The Film
Billings, MT – November 25, 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 $40,868 from 342 backers so far.
The team is ramping up their efforts for the final push and Mr. King is enthusiastic that
he can reach his $50,000 goal by his November 30th, 1:59 AM EST deadline, especially
now that the election is behind us. 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 knees 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.

The Message
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 that the same problems do not arise again.

The Perks
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

The Producer-Director
Jeffrey D. King (J. D.) is a 22 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
[email protected] or Hank at [email protected]
The AXED: The End of Green Kickstarter funding campaign can be found at http://