The New Yorker hosted eco-terrorist, professor, and Swedish author Andreas Malm on their podcast to promote “intelligent sabotage” and property damage as a method of getting leaders to act on climate change.

The podcast episode was entitled, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline.” In it, Malm asserted that it is time for the climate change movement to “diversify its tactics and move away from an exclusive focus on polite, gentle, and perfectly peaceful civil disobedience.”

“Andreas Malm insists that the environmental movement rethink its roots in nonviolence and instead embrace ‘intelligent sabotage,’” the description of the podcast interview states.

“I’m not saying we should stop strikes or square occupations or demonstrations of the usual kind. I’m all in favor of that. But I do think we need to step up because so little has changed and so many investments are still being poured into new fossil fuel projects,” Malm posited during the New Yorker interview.

“So I am in favor of destroying machines, property — not harming people, that’s a very, very important distinction there. And I think property can be destroyed in all manner of ways, or it can be neutralized in a very gentle fashion as when we defeated the SUVs, or in a more spectacular fashion, as in potentially blowing up a pipeline that’s under construction. That’s something that people have done,” he remarked.

(Video Credit: The New Yorker)

“So you’re recommending blowing up a pipeline,” the host asked Malm.

“I don’t see how that property damage could be considered morally illegitimate, given what we know of the consequences of such a project,” he asserted.

“This dogmatic commitment to nonviolence is based on a faulty history writing or understanding of social struggles over history because it’s based on the idea that the only thing that has ever worked for social movements is to stay completely peaceful and that just isn’t the case,” Malm contended.

Pushing the need for domestic terrorism, Malm went on to compare the climate change movement to the riots following the death of George Floyd.

“I don’t think that anyone could seriously argue that the BLM movement in 2020 would have achieved more if there had been no confrontations, no windows smashed, no police stations or cars burnt. That’s a fantasy scenario, in my view,” Malm proclaimed.

This isn’t the first time a liberal outlet has justified leftist calls for violence when it comes to climate change. Vox co-founder Ezra Klein gave Malm’s suggestion of pipe bombing oil pipelines a pass in a New York Times column entitled, “It Seems Odd That We Would Just Let the World Burn.”

When asked about Klein’s concern that impoverished people would be harmed by eco-terrorism, Malm stated basically that the ends justify the means.

“If you engage in property destruction that causes such disruption to prices, you run a risk of alienating people, but I think that if people go about this in a careful fashion, and if they time property disruption of this sort to moments when the impact of the climate crisis are being felt, there would be a decent chance to also gain popular support for these kind of actions,” he claimed.

Concerning Fox News and conservatives labeling his actions as eco-terrorism, Malm replied, “Well, I don’t think that we should adapt our tactics after the enemy’s script.”

“The guest literally calls for blowing up pipelines. Not a metaphor. @NewYorker literally platforming a terrorist,” Pluribus editor Jeryl Bier noted.

The guest literally calls for blowing up pipelines. Not a metaphor. @NewYorker literally platforming a terrorist. pic.twitter.com/pk4JXW5IT4

— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) September 26, 2021

“Damage and destroy new CO2-emitting devices. Put them out of commission, pick them apart, demolish them, burn them, blow them up. Let the capitalists who keep on investing in the fire know that their properties will be trashed,” Malm wrote in his book that was promoted during the podcast.

Others pointed out the “normalizing” of an eco-terrorist:

I think it's weird that guys who don't own any guns and certainly don't know how to use them seek to normalize political violence.

I wonder if they'll act surprised. https://t.co/Mmv0fYeABz

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) September 26, 2021

For those keeping track at home, both the New Yorker and the New York Times are debating and soft endorsing terror acts against national pipelines in the name of climate. https://t.co/CglKa27Rk4

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 26, 2021

The New Yorker also likes Antifa: https://t.co/Aa0qcsHzIK

I did a column on the Kennedy descendant at the @nytimes soft-balling Andreas Malm: https://t.co/M058gGHM1G https://t.co/pPMFKreP6M

— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) September 26, 2021

Insurrectionist https://t.co/qrrtSZbt9P

— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) September 26, 2021