Posted on 10/23/2022 5:43:47 AM PDT by DFG
In January of 2021, The New York Times promoted a book titled How To Blow Up a Pipeline by transparently radical author Andreas Malm. On Thursday, the Times directly promoted Malm by publishing his guest essay under the headline "History May Absolve the Soup Throwers." That's too tender a headline, for Malm thinks soup throwing at a Van Gogh painting isn't optimal:
I tend to think sabotage is most effective when it is precise and gritty. When activists from the same group smashed gas stations in April this year, they hit the nail on the head. Gasoline, unlike a van Gogh painting, is a fuel of global warming. There is a whole planetary layer of stations, pipelines, platforms, derricks, terminals, mines and shafts that must be shut down to save humanity and other life-forms. When governments refuse to undertake this work, it is up to the rest of us to initiate it. That is the rationale for sabotage: to aim straight for the bags of coal.
While the Times routinely rails against the "insurrection" on January 6 and sees all "domestic terrorism" as a right-wing problem, it promotes a climate insurrection and left-wing domestic terrorism. Malm explicitly champions sabotage and violence -- even guerrilla warfare! -- as an efficient path to ending fossil fuels:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Shoot to kill orders.
No such thing as fossil fuels.
Good plan, you imbecile. One of the major factors killing the people in the US is the inflation from Biden’s decision to kill the XL Pipeline, restrict federal oil leases, and increase the time it takes to get permits for drilling, distribution, and refining distillate fuels. Oil is used in everything from pharmaceuticals, packaging, and distribution of products in the US. If Biden gave a damn about the people, he’d encourage oil production, not throttle it.
How does throwing soup at a Van Gogh painting change or effect anything? Other than the state of the painting...
If Mr Malm lived naked in a forest I might actually take him seriously. But then we would never hear from him if he did.
Bkmk
Win-win. Create jobs, create food for Carrion, cheaper energy, mass eco-nut suicide…
Blow up the NY Slimes building, bounce the rubble then salt the earth.
Insurrection by brainwashed indoctrinated idiots it would seem. Spoiled rotten idiots.
This pussy at the NYT might think of those tactics a bit differently if others, with justification of their own, view arms of the media such as the NYT as something worthy of guerrilla tactics.
This is the essence of males (and females, too) on the Left. A vanishingly small proportion of them have ever taken up arms in combat, so they are all on board for it.
Then, invariably, they end up whining and sniveling like their hero Che Guevara when they are cornered and captured by the authorities, begging for their lives.
Pathetic.
These people a truly INSANE
My favorite!!!
There must be a way...
To get those that want to ban fossil fuels, to suffer the consequences of their wishes...
by...
proposing or forcing them to make do without the ‘fossil-fuels’ energy that they enjoy.
Thus, if the NY Times wishes to ban fossil-fuels, cut off their energy that comes directly or indirectly from fossil-fuels, and that includes electricity.
Anybody that calls for ending fossil-fuel energy, should have to find a different energy source. They should be directly targeted without affecting those around that are not as foolish.
Osama should have spared the WTCs and Pentagon for NYT and Compost buildings
These are the biggest CO2 producing cities in the world. Perhaps NYC should stop preaching to everyone else.
https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/cities-with-the-most-carbon-emissions?slide=11
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.