What were they thinking? It’s amazing to see them so willing to show their true totalitarian nature so blatantly. And it’s too late to pull it, despite the attempts. That’s the magic of the Internet.
[Update a few minutes later]
A comment that Iowahawk left at the Youtube page (and reposted on his FB page):
In order for your “No Pressure” advert to have been made, I am assuming several writers pitched a professionally-prepared storyboard to a committee, detailing shot-by-shot each second of …the film. The committee approved it, along with a minimum $250,000 budget to hire actors, director, & crew. Each scene probably took 3-10 takes, and weeks of post production by special effects wizards.
At no time did a single person involved in this clusterf**k say, “hey, maybe it isn’t the best PR to air our fantasies about detonating the people who don’t agree with us into a mist of blood meat and bone fragments.”
This has got to be the biggest FAIL in the entire history of the internet. Anyone remotely associated with the production of this film should forever be banished from any public institution in the English speaking world, and immediately referred for psychiatric evaluation.
I know what my evaluation would be.
[Update a while later]
More thoughts from a James Delingpole:
With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.
Again, what were they thinking?
They were thinking something like the things these people (who were finally brought to justice) were thinking. Because they’re all children of the first totalitarian, Rousseau. It’s what the left does.
[Update a few minutes later]
Spring time for Al Gore — the eco-Anschluss.
Statist fits better. They don’t particularly care if government is controlling an industry directly, or if they have to do everything at one remove by using coercive pressure instead. It also breaks the connotation of Left v Right and deflates the idiotic response, “But last week they were Socialists!”
The 10:10 people are backtracking as fast as possible but the damage has been done. You can blow up kids, people in an office, or a soccer coach, but they killed Scully! (Gillian Anderson).
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/green_dream/
Here is the video, it has gone viral.
In case of any doubts who produced the “No Pressure” slasher, http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure
This is not a parody as some have suggested.
Whenever the Left brushes-off their murderous atrocities, real or fantasized, I’m always reminded of Michael Palin’s character in Holy Grail who, after watching Lancelot slaughter the wedding party and spotting the chance to profit from the mishap, admonishes everyone, “Now, let’s not bicker and argue about ‘who killed who’ (eyes rolling from side to side).”
At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change.
I think you’ve succeeded. I expect there will be more lights turned on after dark for the next earth day.
This reminds me of a couple of other “epic fails” in the advertising industry. Do any of you remember the Schlitz beer ad featuring the macho guy and the tiger? Ad execs later called it the “Drink Schlitz or I’ll kill you” ad….
Tennessee still runs an offensive ad aimed at stopping drunk driving. The ad shows a car driven by an intoxicated driver, stopped suddenly as a giant nail comes down from the sky and penetrates the hood of his car. You could call this the “stop driving drunk or we’ll kill you” ad — because the not-so-subtle message is that you won’t come to a bad end because of your own poor judgment, but because the state will kill you first.
I still have to wonder if this is for real. I guess something in me finds it hard to believe people could be this dumb and still get the money and people to do the project.
“Care to join us? No pressure!”
To me the ugliest thing about this video is the deceptive trap. They don’t threaten. They just ask in a mild voice whether you’ll do this “little thing” (which incidentally isn’t going to significantly change any human contribution to global warming). The people who disagree with the nonsense, then get blown up without warning. That is the sort of game that groups like the Khmer Rouge (excellent comparison BTW) probably would play. Ask people whether they’d like to leave the death march and help Pol Pot with some paperwork (no pressure!) and then shoot the dumb ones who haven’t realized how things work now.
It’s not about carbon reduction (or in the case of the Khmer Rouge, returning society to a fantasy pastoral culture), it’s about imposing a certain mental state (fear for Khmer Rouge, and for the video, I think, violent anger at the minority who aren’t 100% on board with carbon emissions reduction).
It’s a call to ostracize those who disagree, but the fantasized deception involved indicates to me that there are a bunch of people who would love to sneak their way into real power and push red buttons.
Thanks, for telling us that you aren’t fit for any position of trust.
The comments at the Guardian are just as scary. It’s pretty much a “What’s the problem?” response. It’s why I stick to large calibers.
This really speaks to their psychology. They want the outward appearance of being tolerant and open minded, but being witness to the reality that not everyone is willing to reinforce their perceptions with lockstep agreement sends them over the edge into murderous rage.
This is a life or death issue for the greens. In their fantasy sufficient disagreement and lack of conformity to their methods will destroy their future. Even if it is not politically correct, logically (based on their flawed premise) the destruction of those that do not accept their premise is justifiable self-defense. They think that the actions of others will indirectly destroy their lives, the reason killing those ‘others’ isn’t widely promoted is that it frowned upon by the majority, and because they are in the minority, impractical to pursue (as they’d likely lose if it came to violence). This video is the non-PC version of what they think is justified. Thats why they find it funny.
its why it also doesn’t make sense as a self-parody.
I think I’ll convert my heating system to charcoal. And use the highest wattage bulbs I can find. Among other things, such as getting a larger bore gun or two.
OTOH, this could be some sort of elaborate hoax. I’ve seen movie advertisement go this far (not morally, just in terms of physical effort) before (the latest Terminator movie created a web page for fake San Francisco start up which worked with time travel and had terminator robot issues) and if you’ve already made a movie with a few tens of millions dollars investment, then a few hundred thousand for effective viral advertising isn’t a bad deal.
I think we’ll just have to see how this plays out to see what sort of sick joke it is.
Ok, it appears to be for real, apparently even has UK government funding. One wonders if the government officials involved thought a convenient red button would be a nice idea?
Is the
Pope CatholicArchbishop Anglican?I bet this video released Al Gore’s 2nd Chakra like never before.
Must be some mistake, this is the religion of peace.
Redubs of this are going to be brutal.
as they’d likely lose if it came to violence
Understatement of the century.
The fear is a huge part. 10:10 made a choice to go with gory and bloody. It wasn’t enough to have those that refused to conform be carted away, put to sleep, or simply vanish. No their blood, their guts had to splatter onto their classmates, coworkers, and friends. Note the constant reaction shots of people covered in gore screaming.
But everyone that that refused to comply was killed. So the people that got bloody and were horrified by it were those that had already agreed to go along with the program.
The secondary message is clear: “You are alive, but only because you tow the line. The second you fail to comply, it’ll be your blood splattered on everyone.”
@Jack 2:24 p.m.: It’s “toe the line”, not “tow”.
Otherwise, d’accord.
If your criticisms are serious, I think you are being quite uncharitable. Yes, the video was in very poor taste, and it was obviously very stupid to release something that would give such wonderful fodder for their political opponents, but what do you think they were really trying to say? Can you honestly not imagine a charitable interpretation? You really don’t think they were simply saying, in a very inartful and tasteless and stupid way, “if you don’t participate, you’re hurting yourself”.
As to the humor — it is multi-layered, and explaining it is probably foolish to try to explain it but consider: why are all the participants in the program shocked and horrified when non-participators are blown up. If your interpretation is correct, wouldn’t they cheer or something? Why did the creators make it as bloody and shocking as possible? Why did the murderers seem so unsympathetic? You really can’t see that there is an extra layer of self-critical humor going on there?
Finally, I’m reminded of Sarah Palin’s tempest-in-a-teapot (ha!) regarding the gunsight target on politicians she thought should be defeated. I thought it was obvious what she was trying to say, I think it was absurd to suggest that she was inciting or contemplating violence, and I think that sort of mis-step deserved the same sort of charitable interpretation — unless people are just looking for reasons to get outraged….
But they’re not hurting themselves. At all. The person asking them to be “green” is hurting them.
If later on they died due to accident or coincidence (a tree fell on them, hit by SUV) then you could say it’s karma, that they’re really hurting themselves.
But no. They were killed by the person pressing the button the person asking them to comply. That was a deliberate choice on the part of the production staff.
As for the idea of the people splattered in blood cheering? Uh why? They supported being green not necessarily killing undesirables, and even if they did wouldn’t they still be upset?
It’s not like they knew people were going to blow up right next to them.
I’d think a KGB guard would be miffed if some gulag prisoner suddenly got shot right next to him. At the very least over the shock and getting blood on his uniform.
Also using a target graphic == No Pressure ad.
You really can’t see that there is an extra layer of self-critical humor going on there?
No more than Zyklon B ads for disinfecting Jews.
and explaining it is probably foolish to try to explain it
That is indecipherable, but the intent seems benign.
No, it’s not too late to pull it. It’s been pulled.
It’s been pulled.
What?
As a Jew reading about supposed Fascism, I first considered the Holocaust, and I thought about discussing the video from that point of view — what if the people who said no were herded onto boxcars instead of being blown up… …the thing is, it would be the same sort of tasteless humor, and this business with the button was more original. I simply don’t see any intent for environmentalists to actually approve of hurting people or coercing them in any way. That’s the joke, actually. My friends from the UK complain about the American sense of humor — they say it is too straightforward — no nuance.
To me, the ad was obviously saying “there will be dire consequences if you dont’ reduce your carbon emissions, and while these people never saw it coming, you the viewer should see it coming and feel pressured to do something about it.” But to simply say that would be boring, so they got creative…. … and failed. Dumb, but not evil.
You really don’t think they were simply saying, in a very inartful and tasteless and stupid way, “if you don’t participate, you’re hurting yourself”.
No, Bob, I don’t think that at all. Perhaps if the people who opted out had instead cheerily said “No! I think instead I’ll blow my brains out!” and gleefully did just that, it would have illustrated the point you’re trying to retcon into this.
Honestly, are you delusional? Or just reflexively contrarian?
As to the humor — it is multi-layered, and explaining it is probably foolish
I agree. The attempt was as foolish as the original ad. As I see it, it’s irrelevant where there is multi-layered humor present or if the ad were as serious as a Khmer Rouge reeducation camp. There should be serious consequences for suggesting such a thing as a solution to an alleged global problem. At the least, I think the government officials responsible for the UK government share of funding should be fired, but that’s not my call to make.
Yes surely it is better to retreat to our respective camps, simmer with outrage, and perhaps bellow into an echo chamber rather than try to think about what the other side was trying (however ineptly) to say. Surely it is better to ascribe malevolence than incompetence!
Yes surely it is better to retreat to our respective camps, simmer with outrage, and perhaps bellow into an echo chamber rather than try to think about what the other side was trying (however ineptly) to say. Surely it is better to ascribe malevolence than incompetence!
Bob, that’s the truth. It is foolish to accept bad faith propaganda in lieu of legitimate communication. There’s nothing to gain from attempting to figure out what 1010 really meant to say.
“Surely it is better to ascribe malevolence than incompetence!”
As someone once said (can’t remember who, but it wasn’t me) “any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malevolence”. If they didn’t mean what others think they meant, it was an epic fail of communication. Had the shoe been on the other foot, I think the supporters (with the exception of Bob perhaps) would be less than charitable in their interpretation.
The bastards are going to break me. Every time I read shit like this I go buy another case of 75 Gr Hornady TAP.
All I can say is Bitches, anytime you feel Froggy, jump! We haven’t played Cowboys and Eco-Fascist-Nuts yet.
You think I am going to a camp or a gas chamber willingly then you are in for a rude suprise.
Redubs of this are going to be brutal.
Any way to work this in with the Hitler/Downfall parody meme?
There were plenty of other totalitarian regimes in history. The Legalists of the state of Qin came a long time before. They loved to persecute learned men by burying them alive.
Bob, your argument is undermined by the interview of the woman behind it. She’s speaking for real and it’s more chilling than than the movie. Much more chilling than any special effect.
They joke about, “well we don’t really want to blow them up, just cut off their arms…”
They’re insanity is confirmed by the groups that align themselves with them. They have no problem with terrorists that actually blow people up associating with them.
This is far, far from being a joke.
Surely it is better to ascribe malevolence than incompetence!
If incompetence! does not apply then yes. And I’m not exactly simmering with outrage. More like satisfaction that my suspicions about the mindset of these people has been confirmed. Again.
This is a wonderful video!
It portrays hard-core environmentalists — and by extension, the British government — as conscienceless murderers, fully capable of lying to the public with a straight face and then casually executing anyone who has even the most trivial objections to their plans. The underlying message is that the bureaucrats pushing 10:10 are a bunch of dangerous, evil sociopaths who kill without remorse.
What’s not to like?
Ken, where is the interview where the woman talks about cutting off arms, etc? I went to Rand’s link and didn’t find it. Maybe it is staring me in the face, and I just keep missing it. If what you say is true, then clearly I’m wrong, but I’d like to have a look at the interview for myself. Thanks!
I did see a video where the filmmaker(?) (named Franny) comes off as rather sad and pathetic (in my judgemental and admittedly uncharitable opinion) because she doesn’t know how to make a meaningful life for herself. Specifically, she thinks the choice is be a consumer and have a meaningless life or enlist everyone in the reduction of carbon emissions and have a meaningful life. Regardless of the impact carbon emissions might have on the atmosphere and greater environment, I think there are many more avenues to having a meaningful life and I’m surprised that certain ones fo them involving traditional liberal causes (poverty reduction, disease reduction) didn’t immediately occur to her. Still, agree with her or not, she seemed pretty harmless.
Bob,
I think you have missed (or are deliberately missing) the point. The message here is crystal clear…go along with the plan or we will destroy you… This isn’t about ‘you might hurt yourself’, it is very clear that in each case the authorities pushing the plan will use their red button to destroy those who won’t go along. Unless you think exercising free choice is ‘hurting yourself’, there is simply no other honest interpetation of what is being said. That isn’t humor, it isn’t provocative, it is a threat, a threat that is even more offensive because of the nature of the people behind it.
As for being uncharitable in our interpetations, I suspect that if you were confronted with a pro-life videl suggesting that those against abortion restrictions should be blown up, that you would probably have far less tolerance for the nature of the message or the way it was presented. All you need to do is to listen to the public statements (Franny was merely the most pathetic of the bunch, and the comments in places like the Guardian are simply chilling) to see that no injustice was done.
I often defend you here as I see that you make an attempt to adopt a civil tone in what is often a difficult environment, and I respect that. But defending this sort of thing, or pretending that those who are calling these people for stepping WAY over the line makes me wonder. Even the folks on your own team can commit fouls, and this is one of those times….
Scott, as I said to Ken, I could be wrong — particularly if the people behind the video are saying scary things outside the context of the video. If you or Ken have a specific link, I’d greatly appreciate it. The onus can be on me though — I’ll look again for these comments you and Ken have seen.
The video I saw of “Franny” was consistent with my guess that these people would never hurt a flea. No, I mean, literally, they would gather up the fleas off a dog and set the fleas free in the woods somewhere! 🙂 Do you really think Franny is in favor of hurting people?
As for the honest interpretation of the video, I disagree, but I do think the video is maddeningly stupid (actually, I think the entire 10/10 proposal is stupid — but that’s actually off-topic, which shows how poorly they communicated their message.)
As for an equivalent abortion oriented video, first, I’m reluctantly pro-choice, but I have a lot of sympathy for the anti-abortion movement because if it is murder, you’re ethically obligated to do something about it, even if it isn’t you and your family that’s directly involved. That ethical obligation has, in real life, been translated on rare occasions, into actually planting bombs and that makes me not see it as an equivalent situation with the political polarity reversed. On the other hand, there HAVE been even rarer examples of eco-terrorism, and if I thought the people who made the movie actually supported terrorism, I’d be quite disturbed.
Except… even THEN, even if the video was made by people who had actually participated in eco-terrorism… …the video was SUCH a poor advertisement for eco-terrorism, what with little children getting blown up, I just wouldn’t think the people making the video were still actually advocating hurting people.
So, that’s it: the video seemed much too sarcastic for me to take it seriously, and I’m surprised other people are in fact taking so seriously.
All those words, and I messed up the only part I should have written. Let me try again. I should have simply said “The video seemed much too sarcastic for me to take it seriously, and I’m surprised other people are, in fact, taking it so seriously.”
You don’t detect a layer of sarcasm?
If sarcasm was intended, it completely missed the mark. I’ve read that it was intended to be comedy. If so, it was made by people with a very sick sense of humor.
Rand, I agree with you!
Bob,
According to the DOJ (I don’t have the link handy), eco-terrorists are responsible for more property damage and more lives (in fairness, neither the greenies nor the pro-lifers usually intend to generate deaths, so I am willing to assess the small number of those on both sides as unintentional statistical noise) than the pro-lifers. Like you, I am (very reluctantly) pro-choice, and while I understand the position of the pro-lifers, I wouldn’t accept them taking violent action against others even with the best ethical underpinnings. The greenies get even less sympathy from me…
Scott, that’s interesting. I was just talking about this at dinner, and my companions claimed that there have almost NO eco-terrorists — just the idiots who put the spikes in the trees, some arsonists, and arguably the unabomber if you think he a terrorist and not just plain insane. Googling now leaves to believe that my friends underestimate the extent of the arson, but apparently confirms their claim that no one has been killed (unless you count the Unabomber). I have no sympathy at all for the people who placed the spikes (which could kill a logger) or the arsonists (life-threatening nature of arson is obvious) and destroying homes and other property is completely unacceptable but I have to think the criminals/terrorists are at least trying to not kill anyone.
First Franny talks about how horrifying the idea of the individual (3:08) ‘sitting in his little car going to his pointless job.’ She decides an individuals choice is pointless, so overruling those choices by… getting together to build a better society (from her perspective) makes perfect sense.
The final solution made perfect sense to some as well, and I’m sure they had a light and happy discussion of the pleasure the world would be if they just eliminated a few little problems in their world view.
This is monstrous.
Yea, it’s just all fun and games when all life’s little problems can be easily solved with the push of a button. This was a Staples ‘Easy Button’ commercial for environmentalists to have a good “Har Har” over, as in, “if only it were that easy…” But alas, they know the real serious work of solving our “environmental crisis” is to work to try and put sterilants in drinking water. Or, purposely hold down economic growth that would otherwise sustain a growing population. Or, stifle access to innovative technologies that consume far more resources than is necessary. Man, that’s the kind of hard work that will take lots of candle lit nights and fair trade grown coffee to see through to success.
A funny commercial would have had the naysayers beaten by computer generated polar bears wielding wiffle ball bats. Or, the footballer coach hit in the nads by a funny football kicking monkey. Or, the little kids eyes plucked out and their skulls carried off like coconuts by a swarm of African swallows (Monty Python references make anything funny). The message would have been equally disturbing but it at least might have elicited a chuckle. But nope, there idea is to turn a sound recording studio in a bloody cauldron of meat and bone, Huzzah!