Climate Change TERRORISTS

Climate Change TERRORISTS 

The New Hotness? Destroying Industrial Infrastructure. The New Yorker asks: 

Should the Climate Movement Embrace Sabotage?

Here’s a May New Republic article on Malm: 

The Climate Case for Property Destruction.

 Andreas Malm’s “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” urges activists to turn to tougher tactics:

What, then, is to be done? The main argument of How to Blow Up a Pipeline is simple: The climate movement should itself enact, through direct action, that prohibition on new fossil fuel infrastructure, and that dismantling of existing pipelines and power plants, which governments have so far refused to take on. Only if such equipment is damaged often and badly enough as to make its continued operation unprofitable does the stabilization of the climate stand a chance. For climate activists to confine themselves to peaceful protest is meanwhile to watch the earth become less and less hospitable to human life. Plenty of readers will react (as I did) with a sort of instinctive skepticism to Malm’s case that only widespread property destruction can forestall civilizational suicide, but his case deserves a hearing.

Emphasis mine. Note that this is the same leftist media that went all-out to blame Sarah Palin’s clip art for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in 2011, but they’ll all look the other way about their role in egging on domestic terrorism, if there is an attack on a refinery.

As Jonah Goldberg wrote in response to then-Vice President Biden calling the Tea Party “terrorists” eight months after all of the new civility language that Obama and the DNC-MSM pumped out that January in response to the Giffords shooting:

 To Hell with You People.

Flashback:

 Biden Land Management nominee ‘collaborated with eco-terrorists,’ traded testimony for immunity.

UPDATE: 

The Media is Whitewashing and Mainstreaming a Call to Terrorism.

 “The media’s response to How to Blow Up a Pipeline by Swedish Marxist author Andreas Malm has been a master class in the use of vague evasive academic language to make it seem harmless and courageous, the destruction of a paradigm, rather than people’s lives.”

(Updated and bumped.)

320Posted at 12:35 pm by Ed Driscoll   

M