Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Well, with the calming passage of 24 hours, let’s take another look at the 10:10 video showing the splatterfest of gore as skeptics play the more volatile roles from the worst portions of the movie ‘Scanners.’
It’s still disgusting.
I spent four years in the Navy and have seen a lot. The film did not upset me physically or emotionally. My reaction was mental (Cue Michael Tobis: “See? Fuller’s going mental…”)
What disgusts me first is its target. The video is meant for the young. Young people get blown up by a calm and engaged teacher in the first scene, and music and sports and film figures appealing to the young are both victims and perpetrators throughout.
Our reaction is irrelevant. They are not talking to us. They are talking to our children.
What are they saying? That it’s okay to ostracize, bully and dismiss those who don’t agree that climate change is uber alles (Oops! Godwin alert, Godwin alert) and that skeptics or the children of skeptics are fair game for… whatever.
As there is no real attempt at humour in the video, there’s no point in pretending it’s a parody. It’s instructional. It’s not even aimed at helping children work towards reducing emissions. It’s about helping children take aim at those who do not.
This is worse than Orwellian, although Eric Blair would certainly understand the meaning behind this message. And I don’t want to (and internet traditions would forbid me in any case) link this to the propaganda tactics of World War II. So somewhere in between those two, there is a special place in hell reserved for those whose intent it is to legitimize the cruelty of children towards each other based on what has evidently become a religious belief. And I hope that none of the film’s makers reaches that special place ahead of their allotted timespan–but I hope they get there.
Joe Romm and Bill McKibben have already announced they are ‘Shocked! Shocked!’ that gambling is going on in their casino and that their perpetual campaign of invective and calumny has produced people who actually believe them and hate skeptics. So I guess it’s no harm, no foul. Just as it was not their fault when a disturbed environmentalist took hostages at the Discover Channel headquarters, just as when the WWF made an ad showing planes flying into New York skyscrapers, just as when a Greenpeace blogger told skeptics the world over that ‘we know where you live.’ And as Anthony Watts knows full well, they also know where you work. But none of this is the fault of those who whip up the frenzy and the furor of those stupid enough to believe their hyperbole, enough to do something vicious, cruel, stupid or illegal.
So I guess I can’t blame hysterics like Romm and McKibben, who spend their days babbling about hell and high water and related mystical miseries, for any of the troubles we’ve seen. Except for the kids who will be downloading that video tonight. Both William Golding (Lord of the Flies) and J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan) knew full well that children need no help in being cruel. But this gives them license and legitimacy. And for that, Joe and Bill, I do hold you responsible. You sent the message first–it took years for 10:10 to make it explicit.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
First reaction of an Englishman…
Very strange video. Certainly not funny. I think they’re trying to tell us it’s urgent to act with no exception, otherwise we’re all doomed – or something to that effect.
That point comes across clearly enough. It’s the deliberate pressing of the red button that bothers me.
What was going on in these filmmakers’ heads?
Some here call it “professional”. What do they mean by that? The effects? I could do those on iMovie. No it’s the height (or rather the depths) of clumsy.
I don’t think it will have much effect on kids.
It would be nice to hear what mothers in Iraq, or Pakistan or Israel, or Afganistan have to say about this video. That would help put it in better cultural perspective, as some has suggested above.
In my culture, the idea of blowing up children for any reason is repulsive, immoral and could only be fostered by truly bent near sub-humans. But that’s just my culture.
Strangely, the BBC has no reports of this video; not a single mention of it anywhere.
Those who wish to protest at the sponsors of the video have a page which makes it easy as it names them all and includes links to all their websites:
http://sadhillnews.com/2010/10/01/eco-terrorism-1010global-org-no-pressure-ad-campaign-made-possible-by-sony-and-others
O/T
Richard Black’s blog is now being destroyed by the moderators. I’ve had the following 2 posts moderated out of existence, despite them being on topic:
“Subject:
‘Warmist’ attack smacks of ‘sceptical’ intolerance
Posting:
Richard
JoNova comments here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/blog-warfare-warmist-attacks-their-own/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29
Subject:
‘Warmist’ attack smacks of ‘sceptical’ intolerance
Posting:
@Barry Woods #218
Already commented on Richards blog on the slur:
As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: “I’ve been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn’t be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#P101061367
And he still hasn’t apologised for it
Mention anything even slightly off topic and whoosh, gone
Has RC taken over the BBC?
/Mango
Anthony – I suggest that the intentions of the maker of the video (Richard Curtis) and the intentions of the commissioners of the video (1010) are not the same. My immediate reaction was that Richard Curtis is satirising 1010 and their ilk (and making big fools of them as well). Time will tell whether my take on the video is correct. Bear in mind that Curtis is a complete rebel by nature.
The video is designed, among other things, to shock, and appears to have succeeded rather well in this respect. I am intrigued that a fictional video succeeds in shocking people better than public statements by Greenpeace, Hansen, Suzuki, Gore, Holdren et al. I guess it shows the power of the medium.
Richard Curtis is a clever man, he has made his fame and fortune. I suggest he has a secondary motive, which is to stir up the debate on hate speech, or at least to get people thinking about it (by a sort of reverse psychology). I suspect the video cannot be found in breach of any laws in the UK, which only cover things like race and religion. Those people who are blown up in the film do not fit into any recognisable legal category under hate speech legislation. Curtis’ associates such as Rowan Atkinson were outspoken in their opposition to a recent attempt to extend hate speech laws in the UK (because it would kill comedy). For my part, I am with Rowan Atkinson on this one, and am inclined to view hate speech legislation with suspicion. Those who seek to control speech remind me rather too much of those who would like to have a red button.
All the best.
“jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.
I’m not in the least surprised that the majority of Warmists who have a problem with this are American, as are the majority of Climate Realists.
It’s a cultural thing.”
I’m British and I didn’t find the film funny, more like disturbing.
I laughed my socks off when Mr. Creoscote blew up, but remember it was a wafer-thin mint that did the damage rather than a cold, calculating figure of authority pressing the button.
Please do not try to argue that it is just British black humour as that doesn’t wash.
and on topic:
I’m unconcerned about this video, i think Curtis and 10:10 have shot themselves in the foot, because this video will always surface somewhere on the Internet to haunt them
/Mango
jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
“Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British”.
I think you will find we British have stated our case at James Delingpole. 998 comments so far. I have never seen so many condemnatory comments by we Brits.
We loved Monty Python and Blackadder. But we can tell the difference between comedy and hate-filled ecofascism.
Comment from a Brit, Pythonesque, it is not.
It’s awful, though it may backfire, the blown up kids are the cool ones.
Given the propensity for kids to refuse what wrinklies tell them, it may be time for a backlash
Andy does have a point about the genuineness of the screams of indignation and offense when so many of those doing the screaming are celebrating the videos immortality as a stick to beat warmists with, if the indignation was so important, wouldn’t those people prefer to see it forever gone?
I might be wrong but were the people blown up even sceptics?
Maybe the message is that to be deemed worthy of salvation you must “tythe” – simply doing nothing isn’t enough, you must give up 10%
jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Well, looking at the first scene I see a number of stereotypes being developed. The goody-goody two shoes cycling girl, the ‘honest’ suggester of sensible ideas, and finally the malcontents.
As I remember my childhood at that age, the first two were of very low repute while the malcontents were generally popular.
That the malcontents were blown up was – and still is – uber cool. Hono(u)r to them.
I showed my kids the clip and all they could do was laugh.
I’m starting to suspect the script-writer was acting as a double agent
************************************************************
Jeremy – I agree with your assessment. The same can be said of the other scenes. The footballer who is blown up is the legend (he even talks about the game, whereas the coach is drilling the players for penalties – negative football at its most obvious). The office workers who couldn’t care less about what their lousy manager is asking them to do are the ones who would have “respect” from their colleagues. And Gillian Anderson is the popular figure (with a fictional anti-establishment persona) versus the unknown conformist with the red button. So in every scene it is the cool dudes who are exploded. The maker wants us to be on their side.
All the best.
The tolerant, enlightened Environmenta Left would NEVER stoop so low as to dehumanize those who disagree with them, much less suggest they be exterminated. Because yaknow, once you’ve identified those who are responsible for all the ills befalling everyone else, it’s only logical that someone should be empowered to remove them. But you people we wanted to kill just aren’t smart/nuanced enough to get this little bit of humor, so we removed it, sorry you’re not as enlightened as we are.
Amazingly bizarre that through all the different steps this film took.. from conception to screenplay to shooting to final edit to the person who gave the final OK… not a one of them said “nah this is just a touch over the top”.
Nope … doesn’t get any better with age.
Now let’s see if there are any slightly strange people out there who might take this video’s message to heart and try to come up with their own 10% solution.
I’d just like to echo Gavin L’s reply to Jeremy of WA. I’m British too, and my sense of humour is considered ‘robust’ even here, emanating, as it does, from the Goons, Kenneth Horne, Python etc. This video was something else entirely. It was sick.
If it had been made by skeptics, it would have been satire. The satire would be ridiculing the believers.
But this was made by believers. Did they intend to ridicule themselves?
I suspect Richard Curtis was making fun of them and they simply didn’t get the joke.
It’s not exactly primetime coverage, but the video was the lead topic on “Redeye”, Greg Gutfeld’s show on Fox.
I’m perfectly aware of the British sense of humour – being British, for a start – and wasn’t at all shocked by the violence in what was supposed to be a humorous context.
What appalled me was a) how poor and laborious it was and b) the message of the film.
The only way that you could read it as being anything other than saying that anyone even slightly sceptical deserves to die is if you believe that 10:10 and Richard Curtis, one of it’s oldest supporters, would want to completely undermine themselves and the cause in which they fervently believe. I don’t buy that for a second.
I think it’s a monumental misjudgement from people not thinking outside of their own little bubble and guaging how those outside the bubble are going to react. Let’s not forget that Franny Armstrong called her patronising sermon The Age of Stupid. That’s the way to make the unconverted warm to you.
I suspect that once Curtis had delivered a script then everyone else dared not question the Great Man even if they had reservations. They probably thought that he should know better than they what would work as a film and thought that at least his name would be great publicity.
However, Richard Curtis is hardly known as a “message” writer and his one real previous attempt at something on his own which had a message was The Girl in the Cafe – a clunking, borefest set around a G8 summit.
Curtis also has no real experience with humour quite this black. The darkest thing by far he has done is Blackadder which was tame by comparison. It was also co-written by Ben Elton, a writer far more at home with black humour and who was probably the source of most of the darkness in Blackadder.
Many if not most of Curtis’s scripts have been written with others, have been adaptations, and/or been heavily script edited by his wife Emma Freud. Perhaps she was away on the day he dashed this off.
It almost seems like a safe middle aged purveyor of romantic trifles suddenly decided that he could be as edgy and “in your face” as the cool kids and ended up getting it as horribly wrong as your granddad trying to rap.
To end on a lighter note:
A piece of Curtis’s writing from happier times which really was witty:
(No dismembered body parts involved)
As another Englishman, who loves Monty Python/Fawlty Towers and all other such comedy.
Satire? The only satire is on those who advocate silencing dissent, which seem to be quite a few on the pro-AGW side of affairs.After all, the science is settled & one shouldn’t give equal (Or indeed any) airtime to those who deny it!
I don’t really believe in AGW – I kill you.
Ahmed the Dead Terrorist is satire, this isn’t.
For some background on the producers and the Age of Utter Stupidity, check out
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-environmental-activist-mind-set-the-age-of-utter-stupidity
I’ve just seen this promo video for the first time…I am stunned and numbed that such appalling rubbish should be funded by any organisation other than a totalitarian group bent on taking away individual freedom from me, my children and any other person wishing to disbelieve their propaganda….how long must we endure this type of sublime mental blackmail, and especially in this case, passed off as humour?
I would think that any official use of any video like this would constitute harassment, violation of civil rights, and the creation of a hostile work or education environment.
They are trying to spin it as a joke, that people did not get British humour…..
No… I still laugh at Mr Creosote (monty Python – Meaning of LIfe)
This was different, ignore the blood and gore, it was characterisisng those who disagree, or even not that bothered, as lazy, misfits, stupid looking, outsiders, etc….
In a school, the voice of authority, has a casual indifference, even those children not blown up look shocked.. Same in the office, people who don’t fit in with the crowd, the boss, YOU, Choose, No pressure message. (the footballers are too dim, to see what they are involved in, but afgain, the manager coach are the authority here)
With Gillian anderson, you have to FULLY agree, not just do a little bit, or RED BUTTON.
I imagine, they thought it was funny, and at a level, one RED button might be.. BUT four times… You Choose, No pressure (4 times)
They (creative, rich elite media types, no doubt very inteligent, but no scoiince qualification, I have 2 degrees, hard science)feel superior to those who disagree, they are the elite, we the uneducated masses to be looked down upon.
It shows there feeling for people that do not agree… misfits, stupid, lazy, ugly, scruffy, outsiders, the bullied, that don’t fit in… and they take it to an extreme (blow them up). But in reality, it is about bullying, excluding anyone who does not agree, labbeling, calling them an outsider….
Where have we seen that before in history (cockroaches , in rwanda, the 1930’s) jokes, not a parallel people will say… don’t go over the top they say, ONLY a JOKE, don’t you have a sense of Humour…..
But how many people became desensized to ‘DENIAR’ in the last few years (casual use by some). Powerful message in the film, don’t satnd out, don’t disagree, don’t even be indifferent… You are with us or against us…… so it is BULLYING, controlling, with only the extreme over the top violence, allowing them to say it is a joke.
This type of humour is usually anti-authority, making you feel for the underdog… Comeuppance for being mistreated, etc..
NOT here, merely not being that bothered, brings down a casual violence, by this evangelical zeal.
For the people in authority DO know where you live – ‘We Know Where You Live’ (extreme greenpeace thinking/mentality).
I’ve met people that just look at me differently (as some sort of DENIAR) when I have expressed my thought or challenged thier statemenets. At my local Transition Town Meeting – They have a 10:10 meeting today, with councillors, the mayor, members of my community…
ANYWAY.
Don’t let them spin this as a joke tha backfired (it showed their thoughts for those who disagree with their worldview)
Here is an UNGUARDED, immediate reaction, in the GUARDIAN COMMENT section. He posted it in horror, then had to come back again, he was so UPSET with 10:10
This was a BOARD MEMBER OF FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
I sent the below to the BBC:
A comment from a FRIENDS OF THE EARTH Board Member – in the Guardian.. (immediate unguarded, un PR reaction)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
JohnHalladay (Friends of the Earth – Board Member)
1 October 2010 1:27AM
God knows I’m on your side but this just panders to the morons who think we’re ‘Eco-fascists’ – own goal, guys.
Kill it and do something better.
Disturbing!
He came back for some more. (my asterisks)
2nd comment.. (could not leave it..)
JohnHalladay (Friends of the Earth – Board Member)
1 October 2010 1:33AM
Actually, I have to say something stronger,
this film is f***ing ridiculous.
I am a local Greenpeace coordinator, and a Board member of Friends of the Earth and I just can’t believe that you have produced a film that is so f***ing stupid.
There, I’ve sworn on the Guardian.[snip], where is your common sense. We’re trying to win hearts and minds.
This is just ludicrous.
Presumably this is John…..
http://www.foe.co.uk/what_we_do/about_us/board/board_members.html
John Halladay
“Friends of the Earth Trust and Limited
Elected Board member for South Central Member of:
Engagement Committee
Elected: 2008
Due for re-election: 2011
John’s particular interests in the environmental field include recycling, the concept of individual carbon allowances and the effect of increasing world population on the environment. He works as a Human Resources consultant greening the employment practices in UK companies and is also the joint co-ordinator of Bracknell & District Friends of the Earth.”
The BBC should be reporting this whole story to the general public, not perceived to be protecting the CAGW message.
On all the ‘usual’ blogs, there is deep cynicism that the BBC will not touch on this story….
I hope that the BBC can prove them wrong.
Please BBC this shows a ‘green bubble’ groupthink at work.. (much like Gordon Brown’s ‘bigot’ moment – the media ran with that, why not this?)
Did not ONE person, involved in this (there must have been hundred or more) not think to say: ‘hang on, is this really a good idea..’
Or was, it ‘NO pressure’ preventing anybody saying it was daft.
Or was green groupthink at work… Of course ‘NO pressure’ in those who might think it was a bad idea… so kep quiet.
It was going to be shown in CINEMAS..
EVERY single other environment group is absolutley furious with 10:10
Don’t let them pretend otherwise…
[Reply – you had three versions of this stuck in the spam filter. I’ve posted the first one ~jove, mod]
I disagree with Thomas Fuller that this vile digusting piece of hate mongering is aimed at our children. To an extent perhaps it is, but only as side effect resulting in intimidation of the youth.
The real aim of this Orwellian horror is to rally those of a like mind, a call to arms if you will. The victims are portrayed as malcontents, they are eliminated without emotion, without remourse. They are executed as non chalantly as one takes out the garbage. The message is aimed at other warmists, and the message is clear. They portray at once the urgency with which action must be taken, and by dehumanizing the victims, justify their elimination as something necessary, just like taking out the garbage. While more explicit and over the top than the Greenpeace gaffe, it is at its core identical in portraying skeptics as dangerous, and that the urgency of global warming may mean that they must be removed as obstacles to emission control by any means, and justified both by the danger they represent and that they are not fully members of humanity in the first place, more comparable to a bag of garbage or a vermin infestation than to human beings.
That this video saw the light of day at all is indicative of the mind set of those who made it. They are invested in their belief system, and have abandoned rational debate in favour of “what to do about the dissenters”. Only people who are already invested in the notion that there is something wrong with skeptics and that they are less than human could have seen “humour” in this videa, and failed to see the backlash it would spark.
So have no illusions. It was not aimed at our children per se, there was nothing in it that would pursuade anybody in regard to the global warming debate at all. It was a call to arms and a call to action by like minded people, with the dehumanizing of skeptics throughout the video as rationalization to make real action more acceptable.
The excuse by some official at 10:10 that they were not “really” advocating killing people was followed by a suggestion that perhaps a few amputations would be in order. The message in that was pretty much an admission that they had over reached in their attempt to rally the troops, but that was no apology, it was just a ratcheting down of the rhetoric. Having failed to get murder legitimized, they backed down to mere amputations, and then withdrew that remark as well.
But the message to other warmists was clear. Catastrophe must be averted, time is running out, and “we” must prepare to start taking real action against “them” for “we” are the real humans who care about the planet and “they” are just vermin or bags of garbage who are in the way of Truth and Justice.
I don’t know who if anyone they will pursuade to their side. I think it clear however what they think of themselves (defenders of all that is good) and what they think of “those others” (evil selfish geneticaly defective exploiters of all that is good)
I particularly like the Satire defense which totally misses the mark about the structure of satire. Satire operates through the emotions of shame and guilt, which is why it is more prevalent in shame based guilt based cultures and in cultures which care about appearances and propriety. There is no satire in a culture that lacks a strong sense of what is “proper.” Satire works best when the object of derision is an authority or institution . Satire is the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. That is why the best american satire is chiefly political satire-think Will Rogers– and why the best British satire– think swift for juvenalian satire and monthy python for horatian satire– is about class and position. When you dont have the power or position to reason with the power structure, your only option is satire, shame them, make fun of them. This is why the piece fails as a satire. In this piece, who exactly is the object of the satire? The skeptics in the piece are not shamed into changing ( which is how satire operates as a rhetorical device), rather the object of satire ( if there is one) are the authorities. Which means, of course, that it is self defeating as a work of satire since the point of the piece is to get people to listen to authorities.
Simply, if it’s a satire, then it’s a self defeating satire. Which means of course that it does not function like a satire, even if it was intended as a satire. The lesson is that when it comes to determining the “meaning” of a piece, authorial intention is not controlling. Something meant as a satire that fails to operate as a satire, is not a satire.