New York Times Applauds Violent Eco-Nut Tactics to ‘Avoid Planetary Catastrophe’


The New York Times is going all in on radical “climate change.” First, reporter Cara Buckley issued the paper’s latest profile Friday in praise of disruptive eco-nuts: “These Groups Want Disruptive Climate Protests. Oil Heirs Are Funding Them.”



They’ve taken hammers to gas pumps and glued themselves to museum masterpieces and busy roadways. They’ve chained themselves to banks, rushed onto a Grand Prix racetrack and tethered themselves to goal posts as tens of thousands of British soccer fans jeered.


In a statement, the activists involved in these disruptions around the globe stated they felt the need to emphasize the importance of the climate crisis. They also said it was important to block oil terminals from being openly blocked and to disrupt normal life.



Is it possible to imagine the newspaper covering a right-wing, aggressive protest group using such tactics? The paper was ideologically repelled even by peaceful protests against vaccine mandates by Canadian truckers.


Here’s Buckley’s punch line: The disruption is being bankrolled by guilt-ridden members of the oil-rich Getty and Rockefeller families.



A surprising financial link also exists between them: they are heirs of two American families who became extraordinarily rich through oil.


Two relatively new nonprofit organizations, which the oil scions helped found, are funding dozens of protest groups dedicated to interrupting business as usual through civil disobedience, mostly in the United States, Canada and Europe. The new nonprofit organizations fund grass-roots activists, unlike established environmental groups such as Greenpeace International which have used disruptive tactics for years to draw attention to ecological dangers.



Buckley was histrionic about the dangers of “climate change.”



The fund has so far given away less than $7 million. Its goal is to push society into emergency mode. The United States may be on the verge of historic climate legislation. the bill allows more oil and gas expansion, which scientists say needs to stop immediately to avert planetary catastrophe.



Buckley empathized with radicals. Then, Buckley let eco-nuts like the real heroes without rolling her eyes.



Protesters have been screamed at, threatened, labeled eco-zealots and dragged off by angry commuters. Research from the University of Toronto and Stanford University also found that while more disruptive protests attracted publicity, they could undermine a movement’s credibility and alienate potential support.


Ms. Salamon, along with Climate Emergency Fund-backed activists, said they expected pushback. They pointed out the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who, according to a Gallup Poll, had a 63 percent disapproval rating in the years leading up to his death.



In Saturday’s edition, Lisa Friedman and Coral Davenport unsubtly suggested the “septuagenarian lawmakers” that lead the Democratic party were moving too slow to save the planet: “Climate Bill Heads to Biden’s Desk. There Is More to Be Done.”



….younger Democrats and climate activists crave more. They look at the bill as a down payment, and they worry a complacent electorate will believe Washington has at last solved climate change — when in fact scientists warn it has only taken the first necessary steps….However, scientists warn that the United States should do much more.. It must stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2050, which the bill won’t achieve.…Although scientific evidence supports the connection between climate change and extreme weather, which is leading to death and destruction across the United States of America,Polls reveal that Americans have a divided electorate about how to deal with the problems.


About Post Author