film review: the social network.

it's about Odin and Prometheus.

I watched the Social Network. It was a good film.

In the past, I was more conspiratorial about how billionaires made their money, and suspected much more CIA involvement. Social media is a tool for collecting data, which makes it a great platform for surveillance. If someone is making a messaging platform, the government (NSA) wants to be able to access that. It is in the government’s interest to help fund friendly and cooperative founders. I was always skeptical of the idea that Facebook was a purely privately funded venture, and suspected more government involvement on the back end.

Now that I have watched this well made and enjoyable Hollywood film, I have been propagandized into believing that it’s plausible that the government just waited for a successful company to emerge, and then started becoming involved after the fact. Although the fact that Peter Thiel was the first major investor in Facebook brings ambiguity to the “purely private” thesis. He’s a connected guy.

aside on Peter Thiel (who is in the film)

Not to make this all about Peter Thiel, but one of the things that annoys me about popular leftist conspiracy theories about how Thiel rules America is that they describe him as “shadowy” and “secretive.” Thiel is the opposite of shadowy and secretive. He will go on random people’s podcasts that you’ve never heard of. He’s extremely open and comfortable with talking about his ideas. That is the last thing you would do if you wanted to remain “behind the curtain.” Same thing with George Soros.

If you want to accuse a billionaire of being “shadowy” and “secretive,” you should go after Robert Bigelow, who is obsessed with UFOs and life after death. Or Tim Mellon, who rarely gives public interviews.

At some point, describing people like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk as “shadowy” and “secretive” becomes slightly ridiculous. If anything, I wish they were a little more subtle and discreet.

Tim Mellon donates 10x as much as Thiel, but is less public.

This is a movie review about Facebook, I swear.

Zuckerberg as Odin-Prometheus

The initial conflict of the film is between the Winklevoss twins, who give Zuckerberg the idea for Facebook, and Zuckerberg, the plucky David who slays Goliath by stealing their idea.

The way in which Zuckerberg steals the idea of the Winklevoss twins is almost Biblical. If you know the story of how Jacob steals the blessing of Esau, there are many similarities. Jacob and David both win by cheating, basically. They outsmart their big dumb enemies without any obligation to honesty or honor.

This isn’t a uniquely Jewish thing. In the Iliad, the Greeks (remember, they are the good guys) can’t beat the Trojans in a fair fight, so they sneak into the city through a wood horse. After the war is over, the journey of Odysseus is survived to a great extent due to his excellent lying abilities. Jason and his argonauts also defeat big dumb enemies by pretending to be sheep, which is a story that probably influences the folktale of Jack and his beanstalk. Zeus is also known for his lying and deception which allows him to defeat his father and cause much mayhem. The enemies of Zeus are the Titans: big dumb oafs, who he defeats with superior technology and intellect.

In Norse mythology, this association between the good guys and clever trickery is somewhat inverted, because Loki, god of trickery, is an ally of the Giants. But even among the Norse, Odin was the chief God, and a God of shapeshifting and deception.¹

Zuckerberg is also a Promethean figure, who “steals the fire” and brings it to humanity.² The lawsuit against him is a punishment from the Gods. Like Odin who sacrifices himself for knowledge of the runes (he did not invent them), so that he can spread writing among humanity, so too does Zuckerberg sacrifice himself to gain knowledge of thefacebook so that humanity can be connected.

ETHNIC TENSIONS

I wouldn’t describe the Winklevoss twins as WASPs, although being Dutch is sort of an edge case. There’s a weird tension between them and the real WASPs in the film (they meet Prince Andrew of England) who seem to be above them and not as anxious about status. In Winklevoss world, there are two types of elites: elites who inherit their value and don’t need to stress, and elites who need to desperately prove themselves to win their fathers love.

The crucial flaw of the Winklevoss twins is a lack of ruthlessness. Had they literally killed Mark Zuckerberg (in Minecraft), the world would be a different place. I’m not saying it would be a better place. I’m not even saying they could have, or should have. Eventually, whatever sympathy one has for them is ground down throughout the film by the amount of delaying, hemming, hawing, appeals to respectability and honor — it was all weakness. We can’t have weak overlords, no matter how sexy and buff they are!

Hilariously, the actor playing the twins, Armie Hammer, is half Jewish.

This is what Mischling look like.

Eventually, the Winklevoss twins are defeated, and the film focuses in on the Jews and their Anglo-upstart Thiel-connection.

The Jews are absolutely killing it in this film. Zuckerberg, Eduardo, and Dustin are the real Jews behind Facebook. It’s a Jewish company. Sean Parker sounds Irish to me, but the last name could be English. Each person in this film is extremely interesting to me — even the Asian girlfriends.

On of my least favorite parts of this film is how it tried to depict Mark Zuckerberg as a misogynistic incel who couldn’t talk to women. I think the director made this choice to highlight the mythologic dyad between Mark and the Winklevoss, a sort of lunar-incel / solar-chad dynamic.

In real life, Mark was a little more chad and jock. He was a fencing champion, not an unathletic brain in a vat. Next to the Winklevoss twins, anyone is going to look unathletic, but they exaggerated too much, and made Mark into some kind of limp wristed faygele, which he is not. He played sports. This aspect of the casting was highly annoying and influenced by the worst stereotypes of Yiddischkeit.

The real Mark Zuckerberg isn’t a wimp; he’s a robotic killing machine. His rudeness has some bite to it. The Mark in this film had a flat affect, which is not true to reality.

Look at how chad Zuckerberg looks compared to the pale, vampiric-werewolf creature on the left. Look at his tan skin. Look at his upturned jaw, exuding confidence. Look at his long face, the face of an aristocrat. This is not who they cast in the film. They cast a pale, sallow-faced, brachiocephalic, square face with a square jaw. A totally different species, tbh.

Mark Zuckerberg is an alien with a Roman nose and that is not who they cast.

Here’s Mark at 23. He likes to smile! He isn’t that autistic! The actor did not give a toothy grin ONE TIME in the entire film. It wasn’t authentic to the real Mark Zuckerberg. The real Mark Zuckerberg can be charming. In fact, his autistic persona is likely an act, which Elon Musk emulates as well, to appear smarter and more authoritative. It’s a PTSD response to HR ladies calling them autistic misgynistic incels. But he can be personable when he wants.

He has a huggable persona.

Look at that beautiful smile! I just wanna grab his cute little cheeks and squeeze them! What a handsome young Mensch! You didn’t get to see that side of Zuckerberg in this film.

Back to the Winklevoss for a second

I don’t believe in copyright law, so the fact that the Winklevoss twins were able to sue Zuckerberg is a little silly. On the other hand, they were very sexy. I mean, if the Winklevoss twins had started Facebook, we’d have a very different impression of the world. It would be a much more Nietzschean world.

They certainly aren’t “fat cats.” Look at Prince Andrew in comparison.

Skinny-fat aristocrat.

When I see Prince Andrew, I see a pale skinned, skinny-fat guy who doesn’t work out. He doesn’t need to, because he knows that, no matter what he does, he will always be a prince. When I see the Winklevoss twins, I see genius Olympians. Would you rather be ruled over by some guy who looks like he needed Jeffrey Epstein to get laid, or would you rather be ruled over by some guy who looks like a male model?

This has been the complaint against Facebook for a long time. Mark Zuckerberg looks too nerdy, too weird, too unpopular. We want to be ruled over by popular kids. But I think this complaint is too black-and-white. Mark was a popular kid, in his own special nerdy universe.

Mark should have just never cut his hair short, and he should have spent more time working out and hanging out in the sun. Now that he seems to have fixed that problem, he’s much more likable.

I know I’m just posting cool photos of Mark Zuckerberg, but the actor in the movie NEVER SMILES WITH HIS TEETH. I’m repeating myself, but it’s an obnoxious choice by the director to deliberately make Mark less sympathetic.

You may think this is Mark looking angry, but this is his face the entire time.

I don’t hate the movie. The movie is good. I enjoyed it. But it’s not an accurate portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg.

This movie was a massive psyop to get us to hate Mark Zuckerberg by replacing him with an uglier version of himself. The actor isn’t inherently ugly. It’s just that he never shows his toothy grin. It’s dehumanizing. If I was Mark Zuckerberg, I would have threatened the director with drone strikes until he got the actor to smile properly. If I was Mark Zuckerberg, I would ruin the director’s life. The fact that Mark has not done that is a testament to his mercy and sagacity.

This is a review of Mark’s smile.

Mark Zuckerberg does come off as passive aggressive at times, and arrogant. But he gives little toothy grins.

He also makes these kind of playful smug faces, which you didn’t see in the movie. It was just blank face, or angry face, or sad face. No nuance to his playful side. He’s a cutie, and that was not accurately portrayed in the film.

there were black people in this film.

Besides noticing evidence of Jewishness, Dutchness, WASPishness, and hints of Irishness (Justin Timberlake looks pretty Irish), I also noticed that there were exactly three black people in this film: the secretary of Larry Summer, Thiel’s friend Maurice Werdegar (who is white in real life), and the friend of Mark’s ex. There are no visible Hispanics, but there is one Indian!

I mention this not to critique, but to observe. This is Silicon Valley: Asians, Indians Jews, WASPs, Irish, and maybe even a few black people. But Hispanics are just not visible. That’s an interesting fact, given that 30% of the country is Hispanic.

It’s also interesting that Hollywood feels more comfortable making Maurice black rather than making him Hispanic — which would, statistically speaking, be much more accurate. It seems that Hollywood feels that including blacks is a moral duty, whereas Hispanics, not so much. This might be due to the political loyalties of Hollywood, which see a sort of special spiritual kinship between blacks and Jews as having fought together in Civil Rights. Blacks are owed something, whereas Hispanics are not. It could also be a general sort of white guilt outside of the Jewish angle, or the fact that blacks and whites share a religious tradition in Protestantism.

I also would like to mention that the actor for Eduardo Severan looked more like the real Mark Zuckerberg than the actual Eduardo Severan. They should have switched the actors for Mark and Eduardo, tbh.

I don’t know why I’m so fixated on what these people look like. I suppose if this was a completely fictional story, I wouldn’t care. But because these are real people, I feel like you have to pay attention to physiognomy.

The actor for Eduardo did a good job — I think he played Spiderman too.

another aside on Peter Thiel

It is absolutely fascinating to see how instrumental Peter Thiel was to the early success of Facebook. Is there anyone Thiel didn’t successfully pick? He helped make Elon rich; he made Zuckerberg rich. And yet the guy himself is not that rich.

Here’s another interesting fact:

Google’s early investors included Jeff Bezos, in 1998.

Wait, what? Bezos helped fund Google? Thiel helped fund Elon and Zuckerberg?

Some of the guys who funded Bezos look pretty chad:

Eric Dillon

Anyway, this film review wasn’t supposed to turn into some kind of 50 Shades of Grey obsession with sexy billionaires. I swear!

But…

Now that I know about the Elon-Zuckerberg connection through Thiel, the list of top 10 billionaires looks entirely incestuous. All these people are funding each other. Gates and Ballmer both did Microsoft. So there ends up being like a few nodes here:

• Elon + Zuckerberg = $538 billion

• Bezos + Brin + Page = $444 billion

• Gates + Ballmer = $220 billion

• Larry Ellison = $163 billion

• Warren Buffett = $161 billion

I’m not claiming that these clusters all get along, or they all agree on everything. But it’s fascinating that the top 10 billionaires didn’t really become that rich through 10 entirely separate ventures. They were all sort of close friends and business partners who made each other rich. Kind of like the Breakfast Club. Like how Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears were both part of the Mickey Mouse Club.

BACK TO THE FILM, I SWEAR

Mark’s big concern at the beginning of the film is getting into some kind of secret society or fraternity, and it does seem to be crucial to be with the right people in the right place at the right time. The portrayal of Mark as someone who doesn’t smile is ridiculous given this fact. No one can succeed at that high of a level without smiling. You have to smile.

I liked the Sean Parker / Justin Timberlake character. He was clearly a narcissist manipulator with some drug problems, but very charismatic. It’s interesting how Peter Thiel was able to take a $500,000 risk on a guy like that, and he was right to do so. It’s almost like Thiel has this ability to spot crazy people who are highly productive. He seems like a very open minded guy, despite being a conservative and having skin issues.

I have a genuine problem with whatever kind of skin issue that Peter Thiel has. I don’t understand how you have $17 billion and you can’t stop yourself from looking like a raw penis pimple. It’s very strange. I mean, the guy is gay, he should have some kind of narcissistic sense of propriety. Like, maybe you’re very sweaty and sunburn — try some foundation makeup? Call up Bryan Johnson. Most people when they age tend to have dry skin, not oily skin. Not sure what’s going on here.

My least favorite thing was where they talked about Eduardo feeding chicken to a chicken, but didn’t show flashback scenes of it. I guess the actor didn’t want to hold a live chicken. Pussy. Hold the damn chicken. I wanted to see a man holding a live chicken in the Harvard cafeteria. It could have been a great film…

I really liked the scene where Mark and Sean were yelling in the club. I enjoyed the music.

A rare roothless smirk.

The reason they prohibited Mark’s actor from smiling with his teeth is they know it would make him seem human and likeable. They wanted to make him seem disgusting and horrible, or something. They wanted the movie to be “complicated,” with a villainous anti-hero instead of a cool hero. They wanted to keep it ambiguous as to whether Mark was an asshole, or whether he was just looking for love in all the wrong places (in power over others). But in reality, Mark smiles with his teeth, and he probably is an asshole too. You can do both.

The most pathetic scene was the Winklevoss twins finally committing to “gut the freaking nerd.” It’s very impotent and sad. There’s no stoicism here. It’s fear: fear of being “impolite.” Obsession with self image. It’s also weird that one twin held all the power in the relationship, and the other was subordinate. From everything I’ve seen about the real Winklevoss twins, they are much less Patrick Bateman (secretly insecure sociopaths) and much more traditional Stoic chads.

Eduardo has a panic attack as his girlfriend tries to burn down his apartment.

I also liked the scene where Eduardo’s life is coming apart. He was a very likable guy. Things could have been so good if Mark just let him keep his 30% and not tried to cut him out. But it was that dastardly devil Sean’s doing.

We’ve all been in situations where we had this dream cooked up with a friend, and then because of some stupid petty dispute or misunderstanding, the friendship and the dream went up in smokes. You know, we’ve all had that experience two or three or four times. Oh? We haven’t? Well, some of us have, and it’s a very earth shattering experience. And it makes you question if you have any worth at all as a human being.

Eduardo just wanted to live happily ever after with his friend Mark, who he loved, despite the fact that Mark treated him rudely. And then he was betrayed. Although technically, he betrayed Mark first by freezing the account. But Mark was rude, so… it’s a tragedy. We’ve all… Some of us have experienced this kind of miscommunication which leads to catastrophic relationship failure. It’s very sad.

There’s also this scene where Sean tells Mark to do an investor interview in his pajamas, and then to tell the investors to “fuck off.” I wish we got to see that. But the movie was 2 hours long. Didn’t feel that long. I want to see the director’s cut.

Anyway, I give this movie 3/5 stars. Great insight into the modern history of our great Republic and the public-facing oligarchs. I don’t expect a documentary to come out on Blackrock any time soon. I’m sure there are interesting stories to be told there, but I think that, at a certain point, when you have enough money, you can simply pay off Hollywood to not humiliate you with weird and unflattering portrayals — which are the equivalent of enemy propaganda.

When are we going to get the Elon Musk film biography? We got the Trump film biography, although I don’t think it was that great. They could have made it less anti-Trump and it probably would have done better — like, no rape scene, for example. I haven’t seen it. I judge films by the 5 words I heard about them. If “rape scene” makes up 2 out of the 5 words, I’ll pass. There’s other good films to see. I see like 5 films a year.

The film could have easily been a 4/5 if it was a bit more fun, realistic, heroic, and less autistic. Mark Zuckerberg is a hero and a villain. He’s not an infantilized sad little boy who is incapable of expressing happiness or smiling with his teeth like some shy beta male.

Zuckerberg is, by definition, an alpha — I don’t care how short, awkward, or lizard-like he might be. His trouble with emotional expression that we see on camera comes from a stilted CEO robot presentation that is trying not to get his ass sued. I also think he’s been under tremendous stress over the years. He has been under constant attack. I would become autistic too if you constantly attacked me.

Here’s a video of Mark in the flow state where he’s not performing as a robot for western HR lady audiences that constantly want to sue him. I think the man contracted PTSD and speaking Chinese cured him:

I feel this too, when I speak German, my personality changes. I don’t know if it’s for the better, but I become much more masculine, direct, and philosophical. None of this unstructured rambling I’m doing now. I also find when I talk to someone who speaks English as a second language, I tend to speak in a more deliberate way, which changes my mood.

Conclusion:

The film removed all of the goofiness from Mark’s personality. Mark Zuckerberg is a goofy guy with a big toothy grin, who grins even when he’s being passive aggressive. When the real Mark is being awkward, he smiles with his teeth, and the fact that the actor wouldn’t emulate that was either bad acting or deliberate anti-Zuck propaganda. Making Mark into a stilted, dark, brooding character was a crime against Mark and history itself. #justiceforzuck

Director David Fincher should be ashamed for pushing such deceptive propaganda about glorious leader Mark Elliot Zuckerberg. Still, outside of historical inaccuracy, the film had an interesting plot in itself, and I’d like to see more biopic fiction made about tech CEOs from the early 2000s.

Anyway, I’ll leave you on this note:³

1. At some point I should just do a post about how Lord of the Rings is a Manichaeism myth, wherein Yahweh, Odin, and Zeus are represented by Sauron. Yahweh is described in the Bible as a pillar of fire who sees all things, and Jacob is described as building stone pillars to worship God. This is similar to the Egyptian obelisk. Tolkien demonizes these forms, and depicts Sauron as a shapeshifter in the vein of Odin and Zeus. Furthermore, the heroes of Middle Earth are the Ents, who are similar to Giants or Titans.

2. The way in which Facebook spreads is like a fire.

3. This is probably just a random Youtube link, I don’t know. I’m not really responsible for the content of the Youtube website. I think Youtube and the content uploaders are responsible. I would never steal a car, or an idea, by the way. I respect intellectual property rights, totally.