What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire

[EthanAllen]

I too am suspicious of anyone who tells me not to think for two hours and then wants to present to me anything at all while I'm not thinking.

How can you not be processing the information in the movie and then participate in a discussion afterwards?

Of course people were thinking about the movie while watching it.

I got a chance to see this movie, and wound up walking out after 30 minutes. It was hurting my eyes. Several people I watched it with complained about the editing of this movie. Maybe at some point I'll try to finish watching it.

The way the movie was edited was a metaphor for how we are being bombarded with images of the commodification of life.

[EthanAllen]

As I said, the eradication of modern society and humans in particular, is the goal of the eco-terrorists who produced this movie.

The traditionalist wing of the modern conservative movement (Russell Kirk) was actually very critical of finance capitalism/modernity because of it's tendency to disrupt traditional families living in sustainable communities. The process is called "creative destruction".

Interestingly, this is Bin Laden's major critique of globalization - modern western culture is destroying traditional islamic culture.

[Insurgent]

I too am suspicious of anyone who tells me not to think for two hours and then wants to present to me anything at all while I'm not thinking.

How can you not be processing the information in the movie and then participate in a discussion afterwards?

Of course people were thinking about the movie while watching it.

I got a chance to see this movie, and wound up walking out after 30 minutes. It was hurting my eyes. Several people I watched it with complained about the editing of this movie. Maybe at some point I'll try to finish watching it.

The way the movie was edited was a metaphor for how we are being bombarded with images of the commodification of life.

Exactly, EthanAllen. The point that the film makers were trying to make is that since we were watching as a group, we're watching it straight through without stopping. Since the subject matter is so dense and the pace so quick, the viewer would get completely lost if you stopped to internalize and argue any single point; take in the whole film, digest it and discuss afterwards.

One of the reasons why I bought the DVD is so that I can pause it and watch at my leisure, researching different topics that they bring up as I go along.

The did touch on the style of editing employed in making the film; it's supposed to be somewhat unnerving and jarring. In the "Zeitgeist" thread someone touched on the effect that art can have in the documentary style film; it has its place of course. Someone else came along and remarked that perhaps it would be easier to watch if it were just text scrolling across a black screen!

[EthanAllen]

Exactly, EthanAllen.

Hey, great minds think alike!

[error]

The did touch on the style of editing employed in making the film; it's supposed to be somewhat unnerving and jarring. In the "Zeitgeist" thread someone touched on the effect that art can have in the documentary style film; it has its place of course. Someone else came along and remarked that perhaps it would be easier to watch if it were just text scrolling across a black screen!

Here are a couple of helpful hints for you.

First, hitting the smite button when someone brings up a valid point is not going to win friends and influence people.

Nor is ignoring the point entirely, which you seem to have done.

This film seems designed to prey on the emotional and lead them to a conclusion not supported by facts, but by the falsehoods, half-truths and unusual videography with which this film was made. The conclusion is entirely supportable by facts, of course, but for whatever reason the filmmakers chose not to include the facts which would support the conclusion and instead used, well, a bunch of crap. This is the largest problem I see with this film.

Further, that the filmmakers explicitly ask us to suspend our cognitive abilities -- IN THE FILM ITSELF -- and then attempt to pass it off as a documentary is inexcusable.

If the film was made for Democrats who are already emotionally invested in the falsehoods and half-truths which the film uses, then it's going to be very effective -- for them.

But for those of us whose watchwords are science, logic and reason, this film fails miserably.

Oh, and I have my own DVD of the film.

[alphaniner]

Did anyone make it to the "Parable of the Tribes" bit?  The moral of which is that preparation toward self defense is a de facto equivalent of initiation of aggression?  It doesn't top the Nomad Utopia, but... wowzers.

One thing did cross my mind about the aforementioned utopian fantasy though.  There aren't very many Mongolian-Americans.

[Insurgent]

The did touch on the style of editing employed in making the film; it's supposed to be somewhat unnerving and jarring. In the "Zeitgeist" thread someone touched on the effect that art can have in the documentary style film; it has its place of course. Someone else came along and remarked that perhaps it would be easier to watch if it were just text scrolling across a black screen!

Here are a couple of helpful hints for you.

First, hitting the smite button when someone brings up a valid point is not going to win friends and influence people.

Nor is ignoring the point entirely, which you seem to have done.

This film seems designed to prey on the emotional and lead them to a conclusion not supported by facts, but by the falsehoods, half-truths and unusual videography with which this film was made. The conclusion is entirely supportable by facts, of course, but for whatever reason the filmmakers chose not to include the facts which would support the conclusion and instead used, well, a bunch of crap. This is the largest problem I see with this film.

Further, that the filmmakers explicitly ask us to suspend our cognitive abilities -- IN THE FILM ITSELF -- and then attempt to pass it off as a documentary is inexcusable.

If the film was made for Democrats who are already emotionally invested in the falsehoods and half-truths which the film uses, then it's going to be very effective -- for them.

But for those of us whose watchwords are science, logic and reason, this film fails miserably.

Oh, and I have my own DVD of the film.

+1 to you error, for getting your own DVD.  In fact I have applauded you on at least one other occasion on this thread; if someone smote you, know that it wasn't me. The only time I will smite someone is if they attempt to hijack a thread, or appear to have a pompous or know-it-all attitude. Most of the time I just ignore what is said; I don't even have anyone on "ignore". Even if someone posts something false, but then accepts correction, I consider that a plus.

Back to the film. I am hesitant to label it as a true documentary, by dictionary definition. While it portrays factual material, it is really a story with a point-of-view. In fact, the main page of their website does not refer to the film as a documentary, but rather "A middle class white guy comes to grips with Peak Oil, Climate Change, Mass Extinction, Population Overshoot and the demise of the American Lifestyle."

If it were a classic documentary, it would feature contradictory sources to dispute every fact that is discussed. A classic example of a true documentary is the 1970 film "Woodstock". To contrast, the style of this film is not unique; quite a few similarly structured films have been coming out in the last decade, for example: Roger and Me, Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices, Why We Fight, Super-Size Me, etc which are not neutral films, but stories based on facts.

Is "What a Way To Go" neutral? I would argue that it likely is not. Like the makers of the film, it has a heart, a mood, a thought-process and a perspective. That makes it all the more interesting to me; it is the job of the viewer to discern what resonates with them about the film and to think deeper about what doesn't, just as we treat our interactions with other people.

[CNHT]

+1 to you error, for getting your own DVD.  In fact I have applauded you on at least one other occasion on this thread; if someone smote you, know that it wasn't me. The only time I will smite someone is if they attempt to hijack a thread, or appear to have a pompous or know-it-all attitude. Most of the time I just ignore what is said; I don't even have anyone on "ignore". Even if someone posts something false, but then accepts correction, I consider that a plus.

This movie is false but I didn't smite you for promoting it as if it were something to take seriously.

Back to the film. I am hesitant to label it as a true documentary, by dictionary definition. While it portrays factual material, it is really a story with a point-of-view. In fact, the main page of their website does not refer to the film as a documentary, but rather "A middle class white guy comes to grips with Peak Oil, Climate Change, Mass Extinction, Population Overshoot and the demise of the American Lifestyle."

I would hardly call it factual.

If it were a classic documentary, it would feature contradictory sources to dispute every fact that is discussed. A classic example of a true documentary is the 1970 film "Woodstock". To contrast, the style of this film is not unique; quite a few similarly structured films have been coming out in the last decade, for example: Roger and Me, Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices, Why We Fight, Super-Size Me, etc which are not neutral films, but stories based on facts.

I would agree that those are movies that do not entertain any other point of view because they have an agenda.

Is "What a Way To Go" neutral? I would argue that it likely is not. Like the makers of the film, it has a heart, a mood, a thought-process and a perspective. That makes it all the more interesting to me; it is the job of the viewer to discern what resonates with them about the film and to think deeper about what doesn't, just as we treat our interactions with other people.

I think you missed the point. This movie is NOT based on 'facts' since there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest it's all wrong from other sources that are more scientific and not as emotional one of which is junkscience.com. To me it's just another one of those movies that is intended to prey on the emotions of non-thinking people, and incite people's guilt for having accomplished something in life, typical of the left and the incitement of 'class envy'.

What do these people expect you to do once you see the movie? Give up your cars, homes and live in a cave? Is this movie intended to justify population cleansing? Relocation? Eradication of cars? What?

Once again another example of eco-terroristic mind control.

[CNHT]

"The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University

Damned capitalists!

law, you need to give up your home, cars, and eating meat, wear a loincloth and go live in a cave.

[EthanAllen]

This movie is NOT based on 'facts' since there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest it's all wrong from other sources that are more scientific

This from someone who has not seen the movie.

[EthanAllen]

"The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University

Damned capitalists!

law, you need to give up your home, cars, and eating meat, wear a loincloth and go live in a cave.

Actually we may all be reduced to that if those bastards keep sucking wealth away from the rest of us!

Thomas Jefferson accurately predicted the current situation over 200 years ago:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

from Jefferson:

"The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards.  These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and, lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work.  I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands?  These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored.  I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.  The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one.  Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in gemetrical progression as they rise.  Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.  The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on.  If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.  If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed.  It is too soon yet in our own country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent.  But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."

[alphaniner]

As I said, the eradication of modern society and humans in particular, is the goal of the eco-terrorists who produced this movie.

Isn't this commonly referred to as guilt by association?  The film never promoted, never congratulated, never so much as hinted at anything I could even broadly categorize as eco-terrorism.  Nor did it ever suggest any solutions that would involve "the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few."  There's no doubt that these have been the means and ends of much - if not most - of the environmental movement, as your voluminous quote thread demonstrated.  In that regard, I can't blame people for not bothering to watch the film, or for that matter not paying any attention to the subject matter in general.

But if you're not gonna pay attention to something, perhaps judging the character and intent of every individual associated with it is unwise.  I haven't done the research necessary to do so either, but what I have seen is that many of the people involved are far more culpable for their lack of a solution/goal than for anything approaching the motives you mentioned.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that this acquits them of such motives.  Just that maybe you should take the time to aim before throwing those stones.

Edit:

On another note, consider this.  Free-market advocates (to use a general term) wax poetic about how the 'fall' of a business is ultimately better than artificially propping it up.  Better for the market in general, at least, if not always better for those directly affected by the 'fall.'  From what I've read so far of the Thirty Theses, the author and those he quotes are doing nothing more than taking this idea and extending it to civilizations and humanity at large.  This is a qualitative difference - albeit a very considerable one - not a quantitative difference, so it is not outrageous or illogical to suggest that the same rules may apply.

[CNHT]

As I said, the eradication of modern society and humans in particular, is the goal of the eco-terrorists who produced this movie.

Isn't this commonly referred to as guilt by association?  The film never promoted, never congratulated, never so much as hinted at anything I could even broadly categorize as eco-terrorism.

For a film that makes such dire predictions, it is not. It is not different from other films like it that also are advocating for something to be done.

Nor did it ever suggest any solutions that would involve "the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few."  There's no doubt that these have been the means and ends of much - if not most - of the environmental movement, as your voluminous quote thread demonstrated.  In that regard, I can't blame people for not bothering to watch the film, or for that matter not paying any attention to the subject matter in general.

Well, the 'solutions' offered are always for the common person to pull back on modern consumption, and even allowed themselves to be taxed more. I have always said that my opposition to this kind of thing is that it attempts to unite people politically by using one ideology. I'd rather use my own personal respsonsibility to be a steward of the earth, in my own way. I don't need the government to tax me so they can make sure I dont' dump my oilchange into your well.

But if you're not gonna pay attention to something, perhaps judging the character and intent of every individual associated with it is unwise.  I haven't done the research necessary to do so either, but what I have seen is that many of the people involved are far more culpable for their lack of a solution/goal than for anything approaching the motives you mentioned.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that this acquits them of such motives.  Just that maybe you should take the time to aim before throwing those stones.

There have been at least 8 such movies of this type and frankly I'm getting sick of it. They are promoting nothing but Agenda 21, which is a power grab.
How is it you people can see this with the Islamic terrorism 'threat' but not these eco-threats? I call them eco-terrorists not because they are attempting to harm you physically in most cases, but because they are trying to instill FEAR into people in order to acheive their goals.

Bottom line is, what do they want  you to do? If someone wants to develop alternative fuels, I would encourage them to do so. If they want to recycle, same deal. But if the forces of eco-terrorism are to be listened to, we'd all better do what, you tell me? It's all about money...I've seen this going on for too long so I can't take movies like this seriously.

[CNHT]

To wit, here is Ron's latest missive which contains some suggestion to support what I am saying:


September 20, 2007

Dear friend,

Our American way of life is under attack. And it is up to us to save it.

The world's elites are busy forming a North American Union.  If they succeed, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ol' USA will only be a memory. We cannot let that happen.

The UN wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.

Our right to own and use property is fading because bureaucrats and special interests are abusing eminent domain.

Our right to educate our children as we choose is under assault. "No Child Left Behind" is seeing to that. And our right to say "no" to forced mental screening of our school-aged children is nearly gone.

The elites gave us a national ID card. They also gave us the most misnamed legislation in history: The Patriot Act. And these same people are pushing to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and erase our national borders.

Record government debt is putting a burden on our children and grandchildren that is shameful.

Yes. Our American way of life is under attack. And it's understandable that many are concerned, even discouraged, about the kind of country our children and grandchildren will inherit.

But we must never let discouragement become surrender.

One reason I am NOT discouraged is because I know I am not fighting alone. Each day I head out I know that you and thousands of other patriotic, freedom-loving Americans are right beside me, standing brave and true for what is good and right.

I need your help now, more than ever, to save the country we love...for the people we love.

My wife Carol and I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary early this year. We are proud parents of five children and 18 grandchildren. We love them very much, as I know you love your family.

As a U.S. congressman, I always think about the well-being of my family and of all the families of our great nation when I cast a vote or introduce legislation. I also remember that I have sworn a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

For me, upholding that oath is the first and best way to preserve and protect the blessed American way of life for our children and grandchildren.

And now you know why I'm running for president of the United States.

I ask for your help. Please send your maximum donation today by going to https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

Sincerely,

Ron

[alphaniner]

I'm not criticizing your overall attitude towards the issue.  In fact I think it is quite reasonable (and I mean the strong 'reasonable,' being the antithesis of insanity).  But the fact is the film itself is not what you claim it to be.  There is nothing in the film, nothing, that suggests or even lends itself to any sort of sort of governmental, authoritarian solution.  I did get a 'bad vibe' from a couple of the people featured, I admit, but overall, I don't think anyone with a 'totalitarian agenda' of any scope would have much use for this particular film.  Why?  Because the overall theme is that there is no solution.  More appropriately, there are no steps that can be followed to 'fix things.' 

That is a hell of a thing to say, I admit.  But from what I have seen, I don't believe that position is qualitatively different from the Free Stater attitude toward government.  Namely, that it failed/is failing, it can't be salvaged by more of the same, and even if it could, it is not worth salvaging.  Again, taken on face value, that last sentence can describe a loooooot of different ideologies.  But I used the Free Stater comparison not just for sake of familiarity.  What I see in the film (and in some of the related information posted here like The Thirty Theses) is nothing more than a call for a "Free State" type response to what is ambiguously referred to as our civilization, from the standpoint that there are alternatives.  I may think they are a bit nutso, and their point of view is decidedly bleak.  But it does not lend itself to authoritarian aspirations.  Quite the opposite, I think they are just very very pessimistic second cousins of Free Staters.  And I can't, on principle, condemn them for that.