Or that the "shadowy" actions of right-wing think tanks are exactly the same (with the opposite intent) of left-wing think tanks and environmental groups?
This is how the game is played. Both teams play the game this way. Labelling one side as "shadowy" is just dishonest.
I doubt that left-wing think tanks are as powerful or billionaire-backed, or bankrolled by destructive industries. If there's a balance, so-called left-wing groups are probably outpaced 10 to 1.
Shadowy is perfectly apt. The criminalization of protest uses deceptive techniques, out of proportion labeling, smearing, intimidation, the enactment of new laws, its arsenal is quite endless.
Oh yeah? But you have? Show me what billionaire funded think tanks exist that push for leftist policies on climate, like the green new deal. Famously popular among the wealthy. Are you serious?? To act like there is the same billionaire class interest in "protecting climate" as there is "continuing burning fossil fuels if it makes us money" is childish naiveté. Joker indeed.
>To act like there is the same billionaire class interest in "protecting >climate" as there is "continuing burning fossil fuels if it makes us money" is >childish naiveté. Joker indeed.
I will put my conspiracy theory hat on. If you want to continue burning fuel and you have these pesky climate change activists. Why not fund the most aggressive and annoying groups? People get pissed off and vote for politicians that do not fight climate change. You can clearly make a case for why it makes sense.
Famous leftists, Jeff bezos and bill gates. Are you joking??? You have to be joking. What are you arguing? That billionaires don't care for profit above all? Because bezos and gates have paid lip service to climate? The argument was that to compare the resources behind leftist movements to the right's backing from the billionaire class is brazenly without basis in reality.
Those slogans are pretty equal. The idea that climate change is going to “kill the world” is not true; organizations like the IPCC predict that the world will continue to function, albeit with significantly slowed economic growth and major problems for subsistence farmers.
But some people find it strategically useful to raise the stakes, so you get climate advocacy organizations insisting that humanity will literally go extinct if we do not adopt their preferred climate policies. I’ve even encountered people who horseshoe theory into science denial, claiming that the politicians force researchers and journalists to downplay things and you’ve gotta read blogs if you want to know how bad things will really be.
Sure its not gonna "kill the world", but you can expect a constant inflation of food prices, wars plus tens of millions of refugees due to climate instabilities. It will not eradicate mankind, but it may provoke the downfall of modern civilizations. And then good luck starting from the beginning again after you have depleted all easily accessible basic ressources such as iron or coal.
Newsrooms are under no obligation to give equal footing to anyone, and no newsroom does. These organizations are a lot more useful when you abandon this assumption.
No matter the side, it’s billionaires all the way down.
Following the Wikipedia for The New Republic to Win McMormack to Liberty Hill Foundation yields the following snippets.
> In early 2016, citing the need for new vision and leadership,[3][4] Hughes sold the magazine to Win McCormack,[5] under whom the publication has returned to a more progressive stance.[citation needed] A weekly or near-weekly for most of its history, the magazine currently publishes ten issues per year
> Additionally, McCormack sits on the Board of Overseers for Emerson College,[4] and is a co-founder of the Los Angeles–based Liberty Hill Foundation.[5]
> The Liberty Hill Foundation is a non-profit organization founded by Sarah Pillsbury, heir to the Minnesota Pillsbury baking fortune,
Not sure why you can't draw the parallel. For me it is all group-think type of thinking "we need to make something about it". Sure, some situations are more justified than others, but to me this all reminds of the same kind mentality.
Climate activists destroying paintings, making micro or macro aggression will annoy people more than focus on the problem of climate. I think most of the people already know about climate problem. Destroying painting will not make people go out from their homes and protest.
It's like the difference between tossing a firecracker onto someone's balcony and dropping a bomb on the entire goddamn building.
Don't get me wrong, radical green activism saddens me. I think the vandals that recently damaged the Brandenburg Gate should not be able to avail of any get out of jail free passes, and existing laws should be strengthened to discourage eco-vandalism to the fullest. I just can't put this sort of activism and J6 side by side and say they are the same thing.
They do a pretty good job of vilifying themselves by blocking roads. Regardless of your stance on anything climate-related, when you have somewhere to be, the last thing you want is some assholes blocking the road.
Blocking stuff has always been part of the protest toolset to gather attention, so its nothing really new. What's new is how blocking roads and protesting in general is being slowly interpreted as a terrorist act that needs to be prohibited.
The author makes the same argument comparing it to the farmers' protests a while back. The difference is that the farmers' protests were a one-off or maybe two-off thing, while these climate protesters have been doing it systematically for over a year now, and between that and things like attempting to destroy priceless art it's no wonder people are starting to see them as terrorists. And it doesn't require any conspiracy by shadowy powers to make the average person think that.
33 comments
[ 115 ms ] story [ 4293 ms ] threadIt is like an embedded watermark :)
This is how the game is played. Both teams play the game this way. Labelling one side as "shadowy" is just dishonest.
Shadowy is perfectly apt. The criminalization of protest uses deceptive techniques, out of proportion labeling, smearing, intimidation, the enactment of new laws, its arsenal is quite endless.
Haven't seen any left-wing groups do any of it.
His detractors though don't seem to see the difference between supporting things like lgbt rights and communism as an economic system.
https://www.geekwire.com/2023/the-billionaires-are-in-charge... https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2022/1/3/billionaire...
>To act like there is the same billionaire class interest in "protecting >climate" as there is "continuing burning fossil fuels if it makes us money" is >childish naiveté. Joker indeed.
I will put my conspiracy theory hat on. If you want to continue burning fuel and you have these pesky climate change activists. Why not fund the most aggressive and annoying groups? People get pissed off and vote for politicians that do not fight climate change. You can clearly make a case for why it makes sense.
But some people find it strategically useful to raise the stakes, so you get climate advocacy organizations insisting that humanity will literally go extinct if we do not adopt their preferred climate policies. I’ve even encountered people who horseshoe theory into science denial, claiming that the politicians force researchers and journalists to downplay things and you’ve gotta read blogs if you want to know how bad things will really be.
plenty of them are left-leaning. I'm not sure about the "dark money" bit though
Following the Wikipedia for The New Republic to Win McMormack to Liberty Hill Foundation yields the following snippets.
> In early 2016, citing the need for new vision and leadership,[3][4] Hughes sold the magazine to Win McCormack,[5] under whom the publication has returned to a more progressive stance.[citation needed] A weekly or near-weekly for most of its history, the magazine currently publishes ten issues per year
> Additionally, McCormack sits on the Board of Overseers for Emerson College,[4] and is a co-founder of the Los Angeles–based Liberty Hill Foundation.[5]
> The Liberty Hill Foundation is a non-profit organization founded by Sarah Pillsbury, heir to the Minnesota Pillsbury baking fortune,
If these kind of protest are ok, then I presume that aggression on Jan6 was also justified?
Kind of asking, because the world is crazy and I am not sure what my opinions should be.
Climate activists destroying paintings, making micro or macro aggression will annoy people more than focus on the problem of climate. I think most of the people already know about climate problem. Destroying painting will not make people go out from their homes and protest.
Don't get me wrong, radical green activism saddens me. I think the vandals that recently damaged the Brandenburg Gate should not be able to avail of any get out of jail free passes, and existing laws should be strengthened to discourage eco-vandalism to the fullest. I just can't put this sort of activism and J6 side by side and say they are the same thing.
https://theneedling.com/2020/09/10/local-woman-just-thinks-f...
Yes, founded by UK and US. But you would not find any "investigative" jounalist following the money.