Day 180: Entertainment as a Tool for Addiction to Violence

'I'm shutting your butt down': Quentin Tarantino's bizarre TV rant at Krishnan Guru-Murthy after refusing to answer questions over movie violence

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2260634/Quentin-Tarantinos-bizarre-TV-rant-Krishnan-Guru-Murthy-Django-Unchained-movie-violence.html#ixzz2HuPvNEG2

Quentin Tarantino launched an extraordinary tirade at an interviewer after refusing to answer questions about movie violence.

The Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction director erupted when Channel 4 News presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked whether there was a link between scenes in his notoriously bloody films and real-life attacks.

Tarantino, 49, snapped: ‘Don’t ask me a question like that – I’m not biting. I refuse your question. I’m not your slave and you’re not my master.

'I'm not your slave': Krishnan Guru-Murthy's questions angered controversial director Quentin Tarantino - who then launched into a bizarre rant onscreen

'You can’t make me dance to your tune. I’m not a monkey. I don’t want to talk about the implications of violence... because I’ve said everything I have to say about it.
'I have explained this many times in the last 20 years.
‘I just refuse to repeat myself over and over again because you want me to for you and your show. And your ratings.’


Should we have movies that glorify violence? No. Why would we choose to get pleasure out of harming others and seeing others harmed? If you had to go through the pain and suffering that takes place in violent movies, I guarantee you would not find it pleasant. I mean, for most people, stubbing your toe – really sucks. Getting sliced and stabbed and exploded, would be much worse. No one really wants to go through that in reality.

Is violence in entertainment responsible for the violence that gets acted out in real life? No. We are responsible. Violence does not put itself on TV, does not glorify itself by creating fantasy scenes that could never really be done in reality with perfectly scripted lines so that everything sounds really cool and no one says something that isn’t funny or right on the mark, and everyone has the perfect outfit and makeup and hair and everything looks just right, and the smoke effects and the lighting and creating just the perfect ambiance for the scene. Violence in reality is really not cool at all.

However, do violent movies have an effect on us in bringing out more violence in reality? Of course. When we allow violence to be presented on our TV screens and in the movies as something cool, that is the message we’re giving and some people are going to watch this stuff and get this glorified idea of violence and want to be that cool too, and so some will end up trying it out, as for some the temptation will be too great, and they will go and cause harm.

And we know this. How many times have you walked out of a movie and there was something you really liked about it, and you are thinking-‘yeah, I’m going to try that out’, or ‘I’m going to act more like that, that was cool.’ Or you just start copying lines and behaviors that you saw in the movie.

For examples in how we are most definitely affected by that which we watch and how television and various forms of entertainment has been used to implant ideas into our minds as we essentially don’t have any clue as to how our mind operate, yet there is an entire science devoted to that and how to take advantage, check out this documentary: The Century of the Self, and also to see the influence of Propaganda watch: The Power Principle and Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land

Some will say that it’s one’s own choice and personal freedom to be able to have things like violent movies and video games, but that ‘freedom’ is tied to the entire system that rob others of their freedom to even just live or not be raped or not be. Even if you are not the one that carries out the violence in physical reality, if you are still glorifying it and supporting it, and living that example to others, who then do go and act out on it, then you are in fact responsible.

Obviously real freedom is that which doesn’t harm anyone. You are not the only being here, you are one of billions who are no less and no more than you, and thus we can’t count ourselves as separate from everyone else, and expect that we can live according to some rules while others have other rules, like we can have freedom even if that freedom takes away another’s freedom. How can you live according to a principle of so-called ‘freedom’, when it is actually robbing others of theirs? Exactly, you can’t. That’s not actually freedom. It’s abuse. We are talking about physical violence being done unto individuals. It’s obviously not acceptable in any way whatsoever.

What is one primary reason these kind of films are allowed? Is it because there are that many people who like violence? Did they like violence before they saw it as represented as something apparently awesome and cool? Did it start with movies/media, or did it start actually within the family, where parents who live patterns of getting a kick out of violence pass it on to the children and so on from generation to generation? So it is not something that humans are born with, it is learned through the examples around us as our parents, adults, video games, movies, books, etc that are in our environment that we’re exposed to. If we only had examples where there is no making violence a positive thing, then we would not learn that behaviour. And thus, why we must stop ourselves as the patterns of accepting violence that we exist as, to take responsibility for what we are accepting and allowing to exist in this world, that leads to people being harmed in every way possible, as within the principle of do unto another as you’d have done unto you, you would not want to be the victim of a violent act.

So back to what is the primary reason these kind of films and the positive portrayal of violence is allowed? Profit. It is good for business. It makes people accept war and want to be soldiers or mercenaries and go to war, which is all very profitable for the companies that supply the merchandise used in war. I mean, until the human being become able to direct their mind, as their thoughts, feeling and emotions, we are allowing human beings to become programmed to enjoy and get pleasure from violence, which then leads to actual violence being committed. It’s like a simple math equation, where you have this plus that, equals that.

It comes down to a simple point of, do you really want to support that which supports harm? When it is something not necessary, and not even real anyway? It is simply an energetic response to a certain stimulus, which prove you’re nothing more than a preprogrammed mind controlled robot.

So if you no longer want to be mind controlled, and develop self direction to become a being of principle who has the freedom to act in the way that is most supportive for all life, take the free DIP Lite course, follow the Journey to Life blogs, and visit the forums at Desteni, to start your process to walk yourself out of your preprogammed nature and into real living as a being of real integrity and honor for life.

Related Articles

Day 196: After Death Communication – Part 45

Day 66: Wanting to Seek Revenge Character

Day 132: Does Copyright Make Sense? Or Just Cents?

As I was reading an article from Economist’s Journey To Life: Day 127: Copyright Scam, an interesting point came up for consideration. The post is about Copyright, and specifically about a case where a man from Thailand had his friends and family send him text books from there, as he could sell them for more in the U.S. He was sued and lost, but is busy appealing the case before the Supreme Court.

The question before the courts is whether the copyright owner’s permission is required, to sell products within the U.S. that were purchased elsewhere. Theodore Olsen, the attorney representing the publisher, implied that this would help the global economy, as “The whole idea of copyright laws is to provide people with an incentive to create books, movies, or other works of art. If you take away that incentive, you’re not going to have creators out there doing things that give us pleasure or educate us.”

In the blog, a great point is made, pointing out that the point of copyright is to make a profit, and that is the same thing that the guy was doing by selling the text books. So here we see the double standard that is at play within the current system. Where the system is supposed to be about ‘anyone can succeed’, as if it’s a free-for-all, level-playing-field, where you can do what you can to make profits, but then there are rules that protect the profit making opportunities of some, while preventing others.

A point within this that is really important to consider is - what does it really mean if we require the incentive of profits and control over profits, in order to make us create things? It means that we’re really doing it for the money, and not purely for the expression of it, because it’s what we’d actually like to do and it’s an actual expression of ourselves. Especially because, we know, that we live in a system where you require money to live. So for many, in fact for most, it is a case of life-and-death survival where if you don’t make enough income, you will not be able to afford effective life-support in the system. So, when considering that, it’s easy to see how one would want to latch on to the idea of copyright, as ‘if I can make something and sell it and copyright it, then I am guaranteed money which means my life security is guaranteed, and I’ll be able to have an enjoyable life here and not one of suffering and lack. So essentially this means, that because money has been tied directly to our survival, and that we are not provided with enough money to live with, necessitates that we must find ways to get money, by doing jobs and creating things. So, essentially we’ve enslaved ourselves, where if you don’t find a way to make money you’re toast.

And within that, we don’t support everyone with effective ways to make money, and that’s why people look to ideas like this, of buying something cheaper in one place and selling it for more in another. That is actually the foundation that capitalism is founded on, it happens daily in the stock exchange, buying and selling, buying and selling, buying cheap, selling high.

What this case over copyright shows, is how our entire living in this world is one based on fear, because if you said, hey let’s take away copyright, there would be the reaction of ‘but that’s taking away a possible opportunity for me to be secured some profits if I make something’ and thus it comes down to a point of ‘my survival isn’t guaranteed’, and thus why we go for things and laws that look like it might provide us the opportunity to protect some profit for ourselves.

But within this, what hasn’t been considered, is changing the very starting point foundation of our system – to where survival is not withheld to force work out of the human, which churns out things like those movies that you can tell right away were made just to make some money and not because they are any kind of quality expressive work, and would never have been made if it wasn’t for that they could make money from it. Yet it’s this idea that without the incentive of ‘having to make money or else you can’t afford to live properly’ that no one would do/produce anything, that inhibits us from seeing, realizing and understanding that this is no way to live, that most of the entire population does not appreciate or like in any way, having to work just to survive.

Not only that, it cannot be claimed that the human would not produce/create anything, because money has not always existed, so how did we ever start creating things, if we weren’t getting paid? Yes that’s right, we weren’t getting paid and we still created things for our pleasure – music, art, etc. We in fact still do many things to this day without getting paid, even as difficult as that is, when most people have to spend so much time working to survive. Without the survival point driving people, not so much to create art and music and books, but working in dead-end retail jobs for bare minimum pay, and that is just in the elite countries, which is a small portion of the world’s entire population. The rest of the population endure even harsher conditions just trying to survive. Now, just imagine how much art, music and things to enjoy that all those people could be producing, if not caught up in the slavery system.

The best ‘incentive’ for humanity to create real ‘works of art’ as real self-expression, would be to provide for every single individual the utmost opportunity to live and thrive, as then humanity can actually begin to relax, and the expression can really start flowing. And the art that would come out of that, will not be made for money or survival, but as a real movement of self to create something, and share it with the world.