Yesterday, ah yesterday. All was happy anticipation then. Yesterday there was this article in the Guardian. It began,
There will be blood – watch exclusive of 10:10 campaign’s ‘No Pressure’ film
Here’s a highly explosive short film, written by Richard Curtis, from our friends at the 10:10 climate change campaign
and continued enthusiastically
Well, I’m certain you’ll agree that detonating school kids, footballers and movie stars into gory pulp for ignoring their carbon footprints is attention-grabbing. It’s also got a decent sprinkling of stardust – Peter Crouch, Gillian Anderson, Radiohead and others.
But it’s pretty edgy, given 10:10’s aim of asking people, businesses and organisations to take positive action against global warming by cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in a year, and thereby pressuring governments to act.
However today, the article has this added to it.
Sorry.
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website.
We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.
At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.
Onwards and upwards,
Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team
Mr James Delingpole may have had something to do with this sad outcome. You can still see the film if you wish. It has been reposted on YouTube by gleeful anti-greenies. Both his article and the Guardian one I linked to earlier have links.
We’ve got the video up on Cats too. Spread it around guys. They’re planning an international “Day Of Doing” on 10.10.10, so they need all the exposure they can get. Let’s make sure it’s predominantly bad.
Oh, and write your MP. They have MP support, they get state money, and they are actively infiltrating the schools in cahoots with other fake charities. We have to exploit this for every iota of propaganda. Need I add that the walking oil slick Simon Hughes is one of their parliamentary spokesmen?
I’d pay good money to see that unfunny twat Richard Curtis’s head explode. Simon Hughes’s too. I’d have other uses for Gillian Anderson.
Amazing. (Here’s another link to the film, to save people the trouble of having to search YouTube for it. Click on the little red box at the bottom right of the screen to get rid of the text overlay.)
It boggles the mind how all the oh-so-superior-and-super-intelligent folks responsible for this piece of idiocy could be so completely oblivious to the fact that lots of people would find this film offensive, or that it sends precisely the opposite message of what they (presumably) intended. I guess they were all too caught up in their clearly demonstrable moral superiority to notice.
I especially liked this passage in the apology: “With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media . . .” What they mean, of course, is that public interest in this manufactured pseudo-crisis is diminishing, which is “increasingly threatening” to these people’s delusions of relevance. No wonder they’re starting to panic!
I suspect that the phase “no pressure” will enter common usage very quickly, and not in the way these people had intended, but rather with a derisive and vaguely threatening sub-context. Let’s spread the meme, as well as the video.
Idiots behave like idiots. What’s new ?
The Ecofascists are producing propaganda showing their agents bloodily blowing up children? Holy crap, that is big. Climategate, bah. Copenhagen failure, meh. This is truly when the Green movement jumped the shark. This footage needs a wide, wide viewing, and I suspect it will get it. A quite epic own-goal from the Greens. Extraordinary arrogance. I didn’t think they had it in them. But then their strategic stupidity in – what’s that Obama-age term? – “walking back” of this monumental fuck-up (I wrote blunder before, but fuck-up seems more appropriate) makes them even more vulnerable. Yes, as I said ,the Greens have jumped the shark, that is true. Unfortunately for them, there’s blood in the water. I’m going to enjoy this feeding frenzy.
It always puzzles me that Richard Curtis had anything to do with the generally brilliant Blackadder while also writing “Love, Actually”, a film which manages to set one’s teeth on edge just from the two words of its title.
Onwards and upwards from the cesspit? That would be progress, but I personally would rather they stayed down there a bit longer. Anyone who played any part in bringing that foul film out is seriously sick.
Even Black Adder betrays the bien pensant mindset of Curtis.
His worst offence though was Ship That Rocked. A reasonable film but it gave the impression that it was a conservative government that closed down pirate ships.
Posted it this morning on my FB, I know that a lot of my Aussie, American and European friends, ( a lot of whom do radio shows), have shared it already.
Epic own goal.
Schadenfreude and popcorn, lovely.
Call me stupid, but I’d just like to make sure I’ve got this right. It is now acceptable to kill people who don’t agree with your views on the environment?
Just checking.
Could someone explain to me why ground zero for climate alarmism is located in Britain? Seems like whenever I read about over-the-top global warming hysteria it is somehow associated with the UK. Admittedly, all countries have their share but it seems like England got an extra dose of crazyness. Just wondering.
Sam in Salt Lake
How many people will remain not blown-up after considering recycling, compact fluorescent lights, reduced water use, reduced eating of fats and sugars, no smoking, and reduced use of carbon-based personal transportation devices (formerly: cars)?
To paraphrase Mao: The political and ethical advancement of the populace flows from the barrel of a gun, held by an intelligent and caring member of the university-trained elite.
The logical next scene in this movie is showing someone blowing up a plane load of carbon guzzlers. I can’t think why they didn’t show it.
Seriously though, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the the phrase “no pressure” entering the language as a euphemism for “do it now or I’ll blow you up”. Even as I type, some cubicle dweller is planning to say “Can you get those sales reports for me? No pressure. Ha ha ha.”
The Guardian quaickly chucked the 10:10 announcement from its headline on thier enviroment page to a little sidebar you have to search for in less than 24 hours.
The comments section is a laugh and a half, even the warmies are decrying the own goal this bit of crap is producing.
Meanwhile heres this one from Oz which equates feeding a kid a hamburger to injecting them with drugs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P-4bzj9sdI
And heres the facebook page of the twats who made it, they think its clever…
http://www.facebook.com/ThePrecinctStudios?v=wall
I don’t find this film “offensive” (or maybe I just hate that word so much by now that I don’t want to associate it with anything I myself think or feel just on principle), more baffling.
I mean, before today, I recognised that the green movement had a number of fascistic tendancies, but if someone made a satirical video in which they’re portrayed advocating the murder of anyone who doesn’t join the groupthink, I’d think it was a ridiculous exaggeration. And yet, from their own mouths…?
Why did no one realise how this would come across? Come on, even if you believe this sort of thing (or even just find it funny), you don’t say it in public.
Jonathan Ross/Russel Brand – rinse and repeat.
The righteous really are totally disconnected from the rest of the country.
This week, two of my “energy saving” bulbs popped, what has this got to do with the 10:10 viral ?
The “energy savers” are supposed to last for 10 years, mine lasted less than a year, together with a couple of others, they were special 9W candle edison screw bulbs and are not particularly cheap either.
The current batch of “energy saver” bulbs are a joke, not only are they a financial expense but they are a significant carbon expense too, being a mini florescent lamp with combined starter, they cost a lot more carbon emissions to just manufacture. If they don’t last 10 years they actually waste carbon emissions more than a conventional bulb.
When “energy savers” were being pimped by the concerned government, a new technology of LEDs had already taken hold, these are vastly more energy saving in both operation and manufacture, but the Luddite tendency went ahead with what was essentially an outdated technology, now these bulbs are not living up to their proposed life expectancy, this is a huge waste of carbon emissions and it would have been better if the entire exercise had been abandoned and invested in LEDs.
Now the 10:10 video has been junked, how much wasted carbon emissions went into this film, the multiple locations, the trafficking of actors around, the energy used in development and distribution ? Not to mention the mistimed impact which plays right into the hands of climate skeptics who are so fond of using terms like “eco fascist”.
The eco fascists are like the early Mao government, the bizarre Four Pests Campaign produced shocking long term results and ended up a disaster, the Great Leap Forward remains forever in the hearts of the enviros.
‘given 10:10’s aim of asking people’
Asking other people of course. There’s little evidence that eco-types make any real attempt to reduce their own consumption and emissions.
This silly film is just another outing for the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ message from the hypocritical ecos.
Taylor
Bravo Pete !!! Lets NOT call them ecofascists , calling people fascists is always a bad sign.
These bastards are in a class by themselves, ideologically. They are closer to the Khemer Rouge than to anything that existed in Italy in the 1920s and 1930s. Lets follow Pete’s example and just call the ecos, that should be enough.
There’s an interesting Guardian comment quoted on the BBC site:
“Imagine if some Christian group in the US did that to gays, Muslims, or anyone else they disagree with. The outrage would be palpable. And deserved.”
Err… yeah. Or imagine if some Muslims did it. Er, no, hold on, they do that all the time. And they don’t use actors either. Sorry for the confusion.
Here is a list of sponsors of this egregious organization. Perhaps we should drop them a line asking how they feel about killing children whose views do not accord with their own.
http://sadhillnews.com/2010/10/01/eco-terrorism-1010global-org-no-pressure-ad-campaign-made-possible-by-sony-and-others
Ian F4: I once had an energy saving bulb that went after thirty seconds.
As for the film, it merely highlights what the Greens are. They made it without thinking, they publicised it without thinking and then they had finally had a thought when everyone told them how nasty it was.
But hey, the Greens thinking… Quite exciting, really.
It’s a good job that Sean Gabb and I are not in charge of a British libertarian government, and it’s also good that we are unlikely to be in the near future. I do not view Sean’s concept of a “truth and reconciliation commission” quite as positively as he himself does. I’d go further into such matters as this.
The angrier we all get, the worse it will be for the GreeNazis when people finally catch up with them.
I have just watched this amazing video, and frankly, it looked to me like a rather over-the-top (but very funny) attack on the green movement, done by people who really, really hate it, far more even than I do. Seriously. The fact that the teacher was such a genuinely nice lefty, and she was being very sweet about everything, right up to the bit where she murdered the dissenters, just made it all the funnier.
Greenies. Don’t be fooled by the niceness. They’re psycho-murderers, or they would be if they could be. Good grief. If I was making an attack on the greenies, I wouldn’t have dared to go this far. This was genius.
I thought it was a nice twist that David Ginola got squelched, rather than just one of those Joe Soap footballers. That was also very funny.
Talk about an own goal. These people are making propaganda against themselves.
And they expect everyone to accept their screeching opinions about the environment, after a giant cock-up like this.
It is the amazing stupidity that I am, well, amazed by.
I very rarely get such good value for my tax contributions. As PJ O’Rourke famously said, about something else that was also over-the-top splendid (a warship I think): “This is how to waste public money!”
This made my weekend.
Brian, I actually was sure that the video was part of an anti-Greenie campaign, until I realized that it was genuine. Mind boggles.
…And the actress who plays Scully gets murdered because her submission to the cause, though present, is not deep enough. It’s almost as if the film is saying, “these Greens – don’t trust them, even if you are one of them!”
Speculation on the unconscious motives of the makers could fill a landfill. Many have said that it shows what Greens fantasize about doing to non-Greens. Could it instead – or also – reveal the unconscious hatred and understanding of Greens for their own movement?
I cannot for the life of me, work out the motives for this angle that they took with this.
Were they being ironic, in a… ‘we know you you think we’re econazis, so we’ll play along with the joke’… self-deprecating manner?
Or is there a too-sophisticated message that they tried to get thru? (eg. if the kids/workers don’t go green, then blind nature/karma/climate catastrophy will catch-up with them, or some undefined other… in this case, acting with immediate effect thru the cold agency of the person with the red button)
With their focus on that, they totally missed the obvious ‘eco-totalitarian’ one, that most unnuanced non-lefties would take.
A failed to see the wood for the trees situation? Remember, these are supposedly intelligent media metrosexuals involved here.
Surely they wouldnt be so blatant in presenting themselves as control-freaks and not expect a harsh backlash?
Or maybe they really are stupid…
I feel like Red Dagon/Manhunter detective, Will Graham, trying to put himself in the mindset of The Tooth Fairy.. or in my case, imagining myself into the crimescene of a metrosexual Islington dinner-party and the discussion that took place in developing the plotline and its meaning.
Natalie:
Re the Scully actress, spot on. That’s exactly the message it sent out. Only total submission will be enough.
davydai nikolenko
Like you I am struggling to get inside the heads of the people who perpetrated this car crash.
Here are some guesses:
The whole Global Warming thing was carefully crafted to be a collective catastrophe, demanding collective action. Individual initiatives like the one referred to in this video will not be enough, because not everyone will participate, unless compelled to. But the bad news of this is that once the greenies have worked themselves into a frenzy of actually believing in their collective catastrophe, they then face the nightmare of being themselves murdered by the dissenting non-participants in the voluntary, unanimous switching off of Western Civilisation that is all they can now agitate for. Only a few recalcitrant sinners sin. But all must still die because of them! It’s so unfair!
You’ve got to remember that these people are convinced that if they don’t win this argument fast, by making us all actually do what we all now agree that we must, all will fry. All. They forget that, er, not all of us do now agree. We don’t oppose them because we are selfish and don’t care. We oppose them because we really do oppose them. We care, and we think they are completely wrong and are trying to switch off Western Civilisation to no good purpose.
They wish there was some way to threaten dissenters with individually focussed punishment, of a sort that would make them sin no more, rather than everyone going to Hell, no matter how good they were about being green.
Or something. No, it’s too ridiculous. I give up. Basically, like you say, it was idiot groupthink. They didn’t see what they’d said until it was too late.
ok Brian,
maybe i think i’m beginning to get it….
They wanted to explain what the 10:10 bollox was all about.. hence the teacher/boss/coach pontificating.
They wanted to show that apathy in the aforementioned 10:10 bollox had adverse effects on each malcontent in a very personal way.
They wanted to grab the attention of the hipster young-adult/late-teen generation with an OTT gory SouthPark/Pythonesque delivery
Put the three together and what have you got…?
A delayed-fuse, freudian-slipping, elephant in the post-production suite, 10:10 video (if you’ll forgive me mixed metaphors).
And they thought it was great.
In fact, most the earlier commenters in the Guarndia thought it was cool too, until the non group-thinkers started pointing out the major eco-fascistic flaw, which the makers obviously overlooked.
(The bien pensant echo-chamber assumptions holding the whole entity together, like connective-tissue, failed to raise any alarm bells)
Then the later-comer enviros, realising the negative effect it was having, began to distance themselves, lest they be tarnished.
10:10 video then withdrawn, with apologies to the offended.
And that m’lud, is the case for the prosecution.
Grabbed this comment with quote from WUWT:
Discussion with the 10:10 founder at the Guardian:
“Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet? Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?” jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.
But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: “Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that’s not worth jumping up and down about, I don’t know what is.”
“We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,” she adds.
Oh, I think I can get inside their tiny little minds with a bit of a squeeze. They honestly thought that warmism was like safe sex or seat belt wearing, something that everybody agreed was right even if they didn’t always do it themselves. The film consequently assumes the ideological battle has been won and it’s just a matter of pressuring the lazy and selfish into line.
More than once I’ve heard “environmentalists” say “A lot of us are going to have to die.”
Speaking of the necessity of people dying is acceptable within “environmentalist” circles.
This clip is a predictable consequence of that attitude.
I don’t think it’s that difficult to figure out how it came about. Bear in mind that they’re lefties, so they do a lot of consciousness-raising groupthink, and bear in mind that Franny Batter is a very keen but not very bright enviro-leftie. So, they were all sitting around saying, “what can we do with those evil bastards, those deniers?” and somebody, maybe Franny herself, said, “wouldn’t it be great to just blow them all up?” and everyone tittered and then Franny said, “why don’t we do the film about that?”
“Blow them up? On film? Isn’t that going to be a bit..?”
“Hell no, it’s edgy. It’s daring. It’ll certainly grab attention! And we’ll be being ironic. I mean, we don’t really want to murder anyone do we, we’re such nice people. It’s just a joke.”
*Everyone laughs knowingly*.
“It’s brilliant! Brilliant! Bad taste is so in. Like South Park and Little Britain!”
And thus the die was cast. It was one of those it’s-a-crazy-idea moments, born out of a genuine feeling of hatred of their opponents. Once the idea had “stuck”, they justified it to themselves and any chance of thinking again was cast aside. I’d bet anything that there were quite a few people who said, “Are we sure about this?” who were dismissed as having no imagination, being scaredy-cats and so on. I also bet it wasn’t Curtis’s idea. He was the big name writer suckered into attaching his name to it.
My guess is the original idea was all Franny’s. From what I can glean from the net, she’s a highly motivated crusader who, having made one well received blatant propaganda piece (Age Of Stupid) is rather convinced of her own creative genius but isn’t terribly bright.
“Because we’ve got about four years to stabilize global emissions …”
Since I was in college (early 1980s) I’ve been reading similarly earnest predictions of imminent collapse within a decade or less. Dozens of them. Perhaps we should all put a note in our calendars to check in with this woman in 2014, if we’re all still alive, that is.
More than once I’ve heard “environmentalists” say “A lot of us are going to have to die.”
Well, the correct response to anyone who says this is “Okay, then, you first”.
I’ve just watched this video, a bit late I know. Seriously, I think it is the funniest thing I have seen in a while, mixed with Taylor’s thought that comparing these people to fascists is starting to become unfair to Mussolini
Well, the correct response to anyone who says this is “Okay, then, you first”.
My current response is more along the lines of “… and how many murders do you propose? and who are you going to kill first?” It goes down hill from there.
I do not consider it acceptable.
Even so, I’ve heard it from enough distinct places to believe that it may actually be part of the cultural codeword collection.
That is altogether frightening.
I’m fascinated by all the numbers.
“We have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that’s not worth jumping up and down about, I don’t know what is.”
“We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,”
The first is not an unusual claim, but where does that arbitrary four-year deadline come from and how is it meaningful? Accepting everything else that is claimed by climate activists as true, I still don’t understand how stabilising emissions is supposed to be much help in stabilising climate. I strongly suspect we are being hectored and lectured about poorly understood non-linear phenomena by people who cannot tell the difference between the slope of a graph and the area under it.
” Taylor’s thought that comparing these people to fascists is starting to become unfair to Mussolini”
That is the best laugh I’ve had all week.
Guy Herbert: “Accepting everything else that is claimed by climate activists as true, I still don’t understand how stabilising emissions is supposed to be much help in stabilising climate.”
But that’s the point: there isn’t any stabilising. Not ever. Nor does there have to be. Environmentalism is a gift that keeps on giving. As with all the Green issues the situation is never actually resolvable, so you always have to keep on doing more or pressing for more rules, demanding more regulation. There can never be a point where you can say: ‘Our work here is done.’
Once Green, always unhappy, always striving for more angst, always claiming more misery. You are never alone with a green crisis.
I was going to write a comment about how this “four years” meme seems to be from one of their partners, “Four.Years.Go”; I just went to look for them on the 10:10 website and they seem to have disappeared from the partners list! Anyway, 4YG seem to be a creature of the Pachamama Alliance, some kind of indigenous peoples pressure group run by a bloke called Bill Twist. So I think the answer to where “four years” comes from is that they just made it up as a nice small round number.
Further to what Natalie said about the hidden hatreds this reveals among Greenies, of Greenies:
The particular hatred that I think is revealed here is the hatred of “nice” Greenies felt by the nasty Greenies. The trouble with the nice Greenies (according to the nasties) is that they don’t spell out what is needed clearly enough. They do not communicate the necessary sense of crisis. For the nice Greenies, this is just doing good, like helping out at the Church fete or volunteering at the homeless centre. The nice Greenies thus fatally slow down the winning of the argument, when time is of the essence. They are not, in short, nasty enough. The nice cuddly school teacher is presented in this video as, very implausibly (the joke being the extreme contrast between her ultra-nice demeanour and her ultra-nasty pushing of the button), finally accepting the logic of her (usually nicely) stated opinions. This is the “nice” appeal to the nice Greenies to get nasty. Do what you say you believe in!
And the final joke says that if the nice Greenies persist in being content with their pathetic half measures (like just contributing the odd free voice-over but not being really committed to the cause), then they are as bad as the real backsliders, and should suffer the exact same punishment.
In short, this video shows the environmental movement cracking up. They’re losing the battle to “take action”. They know it. And in addition to blaming the rest of us for disagreeing with them, they’re blaming each other.
Think i saw them referred to somewhere as the Light Greens vs Dark Greens.
Franny Batter (thanks IanB, that made me cringe) who devised the plotline, is obviously a dark green, and Richard Curtis, of the light variety.
4YG confines itself to circular arguments:
“Why “four years”? Because this is the time within which humanity must radically accelerate its progress toward sustainability or face unacceptable risk of irreversibly damaging the life support systems of this planet. But also, “four years” because it is enough time to act, to make a difference, even to transform ourselves. ”
The cosest thing to a reason why dates back to 2009:
“The US president has just four years to save the planet, said Prof McCarthy. If major policy changes do not happen within Mr Obama’s term of office, they will not happen at all, he warned. (Link)”
So if the time Obama needs is the basis of all this we are down to 3 years, or maybe it will still be 4 years in 2014…
Best of the spoofs so far.
Superb!!!….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBnVjy4vag
did someone say reductio ad absurdum?
davydai nikolenko
This is going to be fun isn’t it?
Loved that.
This:
and this:
made me think of this.
If you read the article in that link, you might think otherwise.
I thought of that too Alisa.
The difference, Alisa, is that nasty as they may be in their heart of hearts, the “nasty greenies” are not going to start literally lopping off heads. Because deep down they’re too cowardly. So no, I don’t think otherwise, because that article simply isn’t germane to the econazis.
I think it is; in fact I’m planning to write a Cats blog about this. The Islamic example is the extreme end of peer pressure (“peer murder”) and intra-societal enforcement, that’s all. Movements hold together by internal threat. You might not threaten to kill somebody, but you might threaten to ruin their career, or destroy their good name- which can be tantamount to a “social death”. I think JS Mill wrote some stuff about that.
Just as per that article, most are cowardly, but the “ten-percenters” may be not.
Sorry to come over all censorious, Laird, but I have never liked the usage of the word “cowardly” to mean “unwilling to commit violent crimes”. It is better not to do the crimes.
For instance I don’t like those scenes in films where the hero has a gun at his head but goads the villain along the lines that he, the villain, “hasn’t the guts” to shoot. However heroic the hero I always find myself hoping the villain will say, “yes, I have, actually” and plug the silly man.
I would prefer to say either “deep down they are not quite that bad” or, if you are not willing to give them that much credit, “deep down they have too deep a distaste for violence.”
Not that I’m claiming this is an important point. Or one particularly relevant to this discussion. I’ll get me coat.
Too cowardly to shoot people they disagree with, but not adverse to making them go splodie by pushing a button.
That’s OK … we firearms owners in the US have our own little reset button.
On a lighter note, conservatives have started making hitlers-bunker parodies of this video ….(Link)
I would prefer that too, Natalie. But the reality is that while some people don’t commit violent crimes for those reasons, others are quite that bad and don’t have any such distaste – the only reason they don’t commit them is because they are scared of the consequences to themselves. So they are indeed cowardly. I do agree with your movies’ point though – I have had similar thoughts while watching some:-)
e mails of 10:10s partners,
SUKPRteam@eu.sony.com
naomi.climer@eu.sony.com
howard.stringer@jp.sony.com
rik.kendall@eaga.com
info.us@telefonica.com
ashdentrust@sfct.org.uk
info@esmeefairbairn.org.uk
director@watesfoundation.org.uk
info@thefundingnetwork.org.uk
letters@guardian.co.uk
reader@guardian.co.uk
letters@observer.co.uk
reader@observer.co.uk
marketing@hearstdigital.co.uk
mail@actionaid.org
customercentre@carbontrust.co.uk
info@knaufinsulation.com
people@peopleandplanet.org
info@pirc.info
contact@pure360.com
suggest they are told where they can stick it
Movements with radical rhetoric do usually have members who are that bad, and will carry out the most horrible atrocities if they think these will achieve their ends. And there are usually quite a few others who would go along with it but who wouldn’t themselves start it. I don’t think that we are remotely near having it happen, but there are people in the Green movement who would start lopping off heads if they thought it would help their cause.
There was no argument in the film – nothing to suggest that human C02 emissions cause globel warming and that this is a serious threat.
That theory may be true, but it clearly was NOT what interested the makers of this film – as, I repeat, there was no argument to support the theory in the film, indeed the theory was not even mentioned.
What did interest the makers of this film is first lying to people (“no pressure”, “freedom of choice”) and then murdering them. It was not funny – it was a window into the mind (and soul) of leftists.
The cutesie-poo names
“Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie . . . ”
tell you all you need to know.
Impeccable left-liberal credentials, the darlings of the Islington set, so perfectly ‘right’ on every important (to them) issue, even their names are that perfect blend of just-plain-folks authenticity. I’m sure the proles will feel so much better knowing that it’s Franny that thinks it would be just aces to eliminate them for not believing what she believes.
Fascist scum.
llater,
llamas
@Brian Micklethwait “done by people who really, really hate it, far more even than I do”
They are self-loathers, after all.
Think this is gonna end-up as a game of whack-a-mole.
My youtube link to the 1010 islamist parody, now reports that the vid has been taken down due to copyright claim by Spanner Films Ltd.
Methinks they don’t understand the internetz.
This video completely mystified me. I didn’t detect a single message that I would think the authors would want to convey to the public at large, unless it really is ‘come along with full enthusiasm or we’ll blow your head off.’
I don’t want to fall to over-analysis of it, because I suspect the makers didn’t do much analysis themselves before deploying it. And I suspect I completely don’t get it in the same way that, for instance, NPR doesn’t get the Tea Party movement, or Putin didn’t get that Bush really does not control the press.
I will say however that Gillian Anderson has aged extremely well.