He writes:
I was in Extinction Rebellion for several years. I produced over 60 videos for them and helped with several protests.
I can tell you directly: It was never about the climate. It was about controlling you.
Specifically, it was about mobilising 3.5% of the population into permanent revolutionary protest in order to trigger a Communist revolution. (Per Trotsky, Sharp, Hallam, Mao)
This was told to me directly by some of the leaders of the organisation. I tried to organise some programs to help businesses lower their carbon footprints without lowering profit margins or impacting the GDP, and I was told in no uncertain terms that solutions were counter to the goals of the movement and that I should stop.
It was then that I started to realise their true motives, and understand that perhaps I was being taken for a ride.
I learned that Communist countries have had some of the WORST environmental records in existence. What XR was proposing – degrowth, agitation, “decolonisation”, post-capitalism and every other agitprop buzzword – would effectively drop civilisation back to a pre-renewable era and force developing nations into a protracted industrial age, leading to ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more carbon emissions than the incremental improvements found by market innovations.
Population density is a critical function of renewable energy infrastructure. You don’t have a factory. You have a market ecosystem. That’s how technology works. It blew my mind that they didn’t understand this.
After years of pushing against fossil fuels, they were suddenly vehemently opposed to Elon Musk and his EVs. It was mind boggling to witness.
I realised that Musk had singlehandedly done more to reduce emissions than the entire climate activist movement combined. And it’s not close. Mentioning this, I was met with bewilderment and anger.
It was very hard to come away from that experience with much sympathy for the activist left movement. At their best they were devoid of ideas and completely incapable of making meaningful technological or engineering innovations. At their worst, they were actively working against their own stated goals in order to maximise agitation and mobilise discontent toward a destructive revolutionary movement that would ultimately lead to measurably worse outcomes.
Applying Occam’s Razor, it became apparent to me that the goal is Communist revolution, and all these random causes – climate, gender relativism, immigration, BLM, defunding police, Islamisation etc etc etc weren’t about triumphing over injustices, but about agitating blocs of useful idiots into a perpetual state of protest in order to seize power and control in the name of Marxist Revolution.
I thought they were creators and visionaries. I was wrong.
True change comes from the builders.
Yes there are problems on this earth, but they’ll only be solved by you tackling those problems, building useful things and helping to push the species forward.
If you’re smart enough to contribute, you belong amongst the builders.
Ended of the quoted section, above – now back to this blog …
This quote, from the above “agitating blocs of useful idiots into a perpetual state of protest in order to seize power and control in the name of Marxist Revolution.” is what I have referred to as the culture of perpetual outrage.
There are people who are literally outraged – about anything – because they feel they need something to be outraged about. If it were not climate, or traffic or Elon Musk – they would find something else to be outraged about.
Regarding the 3.5% mobilization, that is indeed what they have said, and it is based on a Marxist professor’s theories about enforcing change on others – they literally believe that once they achieve 3.5% market penetration, that they will be in charge – as they oppose democracy.
You can much more background on that here: Part 1: Climate Hypocrites – Coldstreams – about half way down the page or search for “The Anti-Democracy Movement”. Here’s quote from that link
The activists’ real goal, they say, is to get 3.5% of the population behind them, because research says tiny minorities who engage in civil disobedience can take control over the other 96.5%. The goal is rule by a tiny minority – in other words, they are anti-democracy.
They believe a small group can force change through society disruption (other words for this are civil disruption or “extortion“). The concept is based on a political scientist’s claim that change occurred in the past when a tiny minority of the population (3.5%) engaged in civil disruption. Extinction Rebellion refers to 3.5% as the “magic number.” See –> Extinction Rebellion Summer Uprising: The Group That Brought London To A Standstill Is Now In 50 Counties (buzzfeednews.com)
Rule by a tiny minority – just 3.5% of the population – in other words, they oppose democracy.
Rather than study engineering and science to develop solutions, they are children throwing temper tantrums, asserting they have a right to authoritarianism rule through extorting the population. Their own words:
The good news, the members say, is that they have extensively studied the history of social change and believe they have a scientifically testedtm approach that enables just a small minority to bring the political system to its knees. Extinction Rebellion Summer Uprising: The Group That Brought London To A Standstill Is Now In 50 Counties (buzzfeednews.com)
In other words, rule by authoritarianism and the elite – not by using logic and facts to persuade a majority to support climate control. The goal is to end democracy – and turn rule over to a technocratic elite, the central idea of governance by bureaucratic Central Committees.
