ArchiveCategory Archives for "Reviews"
Reviews of movies and books.
Reviews of movies and books.
In Arrival we learn that national governments, and especially the US government, are very good at everything they do, except for the highly contrived scenario in Arrival. Fortunately, a female scientist saves the world in spite of all those nationalistic men. In fact, this single mom was so good that even those crazy men in the alternative media (that Hillary warned us about), and those men who listen to them, were not able to stop her from saving the world. Why couldn’t they have just trusted the experts?
She is able to save the world because she teaches language classes at a university, and she does it better than anyone in the world, and yet, unlike other teachers, she thinks outside the box. In fact, this teacher thinks outside of the box better than anyone in the world. This was necessary because the aliens were not able to figure out our language, so she had to figure out theirs and teach them ours – even though their language is about a thousand times more complex than ours, and even though they’re … um … aliens.
She shows the world the way to a global government where everything is awesome. You see, the problem in our world today is not enough centralization and standardization …
This all sounds like the propaganda we’ve seen out of Hollywood for the 10,000th time, but this time it is not as in-your-face as it usually is. The in-your-face parts make it seem like the movie is about how government fails and individuals who think outside the box can do better, but it is actually about how national governments fail and experts can save us by giving us global government.
It was masterful the way the movie did not overplay its hand. In fact, it did not portray any LGBT issues or individuals, which has become so prevalent (as if mandated by law) that its absence kind of leaps out at the astute viewer.
This movie is further evidence that the globalist elite are preparing us for Their Coming Peaceful Alien Hoax.
Atlas Shrugged – The last two noble captains of industry fall in love and try to save the world while their ungrateful friends, family, and government heap insult and injury upon them.
Equilibrium – In a dystopian future that prides itself on peace through mandatory injections everyday to suppress all human emotion, the top enforcer, Christian Bale, discovers that the price is far too high and fights to bring down the system he serves.
Team America – Hilarious movie from the creators of South Park that parodies everything about Hollywood and the War on Terror.
Oblivion – A man (Tom Cruise) overcomes overwhelming propaganda and normalcy bias to sacrifice himself and save humanity from aliens. “How can a man die better, than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods?” “Everybody dies, the trick is to die well…”
The Last Picture Show – Sex is just sex. Made by liberals in a time before political correctness. Makes a mockery of political correctness without trying.
Zombieland – Hilarious movie about how resourceful people survive a zombie apocalypse – in a world without government.
Idiocracy – Hilarious movie about how modern culture, such as government support for the inferior, is causing humanity to devolve into a bunch of idiots. It mostly takes place in the future. From the creator of Beavis and Butthead and King of The Hill.
Kickass – Hilarious movie where an ordinary teen dons a costume and steps in where law enforcement fails. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Red Dawn – Ordinary teens form an effective resistance when their government caves to a foreign invasion.
Braveheart – A Scottish man organizes an effective resistance when English tyranny grows.
Gladiator – Powerful movie about a heroic Roman general who becomes an enemy of the state when a psychopath becomes emperor by killing his own father. He discovers one does not kill the king by killing his pawns – one kills the king by killing the king.
A Noble Lie – Proves a massive cover up regarding the Oklahoma city bombing.
Dreams From My Real Father – Makes a compelling argument that Frank Marshal Davis is Obama’s real father.
Second Opinion – A whistleblower from inside Sloan Kettering Institute delivers a compelling exposé of the cover ups surrounding Laetrile and other suppressed cancer treatments.
Runaway Slave – A few brave black men have figured out that government dependency is the new plantation, and thus they call themselves “runaway slaves”.
Behind the Smoke Curtain – Barbara Honegger provides a lot of compelling evidence about what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.
9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out – It is self-evident that the third World Trade Center tower that fell on 9/11 was a controlled demolition. Architects and Engineers for Truth add testimony from dozens of architects and engineers.
In order to understand what kind of society works and what kind does not, let’s analyze the Zeitgeist trilogy because they cover a lot of the subjects and fallacies I have encountered in the last few years. Perhaps they are the source of such fallacies.
The Zeitgeist trilogy is very good as explaining conspiracies, such as religion, 9/11, some examples of cronyism, and how banking currently works; but it has a very strong progressive socialist technocracy bias. It even has some very good material on history and psychology. However, whereas the film is 95% right about conspiracy and the supporting history and psychology; it is 95% wrong about economics and the supporting history and psychology. In fact, it is so wrong that such error cannot be an accident.
Its major correct themes, both direct and implied, are:
Its major wrong themes, both direct and implied, are:
Let’s first look at just a few examples of the errors and fallacies that permeate every few seconds of any discussion of economics in these films. The continuous barrage of errors and fallacies in economics and any supporting history or psychology is so great that it would literally take a thousand hours to document and explain all of them, so I will only look at a few. Then we will discuss some of the more general fallacies in the film, and contrast them with what we know actually works and is consistent with human nature.
All of the film links below are from points in the third film in the trilogy, which is named “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.”
Reality says: “The invisible hand” sounds ominous, but it just means that in a free-market: supply, demand, and prices reach a natural point of equilibrium, and innovation naturally occurs, all because of the countless individual voluntary transactions where all parties are competing and thus trying to maximize their reputation while providing the best product for the price because otherwise the customer would go to a competitor. This spontaneous order all happens without government or regulation, almost as if there were an invisible hand guiding it – much like how evolution occurs without central planning, but on a much faster timeline. For example, as a resource becomes more scarce, its price goes up, and thus demand goes down. Spontaneous order and the invisible hand are beautifully explained in the essay, I Pencil, by Leonard Read. It is one of the best essays I have ever read.
The film not only takes “the invisible hand” out of context, but really overstated its case because no one thinks of the system (or the free-market) as God. It is ironic that the film makes the straw-man argument that advocates of a free-market see it as God; when it would in fact be far more accurate to say that socialists, progressives, and technocrats think of government as God. It is even more ironic given how the first film in the trilogy does such a good job at debunking religion in general (focusing mostly on Christianity BTW.)
Perhaps the greatest irony is how it continuously blames large systemic problems today on the free-market when in fact our system is nothing close to a free-market. We live in a collectivist technocracy with millions of pages of regulations where government and its experts have almost unlimited power, and these films want even more regulation and more redistribution of wealth. They want to double down on the failed, flawed, fatal policies of the past like central planning and regulation. I would say, “You know, that’s what insanity is when you keep doing the same thing over and over again even though it clearly doesn’t work.” However, these films said it for me!
This is yet another example of how the films claim that money is evil, and yet when they do, they are always talking about fiat money based on debt and printed out of thin air by a monopoly like the Federal Reserve. It never occurs to the film makers that money is a product and just needs competition to solve all of the problems created by such a monopoly, which is largely at the root of What is Wrong With the People. Unfortunately, competition is also evil according to these films.
Zeitgeist says: If you step back far enough, you will realize that the GDP … is mostly a measure of industrial inefficiency and social degradation, and the more you see it rise, the worse things are becoming with respect to personal, social, and environmental integrity.
Reality says: Rising GDP is primarily the result of more people and advancing technology. It is self evident that a person who can afford more advanced technology has a higher quality of life. GDP does measure economic activity even if it is the result of cronyism, and thus GDP can be misleading to that extent, but cronyism can only thrive under a collectivist government like what we have in every country in the world; whereas, an individualist free-market government would have little or no power to support cronyism, and thus a free-market can only exist under an individualist government (or under no government at all). Ironically, this film is attacking the free market instead of the collectivism that causes cronyism, and thus the film gets it backwards.
Zeitgeist says: You have to create problems to create profit. There is no profit under the current paradigm in saving lives, putting balance on this planet, having justice, and peace, or anything else.
Reality says: It is self-evident that you do NOT have to create problems to create profit. It is self-evident that a person would trade the fruits of his labor to save his life, to improve his environment, to have justice, peace, and everything else.
Zeitgeist says: There’s an old saying, “Pass a law; create a business.”
Reality says: “Pass a law; create a business.” would only be true under cronyism, which can only thrive under a collectivist government like what we have in every country in the world; whereas, an individualist government would have little power to create laws that would interfere with the free-market by causing the creation of unnecessary businesses, and thus a free-market can only exist under an individualist government (or under no government at all). Ironically, the speaker, Michael C. Ruppert, is attacking the free-market – not collectivism, and thus he gets it backwards – again.
Reality says: It is self-evident that competition causes some companies to compete against planned obsolescence by making a long lasting innovative product. For example, my Honda is going strong after more than 16 years while requiring only one modest repair in that time. Competition from Japanese car manufacturers forced American car companies to start innovating and to improve quality in order to compete with Japanese cars. The only reason American car companies weren’t already increasing quality and innovation was because of cronyism under a collectivist government. They had been a cartel because the collectivist government protected them from competition, which is the opposite of the free-market.
The preceding links should be sufficient to prove I am not making this up.
The second hour of the second film, Zeitgeist Addendum, is all about a “resource based economy” which is where no one would have to work and everyone would get everything for free in an economy that maximized innovation, efficiency, and sustainability in a society managed by experts. Most of the third film expands on that and occasionally contradicts it.
The film criticizes the market because it creates inequality, which is another straw-man argument because it is talking about inequality from unfairly acquired wealth. Whereas, any wealth differences in a free-market would be the result of voluntary transactions, and thus would be fair. It is the economy recommended by the film that is unfair because it is unfair to use coercion against the minority who are more productive and more innovative. Such an unfair collectivist society, ruled by experts, would be much like those societies under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or Hitler, which all produced rampant inequality and inefficiency, and which were all unfair … and … well … just mean. Centrally planned societies just creep me out.
This film, which advocates collectivist government and regulation, again blames the free market for the effects of collectivist government and regulation when it states the common fallacy that in a free-market no pharmaceutical company has an incentive to cure a disease because it is more profitable to treat it. The self-evident reality is that the absence of a cure would create an irresistible opportunity to create new companies to produce a cure as a way to outcompete those companies that already have a treatment. The only reason this doesn’t happen is because collectivist governments create regulations, and the real purpose of regulations is to protect cronies from competition. Zeitgeist gets it backwards again.
In spite of such embarrassing errors, this film goes beyond the usual claims that its authoritarian collectivist government will guarantee that everyone has the same amount of stuff, and that everyone will have abundance and the most advanced technology. The Soviets and others clamed that much (and we see how that worked out). This film goes even further by claiming that no one will have to work!
How would the central planning experts know what people want? They would take a survey!!!
So how can a centrally planned society work this time? Well, we are supposed to believe that none of them thought of using computers before and that no one cared about sustainability or the environment before, and that this time will be different.
The film keeps saying that it wants to apply science, and use only falsifiable ideas, and to abandon falsified ideas. Well … central planning has been falsified.
In the second film, everyone will be given two cars, a flying car, a high tech home, and ride around the world in 4000mph trains whenever they want, and it’s all free, and no one has to work, but we discover late in the third film that people will only be given what they need.
These films don’t mention how the officials and experts will have programmed their computers to place the needs of officials and experts above everyone else – much like how Soviet officials could drive in special lanes to avoid traffic, but that wouldn’t be corruption or elitism – because we wouldn’t call it that.
People would be so nice that they wouldn’t even label racists as bad. Racists would just need to be given treatment, which sounds like the rationale for reeducation camps, which are the most fascist thing ever created. Of course, they don’t mention how other kinds of people would also need treatment, such as anyone who doesn’t want to live under their system.
People would shop by checking out any product on the shelf in a store just like they would check out a library book, which assumes sufficient production, efficiency, resources, and volunteer labor that it would actually be on the shelf for you to check out, which assumes the last guy didn’t break it and didn’t possess it any longer than the time he was using it, but why would he care? It’s not his. Needless to say there would be a need for informants in such a society. Creeepy.
The film doesn’t mention how, in order to make things fair and trackable, everyone would have to each be given the same amount of resource credits that they could spend. Resource credits wouldn’t be “money” though … because we wouldn’t call it that.
Cars would be driverless. People can’t be trusted to drive.
The films never mention that they obviously would not allow people to have guns. If people can’t be trusted to drive then they certainly can’t be trusted with guns! Of course, their government would have guns, but they don’t mention that either. They never even directly mention that there would be a government.
Their thinking is captured succinctly in the American Progressive Manifesto.
Much later the film admits that some jobs would have to be done by a human. Would humans volunteer if they would get no more resource credits than before? America already tried communism under ideal conditions multiple times 400 years ago and it failed tragically every time because it was so incompatible with human nature because most people were shirkers. Then Denmark leaned the same lesson more recently.
What about innovators who would use extra resources if they had them to do research and create prototypes? Surely the computer would identify and allocate more resources to such individuals, so that would be yet another opportunity for corruption.
When they say their system would produce enough for everyone, they mean everyone in their ideal world, which would have far fewer people, but they don’t admit that directly. We have to deduce what they believe from two of their statements: 1) We should not use any oil, and 2) “It is only because of oil that there are 7 billion people on this planet now.” Therefore, we know they believe a much smaller population is a necessary and desirable requirement of their system, but it gets creepier than that.
Near the end of the third film, their actress smiles when she sees a news headline that says “Global protests shut down world economy.” Therefore, we know the film makers would like to see that happen. Now consider how that would kill off a lot of people and create a pretext for a global government.
In the next moment, everyone is protesting in the streets and they take all their money (trillions), which happens to already somehow be in paper form, and dump it in front of the World Bank. There is supposedly no violence or death around this time, and then magically we find ourselves in their utopia. I guess they forgot to mention the billions of lives lost and the global police state that occurred before the global government decided to implement their utopia a.k.a. “The Venus Project” …
This reminds me of the book “The Marching Morons” in which a small minority of smart noble people chose to breed only with each other while everyone else became more stupid and petty over the centuries (like in Idiocracy), so the smart noble minority had to work overtime to do all the real work to keep society functioning, but they were too noble to think of a way to get rid of everyone else, so they went with an inferior person’s plan to use mass marketing to trick everyone into boarding spaceships that would take them to utopia. Of course, the noble chosen people knew they were just sending the non-chosen into space to die, thus turning the Earth into a utopia for the noble chosenites. The fake utopia in space that lured everyone to their deaths was said to have been on Venus. Maybe that is why the centrally planned utopia ruled by experts to which Zeitgeist is trying to lure us is called … The Venus Project …
The reality is that Zeitgeist is promoting the New World Order agenda, and thus we see yet again …
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
This movie powerfully illustrates what I call the Soul of Humanity vs. the Soul of Animals. Whichever one triumphs will determine the survival of all life on earth, and yet, this conflict mostly plays out between an individual man (Tom Cruise) and the wife assigned to him.
Ignore the critics, they lack the maturity to understand this movie. Even the folks who made it lack the maturity to understand this movie. We know this because if they really understood, the movie would have been even better. They just got lucky.
Oblivion, and the role played by Tom Cruise, should remind you of Gladiator and the role played by Russell Crowe, or Equilibrium and the role played by Christian Bale.
You will not see the plot twists coming.
As the story begins, the main character, Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), tells us that 60 years earlier, an alien race began a war to exterminate humans and take the earth for themselves. Humans won the war by using all the nukes, which rendered the earth uninhabitable.
It is now 2077, and no one lives on earth except for Jack and his wife Vika, who are finishing up their five-year earthside mission. Their job is to maintain the drones that protect the giant fusion reactors that are sucking up the oceans in order to power the human colonies on Titan. The reason they need the drones are because a handful of aliens remain on earth and are trying to sabotage the power generators. The only other surviving humans live in the giant mission control space station that gives Jack and Vika their orders.
Mission control erased the memories of Jack and Vika at the beginning of the mission so that if they were captured by the aliens, they could not reveal that information.
From the beginning we can sense that something is not right, and this feeling only grows throughout the movie as the evidence mounts. In fact, the future of all life on earth depends on Jack and Vika figuring out the truth and doing the right thing. However, one of the things we begin to learn right away are that Jack and Vika are two very different people. Jack is curious, adventurous, and courageous; whereas, his wife is very nice – as long as she is in her comfort zone.
Whenever anything out of the ordinary happens, Vika is fearful, small minded, petty, spiteful, jealous, etc. She wants nothing more than for her and Jack to rejoin the others on Titan. She has never violated a rule. She has never left their amazing apartment that sits on a mile high pole. She has never been to the surface of the earth. She has never met another human, She has never met an alien. She would place her life and the life of her husband at risk just to avoid hearing any evidence that might cause her to leave her comfort zone.
Vika’s is the poster child for passive aggressiveness and normalcy bias. She is holding Jack back.
In a world of epic threats and epic deceits, Vika is convinced that she is doing the right thing, and that Jack must conform. She is too closed minded to change.
Likewise, back in the real world, we too face epic threats as well as epic deceits, and it is people like Vika who are holding back progress. They are preventing us from moving forward because they are too closed minded. They are convinced they are doing the right thing, and that the rest of us must conform. They include all of those who voted for Mitt Romney, but worse than those are the ones who did not vote, and the most closed minded and delusional bullies of all are those who voted for Obama.
I know, that is 98% of America, so that probably includes you, but you could have voted for the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party, or written in Ron Paul. You could have contributed to their campaigns. You had a choice.
Given the recent scandals and how both parties are determined to go into Syria, some of you are now very sorry and promise to never vote for a media-approved candidate again, if not, then you are still one of the assholes who is killing the Soul of Humanity.
You still have a choice. The world is the result of our individual choices. It is never too late to become the person you want to be. Some of us just figured it out sooner than others. You will be forgiven.
Atlantis is a story similar to Atlas Shrugged because in each, a visionary man builds a society that is quietly attracting all of the world’s most talented and most ethical people while the rest of the world crumbles from the burden of government (from every man trying to live at the expense of others). More specifically, a visionary Native American man builds a giant city on the Sioux reservation where people can come and innovate free of regulation, taxes, or any other form of coercion, which was only possible because of the autonomy of Indian reservations. He basically started a new country right under the noses of decaying big governments.
This book was written in 1997 by Robert Klassen, and like Atlas Shrugged, it is even more accurate now than it was then. At one fifth the length of Atlas Shrugged, and with its appeal to a broader audience, one could think of it as Atlas Shrugged – lite. In spite of its short length, it still has a variety of conflicts, trials, quests, and romances. It also explains some of the day to day mechanics of how freedom works, and contrasts freedom with the status quo.
When you start watching Matt Damon in a movie about a global pandemic, like “Contagion”, you just KNOW he is going to save the world. Instead, he is just a boring and obedient citizen who accepts his helplessness, and who understands that the uber competent good guys, a.k.a. the federal bureaucracy, have his back. He is so obedient, and has so much faith, that he doesn’t even want a gun to protect his family from looters.
The whole point of this boring movie is that we should all have blind faith in government; whereas, we should see those who criticize the government on the Internet as the lowest of the low.
Then I saw the same message in another Matt Damon movie, “We Bought a Zoo.” In it, Matt Damon is blindly obedient when a government inspector tells him that he must make expensive changes to comply with new regulations. You see, the location of a barrier around the lion cage was just fine for years, but a new regulation says it must be 6 inches further back. The modification would bankrupt his Zoo, but does he show any sign of contempt for such a ludicrous demand by some government bureaucrat? No, he shows only respect and obedience.
Russian naval architect and author Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote his brilliant and visionary novel We in 1920. It takes place in the 26th century, where he shows us the end result of progressivism – given enough power and enough time. He shows us how the humans in a progressive dystopian future will be absolutely certain that they are living in a perfect utopia.
Now I know what you’re thinking, but We is refreshingly lighthearted and even goofy, which is appropriate given the naivety of the main character and his people, who have never been exposed to a dangerous idea, and who have never had to make a tough decision.
We learn all about our future “utopia” through a few months in the life of the main character, who is simply documenting his day-to-day observations for the benefit of humans elsewhere in the solar system. You see, outside of Earth, humans have yet to understand how absolute conformity benefits everyone absolutely.
During this period in the life of the main character, he meets a woman who risks everything to introduce him to ideas and emotions he has never known before. He documents his daily flip flops between his loyalty to her and his loyalty to his government.
The main character is not just anyone in his utopian world. He is the architect of the ship that will carry the philosophy of earth to all humans so that maybe the ship won’t have to convert them through force. This ship is being built as the novel progresses.
Is the new woman in his life just using him because he is the architect and future captain of the ship? Does she really love him? We suspect that like Mata Hari, the answer is both.
The main character is immature and weak – of course. He makes many right decisions and many wrong decisions. We never know until the last page whether he will develop the strength of character that will ultimately lead to an era of renewed freedom – or to the permanent enslavement of all humanity.
Although Zamyatin was a Bolshevik, he was disturbed by the willingness of other Bolsheviks to censor artists and writers. Given just a few early indications, before Stalin, he correctly foresaw many of the atrocities of Stalinism, and we can see how many more of his prophecies would come true in the future if progressivism were given enough power and enough time.
We was a direct influence on the novel 1984, and was an indirect influence on the novel Brave New World. Excellent movies that seem indirectly influenced by We are Brazil, THX-1138, and Equilibrium. These are all quite intense, so afterwards, I recommend Idiocracy.
We is deceptively lighthearted. It will leave you disturbed for a very long time.
In We, I have a discovered a novel that beautifully illustrates my own recent epiphany:
Given enough power and time, the result of Progressivism will have been to kill the soul of humanity.
Humanity at our best and our worst.
Two of the last noble captains of industry fall in love and try to save the world while their ungrateful friends, relatives, and government heap insult and injury upon them. Therefore …
Atlas Shrugged is a dangerous movie. It exposes and subverts the dominant struggle of recorded history, which is the war of the takers against the makers.
In the war of the takers against the makers, Atlas Shrugged champions the makers. In the war of style over substance, Atlas Shrugged champions substance. In the war of hype over reality, Atlas Shrugged champions reality. In the war of authority over the individual, Atlas Shrugged Champions the individual. In the war of corruption vs. integrity, Atlas Shrugged champions integrity.
Most people won’t get Atlas Shrugged because we have been programmed to see the world the way the Takers want us to see it; therefore, you’re supposed to hate this movie, but see it anyway and let the healing begin. If you weren’t choking back tears when they crossed the bridge, then your soul is definitely sick.
The technique is perfect. It makes hundreds of points by simply letting us watch the lives of the characters, and the characters don’t bore us with pedantic words like “capitalism” or “socialism”. I don’t even recall them using the word “government” – how refreshing.
The main point is how those who simply pursue their own self interest with honesty, boldness, and confidence help the world immensely; whereas, those socialists and crony capitalists who claim they want to help the world by forcing others to provide that help are causing the world more harm than good. This is not to say that all socialists are takers, many socialists are makers who serve as useful idiots for the takers, thus working against their own self interest.
Atlas Shrugged exposes the reality of government vs. the Free Market:
Government is a zero sum game; whereas, the free market is a win-win.
Government redistributes wealth – the Free Market creates wealth.
Government redistributes the same pie – the Free Market makes a bigger pie.
Government retards innovation – the Free Market maximizes innovation.
Government rewards failure – the Free Market rewards success.
Government authority is force – Free Market authority is reputation.
Government is a monopoly – the Free Market is unlimited competition.
Government is out of control – the Free Market is self regulating.
For all of recorded history, the takers have ruled the makers, but since 1776 the makers abruptly had the takers back on their heels for the first time in history. A majority understood that they owned themselves and thus had a right to keep or trade the fruits of their own labor. A majority understood that government was a not-so-necessary evil that burdened our innovation and corrupted our character. As a result, many among the wealthy acquired their wealth through the fruits of their own labor for the first time in history.
Of course, style, hype, corruption, authority, and hence, the takers, have been enjoying a resurgence for at least 100 years. As a result, the makers have been so corrupted by government that one now finds the makers hard to distinguish from the takers. Another result of the Taker resurgence is that few today have the background or the critical thinking skills to understand Atlas Shrugged.
Baby Boomers and Generation Y seem lost already – hence the election of Barack Obama. Perhaps 10% of them will get it, but I suspect that more like 70% of Generation X will get it. Hence there is reason for those individuals of substance and integrity – those makers in touch with reality – to hope for change.
The Takers Strike Back
The media are dominated by useful idiots for the Takers, so it is not too surprising that the critics hate this movie and that they are so out of sync with the people.
Of course, this feeble attack by the critics was only the first of many. As soon as the media and the leaders of special interests learn more about this movie, expect to see more backlash. Imagine what will happen to the people’s side of this poll when Obamatons start getting chain emails with links to help them stuff the ballot box. Perhaps at the moment, the Takers don’t want to draw the attention of their Obamatons to this movie for fear they may actually watch it – and that could be dangerous.
Each day after I wrote my prediction that the Obamatons would try to stuff the ballot box, I have noticed that the number of “User Ratings” has remained frozen at 7,431. Perhaps the web site detected that Obamatons (a.k.a. useful idiots) had begun their campaign to stuff the ballot box on the same day as I predicted they would.
This is a disturbing movie. More specifically, it promotes disturbing values.
The theme of the movie is that the earth is one of only a few planets hospitable to life, and that humans are “at the tipping point” of destroying it. An emissary from the civilizations on other planets has decided that humans are unable to change; and therefore, given that the earth does not belong to one species, it is necessary to exterminate one species (humans) to save the earth for other species.
Apparently the creators of this movie – like most of Hollywood – have been conned and are out of touch with reality.
Let’s start with the least of the flaws, which is the dubious claim that the earth is one of a few planets hospitable for life. The reality is that there is probably an abundance of earth-like planets. Also, there is an abundance of raw materials, including an abundance of planets, that could be used by advanced civilizations to build an earth-like planet or to terraform an existing planet into an earth-like planet.
A more important flaw is the use of global warming as the justification for exterminating humans. Although “global warming” was not mentioned directly, it was obviously implied by the use of the term “tipping point”. The reality is that there is little reason to fear anthropogenic climate change.
A similar flaw is the dubious claim that that humans are destroying the earth. Clearly the earth is not being destroyed. For example, the putative cause of global warming is CO2, which is non-toxic. Also, anything humans are doing to the earth can be undone, or we can adapt.
A more disturbing claim is that the earth does not belong to humans. Obviously the earth does belong to humans because we are the only sentient species here. Also, we evolved here, and thus no other sentient species can ever have a stronger claim. If we were exterminated, then sentience would probably not evolve here again – at least not for hundreds of millions of years.
A related and very flawed value promoted by the movie is that sentient beings are worth no more than any other species. The reality is that sentience is the only thing that gives any meaning to the rest of the universe. If there were no sentience in the universe, then the universe would be irrelevant.
The most disturbing value in the movie is the total irrelevance of how humans interact with each other. The galactic community does not care if humans kill or enslave each other as long as we don’t hurt the earth. This is the opposite of the original movie in which the galactic ambassador came to stop us from killing each other and especially to stop us from exterminating ourselves with weapons of mass destruction because sentient life (e.g. the human race) is the ultimate value.
The movie tries to persuade you to accept its values by simultaneously destroying your self esteem and making you fear the imminent destruction of the earth by lowly people like yourself. It also makes you fear that you are on the wrong side of a fight you cannot win. People like you should just shut up and obey the omnipotent government-like force that is trying to save the environment, and then the government will have mercy on you and let you live.
In a nutshell, the movie not only promotes the idea that protecting the environment is more important than the extinction of humans, but that it is far, far more important than the freedom and dignity of humans. Therefore, any form of oppression is trivial because what we should all be worried about is global warming, and any form of oppression that promises to combat global warming is actually good.
The reality is that human freedom and dignity are what make life worth living, and those who seek power and wealth are forever trying to con us into giving up our freedom and dignity. One of their newer cons is global warming, but if we know the reality, then we are immune to their con.
The Promise of Reality is Freedom.