This post is about the controversial new movie How To Blow Up A Pipeline. This new movie is based on the 2021 non-fiction book How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire by the violence-glorifying environmentalist academic Andreas Malm. Here's the trailer for the movie:
The movie already has an extensive Wikipedia article detailing the controversy around it:
Here's director Daniel Goldhaber discussing his movie:
Hilariously, Goldhaber's previous movie was apparently a thriller about e-thots and AI cam models:
So how did we get from cooming to e-thots to blowing up pipelines? Perhaps the mindless self-indulgence of the former is only a natural "pipeline" to the mindless violence of the latter. If only the terrorists of this world had just stayed home fapping to AI cam girls instead of looking up old copies of the Anarchist Cookbook.
I won't spend too much time on Andreas Malm himself. He's another one of those moral cowards who really does harbour delusional superterrorhero fantasies, wishing he existed in a fantasy, not one where he has solved the problem of energy (being a STEM nerd is not cool) but where he could blow up pipelines and still save the world somehow. Malm is IRL too cowardly (or perhaps too STEM-challenged) to do so himself and face the music, so he hopes to manipulate as many gullible tossers out there into doing his bidding for him, for the safety of his ivory tower in academia, trying to cover his ass by feedbly arguing that he wrote his book only to "prompt contemplation" of terrorism, you know, purely as a thought excercize. (Just own it and say you wanna to blow shit up, you coward.)
Here's is Andreas Malm discussing the derailment of trains as a great sabotage tactic for environmentalists:
This incident must've given Malm some real cam-girl vibes:
Several reviewers and journalists have already expressed their opposition to Malm's rationalization of environmentalist violence:
Whenever I see the mainstream promoting a form of what basically amounts to terrorism as legitimate, I always ask myself who ultimately benefits from glorifying or normalizing terrorism. For such a controversial movie to be allowed to be made and circulate, someone in the elites must've decided that now was the right time to promote the otherwise self-evidently ludicrous idea that blowing up pipelines is supposedly good environmentalism. The idea that environmentalists need to engage in performative terrorism in order to "show" how vulnerable the oil industry is, is itself completely delusional. As if countless of Youtube videos of oil spills and other environmental disasters haven't amply demonstrated that vulnerability already. Anyone can just type "BP oil spill" into Youtube and start watching content to their heart's content.
Remember that environmentalists for decades opposed pipelines with the argument that they could be blown up and are thus a ticking environmental time-bomb. Why did environmentalists now decide to do a 180 on their previous argument, take matters into their own hands and start blowing up pipelines pre-emptively? If pipelines are supposedly so vulnerable, why not just sit back and let nature take its course. I personally suspect something more sinister is going on here.
Let's have a look at this recent video from the Youtube channel Zeihan on Geopolitics, where geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan considers the idea of the US hitting China where it's weak by blowing up the pipelines that bring oil to China:
Keep this in mind when considering the larger context of why someone would want to promote the idea of blowing up pipelines. Is it perhaps to mask acts of war as a form of environmental protest? What if those "destroyers, or equivalent" blowing up pipelines aren't marines but environmentalists? Have the likes of Malm or Goldhaber ever stopped to consider that the act of blowing up a pipeline might not be read as a form of self-defense as they claim, but rather as an act of war that triggers cross-border retaliation? This possibility makes their respective apologea for environmentalist violence particularly disturbing and reckless.
Now imagine a scenario where Russia had blamed this incident on environmentalists:
Would anyone have believed that this was the work of environmentalists? Perhaps the purpose of the movie How To Blow Up A Pipeline is rather to prime the public into accepting the ludicrous argument that environmentalists would blow up pipelines on their own, in order to allow war-mongering governments to get away with exactly this type of environmental terrorism.
When you realize that it's global powers that are in the business of blowing up pipelines, you can see who would really want to promote the practice as an act of "self-defense". Then again, the likes of Malm and Goldhaber likely salivate at the idea of mass-starvation in China as per Zeihan's helpful suggestion.
The movie already has an extensive Wikipedia article detailing the controversy around it:
How to Blow Up a Pipeline is a 2022 American environmentalist action-thriller film directed by Daniel Goldhaber, who co-wrote the screenplay with Ariela Barer and Jordan Sjol. It relies on ideas advanced in Andreas Malm's 2021 book of the same name, published by Verso Books. Malm's nonfiction work examines the history of social justice movements and argues for property destruction as a valid tactic in the pursuit of environmental justice. The film stars Barer, Kristine Froseth, Lukas Gage, Forrest Goodluck, Sasha Lane, Jayme Lawson, Marcus Scribner, Jake Weary and Irene Bedard.
Set primarily in West Texas, the film follows a fictional group of eight young individuals who decide to blow up an oil pipeline at two key locations. It explores themes such as the moral consequences of decision-making, the validity of extreme actions in addressing the climate crisis, the question of terrorism, and the use of property damage and sabotage as activist tactics. The production of the film spanned 19 months, from conception to completion, with principal photography taking place in New Mexico. The film premiered on September 10, 2022, at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival and was released in the United States on April 7, 2023.
Receiving generally favorable reviews from critics, the film was praised for its eco-thriller premise, its exploration of moral and psychological challenges, the complexity of its antiheroes, and its ability to ignite a sense of urgency in activism. However, a few critics expressed concerns regarding the perceived promotion of terrorism and violence in the film's narrative.
...
Some writers and critics, including Jesse Kline of The National Post, offered less favorable reviews of the film and its underlying message. Kline specifically criticized the film's perceived attempt to normalize terrorism. He questioned the positive reception given by critics and raised the potential controversy if a similar approach were applied to justifying the actions of Islamist terrorists in a film titled "How to Fly Planes Into a Building." While acknowledging the film's entertainment value in terms of its plot and tension, Kline critiqued its heavy emphasis on what he calls "environmental propaganda" and its promotion of a morally objectionable message that supports vigilante violence and the destruction of private property in the name of the collective good.[31] In his review for National Review, Armond White also criticized the film for promoting violence and terrorism under the guise of "diversity of tactics," viewing it as a cold-blooded portrayal rather than a cautionary tale. He expressed disbelief at the media's support for such destructive themes and argued that it reflected a self-hatred within Western media.[32]
Author Andreas Malm, whose book inspired the film, recognized the film's superior potential to inspire action and alleviate the despair surrounding the destructive fossil fuel infrastructure. He emphasized that the intention of both works was not to advocate for exact replication of the depicted actions, but rather to ignite discussions and prompt contemplation on the imperative for more radical measures to tackle the climate crisis.[33]
Concerns raised by authorities
The film raised concerns among federal and provincial agencies in North America, fearing it may inspire climate activists to resort to sabotage. A "Take Action" section on the film's official website includes a detailed map of pipeline locations in the United States and Canada.[34] Upon the film's release in the United States, 23 federal and state entities issued a total of 35 warnings. FBI documents obtained by Rolling Stone revealed concerns about the potential for the film to inspire terrorist attacks on energy targets. The alerts mentioned the possibility of attacks or disruptions on critical infrastructure, leading to increased security measures. Law enforcement agencies were advised to monitor individuals attempting to access facilities for photography or video recording. These precautions occurred during the film's release period, causing significant attention and concern despite being a work of fiction.[35] The Alberta Energy Regulator warned that the film should not be taken lightly, urging increased surveillance and security measures by pipeline operators and licensees. The RCMP acknowledged the film's concerning subject in an email with The Globe and Mail, but noted that they determined enforcement actions based on evidence and intelligence.[34] Despite these warnings and concerns, there have been no reported attacks on the pipeline network since the film's release.
How to Blow Up a Pipeline (film) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Here's director Daniel Goldhaber discussing his movie:
Hilariously, Goldhaber's previous movie was apparently a thriller about e-thots and AI cam models:
So how did we get from cooming to e-thots to blowing up pipelines? Perhaps the mindless self-indulgence of the former is only a natural "pipeline" to the mindless violence of the latter. If only the terrorists of this world had just stayed home fapping to AI cam girls instead of looking up old copies of the Anarchist Cookbook.
I won't spend too much time on Andreas Malm himself. He's another one of those moral cowards who really does harbour delusional superterrorhero fantasies, wishing he existed in a fantasy, not one where he has solved the problem of energy (being a STEM nerd is not cool) but where he could blow up pipelines and still save the world somehow. Malm is IRL too cowardly (or perhaps too STEM-challenged) to do so himself and face the music, so he hopes to manipulate as many gullible tossers out there into doing his bidding for him, for the safety of his ivory tower in academia, trying to cover his ass by feedbly arguing that he wrote his book only to "prompt contemplation" of terrorism, you know, purely as a thought excercize. (Just own it and say you wanna to blow shit up, you coward.)
Here's is Andreas Malm discussing the derailment of trains as a great sabotage tactic for environmentalists:
This incident must've given Malm some real cam-girl vibes:
Several reviewers and journalists have already expressed their opposition to Malm's rationalization of environmentalist violence:
Opposition
In response to Ezra Klein's mention of How to Blow Up a Pipeline in The New York Times, a Fox News article by Lindsay Kornick claimed that Klein "appeared to condone eco-terrorism", writing that "Klein appeared to understand and even sympathize with the author".[15] After Malm was a guest on The New Yorker Radio Hour in September 2021 and spoke about central ideas from the book, another article in Fox News by the same author described him as a "climate change extremist who advocates for 'intelligent sabotage'".[16][17] In The Spectator World, Grayson Quay argued the fact that the interview took place was hypocritical because an anti-abortion activist who had written a book titled "How to Blow Up an Abortion Clinic" would not have gotten the same opportunity, describing Malm as a "scofflaw".[18]
In October 2021, the Fort Worth Intelligence Exchange (a fusion center in Texas) circulated a document about How to Blow Up a Pipeline nationwide. The document, which was later obtained by Property of the People, detailed concerns about the book and its content while stating that it was not connected to any known threat.[19]
Other reactions
The environmental direct action group, Tyre Extinguishers, who began deflating tyres on SUVs in March 2022 as an act of climate protest, and are now active in 17 countries, say they were inspired to start their group by How to Blow Up a Pipeline.[20][21] Malm called the group's actions a form of "extremely peaceful and gentle sabotage...anyone can deflate an SUV: it is virtually child's play. It requires no formal organization, no leadership, no funds, no implements other than bits of gravel or beans or green lentils. Given the infinitely replicable nature of the action—sabotage as meme—its potential for making SUV ownership less convenient and attractive could not be discounted."[22]
How to Blow Up a Pipeline - Wikipedia
Whenever I see the mainstream promoting a form of what basically amounts to terrorism as legitimate, I always ask myself who ultimately benefits from glorifying or normalizing terrorism. For such a controversial movie to be allowed to be made and circulate, someone in the elites must've decided that now was the right time to promote the otherwise self-evidently ludicrous idea that blowing up pipelines is supposedly good environmentalism. The idea that environmentalists need to engage in performative terrorism in order to "show" how vulnerable the oil industry is, is itself completely delusional. As if countless of Youtube videos of oil spills and other environmental disasters haven't amply demonstrated that vulnerability already. Anyone can just type "BP oil spill" into Youtube and start watching content to their heart's content.
Remember that environmentalists for decades opposed pipelines with the argument that they could be blown up and are thus a ticking environmental time-bomb. Why did environmentalists now decide to do a 180 on their previous argument, take matters into their own hands and start blowing up pipelines pre-emptively? If pipelines are supposedly so vulnerable, why not just sit back and let nature take its course. I personally suspect something more sinister is going on here.
Let's have a look at this recent video from the Youtube channel Zeihan on Geopolitics, where geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan considers the idea of the US hitting China where it's weak by blowing up the pipelines that bring oil to China:
Keep this in mind when considering the larger context of why someone would want to promote the idea of blowing up pipelines. Is it perhaps to mask acts of war as a form of environmental protest? What if those "destroyers, or equivalent" blowing up pipelines aren't marines but environmentalists? Have the likes of Malm or Goldhaber ever stopped to consider that the act of blowing up a pipeline might not be read as a form of self-defense as they claim, but rather as an act of war that triggers cross-border retaliation? This possibility makes their respective apologea for environmentalist violence particularly disturbing and reckless.
Now imagine a scenario where Russia had blamed this incident on environmentalists:
Would anyone have believed that this was the work of environmentalists? Perhaps the purpose of the movie How To Blow Up A Pipeline is rather to prime the public into accepting the ludicrous argument that environmentalists would blow up pipelines on their own, in order to allow war-mongering governments to get away with exactly this type of environmental terrorism.
When you realize that it's global powers that are in the business of blowing up pipelines, you can see who would really want to promote the practice as an act of "self-defense". Then again, the likes of Malm and Goldhaber likely salivate at the idea of mass-starvation in China as per Zeihan's helpful suggestion.
Last edited:
