter who took a job at Walmart.
	I'm just as curious. He said, you know, they all know what's available at the other stores.
	They quite like what they're doing. They tend to take work.
	They go home. And if that's what you want to do, that's what you want to do.
	That's fine. But then...
	If you don't want to do sit-ups...
	Nobody else stole your six-pack, right?
	I mean, you go to the beach and you've got the keg and everyone else has got the six-pack.
	They did not steal your six-packs.
	You just chose to sit on the couch rather than doing crunches, right?
	Adam! And nobody stole your six-pack.
	You just made different choices.
	And it's a lot of work to add human capital.
	It's a lot of work.
	You've got to generally find a mentor.
	Somebody's willing to show you the ropes, which means you have to have good relationship skills, which means you have to really work on those relationship skills and be someone that other people want to mentor.
	You've got to express your ambition.
	You've got to take night courses.
	You've got to do huge amounts of travel to add value to what it is you're doing.
	CEOs have been working 60, 70 hours a week for 20 or 30 years.
	I've been on the road two weeks a month, probably minimum, for any reasonably sized organization.
	Years ago, I dated a woman who was an engineer, and she took me to the company, and the guy who founded the company, we were at a dance for something, and the guy who founded the company was walking around, and he was literally, he was like the guy who plays the dad in Clueless.
	I'm not proud that I've seen it.
	I'm just saying that as a reference point.
	And, I mean, he was just bent over with years of workaholism to build this business, which had 100 or 200 employees, and obviously he made a lot of money, but, man, he had worked for it.
	You could see it all over him. I mean, he was shaped like a question mark, a little pot belly and sallow skin, and, you know, probably had developed some sort of half-vampire gene that sunlight would burst him into flames.
	I mean, it's costly.
	I worked so much as an entrepreneur.
	It was staggering.
	I mean, I worked for over 36 hours, oh, close to 40 hours straight, getting software ready for delivery sometimes.
	And then after that, I went to go and give a presentation to the client.
	And the guy who drove me because I'd never licensed at the time, the guy who drove me fell asleep in the back because he was so exhausted because we'd all been working all night.
	And anyway, I mean, it's just a crazy amount of work, huge amount of travel.
	And through that, and also making mistakes like saying the wrong thing in meetings and pissing people off and all that and having to swallow my lumps and resentment about all of that and learning it and all.
	That was a huge amount of work.
	And as a result, I can add significant value.
	And because I could add significant value, I made some good money.
	But I never made more money than the value I could add.
	And the value that I could add...
	It was not stolen from anyone else.
	It wasn't stolen.
	When I was working all night, when I was reading Harvard Business Review at 1 o'clock in the morning, when I was getting up at 4 in the morning to take yet another flight to yet another small town to make a sales pitch, I wasn't taking anything from you.
	Right? And this is, of course, one of the fundamental problems of resentment.
	Resentment of the rich is really an effect of status, and I'll also get into that another time.
	But, you know, one of the fundamental problems, I mentioned it before, is that the fruits of virtue can be taken, but the fruits of vice cannot.
	And that's, you know, a pretty Protestant way of looking at it, like work is virtue and sitting around is vice, and that's not sort of what I mean.
	But, if you hit your kid and I don't hit my kid, then the love my kid has for me is not stolen from you.
	Right? I didn't come and take it from you.
	I'm not a thief. I just made different choices.
	The value that I have added...
	By reading philosophy, business, economics, travel, work, skills, therapy, all the things that I've done to add to my human capital, none of that was taken from you.
	None of that was stolen from you.
	In fact, I have generally encouraged everyone around me to add to their human capital.
	It's just that people seem to have this ridiculous resistance to doing so.
	Man alive! Just add to your human capital!
	I mean, just add to your value.
	I mean, whether you end up making more money or not, it's a good thing to do.
	Therapy adds massively to your value.
	It's an investment in yourself.
	You're not taken from anyone.
	Just go do it. Just don't ask questions.
	Trust me and do it. Even if you think you're happy, even if you are happy, you can be happier.
	You can be more efficacious in the progress, in the necessary progress of the world.
	But if I take a bunch of night courses and work and travel like crazy, and you decide to play on a softball league and complete Zelda's 1 through 23...
	Well, all the fun you had in the softball league, I can't get that from you later.
	I can't trade it in.
	Like, that's a memory, that's an experience, and therefore it can't be taxed, right?
	But all the additional money that I, all the additional value that I create out of the work that I've done on myself, that can be taxed away, right?
	That can be taxed away.
	So you can steal the fruits of my work, right?
	I cannot steal the fruits of your torpitude, of your non-work.
	And this is why democracy fundamentally doesn't work.
	And honestly, I have no problem with people who don't work.
	But don't not work and then complain that you're not worth much.
	I mean, don't...
	Sit on the couch and then feel resentful of people who are fit.
	I mean, there's the choices that you make.
	You can steal the additional productivity of fit people, but you cannot steal the chip taste and ass-clasping comfort of a couch from the people who are lazy.
	Right. I have been working out for over 30 years, and other people have not.
	Now, partly because I worked out I was able to beat cancer pretty easily and go through, I mean, just coming back from my first radiation treatment.
	Hopefully that won't be too bad.
	But I have almost never missed a day of work for illness.
	Only, I think, once for food poisoning.
	And so all of the additional value and productivity that I have from being healthy, that can be taken from me.
	But if you end up with diabetes because you eat too much sugar, you know, I can be taxed to pay for your diabetes, which is taxing my health to pay for your foolishness.
	But I can't tax back from you all the great taste of candy you had.
	I can't get that back, right?
	It's just a one-way ticket.
	In the state, virtue is punished and vice is rewarded.
	Which, of course, means that you get less virtue and more vice.
	Now, when virtue is punished, virtue must be demonized.
	It must be. How can you demonize...
	Sorry, how can you punish someone you don't demonize?
	It's not possible. I mean, that would be like spanking your child because you genuinely believe the child did a really good and wonderful thing that you're completely happy with.
	That's not going to happen. You have to demonize the child in order to punish the child.
	And the more you punish the child, the more you have to demonize the child, which is why abuse tends to escalate, right?
	And so, the more that the virtue of sort of discipline and hard work, the more that it is...
	Stolen from, the more that it is punished, the more that it is resentfully thieved, the more it must be demonized.
	At this point, it's not like we have to demonize the rich so that we can have a welfare state.
	We've already had the welfare state for years.
	What's happened is because we have the welfare state, we must now demonize the rich.
	We must now Demonize the rich.
	And again, I'm not talking about the looters and military-industrial dollar whores.
	I'm talking about people who've earned their money.
	I've earned my money. And nobody has to, but for God's sakes, let's at least recognize that some wealth is value that is created.
	And in a free market, the majority of wealth is value that is created.
	And that the creation of value is not the stealing of money.
	It's not like the iPad stole tablets from other people.
	The iPad created a market for tablets that encouraged other people to get into the market and sell things which they otherwise would not have sold.
	And so in movies like Elysium, none of that is discussed.
	The rich are just there and rich and mean.
	But you know, this is completely the opposite of my experience.
	Look, I've been around a lot of rich people.
	I've been around a lot of poor people.
	And you know what? Rich people in general are a hell of a lot nicer.
	Which is kind of what you'd expect.
	Because being nice is a significant amount of human capital.
	Rich people tend to be smarter.
	And they understand the value of being nice.
	Even if they're not particularly nice innately, they understand the value of being nice.
	Again, it's not to say that...
	I mean, I hate to even mention this.
	You guys are too smart. Not to say that there aren't any mean rich people or nice poor people.
	But in general... The poor people tend to be close-minded.
	They tend to be arrogant, vain in particular, massive overstaters of their own value, which is where the resentment comes from, right?
	Well, if I'm so great, why aren't I paid more?
	Well, maybe you're paid exactly right.
	And part of the reason you don't work to improve is you think you're already hot shit, right?
	And that's why you're not going to improve.
	So there's a lot of unreality, a lot of fantasy, a lot of pettiness, a lot of vindictiveness, a lack of capacity to negotiate, which means dominate or be dominated.
	Significant dysfunction among the poor.
	Rich people tend to be pretty nice, but the way it's portrayed in movies, the way it's portrayed in movies, is that the poor people are always wonderful to each other, and the rich people are unbelievably mean.
	Once again, it's the opposite.
	You know, Matt Damon is a very rich guy.
	Is he mean, cold, and callous?
	No. He's, by all accounts, a very nice guy, a hard worker.
	People have to want to work with him.
	I mean, he did like four hours of working out every day to prepare for the role.
	He did three hours every day of getting his makeup and prosthetics fitted for the role.
	And by the way, jerk that that he is, he said, oh, that's great, because, you know, I have four little kids at home, so I like the peace and quiet of makeup.
	Yeah, yeah, that's great. How about what your kids need?
	But that's seven hours a day, which has nothing to do with actually being in front of a camera, fundamentally, right?
	I mean, hard-working stuff, right?
	Probably working 14, 16, 18 hours a day on that movie.
	A lot of movies are waiting around, right?
	So, again, it's endless movies about the mean rich people, which are all made by rich people who are pretty nice.
	Because, I mean, if they weren't nice, if they had a reputation for being mean and vicious and so on, then they probably wouldn't get hired, and they'd get bad press and all this and that and the other, right?
	I think Mel Gibson is coming back from the dead at the moment after revealing a pretty vicious streak.
	I guess it's been done before, but...
	Again, this is just part of the unreality.
	And there's this populist bullshit of just portraying the poor as really nice to each other.
	It's not been my experience.
	In my experience, the poor are pretty mean to each other.
	They keep each other down. They're petty.
	They're vindictive. They're vain.
	And rich people tend to be, tend to be, on average, witty and generous and erudite and well-informed and genial and positive and enthusiastic and supportive and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
	With exceptions. I mean, again, blah, blah, in general.
	And rich people give a lot more to charity than poor people.
	Like in Elysium, the guy who's trying to drag him back into a life of crime, the Matt Damon's character back into a life of crime, is intensely loyal and will give up his life for his friend who's dying.
	Come on, have you not spent any time around ignorant sociopaths?
	Like, criminals tend to have an IQ of around 90.
	They're below average and they don't have any empathy.
	So how the hell do you get Mother Teresa emerging like the alien in Alien from the chest of a low-rent sociopath who would be physically incapable, mentally incapable of that kind of loyalty and generosity and empathy and self-sacrifice?
	Well, because to be populist, you have to portray the poor as noble and the rich as assholes.
	And that's what bothers me. And it's so counter to what the movie...
	Like, to the people who are in the movie.
	Like, if the people in the movie who are...
	Sorry, if the people who directed and star and write...
	They're rich guys. They're rich guys.
	Way above average. Way above average incomes, right?
	And if it was generally true that rich people were self-absorbed assholes, then every movie...
	Which had anything to do with rich and poor, would portray the poor as assholes and the rich as heroes.
	Do you get it? If the rich were actually as they're portrayed in movies, movies would be the opposite of what they're portraying.
	Right? But this is the...
	Basically, it's the fundamental cultural suicide of the competent and the wealthy.
	I mean, they don't know what evil genies they're uncorking from the bottles when they make movies like this, when they continually reinforce the rich are evil assholes and the poor are noble heroes.
	They do not know what devils they are uncorking.
	I mean, this is the road to totalitarianism, to government takeover of the economy, to starvation of the poor through price controls, through the collapse of the economy, through...
	The very shanty towns that they're portraying are the shanty towns that they're creating through their portrayal of them.
	By stoking resentment against the rich, by artificially ennobling the poor, they are stoking class resentment.
	They are stoking the inevitable attacks on the rich that characterizes a late-stage, fascistic, democratic, vestigial economy.
	They don't know. I mean, Matt Damon has kids and he's constantly promoting this shit.
	Poor heroes. Rich or assholes?
	Well, aren't you rich? Well, yeah, but I'm not an asshole.
	Well, are the people you make movies with assholes?
	No. Ben Affleck, he's rich?
	Is he an asshole? No, he's a great guy.
	He's my best friend. Oh, Jennifer Garner.
	She must be an asshole then.
	No, no, she's a really nice lady.
	Well, what about all these people you...
	directors? Oh, no, they all be pretty nice.
	So who the fuck are these rich people who are assholes that you keep talking about?
	Bankers. Okay, well, then make movies about bankers.
	No. And anyway, so, but it's all...
	This is the cultural suicide of the wealthy who, through their pandering to the masses, are raising the guillotine for their own demise.
	And fortunately, it's the demise of other people who are well-off who will be caught up in the same maelstrom.
	And this is why I really hate this movie.
	This is a nihilistic, culture-destroying kind of movie.
	Please, please do not go and see it.
	Please, please do not give them the money.
	It is really, really essential for the future.
	And I think with that, I've actually had a movie review longer than the movie.
	Yay! Personal best.
	Thank you everyone so much. FDRURL.com forward slash donate.
	Please, please, please help a brother out.
	Really need the cash.
	Ain't got my grills yet.

▲