Billings, MT – October 17, 2012 – AXED: The End of Green is an innovative new documentary from award-winning independent ﬁlmmaker Jeffrey D. King. It is currently in the fundraising stage and has been pledged some $13,200 from 110 backers so far. Mr. King is enthusiastic that he can reach his $50,000 goal by his November 30th, 1:59 EST deadline. But not without more help from backers. He will not receive a dime unless the project is fully funded, to $50,000, the minimum needed to produce this ﬁlm.
The subject has been touched on before, but Jeffrey and his crew maintain that their claim that this ﬁlm will help effect the end of the green movement should not come as a surprise. While people like Al Gore and Lisa Jackson and things like Solyndra and Climategate have been conservative fodder many times over, these are seen by the makers of AXED as mere branches and blossoms on the tree that is the modern environmental movement. They instead seek to hack deep down to the roots and expose and cut off things at their source. Hence AXED. Not all by themselves, as they hope their ﬁlm “will serve as a catalyst, a rallying point, for people concerned about abuses by the green movement in both government and the media, as well as to educate those not yet fully aware of what is going on around them. All that is really needed to bring this dangerous movement to its kneeʼs is a well timed, well placed, and well delivered blow. What better time than now? What better place than here? What better medium than ﬁlm?” to quote J. D.
Rather than slosh together a few nature scenes, economic statistics, and interviews, the ﬁlm will pay attention to quality and detail, which are key to keeping the audience engaged. To this they need the right team, sufﬁcient funding, and a plan both cohesive and comprehensive. But this is just the technical side of things. What are the actual points the ﬁlm is trying to make? We have asked one member of his marketing team to give us a few of them. Hereʼs what he has to say:
“The green movement has failed at itʼs stated and/or publicly acknowledged objectives. What many of the more sincere ones, who are the bulk of the movement but tend to be low in the ranks – this is a fairly standard arrangement in top-down movements – neglect is that economic growth, private property rights, and bottom-up, decentralized modes of organization and governance are actually all conducive to a healthy, clean environment, and not the other way around as maintained by many on the left. This is even more the case when these things are in combination. The beneﬁts are multiplied. So when their goals are to save the environment and yet they fail exceedingly to do so, in many cases making things worse or creating new problems, no amount of political power they have accrued and policies they have implemented can be cited as evidence in their favor.”
“The green movement has succeeded in co-opting the coercive power of government to achieve speciﬁc policies. But these policies do not help the environment, per se. What they accomplish in the main is to tie up resources, tie up jobs, tie up growth, and tie up our liberties. These things are not conducive to helping the environment and so can and often do cancel out the supposed beneﬁts of the policies, if there even were any. Most rank-and-ﬁle greens donʼt seem to know this. They are well-meaning but easily manipulated. But I honestly think that the higher-ups do know it, yet it remains of little concern to them because their real intentions inevitably have little to do with clean air, clean water, or clean energy. Raw power is their motive. It is a hard thing for those who make it to the top to remain pure, to enact policies that some how donʼt increase their power. It is a rare person in such a position that does not seek to use corrupt means to magnify it. I take a few pages from Hayek on this: the worst rise to the top, but also Lord Acton: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
But there is an upside:
“Free Markets work! They are essentially an amalgamation of voluntary exchanges between individuals and groups of individuals. Things that can be exchanged are goods and services, which can include anything and everything that can possibly be traded for something else. Such exchanges would not occur if they were not beneﬁcial to all the parties involved. Not unless coercion or fraud is a factor, but these things would are to be discouraged, prohibited even. Neither of these is present in a consistent free market system, by deﬁnition. And just how is such a system conducive to preservation of the environment? Because it is not in anyoneʼs best interest (in a system which discourages coercion and fraud) to pollute or erode or use up because the consumer will do his business elsewhere, once he realizes how detrimental it is to him in the long run. The facts can not be hidden from him if he has the initiative and faculties to uncover them and seek out alternatives, and there are no state-sanctioned roadblocks in his way. Thatʼs what competition is! We do not have truly free markets these days.”
“Federalism works! It is a system of interlocking voluntary compacts on various levels of jurisdiction. It does not root out all problems by itself but it keeps the powers that be jealous for the loyalty of their shared or potential individual members. Ideally, like any other form of competition, the main beneﬁciary is the consumer, i.e., the citizen. The more levels of federalism there are the more competition, which is why when we essentially only have two levels vying for the hearts and minds of the people, one of them is at the mercy of the other, and they are both as far away from the individual as possible, the products, these jurisdictions, are greatly diminished in quality. We have not had true federalism for close to a century, some would say more. It has been eroding since the day the Constitution was ratiﬁed.”
So instead of just decrying the problems that they see, they will offer up solutions and ways to take charge so the that same problems do not arise again.
Backers for the project can pledge any amount of $1 or more. Backers who pledge $5 or more will be credited in the ﬁlm. Backers who give an amount of $25 or greater will not only star in the credits, they will receive special thank-you gifts in the mail. What these gifts are depends on the speciﬁc amount, at intervals of $25, $42, $60, $125, $250, $500, $750, $1,000, $2,000, $5,000, and $10,000. As a sort of extra incentive, the gifts handed out for amounts of $1,000 or more, have a limit of how many of these gifts can be claimed. First come ﬁrst served on those, but there is no limit for the other rewards.
Jeffrey D. King (J. D.) is a 21 year old independent ﬁlmmaker from the Big Hole area of Montana. There he grew up in a ranching community and became familiar with many of the subjects the ﬁlm will delve into. Growing up under the Big Sky gave him not just a love for the world around him, the environment, but also a love for freedom. His previous ﬁlm (Crying Wolf, 2011), about the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, was the 2012 winner of the SAICFF “Best Creation” Jubilee Award. He was a self-taught ﬁlmmaker from a young age. An ambitious and passionate young man with a hunger for the truth, he has a B.S.B.A. in Business Management from Thomas Edison State College and makes his living making commercials and promotional videos. He currently resides around Billings, Montana.
For more information about AXED: The End of Green, contact Jeffrey at
firstname.lastname@example.org or Hank at email@example.com
Photo credit: terrellaftermath