Opinion Forum

The True Face of the Eco-Fascists

October 9th, 2010

Last weekend, an environmentalist group wanted to stir up some enthusiasm for a program called 10:10, the objective of which is to reduce one’s “carbon footprint” by 10% by the end of 2010. To do so, they made a movie in which those who were less than enthusiastic about this objective were violently murdered by blasé environmentalists who breezily assured them, “That’s alright, no pressure!” right before they pushed the button which blew the recalcitrant individuals to bits.

The movie, to the public’s credit, was immediately met with reactions of such horror and disgust that the 10:10 organization issued immediate apologies and did everything within their power to shove the movie down the memory hole. Fortunately for the “denialists,” their efforts were unsuccessful, as too many prescient individuals had downloaded the movie themselves in order to preemptively thwart such an attempt.

The video can be found here. I do not often consider such warnings necessary, but beware that it is very graphic viewing.

There are several chilling aspects to this film. I will go through them one by one.

First, there is the attitude of those who are pushing the little red button. Most human beings have trouble with the thought of killing even those who have been convicted of brutal crimes such as rape and murder, and abolition of the death penalty is nearly as much of a signature issue of the modern Left as environmentalism is. Yet this video depicts environmentalists murdering children without a qualm or a second thought, children whose sole crime was to be apathetic (not even actively resistant, just apathetic) about the environmentalist cause. So much for the environmentalist claim that we must preserve the environment for the sake of future generations; no individual who actually cared about our kids would even joke about engaging in such casual child-slaughter.

Second, there is the way the video ended. The producers of the video tried to pass off the clip as a joke, but what are we supposed to think about being told there is “no pressure” about participating in the 10:10 event when those exact words were the last thing that the “victims” in the video heard before meeting their demise? The video is not a threat, but it could indeed have been reasonably taken as one if this group had actually possessed the power to carry out such an act, and if there is one constant amongst the environmentalist movements, it is that they all unceasingly lobby for the government power necessary to enact their aims by force. For our own good of course, and the good of humanity — but that is cold comfort to those who become the victims of these “good intentions.”

Then there is the final scene of the clip, which depicts what is supposed to be the people making the commercial back in the real world. At the end of the clip (start watching at 3:20):

Was that OK [the voiceover]?

Sounded great to me, thanks Jillian.

OK. Happy to help.

So what are you thinking of doing for 10:10 yourself?

What, are you kidding me? I thought that by doing this voice-over that was my contribution.

Right… no, absolutely. No pressure.

OK.

Bye.

Bye!

Thank you.

*boom*

In other words: appeasers beware. Those who fight for such causes often depict themselves as only wanting what others are willing to give of their own free will, but this clip is proof that the environmentalist movement is not one that you can buy off with a spare dime here and there. They will not be satisfied with the occasional effort fit into your life as your time and resources allow, and they are quite willing to use force once they have been persuaded that they have exhausted all peaceful avenues of approach. They do not view your right to live as inalienable; rather they see it as a privilege which is dependent upon your support of their cause — a privilege that they have the right to take away as soon as you become less than appropriately enthusiastic about helping them to achieve whatever that cause may be.

Finally, there were the comments made by those who helped create the movie, comments which show that whatever else these people were doing when they created the film, they were most emphatically not joking. First there are the words of 10:10 founder, Franny Armstrong:

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?

Translation: I can do whatever I want to those who get in my way, because I have a noble cause.

She then goes on to include herself in the 42.3% of people who make up statistics on the spot by saying, “We ‘killed’ five people to make ‘No Pressure’ — a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change.”

Even accepting such a statistic as a given — a highly unlikely prospect, due to the inherent uncertainty in such calculations — this statistic is hardly the final word on the debate. After all, what if the changes this group believes are required in order to “save” the environment end up killing more people than they claim climate change kills today? What if there are alternate solutions to the problem, such as improved technology and methods of production, which would stop these deaths without forcing people to lower their standard of living? And anyway, can anyone even name a time when climate wasn’t changing? Who’s to say that even if we did exactly what these environmentalists told us, climate wouldn’t just keep on changing and killing people anyway?

Worst of all, however, is the comment made by Jamie Glover, the child-actor who plays the part of Philip. His statement is simple: “I was very happy to get blown up to save the world.”

Granted that this child was only blown up on camera, but in its essence this is a sentiment that is no different from the actions of various fundamentalist and totalitarian movements throughout history, from the Children’s Crusade of the Middle Ages, to the indoctrination of schoolchildren in totalitarian countries, to the promotion of martyrdom on children’s shows in Palestine. Whether for the glory of God or the glory of the State or the glory of Gaia, the ultimate message is that your goals, your values, even your life, are inconsequential compared to whatever cause has been handed you from On High (On High being either a secular dictator, or God as interpreted by a religious one).

But if their objective isn’t to protect the environment for the sake of humanity or future generations, then what is it? Well, if they’re perfectly willing to off humanity to attain their end (and they’ve shown before that they are, and not just in this film), then we must assume that their real goal, the only goal which makes logical sense in light of their words and deeds, is the preservation of a pristine, inviolate nature. In short, that true goal is the preservation of nature as an end in itself. However, this is a goal which is literally irreconcilable with the preservation and enrichment of human life, as humanity is a species which can only survive through the alteration of its environment to suit its needs. Pajamas Media called this ad “the most honest political ad of all time,” and it is, in that it gives the masses who are still too innocently generous to believe that the environmentalists really want what they say they do a glimpse of what truly lies beneath the facade of benevolence and concern that the Greenies are usually so careful to maintain.

That is not to say that preservation of the environment is not important; after all, nobody wants to live on a planet where the oceans have become too toxic to swim in and the trees are all dead. But it does mean that environmentalism is a goal that must be pursued in context of the true ultimate goal: the preservation and enhancement of individual human life. And until those who advocate the cause of environmentalism demonstrate through their words and actions that this is their true concern, then they deserve no more respect or concern from their fellow man than we would give to the fascists that they have revealed themselves to be.

Articles written by Brianna Aubin
Tags: 10:10, children, environment, environmentalist, green, killing, video, violence
Categories: Media, News, Politics | Comments (9) | Home

9 Responses to “The True Face of the Eco-Fascists”

Tom Carter | October 9th, 2010 at 7:51 am

This is a great article, Brianna. Thanks very much! I read a lot of news every day, and this is the first I’ve heard of this video. That’s consistent with the way most of the media covers environmentalists’ activities, even when extremism like this is involved.

One thing we can be sure of (I hope) — no professional PR or advertising people could have been involved in the conception, writing, or production of this garbage. It’s about the worst thing the environmentalists could have done in terms of showing how extremist they can be.

The readiness of extreme leftist movements to turn to violence, threats of violence, and images of violence is all too common. And you make a good point that the people who thought this video was a good idea are almost certainly opposed to the death penalty. I would add that they also most likely support abortion rights to the extreme extent of killing live babies after they have been partially delivered.

Most people are environmentalists, in the sense that protecting nature and treating animals humanely are logical and necessary goods. But when environmental extremists start speaking in the language of violence and acting violently (e.g., Greenpeace and PETA), reasonable people need to step back and isolate them as the dangerous anti-social elements they are.

Brianna Aubin | October 9th, 2010 at 11:11 am

Sheesh, Tracinski was even less kind to them than I was. “I’ve never seen anything like this, at least not in the modern world. I mean, did the Nazis make newsreels in which they actually showed the Jews being gassed? For a precedent, you have to go back to the darkest hellholes of the Middle Ages—maybe back to Vlad the Impaler—when a spectacle was made of public killing as a warning to others. “

Jeff Perren | October 10th, 2010 at 4:05 pm

“One thing we can be sure of (I hope) — no professional PR or advertising people could have been involved in the conception, writing, or production of this garbage.”

Regrettably, that is not so. The director is a major British filmmaker and sponsors range from Sony to O2. Dozens of professionals were involved in the making of the video at every stage.

That said, while I agree with the assessment of both the video and the environmentalists behind it, I have another perspective on the issue that you might find valuable. See my article at Pajamas Media where I suggest the 10:10 video is more distraction than anything else, and give my reasons.

Brianna | October 10th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Jeff, I completely agree with this assessment that the moderate middle, the ones who look unthreatening and are merely calling for clean air and water, are the real threat because they enable the fascists. That’s essentially Milton Friedman’s point, that so many “compassionate” regulations are pushed for initially by a bunch of do-gooders, then the bureaucrats take over and take advantage. The reason things like this 10:10 video are important are because they show some of those “moderates” exactly what they’re really supporting. This hopefully either changes their mind entirely or pushes them to dissent against the fascists and pursue their legitimate goals (preservation of a health environment for the sake of individual human life) in a more rational, non-contradictory (i.e. vountary, free-merket oriented) way.

Brianna | October 10th, 2010 at 4:48 pm

I also want to point out that when i said this:

And until those who advocate the cause of environmentalism demonstrate through their words and actions that this is their true concern, then they deserve no more respect or concern from their fellow man than we would give to the fascists that they have revealed themselves to be.

I meant the moderate individuals and organizations as well as the extremists.

Jeff Perren | October 10th, 2010 at 6:37 pm

Good points, Brianna. Thank you for reading and responding.

Tom Carter | October 10th, 2010 at 7:19 pm

Jeff, it’s amazing that the professionals you point out were involved could have been so completely tone-deaf.

Your PJM article is interesting. I understand the points that you and Brianna both make about moderates enabling extremists, but you could extend that logic to a whole range of issues. Many, perhaps most, people could be considered moderate environmentalists, and I count myself among them. It’s entirely possible to have reasonable laws and regulations that are effective in protecting the environment without causing undue harm. And let’s face it, the only reason rivers are cleaner (e.g., the Potomac) and air is cleaner (e.g., Los Angeles) is because of government regulation. It’s possible for government to do things well without going too far.

Jeff Perren | October 11th, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Tom,

Thanks for reading the article and commenting. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to respond with the detail that your comment deserves, so I’ll limit myself to this:

First, my point was somewhat different from Brianna’s description, though I agree with her that “the middle” does enable the extremists. My article, though, was more focused on how they do so – by presenting a more reasonable face – and that we needn’t worry overmuch about the extremists because they are self-limiting. Note that organizations like Sony are already pulling their support as a consequence of the 10:10 video.

Second, I’m generally in favor of what are known as “downstream” laws (I’m legally liable for polluting the water upstream from you) when we share what’s known as “the commons,” at least until some better method can be implemented.

There are several proposals, however for doing that. For details, I refer you to the links in my article, particularly the PDFs containing Fred L. Smith’s essays.

It’s true that government can – and sometimes does – do good; in fact, it’s essential for protecting individual rights. But you’re failing to account for the negative effects when looking only at the regulations that keep the Potomac cleaner than it might otherwise be under current circumstances. If that river were, for example, private property the situation would be somewhat different.

I regret that’s all I have time for right now, but thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

Opinion Forum » The Wretched Conservative Spawn Must Not Return! | October 31st, 2010 at 1:22 pm

[…] freedom and Daily Kos by dropping massive googlebombs to keep conservative lies obscure. Let the blood and guts flow! Hand-to-hand combat! Encourage the major media in their heroic efforts righteously to keep […]