Thursday, October 21, 2010 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

EMA: Hollywood hypocrites are saving the Earth

The Hollywood self-described "elite" are distributing the Ecoterrorist Media Awards (EMA) to each other. If your stomach is really strong, here is 18 minutes of some juicy stuff for you.

Please be careful when watching this video. If it makes you throw up, I apologize in advance. If you don't see any video, go to the individual page of this entry.

Needless to say, the abbreviation EMA was chosen to partially steal the fame of the Emmy: these green nuts are parasiting on the Emmy's achievements. They're parasiting on many other things, too.

The hypocrisy of these folks is just stunning, beyond any imagination. You hear them talking - for 18 minutes - how their children are trying to save water when they brush their teeth, and similar silly stuff.

But e.g. James Cameron apparently assumes that people won't be able to notice that he is using

3 houses in Malibu (24,000 sq ft in total - 10 times the average U.S. home), a 100-acre ranch in Santa Barbara, a JetRanger helicopter, three Harleys, a Corvette, a Ducati, a Ford GT, a collection of dirt bikes, a yacht, a Humvee firetruck, a fleet of submarines...
Nevertheless, he demands that people live with less - the same people who made him rich by watching his movies. This probably also (or primarily?) includes other rich people.

By the way, almost everyone who sees the "No Pressure" movie for the first time thinks that it had to be created by climate skeptics because it's such a painful caricature of the environmentalists' reasoning. I had thought so, too. A simple test of the data reveals that it is a real movie with the 10:10 campaign and Richard Curtis behind it.

However, in the case of the Avatar, even I still cannot believe that it was meant as a serious propaganda movie against the industry and capitalism - because if this were indeed the original purpose, then the movie had to be addressed to people whose IQ is around 75. As a propaganda display, it's just so incredibly naive...

There are blue savages and they are the nice people - the third world - and then there are the white people who are the nasty capitalists who try to hurt the blue people in order to gain profit. So the corporations that produce stuff are always evil and the savages are the saints. Yes, sure. Even when I was a boy in the kindergarten, I was mature enough not to buy a similar kind of stuff, from the communists or otherwise.

These people are also talking about the need to lower the world population. I apologize but it's not needed, and if it were needed, there would have to be at least some meritocracy in the process. If James Cameron et al. believe that the Earth is at existential risk because of the CO2 emissions, then any reasonable criterion would imply that James Cameron et al. would have to be among the first ones who would have to go.

If you agree that the notion that the CO2 is lethally risky is preposterous and a sign of the believer's hopelessly low IQ, then James Cameron should go because the mankind can't afford to have this stupid people in it. Even if you believed that the emissions were harmful, James Cameron has to go because he's among the top 0.01% of the people who would be most harmful.

There simply doesn't exist any justification of the need to lower the world population that would make the life of James Cameron sustainable. It's just amazing to think about the societal atmosphere that makes it natural for him to defend these inhuman concepts.

Via Willie Soon

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (5) :

reader Anonymous said...

Lubos, they are so sanctimoniously self-absorbed, they don't even know they're in the crosshairs.


reader Mr. P said...


There's a new No Pressure video focused on the "I can't believe they did that" idea. It also obscures the gore.

Using multiple short parody clips it tells the story backward.

"Was This Originally A Prank? (gore obscured)"

reader Mrs. EntryReqrd said...

Luboš, James Cameron and company should be dealt with according to their status. Here in the EU I might be subject to a 40 euro carbon tax starting in 2012 for a trans-Atlantic flight at my income level. It should only be fitting that an eco-responsible James Cameron is assessed a carbon tax that is proportional to his wealth, similar to how speeding fines are assessed here in some countries in Europe.

40 euros to me might be 400,000 or 4 million euros to James Cameron. Think of all the carbon monies that will be raised with the private planes to the Davos conferences...

The idea that James Cameron and the likes of Sir Richard Branson speak to us common folk about moderation is mind boggling. What is the appropriate carbon tax on Branson's Virgin Atlantic Space tour?

I hate the idea of bogus taxes but listening to the uber wealthy speak of the need for more taxes really grinds on me.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Paul, sure, the carbon taxes for the rich like Cameron would be proportionally higher (approximately) - every arrangement eventually ends up with a similar result.

But you don't seem to appreciate how rich these people are and what is the impact on various people. It's just a fact that if Cameron were suddenly asked to pay 20% of his assets, his lifestyle wouldn't even notice. He simply has lots of useless resources.

It's always the "poorer" people - which can include some millionaires - who actually care. And of course that a proportional new tax, even though it is smallest for the poorest people in nominal terms, most heavily influences the poorest people. For them, a 20% increase of prices may mean starving.

Cameron et al. are of course well aware of it. And they actively want it. That's part of their efforts to reduce the population. They're completely open about it.

Of course, this counting is only rational for them assuming that they have a lot of accumulated wealth and they don't depend on earning new resources.

If you have people who are earning big money right now but who have just begun - and haven't yet accumulated too huge assets - these people would clearly be heavily affected by a hypothetical new tax or increase of prices.

It's because the "new rich people" are also created by a society as their "luxury". This "luxury" is only being paid for once the basic life needs are covered.

What I mean is that people first have to guarantee that they have something to eat, and then they can go to the movie theater to watch Titanic or Avatar.

If you reduce the income of all people by 20%, what will happen is that the food consumption will stay nearly constant while the luxurious expenses such as the movies will drop dramatically. Together with them, the income of the cultural elite will plummet, too - probably much more than by 20%.

The wealth inequality, especially for cultural and intellectual classes, is a result and sign of an advanced society. So the people who depend on earning money from culture etc. are extremely short-sighted if they think that the carbon policies would help them personally.

The only reason why Cameron is right is that he has already accumulated so much money that he doesn't depend on the GDP - production - in the future and on the money that the people can pay him in the future.

reader laconic said...

It comes down to one question: schmucks or douchebags? or both?

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');