Oct 032010
 

Every now and then, people in the political world slip up and let their true feelings/intentions show. In one recent case, a well funded British environmental project known as “10:10” (reduce “carbon footprint” by 10% in 2010) produced a slick ad for the concept. The problem: the ad shows those who do not intend to join the greenherd being violently murdered, with those doing the murdering doing so with little more care than a shrug. Those shown murdered include children.

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/01/most-honest-political-ad-of-all-time/

YouTube video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM

The message seems to be that unless you join the greenherd, you not only do not matter, you are to be eliminated.

 the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.

While there may be some sort of “nuance” here that escapes me, what’s clearly on display is the necessary endpoint of all forms of collectivism: the elimination of dissention and intimidation of all. Considering the expense and manhours that went into this thing, the idea that this was just some minor oversight or slipup seems unlikely. The producers knew what they were creating, and the message they wanted to send. “If you don’t act the way we want you to act, think the way we tell you to think, then you do not deserve to live.”

Of course, the rampagingly-fascist Guardian newspaper gushed glowingly about the video. It included a quote by Franny Armstrong, one of the filmmakers behind this murder fantasy:

“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?”

One wonders what would the reaction be if a similar ad was produced that showed, say, British people on the dole being murdered in the same fashion. Say, the “0:10” project… 0% of the British population on welfare by the end of 2010.

And of course, it didn’t take long for people with some skills to start modifying the video. Heres’ one that takes the greenherd mentality to it’s logical conclusion:

Climate change – the final solution

 Posted by at 10:33 am
  • When I first saw the 10/10 video I thought is was a spoof. While I had little doubt the green-thugs would be willing to kill dissenters and skeptics, I never thought they would actually admit it.

  • Brianna

    And to think that people called Rand crazy for saying back in the 1970s that the fundamental motivation of the environmentalists was hatred for man. Talk about prescience.

    The best part of the commercial (best in the sense that it was the most revealing) was when the woman got blown up at the end after saying that she thought the voiceover WAS her contribution. What better way to illustrate that these people cannot be bought off with a dime (dime, 10 cents, get it?), but that if you try to appease them you will have to “keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you” until there is simply nothing left, because you are dead.

  • Michael Holt

    The video says the campaign starts in May of 2010. As best I can tell, it’s October of 2010. Do those who didn’t do anything starting in may get the “no pressure/red button” treatment? Youtube asked me to admit I was over 18, which is a reason to hesitate top release the thing to the general public.
    It may be significant that the Guardian reports that 10:10 removed the video and the newspaper had to go to Youtube to get a copy.

    On the other hand, honestly is a refreshing change from simple panic.

  • Pat Flannery

    OMG! They blew up Dana Scully! They blew up Dana Scully!
    It wasn’t bad enough to stick that tracking device up her nose; now they blew her to bits! 😉
    I don’t know what the hell to make of this thing; the only guess I can take is that the intention is to say that if you we don’t cut back carbon emmisions everyone is going to be dead down the road anyway, so by not doing it you are signing your own death warrent.
    But the thing is bizarre to a degree that even full-tilt Soviet propaganda from Stalin’s time never hit.
    I guess it’s supposed to be funny or cautionary in some way, but it comes off like something that The Earth Liberation Front would come up with…. completely cracked.
    I replaced all the incandescent bulbs in my apartment with fluorescent ones, but I did that to save bucks, not the world (and it did save a significant number of bucks BTW; not only in total amps used, but the far-less-frequent replacement of bulbs), and certainly not because someone was going to detonate me if I didn’t. 😀
    Monty Python could have had a field day with a parody of this; and it would be a ball to see a Dr. Who episode set in the near future where anyone who wastes even a bit of energy is instantly executed.
    “What do you mean you threw a half a glass of water away? Do you realize how much energy it took to pump that water out of the ground and purify it? AND IT WAS _COLD_ WATER? You actually CHILLED it?!
    “EX-TER-MIN-ATE! _EX-TER-MIN-ATE!_”.

  • Pat Flannery

    Here’s 10:10’s official apology for the warped little thing BTW:
    http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

    Pat

  • admin

    > the intention is to say that if you we don’t cut back carbon emmisions everyone is going to be dead down the road anyway, so by not doing it you are signing your own death warrent.

    Note, however, what the actual agent of death is: it’s not “nature” or the climate or God or fate or random chance or Karma or pissed-off bunnies or trees… it is some sanctimonious ecofascist intentionally pushing a technological button to knowingly kill you… and terrify everyone around you. The message there is pretty clear. They want to kill anyone who disagrees.

    It’s not like that’s a new thing for the Left, of course.

    > it did save a significant number of bucks BTW; not only in total amps used, but the far-less-frequent replacement of bulbs

    I did the same when I moved into this house and the CFL’s first became reasonably affordable. It was *not* a moneysaver. A sizable fraction of them failed, and relatively quickly… just a few months. And entertainingly, they did not fail as a standard lightbulb does. With an incandescent, there’d be a muffled “pop,” a light tinkling noise as the shattered tungsten filament fell onto the glass bulb, and the senstation of it suddenly getting darker. The CFL’s failed by sputtering, emitting an acrid stench and actively smoking, causing me to dash to, first, the light switch, and second, the nearest fire extinguisher. Never had a real fire break out, but that was not for the bulbs lack of trying.

  • kbob42

    I have had several of the CFLs burn out but there was never any excitement like you describe. It is normally bulbs that get turned off and on often.

  • admin

    I’m *guessing* that my issues were due to them being the first gen of “cheap” CFLs. Being a first adopter always carries risks. But the experience did turn me off to them.

  • Doug

    I have voltage issues at my house. Typical wall voltage is 130+ and we get voltage spikes on a regular basis as the the 14KV line trims the neighbor’s trees.

    CFLs do not have a long life for me. They are much more sensitive to these sorts of things than incandescent bulbs are. I have some LED bulbs on the other hand that I’m very happy with.

  • Pat Flannery

    Admin said:

    “I did the same when I moved into this house and the CFL’s first became reasonably affordable. It was *not* a moneysaver. A sizable fraction of them failed, and relatively quickly… just a few months. And entertainingly, they did not fail as a standard lightbulb does. With an incandescent, there’d be a muffled “pop,” a light tinkling noise as the shattered tungsten filament fell onto the glass bulb, and the senstation of it suddenly getting darker. The CFL’s failed by sputtering, emitting an acrid stench and actively smoking, causing me to dash to, first, the light switch, and second, the nearest fire extinguisher. Never had a real fire break out, but that was not for the bulbs lack of trying.”

    The early model ones were both more expensive and shorter lived by far than the ones I have now (purchased at WalMart).
    I haven’t had one burn out in around three years, including the four I have here in the living room that get used around four-six hours a day on average. Total savings per month (this disregards replacement cost; the incandescent ones cost around $.60 each and blew around once every six months; the fluorescent ones bought in packs of two cost around $3.50 each) is around five bucks, easy, and probably more.
    The one in the bathroom runs almost constantly and draws 20 watts… and hasn’t burned out in at least two years, and probably more.
    To give you some idea of the energy savings, the four in the living room used to be 100 watt incandescent bulbs – now the whole living room gets illuminated with 80 watts. Also, on still sub-zero winter nights, the heat output of the four bulbs was sufficient to keep the whole apartment warm with the insulation we have on the building…great for reducing heating costs, but the rent pays those, and I pay the electric bill.
    And when you are air-conditioning on hot summer days, the last thing you want is a 400 watt hot plate running in the place for hours at a time.
    They may burn out faster with frequent on-off cycles rather than continuous operation, but I consider them one of the best investments I ever made.
    I was even thinking about sticking a little one in the refrigerator to save a few watts there when the door was open. 😉
    I’ve never had any sort of fire related to one (the casing on the base is made out of non-combustible plastic, and any smell is due to overheating of the little epoxy/glass fiber circuit board as the electronics go), but I did once have an incandescent bulb literally explode on me as a hairline crack in the glass around the base let air into it that reacted with the tungsten filament when it was turned on.
    That made a hell of a bang when it blew up.

  • Rickshaw

    You’re right. The nuance does escape you. Perhaps it might be better for you not to try and comment in future?

  • 2hotel9

    Once again, a clear example of the violence that is all the political left has, do as we order you to or we will kill you.

    And as for cfl bulbs, when they came out we did the pepsi challenge, replaced all our bulbs, used cfls for 60 days, and our electric bill was nearly double. No other changes, did not use then longer or more of them. Anyone telling you that cfl bulbs are more economical is a lying sack of shit.

  • Rickshaw

    “Once again, a clear example of the violence that is all the political left has, do as we order you to or we will kill you.”

    And the Right is any different? Let me introduce you to such joyful places as Auschwitz or Nanking or Ruanda or Gaza. Neither end of the political spectrum has the right to kill others because they cannot tolerate dissenters. However don’t try and suggest that this is solely a province of the Left.

  • Michael Holt

    Rickshaw, one of the essential elements of the Right is the concept that one is free to live as they wish as long as no one gets hurt. That delightful list you provided is a great example of Leftist thinking: do it our way or die.

    I’ve had only two CFL bulbs blow out in four years. One was on all the time, and the other died after about two days (which I attribute to manufacturing defect).

  • admin

    > Perhaps it might be better for you not to try and comment in future?

    Yes, yes, I know, your purpose is to try to shut up dissent. This nakes you fundamentally different from the ecofascists behind this little bit mf propaganda *how*, exactly?

  • Rickshaw

    Oh, no, I have no concern to shutdown dissent. My concern is that each time you make a faux pas you appear even sillier. I’m trying to save you embarrassment.

    As for the sites I mentioned, they are all examples of how the Right has indicated its willingness to destroy people who it disliked. Violence is not a sole preserve of the Left, despite what some appear to believe.

  • admin

    > the sites I mentioned, they are all examples of how the Right has indicated its willingness to destroy people

    But the sites you mentioned were Auschwitz, Nanking, Ruanda and Gaza, none of which are even remotely “right wing.” Auschwitz in particular was a result of screamingly left-wing politics. All are examples of massive government force causing lives to be ruined… collectivist Nazis, imperialist Japanese, tribalist Hutus/Tutsis, theocratic Islamists. None of these are Right wingers.

    > Violence is not a sole preserve of the Left

    No, but they’re certainly far more capable of it. The leftist worldview taken to its logical conclusion leads to massive, overwhelming governments, which have led in the last century to hundreds of millions of murders. Rightwinger worldview taken to its logical conclusion leads to a libertarian anarchy; and while individuals or small groups might certainly be murderous in such circumstances, they cannot carry out the wholesale slaughter that your kind can.

    > I have no concern to shutdown dissent.

    Just blow ’em up, eh?

  • Brianna

    Be it enough to mention that in 1934 the newly established National Planning Board devoted a good deal of attention to the example of planning provided by these four countries: Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan. Ten years later we had of course learned to refer to these same countries as “totalitarian,” had fought a long war with three of them, and were soon to start a “cold war” with the fourth. Yet the contention of this book that the political development in those countries had something to do with their economics policies was then still indignantly rejected by the advocates of planning in this country. It suddenly became the fashion to deny that the inspiration of planning had come from Russia and to contend, as one of my eminent critics put it, that it was “a plain fact that Italy, Japan, Russia and Germany all reached totalitarianism by very different roads.” – FA Hayek, Road to Serfdom, 1956 introduction.

  • Brianna

    Scott, you should have included this quote from the article:

    Jamie Glover, the child-actor who plays the part of Philip and gets blown up, has similarly few qualms: “I was very happy to get blown up to save the world.”

    Palestinian child jihad, anyone?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFnbNy6MMDA

  • 2hotel9

    Leftshaw! Thank you so much for making my point, yet again. Every “example” you list is from the political left. All of them. Change the definitions of words, re-write history, do what ever you wish, makes no difference, in the final measure all political violence comes from the political left. Always has and always will.

    Now, twist&spin&wail&screech&rend your garments all you want, we love laughing at you.

  • Pat Flannery

    Doug said:

    “CFLs do not have a long life for me. They are much more sensitive to these sorts of things than incandescent bulbs are. I have some LED bulbs on the other hand that I’m very happy with.”

    How much did those set you back each? I’ve heard they are fairly steep, but the huge savings over even fluorescents might make the investment worth it.

  • Doug

    The ones that have been the best for me have been exterior floods. It gets cold here (-20 to -40) in the winter and CFLs just won’t start in any reasonable time in those temps. When it’s 2 AM and the dog wants out it’s nice to have a light that just goes on when I hit the switch. The floods are also mounted high on the outbuilding and changing them involves getting out the big extension ladder. It’s beenn nice not having to do that for 3 years now.

    Most of the interior bulbs just don’t have the output that’s needed. I do have an 8 watt stick bulb ($40) that I tried and liked very much. It was close to a 100 watt incandescent bulb in output. Sadly, it failed after 8 months and even though it was replaced free of charge I don’t like that failure.

    I’d like to find some LEDs bulbs that use old fashioned iron core transformers with primitive rectifiers. I’d give up some efficiency for a technology that works for 50 years of continuous use.

  • Pat Flannery

    The problem the LED lights are going to run into once fully developed is the one out of the movie “The Man In The White Suit” regarding clothes (based on a H.G Wells story).
    If you can buy a lightbulb that’s going to last well over 10 years (I’ve heard estimates up to 50 years) and save you a fortune in electrical power at the same time – how do you keep the industry going that makes them?
    About the only profit they will make will be in new construction to match a growing population; it starts out great as everyone buys them, then almost completely vanishes as they never need replacement.

  • admin

    Similar to the “Star Trek” replicator economy problem: if replicators can easily create clothes, food, meds, entertainment items, housing and other replicators… there won’t be much left to manufacture, grow or process. And thus most people will be unemployed, and basically unemployable, with nothing to do all day except sit around in beige pajamas drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing ‘I’m an Oscar Mayer Weiner’.