Review by 'Rerevisionist' of   David Attenborough   Green Planet
BBC TV 2022

---

The BBC really is an odd outfit. Accompanying their online blurb for Attenborough is a piece on Russia's most infamous and cruel ruler. Guess who? I haven't checked the tiny print for credits, rights, etc; probably Attenborough gets the parasite's share.

For awakening people, see my review of Attenborough's Life on Air. ('On Air' referred to wireless broadcasting in British English).

Interesting to speculate on the scriptwriting. Attenborough is of course a lifetime propagandist for Jews, with as much interest in science as (for example) Stalin in genetics. So it is rather silly to expect anything profound. The first episode professes to deal with 'the rainforest'. This is appropriate to him, in fact, since the etymological meaning of 'forest' is land allocated for the pleasure of a ruler. "We" have devastated, or repurposed, huge areas for growing tree crops. "We" in Jewish usage means whites, not Jews, when something is Defined to be unpleasant'. And it means Jews, not whites, when discussing such things as the Second World War, a tremendous victory for Jews, of which Attenborough is just one specimen.

As the studio shot indicates, much of the filming is made indoors—far more controllable. The shots of the giant Rafflesia look studio shots to me; no sign of rain, insects, animals as wild nature provides.

Two bit-part players, filmed outdoors from the air, are balsa trees (fast growing with cells presumably as air-filled as possible), and the Poison Arrow tree (oozes poisonous sap, smooth trunk most of the way up). Wikipedia says in effect it's mostly harmless apart from the sap, and has a wide distribution range, an is about as dense as balsa—if you like to know. A fascinating sidelight on the first episode is the way parasites are shown as likely to be doomed to fail. I wonder if this is a note introduced by Jewish writers? Very likely, I'd say. And up-to-date—this episode didn't refer to climate change at all, though perhaps I dozed off.
      The examples given were the poison arrow tree, providing nests for some type of starling. Tis seems to have led to the deaths of these trees, though the mechanism, if any, was obscure to me. The other example was leaf-cutter ants, snipping off portable bits of leaf to take back to an underground fungus. This must be a double tribute, to modern hypersensitive detectors of trace gases, and to computer-controlled digital cameras. Some mechanism seemed to ensure that this relation was doomed to weaken and fail. And finally we have rafflesia tapping lianas which put more energy into climbing up than defending themselves.

What irritated me, in addition to the BBC support for lifetime liars, was the avoidance of science. I felt this stuff was like Victorian picture books animated by modern techniques. Why should there be male and female plants needing pollination? What about micro forms of life? Why should photosynthesis with chlorophyll be a 'key' chemical reaction above all others, spoken with open-mouthed pseudo-honesty typical of Jews—surely other molecules could have trapped sunlight? What about DNA and the ways in which it presumably evolved itself?

Anyway. Never mind. Soon enough DA will join the vast number of vanished specimens, once driven by obscure instincts to react to external events which other instincts selected... identification of non-members and a lifetime of frozen behaviours and, when possible, violence. I found and amplified an article on human parasitism, which some readers might like to ponder. In the words of H G Wells, A time will come when men will sit with history before them or with some old newspaper before them, and ask incredulously, "Was there ever such a world?"

---

Rae West. Uploaded 14 Jan 2022