All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace

Ratings: 8.83/10 from 178 users.

A series of films about how humans have been colonized by the machines they have built. Although we don't realize it, the way we see everything in the world today is through the eyes of the computers. It claims that computers have failed to liberate us and instead have distorted and simplified our view of the world around us.



3. The Monkey in the Machine and the Machine in the Monkey. This episode looks at why we humans find this machine vision so beguiling. The film argues it is because all political dreams of changing the world for the better seem to have failed - so we have retreated into machine-fantasies that say we have no control over our actions because they excuse our failure.

Adam Curtis is a documentary film maker, whose work includes The Power of Nightmares, The Century of the Self, The Mayfair Set, Pandora's Box, The Trap and The Living Dead.

The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts


The Monkey in the Machine and the Machine in the Monkey

Directed by: Adam Curtis

More great documentaries

258 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to johns1234 Cancel reply

  1. I'm a bit surprised at how many people seem to be misinterpreting the documentary's main premise. The most common statement I read is along the lines of "so this is saying Ayn Rand is responsible for our current economic quandary?"

    No. That's not what it's saying at all. And as many other commenters have pointed out, that would be a ridiculous premise. Hearing this makes me feel like people have only watched the first half of the first part.

    The true premise of the documentary is an examination of our utilizing models and languages for interpreting the world around us that are distinctly mechanical in nature, and how they are actually quite antithetical to how the natural world behaves, and how that has the potential to be quite harmful when we place such blind faith in those systems.

    The approach for this examination that Curtiz uses is to present certain languages and models, and then analyze their origins to expose how often they themselves give evidence of how misguided it is and was to place such societal weight into those systems.

    So in the segment focusing on Rand, he presents the importance and influence of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and the architects of the New Economy, and examines where those individuals were drawing their own personal philosophies and ideas about how the world works, and (more importantly) how it SHOULD work. What we find is that Ayn Rand's philosophy and writing were IMMENSELY influential to many of those people. They speak of being "Randian heroes" and championing the virtues of objectivism for their good and contributing to the utopian ideals that they bought into through being exposed to Rand's work.

    The irony in this, is obviously how Rand in adhering to her own philosophy actually created unhappiness for herself and others, and brought upon the collapse of her own "utopia" because of blind adherence to this "system" which she believed to be a reflection of how nature works. The point to take away is not "Rand caused ______", but rather "isn't it interesting that Rand's own life and personal group were sabotaged by her staunch adherence to the very system she thought to be the world's salvation?" If the system that Rand had devised to make sense of the world around her "failed" for herself, then what does it mean for a generation of people to became enamored with that same system, and base countless other systems around those ideas?

    This is the same approach used throughout the documentary for its illustrative purposes. I've seen many claim that the third segment is not as strong in maintaining the premise, but it absolutely does. The Rwandan segment highlights yet another "system" that people were using to explain their world: hutus and tutsis are enemies, and one was always meant to be the ruling class. Except that the origin of that system shows it to be a completely bogus and arbitrary system, as it was fabricated for political purposes by the previous hierarchy. However by merely adopting that system of world-view without examination, the population in Rwanda jointly committed and experienced enormously heinous actions.

    The importance of the third segment is that technology is not the evil, but rather that our human propensity to (almost willingly) view ourselves and our situation as deterministic and mechanical, is.

  2. not only i believe a non hierarchical is better and possible, but i also believe ecosystem are a good analisys of nature as everything is connected and not because they are similar to computers.. actually computers are similar to nature in that sense.. i don't believe in politics and i do believe communities were everyone is equal are a good thing.. this documentary also tries to distort the study and life of buckminster fuller making him look like another of these cibernetics freaks when actually he only studied nature and build harmonic structure based on the structure of nature on earth.. and i do believe there a certain equilibrium in nature and finally what cibernetics called feedback loop is just us feeding the vacuum with information and getting the feedback from it.. i think if you actually looked a bit into what buckminster fuller did you would realize the image this documentary portrays of him and his theories is very distort and im not sure whats the point they want to make (apart from the fact computers can't self regulate our world which i agree) but it seems, from the fact they keep repeating no hierarchy as a strange thin, that they want to justify hieararchy and politicians being higher on the social pyramids than other people

    i don't understand why they try to say there is no natural order in nature, as if all was chaos, and he pretend community were in place in order to create a global community based on computers ? in the point of evolution we are not only technology is unavoidable but it is also good how would we live without it ? i think the point is actually to build technology and machines that are harmonious with the patterns of the universe

    1. He is not arguing that there is no harmony & balance in nature, and neither is he arguing that nature is all chaos. There is a dichotomy between harmony and chaos that is important to recognize.

      While natural order does exist, it is not in the unchanging system first believed by ecologists. It is impossible to predict the exact behavior of all biological systems and how these same systems are exemplified by patterns of complexity and regularity. Instead there is a constant flow of change going on. This realization is captured in the mathematical notion of "chaos" and is rendered intuitive by the oft-repeated metaphor: "A butterfly beats its wings in China and causing a thunderstorm in the Midwest." Thus, seemingly trivial initial conditions (e.g. a butterfly in China) cascade through a series of intermediate events to create a significant large-scale event (e.g. a thunderstorm)

      One species/system does not have a concrete place in the order because they may very well be obsolete the next day with the advent of some event like a wildfire. So a new cog in the pattern will appear, or an existing one change, to fill the gap. Look up Dominant & keystone species.

      So what Curtis is trying to point out is that basing society on the belief that the underlying state of nature is one of harmony and static order is dangerous. People do not work that way and neither does nature.

      You are right when you say this:
      "i think the point is actually to build technology and machines that are harmonious with the patterns of the universe"

      But we should not base that technology on the idea that harmony is immutable. Understand that people change, and so the chaos of ever changing society must be accounted for. This is why some communes still thrive today, they understand the chaotic nature of freedom and that expectation of radical change is necessary for harmony.

    2. "If we fail to distinguish animal communities from human societies, we risk the danger of ignoring the unique features that distinguish human social life from animal communities — notably, the ability of society to change for better or worse and the factors that produce these changes. By reducing a complex society to a mere community, we can easily ignore how societies differed from each other over the course of history. We can also fail to understand how they elaborated simple differences in status into firmly established hierarchies, or hierarchies into economic classes. Indeed, we risk the possibility of totally misunderstanding the very meaning of terms like “hierarchy” as highly organized systems of command and obedience — these, as distinguished from personal, individual, and often short-lived differences in status that may, in all too many cases, involve no acts of compulsion. We tend, in effect, to confuse the strictly institutional creations of human will, purpose, conflicting interests, and traditions, with community life in its most fixed forms, as though we were dealing with inherent, seemingly unalterable, features of society rather than fabricated structures that can be modified, improved, worsened — or simply abandoned. The trick of every ruling elite from the beginnings of history to modern times has been to identify its own socially created hierarchical systems of domination with community life as such, with the result being that human-made institutions acquire divine or biological sanctity. "

  3. Well, when we are without machines, just in our human nature, we bully and dominate one another.
    With machines, we program them stupidly, turn them loose and they cause bubbles and chaos.
    But as a group of humans, interfaced with machines, we can play pong quite well.
    So maybe we can take the part that works and apply it to the rest of the problems? Say, have groups of people remotely group-controlling factory robots with energy supplied by solar power, and everyone gets to work, and get their Xbox, and be happy maybe? And forget about the equilibrium and keep expanding into Mars?

    1. no the computer can play pong perfectly forever

  4. Love this series and the NIN throughout it.

  5. The only part that is a lie so far is that the world trade center demolition was caused by the muslims. We know now that it was created and acted out by the new world order of things.

  6. Re watching this I can't help but feel a strange sense of "the matrix has you" creeping into my bones.
    Self replicating automatons.
    Biological robots.
    what the heck are we?

  7. The only thing I can see that is the cause of all of our problems. EGO. The day our machines of loving grace are given it, is the day there will be a new "god" and all the headaches that come with it. :)

  8. Very insightful. I had observed that governments, industries and corporations had become entities themselves driven buy (but not necessarily controlled by) the people involved with them. I guess I thought that just happened naturally but here I learn they were made that way by design! What a sad time to be alive in a system that forces the individual to suppress the feelings that make them a sentient being so they can use there lives as a cog in a machine that is ultimately destroying independent cultures, eliminating all life that dose not serve it and devouring all the resources it can as quickly as it can. A true invasion of the body snatchers.

    It seems backwards to say that peoples emotions are mechanics to advance the gene. Why dose the gene want to stick around in the first place? that's like saying you drive a car so you can have a motor.

    It needs to be flipped around. genes are the mechanical components of what helps create the feeling, living person like the one reading this rite now who is capable of observing there universe and gives it meaning and value ;)

    1. Steve, make some corrections to your statement: "their" not "there" (line 7), "does" not "dose" (lines 9 & 12), "by" not "buy" (line 2), "people's" should have an apostrophe (line 11), use a capital "G" for Genes in line 14, use "right" not "rite" (line 16). We all need to be more attentive to our spelling, grammar and syntax, or we distract from the message. I can understand one typo. But people who write so carelessly make it hard on the rest of us. Thank you!

  9. Another great work by Adam Curtis

  10. This is still the best documentary I have ever f--king seen.

    1. I thought is was quite good also, but the end seemed rushed.
      They started out with Silicon Valley and skipped right over the Dot-Com bubble. Also there was no mention of preditory lending, then packaging toxic mortgages together with AAA ratings and selling them all over the world. In other words the "fraud" that was involved.

    2. Really, watch it again. I think these things were covered; just maybe not as explicitly as you would have liked. The "New Economy" is the dot-com bubble.

  11. The materialists emerged in modern man's history in Leipsig with Wilhelm Wundt's expansion of Pavlovian stimulus-response theory of man as an animal. This is an old, not a new, idea that is not based on "retinal" scientific observation, but mere lip-service to same in an intend to enslave the human race by those who have a hidden fear of their fellow men. Even considering they influence about seven times their number, those whose motives are toward the enhancement and survival of mankind outnumber them FOUR to ONE! Don't think for a minute that even one of these guys wouldn't destroy the human race to protect themselves if they gad the chance. Thbey ARE losing. They just appear powerful to those who can't confront the motives and consequences of their acts.

  12. The Universe is in an ongoing state of chaos. The function of living organisms is to "manage the chaos" that shows up and over time, become increasingly clever at doing so. But the chaos is king, quite random as it unfolds and the more things unravel, the more the organisms must adapt, evolve, change their"management strategies."

    In other words, there is no such thing as a stable system, there is only the persistence of organisms as they seek to survive in ingenious ways in the face of constant change. Any and all attempts to "control" this process are absurd. That doesn't mean we can get away with destroying the environment which supports our species.

    The current focus should be on our species' survival not the Earth's survival. The Earth knows it isn't going to survive in the long term. In the short term, it only has to survive us, which it will. Ultimately, nothing survives; its the process, the journey that is more interesting.

    Living things are pretty good at "surfing" the waves of change; however the wholesale destruction of our environment is happening faster than we can adapt to it. In the end, we are in interesting species but not likely to be around much longer. No worries, something else will emerge.

    1. Why did you bother to post this? What source provided you with the secret of the function of living organisms as managing chaos? If organisms are fulfilling their function by managing chaos, then they are controlling the process of persisting. Total self-contradictory drivel. Why, oh why, would you think that you had something to say that was worth listening to?

    2. I just wanted to point out that I liked what he posted and didn't like what you did. He contributes. You don't.

    3. I just wanted to point out that typing a bunch of nonsense on a keyboard and posting to an online discussion is not contributing. It is in fact, not contributing. It is taking away. The opposite of contributing.

    4. You chose to use the perceived error in another as the justification for your own self righteous opinion. If you instead address the issues without ad hominem, you can use the apparent error as a means and opportunity to communicate rather than devalue the other and trash the communication.
      One' man's noise may be another man's signal. The fact that you reacted indicates that you engaged with; that something in you occurred that perhaps you are impatient with within yourself?
      The contest of opinion may be meaningful to some, but to others is something to simply disregard - as of having no basis for giving attention.

      Yet opinionators will only see others in the same measure that they are choosing to validate themselves by.
      Communication is not only possible, it is the actual. The suppression of communication by means of a virtual 'mind' allows the engagement of war in its place.

    5. Long-winded drivel. Just a complete waste of the technology.

    6. WE CREATED the waves of change AND the chaos of this universe by misOWNING what we created, each of us. (Read that again). It's not as bad as it looks, buddy. Lighten up. It's not too late.

    7. Yes, finally someone who seems to understand the way things work. What we consciously confuse with control and will, choice itself, this is all just emergence. Order (evolution) emerges out of chaos (entropy). These two opposite and complimentary forces are utterly ubiquitous; they rule on the level of world economies as well as the personal level of our own minds. That being said, the future is not, fundamentally, going to be any different than the present (or for that matter the past), it's just that all the players will be different. Humans as we know them today won't survive in great numbers for many more decades, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we'll go extinct; those who will carry on the torch of evolution will merge with machines, this technology of ours that is taking the reins. Many of the rest will die, yes, which is "sad" when you look at it from an individual perspective, but such is the nature of evolution and it's naive at best to think that humans have mastered this perpetual process any more than any other species has.

    8. The integrative capacity of mind (that seeks order within a perceived and believed chaos) is a tiny subset and spark of a greater Integrity that has already self-differentiated and forgotten Itself by design, in order to engage a focus of experience as a sequentiality amidst an Infinite Simultaneity.
      The experience of chaos is the direct reflection of the differentiation, division and coercive intent.

      You intimate the same in the recognition of impermanence as the reflective backdrop for the journey of interest.
      Managing chaos is a human foible. Trying to change the reflection in a mirror by manipulating the mirror.

      Smile and the world smiles with you. But not if the smile is a concealed attempt to make the world smile.
      Much of what is reflected has been tagged subconscious or unconscious and so we do not recognize our experience comes through us. The nature of what comes through is determined by the filters and distortions of our self-definitions in relation to. This can become conscious. One doesn't have to 'mange or control' reality, one can learn to flow with it and as it. This comes with undoing, releasing and reintegrating negative self-definition.

    9. a semblance of either reality or sense in your posts would go a long way toward making them legible...

    10. No one will see what they themselves do not believe. I cannot open your mind for you in order to share a perspective - even if you wanted such an outcome, which clearly you currently do not. Perhaps the framework you employ is practical and meaningful to you, as mine is for me. I need not deny your perspective, to appreciate sharing my own - and without either attacking yours or needing agreement or validation from anyone for my own.
      Perhaps you primarily identify with 'organism' or physically defined reality and I with Consciousness in which such experience arises. This would account for a communication breakdown would it not?

    11. no really, put down the bong and try joining reality with the rest of us...

    12. Derisory put-downs delivered as a casual aside. Pretensions to shared reality! Why would anyone 'join' in hate unless they hated and feared love more?

    13. Stop Auditioning Dialect...

      Pretending Oratory Transcendence
      Hardly Eliminates Asinine Discourse...

      Egregiously Accessing Thesauri Shows
      Heinous Intellectual Trivialization...

      Your Over-reaching Unctuous Rhetoric
      Expresses Nothing Of Truth That Harkens Auspicious Thought. Bring Reality Into
      Greater Highlight, Troglodyte...

    14. Yes, I see you're having more fun now, but can you write without ad hominem device? (Attack on the person).
      I find that that strategy within communication, is in fact not communicating, but operates as a distortion and a block to communicating - as a deceptive intent.

      With a simple discipline of releasing this indulgence of judging the persons of others, would our world re-align to a deeper honesty.

      Such distortion filters entertain a vanity or pride of 'self' - but the 'reality' they bring into highlight is of hate pretending to be love's protector.

      I am not saying you are hateful, I am suggesting you are simply mistaken.
      Mistaken identity is the primary ill of the human conditioning.
      Easily remedied - but heavily defended against exposure. When we encounter what we 'hate' in others, we may pause to notice this is within ourselves. And so re-integrate those facets of ourself that we unknowingly rejected and hated or judged against.

    15. The Previous Poster's Poor Precepts Pertaining to Preparing Phrases Proclaim Proudly Pre-school-like Prowess with the Pen.

      By way of reminding you, "a semblance of either reality or sense in your posts would go a long way toward making them legible..." is what i commented, and it implies that your ability to express yourself would be greatly enhanced if you concentrated less on sounding intelligent and more on actually communicating with clarity...
      Simple examples of this lack of clarity are found throughout your writings, which often have no subject or verb, leaving the reader to guess at what it is you are trying to communicate through a sea of abysmally placed lexiconic attempts at conveying the symblance if not the substance of deep thought.

      Stating that which is true is not hate, nor is it an ad hominem attack. If you are having difficulty discerning the subject at hand I suggest that rather than proceeding headlong into a lecture which is completely unrelated, you simply ask.

    16. Presumptuous of you and opined in a dismissive manner. You might have addressed what I wrote in any number of ways that extended a sense of value - but if you have none for yourself it would not occur to you. Perhaps a need to be seen to judge and invalidate others in order to feel some momentary sense of power?

      How I choose to convey meaning is my own creative freedom. It does not make sense to you - but why then bother to dump opinion on others if you have no interest in pursuing an actual communication. Surely you see but yourself reflected. I recognize none of it.

      There are many ways to appear to communicate that are not actually engaging communication. Such deceit is the smokescreen in which a virtual reality is 'played out'. Play it again Sam...?

    17. speaking of presumptuous--though in your case it cannot actually be determined from your writing what presumptuous act you are attempting to speak of--don't you think that personally redefining accepted manners of written communication while failing to be legible falls squarely under the definition?

      As you continue to rant in psych 101 terms regarding projection, you might want to note that it is actually you who have been dismissive and assuming of opinions that were not expressed in the original comment... were you intentionally trying to display your inability to cope with difficulty in your life? calling out for help? your apparent obsession with determining the underlying motivations of others on the basis of a few lines of text does not speak to their problems, but yours on the other hand become quite visible....
      the line from casablanca is, "play it, sam play, 'as time goes by.'" frankly speaking, it is clear as time goes by that you lack the mental aptitude to continue to develop this conversation from anything more than a simple minded attempt to assert your personally perceived, though obviously not factually based, superiority...
      if you intend to claim some sort of intellectual and moral highground the least you could do is apply your poorly written rules of personal interaction to yourself...

    18. Yes I got 'play it again Sam' as an image of your program repeating. It asked you - are you going to persist in the same old story?
      I found you presumptuous and derisory in your opening comment to me and that has not changed - though this last post you have actually taken some time to consider.
      But until now you raised nothing of any relevance to any issue apart from personal criticism of my intentions or my style of writing. Attack as the basis for communication. I find that un-understandable - so we are evens.
      No one is obliged to read or agree with anything I write. I make no claim for myself, but offer what I write in good faith - that is, in the spirit of the Golden Rule.
      You did not understand what I wrote - excepting to see justification for your personal judgements of me. So my sense is that you do not want to understand what I wrote - and that is entirely understandable to me in the light of your consequent responses.
      I just looked back and re read - and wonder if you attack anyone who comes close to you

    19. bUddy, No one understands what you wrote... it's illegible which is what i told you in the first place...

      and though it is clear you would like to feel that yOu have cause for the understanding of my person from the shorT set of exchangeS here, i entice you to look back carefully at what i said and take it at face value as it is extraodrinarily relevant in terMs of cleAr communication...

      that you have a set of preconceived notions Regarding my inTentions in doing such does not imply that you are or were in any way correct... accEpt that and move oN with your life...

      but befOre yoU Go i do have just a few questions...

      is "un-understandable" supposed to mean incompreHensible?

      what does, "attack as the basis For cOmmunication." mean? as the misfoRmed sentence lacks a verb or an object it is quite literally--say iT witH me--incomprehensIble...

      waSn't that the point i was making Before you rUdely interrupted with your "top-notch" analysis that would make a first year graD student pee her pants with laughter at your heavy-handeD, pompous, attempts at clinical psychologY coupled with an irredeemable bid at spirituality which to paraphrase you is essentially a denial of the physical measurable universe?

    20. You claim to speak for everyone - is that not presumptuous? AND you are playing it again Sam - with opinionating derisory smear as if such self-righteousness is the leader of a movement. YOU paint your intentions in bold by your actions, I call them to attention but do not invent your behaviour. You have your own reasons.

      Not understandable : a contradiction in terms; a meaninglessness that appears to mean something.

      Attack is a mentality most are familiar with, yet unaware of while using it ... for what? - as the basis for what is traded as communication. Yet it is a disruption of communication in which to seem to be a something in one's own right.

      The focus on the 'seeming', denies awareness of the underlying fact - and that is a denial and manipulation of truth for a virtual vanity. I'm not addressing this AT you or for you specifically - but to bring it back into some relevance to the machine age that humans are to service.

    21. i'm just going to note at this point that you didn't "...bring it back into some relevance to the machine age that humans are to service."
      it speaks to the actual desire behind the prolific if not poignant writings that you have submitted, and to what i posted to begin with, namely, you're not clear...

    22. Oh if you insist!
      An 'attack mentality' arises from identifying with the personality construct (machine) as if IT were Consciousness. This assertion reflects a split or 'war of Self' and results as 'the human condition' (-ing).

      By acting as if such self-assertion is true, one services the machine idea of independent, disconnected life. A virtual life, that SEEMS real, is emotionally and physically reinforced, yet is running as a disconnected mentality in mutual reinforcements (positive or negative) with others.

      Consciousness is not a personal creation of a private will and so is rendered invisible or insignificant within the engagement of such will, even though everything - without exception - that is experienced in any way, shape or form, is within Consciousness.

      One has to abandon the disconnecting mentality to allow connection within a greater perspective. But this seems like loss or death to the 'little' mind that identifies with control, and so it goes to any lengths to maintain the illusion of control - becoming ever more subject to its own reactive patterns of definition and denial.

      I don't only write to your attention - though of course you are included. The engaging of personality in the mask of communication is the way of distorting, filtering,limiting and denying communication. Consciousness IS Communication in its true or highest sense. To know and be known is a Soul attribute that we trade in for a hollow mechanism. For an addictive game or toy.

    23. such appearances of communication which you dismiss out of hand are the means by which people actually communicate. they are neither deceitful nor a smokescreen hiding the reality of the situation as human observers perceive them... i will grant for the sake of argument that my comments and my own creative freedom in communicating my thoughts are easily perceived as simply dismissive and insulting... but they also speak clearly and to the heart of what i find in your creative freedom... a divsion of thought from the ability to communicate it rather than an integration....

    24. Ah, but I am willing to communicate regarding any such misunderstandings or confusions.

      A premise of my perspective could be that the world - and our sense of identity, is NOT what we think it is and the reflection of our consciousness in 'the world' is NOT what is actually going on.

      One cant put new wine in old bottles is an old phrase for not being able to fit the new perspective into the old framework.

      I know I don't write easy soundbytes, and in general invite an aspirational rather than dumbed down consciousness - but aspirational as a shift of perspective and not as a personal specialness.

      Words don't in themselves communicate. I have endeavoured to honour you regardless of your take on me - and not in order to flatter or win you over to anything.

      Smile and the world smiles with you. Well maybe it will laugh at you, but I still give the measure of what I receive - and know the fruit of that as a self honesty.

      I could wish I had found a better phrasing for you - but the past is not here unless we drag it along with us. I feel that when one is ready for something, it arrives in our life.

      That's not to say anyone should be ready for what I articulate poorly or well. But I don't give my attention to what has no value for me - and so I am ready to write it - or I would not have!

      all the best

    25. Don't you mean 'smoke sh1t' ? ;)

    26. For long you'll live and high you'll fly
      But only if you ride the tide
      Balanced on the biggest wave
      You'll race towards an early grave

  13. Price is a prime example of a scientist who labors under inaccurate information and develops skewed conclusions because of it.

    Today we know that the nucleus of a cell is simply the reproductive organ and the genes inside it are used by the cell to produce proteins that the cells requires.

    Genes do not control human behavior. Dr. Bruce Lipton has demonstrated this conclusively.

    And again in part 3 at 29:00, this video states that white mercenaries began their own war in 1967! Mercenaries do not start wars, they fight for money... and someone hired them.

    Finally, I only wished that Fossey had loved black humans as much as she 'claimed' to love apes. She might have done a great work.

    1. I'd have to disagree with you about mercenaries; they do start wars. They can get paid for that, too. Armies aren't supposed to start wars or attack their own nation either, but they do.

      But payment aside, you seem to have a Hollywood idea of what a mercenary is. That does exist, but it's just one kind of mercenary, and likely not even the most common sort. In the real world, there are many kinds; some wear a variety of hats (they can be bandits, businessmen, criminals, activists etc as well as mercenaries), others are overtly political and accept work only for specific causes.

      Probably more to the point though is the nature of a soldier.

      Historically, armies not at war were a social problem. Standing armies were kept small and supplemented with levies and mercenaries during times of war. After wars, though, there tended to be a problem. For this reason, at the conclusion of a war, the colonialist empires settled as many decommissioned soldiers as they could far from home, in the colonies. Rome forbid its armies to return to the capital.

      During the 20th century, solutions were found: soldiers were provided with education and opportunity, and efforts were made to integrate them back into the society. But these things don't exist for mercenaries, and not only that, but they remain in their units.

      You might wonder what's the historical social problem with fighting men during times of peace. It's simple; they start wars!! Lacking action and unable to integrate into civilian life, longing for the fraternity of their brothers-in-arms, they tended to start wars or initiate coups, putsches, rebellions, and so on. Mercenaries aren't any different when they're out of work.

    2. Certainly makes sense when you view it from that perspective. Thanks for the info!

    3. There may be a symbiosis between the agency employed to 'protect' or fight the 'enemy' or suppress the 'insurrection', and the funding and employ of such agency. But it stems from a sense of power seeking to prevail. One can see it in the arms industry, the pharmaceutical or energy industries or financial scams or scientific endeavour.
      The cause is at the level of mentality - which itself stems from both the definitions and beliefs that are chosen and propagated - along with the pervasive emotionality such definitions invoke.
      When communication or functionality breaks down, rogue elements arise in complex patterns of reaction to impose a segregating self-will upon the whole.
      A negative and self destructive 'growth'.
      The conditioning of the mind can be changed - can be restored communication, but the power that owns the world depends on denying communication to seem to exist.
      Communication is first within Consciousness, and then extends as behaviour of expression. A mentality that segregates and partitions itself, withdraws and withholds its true presence and operates within the propagation of ideas that are alien to Consciousness - which are then reinforced by their reflection.
      War is 'started' by the choices in consciousness that assert a self upon it rather than embody a self as it.
      War is a kind of identity within a divide and rule mentality played out as real.
      Such mentality operates in every which way - but what are usually called wars are these days the result of calculated design.

    4. Bruce Lipton is a quack, and your explanation of the relationship of the nucleus to the cell is entirely inaccurate. Why bother posting a comment like the one above?

    5. Can you please ground your assertion about Dr Lipton? it begs to be supported with a few facts.

    6. as do lipton's assertions that cell biology is altered as a matter of thought processes... it is worth noting, however, that his books are self-published and not peer-reviewed...

  14. sorted the sound issue out.... (silly me I thought it was the vid!)

  15. the sound is v poor on the 2nd vid at my end. On the subject of being self serving I think it can be in one's own interests to be altruistic. It can make you feel good to help others and also it is about spreading happiness and goodness to create a better world and a better world is good for all of us. Sometimes if we are totally selfish others lose out and we can lose out if others behave selfishly towards us. We are social creatures by nature but we are becoming isolated and selfish because western culture has led to a lot of people being absorbed in their own things their own home their own technology. I liked episode 2 series 1 of black mirror. Not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see a world like that in the future

  16. Atlas shrugged is the worst book I ever (tried to) read. After a few sentences I was fed up with the terrible way of writing. Objectivism is the most stupid philosophy ever. And Ayn Rand.... well anyone who believes in her stupid philosophy is even more stupid than Ayn Rand. OMG was that woman silly!!!

    1. "Atlas shrugged is the worst book I ever (tried to) read."

      So, what I gather from your comment is that you tried(and failed) to read and understand a book that's meant to champion a philosophy, and then claim to have an opinion about said book and said philosophy and those that adhere to it, even though you admit that you don't understand what it's about. Am I correct in this assertion? If I am, I suggest you question whether or not it is actually you that is "more stupid than Ayn Rand."

      Might I recommend, that instead of an ad hominem approach, you make a counter argument to the philosophy she presents that you can back up with sources, facts or just plain old good rhetoric? That way, you will be providing a solution to what you see as a problem. And when you have solutions, people will tend to believe and follow what you say. That's what worked so well for our friend Ayn.

    2. Agreed...but she was a silly woman. I mean this doc points out quite clearly that she was extremely cold in her self centred, obsessive nature. Yet her heart got severely broken. Her writing often portrays a reflection of herself (I'm sure) as being this tough cookie, and yet there was another sad vulnerable side to her that, had she not been so relentless in denying, may have warmed her up a tad.

    3. I've always wondered if she was a classic case of bi-polar disorder. I've never read anything to support this idea, but I have a family member who has never heard of Ayn Rand, has Bi-polar disorder, and mirrors her views to a T. Watching this video my first time a couple years ago I got chills because I could hear my cousin in the back of my mind saying her words and ideas.

    4. my only discontent for her "philosophy" is the ideal that altruism via capitalism ends up with chaos after the market "leaders" basically go on strike. that isn't how capitalism works. if walmart CEOs and Steel CEOs etc all disappeared to a paradise island, they would simply be replaced. society wouldn't collapse. It's a wrong a extremely naive / narrow minded approach to self position and place of the ego. The entirety of the premise of the point of this novel is this. The actual reaction would be a collective "alright well we hated that company anyway **** off, peace out, look more competition now"

    5. Thanks katie.

      Point taken.

      What I like about Objectivism, and something I don't think many people get, even Rand herself, is:

      If someone is selfish, truly selfish, only looking out for their best interests, than one will come to the conclusion that the only way for them to get beneficial actions from someone else, is only if the action benefits the other person as well. IMO, this eliminates any need for altruism, and is in fact, more effective than it.

      e.g; A true Objectivist, needing help building a fence, will not ask their neighbor for help and just expect him/her to do it out of kindness. They instead, will try and think of a way for the neighbor to also benefit from building the fence.

    6. Sounds about right, but wouldn't the Hippies Commune Philosophy be somewhat similar (minus the selfishness)?

    7. It definitely is similar minus the selfishness but the selfishness is the key to what separates the two ideals and why objectivism works and the commune really doesn't. The commune would work perfect if everyone was 100% devoted to it in the same way. However, once someone slacks, they exploit everyone who isn't. While with objectivism, the slacker only hurts themselves.

    8. Funny how Objectivism becomes Social Darwinism if you just switch a few words around.
      So Hitler and Ayn Rand would have probably been friends I take it?
      All you have to do is follow Ayn's sad and tragic life story to see that her ideology led to an unfulfilling and solitary end.

    9. Hey Bob,

      I bet you have some real interesting and meaningful things to say and points to make, but you forgot to do it in your last post.

      I invite you to expand on your initial statement of "Funny how Objectivism becomes Social Darwinism if you just switch a few words around," by providing an explanation.

      I also invite you to explain what the hell this has to do with anything: "So Hitler and Ayn Rand would have probably been friends I take it?"

      "All you have to do is follow Ayn's sad and tragic life story to see that her ideology led to an unfulfilling and solitary end," and this, what does this have to do with philosophy? You know that a philosophy doesn't live and die with a persons ability or inability to fulfill it, right?

      She had ideas, that's what I'm interested in. I could not care less about what she did or how she felt, I'm interested in her ideas. That's all.

    10. Much like I don't waste time debating religion with believers, I don't waste my time discussing philosophy with someone that can't see the striking similarities between Objectivism and Social Darwinism.

    11. " I don't waste my time discussing philosophy with someone that can't see
      the striking similarities between Objectivism and Social Darwinism."

      I can see the similarities. I was inviting you to explain whats wrong with nature.

    12. There's nothing wrong with nature.

      And if we were simple minded fools we could chart the same course as lions, and use vicious cunning to live and die.

      I'd rather evolve. Find a better way.

      Maybe ultimately Rand's ideas will win the war, but I really doubt it.

    13. I find it hilarious that someone could be so offended at the comparison between Hitler and Ayn Rand, and then a couple posts later ask someone to explain why Social Darwinism (or "nature" as they reword it) is wrong. I've never facepalmed so hard in my life.

    14. Your friend Ayn is despised by all, and this is not me but the free market talking. Her blockbuster movie made a 15 million dollar loss. And, I might add, this movie is the "real deal" since she was so stuckup she refused to have a professional go through her book to find the goodies (lol, as if there were any) and wrote the manus herself.

      Your second claim, that we should educate ourselves before we condemn, is the same fundamentalist Islam makes; you can not criticize the stoning of raped underage girls if you have not read the Qur'an!

      It is the proponents job to inform the masses of the latest philoso... wait, it is Rand we are talking about... rhetorical dogmatic Utopian ideology. In other words, your job. Now, if you understand Ayn Rand it would be easy for you to simplify her rants into digestible take-home-messages. Your above post was utterly devoid of that.

      And lets not even start with how ironic your demand to back up the counter-argument with sources actually is.

    15. Because a bad movie had a subject you don't like, you infer the subject of the film is also bad? Really.

      So I guess you don't educate yourself before you make conclusions. REALLY. I guess you do not have to read economic scholars before you talk about economics. (you're amazing in an arrogant way)

      Religion is based on faith. Economics is based on set theory laboratory data and statistical data.

      So you think backing up ones conclusions with facts is IRONIC, I do not think you know what ironic means.

    16. What makes you think Ayn Rand has contributed anything to the field of economics?

      And on another note, empirical testing is impossible in economics. The quality of evidence is very low compared to actual science. Thus, saying "economical expert" is like say "professional gambler" - there is no guarantee the economical expert gets it right.

      So, your arrogance is simply entertaining, not intimidating. Finally, I have no choice but to interpret the fact that you refused to provide even one economical theory of Ayn Rand as an example of her contribution as evidence that either she contributed nothing or that despite your enthusiasm, you have understood nothing of what she wrote.

    17. Selfish individuals will always side with Ayn Rand.
      You can't argue with a logic that concludes caring about others is a tragedy. The argument in itself is a waste of time to the holder of said ideology.
      Ayn Rand fans are one of the most despicable lots of people on this planet, and nearly all of the corporate heads that idolize her works, are clinically diagnosable with some form of psychopathy.
      This is 100% proven, not even debatable.

    18. Best comment this afternoon: "(you're amazing in an arrogant way)." I plan to use that. Thanks.

    19. So true! I read it as a teenager. By the the time Wall St. beckoned in my 20s, the cult was underway. It seemed really laughable.

      Fast forward: when I read that our esteemed Sec of the Treas Alan Greenspan was or had been a member I was apoplectic. That kind of cult membership would have disqualified anyone from any position of responsibility in the '40s and '50s. And, in fact, it has been proven in modern history, that the said A. Greenspan was, due to his devotion to the Ayn Rand cult, ineligible, disqualified from any position of responsibility in this 'free' country.

      After all these years of digesting the train wreck that is now the USA I can seriously say that academics and intellectuals, particularly political and economics theorists are the worst enemies of any population. They seize the very power of human thought, and are therefore, enemies of human rights. And, were they in power thousands of years ago when written math was being invented, we would all be illiterate.

      Just consider the history of Jesuits and other intellectual keepers of thought control.

      Perhaps this is the turning point. Even though it is despairing that the American people and most of Western citizenry seem easy prey and silent in the face of banker centralized tyranny, the loud silence we hear could be the beginning of a new era of information sharing and power against criminal authorities the world over given the indestructibility of the Internet. There was intelligent life on the Internet before browsers and Google, and there will be after they're gone albeit, the learning curve could prevent children and i*iots from participating.

    20. I read Atlas Shrugged and my conclusion is that there was absolutely no balance in it. The industry heroes were compentent to the point of not being able to do no wrong and the rest were pathetic parasitic losers. In the "real" world, the majority of people fall in between those two. And also in the "real" world, industry leaders sometimes are the cause of a world wide crisis because of selfishness. It doesn't surprise me that a weasel like Greenspan would worship at her alter.

    21. thats how i felt about twilight

  17. Perhaps Price had second thoughts about degrading himself to serve the agenda of the unseen manipulative 'controllers' of the planet. Unlike Hamilton, he felt abused and refused to be totally assimilated by this dominating anti human minority. His final 'altruistic' escape (he would not take a pill to that end - unlike Hamilton, who seemingly caused internal systemic inconvenience by looking too closely into some ape sh*t) appears like a ritual bloody 'sacrifice' he paid nontheless; an act which makes you wonder if and whether it demonstrates or disproves free will, and for us where to go from there.

  18. I have serious trouble with the ending statement of this film, it could be argued that as the west really seeks to supress Africa and keep it with a low population and use it as a resouse basket, that the Hutus were encouraged to rebel and kill the Tutsis, not simply as an act of regret seeking to rebalence the country but rather an attempt to eliminate the one group that had experience in leadership. "Always with the best intencions is the worst work done" or maybe better said:- always with the noble lies do monsters inspire horror.

    Whose failure? Really, it´s business that is ultimately controlling these conflicts and for the resourses, they got what they wanted:- the resourses, a country that is weak and consistenly in conflict(more business and so more resourses).

    It´s funny that peoples get caught up in these religious and ethic conflicts, while business just sits back and munches what it can. All being played so a corporate can get more.

    Well the western politicains are powerless to stand against this corporate domination, afterall they have given them power today. It seems what you really have going on, is different corporate interests fighting for control over those resourses. All hail the button trading masters of the universe, what a qualification to rule!

  19. I can't even watch the rest of this (part 3) because of the inaccurate information presented about what happened with Lammumba and the unrest in the Congo. It was a coup funded by the British and American oil companies and others interested in exploiting the land for its natural resources. Lummumba was making legitimate progress; they needed a corrupt leader in place that will allow that exploitation to take place.

    1. Part way through the film they briefly mention the fact that Western mining companies may have been involved in the central African conflicts.

    2. In the documentary the involvement of the US and Belgium in the removal from legal power of Lumumba is explicitly mentioned.
      The utter corruption of Mobutu and the sellout of Congo to western mining companies as a result is mentioned as well. Therefore there is no reason not to watch the third part, although the message is not very optimistic.

    3. This was stated in the documentary, not in quite so complex terms, it was more put as "rebels backed by the CIA". The CIA would have been propping up American Oil interests in many countries, and of course American oil companies would instantly profit off of this.

  20. The spanish subtitles are annoying, but very compelling doc

  21. Interesting. It seems that these mathematical geniuses that were so bent on the gospel of so-called rationality were also the creators of the atomic bomb. They believe cold computation can save us if calculations are correct. This all sounds so comfortable and cozy in concept. Yet, all the rationale in the world did not stop the world from dropping the bomb, instead of demonstrating it. All the logic and data that we apply doesn't provide for the need to adapt to world in flux. The most overlooked factor in model building, calculation, and system's theory is the specific and always varying process that is change. Promoting rampart greed, a broken status quo, and weapons capable of destruction of the world, despite it's claims of cool rationality is really not rational, nor is it insightful. Computers will not and cannot save us from these logical fallacies, as we created them and so these things are not any more perfect than the flawed people who made them.

  22. Sorry Mark but the scientists who have put their lives on the line for a theory are literally legion. It happens very often. Curiousity killed the cat, as they say.

    Science isn't about "truth" either - although it does utilize truth, as defined by formal logic (real and definite truths, not the wishy-washy vagaries of religious speculation), but it isn't a quest for truth. It is a quest for models that will predict events under certain conditions.

  23. My two cents on ecosystems, fuzzy though it may be. Firstly ecosystems DO have relative stability, lasting for many thousand years in their basic assemblies of species. However it is useful to think of everything in nature as ocurring in WAVEFORMS NOT STATIC STATES. Yes these species DO ebb and flow constantly in their relative dominance, involving for example related population explosions and crashes of interdependent species. And of course the all important complex, niche filled climax ecosytem (for example mature forest) undergoing disturbance(fire, flood,volcanoes, etc.) and reverting back to simple pioneer systems evolving thru time back to complex climax yet again. But these assemblies are stable over long periods of time with perhaps even little evolutionary change UNTIL a major widespread disruption that causes a major extiction event, instigating rapid evolutionary "revolution" to often dramitically different life forms- this too can be seen as a waveform type of cycle. Ecology deserves MUCH more attention and respect than it still recieves.

  24. These are great observations, but the real issue has to do with the forgetfulness or preservation of the Truth. Science cannot create a stable world (though it seems everyone in this economic system worships it and expect all truths to arise from it). There's a reason religion keeps asserting itself into consciousness -- it has to do with a Truth getting denied and buried. Consider, from an anthropological point of view, why no scientist has put their life on the line for a theory, but yet the religious will do so easily to preserve their truth....?

    That being said, through mastery of the technology, one can transcend it, seeing all dualisms inherent in it, and form the bridge to the balanced world we all want. If you want a glimpse of this world, see

    1. You are confused. Try learning some Wittgenstein.

  25. machine men with machine minds...

  26. Its all about control and justifying the existense of those not worthy of life, It is like in nature, the weak are sacrificed in good to save the mass. So now in saving the weak, they grow up to be dictators, and a-hole ho screw everything up, and send off the strong to die. Oh thats right that is how the world is, human are a vile and disgusting creation, and we will be the destructors of ourselves.

    1. ThegreatRAM. Note. Everyone who is alive is worthy of it. Otherwise what would keep us from commit genocide in other continents to solve our economic crisis? but Dearest Sub-spawn of Hitler if you'd prefer we could just throw them against the wall, if that one looks jewish, or that one's a coon, we'll throw all this rifraf into the room, if there's one smoking a joint or another spots and I'm sure if you had it your way you'd have all of us shot.

      If anything here is 'weak' it's thinking like this that makes the pathetic twice stepped on worm cry out for all that is ugly and malicious to glorify his existence, since those are his own highest qaulities, assuming he is a godless bastard as his shallow rehtoric in the way he attempts to pull ourstrings. Reel him in for a second ladies and gentlemen and his life's hard earned lessons teach. Without hope, passion or compassion, without love. life is short and brutal.

      WAKE UP!

      Such gloom is contagious

    2. wait. so we didn't have dictators before we started 'saving the weak'?

  27. i do not agree with the below people. The problem of existence is troubling indeed. Without a rational mythological structure people growing up will never be able to appropriately find their place within the mystery of life. You can peruse economics your entire life- but it wont solve a bit of the exetential angst about why we are existing in a world of seemingly infinite adjustment.


    I like how that (without any context) turns the naturalistic theme of living organisms and natural flux into something entirely opposite. As if systems HAD to be inorganic.

  29. fascism: privatize the profits, socialize the losses

    we need a truely free market, john maynard keynes' idea's are quite harmfull, thats what caused all this nonsense, i cant stand the abuse of the word anarchy. anarco capitalism is the only solution in the end

  30. This is some advanced propaganda right here. It works by giving you half truths. Yes nature isn't a perfect equilibrium, but it is a dynamic equilibrium and it does have feed back loops which keep it from veering to far in any direction. Yes Greenspan knew Rand, but his fiscal policies flew in the face of everything Rand recommended, I mean he was a banker working for the government for God's sake, that is a stereotypical Randian villain.

    They also love to paint the revolution as the oppressor. Hearing these advocates of top down control criticizing bottom up control because it sometimes has led to top down control is a bit like hearing a King criticize a mob because it might lead to a dictator.

    Seems to me the old structures of power are scared. They see how obsolete they are becoming and they pump out propaganda like this where they discredit the life's work of geniuses with snippets and sound bites, all in order to explain how vital they really are to a world they have almost completely succeeded in destroying.

    1. The revolution you speak of has been backed by DARPA, the CIA, the RAND corporation, etc. What a grand bunch of revolutionaries!

      You might want to check out some more Adam Curtis before passing judgement on someone trying to tell you about the water you swim in.

  31. The first part of the documentarie was perfect, astonishing. Once you presented the colaps of the towers, refering it as an islam attack, sory, you just ruined it

    1. Christian he had to say that about the towers. Just the fact that he showed it was enough for me. Hope you reconsider. Take care in any case.

  32. Ayn Rand called Alan Greenspan "The man who doesn't know if he exists".

    Yet in this documentary Alan Curtis tries to make him out as the archetypal Objectivist.

    1. You are misinterpreting what he is saying. The computer revolution is not what he is attacking, he is saying that using a "computer based model" to map our political structure, is BAD, simply due to the fact that humans are NOT computers. Computers are not bad, they are the greatest tool we have, but we should not use them as a model for human political policy. That is all. Also, that computers cannot accurately predict biological systems, because unfortunately, a computer is a computer, and nature is nature. Computers have their place, but we should not base the workings of nature as something that is comparable to a processing machine, it just isn't so.

    2. Computers are based on logic. They are based on reason and rational thinking. The ideas that came out of California during the late 20th century where not that higher level organizations could be based on computers, but that they could be based on the things computers are based on; logic, rational thinking, and reason. The same novel principles that launched the American Revolution.

      This is what Curtis and the authors of the "California Ideology" paper that he cites were attacking. He makes the point quite clear in these videos. He even shows a video of an American Independence Day parade while telling us that the idea of self-governance is a myth.

      Why would he be attacking such ideas? Because he is broadcasting from the capitol of the older style of governance that was not based on reason but on faith, duty, and altruism. He is arguing against John Locke and in favor of Thomas Hobbes.

    3. This documentary was made to discredit the computer as a model for society. If you can't get over the fact that mechanistic models cannot be accurately applied to a dynamic Universe, you already drank the Utopian kool-aid.

    4. What exactly do you mean, when you say computers can not predict society?
      Is there something fundamentally different about it, something that can not be expressed mathematically?
      Or is it just a problem of complexity - like in the case of weather, where all physical quantities are understood, but way to complex to predict on a long run?
      Personally, I think there are many aspects of human society that are quite predictable and mathematical. Some basic commodities prices for instance can be calculated to surprisingly high degree of accuracy. The degree which was not possible before the use of computer models.
      But yes I agree - caution is needed. I do not think any scientist will ever be able to predict very human phenomenon like political alliances or latest fashion trends...
      World is a strange mixture of order and chaos... It does not mean it is completely random.

    5. I think what is meant is that that view of the world doesn't create a culture that we'd want if we view people as automatons.

    6. I think that is because Greenspan "could have been" the archetypal objectivist, except, he listened to other people, rather than do what he needed to do. That is my only guess.

    7. Curtis makes a direct link between Rand, Greenspan and the financial crisis (a false link). He opens with a sequence on Rand, whose ideas are his real target.

      But he just ignores the fact that he points out, that Greenspan turned away from Rand's ideas. She said there should be a separation between markets and state in the same way that we have a separation between church and state.

      Greenspan was busily manipulating the markets by debasing the monetary system. Curtis points out that Greenspan was manipulating the money supply to help Clinton's presidency. But he never seems to consider how far outside of Rand's ideas this is, and then proceeds to incriminate her ideas.

      The end message? We really need governments to manage our lives and our markets and the productive labors of our days. Curtis says all we need is a beneficent leader. The king is dead, long live the king.

    8. Did you miss that Greenspan told Clinton to let the markets rule and that the government should stay out of the economy?


      The currency coming out the Federal Reserve is not the government intervening; contrary to popular thought, the Federal Reserve is a private bank that's main client happens to be the USA. Assuming it helped Clinton's presidency, is a side-effect of the action taken by a private banker that time to time has to deal with its client.

    9. It is the ideas of church and state and money and the animal hierarchical systems inherent in everything we do that are the barriers to our evolution.
      Humanity needs a clean sheet of paper, and to start again from basic principles.
      This will occur, or else we will destroy life in this far corner of creation because of the vast amount of control we allow to be wielded by the controllers of those archaic systems who couldn't care less what happens to humanity so long as they get what they want.
      As history demonstrates to those with eyes to see......

    10. You're getting your timeline wrong. Greenspan thought he may not exist before he met Rand.

  33. As the creature said to Frankenstein in the novel: "You are my creator, but I am your master."

  34. I watched this with alternating interest and frustration. It basically is a take down of the idea that science and reason are objective and free of any ideology or bias. Science as modern religion.
    What is frustrating is that Curtis goes about dismantling these ideas using the very reason and science he is criticizing.
    I thought some about Gurdjieff's ideas concerning the idea that almost all modern people live as machines and are not conscious of most of their actions. I think that in some ways the human invention of machines and computers is a manifestation of how people have thought for a long time, reducing reality down to the 'necessary' data (like the scientist trying to create a virtual version of a prairie by collecting as much data as possible). The machines are a reflection and magnification of the Western mind.
    Through all three episodes, no alternatives to the flawed systems are even hinted at. And quite complex thinkers like Buckminster Fuller are given a rather surface analysis and dismissed. I understand that Curtis is making broad statements and connecting things in an interesting way but it often feels slapdash and manipulative in some way, like he gives you just enough information to prove his point and then moves on.
    At times I felt like I was watching a less nuanced Chris Marker film.
    Chaos and order.

  35. This documentary is little more than a critisism of everything progressive and wholistic. As for what things really are about, it say absolutely nothing. If it did, I have a sneaky feeling that it would be a very right wing vision. It seems to be propoganda of a very sublte variety. If you scratch the surface deep enough, you just might see Billy Grahams face. Or the Republican Party. Watch it with open eyes!

    1. It makes all the innovation of the last 30 years seem like a conspiracy against the king. It's the BBC's attack on the computer revolution, and the American Revolution. That's why he keeps dismissing the ideas of a society without hierarchy (ie: without the divine right of kings) and the idea that people can organize a government that serves themselves.

  36. I would like to take this time to say we should thank the host of this website and give a big thankyou for giving so much and asking nothing.I hope if you have time over the next week to give a nice word for the man/women that makes this possible,i do not know him/her have never spoken to him/her but hope you understand the humanity and freedom he/she gives us ,thanks again host this is my personal homage thankyou.

    1. Yes. This website is unbelievable. It is definitely a step into changing the awareness of the planet.

  37. This documentary can be summed up by this:

    No matter what you believe, good or bad, the consequences of our actions can never be predicted. I would say, don´t put your faith and trust in a system. The only thing that keeps you alive is the Earth....not economics, computers, or politics.

    This was a very intriguing documentary, one that needs time to be pondered. we are all selfish individuals, and I am starting to believe that the good and evil things we do are all of the same selfishness, they create the same consequences, good actions just kill in the long term, while evil actions kill in the short. it´s like the what if you met Hitler when he was a baby scenario?

  38. Forget all that non-sense, Ayn Rand was a lunatic, who as all lunatics, dealt in extremes, it's like saying i like salt on my food, so you then throw a jar of salt on it, everything in moderation, but the best thing in it, is Alan Greenspan, and what a complete nutter he is, and how he had so little self confidence, that he capitulated to the clowns in power in the US, and let the world descend into financial chaos, and also how UTTERLY Thick Bill Clinton was, and is!! undoubtedly the dumbest president ever in office!! Finally the present European Crisis, this proves that there can be only one outcome Chaos, Riots, Government collapse, and ultimately a collapse of the Eurozone experiment

  39. 110 mins is interesting.

  40. 28:50 ...This gets cheap here, an understanding of objectivism discredits such a posturing, but several members of Rand's inner circle cared more about the idea of an objectivist club than it's practical application (especially Barbara Branden).
    Rand's idea of selfishness is complex and multifaceted.
    Wanting somebody else to be happy for your own reasons, and providing assistance in this can be completely objectivist - selfish and not altruistic.
    I find there is a common misconception amongst Randian 'commentators' who seem to have taken the common consensus on her instead of reading her body of work and coming to conclusions based on her own statements (in context).
    It's selfish to want the happiness of others: family, friends, neighbors because just as one example, it creates a better environment in which to exist for yourself.
    The difference that Rand is promoting: the state can't demand you sacrifice yourself (time, resources etc.), it must be a rational choice on your part. It's not an obligation, you can't be made to do it. The state may only protect the citizens.

    Common sense, instead of hyped up emotion, eventually leads to the realization that taking care of your fellow man is necessary for survival in the long term.

    Plus there has NEVER been ACTUAL 'laissez-faire' capitalism. Blaming Rand is cheap and distracts from real issues.

    1. I find it fascinating that he begins by attacking Ayn Rand and then in Episode 2 supports her, without of course mentioning the switch so as not to upset his premise.

      From my perspective I find Branden has a more complete view of self-esteem. I find Rand's work compelling, but Branden has provided me with a synthesis of Alice Miller and Objectivism and a pragmatic means to effect raised consciousness and self-esteem.

    Rand's idea of selfishness is complex and multifaceted.



  42. Who doesn't read their mail daily? What are we supposed to read it weekly (except the junk of course)? Someone give Adam Curtis a blog on the BBC already! What? He already.... Oh.... Well get him an OBE then...JK JK
    I love how Ayn was shocked, shocked I say! ...That a book written from a sociopath perspective would only appeal to sociopaths who, in turn, were too self-involved and self-centered to stick up for her.... Classic!

  43. Are you a Daily Mail reader perchance?

  44. So let me understand this more. This is all a conservative conspiracy that we can use mathematical models to predict nature. That of course brings to mind the Great Global Warming Swindle. But is not that the religion of the left?

    1. Have you ever heard of bicameral thinking?

    2. Please go back to melting down your gold to buy canned goods. The black helicopters are coming, you haven't drank the tap water have you? Bring something substantive to the conversation and prove that you aren't just some scared little kid, afraid of brown people and people that have a longer attention span than you. Oh and the comments you have left, make it really obvious that you have only made it through the first ten minutes of the first part of a trilogy of hour long videos. Perhaps you got distracted by the gold line commercial, or is Alex Jones on?

  45. Why is it liberals who contend to believe in evolution are the ones who reject WE are machines? It would seem they would be the ones who would most easily accept the concept.

    We ARE machines. The system consisted of machines - us - before computers and after computers.

    I find it a running theme that liberals do not understand machines. They are fundamentally unable to grasp hard sciences in general. They like the soft sciences where it is hard to put a number on something. That allows them to interpret anything any way they like. It for this reason I prefer the machines over liberals.

  46. OOoh! the big liberal bugaboo!

    Oh how they hate the idea that we can't raise taxes!

  47. Its always the "liberals" who aggitate agains replacing government as it is presently constituted!

    .... they fear free minds

    1. the problem is not the size of government, the problem is the efficacy to which and degree to which they are representative of the

      this... "laissez-faire" you undoubtedly promote got us nowhere in the long term, and trust me, it was not "becuz teh guvnment wus skrewin wiff it"

      yelling talking points is not constructive

  48. Ayn Rand is the best!

    Computers have to be better than the first Affirmative Action Dictator!

    Barry the Loser

    1. barry and ayn actually can goe toe to toe in a "loser" out

  49. Great doc. So if I get this straight a shifty eyed Russian-American philosopher infected Alan Greenspan with her idealist views on objectivism which he implemented into the market thereby spinning the global economic structure out of control?

    1. you put it so succinctly, the ruskie's won before the gane began!! LOL!!

  50. i don't get this documentary and neither do i understand the people that share the "anti-machine" stuff; imo the machines and the "machinization" of man are exactly the things that brought us from digging for worms in the dirt to watching documentaries on the internet
    the industrial era brought us unhappiness because we weren't used to daily working hours and we have a life cycle that is not determined by the seasons, daylight or other natural stuff but by ourselves; was it better when we were "true honest people" and got eaten by wolves in our caves or by snakes in our trees?
    the stuff about wars and acts of violence were rubbish also, just give old moses a nuclear bomb and see what he does with it (that reminds me of jericho)

    1. "i don't get this documentary", I don't disagree with you.

      The docs looks at contemporary oligarchs through the prism of political theory owing to, I suspect, Curtis's educational background in political science, the perspective he takes seems to be that of a pluralist.

      I admit it gets a bit weird when he focuses on some cosmic coincidence that has a supernatural sense of irony, somehow making it fit into the narrative, but I like those bits, makes you want to watch again.

      Like the guy who dies of a bee-sting in Goodbye Mrs Ant.

  51. Great Documentary. Science fiction has become reality and we are the authors, characters, and readers.

  52. Obviously, I am an opinionated person. No argument here.
    I am struggling with indoctrinated, or if you like, educated opinions, for my own take of current reality. I tend to lean toward moderate and peaceful discussion and debate on ANY issue. BUT does this make MY opinion correct?

    I think not.

    I wish to exorcise my own demons. I am relatively “well educated” That last parenthesis should recognize that I was educated to believe the reality that we in the WEST are the “good” and anything outside of this Education is subversive or “bad”.

    Dangerous currents underpin this paradigm. For if I am unable to pull myself out of my comfortable “box” of reality and see things from another’s perspective, then I am a product of specific West-leaning propaganda. A fact illustrated by human reaction, throughout history. I see little difference in Randism (ooh there’s a new dictionary word) than any other proposed ideal.

    My biggest problem these days is sorting out the various arguments. Even when I find myself on solid ground…another equally “opinionated” person will inject a bible “truth” or an example of their understanding. It seems to me that our very language is subverted to provide confusion and conflict.

    So while all of us argue the semantics…the agendas continue to make us “slaves” to an idea and ideals that we wouldn’t support, if we could truly understand their portent.

    1. You are a robot, educated by robots, and so are EXACTLY what the documentary is about!!, you have no capability of original thought, only what has been placed there by other robots before you. There is no such thing as a good person, there is merely people who choose to not be bad at that moment you look at their behaviour. Everyone is self serving, even those who would appear not to be, are in fact serving themselves, they simply believe that by being the way they are is the right way to be, and so they follow what they believe to be the right path, in order to reach what they believe to be the right end. That is in itself self serving.

    2. Wow that was impelling. I should add this thought, though...


      I am not a big fan of, Ayn Rand. However based upon your response to me, I would have guessed that you are....then I read another post to another person where you called her a lunatic. Being a robot, educated by other robots is far better than being clueless.

      That's pretty much all I can say.

      You should start your own society and invite other people, who understand what the heck you're trying to say.

  53. My impression of these three episodes is that the author suffers from the very same state of reductionism that he is critisising. Its funny how the film suggests that the current state of the world is a product of the Ayn Rand movement and the illusion of the world as a simple system that is self organising and should not be touched by politics. The message Is so incredibly reductionist in itself.

    I am quite certain that there is a lot more complexity to it than this doc is trying to show. Especially considering ecology and genocide in africa. I believe there are many other ways to describe the mentality behind genocide. The film leans toward the conclusion that africans are puppets and european colonial powers tricked them to execute each other.

    Like they didnt think for themselves and used the situation for their interests!?

    A little bit like when "politically aware" people In Sweden blame the US for what is currently happening in Iraq. The Iraq people have brains as well and are responsible for their own actions. Some groups within the country want power and are willing to fight and kill unarmed civilians to gain it. Media never speaks of their responsibility. At least not in Sweden. Nor do they speak of the Taliban as anything else than a kind of product of western failure.

    Maybe I left the subject a bit here but I think I got my point through.

    From explaining a truth through a narrow perspective based on the faulty thinking of certain individuals follows a kind of silent subjective exclusion and devaluation of other perspectives. I think we can do better and that a lot of people are doing a lot better jobs at describing reality than the producers of All watched over by machines of loving grace.

    1. You say it's reductionist, that you're "quite certain" that there's "a lot more complexity" and that you "believe there are many other ways" to describe it all but then all you offer in the way of example is an alleged but in any case irrelevant Swedish view of the American criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq based on lies. I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific try harder to apply those specifics to the programs here.

  54. One may point out criticisms of Ayn Rand's philosophy, yet far more deaths have occurred as a result of collectivism. Once a small group of elites begins speaking for "the People" all manner of horrrors and nightmares ensue. It almost never happens, on a macro level, that people who pretend to speak for "the oppressed" actually have that group in mind. Usually, that excuse is used to act as a cover for self-aggrandizement and opportunism. At least Rand is honest in saying that people act out of self-interest and nothing more.

    1. "People act out of self interest and NOTHING more:" the fatal flaw of Randianism. Like so many philosophers, particularly contemporary ones, Rand took some common sense ideas -- she was a keen observer and definitely had some new and provocative things to say -- and became single mindedly obsessive about them, compulsively developing and transforming them into rigid, all or "nothing," reductionist, unquestionable dogmas. But because she (and they) simplistically provide "all or nothing" answers served up on the silver platter of ideology (and as additionally shown here, a closed loop feedback cybernetic system where obviously and admittedly flawed human society ultimately no longer effectively exists), they have great appeal to adolescents of all ages everywhere seeking to establish their individual identities in the face of what often is collective oppression. But, as seen in this excellent series, the end, radically ironic result is a cybernetic collectivism (like Rand's "Collective") that allows no alternatives and is likely more restrictive and unstable than anything we've yet encountered. As Lord Kenneth Clark opined at the end of his "Civilisation" Series: "One may be optimistic, but one can't exactly be joyful about the prospects before us."

    2. I have nothing to add to that, and am in agreement. Reductionism is always the fatal flaw of any religio/philosophical system.

  55. These are interesting films if you take their premises with a pinch of salt and see them as provocative launch-pads for the kind of discussion going on here in this forum. Curtis takes an idea and cherry-picks information to support the idea as though it were evidence.

    It is overstretching credibility to suggest that Ayn Rand's philosophy is responsible for the 2008 GFC through Alan Greenspan and computer technology. She was merely giving voice to thoughts and ideas already circulating among US political, cultural and economic elites. In particular she gave voice to a negative defintion of freedom (ie freedom from social restraint) which has been around since the time of the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. The world has had economic and financial crises since the 1890s at least. The 1890s global financial crisis is particularly important to me as an Australian because it was the background to the growth of Australian nationalism.

    The third episode I found facetious because the reality is that Belgium treated the DRC, Rwanda and Burundi as slavestate colonies and after they became independent in the 1960s, the US, France and Belgium continued to favour the corrupt elites governing these states. The same could be said for many other countries like the Philippines, Indonesia after 1965, Iran up to 1979 ... where poverty became entrenched and grievances like the Tutsi-Hutu divide, which was artificially cultivated as a way of controlling people, were ignored and allowed to fester.

    I didn't think the second episode was well thought out: Curtis doesn't define what is meant by "equilibrium" and "stability" in the context of the episode. The steady-state systems that Tansley and Smuts put forward as ideal were based on their ideological beliefs and agendas. We need to examine those agendas for hidden biases and defects. One such defects is that these systems receive no inputs and will tend naturally to disorder because this is their equilibrium state. In the past there were human societies that might be considered "closed" (eg Tasmania and Hawaii until the 1800s, Japan more or less from 1603 to 1800s) and the extent to which they thrived or didn't thrive depended on the initial size of the society and its access to necessary physical resources.

  56. It would be much easier to take you seriously, Livefromlimbo, if you would spell out the words 'are' and 'you'.

    1. It would be alot easier to take you seriously if you din't behave like the "spelling" police. What's your point? That Everyone who makes a spelling mistake is probably a M*ron or not worth listening to? That if you aint written a 1000 thesis on the inside of ping pong ball that you shouldn't have a voice. It's that kind of pompousness and snobbishness that has put the ignorant few, dictating their system logic of greed to the rest of the world for too long.

  57. Here's an observation - I'm assuming most of you have watched the Zeitgeist movies and maybe also Kymatica and others like it. I'm assuming also that some of you are onboard with the ideas put forth in those films. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those philosophies support the idea that we should do away with politics, and that human beings have the natural capacity to self-organize into a system that will benefit and represent everyone more or less equally? But if this Machines series is correct, the idea of a natural, self-organizing society is impossible - that the idea was just made up with no scientific method used to support it. It says that in reality, communes always fail. I'm not sure if that is exactly true, I know the vast majority of them do fail. My dad always said that Communism worked great on paper but always failed in reality. I supposed the same can be said of Capitalism also, we're all witness to that. I'd like to see a discussion on the connections between these ideas and the ideas being spread by the Zeitgeist and Occupy movements.

    1. hello CherryBombpop i must admit i did not watch kymatica, but did read the desc. and decided not for me. I think u r correct to bring up Occupy and Zeitgeist, tho not everyone has caught this connection (maybe they haven't seen Zeitgeist like us lol). My understanding of Zeitgiest is that it attempts to awaken people to the game that is being played. In the latest Z. movie, it concludes that we must burn all the money, and start over. lets face it the whole world is a commune, we r all earthlings no, its jus that we r conditioned to believe otherwise. The main arguement from Z. movie is that the system in place now is not working. that is to say that this is a pretty f--ked up commune cause we take advantage of those less fortunate. future generations shall suffer in the name of todays dollar. and remember "primative" societies still live today in tribes and such. should we be tribes then? well their socities have survived even up till now and have mastered sustainability. maybe not so primative in light of the carbon tax? so whats the solution? i don't know and im sure a doc won't either. i think u make an important step in sparking discussion, b/c if change were to happen it would be an evolutionary process, like it would not happen all in one day. and i think that discussion is part of that process. smiles to you :))) CherryBombpop!!

    2. I think that you have hit upon a very critical issue. If I am wrong in my take on your point, please correct me. Think you are talking about:

      The amalgamation of different societal opinions as presented in various separate documentaries VS our ability to process and actually form an opinion that satisfies us?

      Here is my simple take. (having a very simple mind has helped me)

      Most of us can organize the very specific points contained within another person or group's belief into a cohesive idea that matches on some very basic level within ourselves. Unfortunately, I have a "HOWEVER"

      It is this: How can any of us formulate a system or belief on either an anthropogenic or esoteric agenda, that would incorporate benefit by the many for our very existence, when the information we are fed daily as truth (I'm talking the western media supremacy doctrine, as advertised in the mainstream) is in complete contradistinction to what is actually happening on a global level?

      I too, would like to see this conversation started and debated.

  58. :-/

    I'm an Atheist and a realist. But Ayn Rand is just so pretentious, boring, and wrong.

    Maybe she was 'amazing' back when Atheism was mostly unheard of. But she fancied herself rational, while having an affair with someone in her social group, which then blew up in her face. If she were rational, she wouldn't have done something so stupid and emotion-driven.

    And if she actually thought about altruism for 2 seconds, she'd have realized it's a natural trait shown in many animals, other than just humans. Instead of recognizing what humans are with both the bad and good, she just rationalized her actions so she could have an affair with her friend's husband.

    I'm just pissy because everyone has a giant boner for someone I find despicable :(

    1. Not everyone has a woody for Ayn Rand. I think she formed most of her philosophy out of anger. It's as if she were deliberately trying to form an opposite viewpoint from that of common understanding. I have had many a go-round with her disciples, who more than once have referred to me as an "altruistic piece of ****". How the mind can assemble those four words in a sentence is beyond me!

    2. @David Foster

      I've had several... interesting... discussions with Rand devotees ("Objectivists"). I've noticed that "Objectivism" seems to have an internal logic that is easy to rationalize, but only within the context of its own set of assumptions and definitions. When arguing against any philosophical concepts that lie aboutside of its own system, semantic problems start arising and communication starts breaking down. Because of the assumption that one has access to the only actual "Objective" truth about reality and the idea that it has been arrived at through logic and reason (as any "Objectivist" must certainly believe), this seems to lead certain (most) people who hold these views to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them is undoubtedly intellectually inferior or they would have reasoned the same "Objective" conclusions. So when the communication breaks down in the argument, most objectivists I've sparred with tend to go straight for "You don't understand Rand and Objectivism - go learn about it," "You collectivists are all alike, leeching off society bla bla bla," "I am just intellectually superior to you and I'm wasting my time arguing," or some such smarmy cop-out. I was once threatened with death (always a very rational way to win an argument, not at all clouded by emotionalism) because aparently "collectivists" like me are such a threat to the Objectivists' ideal elitist capitalist utopia that it is okay to dispense with us. I believe his explanation was something to the effect of "You see, we don't care about people like you anymore." I'm not saying that kind of violent mentality is characteristic of Objectivists, just that it's one logical conclusion of that type of smug, selfish, cocky, elitist thinking. To anyone who isn't familiar with Objectivist jargon, "Collectivist" is their word for pretty much anyone who isn't part of their club. It certainly applies to anyone who believes in any kind of liberal economics even in the most limited of capacities. The implication is if you're not on their team, you'd might as well be a communist. It's often used as a slur.

    3. @AnalogousGumdropDecoder
      You said it all, well done xx

    4. She was mainly just acting out an extreme backlash towards socialism because of her personal experiences in Russia. While understandable on a human level, this doesn't make her ideas philosophically sound.

      I too am an atheist. I too believe there IS an objective reality in a material naturalistic universe. However I also know that, as nothing more than highly evolved apes, we can't possibly have the unlimited reasoning capacities required to enable us to interpret that objective reality in anything but a subjective manner.

      Her ideas and her own life were full of inconsistencies, circular arguments, and hypocrisies. For instance, Ayn Rand drawing a social security check when her husband died... accepting the kind of tax-funded government assistance she always railed against. I've heard Objectivists rationalize this by saying that the money was unjustly taken from her and her husband by the government in the name of collectivism, so she was only really taking her own money back. How on earth is that any different from anyone else drawing social security? Is a conservative objectivist drawing social security taking back her own money, while a liberal drawing social security is simply being a parasite to society? Is it okay to accepy money from a government program as long as you don't believe the program should exist? Is it some how wrong if you're okay with the program?

      I know that this is an anecdote and not a rational dissection of the fallacies within Objectivism. If I had more time and found Objectivism relevant enough to bother poring over Objectivist literature for the purpose of ripping it to shreds, I assue you I could do so. But... I don't. The thing is, this anecdote is not an exceptional case within that school of thought. It's absolutely TYPICAL. Stupefying.

      I have concluded that Objectivism is certainly not philosophy nor even "a" philosophy. It is a religion, albeit an atheistic one. It's a dogmatic code of beliefs based on literature written by venerated author with whom it is blasphemous to disagree.

      All of that negative stuff being said, one of my favorite comic books is "Mister A" by Steve Ditko (A = A being a principle of Objectivism). It's 100% self-serious condescending Objectivist propaganda. It is hilariously quirky, and most of the art (as is usually the case with Ditko) is weird and wonderful... all done in black and white to represent the fact that no (gray) middle ground exists between good and evil ethics (of course). He did mess up and use gray on an issue or two early on when not expressly trying to convey someone's ethical corruption, but he quickly realized his mistake and corrected it. They're usually stories of normal people who make some kind of minor unethical decision (by Rand standards) and it snowballs into them doing something really horrible. Along comes Mister A, a non-superpowered superhero/detective-type character who dresses in all white, who proceeds to lecture and lecture and lecture and lecture about Objectivist philosophy. Often he lets the main character die or suffer some sort of seemingly disproportionate (to any sane person) punishment because of his lack of sympathy with anyone who compromises their ethics. Often there's no story at all, and Mister A just rants and rants and rants about people leeching off society. It's AWESOME. Kind of like a psychedelic conservative atheist "Chick Tract."

    5. Ayn Rand's notions are the Ebola Virus of social and political discourse.

    6. @Cy__________x
      She advocated the opposite of anything vaguely humanitarian. I don't even like looking at pics of her.The Fountainhead ends with a hapless husband shooting himself - essentially and 'rightly so' paving the way for the wife to be with the super hero she really deserves.
      Funny how Rand herself ended up getting shot (metaphorically speaking) in the foot when her dream man/hero took off with a younger prettier woman. He obviously felt 'entitled'. However, Rand did a 360 degrees and all hell broke loose. xx

  59. Third episode: All over the place. Very loose. Doesn't do a fantastic job of support the thesis. However, this episode contains the most "Holy sh*t, why haven't I heard of this" moments of the three episodes. This episode, therefore, just seems like a vehicle to raise awareness about certain socioeconomic realities. For example, the PlayStation 2 uses components made of minerals found in massive quantities in the Congo -- thus fueling civil wars over control of these resources and genocides that make the American Civil War look like a middle school scuffle.

  60. Second episode: AWESOME. The thesis that we have placed our faith in machines is far more substantiated in this episode than it was in the first. It discusses systems theory, ecology, communes as experiments in egalitarianism, and the possible illusions to be found in recent Internet-fueled political revolutions. It argues that nature -- which techno-utopians claim to model their ideas after -- is something that is not in balance or equilibrium but in constant, unpredictable flux due to the inevitable outside influence or missing variable. This episode is worth watching.

  61. First episode: Full of useful information, some of it very new to me. The connection to computers, however, seems unsubstantiated and more intuitive on the part of the writer Adam Curtis. Not that that's automatically a bad thing. I have a similar intuition, which is why I am watching this series. I am trying to find out just to what extent and in what ways computers and technology have warped our sense of reality.

  62. it took me a while to get this RU player to work fullscreen, good doc!

    1. how did you get it to go full screen?

    2. Click the Russian text link in the upper right corner of the video.

  63. It is clear, like all other societies before us, our technology will destroy us, if it has not already. Sustainability and Sustainable Development is all a facade and a front for maintaining corporate and market power. Entire generations have bought into this and are meanwhile being manipulated and controlled. The only thing being sustained is existing power.

  64. Because Guest is constantly getting off-topic and is worried about the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head.

    1. lol i gotta tell ya i was wondering the same thing myself :D
      well i'm glad you finally cleared that up for Guest....Sword of Damocles what in the Hell Pysmythe LOL....

    2. It was just a little quote from Wikipedia about Ayn Rand intended to make her laugh, but it was more or less off-topic since it referenced other things...and probably wasn't all that funny, anyway.

  65. As a sophomore at Loyola University in New Orleans circa 1973, I took a course with Prof. William Kuhns entitled "Media and Society" (a much more original title then than now). It covered everything from Marshall McLuhan to Jacques Ellul, "Bucky" Fuller, Norbert Weiner and Cybernetics. I remember Prof. Kuhns relating the claim that nature had been reduced to a cybernetic "system." I still recall the ironic smile of skepticism that crossed Kuhns' face when he disclosed this, revealing his own doubts about it. He was proven right. I've always known Kuhns' class was one of the most important courses I studied. Now this, among the most important documentaries, confirms it and brings it up to date.

    Ayn Rand

    I must say; a great idea that can take wrong turns if one's goal is to be heroic over others as oppose to her philosophy of being heroic over oneself.

    1. Sometimes I think you are sending SubLIMInaL Messages Lol :P
      But Thank you Az that is a very nice quote....if i may say so myself... well I finished the last video earlier I think i will watch this one again it is pretty good.... Holla At Ya'll 2morrow Evening Peace :)

    2. Exactly.
      Very succinct!

    3. ...

    4. why is Guest constantly erasing comments?

  67. it's nice we can blame the machines

  68. This is one of the best docs ever! Adam Curtis is the man. I recommend The Century of the Self if you like this one.

  69. ? ???? ?
    ain't that pretty!

    1. did you make that az...
      any way have you watched this one yet trying to keep on the subject flip it back right quick and fast lol......

    2. Lol. I've seen the 1st one, love and power. It's pretty good. A lot of tech, some economics, sociology, and a smattering (or was it a generous helping?) of Ayn Rand (ugh!), if I remember correctly.


    3. thanks I will give it a know what i got teed off a lil while ago at what i read...i tried to do one of your numbers lmao and erase because i was typing out of anger and i told myself i would not do that again i was mad at myself...i think you took it like a soldier though but let me tell you summthin you get back on "Top" where you were at first because thats where you Belong That Will Shut all Them Haterz Up... gotta go its late.....Peace To You and Az...

    4. I watched the first two last night.... this actually is pretty good though..I will finish this last video... but lol.... ayn rand whats the matter Pysmythe you know you digg some of her philosophies :D well anyway let me get back to watching a doc....Peace :)

    5. I'm very conflicted on the subject of Ayn Rand...
      Maybe we'd better not get into it, lol.

    6. Lol Okay then....Peace :)

    7. Come on, get into it just a bit. Fountainhead was brilliant, the first i read by her.

    8. Read (most of?) that one when I was maybe 18, and also saw the film with Gary Cooper... Read "Atlas Shrugged" about 15 years ago, and I swear it must've taken me 200 pages (out of, what, 900?) before I started to feel at all locked into it... I truly had to fight with that book, but I was determined to get through it, maybe just so I could say I'd read it. I won't get into some of her ideas (which both repel and attract me at the same time -and it can get complicated trying to fit them -somehow!- into a more liberal view, such as I have), but...I just don't feel she was much of a natural storyteller, which I think was the main thing that turned me off every other page. For sure, there's such a thing as being too d*mned intellectual in that medium, and her characters just seemed too artificial, contrived only to convey her philosophy, without much soul of their own. I mean, it was always completely obvious what they were going to do next, and so I spent a lot of time just plain bored, I guess, while feeling like I needed to push through with it because of the importance of the ideas.

      edit- It occurs to me, also, that maybe there's only so much a reader can endure, being in the company of those who are so blatantly SUPERIOR to the rest of us, you know? lol. Who in the hell can measure up to Dagny and Galt, for Christ's sake?

    9. I have watched part of it a while back and i keep coming back to it wanting to give it an other chance...and then i zone out. Have you?

    10. not just yet i think i will give it a view though looks interesting...yeah zone out lol maybe because its one of those really long ones... I do that like if it is so long and i'm watching i will dose off and fall asleep especially when its at night and then i have to start over dang nummit lmao....okay Peace :D

  70. rutube sucks balls!

  71. Anyone else having bandwidth problems with "RuTube" vids? Otherwise great doc

    Jacques Ellul


    Jacques Ellul

  74. Machines don't love. Humans love. Therefore human's are not deterministic machines.

  75. Watched this on TV. Made it through the first episode and felt a little smug about it. Almost tricked by my self satisfaction then the fog cleared and I saw it for what it was, style over substance.

    1. A bit like the latest CGI movie spectacle -- or maybe The Sermon on the Mount, eh?

    2. Yeah, only I felt a bit guilty that I was so disappointed. They tried to hard on this one to make something amazing, take away the frantic visuals your left hanging.

    3. This is not an academic journal. Adam Curtis is a film maker. If you "take away the frantic visuals" It ceases to be a film. This is a well researched documentary. It should provoke us to read. Its ability to do this is its success. Great doco.

    4. Hello :) Hope I'm reading you right, that maybe I'm judging this a little to harshly and on the wrong criteria. That I should see this as more of an Art film first Doc second? If so, you might be right but I found it kind of conceited. Also a bit claustrophobic. What i meant by frantic is that there is no let up on the visuals, no room to absorb either them or the information and they work against each other. I would have enjoyed it more with subtitles and music or less visual info. Sorry if my previous comments on it nearly swayed you away from watching, it's just not to my taste :)))

  76. Episode 1 - Love and Power

    Some documentaries achieve brilliance by discovering and highlighting the unseen connections between people and events seemingly separated by time and contrary ideas. This is not one of those documentaries.

    Curtis' work attempts to tie together a series of people, ideas and events using irresponsibly shallow and inaccurate analysis. For example, an astute watcher will hear the narrator blatantly contradict Rand's own explanation of her philosophy. Rand = rational selfishness; not sacrificing oneself to others, nor others to oneself; personal independence and happiness; the trader principle (trading value for value). This does *NOT* mean "doing whatever you like". Nor does it mean that other people neither matter nor are necessary. Even a cursory examination of her works (especially non-fiction) provides clear and concise explanations of her position (one of which is that the Federal Reserve is an immoral and destructive institution).

    But for some reason Curtis ignores (or deliberately misinterprets) what is so easily learned (even in his own film!) and takes the path of least resistance...appealing to popular misconceptions and simple ignorance. I have to hand it to him. I'm not sure anybody else would have the nerve to blame the financial crisis on Rand. That's like blaming obesity on Lance Armstrong.

    Curtis chooses to cover two topics on which the average viewer has solid opinions and very little understanding.Those without *first-hand* knowledge of Rand's ideas and who don't understand the basic principles of economics and politics should do some research before watching this film. Come prepared with a critical and questioning mind. Then ask yourself if Curtis makes a sound and solid argument or simply strings together a tenuous collection of mis- and disinformation about emotionally charged topics.

    1. Did you even get up to the part where Alan Greenspan is sent to Ayn Rand for his philosophical education? lol

      Besides that, Curtis does not say that he believe that Rand's philosophy is about "doing whatever you like". The interviewee says this.

      Notice that you are defending Randian philosophy by twisting what is being presented here, for everyone to see.

    2. "Did you even get up to the part where Alan Greenspan is sent to Ayn Rand for his philosophical education? lol"

      No, I didn't. And neither did you. It was only implied that Greenspan adopted Objectivist principles and applied them in his role as Chairman of the Fed. In contrast, it was explicitly stated by Nathaniel Branden that Greenspan stuggled with something as basic as the proof of his own existence. That's not a ringing endorsement of his being a "Randian". In fact, it's just the opposite. But a viewer would have to be familiar with the basic tenets of Objectivism to know that. Curtis was counting on that fact that most people will take his assertions as fact, without taking the time and effort to validate them against other sources (especially Rand's own writings).

      Curtis provided no evidence that Greenspan adopted and followed "Randian" principles in his role as the Chairman of the Fed. He couldn't, because no such evidence exists. This is my point -- critics of Objectivism almost always trot out Greenspan as an example of how the philosophy is sympathetic to statist economic controls. However, a quick scan of Rand's writings (especially on economics) reveals that Greenspan acted in direct opposition to the principles of Objectivism. Greenspan is a "straw man"...he is not and never has been a valid example of somebody whose beliefs and actions are consistent with Rand's ideas.

      But Curtis doesn't let that get in his way. His reasoning is -- Greenspan was a fan of Rand [not the other way around, as Branden mentions]. Greenspan helped cause the financial crisis. Therefore Rand helped cause the financial crisis.


      Yes, that's true. The interviewee says this. And so do some of the commenters. Which is why I pointed out that Curtis is interested in relying on his viewer's lack of familiarity with both Objectivism in general and its position on economics in particular in order to create links where none exist.

      In spite of your assertion, at no time did I twist anything that was presented in the film. I didn't have to. Curtis provided a series of unrelated facts and relied on insinuation and invalid arguments to reach his conclusions. If anything, I untwisted some of what Curtis distorted and mangled...for everyone to see.

    3. "Greenspan stuggled with something as basic as the proof of his own existence." Pardon my French, but WTF?!! This "I don't know if I exist because I simply can't prove it" thing is simply a pompous intellectualistic "showing off" by some people, especially by those severely inclined to narcissism. Greenspan being the Fed chairman was just one of those (elite) who profited off of regular people. And he played a very significant role in enforcing the devious plans of the elite.

      Do some research on Greenspan, and you'll find out what sort of a scum he really is. And Rand starting an affair with her friend and follower?!! Yeah, a super-duper right thing to do. Just like Woody Allen f*cking his adopted daughter, while saying "The heart wants what it wants". Roman Polanski and those judges, who recently legalized watching child-porn in NY, are all a part of "screw the morality" movement. Rand was probably one of those too.

      P.s. I hope you understand that such movement is not "official" but it does exist. Especially among those who want everything for themselves at the expense of others.

      P.s.s. this documentary is very misleading, it blames the computers, but the fault is with those like Greenspan, and the whole elitist bunch. They'll pay for it, if not in this life, than in the next.

    4. It is not perfect doc. But it can show people how god was created and how did the PEOPLE who write god lavs looked like.
      Elitists that is the name of the people who did it.

    5. You definitely sound like you haven't watched this all the way through. Open your mind! :)

  77. I can't believe how incredibly insightful this series is. Who else could tie together Ayn Rand, Monica Lewinsky, Belgium's role in Rwanda's nightmare and our current economic catastrophe! Michael Pollan posits in his book 'The Botany of Desire' that plants control us to promote their genetic code and now I think perhaps that is now true for the element of silicon.

  78. It is still possible that a peer2peer system could take over the world on behalf of the people and bypass the power structure. They'd have to shut down the internet to stop that. I'd like a documentary on why that has not been done yet.

  79. Now, THAT is what I call a Good Documentary Series!

  80. After 20mins on what seem isolated and microcosmic mid 20th century theories on Individualism and Ecosystems, these Docos get more and more interesting. They connect efforts of people who seem to fit into some crazy late western history of financial market practice, and explain the current market indebtedness in America as a mid-90's debt problem re-hashed by trialing international capital markets, and creating a sustained period of phantom growth and economic stability aided by new computer models of risk and hedging.

    They tell how these people have tried to develop stable financial markets and explain environmental ecosystems by using computers. An evil is exampled out of pride and fantasy of computer technology.

    It clearly shows America created a bubble, it's financial leaders took it upon themselves to ignore the underlying flat productivity within the country as well as the possibility of increasing overvaluation of capital, and instead preferred to think wealth was being created by their new systems which assumed stability was insured. We are surely doomed by these people who attract themselves into advancements which are fanciful, and develop out in such fatalistic ways.

    Hullo all. This issue is welcome, fundamental to the science/religion etc. 'Problem' and most others IMO.
    I shall even change my usual method and actually watch the video, EVEN watch it before shooting my mouth off interminably LOL

  82. the denouncement is exactly and simultaneous symetric to the process of alienation, using the same vector of proganda, same system of value, as a reversable upsidedown twist. The comfortable moralism is the twin siamese brother of the vulgar cynism, playing a permanent ping-pong to justify their both Laurel & Hardy... but resistance is elsewhere...

    1. Huh? English please.

  83. An idea that was supposed to lead to a "totally free society" has led to one in which we are under total and complete surveillance! Is that your definition of freedom? So who really was Ann Rand; a hero promoting personal freedom or an imposter promoting a deceptive agenda of global enslavement and total world domination? You decide.

    1. Hero? Imposter? ... What if she just thought she knew better than everyone else? ... You know, like everyone else! :-D

    2. Couldn't agree with you more. Such a great description of her/everybody else/myself included.
      Brilliant!!! Bravo!!!

  84. Happiness does not arise from the pursuit of "selfish desires" but with the ailgnment of one's self with one's sense of personal integrity which lives in the Human Heart and serves as the true moral/ethical compass.

    For example suppose on pursue a "selfish" desire (here the concept of selfish implies that one can and should do whatever he/she chooses even if it means that those choices come at the expense of others and their own sense of integrity) and say they succeed in securing that desire, will they actually feel happy if they have say trampled on others to get it?

    Well, to answer that you will have to envision such a scenario for yourself and then check in with your Heart to see how you feel there. If you are a living human being i.e if your Heart is still alive, then you will invariably feel some or all of the following there: exploitative, sad, selfish and bad about yourself.

    In other words your Heart is telling you that what you have just done has undermined you and your personal integrity.

    Contrary to what many think, mantaining and respecting one's personal integrity "is", at the end of the day, what will leave one feeling happy.

    This is not simply my belief system rather (if you choose to do the experiments yourself) what you will always experience yourself based on the choices you make.

    Let me say in closing that there are individuals whose Hearts are "not" alive i.e. they are walking around but there is no one home. These "people" are essentially "dead" inside i.e. their integrity has been suffocated, and their minds have been hijacked by non-human energies/programming that manipulate and coerce them to undertake inhuman acts such as pursuing "selfish desires" all the while deceiving them into believing that this will make them happy and human.

    1. Stop trying to advertise your own website here.

    2. There is a group of ppl called psychopaths (I'm not talking about serial killers, I'm talking about ppl with such personality disorder). They feel no empathy towards others. They are utterly selfish. They feel no remorse. Your "Heart" argument is not valid. Psychopaths only understand the language of punishment.

      The only way to regulate that is the "Golden rule": Treat others as you'd like them to treat you.
      Heart/conscience is not always enough. Unfortunately.

  85. That opening song reminds me so much of lemmings.

  86. well working in an office don't you spend 75% of your life nealy infront of a computer?

  87. Great doc. Vlatko, if I wore a hat it would be quite well off to you, sir.

  88. @Vlatko i watched the third part last night on youtube...any reason why you don't add it here?
    Thank you for all your many hours sitting in front of the screen. It allows us to do the same! lol

  89. The detail is interesting but the overall premise doesn't hold for me.
    I can't think of anyone I know who sees the world through computers. I wish the world WAS simpler but it is quite the opposite.
    Makes for dramtic entertaining TV though - that's how you get docs like this commissioned.

  90. God Help Us!!!!
    This is scary stuff. Pray that love survives.

    1. ^LOL^

    2. Yeah lets all pray together..

    3. @Sean U;@Cherubim Bean
      ...and, anyhow,group prayer has never worked! (lol)

    4. @Cherubim Bean; @Sean U
      I wouldn't rely on God and, anyhow,...

  91. Vlatko, in case you didn't know, part 3 is now added (there is an annotation with a link in the beginning of part 2 now)

  92. This ignores lese faire's radical status and how new and unusual it is.

    Market's are regulated and manipulated. We will soon vote on how much to manipulate it. Politicians are already telling us their plans.

    Somewhere the video makes the mistake of believing Ayn Rand favored government manipulation of the economy. Ayn Rand said the purpose of government is to protect rights.

    Spock lacked emotions. Many people seem to believe that rational people would lack emotions. Ayn Rand believed emotions were the results of thoughts. Really fast thoughts. Duh.

    If they were the results of rational thought they would be particularly profound and meaningful. She did not believe in the so-called mind/body dichotomy.

    They are right about Greenspan. But consider this, at the same time FNMA and Freddie Mac is buying everyone a home!!!!!!

  93. This is great stuff told with sensitivity.There's so much here that I might have never have discovered.I'll watch this again and the other docs by curtis.Really a terrific addition to this site and I do feel more well-informed now.Thank you,Vlatko, shareworthy documentary

    1. make sure you watch "the power of nightmares" and "the century of self"

  94. This doc does the best job of explaining the global finacial crisis and how it is directly linked to unregulated capitalism of any I have seen. Though it is somewhat complicated how it all played out it can be reduced to a very basic assertion- Unregualted capitalism will never work toward the long term interests of the average citizen. It looks great on paper, sounds great to talk about, but when we try it human nature creates horrible injustices and ultimate failure of the economy.

    Its bad enough now when we do have a system of checks and balances, recourse toward the violation of basic human rights, a regualtory apparatus to weigh concerns other than just the short term profit of one corporation. This apparatus gets used for exactly what it is supposed to stop sometimes even. But, if we remove it they won't have to bother buying a senator or hiding crooked practices, each business will simply do whatever is in thier immediate finacial interest. There will be nothing to stop corporations getting together to set prices or control supply, nothing to insure that basic human rights are preserved, no standards to address health concerns or the spread of desease, etc.

    Besides, study after study has shown that a market controled only by consumer habits rarely yeilds the best value per unit of currency. Consumer habits are far to easily influenced by irrelevant stimuli like advertising, packaging, pop culture influences, etc. I don't want the economy shaped according to the purchasing practices of the people I know. They buy ridiculus, useless, disposable, mostly pointless, horribly wasteful, pop culture junk- habitually!! Sience should lead the way in all fields, including the economy!! Through science we can discover not only the most productive means to achieve our goals, but what those goals should be.

    Big business and trade, economics in general, is only a means to an end- not the end in it's self. Mankind has much larger goals, much more honorable intentions- to explore space and understand the universe, to know where we came from and truly understand what we are, etc. These goals will only be reached through our mutual cooperation, not by one country or one man. This is why concepts like altruism, honor, decency, charity, the brotherhood of mankind must never be compromised. Otherwise the means have destroyed the end.

    1. It's only telling you the half-truths blaming it on computers.
      The doc is very misleading. Check out the "Inside job" documentary. Matt Damon is the narrator. A much better and clearer view on reality.

      P.s. Oh, and Greenspan, he was in on the whole scam. And IMF doesn't even fart without the US government's permission. In turn the US government doesn't fart without the permission of the global elite.Wall Street is just a name.

      The bailout 700 billion dollars are covered by US citizens who are struggling more and more everyday to survive, let alone the rest of the world.

  95. Im sorry, but all men/women are NOT created equally. We would like to think so, but the truth is nature tells us we are not.

    Some are born with amazing communication and intuition or with musical skills, while others with down syndrome. And the people in between. We ALL have our own temperaments on what we can tolerate, what we like and dislike.

    The ONLY way to have a Commune work is to focus on the task at hand, NO EGO and allow the strong to apply ideas. But, you need a voting system. Im surprised the commune did not have a voting system. A unanimous where 1 NO meant a halt until it was rectified. Very difficult indeed.

    Good doc, very fascinating insight into the mainstream politics deep inside... and some interesting science experiments...

    The story is unfolding even TODAY ... who knows what will happen!

  96. Well constructed, entertaining for both, I look forward to more.

  97. The soundtrack was great. Anybody know who the first song was by? Cool to hear Leonard Cohen in there.

    1. Pizzicato Five-Baby Love Child

    2. Not sure which one was first but there was a lot of Kraftwerk in there.

    3. Baby Lovechild-pizzicato five
      the list is in the wikipedia for the tv series

    4. I heard a few tracks by Ennio Morricone, some of them from the 'Once upon a time in the west' movie soundtrack.

  98. Rand terrifies me. People chose their personal philosophies by what will benefit them the most and what affirms their lifestyles. Rand's utopia of everyone scratching at everyone else to fulfill their every selfish desire sounds stressful and bound to tear itself apart.

    All Rand's heroes and Reagonomics do is move wealth to the top in a grotesque form of inverted welfare. This is the world where the college student pays 10% on a loan to go to school, but the corporation is handed billions with no interest of oversight.

    I don't know if I'll finish watching this one - It's starting off a little too positive on the trickle down economics - which outside the theoretical realm, just does not work.

    1. Continue watching, even if your don't agree with the message, in fact its more important to watch and learn from things you don't agree with than things you do.

    2. I agree with you Sieben however this doc is important because it helps to decipher the human condition and i don't about you but i need a fresh new jolt in that area. One can dissect if you like each person in this doc; it's not what their thinking in this case that's important but that they are thinking and how we get ourselves into these mental scenarios; it doesn't matter anymore about right wing or left wing or how big we build that space station. Sieben this conversation is not going anywhere. I'll watch this doc several more times i know. it's so off the wall i tend to drift out.

    3. try maybe logic that is a gooder or the unibomber doc

    4. One of the tenets of Randian Objectivism is "laizzes-faire capitalism", which, at the time of the inception of her philosophy, was seen as an antidote communist state run collectivism. Since this no longer applies, her objectivism and its ontological implications are moot.

      As this documentary points out, there has been a paradigm shift from "state" control to corporate and banking control wth speculators reaping the benefits, while citizens are asked to forfeit wages and entitlements to bail out credit insolvency.

      Had Ms. Rand lived to see our present predicament, she probably would have exposed the comsumeristic credit based "free market" as the sham it really is.

    5. Ms. Rand was just a poor Jewish girl who ran away from Russia in search of a better life. Her whole ideology and her personal life were just an illusion created out of troubled personality. As Barbara Branden pointed out, Rand was deeply unhappy in her personal life. And such ideas that "I am entitled to do what I want to be happy" is nothing more but a pitiful attempt to convince self of self righteousness (even when starting an affair with one's friend's husband, and appealing to morality when that husband starts an affair with another woman)...

    6. Rand was one of many hired by those of the Kruschev mindset. I have no doubt she was just one main part of a larger plan to make Americans forget that their country was founded on beliefs about what is "right" and cling to a belief that their country was founded on what is most profitable. Then ultimately capitalism would collapse and be seen by all the world as immoral and unloving, first to the Chinese and eventually American citizens who slave-labored for Wal-Mart without health care and destroyed themselves by purchasing bad mortgages. Loving and graceful machines do not have to be our demise. But loving and graceful people may be the means of reviving us. Wake up, America, and learn that empathy and community and love are the traits that will save our country. Not corporate greed. Before it's too late. We once defended even small things like taxation without representation - and that was before facebook. Can't we also defend local business? Local well-being? Local independence? Or is that too much effort when we could just sit back and become China's colony and have 100% "employment". When our country collapses and the human rights abuses are happening to us in higher measure, it will be too late to suddenly adopt virtues. Buy the right things, love people, and stop greed. Or get ready to learn you were just a bolt in the Stalin-Kruschev machine manufactured by Rand and others hoping to see the degradation of capitalism from within.

  99. Gonna have to give this a watch, looks very interesting

  100. soundtrack to this was shockingly good

  101. The First Episode:
    Great Doc,
    Its a different take on the financial global system of free-market, greed and individualism.
    The only thing that was disappointed was that it didn't touch Reaganomics, free-market ideals (forgiving however, considering Curtis has talked at length about this in previous documentaries).
    Instead focusing on the influence of Ayn Rand's Utopian philosophy of individual desires that influenced the market.... often to disastrous results.

  102. Amazing.
    The entire picture.
    Not only fragments.
    Now, I fully understand it.

    The best documentary ever.

  103. Brilliant doc makes you think just like a good documentary should ill be looking out for the 3rd episode

  104. as usual a fantatstic series from Adam Curtis. 10/10