Yikes: The New Yorker Gives a Platform for Advocating 'How to Blow up a Pipeline'

AP Photo/Jay Reeves

Democrats have been going all-in to push their climate change agenda in Joe Biden’s trillions of dollars, boondoggle of a budget reconciliation bill.

We’ve seen a lot of extremism in the climate change movement.

But The New Yorker has just given oxygen to something that’s straight-up encouragement to commit  violence — in the name of the environment — against property.

They asked the question, “Should the Climate Movement Embrace Sabotage?” as their headline, and then featured an interview with Andreas Malm about his book, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline.”

Malm is a climate activist and a lecturer at Lund University in Sweden. According to The New Yorker, he “studies the relationship between climate change and capitalism, insists that the environmental movement reconsider its roots in nonviolence.”

Malm told interviewer David Remnick he is recommending the movement “open up for property destruction.”

“I am in favor of destroying machines, property—not harming people. That’s a very important distinction.

Property can be destroyed in all manner of ways. Or it can be neutralized in a very gentle fashion, as when we deflated [the tires on] the SUVs or in a more spectacular fashion, as in potentially blowing up a pipeline that’s under construction.”

But hey, at least he isn’t in favor of kidnapping.

Malm spoke about doing “intelligent sabotage” against the fossil fuel industry. He described an example of what people could do, referencing what could become the world’s longest, electrically heated crude oil pipeline.

The pipeline involves a deal between Uganda and Tanzania and would run 1,440 kilometers, from western Uganda to the Indian Ocean in Tanzania. It would be done in partnership with the French oil company Total.

“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,” Malm said. “I don’t see how that property damage could be considered morally illegitimate.”

Malm was asked if he was planning any such action, to which he responded if he were, he wouldn’t tell Remnick. Malm did say, however, that he, of course, would be part of such actions that he advocates in the book. “Anything else would be irresponsible,” he declared.

“The planet is on fire…it’s underwater with storms…yet people don’t rise up,” Malm raged. “Dogmatic commitment to nonviolence” is wrong, he argued. He cited the BLM riots — saying that was an integral part of the “uprising” that brought many people into the street.

Malm argued that the storming of the police precinct headquarters in Minneapolis was a “catalyst” for the movement. He argued that the violence helped the BLM movement. He fails to mention they burnt down the police station and that people were killed in the riots. And that it turned Americans against the BLM in the main (except for the radical Democrats).

So, exactly why is The New Yorker giving a huge platform to this person who is advocating criminal actions to further his political aims? They’re not just reporting on it; they’re actually asking the question: should one engage in “intelligent sabotage?” as though this is a rational choice. Apparently, violence and crime is okay — if it jibes with the political cause that you embrace.