So the left wing lunatics over at The New Yorker thought it would be a good idea to record a podcast featuring climate activist Andreas Malm. Malm, who loves the environment, is the author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline, a manifesto that calls for "the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse," mainly by destroying property.
Yes, this is a real book.
He's not a terrorist by the way. He's just a pro-property damage activist.
Anyhow, here's the link to the podcast (notice the title):
Like, we're not saying the climate movement should embrace sabotage…
Buuuuuuuut maybe they should???
Toeing the line there New Yorker. Toeing the line.
Anyhow, I just want to give you a few things from the podcast, because I think they're important.
Here's Malm's response when asked by The New Yorker what actions he's recommending for the movement.
Well, I am recommending that the movement continues with mass action and civil disobedience, but also opens up for property destruction. So I'm not saying we should stop strikes or square occupations or demonstrations of the usual kind. I'm all in favor of that. But I do think we need to step up because so little has changed and so many investments are still being poured into new fossil fuel projects. So I am in favor of destroying machines, property, not harming people, that's very important distinction there. And I think property can be destroyed in all manner of ways or it can be neutralized in a very gentle fashion as when we deflated the SUVs. Or in a more spectacular fashion as in potentially blowing up a pipeline that's under construction.
Nope, nothing to worry about here. Just normal everyday person rhetoric. Definitely not violent or terroristic at all.
Speaking about a pipeline being constructed in Uganda and Tanzania, Malm said:
If people in that region were to attack the construction equipment, blow up the pipeline before it's completed, I would be all in favor of that. I don't see how that property damage could be considered morally illegitimate given what we know of the consequences of such a project.
Seems legit. No red flags here. I like how we just assume the "consequences of such a project" are worth destroying the property.
And when asked if he, himself would be involved in such actions:
Well if I were planning things I wouldn't tell you or anyone else. That's part of the whole idea of these kind of things. You don't say in advance what you're going to do if you plan to do something.
So this dude is a terrorist, plain and simple.
And The New Yorker is straight up promoting his ideology.
I'm telling you right now: if this guy was saying these things about, say, abortion and abortion clinics, the people on this podcast would be shouting "white nationalist fascist terrorist with a cherry on top!!!"
But they're not saying anything.
In fact, they're promoting him.
Because they're clowns.
This world is full of clowns.
And most of them seem to make their way into left wing circles.
P.S. Now check out our latest video: "The Media's Constant Lies Are Fueling This Chaos" 👇