Outrage After American Media Supports Swedish Faggot Who Supports Terrorism to Change the Weather

Andrew Anglin September 28, 2021

Andreas Malm is believed to be the first ever terrorist to shave his eyebrows. Or maybe his eyebrows were singed off when he was doing a bombing…?

I don’t ever want to do “what if X was the reverse?” ever again in my life, ever.

But… imagine, if you will, if the National Review did a podcast praising a guy who promoted bombing abortion clinics or vaccine centers.

RT:

The New Yorker is accused of promoting violence after its podcast featured a climate change activist who called destruction of property the most effective protest tool, praising the violence that marred the George Floyd protests.

Online commentators are up in arms over the recent edition of The New Yorker’s podcast discussing whether the climate movement should “embrace sabotage,” which saw one of the featured guests, ecology professor at Lund University in Sweden Andreas Malm, arguing that pipelines can be attacked for the sake of saving the environment.

Malm, who released a book titled, ‘How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire’ earlier this year, appeared to endorse the ransomware attack that shut down the Colonial Pipeline in May, causing gasoline shortages in the US, and appeared to call for attacks against Total and China’s CNOOC $3.5 billion crude pipeline in Uganda and Tanzania.

“If people in that region were to attack the construction equipment or 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 projects,” he said.

What is even the anti-pipeline argument?

I guess I could read his book. But I mean, are we supposed to be shutting off electricity completely? Or just shipping oil on boats from the Middle East, instead of drilling it in Alaska or Canada?

Will this guy write a companion book: “How to Blow Up a Saudi Shipping Port”?

I doubt it.

And even if he was calling for literally shutting down the production of electricity – what would that mean? It would mean only one thing: reducing the quality of life of the white middle class. Period.

None of this is even remotely serious.

This little faggot is promoting “edgy” globalist establishment talking points for one single reason: it gets him pussy.

That’s all.

They are boring mommy-boy losers with nothing going for them, so they follow authority, worship authority, bow down and serve authority, in the hopes of being endorsed by authority as a way to gain access to women.

I wish people would call that out, and call out the fact that the billionaires that fund people like this don’t believe in this global warming bullshit either, and are using the whole thing as a weapon against the middle class.

Here’s the deal:

  • No serious person on earth believes that carbon dioxide is a pollutant or that humans are changing the weather, and
  • No serious person believes that any serious person believes that

It’s all just a total farce – on both sides.

Pretending that these people are arguing in good faith does not work. If you win an argument with them, they either don’t know you won or don’t acknowledge that they’ve lost. Taking any of it seriously is worse than useless, it is dangerous and destructive.

Frankly, right-wingers who pretend that the left are arguing in good faith are morally much lower than the left itself. At least the left has an agenda, that they keep marching through. Right-wingers do nothing but try to be clever using dumb snark.

© Copyright Daily Stormer 2023, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.