Naomi Klein: Divestment Movement Makes Nationalization Easier

Naomi Klein is one of the few Warmists who admit what one of the main reasons for the Warmist movement is: hard core Progressive values, which includes the central government taking over economic activity. She continues with this in a Grist interview, which is on the power of the fossil fuels divestment movement

Another point I would make, [about] carbon pricing, is that when we make the argument that this is a rogue sector (she means fossil fuels, to be clear), that their business plan is at odds with life on earth, we are creating an intellectual and political space where it becomes much easier to tax those profits, to increase royalties, and even to nationalize these companies.

So, theft of profits and theft of private property by The Government. She continues in the same paragraph

This is not just about the fact that we want to separate ourselves from these companies, it’s also that we have a right to those profits. If those profits are so illegitimate that Harvard shouldn’t be invested in them, they’re also so illegitimate that taxpayers have a right to them to pay for a transition away from fossil fuels, and to pay the bills for a crisis created by this sector. It’s not just about dissociating ourselves from their profits, but potentially getting a much larger piece of them.

Got that? Progressives, specifically mean The Government, who would then redistribute the money, have a right to those profits, despite having done nothing themselves. Except use evil fossil fuels themselves. The Warmist movement, as I’ve said time and time again, is about control: control of individuals, control of private companies, control of economies, which all includes things like higher taxes and fees, while accumulating massive power in the hands of the Central Government. Thanks to Naomi Klein for continuing to tell us what her Warmist brethren really want to accomplish.

Humorously, the same Warmists never seem to think all the power and control and taxes and fees will effect themselves.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Naomi Klein: Divestment Movement Makes Nationalization Easier”

  1. Hank_M says:

    It really is amazing that people take this self-hating babbling lunatic seriously.
    Then again, she’s only the darling of the left so I guess it makes sense.

    Here are 2 quotes that tell you all you need to know about this nutball.

    “Need more money? Print some!”

    “Those with strong “egalitarian” and “communitarian” worldviews (marked by an inclination toward collective action and social justice, concern about inequality and suspicion of corporate power) overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus on climate change.”

  2. Jeffery says:

    Fossilist industries take a natural resource (which belongs to all) convert it into usable energy and sell it. One unintended consequence is the destruction of the Earth (which belongs to all). So who is responsible for paying for the destruction of Earth from the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere by burning gas, oil and coal? The fossilist industries’ position is that taxpayers should be responsible. Clearly, we’re all complicit but the fossilist industries trillions of dollars of profits should not be exempt.

  3. Hank_M says:

    We’re not destroying the earth Jeffery.
    The only thing being destroyed right now is the credibility of those who claim the science is settled, that man is causing climate change.

    As for the fossilist industries (Shouldn’t you be using the term big-energy?) I suspect a lot of people in the northern areas are rather thankful right now for the “usable energy” keeping them warm.

  4. Au contraire, Hank, you should take her very seriously, because she’s telling us what the Warmist movement is really all about.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Economists call these unintended consequences of market transactions, “negative externalities”, and damage from pollutants, morbidity and mortality from pharmaceuticals and consumer products all qualify. The tobacco industry is a prime example, selling a deadly product for over a century, profiting billions and directly killing 100s of thousands of Americans each year. The governments finally stepped in, half-heartedly.

    The fossil fuels industry fears this same outcome. In their defense, their products have significant social value – energy. But this is why the industry and their defenders are working so hard to discredit global warming research. We could start the orderly transition away from fossil fuels with little disruption to societies on the whole, but with significant disruption to the fossil fuel industry. If not for the negative externality of global warming, we could burn through our world’s fossil fuels and let the market dictate the conversion, but if you factor in the true costs of burning oil, gas and coal, the market says that time is now.

    So much of middle east turmoil stems from the western need for oil. The US and the Brits staged a coup in Iran in 1953 against the democratically elected (and secular) Mossadegh because he had nationalized their oil industry. That was 60 years ago.

  6. Jeffery says:


    Most of the smart people on Earth disagree with you and yours.

    Science is never really settled, but the evidence supporting global warming being caused by the human-caused 40% increase in greenhouse gases is overwhelming.

    Ideologues, fossilists and dumb guys Deny it.

  7. Hank_M says:

    Jeffery, most of the “smart” people are on the left and we all remember what Jonathan Gruber had to say about them.

    As for the evidence, being that it’s primarily based on computer models, skepticism is warranted.

    It also seems to me that if the raw data was solid, Michael Mann would release the data. He hasn’t and refuses to do so – this in violation of the Canadian civil rules of disclosure in his case against Dr. Ball in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

    Now why would the pre-eminent global warming scientist of our day refuse to release his data?

    Smart people wonder about that.

  8. Jeffery says:


    Regardless of what Dr. Gruber said, climate scientists and most other scientists disagree with your conclusion on global warming. It’s possible that they are all wrong and the lobbyists paid by the fossil fuel industry are right.

    Your complaint about Professor Mann’s data feels dated. Are you certain he hasn’t released his data and methods? How did McKitrick and McIntyre misinterpret his data and methods if they didn’t have his data and methods? And how about the other 20 or so reconstruction studies that also show warming over the past century or so? Could you please supply a reliable reference proving that Professor Mann did not release his information?

    There is little doubt in the scientific community that the Earth has been warming the past century with most of that warming caused by greenhouse gas accumulations.

    You can believe whatever you want, but the evidence is clear.

Pirate's Cove