Sunday, October 10, 2010 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

"No Pressure" by The 10:10 campaign: all skeptical kids and adults will be detonated on 10/10

Originally posted on 10/01/10, 10:10 am. But I think it should be reposted on 10/10/10, 10:10:10 because the video below became the ultimate symbol of this moment.

Update: the video was labeled "private" on Friday, a minute before 3 p.m., Prague Summer Time, when it had 10,000-20,000 views, 45 positive and 250 negative votes. I managed to download a copy 20 seconds before it disappeared - and then Boom. ;-)

Please contact me if you need a copy. Meanwhile, another YouTube copy uploaded by a skeptic has been embedded below (there exist about 15 skeptics' copies and they want you to perversely vote "thumbs up" to make the video more visible - it's up to you).

On Monday, the total number of views has surpassed half a million and hundreds of blog reactions.
You used to believe that you had the right not to believe that it was beneficial to reduce the CO2 emissions. Times are changing.

The 10:10 movement is going to abruptly reduce the CO2 emissions by 10 percent in nine days, on 10/10/10 at 10:10:10 am. How will they do it?

Warning: the following video is brutal: if you don't like gore (and Gore), the movie is not for you



James Lee killed himself too early: he would have surely been delighted by this film. The film was produced by Richard Curtis, a top film director (e.g. many episodes of Mr Bean). He was a hired gun but the people who hired him were for real.

Yes, they will simply kill all people who are openly skeptical: the "No Pressure" video proposes a "final solution" of the problem with the AGW skeptics. No pressure. Just a little bit of pressure that is needed to press a red button and all skeptics in the world will explode in bloodbath. It was their choice - and the alarmist killers will continue smiling. It's excellent, isn't it?




Well, the explosion was the kids' choice in a virtual world. Meanwhile, in the real world, the kids actually have the right to choose without facing such consequences. This basic human right is guaranteed by the constitutions of all civilized countries in the world - and even many uncivilized countries in the world. The people are still allowed to realize - and say - that James Hansen is a nutcase and Al Gore is a greedy liar.

The spiritual fathers of the video at the 10-10 campaign want you to praise them and to send your compliments to hello@1010uk.org. O2 and Sony are among major private sponsors of 10:10. You may thank to howard.stringer@jp.sony.com and pressoffice@o2.com. The film has also been paid from the U.K. taxpayer money.

However, it was the choice of the 10:10 movement to openly promote genocide. They are not just promoting it: much like in the case of The Fate of the World PC game, they are planning it. They are genuinely planning ways how to reduce the global CO2 emissions by 10% a year. And indeed, genocide similar to what they present in the video (or in the game) is the only plausible way how something of the sort may be achieved.

However, if 10:10 has similar ideas what to do with the people from the "other side", they may rename themselves from 10:10 to 9:11; the sum wouldn't change, after all. Al Qaeda U.K. may sound nicer than 9:11.

The CIA, FBI, and others should go after the neck of the inhuman activists behind the 10:10 movement and those who harbor them. These people are a genuine threat not only for your well-being and prosperity but for your freedom and health (or life), too. It is amazing that people such as Gillian Anderson (of X-Files) collaborated to produce this atrocious video. Did someone threaten her with a red button (by the way, would Scully believe that such a thing could work? She must be a true believer: before Y2K, she predicted food shortages because with a wrong date on your PC, people can't load food onto trucks: video), or is she really such a disgraceful bloody N-word b-word?

Unless she was blackmailed, I do think she may want to go to jail.

By the way, the 10:10 campaign probably won't cremate the remains of the 7 murdered individuals because cremation is bad for the climate.

I am not afraid of Pilsen or the Czech Republic: if a climate fearmonger dared to enter our city or our country and he or she would pose a genuine threat for our freedom to breathe or do other activities that produce the gas we call life, he or she would get a proper thrashing - in a more friendly way than on the video, of course.

But I am afraid that the lives of others - not necessarily the white kids on the video above (Philip and Tracy, RIP), but perhaps the lives of black kids in Africa and elsewhere - are genuinely threatened by the now-militant AGW movement that has inherited pretty much all the methods from Nazism, communism, and others. As they have demonstrated, they are surely not repelled by the idea that they will have to kill many people to achieve their insane dreams.



In The Guardian, film director Franny Armstrong (who has already contributed to an aptly named movie called Age of Stupid) claims that their conscience is fine because they have only killed 5 people while 300,000 people are killed by climate change every year. Well, they have actually killed 7 people in the video (murderers of their caliber probably can no longer even count the victims) - and global climate change kills 0 people a year. But is a murder of 5 or 7 people insufficient?

I hope that this mini-movie will make many people realize that climate alarmism is a genuine threat for our freedom, democracy, prosperity, and even security, much like islamic terrorism, and we may have to do something about it. It was actually difficult for me to believe that the movie was created by the actual alarmists. Wasn't it just a movie paid for by some skeptics to exaggerate how a typical alarmist thinks and to blow a final lethal blow to the AGW movement?

Is there any exaggeration in the movie at all? Maybe, the climate alarmists really want to scare the ordinary people to death - make them think that they will be killed if they openly display the skepticism. What will you do, the ordinary people? Are you scared? Well, believe me, children would surely be scared.

An initial caption on the YouTube video argued that there was a "shrinking time frame" for a climate action. Oh, really? (If there were a climate threat of any kind, it would take centuries for it to become substantial.) So maybe if there is such a "shrinking time frame", you may really want to start to kill the people around, right? Franny Armstrong told the Guardian that the detonation could be exaggerated but they could amputate the skeptics' arms and legs. She thinks it's a great and funny idea that should spread in the society.

The explosions of the people may have been computer tricks. But to be sure, the 10:10 campaign has equally passionately destroyed a big airplane, and this act was for real. The airplane was cut into pieces, melted, and transformed into lots of tags with the Nazi-like logo of the eco-terrorist organization.

A self-described "friend" of the inhuman creatures behind the 10:10 movement, who is also harbored by The Guardian, a left-wing U.K. daily, asked his "friends" about the effects and motivations for this shocking piece of work. My understanding is that these unhinged people really want to detonate - or at least scare - millions of humans because they believe that climate action "has" to be done in 4 years (click for a 3-minute video explanation of the deadline). Wow.

The fact that environmentalism originally emerged from Nazism rather than communism has been made clear many times but few of us expected that the true "roots" of environmentalism would ever be made so self-evident, with so many famous people participating.

When you watch the video via YouTube and you click the thumbs-down button, there is another button, "report this video". This video deserves to be reported in all categories - violent content, torturing kids, dangerous work with explosives, and many others. Please, don't invent stories that it's good idea to make these people ever more radical and at large. For the safety of our society, it may be important to have official "stamps" - such as a ban of this video - showing that climate alarmists are not just ludicrous morons but bloody criminals.

(The previous paragraph was written before the video was withdrawn and it is therefore obsolete now.)

I think that many people keep on underestimating how serious those folks are about all these matters. The Guardian knew about the video - and praised it - yesterday. Jamie Glover, a boy who was the first male to explode in the video, was told that he had to be sacrificed to save the world. What did he say afterwards?
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." The public reaction to the film will be fascinating – please add yours below.
You see that there's no qualitative difference in their methods of brainwashing of the children between the greens and the conventional Islamic jidhadists. They're ready to sacrifice their life for the "highest value". Compare Jamie's answer with the Arabic hit song, "When We Die As Martyrs".

Well, hours after the video had to be removed, I hope that the reactions to the film have been genuinely fascinating for the ecofascists - and they will continue to be fascinating up to the very last 10 minutes and 10 seconds of global warming ecofascism. In this sense, I favor the precautionary principle. Nothing else than a complete liquidation of the climate change ecofascism can safely protect the children's lives at school.

Now, let me just press a little red button here.



Well, I hope you didn't think that I was just like them. ;-)

Hat tip: Anthony Watts

Reactions

See also: A lame hypocritical apology from 10:10 that simply couldn't help, 10:10 charities appalled - didn't know about the movie (?), 10:10 director promises investigation (couldn't answer before Monday because using a box and a button, she is convincing her 4-week-old baby to reduce the emissions), SPPI blog, Jo Nova, Melanie Phillips, Richard North (plus Splattergate), Time Magazine, Care2.com, Tim Blair, Elizabeth Scalia, James Delingpole, Andrew Revkin, NY Times Greenwire, Roger Pielke Jr, John O'Sullivan, Andrew Bolt, Anita Singh and Vicki Woods at The Telegraph, South Dakota Politics, Pajamas Media Ed Riscoll, Pajamas Media Zombie, The Blaze, Damian Thompson, Treehugger.com, Bill McKibben of Climate Progress, Joe Romm (explaining whether and how he differs from bin Laden: I didn't understand the explanation, I just understood that Romm wants to detonate Watts), Tim Lambert (of Deltoid: he finds the video funny), Adam Vaughan, New York Magazine, Jalopnik, Bryan Walsh (TIME), Gather.com, FOXNews, Google News

On Monday, Sony, Kyocera Mita, and 350.org broke all their associations with the 10:10 campaign (The American Spectator, The Green Hell Blog).



Fox News coverage of "No Pressure": Marc Morano is a guest (copy)

Parodies: Islamic (taken down for copyright reasons: Franny Mujahideen Armstrong claims that she has created the Islamic version as well: backup is here), Susan Boyle, Monty Python Remix, Critically annotated 5-minute version including some behind-the-scene events, "I don't want this" by dobobobo

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (8) :


reader Aaron H said...

So I guess none of you have read Swift's A Modest Proposal? Is it beyond you all to realize this is satire?


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Aaron,
you're definitely wrong.

Just some background for others who may need it: "A Modest Proposal" written by Jonathan Swift in 1729 (and published anonymously) suggests that the poor Irishmen should sell their children as food. This absurd conclusion is defended by various satirical calculations - and references to "authorities" in Britain whom Swift wanted to humiliate. So it was a satire against the establishment of that time - that didn't look sufficiently socially sensitive to Swift, or whatever was his motivation.

On the other hand, "No Pressure" has been fully created by a team of people who are not satirical about their movement or their cherished establishment and its anti-skeptical arguments at all. All of them, including Curtis the film director, are genuine zealots who genuinely support the enormously sick idea that the carbon dioxide should be globally regulated. Just check the past pronouncements of every single one of them. This is no conspiracy done by skeptics - this is a work of a uniform team of zealots.

The real problem is that those people take themselves - and their utterly deluded ideas and pseudo-religious beliefs - way too much seriously, not that they make too much fun. They have lost any contact with the rest of the world.

There's no satire here - and if we laugh, it's mainly because it's so incredible how far the brains of the creators have drifted from any sensible thinking.

If they wanted to humiliate someone, it was the skeptics and those who know that it makes no sense to reduce the CO2 emissions. But rather than creating satire about them, they have put them into the role of silent awkward outsiders in the ultimate minority - a minority that can be easily dealt with. By this theme, they have revealed their genuine dreams. Many of them simply dream that they could solve the "problem" - the existence of billions of skeptics on this planet - by a similar "final solution".

Instead of humiliating them, they have really dehumanized the skeptics in all of their situations. They have stripped them of the human dignity, and that's nothing else than what the global warming ecofascist movement wants, to one extent or another, do in the real world as well.

Best wishes
Lubos


reader Shawn Halayka said...

Aaron,

We talked about Joyce less than one month ago...

http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fmotls.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F09%2Fenvironmentalist-in-tv-shot-dead-thank.html&path=%2F2673908944944161695#jsid-1283445975-923


reader Repe said...

Radical marketing

http://riknik.weebly.com/1/post/2010/10/ecofascist-threatening-people-with-violence.html


reader Pete Ridley said...

I see that the Guardian has stopped further comments being posted on its thread. Must have realised the damage that the article had done to its already dwindling credibility.

The Science and Public Policy Institute has a good article on this (Note 1) which also gives some background into eco-nutter Frannie Armstrong which suggests to me that perhaps she can be excused just a little. Her gullibility may be due to an unfortunate combination of genes that brought her into this world. On the other hand she may, like AL Gore and his buddies, be simply motivated by money. I suspect that she thought that the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen an opportunity to turn her second-rate film-making career around. With all of the political hype that preceded COP15, any gullible person would think it opportune to jump on the bandwagon. Frannie certainly jumped, founding 10:10 after chatting with another staunch supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, Ed Miliband.

Miliband is a career politician, not a scientist, and had his own reasons for pushing out his version of the propaganda (Note 2) ahead of COP15. He gave his full support to Gordon Brown’s nonsense that "This is perhaps the greatest challenge that we face as a world” (Note 3). This is evidenced by his comment in Africa in August 2009 when asking people to sign “Ed’s Pledge” (Note 4) with his “the world can’t afford to wait. The problem is urgent .. ”. Of course, after the COP15 extravaganza turned into a fiasco climate change was relegated from this exalted position and Number10.gov.uk The Official Site of the Prime Minister’s Office considers that “The greatest challenge Mr Brown faced in office was the worldwide financial crisis and the subsequent recession”.

Ed Miliband is sticking doggedly with his propaganda. In his effort to win leadership of the Labour Party he persisted with “climate change is the greatest challenge to our way of life” (Note 6) then in his presentation to the Labour Party Conference last month Note 7) he said “taking the difficult steps to protect our planet for future generations is the greatest challenge our generation faces”. What he is too dumb to accept is that it is the UN’s propaganda train that is heading for catastrophe, not global climates.

As for Frannie Armstrong and her Spanner Films, I’m afraid that they are heading for catastrophe too.

NOTES:
1) see http://sppiblog.org/news/the-environmental-activist-mind-set-the-age-of-utter-stupidity
2) see http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/big-interview/interview/12892-ed-milibands-ralph-miliband-lecture-he-politics-of-climate-change%E2%80%99.html
3) see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-the-worlds-greatest-challenge-says-brown-1834252.html
4) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMMZheVpTgw&feature=related & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR3gjETeLiE&NR=1
5) see http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/gordon-brown
6) see http://edmiliband.org/learnmore/we-need-to-change-to-win-eds-fabian-essay/
7) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/28/ed-miliband-labour-conference-speech

Best regards, Pete Ridley


reader Pete Ridley said...

I see that the Guardian has stopped further comments being posted on its thread. Must have realised the damage that the article had done to its already dwindling credibility.

The Science and Public Policy Institute has a good article on this (Note 1) which also gives some background into eco-nutter Frannie Armstrong which suggests to me that perhaps she can be excused just a little. Her gullibility may be due to an unfortunate combination of genes that brought her into this world. On the other hand she may, like AL Gore and his buddies, be simply motivated by money. I suspect that she thought that the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen an opportunity to turn her second-rate film-making career around. With all of the political hype that preceded COP15, any gullible person would think it opportune to jump on the bandwagon. Frannie certainly jumped, founding 10:10 after chatting with another staunch supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, Ed Miliband.

Miliband is a career politician, not a scientist, and had his own reasons for pushing out his version of the propaganda (Note 2) ahead of COP15. He gave his full support to Gordon Brown’s nonsense that "This is perhaps the greatest challenge that we face as a world” (Note 3). This is evidenced by his comment in Africa in August 2009 when asking people to sign “Ed’s Pledge” (Note 4) with his “the world can’t afford to wait. The problem is urgent .. ”. Of course, after the COP15 extravaganza turned into a fiasco climate change was relegated from this exalted position and Number10.gov.uk The Official Site of the Prime Minister’s Office considers that “The greatest challenge Mr Brown faced in office was the worldwide financial crisis and the subsequent recession”.

Ed Miliband is sticking doggedly with his propaganda. In his effort to win leadership of the Labour Party he persisted with “climate change is the greatest challenge to our way of life” (Note 6) then in his presentation to the Labour Party Conference last month Note 7) he said “taking the difficult steps to protect our planet for future generations is the greatest challenge our generation faces”. What he is too dumb to accept is that it is the UN’s propaganda train that is heading for catastrophe, not global climates.

As for Frannie Armstrong and her Spanner Films, I’m afraid that they are heading for catastrophe too.

NOTES:
1) see http://sppiblog.org/news/the-environmental-activist-mind-set-the-age-of-utter-stupidity
2) see http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/big-interview/interview/12892-ed-milibands-ralph-miliband-lecture-he-politics-of-climate-change%E2%80%99.html
3) see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-the-worlds-greatest-challenge-says-brown-1834252.html
4) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMMZheVpTgw&feature=related & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR3gjETeLiE&NR=1
5) see http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/gordon-brown
6) see http://edmiliband.org/learnmore/we-need-to-change-to-win-eds-fabian-essay/
7) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/28/ed-miliband-labour-conference-speech

Best regards, Pete Ridley


reader Barba Rija said...

I'm with you all the way in this, Lubos, I've also made a post about this video in my blog, etc.

But when you claim that these guys should be criminalized because they are propagating the message that anyone who disagrees with them will be "disposed" with, even if only metaphorically or comically, or whatever, you are the one jumping the shark.

This is because you, of all people, are the one constantly propagating the message that many of these folks should be jailed or just shot to death for their beliefs and pronunciations, because they are "dangerous".

Well, they feel the same way towards you. So pot meet kettle, Lubos. Perhaps you should consider this video every time you preach warmistas should be oppressed and the target of hatred.


One can hope.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Barba, the reason why those people should be jailed (or executed), and I should not, is that those people are propagating - and working on - a wild, stunning suppression of basic human rights and other laws that are essential parts of the judicial systems of all civilized countries in the world, while I am not promoting anything of the sort.

So it would be nice if you didn't compare me to the Nazi environmental junk again, OK? There is no equivalence here. Thank you very much.