I'll note here at the beginning that a book explicitly advocating violence and destruction appears to be perfectly A-OK with the Twitter sensors.
"A new book, "How to Blow Up a Pipeline," suggests that when it comes to climate change activism there should be room for tactics other than strict nonviolence and peaceful demonstrations."
Imagine for a moment, substituting "climate change activism" with any conservative cause about which people are passionate, say, abortion which many equate with murder, and then suggest that there "should be room for tactics other than strict nonviolence and peaceful demonstrations."
I wonder how that would be greeted?
But at least they're being out in the open about it. When it comes to leftist causes, maybe violence is suitable, desirable even.
"The Gray Lady" says so!
Before getting into the book, staff writer Tatiana Schlossberg parrots the climate hysteria so popular among the "smart set" by noting the failure of peaceful protests to change anything:
"Meanwhile, the polar icecaps melt, sea levels rise, hundreds of thousands of species may go extinct, fires rage, hurricanes boil, people continue to suffer and die."
For the record, the ice caps are not melting, fires are not raging, and much of the rest is nonsense as well. I hope to be getting into those matters in some detail in the future as I've been writing about climate hysteria for some time, but the bottom line is, we are not all doomed.
However, why let that spoil a good class-based communist manifesto?
"To say that the signals have fallen on the deaf ears of the ruling classes of this world would be an understatement. If these classes ever had any senses, they have lost them all," writes Malm, a Swedish professor of human ecology and climate change activist, in his compelling but frustrating treatise."
"Compelling." Keep that in mind.
One thing you should know about the book's author, Andreas Malm, he's really into Marxist new-think. In a previous book, "Fossil Capital," he outlines a novel reinterpretation of the Industrial revolution. From his publisher:
But why did manufacturers turn from traditional sources of power, notably water mills, to an engine fired by coal? Contrary to established views, steam offered neither cheaper nor more abundant energy—but rather superior control of subordinate labour.
Yep, we didn't turn away from "water mills" because steam was superior. Why, that is "contrary to established views." Also contrary to rational thinking.
But no, steam power, the precursor to today's material abundance, the technology that birthed the modern era and freed both men and women from toiling the land was actually about class warfare.
I'll be the first to admit the industrial revolution created enormous social upheaval, but let's not romanticize agrarian life either, which by today's standards was barely elevated above pure subsistence.
It does make you wonder what he's really advocating here.
To return to the New York Times review:
He argues that there should be room for tactics other than strict nonviolence and peaceful demonstrations — indeed, he is a bit contemptuous of those who offer strategic pacifism as a solution — and notes that fetishizing nonviolence in past protest movements sanitizes history, removing agency from the people who fought, sometimes violently, for justice, freedom and equality.
People did often have to use violence to secure freedom.
We're not talking about that here. We're talking about public energy and infrastructure policy being debated within the framework of democratic institutions through which change is accomplished by making arguments rather than making bombs.
But, like a frustrated child, Malm is tired of people not agreeing with him.
As his publisher explains:
Malm's solution is straightforward: sabotage, from local and everyday targets...
Did I mention this book is being freely promoted on Twitter? I think I mentioned that.
...(Malm is particularly focused on making city streets inhospitable to SUVs) to large scale acts of destruction.
‘Damage and destroy new CO2-emitting devices. Put them out of commission, pick them apart, demolish them, burn them, blow them up. Let the capitalists who keep on investing in the fire know that their properties will be trashed',
Sounds a little violency, but not to worry, they cover themselves.
First things first: How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire will not tell you how to actually blow up a pipeline. There are no clear instructions for how to create and detonate a device capable of exploding the average pipeline.
See, not violent at all!
It is not an instruction manual in that sense. As helpful as this kind of manual would be in the struggle for the continued existence of humanity, this book is no such thing.
"As helpful as this kind of manual might be."
But no, this is absolutely not that. Not at all.
Instead of such a manual, Malm has written an urgent polemic arguing for the absolute necessity of targeted industrial sabotage of the infrastructure of fossil capital. Necessary, that is, if we are to achieve anything close to mitigation of the worst effects of the unfolding climate crisis.
It just overtly calls for violence.
When you think about it, failing to monitor posts to Big Tech's satisfaction like Parler did is much worse than explicitly calling for the commission of violent acts as long as you remember to think "this supports my leftist agenda."
To review, enthusiastically encouraging violent destruction of private property is "compelling," part of a "provocative manifesto," and an "impassioned call" according to our media elite.
Your wanting to question whether masks are a good idea or believing voter fraud investigations should be sorted out in court?
Speaking of which, President Biden is destroying the fossil fuel industry and American energy independence along with it.