Just last week British movie director Richard Curtis thought it would be jolly to simulate the brutal killing of children who did not fret sufficiently over global warming. In his short “film”, when the teacher of a class found a kid who was not as panicked as she was, she would explode that kid in situ, the resulting debris spraying on the remainder of the class. That’ll teach ’em!
Teach them what? Why, that the only “reasonable” response to global warming is complete, abject fear, coupled with a surrender of freedom to do whatever it is our bettors—Curtis classes himself one—say we should do. Death of a few is nothing to ensure that those graciously left alive think the proper thoughts. The road to Utopia must necessarily be paved with corpses.
This mode of thought is, of course, that which guided the great socialist revolutions of the last century, where tens and tens and tens of millions of people were murdered unsympathetically in the name of the People. That’s the People, and not people. Ordinary people, being replaceable, may be slaughtered indiscriminately, but the People are sovereign. Evidently, the substance which makes up the People is not people.
The bloodlust that drives the far Left is ever present, as Curtis’s creation proves. And as does this new ad (to the right), from a group which calls itself “ACT responsible.” As you will see, the hilarity of that name was surely unintentional.
It shows a little girl in a blue dress, hands bound behind her, standing on an ice cube, which, being exposed to the air, is slowly melting as ice cubes are wont to do. Around the girl’s neck is a noose, which is already taut, because the girl’s icy perch is not sufficiently tall.
What happens once the ice melts? Another stiff paving stone! At least this little girl will have died for the People.
Of course, the ad is really asking, “What could be done to save this poor little girl who we are willing to kill to prove our point?” The answer is easy: if the girl’s life must be threatened, put the ice cube in a freezer where it belongs.
A joke, yes; and not a good one. But I do have a non-facetious solution to offer Richard Curtis. If he is so keen to reduce his “carbon footprint”, he can stop making movies. Just think: his movies are awful (Love Actually, Four Weddings and a Funeral); they are not needed for survival; they are not sustainable; they cause actual harm. If all the actors and technicians who traipse about spewing CO2 in their efforts to make these superfluous movies would instead sit quietly in their homes, we would all be saved.
I thus call on Hollywood, and the British equivalent, to cease producing new movies until this crisis passes.
No caviling! This is for the People. Your sacrifices will be duly noted by future historians.
And as long as we’re at it, another industry that could use a stand down is “art.” The hanging of the little girl was not the only “artistic” ad created to battle global warming. It was part of an exhibition.
Art used to be “that which is beautiful or truthful, and lasting.” But that (coincidentally?) changed about a century ago, when art became “that which is controversial.” This came to mean, “whatever will frighten or disgust your neighbor’s mother.” Thus, “art” has been transformed into one long juvenile fart joke, with awards and grants given to the stupidest.
Don’t agree? Then watch this ad, entitled “Cow” created for the group Live Earth. It features an extreme close up of a cow’s unclean backside, so close that we see the gas escaping from within. Not once, but many times.
I admit that were I seventeen, I would think this hilarious. But after I became a man and put away childish things, I now find that the ad only serves to remind me that I am glad I was not overly influenced by James Heriot’s books to the extent of becoming a veterinarian.
No idiocy is too extreme for today’s “artists” (and movie directors). To rid ourselves of these blots of nature, we should not do as the Left would and begin lopping off heads. The solution is far easier: just ignore them. Do not pay for their movies, do not watch their shows. Turn off the television when their faces show. Do not buy the magazine where their images appear.
Without incessant praise, the creatures will wither and die faster than the laughter of the audience watching one of Curtis’s films.
Four Weddings and a “Funereal”? When you said his movies were bad, I didn’t know you meant THAT bad.
Hilfy,
Aargh!
Exploding students & others for THE CAUSE was clearly excessive, but the image of the potentially hung little girl, I think, does meet the usual criteria for metaphorical art.
She’s clearly being “hung” via a melting iceberg with all key images out of real-world proportion & context — thus the image is clearly symbolic and cannot be interpreted literally. The “support” from which she is hung are words also symbolizing a confluence of ecologicial & human activity — with “creative challenge” part of the message for action. That last part is a choice. What this is saying symbolically is: “if we adults don’t change–take on this “creative challenge” we will be responsible for killing our children’s futures via our actions that are changing the climate.”
This is a symbolic call to saving children (the child is itself a symbol for humanity’s future), not sacrificing them by people that truly believe that human activity is posing a threat to long-term human survival — when seen from that perspective (which is the only relevant one–what the sender is trying, however effectively, to convey) the poster is seen as a desperate plea for positive action by those that believe that the ‘do nothing different’ choice is really a choice to destroy.
To follow-up my first comment, the imagery & themes from those inclined to, repeatedly, use violent or other disgusting imagery reflects a clear pattern of underlying anger. It reflects in other words, a very identifiable class of psychological issues (again, I’ll plug the book, “The Liberal Mind,…” available at http://www.libertymind.com; skip to chapters 42-45 to get right to the psych summary).
Curiously, people with this temperment have always (ALWAYS!!) been drawn to planet-threatening causes, whether it be impending armageddon (religious, throughout history) or imminent nuclear holocaust (especially in the 50s-70s) or impending environmental catastrophe — there’s always something wrong that threatens humanity’s survival. A clue that this is neuroticism run amok is that the solution required invariably has elements of austere self-sacrifice with a self-punitive (this pending doom is pending due to our bad actions) aspect. So it goes with global warming/climate change/climate disruption — our hedonistic ways will unleash a Biblical-style correction (flood, drought, etc.) unless we do our pennance.
Such people prone to this MUST have some issue onto which they can project their fears and onto which they can direct their anger (which has a substantive element of subconscious self-loathing). Children that don’t agree, or can’t be inspired to even bother to pay attention are the modern equivalent of hertics that had an ambivalent, or less, interest in the Church’s views. In the old days they tortured and/or burned the heretics alive…today they’re killed symbolically via snuff videos. In all such cases the victims are excised like a social cancer for society’s greater good — and always in a manner that the pent-up anger in those self-rightous do-gooders can get some, if only transient, release.
Curiously the rock bank Black Sabbath described this temperment in their song, “Children of the Grave” (which then was mostly oriented on the threat of nuclear annhilation) — note the inherent observation of self-contradictory viewpoints in the phrase: “They’ll fight the world until they’ve won and love comes pouring through” (as if violence directed at an evil & hated object is ok — that their fight is just and the other, prospective but not assured fight [the between the US & Soviet Union] was unjust — that violence, if THEY do it, leads to love [utopia]…). Also note the impetus for thier activism: “Must the world live in the shadow of atomic fear?” Such people are driven by visceral feeling. They “feel” scared and its “their” (other’s) fault for that feeling. Because this neurotic feeling of fear & anger were formed in early childhood, and thus comprise an integral part of these personalities, there is no mechanism for intellectual tempering/counterbalancing — partly why logic & facts have no perceivable effect (e.g. a cult group that sees the day of armageddon come & go will still believe the end is near & not that they have a flawed doctrine…).
Here’s B. Sabbath’s song lyrics in which they succinctly describe the anger & hyprocrisy of action stemming from irrational feelings:
Revolution in their minds – the children start to march
Against the world in which they have to live
And all the hate that’s in their hearts
They’re tired of being pushed around
And told just what to do
They’ll fight the world until they’ve won
And love comes flowing through
Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today
Will the sun rise up tomorrow bringing peace in any way?
Must the world live in the shadow of atomic fear?
Can they win the fight for peace or will they disappear?
So you children of the world,
listen to what I say
If you want a better place to live in
spread the words today
Show the world that love is still alive
you must be brave
Or you children of today are
Children of the Grave, Yeah!
Unfortunately, people arehere to stay, the warped CAUSE they pursue will change with fashion, but A warped cause will always be identifed & advocated for them to act out their anger. Such is part of the “human condition” on a societal level.
They’re selling postcards of the hanging…
The portrayal of the “hanging girl” is particularly offensive if you have ever known of a child that died from hanging. It is not pretty, and the image drowns out the message.
I appreciate Ken’s comments. I have long held suspicions that the liberal mind had a pathology, but the explanation of their problem being just mental will have to do. I keep having this notion that if you opened the skull of any prominent liberal, you would find some horrible disease got there before you.
OT. Briggs, this story makes me wonder whether you know of any publications on the statistics of success in searching for antiquities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8048670/Crosby-Garrett-Helmet-found-in-Britain-sells-for-2.3m.html
What is ironic is that the “film†and “ad†are really negative parodies of their message.
Creating effective propaganda requires great skill.
The exploding people and the hanging child are pure propaganda efforts. Do they serve their purpose. If it creates significant and widespread hostility towards the creators of the propaganda then it is hard to see that it achieves its purpose. If it raises attention and sensitivity, even if it is in bad taste or poorly executed, then it works.
The truth content of any propaganda is only relevant in so far as it limits its effectiveness.
A critical role here falls to those who are opposed to the message or intent of the propaganda. Effective propaganda makes it difficult for opponents to blunt the impact of the initial propaganda effort. Propaganda that is based on lies or distortions can clearly be countered by pointing out the lies and distortions. Effectively doing this amounts to potent counter-propaganda. The recent illegal worker issue involving Meg Whitman in California is a good example for creating a counter-piece of propaganda – if Whitman wants to risk further alienating those who do not see a problem with illegal immigration.
Without wanting to sound like some kind of shrill, this type of “awareness raising†is not good for the children. For the most part, and with rare exceptions, children get cartoon violence. They know that Wile E. Coyote will resurrect to have another hilarious encounter with the Roadrunner. Children might not have the sophistication to decode violent portrayals of this nature presented to them by earnest and seemingly well-meaning adults, especially those in positions of authority, like school teachers. (Do you not think these kinds of campaigns will not make it to the classroom? An Inconvenient Truth made its merry way into many classrooms and affected countless children, and these children will carry with them the political message as well as the faulty science with them into adulthood.)
If the environmentalists really believed their talk about saving the planet they would lead by example and commit suicide.
These ads suggest a certain enviro-fascist fantasy. These guys are titillated by the concept of annihilating those that disagree with them.
Cow farts, more methane escapes the front-end of the cow than the back-end.
Similar but different, did you see the ad where the UN blew up Smurf village? Smurfs are working and playing and singing, and BOOM! Hilarious
Sorry, I couldn’t resist since I dearly love the humor created by typos. This particular one was so apropos, it was almost a Freudian slip. It was nice that you spelled your typo properly though! 🙂
I have seen the video in question and I’d be lying if I haven’t thought of doing the same to them on more than one occasion.
That said, I don’t think the easily deluded sheep of this world need anyone telling them that it’s perfectly OK to kill anyone who has critical thinking skills and a good grasp on science. Eco-terrorism already occurs without such blatant prodding as this. Funny thing is, if any other religion had made a video like this, they’d be facing heavy derision for such thoughts.
At Hilfy: “I don’t think the easily deluded sheep of this world need anyone telling them that it’s perfectly OK to kill anyone who has critical thinking skills and a good grasp on science. ”
COMMENT: Isn’t it curious that quite some time ago the global warming alarmists declared the science “settled” — yet they find offense at dissenting viewpoints/beliefs. If the science was settled would the that science & associated critical thinking skills, in the form of logical quantifiable & objective data, suffice? It should, but clearly does not.
Also, IF the science were truly “settled” why the need to even resort to emotional appeals (much less resort to this to such an increasingly offensive extent)? This seems to suggest that the science cannot “sell” the issue…which is a pretty strong indicator by itself that the science isn’t settled.
Also at Hilfy: “…if any other religion had made a video like this, they’d be facing heavy derision for such thoughts.”
COMMENT: Way in the past a number of religions, and pseudo-sciences (which can be argued to be religions merely masquerading under a pretend banner of “science”) DID such things as portrayed in the video:
– Spanish Inquisition
– Eugenics (check out Cold Springs Harbor & other activities in the US)
It’s happened before … which indicates it can & likely will happen again.
M. Crichton’s essay, Why Politicized Science is Dangerous (from the end of his book, State of Fear), nicely addresses many of the issues raised here in a particular broader context:
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/category/michael-crichton/
Having fun with !0-10? Found this on the No Pressure Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pressure_%28film%29
Our Bettors? Isn’t it “our betters”? 🙂 Starting to think they might be… 🙂
Call me a softy but I think it might be a bit extreme to butcher small children because they may not, for example, understand complex foreign policy or the need for say, an economic stimulus package. Likewise with the science of climate change. Adults, on the other hand, that would selfishly want to live a quiet and happy life should expect to be shot on sight.
So the little girl in a noose makes the cut but blowing them up doesn’t. How pathologically analytical. The fact is that both are logical stepping stones on the way to the end point. There is no line beyond which these people will step back and say, “No, this goes too far.” There is no moral barrier, one side of which lies acceptable advertizing while the other side is verboten. They will go all the way to the end point; they always do. Count the bodies: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Korea,… Why? Because it is the governing IDEA that counts; that is why they call it ideology.
Ken,
Their statement of “settlement” is not only “curious”, but horrifically bad science. The pinnacle of this to me was when English Parliament (not that they should understand the scientific method) accepted Phil Jones’ excuse for why he sequestered his research. He told them he did not release it because those others just wanted to tear it down (paraphrase, of course). They accepted his statement as a reasonable excuse for what he did. How wrong they were.
That “tearing down” is the essence of the scientific method. Science is set up to silence the dissenters by allowing them access to your data and methods. If your results remain true after their rigorous opposition, then that only bolsters your case. If they cannot re-create your results, then maybe you’d better re-think your hypothesis. Remember the “cold fusion” furor? No one could re-create the results and it sunk as it should have. The same thing should have happened with respect to AGW, but thanks to the bad science and politics involved, it hasn’t happened.
Yes, I understand what is portrayed in that video has happened many times in the past. All the more reason for there to be a stink about it in this day and age.
From the No Pressure wiki: “…used public transport or donated hybrid hire cars …”
Does that mean that donations in lieu of action is acceptable?
While the science of climate change hasn’t been settled, whoever created the girl-in-a-noose poster has not only ingeniously reinforced his/her viewpoint but also successfully annoyed the opponents. Wow!
Pingback: Tweets that mention William M. Briggs, Statistician » Hollywood: Stop Making Movies And Lower Your Carbon Footprint -- Topsy.com
I am reminded of the January 1973 cover of National Lampoon: “If you don’t buy this magazine we’ll kill this dog.”