When, if ever, will we see the reasonable and educated people in the warmer side of climate debate speak out against hateful garbage like this? What will it take? Why would government fund what amounts to a sanctioned hate crime disguised as “art”? This is just bizarre.
![Aspen%2BIsland[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/aspen2bisland1.jpg?quality=83)
Andrew Bolt writes:
The Left is the natural home of the modern totalitarian – and of all those who feel entitled by their superior morality to act as savages.
How how the ACT Government justify spending taxpayers’ money on a theatre work entitled ”Kill Climate Deniers”?
What sane Government donates to a project urging others to kill fellow citizens, even as a “joke”? Are these people mad?
=================================================================
Here is the web page of the Aspen island Theatre Company. They say:
Aspen Island Theatre Company is dedicated to the creation of contemporary Australian theatre in Canberra. We seek to make theatre that is intelligent and inventive and engages with the present.
Really? A play about killing people some disagree with is “intelligent and inventive”? Maybe I’m confusing them with ISIS?
Their contact page is here: http://aspenisland.com.au/contact/
The facebook page summarizes:
The scenario of the work sees an Australian environment minister confront an armed siege of the Australian Parliament by a group of eco-terrorists. In our application for funding to develop the piece, we made clear and explicit that through this scenario we in no way encourage or endorse those actions. It is a fictional scenario, and we take as given a common understanding that to depict something does not mean to condone it.
More information is needed before outrage should be dispensed.
The Other Phil on October 1, 2014 at 7:31 am
– – – – – – –
You quoted the theatre group’s facebook page,
{bold emphasis mine – JW}
The [theatrre group’s] facebook page summarizes:
“The scenario of the work sees an Australian environment minister confront an armed siege of the Australian Parliament by a group of eco-terrorists. In our application for funding to develop the piece, we made clear and explicit that through this scenario we in no way encourage or endorse those actions. It is a fictional scenario, and we take as given a common understanding that to depict something does not mean to condone it. ”
Standard legal type disclaimer stuff.
& but now the rest of the considerations . . . .
& . . . when asked if the play will induce despairing and emotionally compromised copycat extremists to re-enact the play will the play’s authors, with a straight face, say “We hope not” while crossing their fingers?
John
In our application for funding to develop the piece, we made clear and explicit [wink] that through this scenario we in no way encourage [wink] or endorse those actions [wink] [wink]. It is a fictional scenario, and we take as given [wink] a common understanding [wink] [wink] that to depict something does not [wink] mean to condone it [wink] [wink] [wink]
I think I’ll wait for the Braille version of the movie to come out.
Celebrate diversity!! As long as they agree with us in lock step.
Sooooooo. If I were global warming nutjob I will first look for their application form before killing. Very smart these folks.
CORRECTION:
“If I were a global warming nutjob…..”
$18,793 of OPM (Other People’s Money). They couldn’t raise that kind of chump-change from a few wealthy Patrons of the Arts? They had to get a handout from the taxpayers? I think the play will be abhorrent in more ways than the one we’re thinking. Someone needs to take a head count at the beginning and at the end of the play.
And BTW, whatever happened to that fine old tradition of bringing rotten vegetables to the theater just in case the production was rotten? I’m all for upholding tradition and that’s one tradition that should be upheld.
For those trying to re-write history and sticking to the line that “the violence is all on the left”, I would say don’t look at what extremist groups use for titles, or their manifestos, or the clothes they wear, etc.
Look at what they do.
In that sense there is very little difference between the far extremes of left and right or extremes of religiously controlled states or regions.
Characteristics include:
Fascist rule with dissent crushed, including murder;
Genocide of groups deemed to be a threat or “sub-human”;
Concentration camps;
Banning of elections;
Seeking links with like-minded groups and authorities.
So on the left and right we have (amongst many others):
The Nazis (right)
ISIS (right)
The Japanese Imperialists (right)
The Khmer Rouge (left)
Stalin’s USSR (left)
The claim the Nazis were left wing is ludicrous. The Nazis were major rivals to the communists in the early days of the development of the Hitler cult – they fought running battles on the streets. Communists were locked up or murdered under Hitler. Hitler chose pacts with fascist Japan and fascist Italy and invaded the USSR both to gain more territory and because he hated communism and viewed the soviets as sub-human.
The full name of the Party was Nazional Sozialistische Deutcshe Arbeitspartei.
The reason we call pre-war Germany leftist is because of the policies:
Gun registry; gun seizure; eugenics/population control; extensive food card programs; government control of means of production; nationalization of the schools; just to name a few.
These are progressive causes to this day, and are antithetical to individual liberties and free market. It’s all about policies, not labels.
James Abbott
October 1, 2014 at 7:48 am
“The claim the Nazis were left wing is ludicrous. The Nazis were major rivals to the communists in the early days of the development of the Hitler cult – they fought running battles on the streets.”
Little wonder. Commies and Nazis competed for the same voters.
Hitler and Stalin later became best buddies (for a while). Nazis visited Moscow, were received as friends, and got the Gulag camp plans.
Hitler once said, he admired the commies for their fighting will; the social democrats for their care for the little guy, but had nothing but disdain for the bourgeoisie (which is French for citizens).
Go figure.
Try starting with this link – http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
(Specifically look at 11-17)
Then remember WHO interned all Americans of Japanese ancestry 73 years ago.
Here is a list of how some public people would like to punish us for disagreement.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/the-silence-of-the-anti-defamation-league-suggests-they-endorse-defamation-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1581627
Good of you to link back to that travesty.
Strange how they used the term ” denier” which relates skeptics to events from the past ( though the alarmists say this was never the intention) and then went on to make videos featuring murder and called for killing/ locking up of deniers. Something deeply disturbing about all this.
In 2012 Australian climate “scientists” complained of death threats when someone casually mentioned a kangaroo culling at a dinner: http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2012/05/anu-death-threats-final-word.html
“Floating queerly and musically at the heart of the national capital is Aspen Island.”
The island floats queerly. Some islands are now gay. We are dealing with complete nutjobs.
Consider the case where the reason ‘they’*** are consistently looking like malevolent fanatics, with unhealthy fixations on imagining harm to anyone critical of the myth of dangerous climate change, is that they have total intolerance of independently created new ideas that are based on premises different than their own; they hate freedom of thought.
& they fear their belief oriented premises won’t withstand applied reasoning based premises. There fears have been confirmed by skeptic’s arguments, that is, their premises can’t withstand alternate reason based premises.
*** ‘they’ being those supporting complete faith in the pre-scientific mythic story that a crusade, a horrifically bloody one if necessary, is needed to save the earth from fossil fuel created CO2
John
The problem with a consensus is that nobody within the group will speak out against hate speech such as this.
More importantly, nobody will criticize the errors, or people speaking utter garbage who belong to the same group. Neither will they speak out in support of worthy comments made by people outside the group.
You find the same in politics. It is a very human trait. But such intolerance in the past we now look down upon.
I get the feeling some liberals without much money feel like they have been victimized by capitalism, they are blaming others for their failures by picturing themselves as slaves of the system, they have almost nothing while others have much more and they want to level the playing field for themselves by burning the plantation.
This type of extreme liberal likes the idea of immediate, drastic action on climate change, like the “Kill Climate Deniers” story plot of forcing the immediate cessation of all fossil fuel use, to effectively burn the plantation and erase the advantages others have gained over them. They make themselves feel and sound like good people for believing this by dismissing the economic catastrophe that their proposed actions would cause under the excuse that it will prevent even worse consequences from climate disaster in the future for our children. We must destroy rich people to save the planet and our children.
So the proposal of drastic, immediate, economic upheaval action on climate change is appealing on several levels to the worst of the liberals, it would bring down “big oil”, make rich people lose a lot of money, and make themselves feel courageous and like heroes for leading the planet saving action. And if you feel like you are a victim of capitalism then you probably have relatively little to lose if the economy collapsed, and a collapse forced to “save the children” would bring meaning to their disappointing lives and punish wealthier people who have obviously not lived by their superior liberal ideals.
And if they were wrong about global warming being a problem we need to act on? So what, they got what they wanted from their actions, they made the economic playing field more level by bringing down those they hate and they now have an excuse for their own sorry situation in life, they sacrificed a better life (others will think they gave up a lot) to save the planet with their heroic actions. So don’t discuss the science aspect with them, they don’t want to know what the right thing to do is, they just want an excuse to burn the plantation.
Under Kill Climate Deniers the AITC posts:
While depicting does not condone, it does put ideas in people’s heads that they may emulate. e.g., See current ISIS activities!
I find the title equivalent to the “rational” French Revolution’s resorting to the guillotine. Because of that “Noble Cause Corruption”, the
I recommend submitting“Pre-Editorial” comments helping them to direct their “creativity!
Explore the idea.
What does that mean anyway? Makes me think of the ‘more cowbell’ skit on SNL, explore the space…
How many complicated layers of B.S. get applied here? Am I supposed to pretend to believe that these guys are ‘urgently interested’ in the politics of climate change in Australia, and while they happen not to be on the denier side, their work Kill Climate Deniers has nothing in fact to do with killing climate deniers, even though eco terrorists and hostages will be part of the exploration of the idea, via this satirical journey through the tropes of psychobabble? What if I don’t want to pretend that?
Wish they’d cut the crap. At least Parncutt spoke in a clear and forthright manner. If they don’t even have the balls to stand openly by their message why utter the message at all? Or is Art the last refuge of the gutless?
Pretend irony is the shield against hate crime laws.
I am an amateur photographer who sells some photos online, at arts fairs, from local restaurants, etc. I have had great encouragement from very creative and artistic people that I have an “eye”. I don’t, however, have the pretentiousness that goes with modern art (as I, luckily, do not have an arts degree). Hence, my amateur status will probably remain active for the rest of my life. No grants heading my way. Still, I do need to spice up some of my bios and descriptions.
Luckily, I found these:
http://www.artybollocks.com/
http://500letters.org/form_15.php
I actually do use them, and the scary thing is I don’t have to edit them much.
Anyone recalling “Death of a President” (Bush assassination-chic) or deviant Warmists’ “No Pressure” 10/10 video some years ago will recognize the Brownshirt/Red Armband nature of these infantile-regressive, sociopathic Luddite Fetalists.
Rattlesnakes coiled on my front porch face decapitation with a shovel, no questions asked. So let it be with these degraded necrophiliacs.
Now a full-blown religion, complete with apostasy charges and fatwas. Congrats to the hockey teamers for turning climate science into a form of militant extremism. I am sure history will be kind to you.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog and commented:
The Left is the natural home of the modern totalitarian – and of all those who feel entitled by their superior morality to act as savages.
Aspen Island Theatre Company doesn’t have a separate existence from this grant.
The same small group of marxist scroungers and rentseekers use similar criminal front tactics to Australian unions to trouser several different grants.
This isn’t just a climate change related scam, it’s indicative of how the corrupt and incompetent equivalent of a lord mayor and council, masquerading as a territorial administration, grossly mismanages huge sums of money.
The ACT is a corruptocracy. It bears scrutiny.
First of all they have to find the climate deniers. I don’t know of any. surely no one denies the ‘climate’? but if they mean climate ‘change’ deniers I don’t know any of them either. surely no one denies the climate changes? maybe they mean global warming deniers? I don’t know any of them either. we know that humans do contribute some warming but its lost in the noise and is most likely inconsequential. so reading between the lines it comes down to just killing people who disagree with the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic ‘global’ warming. there are plenty of them but I think if a war starts a lot of eco-activists will be killed first … that’s just my opinion.