"We were supposed to save the world by getting rid of anyone who argues or doesn't care enough"

Brilliant Downfall parody of the 10:10 eco-fascist story, with some great lines
"Killing peope who don't agree, for Christ's sake. I t was to be another couple of years before we started yet"
"It's OK there's still the Blackadder DVD set"


I believe we have Angry_Exile to thank for this video.

How to comply with 10:10, now we know the alternative...

Now that we know what the eco-fascists want to do to people who don't comply with their strictures, "No Pressure" maybe we should listen to Alex Masterley:

'Apparently, Richard Curtis, Dawn French, the Guardian and a lot of spoon fed government funded greenies thnk that it would be a tremendous hoot to blow us all up if we don't reduce our energy consumption by 10% on October 10th.

In order to avoid any messy and traumatic personal injuries, may I suggest to all readers that they make it easier to ensure compliance by increasing their consumption of energy by 11.1111% on October 9th.'

Here's that 10:10 video to remind you what some eco-mentalists think is funny...

10:10 a video response

Not as expensively produced as the original 10:10 video and whilst not subtle, certainly no less subtle than the original.



Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

10:10 the natural extension?

Eco-fascists taken to task for their vile video from the weekend.

Fighting 10:10

Tweeted:

@Sony I will never buy another Sony product unless you withdraw all support from 10:10 following their recent disgusting video.

@O2 I will end all my business's O2 contracts unless you withdraw all support from 10:10 following their recent disgusting video.

@kyocera I will ensure that all my business's Kyocera kit is replaced by that from ANO supplier unless you withdraw all support from 10:10

I wonder if I will get any replies...

More people fighting the eco-zealots at Daily Bayonet

Sunday morning catchup (Part 2)

1) Archbishop Cranmer has posted his thoughts on the 10:10 video and the comparison with the Islamist parody that I posted earlier today:

'by what reasoning was the original 10:10 Richard Curtis film ever deemed to be morally acceptable? Does this communicate truth, or is it a perversion of a creed? Does it incite hatred, or is it legitimate expression of belief?

What would be the response if those being exploded were homosexuals?

Or Muslims?

Or Socialists?

Isn't this precisely what the 'Islamist' in our midst did on 7th July 2005? You take your bombs onto London underground, identify the unbeliever, press a button and blow him to smithereens. Why is it 'funny' to blow up those who happen to believe that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon, yet grossly offensive to liquidate others for their sincerely-held beliefs?

Perhaps blowing 'the Right' to kingdom come is a legitimate pursuit: the world would doubtless be a far better place without heterosexual homophobes, Christian Islamophobes and Thatcherites.

And you can count on the pathologically-socialist luvvies and darlings to donate their time and talent free of charge in this righteous pursuit.

But this parody poses a searching question: what is the difference between 10:10 and 7/7, other than that one group thinks it 'funny'?'

2) UN Watch explains that:

'The U.N. commission into Israel’s May 31 flotilla clash declared during a U.N. Human Rights Council debate today that “even if Bin Laden himself were on the Mavi Maramara, Israel’s blockade would still be illegal.”

The statement was made by commissioner Desmond de Silva in response to questions posed in the council plenary by the Geneva-based UN Watch as to why the probe ignored voluminous evidence it submitted regarding the stated intentions of the Islamist flotilla members to physically confront Israel and become “Shahids,” or martyrs. (See below for statement and response from UN flotilla commission.)

The chair of the flotilla probe, Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, said that he had never heard the term “Shahid” before. However, he insisted that, in any event, the intentions of the IHH activists carried no legal relevance.

Some international lawyers disagree. “It is astonishing that the UN panel now openly admits to disregarding our evidence as to the violent, Jihadist and suicidal intentions of the IHH militants on the Mavi Marmara,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

“That the head of the probe said he never heard the word ‘Shahid’ before today means that he never even looked at the numerous video testimonies and other compelling evidence that we submitted to his inquiry,” said Neuer.

“Contrary to the commissioners’ attempt to downplay this evidence, the truth is that the entire interpretation of the facts hinges on who was the aggressor, and whether Israel’s soldiers attacked peaceful activists or instead acted in self-defense in face of a violent mob seeking to lynch them.”

“The declared intentions and state of mind of the passengers is extremely relevant. Indeed, the report itself touches on the question of whether the passengers’ purpose was humanitarian or political. Evidence that seven of the nine passengers killed in the clash had previously declared their intent to become ‘martyrs’ is something the inquiry obviously should have examined, yet failed to do so,” said Neuer.

“Moreover, while we submitted over 40 items (see submissions here)-whose receipt the UN acknowledged-the commission chair said today that he looked at only two. This is absolutely unacceptable. UN Watch calls on the Chair of the Human Rights Council to urgently investigate this serious breach of due process before the council votes on the report tomorrow.”'

Anti-Israel bias at the United nations, I am shocked...


3) The Mail reports on the charitable exploits of Bono:

'Bono's anti-poverty foundation ONE is under pressure to explain its finances after it was revealed that only a small percentage of money it raises reaches the needy.

The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6million in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to good causes (1.2 per cent).

The figures published by the New York Post also show that £5.1million went towards paying salaries.'

1.2% sounds pathetic.

'ONE spokesman Oliver Buston has now defended the way the organisation is run, insisting the money is used for promoting its campaign and raising awareness rather than being given straight to those who need help.

He said: 'We don't provide programmes on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organisation.'

Another spokesman in New York today dismissed the notion of lavish salaries being paid to its 120 members of staff and said the organisation was highly efficient in its raising of awareness.'

£5.1 million split between 120 staff is an average of £43,333.


4) The Telegraph report the unsurprising news that: 'Millions of parking tickets are being issued illegally all over the UK, according to a leading expert.'

Climate Change extremism - "Care to join us, no pressure"

I still can't believe that this video is for real, I keep expecting someone from 10:10 to appear and explain how it is just a publicity stunt and not to be taken seriously. Now whilst 10:10 and Richard Curtis are, I am sure, not really suggesting people should be blown up for not agreeing to go along with the policies of 10:10, they are just trying to get our attention, I wonder how they will feel when some eco-nut is inspired by this film to blow-up something or someone that they feel are not supporting 10:10. I hope this doesn't happen but there are some very odd people out there and 4x4s have been damaged by ecomentalists in the past 'coz they are destroying the planet'.


Incidentally "Getting your father to insulate the loft"; sexist?



I note that IN The Guardian 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong 'joked':

'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?

...

But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: "Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that's not worth jumping up and down about, I don't know what is."

"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," she adds.

Jamie Glover, the child-actor who plays the part of Philip and gets blown up, has similarly few qualms: "I was very happy to get blown up to save the world."'

Ah the certainties of the true believers, they are right and any one who does not believe is a 'denier' and deserves to lose a limb or at least a digit, if not be blown up. What delightful people, in earlier times I assume they would have been in favour of burning heretics at the stake.