Biden continues Trump’s destructive polices and creates his own Go along to get along Joe has always been a dull witted POS

THIS POST IS FROM MY SUBSTACK BLOG "BLUES, JAZZ, POLITICS AND IRONY...WHICH YOU CAN SUBSCRIBE TO... RICHARD CONGRESS APR 25, 2024 During his tenure in office Barak Obama did a few progressive things. He restored diplomatic relations with Cuba and moved towards normalization and the future lifting of the embargo. He negotiated an agreement with Iran for that country to not develop nuclear weapons. An agreement that if honestly pursued had the possibility of leading to more normal relations and less tension between the U.S. and Iran. Trump in office reversed both moves. What has Biden done? Nothing, except to allow both policies to stand. So it’s a stupid, destructive Trump/Biden policy that we now have. Blues, Jazz, Politics and Irony is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribed Biden has always been a dumbass go-along to get-along politician. He was always friendly with the rotten Dixiecrats when the South elected Democratic Senators, and after they all became Republicans he still was “collegial” with them especially vile disgusting Strom Thurmond. Biden greased the path for Uncle Tom Clarence Thomas to the supreme court and joined in on the slandering of Anita Hill. Any backsliding rotten deal that spit on basic human rights was just ok with Genocide Joe. School bussing? Yes. Biden spoke up to support the racist parents that protested against their precious white children having to go to the same school with black children. Abortion rights? Biden supported misogynist Rep. Henry Hyde’s restrictions on U.S. government funds for abortion (he later droped his support under pressure from most Democrats). Like the rest of the now mainstream Democratic Party leaders Biden just LOVES war and war spending. From embracing dimwit George W. Bush’s Iraq/Afghanistan invasion, to loving the censorship of the Patriot Act…to now eagerly pushing for increased censorship and government spying on any America citizen who is evil enough to oppose war and censorship…you can count on Genocide Joe. He was a known quantity when he stumbled into the president’s chair. And this is what we got. A POS corporate stooge who loves war and the war machine and is fully backing Israeli genocide. Ohh…sometimes it makes him uncomfortable and he curses under his breath…but he can be counted on the back up the blood thirsty, lunatic Zionist state in anything they do. Right? What have we seen? Full, unhindered material support to the mass murder of Palestinians. All of them…including the terrorist babies, and evil pregnant mothers. Is this the lesser evil? Blues, Jazz, Politics and Irony is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribed

A Few Words in Praise of an Unhinged Lunatic

A Few Words in Praise of an Unhinged Lunatic from my Substack page: Blues, Jazz, Politics and Irony at richardcongress@substack.com SUBSCRIBE! It's free. Donald Trump is an authentic nut case; a narcissist, an ignoramus, a racist and who knows what else? BUT, he has done far less damage than those who are counterposed to him as upright, trustworthy statesmen (and women). George W Bush and his puppet master Dick Cheney have the blood of millions of innocent civilians on their hands. The servants of their crazed orgy of killing, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al should all have been jailed for life along with Bush and Cheney. Think about it: Based on a series of completely fraudulent lies each one more ridiculous than the previous: Iraq, a small, poor nation with an economy the size of Kentucky, which couldn’t win a war against Sweden was planning to attack the US and had developed “weapons of mass destruction.” Why? Because Saddam Hussein was…what? Nuts? An agent of…Satan, Iran? An Islamic fundamentalist? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed in a massive, indiscriminate ground and air assault by U.S. armed forces. Afghanistan, also invaded by the US military suffered a twenty plus year war in which the U.S. abjectly failed to win over the population to its side but managed to kill tens of thousands of people. The whole region was hard hit by the U.S. aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fighting spilled over into Syria and Lebanon. The war caused a wave of refugees to flee westward creating a crisis not just in neighboring countries, but also in European nations. This wave of refugees caused a rightward reaction in many countries and has led to the growth of ultra -right and neo-Nazi groups. The U.S. pro-war hysteria was triggered by the 9/11 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Organized by a coterie of Islamic fundamentalists who were followers of Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi who was based in Afghanistan. The ones who carried out the attack were mainly located in Europe when they planned it out. All of them except one (an Egyptian) were Saudis. This accusation of Iraq’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks was obviously nonsense, but it was propagated by the Bush/Cheney administration and its Republican supporters and echoed by most Democrats, including then Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton…and the press went wild to promote a hysterical war frenzy. Whoever questioned the validity of these claims were slandered as traitors and agents of Saddam Hussein (this means you Andrew Sullivan. He and fellow scumbag Christopher Hitchens…a pseudo progressive turncoat who has since died) went on TV to excoriate critics of Bush’s lying war propaganda. The New York Times featured articles that advanced Bush/Cheney propaganda without ever questioning the logic of the claims. The idea that Iraq, which was governed by a secular regime that was a mortal enemy of Islamic fundamentalists, was involved in helping Bin Laden attack the United States, is and was ridiculous. But counting on the bottomless ignorance of the American people, and the bottomless lusting for war and profits by the military/industrial complex the Bush/Cheney administration was able to get its desired war. If it was necessary to invade some country because of the 9/11 attack, wouldn’t it have been more logical to invade Saudi Arabia? All of the hijackers but one were Saudis. There has since been some evidence that some prominent Saudis had pre-knowledge of Bin Laden’s plans to attack the U.S. Is this valid or had it been investigated? Who knows? The Saudis have too much oil to criticize them anyway. Not only did that Republican administration manage to have its desired war (part of a glorified GWAT: global war on terrorism) but, again with the complicity of the spineless Democratic office holders, manage to inflict damage on basic democratic rights by enacting police state type legislation: The Patriot Act. This inaugurated a new frenzy of Islamaphobic McCarthyism and fueled physical attacks on Muslims and anyone who (to the average American moron) looked like a Muslim…like several unfortunate members of the Sikh religion whose origins are in India and have nothing to do with Islam…but they grow beards and wear turbans…so they have to be goddamn A-rabs! So gun them down in the best American NRA tradition! So due to our great two party (pseudo) democracy the government got more power to abrogate basic democratic rights at will. The legacy of the Bush/Cheney war of choice is that we now have a panoply of anti-democratic rules that can be used to persecute and prosecute anyone who questions whatever displeases the governing administration. CIA guy James Clapper goes on TV and lies through his teeth, claiming that they don’t spy on phone calls between Americans and foreigners. His punishment? Nothing. Ed Snowden tells the truth about U.S. Government spying on the American people’s phone communications—his reward? Prison threats and worse, so he goes into exile. Julian Assange is being crucified for unpardonable truth-telling and having the gall to show video footage of U.S. military helicopter pilots slaughtering of civilian new reporters and laughing about it. This bipartisan assault on democratic rights persists and is now being applied to anyone who criticizes U.S. government policies now about the Ukraine proxy war against Russia. We now have a repeat of the Iraq war frenzy applied now silence criticism of the U.S. proxy war against Russia (Ukraine is just tool of the U.S.). So, now do you think that Donald Trump is just the worst person in the world? He’s a con man and a jerk. He’s a crook. But how many children has he killed?

Taylor Swift: The Bland leading the Bland

this is from my Substack account richardcongress@substack.com Listning to Taylor Swift Mood music for the comatose RICHARD CONGRESS AUG 14, 2023 Listening to Taylor Swift: American Blandstand. A Taylor Swift concert is similar to eating tapioca pudding with whipped cream and vanilla jello. She exhibits a singing range of about 1/8 of an octave and lyrics that would be rejected from a Hallmark greeting card as too bland. What is it with this singer? The only distinguishing characteristic of her performances is a slight country twang to the backup music. Blues, Jazz, Politics and Irony is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribed Maybe she is such a sensational hit because of the anesthetic quality of her music. People don’t want to be worried about anything, given the state of the world and the country. But…then, why gather in huge concert venues and wildly applaud? Why not just relax at home and stream her on Spotify? It looks like getting up and actually going to a Taylor Swift concert requires an investment of physical exertion. It’s like getting physically worked up and then drinking 3 vanilla milkshakes. How about seeing it as a retreat from a disturbing reality of gun violence run amok, deteriorating pseudo-health care, income stagnation (if you are lucky and not seeing decline), constant war, etc? That could be the answer. Perhaps she has been created by the entertainment industry (I won’t say music business) as a purgative to get rid of and bury the effect of female vocalists who had feeling and ideas: Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez, Billie Holliday, or more contemporary, active performers like Shamka Copeland, Bonnie Raitt, or Lucinda Williams? Taylor Swift could be the designated soundtrack for a coming nuclear war caused by the lunatic neo-cons who populated the war-criminal Bush/Cheney regime and who have now migrated to the Biden camp (Hillary was already a Democrat and a war-lover). And as if it wasn’t bad enough, now the Biden Administration has raised from the dead Regan administration hack Elliot Abrams, the used car salesman of indiscriminate murder of civilians by contra mercenaries in Nicaragua, who also was convicted of lying under oath before a Congressional committee. Maybe Taylor Swift could do joint performances with Elliot Abrams, and Kamala Harris could sing backup.

Rich men north of Richmond vs the Kinkster Kinky Friedman made the best response

OK, I lied. That wasn't the last post on this site by me. BUT...I'm now posting on my new substack account: Blues, Jazz, Politics and Irony. You should go to that site and subscribe...it's free RICHARD CONGRESS AUG 25, 2023 Oliver Anthony’s “Rich Men North of Richmond” has made a big splash. Many people have praised it as a cry for help from a downtrodden sector of society. Which sector and how downtrodden, and who is actually treading them down is another question. Rather than dismissing it as another iteration of Jason Aldean’s “Try That in a Small Town,” which reeks of an obviously racist, thug, vigilante response to big city, unpatriotic, not white “woke” people, many have tried to be understanding of Oliver’s dilemma of a hard working guy trying to survive in a tough, unfair world. Blues, Jazz, Politics and Irony is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribed This is a mistake. Anthony is another dumb ass racist shit trying to blame certain people for his hard times. Which people? Well, it’s actually the usual suspects: non-white people and northern liberals and their unpatriotic ways. Why is it so hard for many people to see this? If the song had been titled “Rich Men Screwing Over the Workers” it would have been on the right track towards naming the source of his problems. this title and the appropriate lyrics to go with it would not have gotten such a good response. When was the last time “The International” was listed on the Billboard top 50? Who wants to hear some commie anthem pointing out how the corporate rich are robbing everyone else blind? Even if it happens to be true, you are not supposed to say so. What about rich pharmaceutical company executives behaving like thugs and raking in super profits while poor workers like Oliver Anthony can’t afford insulin or other needed drugs? Anthony complains about his taxes being so high, but he doesn’t put that together with the fact that taxes on the very rich have been going down and the concentration of wealth at the very top is greater than ever. No, the problem is grossly obese (black) people on welfare living the good life consuming all the chocolate they can eat, while the poor (white )guy slaves away for a pittance. Why does he single out rich men north of Richmond? What about rich men who live in Richmond, VA? or south of Richmond? Because it’s got to be those fucking Yankees. You know: the Jews and foreign immigrants and those damn New York and New England fancy pants. Why Richmond as a dividing line? Because it was the capital of the Confederacy. Too bad for Oliver Anthony that they LOST! This whole…should I say brew ha ha, or maybe kerfuffle (what’s the right word here?) Anyway this whole thing takes me back to 1969 when country singer Merle Haggard release his song “Okie from Muskogee.” This song was a patriotic anthem praising the U.S. war in Vietnam and condemning antiwar protesters and traitors and dirty hippies, unlike the church going, upright and uptight, strait laced good people of Muskogee, Oklahoma who willingly marched off to the slaughter in Vietnam. The great Texas singer and songwriter, Kinky Friedman with his band (Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys) released a song in response to Haggard’s “Okie from Muskogee.” It was titled “I’m Proud To Be An Asshole from El Paso.” I lived in Houston in the 1970s and had a chance to see Kinky & Co perform. Here are the lyrics to Kinky Friedman’s riposte to Haggard. Asshole From El Paso Lyrics We don't have no lovin's in El Paso We don't go to porno picture shows We don't swap our wives with our neighbors And we keep our kids away from Mexico And I'm proud to be an asshole from El Paso A place where sweet young virgins are deflowered You walk down the street knee-deep in tacos Ta-ta-ta-tacos And the wetbacks still get twenty cents an hour We don't wipe our asses on Old Glory God and Lone Star beer are things we trust We keep our women virgins till they're married So hosin' sheep is good enough for us And I'm proud to be an asshole from El Paso A place where sweet young virgins are deflowered You walk down the street knee-deep in tacos Ta-ta-ta-tacos And the wetbacks still get twenty cents an hour I'm proud to be an asshole from El Paso A place where sweet young virgins are deflowered You walk down that street knee-deep in tacos Ta-ta-ta-tacos And the wetbacks still get twenty cents an hour Blues, Jazz, Politics and Irony is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribed

My last post on this site.

If interested you can go to: BLUES, JAZZ, POLITICS AND IRONY ON Richard's Substack.com I started writing this about 2 years ago and then put it aside. Since then the election of the ultrareligious nut case government in Israel has occurred. The recent events are obviously a big deal, but that doesn’t change the fundamental character of Israel as a colonial settler state sponsored by Europe and the US. rc “Jewish” is not a nationality, neither is “Arab” and “Semitic” refers to a language family To understand what is happening regarding the State of Israel and the Palestinian struggle for self-determination it’s necessary to navigate through popular false narratives. Most people here in the U.S. don’t really know much of anything going on in this country, let alone the rest of the world. Getting through to people about the colonial-settler nature of the Israeli state and its systematic denial of basic human rights to the Palestinian people is made all the more difficult given the massive disinformation campaign organized and financed by groups like AIPAC, ADL, ZOA, plus prominent elected Democrats and Republican politicians. One problem to understanding what is happening is the false characterization of basic concepts involving nationality, ethnicity, language and “race.” Here in the U.S. we who are citizens are used to it meaning nothing more than we were either born here, or immigrated and then were naturalized: became citizens via a common legal process. Citizenship in the U.S. is secular. There is no religious criteria. Someone from Spain, Uganda, Iceland…wherever, who has been naturalized is an American citizen. Period. Racist white ethno-nationalists would like to make the U.S. a white, Christian nation (usually their idea of Christian includes only certain kinds of Protestants)., but so far they haven’t succeeded. It's the same in most countries. There are German Turks, French Algerians, British Jamaicans, etc. All citizens who, on paper, have the same rights as native born citizens. Actually several generations of German Turks are native born. Their parents, or grandparents were invited to Germany to relieve an acute labor shortage in the 1960s. Jews born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. But the state of Israel claims these same Jews, along with all Jews in the world as would-be citizens. Israel’s founding documents and its recently revised Basic Law defines Israel as the “nation state of the Jewish people.” I’m an Indiana/USA born Jew, but I could be an Israeli citizen (so long as they don’t know I support BDS and hate Zionism) while a descendent of generations of Palestinians living inside Israel or the Occupied Territories can never become a citizen. There are Palestinian citizens of the Israeli state, but that came about under duress. The United Nations refused to admit Israel unless it granted citizenship to the remaining Palestinians who were not killed or driven out in 1948 by Jewish force of arms. (see the book “Citizen Strangers” by Shira Robinson) Today about a quarter of Israeli citizens are “Arabs.” There are many more “Arabs” (about 2 million) living under the jurisdiction of the Israeli state in the occupied West Bank, but they are not citizens. They are seen by the Zionist state as problems that should be removed one way or another. The not-Palestinian “Arabs” who are citizens face more than 50 laws enacted to make sure that they have very few rights. The right to own land or live where they want is restricted, with the obvious goal in mind to eventually get rid of them all…if only the rest of the world would stop watching. The two million non-citizen “Arabs” in the West Bank have no rights at all. They can be killed by Zionist settlers or the Israeli army at will with no recourse; this happens with increasing frequency. Meanwhile their right to own land and homes (and many can show deeds dating back to the pre-WW I Ottoman Empire) isn’t recognized by the (Exclusively) Jewish State. Palestinian homes are regularly demolished and families are displaced. ETHNOCRACY Democratic states do not have an ethno/nationalist or racial, or religious definition of citizenship. Israel is not a democratic state; it is an ethnocracy. It denies equal rights (or any intrinsic rights) to those who are not Jewish. And in increasingly theocratic Israel it’s the most rabid, bigoted orthodox Jews who decide who is a Jew. Even Reform Judaism, the actual largest denomination world wide, is denied rights in Israel that are given to the Orthodox and Hasidim. By defining “Arab” as a nationality Israel can then use that to exclude Palestinians. Any reasonable definition of “Arab” says an Arab is a native speaker of Arabic. There are several countries in which Arabic is the dominant language. But only when speaking figuratively is there an “Arab nation.” Some “Arab” countries are populated by ethnic Berbers, who are distinct in appearance from Arabs in Egypt or other nations. Some dialects of Arabic in different countries are not mutually comprehensible. There are Jews who are Arabic speakers and adhere to common customs in Morocco, Yemen and other countries in the region. But their citizenship is of the various nations, not in an abstract “Arabia.” Druze are an Arabic speaking people who follow a religion different from Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. Some of them live in the Israeli state. They are denied equal rights to Jews (see “When We Were Arabs,” by Massoud Hayoun, an Egyptian, Arabic speaking Jew). The ethnic cleansing being carried out by Israel is aimed of ridding its territory of all non-Jews. Ie. Arabs. “Let them go to a country made up of their own kind,” Zionists would argue. All “Arab” countries are not the same. The Arabic spoken in Algeria would not be understood in Egypt, for example. Customs and degrees of religiosity and secularism vary from country to country. There are distinct national/cultural characteristics of each supposedly “Arab” country, be it Lebanon or Saudi Arabia. In the United States racists talk of wanting to get rid of the “Spanish” (among others). The Spanish spoken in Mexico is quite different from that of Cuba, which is very different from that of Paraguay (which contains a lot of Guarani, an indigenous language). The customs also vary greatly among Spanish speaking countries. Remember when the U.S. President Ronald Reagan was shocked to discover that down in South America “there were a lot of different countries there?” What gives most Jewish Israelis, and many Jews in this country the idea that it is perfectly fine and reasonable to ethnically cleanse Israeli territory of all Arabs is that they don’t consider them to be fully human. We can also include the supercharged Christian Evangelical “Zionists” among this group of people since they have the added Evangelical fear/hatred of Islam to keep them on the path to genocide. HUMAN RACE There is only one race of humans on this planet. Biologically and genetically all visible differences are trivial. These have been exploited, over time, to create hierarchies and phony scholarship to invent races that each have specific virtues or vices, abilities or lack of same. It’s all political and socially useful to justify stealing another people’s land, enslaving them, demonizing them. Now we now come to the invention of “Semites.” According to the biblical story of Noah and his ark, his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, repopulated the earth after the flood. Thus the term “Semite” was, if not coined, then popularized, by anti-Jewish agitator Wilhelm Maar in 1879. He was trying to give a pseudo-scientific and scholarly veneer to dress up simply saying “I hate the dirty Jews, let’s get rid of them.” The issue was put on the footing of finding inherent physical and cultural traits to mark off the Jews from Christian society as evil, scheming, parasites out to cheat everyone else. Why Shem got to be archetype instead of the other sons is not known; otherwise we could be dealing with “anti-Hamism,” or “anti-Japhethite.” There is no Semitic race. The only valid way to tie the term to a people is classify them as speakers of a Semitic language. Hebrew is one small member of the Semitic language family. Arabic is the largest and the languages of Ethiopia are also part of this family. According to Wikipedia: “The Semitic languages are a branch of the Afroasiatic language family. They are spoken by more than 330 million people across much of West Asia, the Horn of Africa, and latterly North Africa, Malta, in the Caucasus, and in large immigrant and expatriate communities in North America, Europe, and Australasia. “ European People The Jews who founded the state of Israel were far removed from the “original people” of the so called “Holy Land.” Just consider blue eyed, fair skinned David Ben Gurion, from Poland. Jews have been a European people from long before the Roman suppression of the 76 AD uprising that led to the destruction of the 2nd temple. Jews were not summarily expelled from Israel. There was a period of a few years when the Roman rulers barred Jewish men who were under 50 years of age from entering Jerusalem. Deporting whole populations was never a tactic used by the Roman Empire. Long before Rome dominated Palestine/Judea there was the Babylonian Exile, where a selected elite were deported to Babylon (it was way to assert cultural and political domination. They didn’t exile everyone; the farmers and poor stayed where they were. Ironically (looking way back) it was Persia who liberated the Jews and allowed them to return to Judea. The Jews of Israel during the ancient time of Empires: Persian, Roman, the Macedonian Greeks who divided up Alexander’s conquered territory after his death, they were in a similar position to that of people from Honduras or Mexico nowadays. Those who didn’t want to be subsistence farmers, or without means to make a decent living emigrated to the cosmopolitan cities of the big, wealthy empires. By 200 BCE there were Jewish communities in Alexandria, Athens, Rome and Roman Spain. They were seeking a better life as merchants, shopkeepers, professionals. By the time of the 76 AD rebellion, the majority of Jews did not live in Israel. For more than 2,000 years Jews have been mostly a European people. Growing up in a Jewish environment (even in bland Indianapolis) I ate Borscht, Brisket, blintzes ,pickled herring and other fare that was commonly consumed by Jews in America. Some of my parent’s friends spoke Yiddish and everyone knew phrases and words to use when deemed appropriate (what a schmuck! For instance, very useful for current times too). So, Jewish culture in America and other places consisted of Polish and Russian food, a language that is a dialect of German (written in Hebrew). The garb of orthodox and Haredi believers doesn’t seem to come from ancient Israel or Judea. I don’t think people there went around wearing black hats, black suits, long sideburns, etc. What is considered typical Jewish culture comes from Poland, Russia and central Europe. From the start the Zionist leaders saw their movement as 100% European. They shopped around for a great power to sponsor them and found it in the UK. The spiritual and actual, in many ways, father of today’s Israel, Vladimir Jabotinsky (creator of Revisionist Zionism) insisted that Jews were a European people, Europeans being intrinsically superior to Arabs. Jabotinsky! One might wonder. Who is that? Wasn’t Ben Gurion the founder of today’s Israel? It’s true that Ben Gurion was the leader of the social democratic Labor Party which ruled at the beginning of the founding of the Israeli state. But, Jabotinsky (who transitioned from Vladimir to Zeev) had the last laugh. His followers went on to found the Likud party and set the direction of Israeli politics and policy towards the far right. Jabotinsky had been a university student in Italy in the 1920s and admired Mussolini. This predilection shows in the modern Israeli state. The social democratic veneer of Israel is dead and gone. It was a scam from the start. Socialism and the Kibbutz was a way to put a progressive face on stealing Palestinian land and creating agricultural military style forts to secure a conquest. The socialist liars of the Labor Party and the Histradrut trade unions worked to create a Jews only labor movement that excluded “Arabs.” REACHING THE END GAME Recently, with the coming to power of the new Likud/theocratic nut case government, we can see how the Israeli/Judeo Fascist state wants to escalate a “final solution” to the Arab problem. Ethnic cleansing is on the agenda for the Israeli state. The strong protests from masses of Jewish Israeli citizens against the governments proposed legal changes has nothing to do with support of Palestinian rights. It is exclusively about secular Jews who don’t want wacko religious zelots imposing a theocratic religious state. Both sides support keeping the Palestinians down.

Fania All Stars - Our Latin Thing (Nuestra Cosa Latina) - Full Movie

How To End Up Serving The Right Journalists Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are known for exposing the crimes of the police, the military, and Wall Street. But they also spout dangerous conservative hyperbole about The Left. What’s going on? Nathan J. Robinson filed 17 June 2021 in MEDIA Journalists Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi have a long track record of work that exposes the crimes of the powerful. Both were early intellectual heroes of mine; Taibbi was one of the first writers to see through Barack Obama’s hollow rhetoric, and his reporting around the financial crisis was unmatched. His book on the killing of Eric Garner by the NYPD, I Can’t Breathe, is a superbly-written indictment of modern policing. Greenwald’s exposes on the crimes of the Bush and Obama administrations were essential reading, carefully documenting both presidents’ abuses of basic civil liberties and debunking their lies. His reporting on the corruption of the Brazilian government has been personally brave and truly important. There is a good case to be made that for his role in freeing Lula da Silva from prison and exposing the reach of the U.S. surveillance state, Glenn Greenwald is one of the most consequential reporters in the world. He has also been personally supportive of my work in a way I have appreciated deeply. I have long respected these two writers’ intelligence. I do not think they are sinister people. But something strange has happened with them both lately, and it’s worth looking at closely, because I think it shows (1) how bad right-wing arguments successfully pose as “common sense” and can easily persuade certain people, especially those who think of themselves as logical and reasonable, and (2) how excessive disgust for liberals can create deficiencies in one’s political analysis which in turn can give rise to a fuzzy understanding of the way the world works. (A bit more uncharitably, I might say it shows how Twitter turns smart people stupid.) Let me start with a few quotes from these two journalists that I think show the places where they have begun to diverge sharply from what I consider sensible analysis: “Fox [News] is one channel that no longer represents real institutional political influence in this country anymore. The financial/educational/political elite with all the power is on the other side, and I think they’re the people to be worrying about.” — Matt Taibbi “The left always thinks everyone is against them. It’s a huge persecution complex. The vast majority of digital media and increasingly mainstream media is 100% on the side of the left on cultural issues like crime policy.” — Glenn Greenwald “I would be on [Fox News] every day if I didn’t say no sometimes. I just got done taping a Fox show, I’ll probably do another one on Monday. Why is that happening? It’s bizarre. You look at any article on my work and it’s ‘far leftist Glenn Greenwald’ and now I’m the most frequent guest on Tucker Carlson’s show. How did that happen? I think the reason is so many people on the left and on the right… have so much more in common in terms of their political views and their common enemies than either want to recognize…Those old labels [left and right] don’t really tell us much anymore.” — Greenwald, to Glenn Beck “The American left has lost its mind. It’s become a cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.” — Taibbi “Watch the cultural left try to cope with the fact that not only is their Woke Ideology no threat to any power centers anywhere, but the opposite is true: those power centers love it and embrace it because of how helpful it is to them.” — Greenwald “It’s just not true that most media is pro-law-and-order. Republicans are. Democrats, increasingly, aren’t. The left most definitely isn’t, neither are liberals. Liberals and the left have a very powerful position in media, arguably the dominant one outside Fox. — Greenwald “The political right and left in America have traded villainous cultural pathologies. Things we once despised about the right have been amplified a thousand-fold on the flip. Conservatives once tried to legislate what went on in your bedroom; now it’s the left that obsesses over sexual codicils, not just for the bedroom but everywhere.” — Taibbi, “The Left Is Now The Right” “Woke leftists are capitalists. Jamie Dimon kneeling and Nancy Pelosi in a Kente cloth scarf are perfect symbols of the union.”— Matt Taibbi “Real leftist groups—Sunrise Movement, Working Families Party, DSA, JD, Squad-adjacent stuff—are very attached to many of the worst attributes of identity politics and woke ideology. I wish it were confined to neoliberalism but it’s just not true.” — Greenwald “The go-to response to any criticism of mainstream politics for years has been to accuse people of being in league with the right-wing—well, congratulations, you’ve made those alliances real.” — Taibbi “The CIA and the Deep State operatives became heroes of the liberal left, the people who support the Democratic Party. They are now in a full union with the neocons and the Bush Cheney operatives, the CIA, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street. That is the union of power, along with mainstream media outlets, that are fully behind the Democratic Party which is likely to at least take over one branch of government, if not all of them, in the coming election and that’s a very alarming proposition, because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship and suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light.” — Greenwald, to Tucker Carlson, before the 2020 election “The cultural left (meaning the part of the left focused on cultural issues rather than imperialism or corporatism) has become increasingly censorious, moralizing, controlling, repressive, petulant, joyless, self-victimizing, trivial and status-quo-perpetuating.” — Greenwald I put these two men’s thoughts together because they are articulating variations on a common argument, which goes, roughly: the “woke” left are such an authoritarian threat that it makes sense to make common cause with the “populist” right. “Left,” “left liberal,” and “Democrat” are used somewhat interchangeably here, but the thrust of the argument is that Donald Trump is essentially correct about Democrats destroying the country with “woke.” There is a “villainous cultural pathology” on the left that is repressive, tyrannical, and bordering on all-powerful. Ordinary, sensible people must band together to oppose this Establishment. Greenwald and Taibbi would likely insist that even though these views on the left align perfectly with those held by Fox News, the Koch Brothers, and Donald Trump, they are not themselves right-wing. (Greenwald, for instance, is married to one of Brazil’s foremost socialist politicians.) The truth does not have politics, and if Donald Trump says the sky is blue, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. If the right has correctly identified dangers in left-wing ideology, then making “common cause” or “alliances” with them is acceptable. Taibbi says that the right and left have “traded” pathologies, and so opponents of censorship and authoritarianism simply now find a more natural home among conservatives than they do among Democrats and supposed liberals. Greenwald has harshly criticized the ACLU, saying that it is run by “millennial woke warriors who don’t believe in free speech or due process” and arguing that his own former publication, the Intercept, “is shit” and run by “authoritarian shit liberals.” (In fact, the Intercept continues to be one of the best publications in the country in my opinion, with sharp writers like Jon Schwarz, Akela Lacy, Sara Sirota, Ryan Grim, Nick Turse, Murtaza Hussain, and Natasha Lennard.) Greenwald appears to view this liberal authoritarianism, built on “woke ideology,” as a greater threat to the country than Donald Trump’s brand of right-wing “populism.” By calling it “a very alarming proposition” that the Democratic Party was at the time poised to take over “at least one branch of government,” and suggesting Democrats want to shred the Constitution and “don’t believe in standard democratic processes,” and calling the Democratic Party the “epitome of the fascism they claim to be fighting, but which in reality they embody,” Greenwald has heavily implied that the Republican Party is actually the lesser of two evils. After all, if Democrats are the “epitome of fascism” and “completely repressive,” but on the other hand, “asserting that Donald Trump is a fascist-like dictator threatening the previously sturdy foundations of U.S. democracy” is a “preposterous farce,” and non-fascism remains preferable to fascism, then Trump’s politics are preferable to those of the contemporary Democratic Party. Greenwald has rejected the idea that Trump is an authoritarian, saying that Trump had “perfectly crafted opportunities to seize authoritarian power” and “yet did virtually nothing to exploit those opportunities.” He writes that “those most vocally screaming about growing authoritarianism in the U.S. over the last four years [of Trump’s presidency] were very right in their core warning, but very wrong about the real source of that danger.” That danger comes instead, he argues, from the fascist Democratic Party. This is the classic right-wing story about American politics: that left-leaning elites dominate the country and the right is marginal. Liberals control the most powerful institutions in the country, particularly centers of cultural power, and use these institutions to persecute conservatives. Greenwald writes that “the most powerful U.S. institutions—the intelligence community and military brass, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the corporate media—opposed and subverted [Trump] from the start.” Taibbi writes that Fox News is “without real institutional political influence” anymore. Instead, liberal fascists, in league with Wall Street, the Deep State, and Silicon Valley are trying to erode such vital democratic institutions like the Senate’s disproportionate representation of “small and rural states.” And while Greenwald sometimes distinguishes the Bernie Sanders left from the authoritarian liberals he so despises, he also says that the dangerous “woke ideology” is also present in leftist organizations like the DSA and the Sunrise Movement. This story about American politics is short-sighted, delusional, and dangerous. It’s short-sighted because much of what is called “wokeness,” while limited in its transformational capacity and cynically manipulated at times, is still a critically important step toward achieving justice. It’s delusional because the Democratic Party, for all its flaws, hypocrisies, and capitalist inclinations, is still preferable to the racist and extremely capitalist Republican Party. And it’s dangerous because Republicans are going to try to use this story about liberal fascism in order to try to get back into power in 2022 and 2024, and people who short-sightedly use their large platforms to push a delusional right-wing narrative are actively helping the Republican Party achieve its incredibly destructive goals. Let us begin with a few obvious cracks in the story told by Greenwald, Taibbi, and all of the American right. Here is a revealing exchange Greenwald had with right-wing pundit Glenn Back: GLENN BECK: We’re talking about the electoral process, we’re talking about new voting standards that they say are essential for everybody to vote and that Republicans are denying water to people. It’s pretty ridiculous. They’re talking now about the end of the filibuster, adding extra states and possibly packing the Supreme Court… It doesn’t seem as though this is the party [the Democratic Party] that’s moderate and not fascistic. GREENWALD: Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. The Democratic Party is a party that I view as completely repressive and not just the Democratic Party but the liberal movement that supports it. By liberal, just to be clear, I don’t mean the far left, the kind of left-wing movement that supported Bernie Sanders—a lot of them hate Democrats at least as much as people on the right. I mean establishment liberals of the Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton strain. Those people, they don’t believe in free speech at all. … They don’t believe in due process, they find people guilty all the time […] The whole MeToo movement was about destroying people based on accusations that are unproven. They don’t believe in free speech, they don’t believe in due process, they don’t believe in the standard democratic processes including the safeguards that our Founders put in including making sure that states that are small and rural have equal representation in the Senate but not the House. They want to change all of that. They want to change all of the rules to ensure that they remain in power forever. It is a genuinely repressive and tyrannical party and the movement that supports it is the reason I’ve become so violently alienated from it. Greenwald says that Democratic attacks on the Senate as an institution are attacks on fundamental “democratic” “safeguards” that the Founders put in, and that Democrats are repressive and tyrannical partly because they want to subvert the will of the principled gentlemen who devised our country’s original governing document. But as Noam Chomsky explains, the Senate is the opposite of a safeguard for democracy. In fact, it directly undermines liberty in the name of the wealthy and the powerful: “Now states with 23 percent of the population have enough electoral votes to choose the president. Even more importantly, the same radical imbalance makes the Senate a highly undemocratic institution—in accord with the intentions of the Framers. In Madison’s constitutional design, the Senate was the most powerful branch of government, and the most protected from public interference. It was to represent “the wealth of the nation,” the most “responsible” men, who have sympathy for property and its rights. Furthermore, though the Framers did not anticipate this of course, social and demographic changes have placed this excessive anti-democratic power in the hands of a part of the population that is mostly rural, white, Christian, socially conservative and traditionalist.” [emphasis mine] From the founding of the country to the present day, the Senate has helped make sure that the majority of people do not see their preferences enacted by their government. Because of that, those who believe in democracy really ought to fight against the Senate, not defend it. (Socialist congressman Victor Berger actually introduced a resolution in 1911 to abolish this “obstructive and useless body.” It failed.) Both Greenwald and Taibbi present the American right as weak. As Taibbi says, the “financial/educational/political elite with all the power is on the other side,” on the left. But that’s not so. The Supreme Court, which literally has “all the power” in the sense that it can overturn any law passed by Congress, now has six of its nine members appointed by Republican presidents. As Chomsky points out, this means that “if [Biden] tries anything progressive, the Supreme Court is there to block it.” Controlling the Supreme Court gives the right extreme veto power over any remotely progressive piece of legislation or administrative agency action. And it’s not just the Supreme Court: Donald Trump appointed hundreds of judges at lower levels, flipping three federal appellate courts from majority-Democrat to majority-Republican (an achievement the Republican Party openly boasts about, in a frank admission that law is a sham masking a naked power contest.) These judges have already begun to “reshape US law in a more conservative direction on issues as wide ranging as gun control, voting rights, environmental protections, abortion and immigration.” (These new conservative judges have, for instance, helped Republicans restrict felon voting rights. A Trump appointee just ruled that Biden could not stop issuing new drilling leases on federal lands.) It has been a quiet revolution, but a good part of the reason it has been so quiet is that loud people with public platforms think “woke ideology” is a far more important issue than the court system which actually decides our fates. The Republican Party fully controls 23 state governments, meaning it fully holds both the legislative and executive branches. (Democrats control 15.) Republicans have been using their power in these states to try to restrict abortion, deny healthcare to transgender youths, roll back voting rights, restrict schools from teaching about racism, ban cities from requiring paid sick leave, restrict cities from cutting law enforcement budgets, and reduce the rights of protesters. Nor is the Republican Party in Congress impotent. The 60-vote threshold in the Senate (which both Joe Biden and Joe Manchin resist abolishing) means Republicans have the power to prevent the Democratic Party from passing significant legislation. How, given that Republicans can literally prevent laws from being passed no matter how popular they are, can Taibbi possibly be right when he says that “all the power” is on the side opposite Fox News? The only way one can believe this is by swallowing the conservative story about reality rather than thinking carefully about what the world is actually like. If it is true that the Democratic Party are fascist authoritarians who control all major public institutions, then one might not weep if they were cast out of power and Trump were to return to office in 2024. But this would be a calamity. Donald Trump’s approach to climate change, probably the most urgent issue of our time (alongside global arms control), is to gut even the weak emissions reductions measures that are currently in place. Trump’s suicidal lunacy on climate change led Chomsky to call him “the worst criminal in history, undeniably,” on the grounds that “there has never been a figure in political history who was so passionately dedicated to destroying the projects for organized human life on earth in the near future.” Perhaps an exaggeration? For Chomsky, it simply comes from accepting the basic facts of climate change: That is not an exaggeration… We will emerge [from the pandemic, but] we’re not going to emerge from another crime that Trump has committed, the heating of the globe. The worst of it is coming—we’re not going to emerge from that. The ice sheets are melting; they’re not going to recover. That leads to exponential increase in global warming. Arctic glaciers, for example, could flood the world. Recent studies indicate that on the present course, in about fifty years, much of the habitable part of the world will be unlivable. You won’t be able to live in parts of South Asia, parts of the Middle East, parts of the United States… All around the world, countries are trying to do something about it. But there is one country which is led by a president who wants to escalate the crisis, to race toward the abyss, to maximize the use of fossil fuels, including the most dangerous of them, and to dismantle the regulatory apparatus that limits their impact. There is no crime like this in human history. Nothing. [Trump] is a unique individual. And it’s not as if he doesn’t know what he’s doing. Of course he does. It’s as if he doesn’t care. If he can pour more profits into his pockets and the pockets of his rich constituency tomorrow, who cares if the world disappears in a couple of generations? You might think that given the overriding importance of climate change, it would be insane to worry that the prospect of a Democratic victory in 2020 was “alarming.” What was alarming in 2020 was the prospect of having four more years without any possibility of meaningful climate action. It’s true that the Democrats are hopelessly weak on this and every other issue that matters, but it is also the case that if there is a chance of passing meaningful climate legislation or improving regulation, it can occur only with Democratic power as a precondition. Republican power means absolutely nothing will get done. This alone should completely rule out any kind of alliance with the right. They must be defeated. Add to that, of course, the rest of the right-wing agenda. A world in which Republicans rule is one in which the problem of mass incarceration grows worse, worker safety rules and labor rights are stripped, arms control treaties are ripped up, and immigration is sharply curbed. Of course, with a conservative Democrat like Joe Biden in the White House, we are unlikely to see substantial progress on these issues even though Trump is gone. But the only way to guarantee zero progress—and considerable backsliding—is to let the Republican Party control the country. The perception that Barack Obama and Joe Biden get less criticism from liberals for doing the same things as Donald Trump is absolutely correct. It is also correct to say that Donald Trump was not a bizarre authoritarian aberration, but in fact displayed tendencies that are also present in the centrist politicians who opposed him. This does not, however, mean (as Greenwald says) that the threat of authoritarianism in the U.S. had “nothing to do with Trump,” given that Donald Trump made every effort to delegitimize the election that ousted him and would have overturned the result if he had the power. Is the Democratic Party largely beholden to corporate donors? Are too many of them elite careerists who don’t care about much beyond securing their own status? Oh boy, you bet. Is it even somewhat embarrassing to be or support Democrats a lot of the time, to the point where leftists like Bernie deliberately maintain their distance from the party? Yes. I complain about Democrats constantly. But we need to be extremely careful, because acknowledging the Democratic party’s gaping flaws is not the same as believing that Liberal Fascism and the Wall Street-Silicon Valley Democratic Cabal run the country, and that therefore the Bernie Sanders left should feel more kinship with the Trumpist right than the Democratic Party, because they share a common enemy. “We detest Nancy Pelosi, they detest Nancy Pelosi, so let’s team up!” This view, that there should be a unified left-right “populist” movement against the Establishment, has been pushed by commentators Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, who now have the #1 most popular politics podcast in the country. Greenwald, who appeared as the show’s first guest, praises it as “geared toward having people stop hating each other and hate the ruling class instead,” and is a proponent of the view that right-wing populism (seemingly exemplified by the salt-of-the-earth, working class Josh Hawley, Donald Trump, and Tucker Carlson) should not be seen as an enemy of the left. But it is not clear what, beyond a belief that Amazon is too powerful, unites these two groups. Certainly when it comes to climate change, labor unions, arms control, mass incarceration, immigration, police brutality, racism, drone strikes, Israel, and trans rights, the “populist” right and the left stand diametrically opposed to one another. I suppose if one can set all of these critical issues aside, there may be “common ground.” But even when it comes to corporate power, Tucker Carlson’s problem with corporate America isn’t so much about wanting worker ownership of the means of production than it is about his resentment at having to buy products from companies that support Black Lives Matter. Donald Trump was not an economic “populist” in any authentic sense; a tax cut for the rich was his biggest legislative accomplishment. The “economically populist” aspects of Trumpism are and have always been a fraud; he could not care less about working people, he just knew how to pretend he did. This is not to say that there must be a problem with, say, a politician like Bernie Sanders working with Josh Hawley on narrow points of agreement, any more than there is a problem with Sanders co-signing a letter with free market libertarian Rand Paul. But it does mean that we need to be clear on what the consequences of Republican Party power are, and the fact that the difference between having a “right wing populist” in charge and a leftist is, to use a UK example, the difference between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn. Proposing an alliance between U.S. “populists” of left and right is as absurd as proposing an alliance between the Labour Left and the Tories on the grounds that the Tories have figured out that they ought to say the word “workers” sometimes. It is based on deep confusion about what the important questions of politics are, and only seems sensible if one lets the resentment of liberals take on an outsized role in shaping one’s politics. Very well: but what about the issue of Woke Authoritarianism? Taibbi and Greenwald suggest that the most powerful institutions in the country are captured by an authoritarian kind of Cultural Leftism that includes the MeToo movement (the “whole” of which was about “destroying people” based on “accusations that are unproven”—and not, say, at least partly about holding predators accountable for having committed sex crimes without suffering even minor social consequences). The idea here is that institutions like the CIA and large corporations have become captured by culturally left “woke” ideology. (This same idea is expressed in new books like Woke, Inc. and The Dictatorship of Woke Capital.) Personally I find use of the word “woke” by critics of the left to be extremely irritating, because the term is so imprecise. I feel the same way about “cancel culture.” The usage of this term often puts valuable anti-racist and feminist points in the same bucket as the most marginal and extreme beliefs. What exactly are we talking about? It is hard for me to even have this conversation, because to critics, there is a big blob called Woke that consists of many disparate, equally evil things. The 1619 Project. Staffers at Random House objecting to the publication of Jordan Peterson’s book. Facebook censoring Trump. The woman who resigned her job at Smith College because she was upset about the content of diversity and inclusion trainings. Dave Chappelle being criticized for transphobic jokes. Jazz hands instead of clapping. California trying to end inequities in math education by focusing more on low-performing students than gifted students. The concept of systemic racism being taught in schools. Corporations that hire Robin DiAngelo to give seminars. Trigger warnings. Nancy Pelosi wearing Kente cloth. Nancy Pelosi being criticized for wearing Kente cloth. Sensitivity readers. The CIA boasting of its commitment to intersectional feminism. Under one story, all of these can be lumped together as part of the spread of Woke Ideology. But under my own view—which I would argue is more nuanced and less reactive—there are many different kinds of things here, some of which are quite useful and represent social progress. The 1619 Project is mostly correct, with a few errors and failures, but on the whole has been a good contribution toward advancing public understanding of how important racism has been as a force in American history. Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility captures a real phenomenon—white people get very prickly when you suggest they might care more about white people than nonwhite people—but is also built on a liberal kind of identity politics with little understanding of how power works or commitment to true egalitarianism. It’s okay for publishing staff not to want their firm in particular to publish a terrible book by a reactionary (a publishing house is not a public square), but it would not be good if Peterson was banned or blocked entirely and the public could not read his work. (They should read his stuff, because it’s hilarious.) Sensitivity readers can actually help improve people’s work by making sure they’re not saying anything embarrassing or wrong about groups they are not members of. Facebook probably should have censored Trump in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, but while it is refreshing to not have to constantly hear about his yakking, I don’t see a good justification for permanently banning him from a platform that does amount to a “public square,” so long as we have a First Amendment. The ACLU is not “anti free speech” or “anti due process,” both of which are critically important, but faces a difficult trade-off where multiple values it holds come into conflict. It is possible, then, to have nuanced views, and I think that many people who are dismissed as Woke Authoritarians are actually, when their views are represented empathetically and fairly, a lot more reasonable than critics assume. The fact that Wall Street may pretend to care about George Floyd is not a sign that social justice rules the land. Powerful institutions are happy to embrace symbolic gestures, because pretending that you care about racism makes for an excellent branding exercise. This does not mean that the CIA is now “woke” and actually cares about racism, any more than hearing an Amazon executive describe the company as “the Bernie Sanders of employers” means Amazon has magically gone pro-labor. It’s all simply good business. And it doesn’t discredit the underlying left values of anti-racism and feminism, any more than a bottled water company’s usage of the words “pure” and “fresh” would discredit the value and importance of clean water. (Natasha Lennard of the Intercept provides an excellent explanation here of why powerful institutions’ co-optation of radical language does not show that the concepts are benign and toothless.) All the same, is it possible that anti-racist and femininist ideologies go “too far”? Given the persistence of the racial wealth gap, and the failure of MeToo to change longstanding exploitative workplace dynamics, I would say the problem is they haven’t gone far enough, having managed to change discourse without changing the social world very much. I don’t like it when leftists are unforgiving about small infractions, and believe we need a social justice politics with a comradely spirit that encourages people to grow, but the idea that the United States has an excess of feminism is laughable. No matter where the stories came from they all featured a few familiar beats: A loved one seemed to have changed over time. Maybe that person was already somewhat conservative to start. Maybe they were apolitical. But at one point or another, they sat down in front of Fox News, found some kind of deep, addictive comfort in the anger and paranoia, and became a different person—someone difficult, if not impossible, to spend time with. — Luke O’Neil, “What I’ve Learned From Collecting Stories of People Whose Loved Ones Were Transformed by Fox News,” New York Right-wing thought is kind of a black hole, in that once you are sucked in it is very hard to escape. This is because many right-wing arguments can sound quite persuasive, even like “common sense” (which is, of course, how they tend to present themselves). People don’t always notice when they have started to develop certain right-wing ways of looking at the world, often because they are only seeing one side of an argument. To see what I mean, I want to look at some of Greenwald’s comments on a police shooting. One of the first signs I had that something distinctly odd was happening to him came during an exchange we had about the killing of a young Black man by a police officer. In September of 2020, Washington D.C. police shot and killed 18-year-old Deon Kay. Bodycam footage showed that Kay had fled from officers while carrying a gun, but had thrown the gun away in the seconds before officers shot him to death. The American Civil Liberties Union tweeted a statement about the killing. It read: DC police murdered Deon Kay yesterday. He was just 18 years old. His death is yet another painful reminder that violence and racism is endemic to policing in this nation. We demand justice for Deon, and every life taken by DC police. Greenwald, a longtime civil liberties advocate (I first met him at an ACLU conference ten years ago) was outraged. But mostly at the ACLU. He said: The ACLU spent decades demanding robust due process for everyone, no matter how notorious, before declared guilty. Now—drowning in #Resistance cash and new hires who want it to be a standard liberal group—it leads online mobs declaring people guilty of murder with no trial. The ACLU still has great lawyers (including its Executive Director) who believe in its core mission of being a civil liberties group, not a partisan arm of the DNC or a dreary trite liberal group. But they’re a minority, overrun by newly hired people with a very different agenda. You don’t have to love the police or support what they did to believe the ACLU of all groups shouldn’t be declaring them guilty of murder with no due process—just like you didn’t have to love GITMO detainees to demand due process for them (as the ACLU did). That’s what due process is. (Taibbi, too, has said the ACLU is “just a partisan political organization now.”) The argument here, which may look quite reasonable on its surface, runs as follows: the ACLU is supposed to protect civil liberties, including the rights of the accused. The police officer here is accused of a crime. Thus the ACLU should not call the police officer a murderer until he is convicted. The fact that the ACLU did call the police officer a murderer shows that it is no longer clearly committed to due process of law, but instead leads “online mobs” declaring people guilty, and is a sign of their creeping liberal partisanship. But there is another way we can look at this situation. Police officers are the armed wing of the government. Deon Kay was a private citizen. Deon Kay deserved due process of law, and he didn’t receive it—he was extrajudicially executed. But in the United States, when police officers murder people, it is incredibly difficult to actually convict them of murder, because the law gives them wide latitude to kill people when they feel it is necessary. Police officers do murder people, and those crimes usually go unpunished. If the ACLU followed Greenwald’s standard, it could hardly ever call police officers murderers, even when they commit murder, because the law allows police officers to commit murder with impunity. In other words, the organization whose job is to stick up for civilians when the state commits crimes against them would rarely if ever be in a position to accuse the state of those crimes because the state has immunized itself from accountability. Thus Greenwald is wrong: the ACLU calling a police officer a murderer does not necessarily show it is less committed to due process than it used to be, but rather that it views deprivations of civilian due process (through extrajudicial killings) as more important than protecting the right of the government not to be called out directly for its crimes. The alternative—allowing government agents to end up being largely immune from being called murderers because their murders can’t be prosecuted—is absurd. Notice something here, which is that the point I am making is not as intuitively obvious as Greenwald’s formulation; his conclusion is quick and easy to reach. For him, the ACLU should not call a government crime a government crime until there has been a conviction, and if it does make the accusation pre-conviction, it doesn’t care about due process and clearly prioritizes Social Justice over Civil Liberties. It can take some thought to realize why this argument is overly simplistic and ignores crucial facts about the situation. When I tried to point it out to Greenwald, he saw this as evidence that I, too, must have become a Woke Revolutionary who doesn’t care about due process: ROBINSON: Being executed by the state without trial is also something of a due process violation. The ACLU’s job is to demand the enforcement of the rights of those who have them taken away by the state. Not to protect state executioners, who not only get due process but total impunity. GREENWALD: Not really interested in your performative Twitter show where you get to show how radical you are by defending the condemnation of Bad People as murderers without affording them due process. It’s boring. But fly, you revolutionary! Greenwald later apologized to me for responding this way. But it illustrated something important, which is that once you begin to believe that the other side are Crazy Social Justice Woke Authoritarians, it becomes harder and harder to actually hear what they are saying. I have documented over and over how critics of the left, because they think we are a bunch of unreasonable PC snowflakes, often struggle to notice when they themselves have become irrational, hyper-emotional, quick to condemn, intolerant, smug, and self-righteous. It is possible not to see that you have subtly developed a greater concern with fairness to police than protection from police. To avoid the drift into confident irrationality, you need to be just as self-critical as you are critical of others. The ACLU, under pressure from those who saw the word “murderer” as Wokeness rather than fact, deleted its tweet and replaced it with something more mealy-mouthed. (And so were civil liberties protected for another day.) The Trump administration, predictably, declined to charge the officer who shot Deon Kay. Months later, the Office of the D.C. Auditor would find that the officer who shot Kay had acted recklessly and not taken opportunities to de-escalate the situation. The Auditor would not, of course, accuse the officer of murder, because as a legal matter, an officer who commits murder is often not technically a murderer. But the fact remains that Deon Kay was murdered, even if the groups charged with sticking up for his civil liberties do not feel comfortable saying it for fear of impinging on the rights of the police. This is not the only instance in which Greenwald has seemed more interested in defending those in power than those challenging them. He has recently been vigorously condemning Liberals and corporate media for what he sees as a piece of anti-Trump “fake news,” namely the story that on June 1st of 2020, Trump had protesters tear-gassed in order to do a photo op. In fact, a new Inspector General report shows that the police had planned to violently clear out the protesters for a couple of days as part of a plan to install anti-protester fencing in the area. Greenwald fixates on the fact that the tear-gassing was not arranged specifically so that Trump could do a photo op, saying this is an example of the lying corporate media, who do not care about truth and only care about attacking Trump. But it seems to me that presenting this as a “fake story” is highly misleading. After all, the factual question at issue is: did Trump (1) plan a photo-op to coincide with a previously-scheduled tear-gassing, or did he (2) arrange the tear-gassing to facilitate the photo op? (Of course, it would be denied that the tear-gassing itself was scheduled, just a clearance operation of the area. This is a rhetorical distinction with little meaning.) Because Trump had been calling for harsh crackdowns on protesters right before the tear-gassing, and then did a photo op at the site immediately after, it was originally assumed that (2) was true (quite a natural assumption given that Trump did a photo op in the area immediately after police tear-gassed people to get them out of it, and seemed proud to be seen “retaking the territory” and restoring Law and Order), but now it turns out it was (1). It appears the police had planned to empty the park of protesters, and Trump decided shortly beforehand that he would come and do a victory lap after they’d all been gassed and hauled away. He may have even wanted to leave the impression he had ordered the “rioters” tear-gassed because, in case you don’t remember, Donald Trump relishes cruelty and made no apologies for a tough stance on those he viewed as disorderly anarchists. The brutality of the operation has not changed. And in fact, Greenwald leaves out an important fact: the report suggests that even though the evacuation of the area was previously planned, the Secret Service appears to have started the operation early for unclear reasons. The report also relies on police officer testimony to substantiate its conclusion that the Attorney General did not order the area cleared earlier than planned in order to facilitate the photo op. One would expect a civil libertarian to be more skeptical of “the word of police” as evidence. But Greenwald has become so fixated on the Liberal Media that police violence against protesters seems almost ancillary to the central and more important point, which is apparently about the Lying Media. (As another example, Greenwald’s take on the death of Officer Brian Sicknick during the Jan 6 riot, which was first thought to be at the hands of protesters but turned out to be of natural causes, is that the Liberal Media fudged the facts to make Trump look bad. That may be so, but it’s also the case that the Capitol police themselves lied about Sicknick’s death, probably so they could distract from their own incompetence at controlling the crowd. It’s as much a story about police misinformation as Liberal Media misinformation, but Greenwald’s hatred is aimed squarely at the Liberals.) I am not alleging here that Greenwald or Taibbi have become conservatives. They don’t identify as leftists, but they differ from the right on too many points to actually be labeled right-wing. I think the Daily Beast’s recent critical piece on Greenwald is deeply unfair in conflating believing some charge against Donald Trump is factually false with defending Donald Trump, and calling Greenwald the “new master of right-wing media.” Taibbi is right to argue that for many in the media who deplore Trump, the fact that Donald Trump believes something is seen as reason to reflexively disbelieve it. The problem is that the opposite can happen, too. A person who sees themselves as an Independent Thinker can come to resent and despise liberal hypocrisy so much that they don’t notice themselves becoming careless and reflexive thinkers, and buying into conservative propaganda that looks like “common sense” but isn’t. They can care a lot more about the threat posed by college students to free speech than the threat posed by Republican state legislators who want to tell professors what to teach. Taibbi and Greenwald have both shown an odd credulity toward conservative talking points about transgender people, perhaps because they haven’t thought carefully about the counterarguments. Greenwald has connected rises in violent crime to the presence of reformist prosecutors like Philadelphia’s Larry Krasner, and accused progressive media outlets of “erasing” facts about the negative effects of reform, even though this an easily debunked myth. (Homicides have increased in metro areas but “the increase was consistent across 69 major municipalities, regardless of whether the county had a progressive district attorney.”) The belief that Liberals and Democrats are irredeemable and unable to care about anything but power can lead one into downright wrong and sloppy analysis. For instance, Greenwald appears to have become convinced that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Democratic party apparatchik whose job is to provide leftist support for centrist elites. “All she wants to do is attack Republicans and fortify the Democratic party. That is what the left has become, and they know it,” Greenwald said. In a scathing blog post during the Israeli bombing of Gaza, he wrote that it was unthinkable AOC would criticize Biden’s role in supporting Israel: She refused to call on the Biden administration explicitly to change its policies or denounce Biden’s fanaticism on this issue… . Is it possible to imagine AOC telling her 14 million followers that the reason Israel receives billions each year in U.S. funds… is because Obama gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a record-shattering $38 billion package on his way out (just as Obama broke records with military aid to the Saudi dictatorship)? Is it possible to imagine AOC making clear to her loyal flock of millions that the real parties responsible for what she says she regards as deeply immoral, even as war crimes, are—by name—Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi? (May 12) In fact, that very day, AOC did just that, tweeting: By only stepping in to name Hamas’ actions—which are condemnable—& refusing to acknowledge the rights of Palestinians, Biden reinforces the false idea that Palestinians instigated this cycle of violence. This is not neutral language. It takes a side—the side of occupation. And soon after: The United States should not be rubber-stamping weapons sales to the Israeli government as they deploy our resources to target international media outlets, schools, hospitals, humanitarian missions and civilian sites for bombing. The congresswoman then introduced a resolution to block U.S. arms sales to Israel and landed herself in huge controversy by calling Israel an apartheid state. The fact that Greenwald thought this was “not possible to imagine,” and then it immediately happened, should suggest that his analysis is screwy and defective in major ways. AOC, like Bernie Sanders, often does deeply disappointing things. But it is excessively cynical—and frankly erroneous—to pre-emptively decide she is a careerist whose only goal is to bolster the Democratic Party. We know AOC is a young democratic socialist in a hostile environment who has to navigate difficult political choices. In that situation, there is immense pressure to be “cautious,” and certainly I wish she would resist that pressure harder. Sometimes she takes stances I find downright wrong, like pressuring Facebook to be more heavy-handed in policing political advertisements. (I’ve written before about how terrified I am that Facebook will end up deeming leftist content too radical and booting it, killing critically important political discourse as well as my ability to make a living.) We should be highly skeptical of any politician, even the ones on “our side” and hold them to account. But it’s simply not correct to view her as solely invested in propping up the Democratic Party’s leaders, since she has shown herself willing to harshly criticize them. (Just in the past week we saw the headline “AOC Rips Into Fellow Democrats” over their condemnation of Ilhan Omar, and AOC attacking Biden for not canceling student debt). She may not do it often enough, or strongly enough, but she does do it. Distaste for liberalism and political correctness can dull your political analysis, because the dislike is visceral and formed before thought has occurred. In fact, a lot of the “politically correct” stuff, when analyzed carefully, actually turns out to be much more reasonable than it seems. Sometimes the stories of “wokeness gone mad” are simply exaggerations of what happened. Other times, they are accurate but a little empathy is warranted. For instance, the DSA, which Greenwald says follows Woke Ideology, was mocked by Fox News for some debates over inclusion that the right found risible. I was at that convention, though, and these discussions formed such a tiny part of what happened there that I didn’t even know about them until I saw the clips on Fox. The overall narrative of the convention was that socialists were beginning to organize very successfully across the country, electing officials in many different states and coming together around a clear agenda for environmental justice, health justice, labor rights, and more. And as Jacob Bacharach writes in a lovely essay about Political Correctness at the DSA convention, fixating on the embarrassing or over-the-top things the left does, and forgetting that many efforts at inclusion “[come] from a genuine wellspring of generosity that must be the foundation of any decent society,” means making enemies of people who are often just trying to do their best to be good. (These attempts to be good are frequently dismissed as Virtue Signaling, because people trying to show you that they’re good must be doing so for selfish reasons and not because figuring out how to be a decent person is often hard.) It is difficult to talk to someone who has been sucked into the black hole of right-wing arguments, and who is so confident they understand The Cultural Left that they see any pushback as an attack by a PC Cancel Culture Warrior. Taibbi has developed the habit of muting on social media anyone who asks “what happened to you?” or why he chooses to focus on certain subjects rather than others. (He considers this whataboutism.) He literally makes sure he cannot hear those who make arguments he dislikes. (For more on Taibbi’s strange arguments and unwillingness to hear criticism, see this response to him I wrote last year.) Greenwald has alienated nearly all of his former colleagues at the Intercept, plus many brilliant leftists, such as Naomi Klein (who says he is “losing the plot”), Jeremy Scahill (“[Greenwald is] promoting smears…disturbs me deeply”), and Noam Chomsky (“I don’t understand what is happening… I hope it will pass”). (If these legendary people all thought this about me, I’d go off and do a hell of a lot of self-reflection.) It’s sad watching someone you have long respected drift in this direction, becoming angrier, more irrational, impossible to talk to, and all the while convinced that they haven’t changed and you must have just swallowed Liberal Ideology. The hatred of political correctness can kill your power to reason. Look at Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker. All convinced the left is nuts and they’re the sensible ones. All uninterested in actually engaging left arguments seriously. You start by disliking liberal hypocrisy, and soon you end up saying ridiculous things like “the minute you declare yourself nonbinary or trans, you catapult up the ladder of oppression that absolutely confers concrete benefits.” This is just a laughably incorrect statement which utterly ignores the average life experience of trans people in this country. Conservative talking points like this are full of rage, nastiness, and a total lack of interest in the material realities of the people under discussion. The cases of Greenwald and Taibbi offer evidence for something that should alarm us all: conservative stories about the world are powerful, and even though they often aren’t true, it is easy for people (especially but not exclusively white men) to come to believe them without even really noticing they are gliding away from reality. Greenwald insists he hasn’t changed his beliefs, and perhaps he has not. He did, after all, begin his career as a commentator spouting vile right-wing myths about immigrants (“illegal immigration—whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate—renders impossible the preservation of any national identity”) and attacking Latin American protesters against the Iraq war as Castro-lovers. But it appears he genuinely evolved out of those horrendous beliefs, only to end up swallowing new right-wing propaganda later in life. We may well see more of this “I’m sympathetic to left goals, but I have been driven to the right on many issues because of political correctness” nonsense. Elite institutions are going to keep embracing a caricatured version of some social justice values, because it helps them assuage their guilt over the fact they are fundamentally unjust. This hypocrisy will be easy to mock, and it will be easy to use to make a case that Radical Leftism Is Everywhere. An intelligent person will see that this does not in fact mean The Left Controls All The Institutions, but that grand shows of wokeness are often purely cynical acts performed by sociopaths. (Jamie Dimon is not taking a knee because he cares about racial egalitarianism.) An intelligent person will try to think clearly about who actually has power, looking beyond the media and toward state legislatures, courts, and the Chamber of Commerce. Unfortunately, if the narrative about a sinister Fascist Cultural Left That Controls Everything continues to spread, it may well be the right’s path to regaining power. The Republicans made cancel culture the focus of their 2020 convention, and they nearly won the election despite the president having totally botched the coronavirus response and the party’s policy platform being deeply unpopular. The Taibbi-Greenwald view that sensible people ought to form an “alliance” with the right against the Democratic authoritarians means, at best, obscuring the real stakes of Republican power. At worst, it may actively help Trumpists get back into power and ramp up xenophobia and climate catastrophe. Taibbi resents “being accused of aiding the cause of Trump or the right-wing,” but right-wing political power has consequences, and it is necessary to both tell the truth (even when that truth favors Trump) and keep our focus on what matters most. We must keep our analysis clear. We must not focus excessively on Twitter-based cancel culture flaps and forget the political forces that are the greatest determinant of who lives and dies. What has happened to Greenwald and Taibbi may happen to people you know and love, and we need ways to keep people from crossing the event horizon and ending up ranting about BLM, trans kids, Liberals, and the ACLU without ever noticing they have drifted far away from the realm of the reasonable. I would beg those who find themselves being told they are going down this path to deploy some self-reflection and empathy, and see if their critics might have a point.

How To End Up Serving The Right Journalists Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are known for exposing the crimes of the police, the military, and Wall Street. But they also spout dangerous conservative hyperbole about The Left. What’s going on? Nathan J. Robinson filed 17 June 2021 in MEDIA Journalists Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi have a long track record of work that exposes the crimes of the powerful. Both were early intellectual heroes of mine; Taibbi was one of the first writers to see through Barack Obama’s hollow rhetoric, and his reporting around the financial crisis was unmatched. His book on the killing of Eric Garner by the NYPD, I Can’t Breathe, is a superbly-written indictment of modern policing. Greenwald’s exposes on the crimes of the Bush and Obama administrations were essential reading, carefully documenting both presidents’ abuses of basic civil liberties and debunking their lies. His reporting on the corruption of the Brazilian government has been personally brave and truly important. There is a good case to be made that for his role in freeing Lula da Silva from prison and exposing the reach of the U.S. surveillance state, Glenn Greenwald is one of the most consequential reporters in the world. He has also been personally supportive of my work in a way I have appreciated deeply. I have long respected these two writers’ intelligence. I do not think they are sinister people. But something strange has happened with them both lately, and it’s worth looking at closely, because I think it shows (1) how bad right-wing arguments successfully pose as “common sense” and can easily persuade certain people, especially those who think of themselves as logical and reasonable, and (2) how excessive disgust for liberals can create deficiencies in one’s political analysis which in turn can give rise to a fuzzy understanding of the way the world works. (A bit more uncharitably, I might say it shows how Twitter turns smart people stupid.) Let me start with a few quotes from these two journalists that I think show the places where they have begun to diverge sharply from what I consider sensible analysis: “Fox [News] is one channel that no longer represents real institutional political influence in this country anymore. The financial/educational/political elite with all the power is on the other side, and I think they’re the people to be worrying about.” — Matt Taibbi “The left always thinks everyone is against them. It’s a huge persecution complex. The vast majority of digital media and increasingly mainstream media is 100% on the side of the left on cultural issues like crime policy.” — Glenn Greenwald “I would be on [Fox News] every day if I didn’t say no sometimes. I just got done taping a Fox show, I’ll probably do another one on Monday. Why is that happening? It’s bizarre. You look at any article on my work and it’s ‘far leftist Glenn Greenwald’ and now I’m the most frequent guest on Tucker Carlson’s show. How did that happen? I think the reason is so many people on the left and on the right… have so much more in common in terms of their political views and their common enemies than either want to recognize…Those old labels [left and right] don’t really tell us much anymore.” — Greenwald, to Glenn Beck “The American left has lost its mind. It’s become a cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.” — Taibbi “Watch the cultural left try to cope with the fact that not only is their Woke Ideology no threat to any power centers anywhere, but the opposite is true: those power centers love it and embrace it because of how helpful it is to them.” — Greenwald “It’s just not true that most media is pro-law-and-order. Republicans are. Democrats, increasingly, aren’t. The left most definitely isn’t, neither are liberals. Liberals and the left have a very powerful position in media, arguably the dominant one outside Fox. — Greenwald “The political right and left in America have traded villainous cultural pathologies. Things we once despised about the right have been amplified a thousand-fold on the flip. Conservatives once tried to legislate what went on in your bedroom; now it’s the left that obsesses over sexual codicils, not just for the bedroom but everywhere.” — Taibbi, “The Left Is Now The Right” “Woke leftists are capitalists. Jamie Dimon kneeling and Nancy Pelosi in a Kente cloth scarf are perfect symbols of the union.”— Matt Taibbi “Real leftist groups—Sunrise Movement, Working Families Party, DSA, JD, Squad-adjacent stuff—are very attached to many of the worst attributes of identity politics and woke ideology. I wish it were confined to neoliberalism but it’s just not true.” — Greenwald “The go-to response to any criticism of mainstream politics for years has been to accuse people of being in league with the right-wing—well, congratulations, you’ve made those alliances real.” — Taibbi “The CIA and the Deep State operatives became heroes of the liberal left, the people who support the Democratic Party. They are now in a full union with the neocons and the Bush Cheney operatives, the CIA, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street. That is the union of power, along with mainstream media outlets, that are fully behind the Democratic Party which is likely to at least take over one branch of government, if not all of them, in the coming election and that’s a very alarming proposition, because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship and suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light.” — Greenwald, to Tucker Carlson, before the 2020 election “The cultural left (meaning the part of the left focused on cultural issues rather than imperialism or corporatism) has become increasingly censorious, moralizing, controlling, repressive, petulant, joyless, self-victimizing, trivial and status-quo-perpetuating.” — Greenwald I put these two men’s thoughts together because they are articulating variations on a common argument, which goes, roughly: the “woke” left are such an authoritarian threat that it makes sense to make common cause with the “populist” right. “Left,” “left liberal,” and “Democrat” are used somewhat interchangeably here, but the thrust of the argument is that Donald Trump is essentially correct about Democrats destroying the country with “woke.” There is a “villainous cultural pathology” on the left that is repressive, tyrannical, and bordering on all-powerful. Ordinary, sensible people must band together to oppose this Establishment. Greenwald and Taibbi would likely insist that even though these views on the left align perfectly with those held by Fox News, the Koch Brothers, and Donald Trump, they are not themselves right-wing. (Greenwald, for instance, is married to one of Brazil’s foremost socialist politicians.) The truth does not have politics, and if Donald Trump says the sky is blue, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. If the right has correctly identified dangers in left-wing ideology, then making “common cause” or “alliances” with them is acceptable. Taibbi says that the right and left have “traded” pathologies, and so opponents of censorship and authoritarianism simply now find a more natural home among conservatives than they do among Democrats and supposed liberals. Greenwald has harshly criticized the ACLU, saying that it is run by “millennial woke warriors who don’t believe in free speech or due process” and arguing that his own former publication, the Intercept, “is shit” and run by “authoritarian shit liberals.” (In fact, the Intercept continues to be one of the best publications in the country in my opinion, with sharp writers like Jon Schwarz, Akela Lacy, Sara Sirota, Ryan Grim, Nick Turse, Murtaza Hussain, and Natasha Lennard.) Greenwald appears to view this liberal authoritarianism, built on “woke ideology,” as a greater threat to the country than Donald Trump’s brand of right-wing “populism.” By calling it “a very alarming proposition” that the Democratic Party was at the time poised to take over “at least one branch of government,” and suggesting Democrats want to shred the Constitution and “don’t believe in standard democratic processes,” and calling the Democratic Party the “epitome of the fascism they claim to be fighting, but which in reality they embody,” Greenwald has heavily implied that the Republican Party is actually the lesser of two evils. After all, if Democrats are the “epitome of fascism” and “completely repressive,” but on the other hand, “asserting that Donald Trump is a fascist-like dictator threatening the previously sturdy foundations of U.S. democracy” is a “preposterous farce,” and non-fascism remains preferable to fascism, then Trump’s politics are preferable to those of the contemporary Democratic Party. Greenwald has rejected the idea that Trump is an authoritarian, saying that Trump had “perfectly crafted opportunities to seize authoritarian power” and “yet did virtually nothing to exploit those opportunities.” He writes that “those most vocally screaming about growing authoritarianism in the U.S. over the last four years [of Trump’s presidency] were very right in their core warning, but very wrong about the real source of that danger.” That danger comes instead, he argues, from the fascist Democratic Party. This is the classic right-wing story about American politics: that left-leaning elites dominate the country and the right is marginal. Liberals control the most powerful institutions in the country, particularly centers of cultural power, and use these institutions to persecute conservatives. Greenwald writes that “the most powerful U.S. institutions—the intelligence community and military brass, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the corporate media—opposed and subverted [Trump] from the start.” Taibbi writes that Fox News is “without real institutional political influence” anymore. Instead, liberal fascists, in league with Wall Street, the Deep State, and Silicon Valley are trying to erode such vital democratic institutions like the Senate’s disproportionate representation of “small and rural states.” And while Greenwald sometimes distinguishes the Bernie Sanders left from the authoritarian liberals he so despises, he also says that the dangerous “woke ideology” is also present in leftist organizations like the DSA and the Sunrise Movement. This story about American politics is short-sighted, delusional, and dangerous. It’s short-sighted because much of what is called “wokeness,” while limited in its transformational capacity and cynically manipulated at times, is still a critically important step toward achieving justice. It’s delusional because the Democratic Party, for all its flaws, hypocrisies, and capitalist inclinations, is still preferable to the racist and extremely capitalist Republican Party. And it’s dangerous because Republicans are going to try to use this story about liberal fascism in order to try to get back into power in 2022 and 2024, and people who short-sightedly use their large platforms to push a delusional right-wing narrative are actively helping the Republican Party achieve its incredibly destructive goals. Let us begin with a few obvious cracks in the story told by Greenwald, Taibbi, and all of the American right. Here is a revealing exchange Greenwald had with right-wing pundit Glenn Back: GLENN BECK: We’re talking about the electoral process, we’re talking about new voting standards that they say are essential for everybody to vote and that Republicans are denying water to people. It’s pretty ridiculous. They’re talking now about the end of the filibuster, adding extra states and possibly packing the Supreme Court… It doesn’t seem as though this is the party [the Democratic Party] that’s moderate and not fascistic. GREENWALD: Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. The Democratic Party is a party that I view as completely repressive and not just the Democratic Party but the liberal movement that supports it. By liberal, just to be clear, I don’t mean the far left, the kind of left-wing movement that supported Bernie Sanders—a lot of them hate Democrats at least as much as people on the right. I mean establishment liberals of the Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton strain. Those people, they don’t believe in free speech at all. … They don’t believe in due process, they find people guilty all the time […] The whole MeToo movement was about destroying people based on accusations that are unproven. They don’t believe in free speech, they don’t believe in due process, they don’t believe in the standard democratic processes including the safeguards that our Founders put in including making sure that states that are small and rural have equal representation in the Senate but not the House. They want to change all of that. They want to change all of the rules to ensure that they remain in power forever. It is a genuinely repressive and tyrannical party and the movement that supports it is the reason I’ve become so violently alienated from it. Greenwald says that Democratic attacks on the Senate as an institution are attacks on fundamental “democratic” “safeguards” that the Founders put in, and that Democrats are repressive and tyrannical partly because they want to subvert the will of the principled gentlemen who devised our country’s original governing document. But as Noam Chomsky explains, the Senate is the opposite of a safeguard for democracy. In fact, it directly undermines liberty in the name of the wealthy and the powerful: “Now states with 23 percent of the population have enough electoral votes to choose the president. Even more importantly, the same radical imbalance makes the Senate a highly undemocratic institution—in accord with the intentions of the Framers. In Madison’s constitutional design, the Senate was the most powerful branch of government, and the most protected from public interference. It was to represent “the wealth of the nation,” the most “responsible” men, who have sympathy for property and its rights. Furthermore, though the Framers did not anticipate this of course, social and demographic changes have placed this excessive anti-democratic power in the hands of a part of the population that is mostly rural, white, Christian, socially conservative and traditionalist.” [emphasis mine] From the founding of the country to the present day, the Senate has helped make sure that the majority of people do not see their preferences enacted by their government. Because of that, those who believe in democracy really ought to fight against the Senate, not defend it. (Socialist congressman Victor Berger actually introduced a resolution in 1911 to abolish this “obstructive and useless body.” It failed.) Both Greenwald and Taibbi present the American right as weak. As Taibbi says, the “financial/educational/political elite with all the power is on the other side,” on the left. But that’s not so. The Supreme Court, which literally has “all the power” in the sense that it can overturn any law passed by Congress, now has six of its nine members appointed by Republican presidents. As Chomsky points out, this means that “if [Biden] tries anything progressive, the Supreme Court is there to block it.” Controlling the Supreme Court gives the right extreme veto power over any remotely progressive piece of legislation or administrative agency action. And it’s not just the Supreme Court: Donald Trump appointed hundreds of judges at lower levels, flipping three federal appellate courts from majority-Democrat to majority-Republican (an achievement the Republican Party openly boasts about, in a frank admission that law is a sham masking a naked power contest.) These judges have already begun to “reshape US law in a more conservative direction on issues as wide ranging as gun control, voting rights, environmental protections, abortion and immigration.” (These new conservative judges have, for instance, helped Republicans restrict felon voting rights. A Trump appointee just ruled that Biden could not stop issuing new drilling leases on federal lands.) It has been a quiet revolution, but a good part of the reason it has been so quiet is that loud people with public platforms think “woke ideology” is a far more important issue than the court system which actually decides our fates. The Republican Party fully controls 23 state governments, meaning it fully holds both the legislative and executive branches. (Democrats control 15.) Republicans have been using their power in these states to try to restrict abortion, deny healthcare to transgender youths, roll back voting rights, restrict schools from teaching about racism, ban cities from requiring paid sick leave, restrict cities from cutting law enforcement budgets, and reduce the rights of protesters. Nor is the Republican Party in Congress impotent. The 60-vote threshold in the Senate (which both Joe Biden and Joe Manchin resist abolishing) means Republicans have the power to prevent the Democratic Party from passing significant legislation. How, given that Republicans can literally prevent laws from being passed no matter how popular they are, can Taibbi possibly be right when he says that “all the power” is on the side opposite Fox News? The only way one can believe this is by swallowing the conservative story about reality rather than thinking carefully about what the world is actually like. If it is true that the Democratic Party are fascist authoritarians who control all major public institutions, then one might not weep if they were cast out of power and Trump were to return to office in 2024. But this would be a calamity. Donald Trump’s approach to climate change, probably the most urgent issue of our time (alongside global arms control), is to gut even the weak emissions reductions measures that are currently in place. Trump’s suicidal lunacy on climate change led Chomsky to call him “the worst criminal in history, undeniably,” on the grounds that “there has never been a figure in political history who was so passionately dedicated to destroying the projects for organized human life on earth in the near future.” Perhaps an exaggeration? For Chomsky, it simply comes from accepting the basic facts of climate change: That is not an exaggeration… We will emerge [from the pandemic, but] we’re not going to emerge from another crime that Trump has committed, the heating of the globe. The worst of it is coming—we’re not going to emerge from that. The ice sheets are melting; they’re not going to recover. That leads to exponential increase in global warming. Arctic glaciers, for example, could flood the world. Recent studies indicate that on the present course, in about fifty years, much of the habitable part of the world will be unlivable. You won’t be able to live in parts of South Asia, parts of the Middle East, parts of the United States… All around the world, countries are trying to do something about it. But there is one country which is led by a president who wants to escalate the crisis, to race toward the abyss, to maximize the use of fossil fuels, including the most dangerous of them, and to dismantle the regulatory apparatus that limits their impact. There is no crime like this in human history. Nothing. [Trump] is a unique individual. And it’s not as if he doesn’t know what he’s doing. Of course he does. It’s as if he doesn’t care. If he can pour more profits into his pockets and the pockets of his rich constituency tomorrow, who cares if the world disappears in a couple of generations? You might think that given the overriding importance of climate change, it would be insane to worry that the prospect of a Democratic victory in 2020 was “alarming.” What was alarming in 2020 was the prospect of having four more years without any possibility of meaningful climate action. It’s true that the Democrats are hopelessly weak on this and every other issue that matters, but it is also the case that if there is a chance of passing meaningful climate legislation or improving regulation, it can occur only with Democratic power as a precondition. Republican power means absolutely nothing will get done. This alone should completely rule out any kind of alliance with the right. They must be defeated. Add to that, of course, the rest of the right-wing agenda. A world in which Republicans rule is one in which the problem of mass incarceration grows worse, worker safety rules and labor rights are stripped, arms control treaties are ripped up, and immigration is sharply curbed. Of course, with a conservative Democrat like Joe Biden in the White House, we are unlikely to see substantial progress on these issues even though Trump is gone. But the only way to guarantee zero progress—and considerable backsliding—is to let the Republican Party control the country. The perception that Barack Obama and Joe Biden get less criticism from liberals for doing the same things as Donald Trump is absolutely correct. It is also correct to say that Donald Trump was not a bizarre authoritarian aberration, but in fact displayed tendencies that are also present in the centrist politicians who opposed him. This does not, however, mean (as Greenwald says) that the threat of authoritarianism in the U.S. had “nothing to do with Trump,” given that Donald Trump made every effort to delegitimize the election that ousted him and would have overturned the result if he had the power. Is the Democratic Party largely beholden to corporate donors? Are too many of them elite careerists who don’t care about much beyond securing their own status? Oh boy, you bet. Is it even somewhat embarrassing to be or support Democrats a lot of the time, to the point where leftists like Bernie deliberately maintain their distance from the party? Yes. I complain about Democrats constantly. But we need to be extremely careful, because acknowledging the Democratic party’s gaping flaws is not the same as believing that Liberal Fascism and the Wall Street-Silicon Valley Democratic Cabal run the country, and that therefore the Bernie Sanders left should feel more kinship with the Trumpist right than the Democratic Party, because they share a common enemy. “We detest Nancy Pelosi, they detest Nancy Pelosi, so let’s team up!” This view, that there should be a unified left-right “populist” movement against the Establishment, has been pushed by commentators Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, who now have the #1 most popular politics podcast in the country. Greenwald, who appeared as the show’s first guest, praises it as “geared toward having people stop hating each other and hate the ruling class instead,” and is a proponent of the view that right-wing populism (seemingly exemplified by the salt-of-the-earth, working class Josh Hawley, Donald Trump, and Tucker Carlson) should not be seen as an enemy of the left. But it is not clear what, beyond a belief that Amazon is too powerful, unites these two groups. Certainly when it comes to climate change, labor unions, arms control, mass incarceration, immigration, police brutality, racism, drone strikes, Israel, and trans rights, the “populist” right and the left stand diametrically opposed to one another. I suppose if one can set all of these critical issues aside, there may be “common ground.” But even when it comes to corporate power, Tucker Carlson’s problem with corporate America isn’t so much about wanting worker ownership of the means of production than it is about his resentment at having to buy products from companies that support Black Lives Matter. Donald Trump was not an economic “populist” in any authentic sense; a tax cut for the rich was his biggest legislative accomplishment. The “economically populist” aspects of Trumpism are and have always been a fraud; he could not care less about working people, he just knew how to pretend he did. This is not to say that there must be a problem with, say, a politician like Bernie Sanders working with Josh Hawley on narrow points of agreement, any more than there is a problem with Sanders co-signing a letter with free market libertarian Rand Paul. But it does mean that we need to be clear on what the consequences of Republican Party power are, and the fact that the difference between having a “right wing populist” in charge and a leftist is, to use a UK example, the difference between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn. Proposing an alliance between U.S. “populists” of left and right is as absurd as proposing an alliance between the Labour Left and the Tories on the grounds that the Tories have figured out that they ought to say the word “workers” sometimes. It is based on deep confusion about what the important questions of politics are, and only seems sensible if one lets the resentment of liberals take on an outsized role in shaping one’s politics. Very well: but what about the issue of Woke Authoritarianism? Taibbi and Greenwald suggest that the most powerful institutions in the country are captured by an authoritarian kind of Cultural Leftism that includes the MeToo movement (the “whole” of which was about “destroying people” based on “accusations that are unproven”—and not, say, at least partly about holding predators accountable for having committed sex crimes without suffering even minor social consequences). The idea here is that institutions like the CIA and large corporations have become captured by culturally left “woke” ideology. (This same idea is expressed in new books like Woke, Inc. and The Dictatorship of Woke Capital.) Personally I find use of the word “woke” by critics of the left to be extremely irritating, because the term is so imprecise. I feel the same way about “cancel culture.” The usage of this term often puts valuable anti-racist and feminist points in the same bucket as the most marginal and extreme beliefs. What exactly are we talking about? It is hard for me to even have this conversation, because to critics, there is a big blob called Woke that consists of many disparate, equally evil things. The 1619 Project. Staffers at Random House objecting to the publication of Jordan Peterson’s book. Facebook censoring Trump. The woman who resigned her job at Smith College because she was upset about the content of diversity and inclusion trainings. Dave Chappelle being criticized for transphobic jokes. Jazz hands instead of clapping. California trying to end inequities in math education by focusing more on low-performing students than gifted students. The concept of systemic racism being taught in schools. Corporations that hire Robin DiAngelo to give seminars. Trigger warnings. Nancy Pelosi wearing Kente cloth. Nancy Pelosi being criticized for wearing Kente cloth. Sensitivity readers. The CIA boasting of its commitment to intersectional feminism. Under one story, all of these can be lumped together as part of the spread of Woke Ideology. But under my own view—which I would argue is more nuanced and less reactive—there are many different kinds of things here, some of which are quite useful and represent social progress. The 1619 Project is mostly correct, with a few errors and failures, but on the whole has been a good contribution toward advancing public understanding of how important racism has been as a force in American history. Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility captures a real phenomenon—white people get very prickly when you suggest they might care more about white people than nonwhite people—but is also built on a liberal kind of identity politics with little understanding of how power works or commitment to true egalitarianism. It’s okay for publishing staff not to want their firm in particular to publish a terrible book by a reactionary (a publishing house is not a public square), but it would not be good if Peterson was banned or blocked entirely and the public could not read his work. (They should read his stuff, because it’s hilarious.) Sensitivity readers can actually help improve people’s work by making sure they’re not saying anything embarrassing or wrong about groups they are not members of. Facebook probably should have censored Trump in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, but while it is refreshing to not have to constantly hear about his yakking, I don’t see a good justification for permanently banning him from a platform that does amount to a “public square,” so long as we have a First Amendment. The ACLU is not “anti free speech” or “anti due process,” both of which are critically important, but faces a difficult trade-off where multiple values it holds come into conflict. It is possible, then, to have nuanced views, and I think that many people who are dismissed as Woke Authoritarians are actually, when their views are represented empathetically and fairly, a lot more reasonable than critics assume. The fact that Wall Street may pretend to care about George Floyd is not a sign that social justice rules the land. Powerful institutions are happy to embrace symbolic gestures, because pretending that you care about racism makes for an excellent branding exercise. This does not mean that the CIA is now “woke” and actually cares about racism, any more than hearing an Amazon executive describe the company as “the Bernie Sanders of employers” means Amazon has magically gone pro-labor. It’s all simply good business. And it doesn’t discredit the underlying left values of anti-racism and feminism, any more than a bottled water company’s usage of the words “pure” and “fresh” would discredit the value and importance of clean water. (Natasha Lennard of the Intercept provides an excellent explanation here of why powerful institutions’ co-optation of radical language does not show that the concepts are benign and toothless.) All the same, is it possible that anti-racist and femininist ideologies go “too far”? Given the persistence of the racial wealth gap, and the failure of MeToo to change longstanding exploitative workplace dynamics, I would say the problem is they haven’t gone far enough, having managed to change discourse without changing the social world very much. I don’t like it when leftists are unforgiving about small infractions, and believe we need a social justice politics with a comradely spirit that encourages people to grow, but the idea that the United States has an excess of feminism is laughable. No matter where the stories came from they all featured a few familiar beats: A loved one seemed to have changed over time. Maybe that person was already somewhat conservative to start. Maybe they were apolitical. But at one point or another, they sat down in front of Fox News, found some kind of deep, addictive comfort in the anger and paranoia, and became a different person—someone difficult, if not impossible, to spend time with. — Luke O’Neil, “What I’ve Learned From Collecting Stories of People Whose Loved Ones Were Transformed by Fox News,” New York Right-wing thought is kind of a black hole, in that once you are sucked in it is very hard to escape. This is because many right-wing arguments can sound quite persuasive, even like “common sense” (which is, of course, how they tend to present themselves). People don’t always notice when they have started to develop certain right-wing ways of looking at the world, often because they are only seeing one side of an argument. To see what I mean, I want to look at some of Greenwald’s comments on a police shooting. One of the first signs I had that something distinctly odd was happening to him came during an exchange we had about the killing of a young Black man by a police officer. In September of 2020, Washington D.C. police shot and killed 18-year-old Deon Kay. Bodycam footage showed that Kay had fled from officers while carrying a gun, but had thrown the gun away in the seconds before officers shot him to death. The American Civil Liberties Union tweeted a statement about the killing. It read: DC police murdered Deon Kay yesterday. He was just 18 years old. His death is yet another painful reminder that violence and racism is endemic to policing in this nation. We demand justice for Deon, and every life taken by DC police. Greenwald, a longtime civil liberties advocate (I first met him at an ACLU conference ten years ago) was outraged. But mostly at the ACLU. He said: The ACLU spent decades demanding robust due process for everyone, no matter how notorious, before declared guilty. Now—drowning in #Resistance cash and new hires who want it to be a standard liberal group—it leads online mobs declaring people guilty of murder with no trial. The ACLU still has great lawyers (including its Executive Director) who believe in its core mission of being a civil liberties group, not a partisan arm of the DNC or a dreary trite liberal group. But they’re a minority, overrun by newly hired people with a very different agenda. You don’t have to love the police or support what they did to believe the ACLU of all groups shouldn’t be declaring them guilty of murder with no due process—just like you didn’t have to love GITMO detainees to demand due process for them (as the ACLU did). That’s what due process is. (Taibbi, too, has said the ACLU is “just a partisan political organization now.”) The argument here, which may look quite reasonable on its surface, runs as follows: the ACLU is supposed to protect civil liberties, including the rights of the accused. The police officer here is accused of a crime. Thus the ACLU should not call the police officer a murderer until he is convicted. The fact that the ACLU did call the police officer a murderer shows that it is no longer clearly committed to due process of law, but instead leads “online mobs” declaring people guilty, and is a sign of their creeping liberal partisanship. But there is another way we can look at this situation. Police officers are the armed wing of the government. Deon Kay was a private citizen. Deon Kay deserved due process of law, and he didn’t receive it—he was extrajudicially executed. But in the United States, when police officers murder people, it is incredibly difficult to actually convict them of murder, because the law gives them wide latitude to kill people when they feel it is necessary. Police officers do murder people, and those crimes usually go unpunished. If the ACLU followed Greenwald’s standard, it could hardly ever call police officers murderers, even when they commit murder, because the law allows police officers to commit murder with impunity. In other words, the organization whose job is to stick up for civilians when the state commits crimes against them would rarely if ever be in a position to accuse the state of those crimes because the state has immunized itself from accountability. Thus Greenwald is wrong: the ACLU calling a police officer a murderer does not necessarily show it is less committed to due process than it used to be, but rather that it views deprivations of civilian due process (through extrajudicial killings) as more important than protecting the right of the government not to be called out directly for its crimes. The alternative—allowing government agents to end up being largely immune from being called murderers because their murders can’t be prosecuted—is absurd. Notice something here, which is that the point I am making is not as intuitively obvious as Greenwald’s formulation; his conclusion is quick and easy to reach. For him, the ACLU should not call a government crime a government crime until there has been a conviction, and if it does make the accusation pre-conviction, it doesn’t care about due process and clearly prioritizes Social Justice over Civil Liberties. It can take some thought to realize why this argument is overly simplistic and ignores crucial facts about the situation. When I tried to point it out to Greenwald, he saw this as evidence that I, too, must have become a Woke Revolutionary who doesn’t care about due process: ROBINSON: Being executed by the state without trial is also something of a due process violation. The ACLU’s job is to demand the enforcement of the rights of those who have them taken away by the state. Not to protect state executioners, who not only get due process but total impunity. GREENWALD: Not really interested in your performative Twitter show where you get to show how radical you are by defending the condemnation of Bad People as murderers without affording them due process. It’s boring. But fly, you revolutionary! Greenwald later apologized to me for responding this way. But it illustrated something important, which is that once you begin to believe that the other side are Crazy Social Justice Woke Authoritarians, it becomes harder and harder to actually hear what they are saying. I have documented over and over how critics of the left, because they think we are a bunch of unreasonable PC snowflakes, often struggle to notice when they themselves have become irrational, hyper-emotional, quick to condemn, intolerant, smug, and self-righteous. It is possible not to see that you have subtly developed a greater concern with fairness to police than protection from police. To avoid the drift into confident irrationality, you need to be just as self-critical as you are critical of others. The ACLU, under pressure from those who saw the word “murderer” as Wokeness rather than fact, deleted its tweet and replaced it with something more mealy-mouthed. (And so were civil liberties protected for another day.) The Trump administration, predictably, declined to charge the officer who shot Deon Kay. Months later, the Office of the D.C. Auditor would find that the officer who shot Kay had acted recklessly and not taken opportunities to de-escalate the situation. The Auditor would not, of course, accuse the officer of murder, because as a legal matter, an officer who commits murder is often not technically a murderer. But the fact remains that Deon Kay was murdered, even if the groups charged with sticking up for his civil liberties do not feel comfortable saying it for fear of impinging on the rights of the police. This is not the only instance in which Greenwald has seemed more interested in defending those in power than those challenging them. He has recently been vigorously condemning Liberals and corporate media for what he sees as a piece of anti-Trump “fake news,” namely the story that on June 1st of 2020, Trump had protesters tear-gassed in order to do a photo op. In fact, a new Inspector General report shows that the police had planned to violently clear out the protesters for a couple of days as part of a plan to install anti-protester fencing in the area. Greenwald fixates on the fact that the tear-gassing was not arranged specifically so that Trump could do a photo op, saying this is an example of the lying corporate media, who do not care about truth and only care about attacking Trump. But it seems to me that presenting this as a “fake story” is highly misleading. After all, the factual question at issue is: did Trump (1) plan a photo-op to coincide with a previously-scheduled tear-gassing, or did he (2) arrange the tear-gassing to facilitate the photo op? (Of course, it would be denied that the tear-gassing itself was scheduled, just a clearance operation of the area. This is a rhetorical distinction with little meaning.) Because Trump had been calling for harsh crackdowns on protesters right before the tear-gassing, and then did a photo op at the site immediately after, it was originally assumed that (2) was true (quite a natural assumption given that Trump did a photo op in the area immediately after police tear-gassed people to get them out of it, and seemed proud to be seen “retaking the territory” and restoring Law and Order), but now it turns out it was (1). It appears the police had planned to empty the park of protesters, and Trump decided shortly beforehand that he would come and do a victory lap after they’d all been gassed and hauled away. He may have even wanted to leave the impression he had ordered the “rioters” tear-gassed because, in case you don’t remember, Donald Trump relishes cruelty and made no apologies for a tough stance on those he viewed as disorderly anarchists. The brutality of the operation has not changed. And in fact, Greenwald leaves out an important fact: the report suggests that even though the evacuation of the area was previously planned, the Secret Service appears to have started the operation early for unclear reasons. The report also relies on police officer testimony to substantiate its conclusion that the Attorney General did not order the area cleared earlier than planned in order to facilitate the photo op. One would expect a civil libertarian to be more skeptical of “the word of police” as evidence. But Greenwald has become so fixated on the Liberal Media that police violence against protesters seems almost ancillary to the central and more important point, which is apparently about the Lying Media. (As another example, Greenwald’s take on the death of Officer Brian Sicknick during the Jan 6 riot, which was first thought to be at the hands of protesters but turned out to be of natural causes, is that the Liberal Media fudged the facts to make Trump look bad. That may be so, but it’s also the case that the Capitol police themselves lied about Sicknick’s death, probably so they could distract from their own incompetence at controlling the crowd. It’s as much a story about police misinformation as Liberal Media misinformation, but Greenwald’s hatred is aimed squarely at the Liberals.) I am not alleging here that Greenwald or Taibbi have become conservatives. They don’t identify as leftists, but they differ from the right on too many points to actually be labeled right-wing. I think the Daily Beast’s recent critical piece on Greenwald is deeply unfair in conflating believing some charge against Donald Trump is factually false with defending Donald Trump, and calling Greenwald the “new master of right-wing media.” Taibbi is right to argue that for many in the media who deplore Trump, the fact that Donald Trump believes something is seen as reason to reflexively disbelieve it. The problem is that the opposite can happen, too. A person who sees themselves as an Independent Thinker can come to resent and despise liberal hypocrisy so much that they don’t notice themselves becoming careless and reflexive thinkers, and buying into conservative propaganda that looks like “common sense” but isn’t. They can care a lot more about the threat posed by college students to free speech than the threat posed by Republican state legislators who want to tell professors what to teach. Taibbi and Greenwald have both shown an odd credulity toward conservative talking points about transgender people, perhaps because they haven’t thought carefully about the counterarguments. Greenwald has connected rises in violent crime to the presence of reformist prosecutors like Philadelphia’s Larry Krasner, and accused progressive media outlets of “erasing” facts about the negative effects of reform, even though this an easily debunked myth. (Homicides have increased in metro areas but “the increase was consistent across 69 major municipalities, regardless of whether the county had a progressive district attorney.”) The belief that Liberals and Democrats are irredeemable and unable to care about anything but power can lead one into downright wrong and sloppy analysis. For instance, Greenwald appears to have become convinced that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Democratic party apparatchik whose job is to provide leftist support for centrist elites. “All she wants to do is attack Republicans and fortify the Democratic party. That is what the left has become, and they know it,” Greenwald said. In a scathing blog post during the Israeli bombing of Gaza, he wrote that it was unthinkable AOC would criticize Biden’s role in supporting Israel: She refused to call on the Biden administration explicitly to change its policies or denounce Biden’s fanaticism on this issue… . Is it possible to imagine AOC telling her 14 million followers that the reason Israel receives billions each year in U.S. funds… is because Obama gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a record-shattering $38 billion package on his way out (just as Obama broke records with military aid to the Saudi dictatorship)? Is it possible to imagine AOC making clear to her loyal flock of millions that the real parties responsible for what she says she regards as deeply immoral, even as war crimes, are—by name—Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi? (May 12) In fact, that very day, AOC did just that, tweeting: By only stepping in to name Hamas’ actions—which are condemnable—& refusing to acknowledge the rights of Palestinians, Biden reinforces the false idea that Palestinians instigated this cycle of violence. This is not neutral language. It takes a side—the side of occupation. And soon after: The United States should not be rubber-stamping weapons sales to the Israeli government as they deploy our resources to target international media outlets, schools, hospitals, humanitarian missions and civilian sites for bombing. The congresswoman then introduced a resolution to block U.S. arms sales to Israel and landed herself in huge controversy by calling Israel an apartheid state. The fact that Greenwald thought this was “not possible to imagine,” and then it immediately happened, should suggest that his analysis is screwy and defective in major ways. AOC, like Bernie Sanders, often does deeply disappointing things. But it is excessively cynical—and frankly erroneous—to pre-emptively decide she is a careerist whose only goal is to bolster the Democratic Party. We know AOC is a young democratic socialist in a hostile environment who has to navigate difficult political choices. In that situation, there is immense pressure to be “cautious,” and certainly I wish she would resist that pressure harder. Sometimes she takes stances I find downright wrong, like pressuring Facebook to be more heavy-handed in policing political advertisements. (I’ve written before about how terrified I am that Facebook will end up deeming leftist content too radical and booting it, killing critically important political discourse as well as my ability to make a living.) We should be highly skeptical of any politician, even the ones on “our side” and hold them to account. But it’s simply not correct to view her as solely invested in propping up the Democratic Party’s leaders, since she has shown herself willing to harshly criticize them. (Just in the past week we saw the headline “AOC Rips Into Fellow Democrats” over their condemnation of Ilhan Omar, and AOC attacking Biden for not canceling student debt). She may not do it often enough, or strongly enough, but she does do it. Distaste for liberalism and political correctness can dull your political analysis, because the dislike is visceral and formed before thought has occurred. In fact, a lot of the “politically correct” stuff, when analyzed carefully, actually turns out to be much more reasonable than it seems. Sometimes the stories of “wokeness gone mad” are simply exaggerations of what happened. Other times, they are accurate but a little empathy is warranted. For instance, the DSA, which Greenwald says follows Woke Ideology, was mocked by Fox News for some debates over inclusion that the right found risible. I was at that convention, though, and these discussions formed such a tiny part of what happened there that I didn’t even know about them until I saw the clips on Fox. The overall narrative of the convention was that socialists were beginning to organize very successfully across the country, electing officials in many different states and coming together around a clear agenda for environmental justice, health justice, labor rights, and more. And as Jacob Bacharach writes in a lovely essay about Political Correctness at the DSA convention, fixating on the embarrassing or over-the-top things the left does, and forgetting that many efforts at inclusion “[come] from a genuine wellspring of generosity that must be the foundation of any decent society,” means making enemies of people who are often just trying to do their best to be good. (These attempts to be good are frequently dismissed as Virtue Signaling, because people trying to show you that they’re good must be doing so for selfish reasons and not because figuring out how to be a decent person is often hard.) It is difficult to talk to someone who has been sucked into the black hole of right-wing arguments, and who is so confident they understand The Cultural Left that they see any pushback as an attack by a PC Cancel Culture Warrior. Taibbi has developed the habit of muting on social media anyone who asks “what happened to you?” or why he chooses to focus on certain subjects rather than others. (He considers this whataboutism.) He literally makes sure he cannot hear those who make arguments he dislikes. (For more on Taibbi’s strange arguments and unwillingness to hear criticism, see this response to him I wrote last year.) Greenwald has alienated nearly all of his former colleagues at the Intercept, plus many brilliant leftists, such as Naomi Klein (who says he is “losing the plot”), Jeremy Scahill (“[Greenwald is] promoting smears…disturbs me deeply”), and Noam Chomsky (“I don’t understand what is happening… I hope it will pass”). (If these legendary people all thought this about me, I’d go off and do a hell of a lot of self-reflection.) It’s sad watching someone you have long respected drift in this direction, becoming angrier, more irrational, impossible to talk to, and all the while convinced that they haven’t changed and you must have just swallowed Liberal Ideology. The hatred of political correctness can kill your power to reason. Look at Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker. All convinced the left is nuts and they’re the sensible ones. All uninterested in actually engaging left arguments seriously. You start by disliking liberal hypocrisy, and soon you end up saying ridiculous things like “the minute you declare yourself nonbinary or trans, you catapult up the ladder of oppression that absolutely confers concrete benefits.” This is just a laughably incorrect statement which utterly ignores the average life experience of trans people in this country. Conservative talking points like this are full of rage, nastiness, and a total lack of interest in the material realities of the people under discussion. The cases of Greenwald and Taibbi offer evidence for something that should alarm us all: conservative stories about the world are powerful, and even though they often aren’t true, it is easy for people (especially but not exclusively white men) to come to believe them without even really noticing they are gliding away from reality. Greenwald insists he hasn’t changed his beliefs, and perhaps he has not. He did, after all, begin his career as a commentator spouting vile right-wing myths about immigrants (“illegal immigration—whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate—renders impossible the preservation of any national identity”) and attacking Latin American protesters against the Iraq war as Castro-lovers. But it appears he genuinely evolved out of those horrendous beliefs, only to end up swallowing new right-wing propaganda later in life. We may well see more of this “I’m sympathetic to left goals, but I have been driven to the right on many issues because of political correctness” nonsense. Elite institutions are going to keep embracing a caricatured version of some social justice values, because it helps them assuage their guilt over the fact they are fundamentally unjust. This hypocrisy will be easy to mock, and it will be easy to use to make a case that Radical Leftism Is Everywhere. An intelligent person will see that this does not in fact mean The Left Controls All The Institutions, but that grand shows of wokeness are often purely cynical acts performed by sociopaths. (Jamie Dimon is not taking a knee because he cares about racial egalitarianism.) An intelligent person will try to think clearly about who actually has power, looking beyond the media and toward state legislatures, courts, and the Chamber of Commerce. Unfortunately, if the narrative about a sinister Fascist Cultural Left That Controls Everything continues to spread, it may well be the right’s path to regaining power. The Republicans made cancel culture the focus of their 2020 convention, and they nearly won the election despite the president having totally botched the coronavirus response and the party’s policy platform being deeply unpopular. The Taibbi-Greenwald view that sensible people ought to form an “alliance” with the right against the Democratic authoritarians means, at best, obscuring the real stakes of Republican power. At worst, it may actively help Trumpists get back into power and ramp up xenophobia and climate catastrophe. Taibbi resents “being accused of aiding the cause of Trump or the right-wing,” but right-wing political power has consequences, and it is necessary to both tell the truth (even when that truth favors Trump) and keep our focus on what matters most. We must keep our analysis clear. We must not focus excessively on Twitter-based cancel culture flaps and forget the political forces that are the greatest determinant of who lives and dies. What has happened to Greenwald and Taibbi may happen to people you know and love, and we need ways to keep people from crossing the event horizon and ending up ranting about BLM, trans kids, Liberals, and the ACLU without ever noticing they have drifted far away from the realm of the reasonable. I would beg those who find themselves being told they are going down this path to deploy some self-reflection and empathy, and see if their critics might have a point.

Norman Finkelstein on Israel & What's happening Here

Review of. new album, by Martin Lang,"BAD MAN," on Random Chance Records, written by Mark Baier of Chicago Blues Guide

In a city renowned for the blues, specifically the type featuring harmonica as a lead instrument, the standard by which all others are judged remains the electric ensemble style first perfected by Muddy Waters in the early ‘50s. It’s a sound that’s instantly recognizable: moody and sexy, soaked in rhythm and grit. Once bitten by it, it’s a sound that’s impossible to forget. Thanks to Martin Lang and a cast of Chicago's finest sidemen, Random Chance Records “Bad Man” insures that the electric blues, played the Chicago way, is in masterful hands. From its opening harmonica lick, Bad Man is a playful excursion into the bosom of the electric blues, with harp man and bad man Martin Lang holding court. Lang seems at first to be an unlikely frontman. One of only a handful of Chicago harmonica players credibly called “studio musicians”, Lang has made a career holed up in the shadows of others, most notably Taildragger (James Yancey Jones), Dave Myers and Rockin’ Johnny Burgin. But it’s his uncommonly melodic, soulful harp playing, that propels Langs ascendancy to band leader. Indeed, with a cast of characters like Billy Flynn and Little Frank on guitars and mandolin, Illinois Slim on bass and Dean Hass on drums, Bad Man is a true sidemans revenge! Any one of these guys could take a turn in the spotlight and call it their own, but when the session’s done, there is only one real bad man, and that’s Martin. He’s a Bad Man and he’ll travel. At its core, Bad Man is a primer in the Chicago electric blues, where the ensemble is much more than the sum of its parts. It’s a selfless style of music, each player supporting the other, all serving the greater good. With Lang acting as ringmaster, the songs swagger with the aura of Little Walter’s ghost, the melodies and tempos frisky, lively and full of fun, There’s not a bad trip or morose sentiment to be found here. The CD’s opening track “Reefer Head Man” is an exuberant ode to smoking weed, with no remorse whatsoever. When Lang sings “I smoke more reefer than King Kong can”, there’s no doubt at all. He means it, and all is well; go ahead and bogart that joint, brother, we have more. What his voice lacks in technical prowess, it more than makes up with its west-side bravado and fortitude. Both “Younger Days” and the title track,”Bad Man” find Lang laying his heartfelt soul into the material; it’s authentic and comfortable, like a favorite hat or hashpipe. Bad Man is percolated with upbeat and swinging instrumentals with hat-tips to Earl Hooker and Robert Lockwood a plenty. “Juicy Lucy” is pure south side grease, close your eyes and take a midnight stroll with that muffin top in the tight dress! Adding to the late night party feel of Bad Man is the presence of Dave Waldman on piano and Gerry Hundt on plastic Farfisa organ. With Waldman conjuring up the spirit of Otis Spann and Hundt banging out the greasiest Chicago organ short of Barrelhouse Chuck, Bad Man delivers a boogie that won’t let go. From a historical standpoint, it’s a treat to have Waldman and Lang on the same recording, as without Waldman, there may not be a Lang. A man on deep background, Dave Waldman is known (by those in the “know”) the world over for his virtuosity on the harmonica, and one who was an indispensable mentor to Martin in his formative years while both were students at University of Chicago. But it’s not their brains were here for, it’s the sublime and masterful harmonica playing. Lang is one of only a handful of guys who actually plays the damn thing like an instrument. His melodic sense and dynamic ability elevate his harp playing from a textural rhythmic device to a lead instrument in the truest sense of the word. Every note has a purpose and none are wasted. In Langs hands the harp is tighter than a top and looser than a goose. The man can flat-out play! Bad Man’s success is in no small measure due to the production and stewardship of Dick Shurman. Arranging and recording the Chess ensemble style of blues is an art; each instrument needs it’s own space and position in the mix, and frankly, needs to be recorded live. The players are all parts of a greater whole, none being the star, all being indispensable. The guitars weave and dodge around each other, the bass and drums simmer but never boil over, the keys take turns dancing in time, all the while Langs superb harp sizzles and wails in the foreground. Shurman’s sure hand behind the console and his keen ear for the perfect mood insure that Bad Man is one of the most completely authentic Chicago Blues recordings to emerge in years. Most highly recommended for novices and aficionados alike!

Planet of the Humans censored corporations ‘Green’ billionaires behind professional activist network that led suppression of ‘Planet of the Humans’ documentary MAX BLUMENTHAL·BIG TECHNON-PROFIT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Planet of the Humans censored corporations ‘Green’ billionaires behind professional activist network that led suppression of ‘Planet of the Humans’ documentary MAX BLUMENTHAL·BIG TECHNON-PROFIT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX·SEPTEMBER 7, 2020 The Michael Moore-produced ‘Planet of the Humans’ faced a coordinated suppression campaign led by professional climate activists backed by the same ‘green’ billionaires, Wall Street investors, industry insiders and family foundations skewered in the film. By Max Blumenthal “We must take control of our environmental movement and our future from billionaires and their permanent war on Planet Earth. They are not our friends.” -Jeff Gibbs, director of “Planet of the Humans” It is hard to think of an American film that provoked a greater backlash in 2020 than “Planet of the Humans.” Focused on the theme of planetary extinction and fanciful proposals to ward it off, the documentary was released for free on YouTube on April 21. The date was significant not only because it was the eve of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, but because a global pandemic was tearing through America’s social fabric and exposing the human toll of the country’s globalized, growth-obsessed economic model. Even before “Planet of the Humans” was released, however, the producers of the film had fallen under pressure to retract it. Upon the film’s release, a who’s who of self-styled climate justice activists proceeded to blanket the internet with accusations that it was a racist, “eco-fascist” screed that deliberately advanced the interests of the oil and gas industry. When “Planet of the Humans” was briefly yanked from YouTube thanks to a questionable copyright claim by an angry climate warrior, the free speech organization Pen America issued a remarkable statement characterizing the demands for retraction as a coordinated censorship campaign. What had this documentary done to inflame so much opposition from the faces and voices of professional climate justice activism? First, it probed the well-established shortcomings of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power that have been marketed as a green panacea. “Planet of the Humans” portrayed these technologies as anything but green, surveying the environmental damage already caused by solar and wind farms, which require heavy mining and smelting to produce, destroy swaths of pristine land, and sometimes demand natural gas to operate. While major environmental outfits have lobbied for a Green New Deal to fuel a renewables-based industrial revolution, and are now banking on a Democratic presidency to enact their proposals, “Planet of the Humans” put forward a radical critique that called their entire agenda into question. As the director of the documentary, Jeff Gibbs, explained, “When we focus on climate change only as the thing destroying the planet and we demand solutions, we get used by forces of capitalism who want to continue to sell us the disastrous illusion that we can mine and smelt and industrialize our way out of this extinction event. And again, behind the scenes, much of what we’re doing to ‘save’ the planet is to burn the ‘bio’ of the planet as green energy.” “Planet of the Humans” crossed another bright green line by taking aim at the self-proclaimed climate justice activists themselves, painting them as opportunists who had been willingly co-opted by predatory capitalists. The filmmakers highlighted the role of family foundations like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in cultivating a class of professional activists that tend toward greenwashing partnerships with Wall Street and the Democratic Party to coalitions with anti-capitalist militants and anti-war groups. Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org and guru of climate justice activism, is seen throughout “Planet of the Humans” consorting with Wall Street executives and pushing fossil fuel divestment campaigns that enable powerful institutions to reshuffle their assets into plastics and mining while burnishing their image. McKibben has even called for environmentalists to cooperate with the Pentagon, one of the world’s worst polluters and greatest exporters of violence, because “when it speaks frankly, [it] has the potential to reach Americans who won’t listen to scientists.” Perhaps the most provocative critique contained in “Planet of the Humans” was the portrayal of full-time climate warriors like McKibben as de facto lobbyists for green tech billionaires and Wall Street investors determined to get their hands on the whopping $50 trillion profit opportunity that a full transition to renewable technology represents. Why have figures like Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Michael Bloomberg, Virgin’s Richard Branson, and Tesla founder Elon Musk been plowing their fortunes into climate advocacy? The documentary taunted those who accepted these oligarchs’ gestures of environmental concern at face value. For years, leftist criticism of professional climate activism has been largely relegated to blogs like Wrong Kind of Green, which maintains an invaluable archive of critical work on the co-optation of major environmental organizations by the billionaire class. Prominent greens might have been able to dismiss scrutiny from radical corners of the internet as background noise; however, they were unable to ignore “Planet of the Humans.” That was because Oscar-winning documentarian Michael Moore put his name on the film as executive producer, alongside his longtime producer, Gibbs, and the scholar-researcher Ozzie Zehner. “Michael Moore validates this film,” Josh Fox, the filmmaker who led the campaign against “Planet of the Humans,” told me. “So if Michael Moore’s name is not on that film, it’s like a thousand other crappy movies.” By racking up millions of views after just a month on YouTube, “Planet of the Humans” threatened to provoke an unprecedented debate about the corruption of environmental politics by the one percent. But thanks to the campaign by Fox and his allies, much of the debate wound up focused on the film itself, and the credibility of its producers. “I had some sense that the film was going to ruffle some feathers, but I was unprepared for that response from what ended up being a group of people who are like an echo chamber – all related to the same funding organizations,” said Zehner. “It’s a pretty tight circle and it was a really strong, virulent pushback.” The line of attack that may have gained the most traction in progressive circles portrayed a convoluted section of the film on the dangers of population growth and overconsumption as Malthusian, and even racist. Zehner told me he considered the attacks opportunistic, but “from a public relations standpoint, they were effective. What we were trying to do was highlight the dangers of a consumption-based economic model.” The backlash to “Planet of the Humans” also related to its portrayal of renewables as badly flawed sources of energy that were also environmentally corrosive. Many of those attacks painted the film’s presentation of solar and wind to present the documentary as out of date and filled with misinformation. Oddly, the professional activists who coordinated the campaign to bury “Planet of the Humans” glossed over an entire third of the documentary which focused on the corruption and co-optation of environmental politics by “green” foundations and “green” investors. As this investigation will reveal, those climate justice activists were bound together by support from the same family foundations, billionaire investors, and industry interests that were skewered in the film. Josh Fox Planet of the Humans billionaires Filmmaker Josh Fox “Censorship, plain and simple” The ringleader of the push to suppress “Planet of the Humans” was Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated director of the film “Gasland,” which highlighted the destructive practices inherent to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Fox launched the campaign with a sign-on letter calling for the documentary to be retracted by its producers. Then, in an incendiary takedown published in The Nation, he branded Michael Moore “the new flack for oil and gas,” a racist, and “eco-fascist” for producing the film. As videographer Matt Orfalea reported, Fox’s crusade began the night Moore’s film was released, with an unhinged mass email to online publishers that blasted the documentary as “A GIGANTIC CROCK OF SHIT.” Fox commanded, “It must come down off your pages immediately.” Hours later, Fox fired off another breathless email to a group of public relations professionals. “A number of reputable websites are hosting this abomination and I need your support in getting them to take it down,” he wrote. The following day, Fox took to Twitter to assure his ally, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, “We are on it.” Next, Fox organized a sign-on letter demanding the film “be retracted by its creators and distributors and an apology rendered for its misleading content.” Among the letter’s signatories was academic and renewables advocate Leah C. Stokes, who proclaimed her wish in an article in Vox that “this film will be buried, and few will watch it or remember it.” On April 24, Josh Fox claimed he had successfully pressured an online video library, Films For Action, into removing “Planet of the Humans” from its website. His victory lap turned out to be premature, as Films For Action re-posted the film and publicly condemned Fox’s campaign to drive it into oblivion. The relentless push by Fox and others eventually triggered a striking statement by PEN America, the free speech advocacy group. “Calls to pull a film because of disagreement with its content are calls for censorship, plain and simple,” PEN America declared. “Listen, nobody called to censor this movie,” Fox insisted to me. “We asked the filmmakers as part of their community to retract it, because it unfairly attacked people that we know are good, honest dealers and its premise was wrong and false.” Fox likened “Planet of the Humans” to radio host Mike Daisey’s monologue on visiting the Foxconn factory in China where iPhones are made, and which was retracted by NPR after major fabrications came to light. “It’s clear to me that the filmmakers… put incorrect information into the film that they knew was incorrect. That thing was out of date,” Fox said of the Moore-produced documentary. “And many, many people from within our community reached out to them, which I didn’t know actually, prior to the release of the film and said, ‘This information is incorrect. What are you doing?'” Fox was particularly incensed at Michael Moore for attaching his reputation to the film. He described the famed director as one of “the bad guys”; “a megalomaniacal multi-millionaire who craves attention unlike anyone I’ve ever met”; “the 800-pound elephant in the room”; the maker of a “racist” and “eco-fascist” film; and “a multi-millionaire circus barker” guilty of “journalistic malpractice.” “The real bully is Michael Moore here,” Fox maintained. “It’s not me.” Though Fox and his allies did not succeed in erasing “Planet of the Humans” from the internet, the documentary was momentarily removed from YouTube on the grounds of a copyright claim by a British photographer named Toby Smith. In a tweet he later deleted, Smith said his opposition to the film was “personal,” blasting it as a “baseless, shite doc built on bull-shit and endless copyright infringements.” As the attacks on “Planet of the Humans” snowballed, director Jeff Gibbs attempted to defend his film. Following an article at The Guardian branding the film as “dangerous,” Gibbs emailed the paper’s opinion editors requesting a right of reply. He told me they never responded. However, just hours after Toby Smith’s politically-motivated copyright claim prompted YouTube to remove Gibbs’ documentary, he said The Guardian reached out to him for comment. “How’d they catch that so early?” he wondered. A few left-wing journalists tried to push back on the attacks as well. But in almost every case, they were spiked by editors at ostensibly progressive journals. Christopher Ketcham, author of “This Land: How Cowboys, Capitalism, and Corruption are Ruining the American West,” was among those unable to find a venue in which to defend the documentary. “I have come across very few editors radical enough to have the exceedingly difficult conversation about the downscaling, simplification, and the turn (in the developed world) toward diminished affluence that a 100 percent renewable energy system will necessarily entail,” Ketcham reflected to me. “You see, they have to believe that they can keep their carbon-subsidized entitlements, their toys, their leisure travel — no behavioral change or limits needed — and it will all be green and ‘sustainable.'” Naomi Klein, perhaps the most prominent left-wing writer on climate-related issues in the West, did not weigh in to defend “Planet of the Humans.” Instead, the Intercept columnist, social activist, and Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University was an early participant in the campaign to suppress the film. According to McKibben, “Naomi [Klein] had in fact taken Moore aside in an MSNBC greenroom” before the documentary’s release to lobby him against publishing the film. Klein later signed Josh Fox’s open letter demanding the film be retracted. On Twitter, Klein condemned “Planet of the Humans” as “truly demoralizing,” and promoted a “big blog/fact check” of the film by Ketan Joshi, a former communications officer for the Australian wind farm company Infigen Energy. Mining a green future and burying the cost Like most opponents of “Planet of the Humans,” Ketan Joshi painted the documentary as “a dumb old bull in the china shop that is 2020’s hard-earned climate action environment.” And along with other critics, he accused the film’s co-producers, Gibbs and Zehner, of wildly misrepresenting the efficiency of renewables. To illustrate his point, he referenced a scene depicting the Cedar Street Solar Array in Lansing, Michigan with flexible solar panels running at 8% efficiency – purportedly enough to generate electricity for just 10 homes. Because that scene was part of a historical sequence filmed in 2008, Joshi dismissed it as an example of the film’s “extreme oldness.” However, this February, the solar trade publication PV Magazine found that Tesla’s newest line of flexible solar shingles had an efficiency rate of 8.1% – almost exactly the same as those depicted in “Planet of the Humans.” While it is true that mono-crystalline solar panels boast a higher efficiency rate (between 15% and 18% in commercially available form), they were also on the market back in 2008. These panels are significantly more expensive than the flexible, less efficient panels, however. And their efficiency levels do not account for the intermittency inherent to solar energy, which does not work well in cloudy or dark conditions. Yet according to Josh Fox, the most vehement opponent of “Planet of the Humans,” the planet-saving capacity of solar and other supposedly clean forms of energy was so well-established it was beyond debate. “The premise of the film is renewable energy doesn’t work and is dependent on fossil fuels. And that is patently ridiculous,” Fox remarked to me. “And the reason why I got into this is because I had young environmentalists – young people who are steadfast campaigners – calling me in the middle of the night, freaking out, [telling me] ‘I can’t believe this!’ And I looked at them and I said, ‘Well, there’s a reason why you can’t believe this; it’s because it’s not true.'” But was the presentation of renewable energy sources in “Planet of the Humans” actually false? Ecological economist William Rees has claimed that “despite rapid growth in wind and solar generation, the green energy transition is not really happening.” That might be because it is chasing energy growth instead of curtailing it. Rees pointed out that the surge in global demand for electricity last year “exceeded the total output of the world’s entire 30-year accumulation of solar power installations.” Are there not reasonable grounds then to be concerned about the practicality of a full transition to renewables, especially in a hyper-capitalist, growth-obsessed economy like that of the United States? A September 2018 scientific study delivered some conclusions that contradicted the confident claims of renewables advocates. A research team measured solar thermal plants currently in operation around the world and found that they are dependent on the “intensive use of materials,” which is code for heavily mined minerals. minerals renewable energy IEA Minerals needed to produce renewable energy (Source: International Energy Agency / IEA) Further, the researchers found that the output of these plants was marred by “significant seasonal intermittence” due to shifting weather patterns and the simple fact that the sun does not always shine. The negative impact of massive wind farms on the environment and marginalized communities – an issue highlighted in “Planet of the Humans” – is also a serious concern, especially in the Global South. Anthropologist and “Renewing Destruction: Wind Energy Development, Conflict and Resistance in a Latin American Context” author Alexander Dunlap published a peer-reviewed 2017 study of wind farms in the indigenous Tehuantepec region of Oaxaca, Mexico, which has been marketed as one of the most ideal wind generation sites in the world. Dunlap found that the supposedly renewable projects “largely reinforced income inequality, furthered poverty entrenchment and increased food vulnerability and worker dependency on the construction of more wind parks, which cumulatively has led to an increase in work-related out-migration and environmental degradation.” When wind turbines reach the end of their life cycle, their fiberglass blades, which can be as long as a football field, are impossible to recycle. As a result, they are piling up in rural dumping sites across the US. Meanwhile, the environmentalist magazine Grist warned this August of a “solar e-waste glut” that will produce “megatons of toxic trash” when solar panels begin to lose efficiency and die. In response to my questions about so-called renewable energy, Fox referred me to a close ally, Anthony Ingraffea, who signed his letter calling for “Planet of the Humans” to be pulled. A civil engineer and co-founder of Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, which advocates for renewables, Ingraffea is a former oil and gas industry insider who turned into a forceful opponent of fracking. In the past six years, he has produced scientific assessments for the governments of New York State and California on a transition to mostly renewable energy sources. Ingraffea slammed “Planet of the Humans” as “way off base” and derided research by Ozzie Zehner, the co-producer, as “conspiracy theory shit.” He contrasted his credentials with those of Zehner, boasting that while he has earned 15,000 citations in peer-reviewed academic journals during his career as an engineer, Zehner had chalked up a mere 300. When I turned to the subject of social and environmental damage caused by so-called renewables, Ingraffea argued that the burning, storing, and transportation of fossil fuels outweighed any of those costs. According to Ingraffea, when New York State makes a decisive transition to renewables, only about 2% of the state’s land would be occupied by solar and wind farms – which translates to about 1,100 square miles. He pointed to the New York State Assembly’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act as an embodiment of the foresight of proponents of a near-total transition to renewable energy. The bill, which calls for the state to run 70% of its publicly generated energy off of “renewable energy systems” by 2030, also mandates that “35 percent of investments from clean energy and energy efficiency funds [be] invested in disadvantaged communities.” “That’s wisdom speaking,” Ingraffea said of the legislation. “That’s telling you that yes, we are aware of the problem that you said we should be aware of. Yeah, we’re not all dumb. We’re not all crazy. We’re not all ideological. Not all technical nerds who just fall in love and want to make sex with solar panels.” However, the communities (or their designated NGO representatives) supposedly compensated through the New York State bill are not located in the regions that will be most impacted by the extraction necessary to manufacture so-called renewables. Already devastated by coups and neocolonial exploitation, swathes of the Global South from Bolivia to Congo – home to massive reserves of cobalt hand-mined in “slave conditions” for electric car batteries and iPhones – are being further destabilized by the minerals rush. Even mainstream environmentalists acknowledge that rising reliance on renewable energy “means a lot of dirty mining” to extract the minerals required for electric batteries and solar cells. This prospect has sparked excitement within the mining industry, with the editor of Mining.com, Frik Els, dubbing Green New Deal spokeswomen Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg “mining’s unlikely heroines.” “Going all in on the green economy and decarbonisation requires siding with the greens against fossil fuels,” Els informed fellow mining industry insiders. “It means selling global mining as the solution to climate change because mining metals is the only path to green energy and green transport.” Mining com Greta Thunberg AOC The inevitable rush on minerals required to power the green revolution has not exactly delighted residents of the Global South, however. Evo Morales, the indigenous former president of Bolivia, was driven from power in 2019 by a military junta backed by the United States and local oligarchs, in what he branded a lithium coup. With the world’s largest untapped lithium resources, Bolivia is estimated to hold as much as half of the world’s reserves. Under Morales, the country guaranteed that only state-owned firms could mine the mineral. The ousted socialist leader argued that multi-national corporations supported his right-wing domestic opponents in order to get their hands on Bolivia’s lithium – an essential element in the electric batteries that provide the cornerstone to a digital economy dependent on smartphones, laptops, and electric vehicles. “As a small country of 10 million inhabitants, we were soon going to set the price of lithium,” Morales said. “They know we have the greatest lithium reserves in the world [in a space of] 16,000 square kilometers.” minerals electric cars IEA Minerals needed to produce electric cars (Source: International Energy Agency / IEA) Just before the military coup in Bolivia, a report (PDF) by the World Economic Forum’s Global Battery Alliance reported that the global demand for electric batteries will increase 14-fold before 2030. Almost half of today’s lithium is mined to produce electric batteries, and the demand for the mineral will only rise as power grids incorporate high levels of battery powered tech and the demand for electric vehicles increases. Electric batteries are also heavily reliant on cobalt, most of which is mined from Congo, and often in illegal and dangerous conditions by child labor. In December 2019, over a dozen Congolese plaintiffs sued Apple, Google’s Alphabet parent company, Microsoft, Dell, and Tesla, accusing them of “knowingly benefiting from and aiding and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children in Democratic Republic of Congo (‘DRC’) to mine cobalt.” This July, Tesla CEO and electric battery kingpin Elon Musk appeared to take partial credit for the 2019 military coup that forced Bolivia’s Evo Morales from power, asserting that big tech billionaires like him could “coup whoever we want.” The payoff for all the dirty and deadly mining required to manufacture the solar panels, wind turbines, and electric batteries required to power the new industrial revolution is supposed to be a planet no longer faced with a “climate emergency” – and nevermind the damage to the Earth and its non-human inhabitants. But with the demand for electricity constantly growing, is it even possible to power an economy like that of the US with entirely renewable sources of energy (excluding nuclear)? A scientific projection by one of the closest allies of Josh Fox and Anthony Ingraffea was supposed to have answered that question and put all doubts to bed. Instead, it resulted in acrimony and embarrassment for its author. The 2050 transition goal: real science or a murky crystal ball? In his piece hammering “Planet of the Humans” in The Nation, Fox touted “the proliferation of 100 percent renewable energy plans put forward by Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson” as one of the most important pieces of evidence refuting the film’s grim narrative. Jacobson’s study, according to National Geographic, was “a foundation stone” of the Green New Deal proposal put forward by Democratic Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It was also central to the energy plan advanced by the presidential campaigns of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who co-authored an op-ed with Jacobson that called for a full transition to “clean” energy by 2050. Jacobson, like Ingraffea, is an environmental engineer and political partner of Fox. The Stanford professor helped Fox found the environmental advocacy organization the Solutions Project, alongside actor Mark Ruffalo and the banker and former Tesla executive Marco Krapels in 2011. (More on this group later.) Besides his working relationship with Jacobson, Fox failed to acknowledge that the professor’s all-renewables projection was strongly challenged by 21 leading energy scientists in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal. The scientists concluded Jacobson’s paper was rife with “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” A survey of the debate by Scientific American scoffed at Jacobson’s remarkable assumption “that U.S. hydroelectric dams could add turbines and transformers to produce 1,300 gigawatts of electricity instantaneously… or the equivalent of about 1000 large nuclear or coal power plants running at full power.” Jacobson retaliated against his critics by filing a $10 million defamation lawsuit, which he was forced to withdraw in 2018. Legal commentator Kenneth White described the suit as “clearly vexatious and intended to silence dissent about an alleged scientist’s peer-reviewed article.” This April, a DC Superior Court judge invoked anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation that reportedly ordered Jacobson to pay the defendants’ legal fees. “Planet of the Humans” co-producer Ozzie Zehner saw Mark Jacobson’s flameout as a symptom of a wider problem within mainstream climate activism. “When Big Greens talk about ‘facts,’ they often aren’t talking about what most people understand to be facts,” he explained. “They’re usually talking about models, which attempt to predict the future based on estimations of physical conditions, projections, and assumptions. Greens industrialists claim they can accurately model a renewable energy future and its effects on the global biosphere. But our best science can’t even model a fish tank.” Ingraffea insisted that Jacobson’s legal fight had only begun, and said the professor’s critics were “partially driven by Mark [Jacobson] having made a very famous name for himself in an arena with many other people working, and they’re not getting all the fame.” Jacobson echoed this line in his own defense: “They don’t like the fact that we’re getting a lot of attention, so they’re trying to diminish our work.” “Give the guy a break,” Ingraffea appealed. “You know, if he’s wrong, of course he’s wrong. No one’s going to be right. No one could possibly be right right now about what’s going to happen in 25 years. We’re all entitled to our projections. We’re all entitled to our crystal balls.” That same courtesy was not extended by Ingraffea and his allies to the makers of “Planet of the Humans,” however. “We were unable to identify any factual errors in the film, and we’re open to the idea that we could be wrong about some things,” Zehner said. “But we’d like to have that debate and not be shut down.” Among the wave of attacks on “Planet of the Humans,” a disproportionate number were churned out by renewables industry insiders, from an “innovation strategist” at the Green Power Energy firm that was criticized in the film for clearing a Vermont mountaintop to build a wind farm (“For me, this film was personal,” he stated), to Now You Know, a podcast by two mega-fans of Elon Musk who fawningly refer to the billionaire as “Elon” and have proudly declared that they are “long on Tesla stock.” Missing from nearly all of the takedowns was the documentary’s scathing critique of the corruption of environmental politics by billionaires and elite family foundations. “The conversation our critics really didn’t want to have was about the last one-third of the film,” Zehner remarked, “which dealt with the influence of billionaires and money in the environmental movement, and the divestment sham.” The shell game of fossil fuel divestment The tactic of fossil fuel divestment is at the heart of the so-called climate justice movement’s plan to defeat the fossil fuel industry. Launched by Bill McKibben’s 350.org and a coalition of professional activists soon after the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012, the campaign has resulted in institutions like Oxford University and Goldman Sachs supposedly divesting their holdings in oil and gas companies. Campaigners like McKibben simultaneously encouraged their constituents to invest in funds whose portfolios were supposedly free of fossil fuel companies. “Planet of the Humans” raked this tactic over the proverbial coals, demonstrating how investment funds endorsed by 350.org have engaged in a shell game in which fossil fuel assets are simply replaced with investments in plastics, mining, oil and gas infrastructure companies, and biomass. “The big issue with divestment is that it absolves the destructive power of extreme wealth,” Zehner explained. “It’s saying that family foundations can be forgiven and money can be moved into mining, gas and oil infrastructure, solar, wind, and biomass. They divest from the brand name coal companies while investing in infrastructure companies that support coal mining.” In one of the most controversial scenes in “Planet of the Humans,” Bill McKibben was seen inaugurating a wood-burning biomass energy plant at Middlebury College, where he has been a scholar-in-residence. The environmental leader praised the initiative as “an act of courage.” Because the event took place in 2009, McKibben and his allies have attacked the scene as an unfair representation of his current position. In an official 350.org response to “Planet of the Humans,” McKibben claimed that his views on biomass have evolved, leading him to cease his support for the energy source in 2016. Yet less than a week after The Nation published Josh Fox’s incendiary attack on Michael Moore and “Planet of the Humans,” Nation editor-in-chief D.D. Guttenplan hosted an event with McKibben that was sponsored by a fund with major investments in several wood-to-energy biomass companies. Called Domini Impact Investments, the fund claims to hold investments in “68 companies… that both impact forests and depend on them, whether for forest derived products or ecosystem services.” One such Domini holding is a wood-to-energy company called Ameresco, which builds “large, utility-scale biomass-to-energy plants,” according to its website. Domini Impact also features its sustainable “timber” holdings, including Klabin SA, a company with logging operations spanning 590,580 acres in Brazil. Klabin SA manufactures pulp and paper products and operates a 270MW on-site black liquor biomass plant. This May, just days after Domini sponsored McKibben’s talk, the company purchased a second biomass plant. (Fabio Schvartzman, the former CEO of Klabin SA, was charged with 270 counts of homicide in Brazil this January, after allegedly concealing knowledge of an imminent dam burst to protect the share price of his current company, Vale. The 2019 Mariana dam collapse has been described as Brazil’s worst environmental disaster.) While introducing the Domini-sponsored event with McKibben, The Nation’s Guttenplan stated, “By investing in the Domini Funds, you can help build a better future for the planet and its people, and be part of a movement working to address a wide range of social and environmental issues including human rights, climate change mitigation and forest stewardship.” Neither McKibben nor Guttenplan responded to email requests for comment from The Grayzone. Domini Funds was hardly the only investment fund that McKibben has partnered with to promote fossil fuel divestment – and which has engaged in the shell game exposed in “Planet of the Humans.” In what was perhaps the film’s most devastating scene, narrator Jeff Gibbs detailed how McKibben has advised 350.org members to direct their money into the Green Century Fund, an investment portfolio that boasts of being “wholly owned by environmental and public health nonprofit organizations,” and free of fossil fuel stock. Green Century Funds Bill McKibben invest fossil fuels As “Planet of the Humans” revealed, however, the Green Century Funds’ portfolio has contained heavy investments in mining companies, oil, and gas infrastructure companies, including an exploiter of tar sands, the biofuel giant Archer Daniels Midland, McDonald’s, Coca Cola (the world’s leading plastic pollution proliferator), logging giants, and big banks from Bank of America to HSBC. Asked about this section of the film, Josh Fox dismissed it as out of date. He claimed that “the entire idea of what constitutes a divested fund has changed really radically over the last eight years, starting at first from just oil, coal and gas investments, to then encompassing things like plastics and the meat industry and derivatives and all other options.” However, a probe of the 2019 Securities and Exchange Commission filings by Green Century Funds showed the fund held thousands of shares in meat giant McDonald’s and Royal Caribbean Cruises, among other mega-polluters. The latter company’s Harmony of the Seas ship happens to be the most environmentally toxic cruise liner on Earth, relying on three massive diesel engines to burn 66,000 gallons of fuel a day. By the end of one voyage across the Atlantic, the ship has expended the same amount of gasoline as over 5 million automobiles traveling the same distance. Green Century’s SEC filing boasted that it elicited a pledge from Royal Caribbean “to make its food waste management and reduction strategies more public.” It also claimed to have “helped convince McDonald’s, the largest purchaser of beef in the world, to restrict the use of antibiotics in its beef and chicken supply chains.” It was a classic case of greenwashing, in which corporate behemoths burnished their reputation among progressives by embracing cosmetic reforms that did little to challenge their bottom lines. When I informed Fox about Green Century’s ongoing investments in carbon-heavy industries, he said, “Well, I’m all for an investigation of those things on real grounds.” In the same breath, Fox pivoted to another complaint about “Planet of the Humans”: “The film attacks Bill McKibben in ways that were unfair and untrue.” Was that the case, though? One of the most provocative points about McKibben and his allies in “Planet of the Humans” – that they function as de facto public relations agents for the “green” billionaires seeking to cash in on the renewables rush – was never coherently answered. But as this investigation reveals, the climate warriors criticized in the film are sponsored by many of those same billionaires, as well as the network of family foundations that help set the agenda for groups like 350.org. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund incubates 350.org In perhaps the most uncomfortable scene in “Planet of the Humans,” Bill McKibben was shown visibly squirming as an interviewer asked him about family foundation support for his 350.org. “We’re not exactly Big Greens,” McKibben insisted during a 2011 interview with climate journalist Karyn Strickler. “I’m a volunteer, we’ve got seven people who work full time on this 350.org campaign.” With a telling smirk on her face, Strickler asked McKibben how his group sustained itself. “To the degree that we have any money at all it’s come from a few foundations in Europe and the US,” McKibben insisted. He mentioned “a foundation based in Sweden, I think it’s called the Rasmussen Foundation that I think has been the biggest funder.” After some prodding by Strickler, a visibly uncomfortable McKibben divulged that the “Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave us some money right when we were starting out. That’s been useful too.” However, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rasmussen were not observing the birth of 350.org from the sidelines. In fact, the Rockefeller Brothers were instrumental in establishing 350.org and guiding the organization’s agenda. It began when the foundation incubated a group called 1Sky with a $1 million grant. McKibben immediately joined as board member. As documented by radical environmentalist Cory Morningstar, 1Sky’s launch was announced at a 2007 gathering of the Clinton Global Initiative by former President Bill Clinton, who stood on stage beside Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz. Four years later, the Rockefeller Brothers announced “the exciting marriage of 1Sky and 350.org — two grantees of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Sustainable Development program.” Why McKibben was so uncomfortable about discussing his relationship with Rockefeller was unclear. Perhaps he was concerned that the organization he once described as a “scruffy little outfit” would be seen as a central node in the donor-driven non-profit industrial complex. Whatever his motives were, since the testy exchange with Strickler, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has contributed over $1 million to McKibben’s 350.org. Alongside a network of foundations and “green” billionaires, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and its $1.2 billion endowment serves as a primary engine of the network of self-styled “climate justice” activists that sought to steamroll “Planet of the Humans.” These interests have cohered around the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA), which is located in the New York City offices of the Rockefeller Family Fund. The EGA enables elite foundations and billionaire donors to cultivate a cadre of professional “doers” during retreats in scenic locations. One first-time student attendee said the retreat experience was designed with “the intention of strengthening relationships between funders and build[ing] relationships within the environmental movement.” As soon as she arrived, she was “paired with mentor ‘buddies,’ folks who had been to past EGA Retreats to show us the ropes.” These encounters take place in Napa Valley, California, or at the Mohonk Mountain House resort in New York’s Hudson Valley.A report by the Threshold Foundation described the theme of the 2015 EGA fall retreat at Mohonk: “‘Fund the Fighters!’ That’s the rallying call from the stars. Not the celestial stars, but from well-known artists such as Mark Ruffalo and Naomi Klein.” In accordance with its relationship with the EGA’s network of environmental cadres and outfits like 350.org, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund embraced their fossil fuel divestment campaign, shedding its stocks in oil and coal while increasing assets in other industries that can hardly be described as green. A look at the results of the foundation’s move offers another disturbing case study in the divestment shell game. The Rockefeller Brothers go “green,” invest in Halliburton In 2014, following consultations with 350.org, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund announced that it was divesting from fossil fuels. “We were extremely uncomfortable with the moral ambivalence of funding programs around the climate catastrophe while still being invested in the fossil fuels that were bringing us closer to that catastrophe,” Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz said. At a December 2015 side session of the UN climate conference in Paris, 350.org executive director May Boeve joined Heintz to celebrate the foundation’s decision to divest. “A growing number of investors representing a growing amount of capital do not want to be associated with this industry any longer,” Boeve stated. 350.org’s Boeve and Rockefeller’s Heintz at the UN climate summit in 2015 A look at the most recent publicly available financial filing of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, from 2018 (PDF), offered a clear glimpse at the shell game that divestment has entailed. According to the filing, while the Rockefeller Brothers freed itself of fossil fuels, the foundation remained invested in companies including the oil services giant Halliburton, the Koch-run multinational petroleum transportation partnership Inter Pipeline Ltd, and Caterpillar, whose bulldozers are familiar at scenes of deforestation and Palestinian home demolitions. (Several NGOs that advocate divestment from companies involved in the Israeli occupation of Palestine, such as +972 Magazine and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, have also received support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund). The foundation padded its portfolio with stock in financial industry titans like Citigroup and Wells Fargo, as well as Newcrest Mining, Barrick Gold, Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation, and Agnico Eagle Mines. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund listed at least $20 million of investments in Vision Ridge Partners, which was itself invested in a biomass company called Vanguard Renewables under the guise of “renewable energy.” In December 2019, Vanguard Renewables forged a partnership with Dominion Energy – the energy giant whose Atlantic Coast Pipeline was defeated this June thanks to grassroots environmental mobilization – to convert methane from farms into natural gas. Since the Rockefeller Brothers Fund answered 350.org’s call to divest from fossil fuels in 2014, the foundation’s wealth has increased substantially. As the Washington Post reported, “the Rockefeller Brothers fund’s assets grew at an annual average rate of 7.76 percent over the five-year period that ended Dec. 31, 2019.” The outcome of the Rockefellers’ widely praised move established a clear precedent for other elite institutions: by allowing organizations like 350.org to lead them by the hand, they could greenwash their image, offload stocks in a fossil fuel industry described by financial analysts as a “chronic underperformer,” and protect their investments in growth industries like mining, oil services, and biomass. McKibben, for his part, has marketed fossil fuel divestment as a win-win strategy for the capitalist class: “The institutions that divested from fossil fuel really did well financially, because the fossil fuel industry has been the worst performing part of our economy… Even if you didn’t care about destroying the planet, you’d want to get out of it because it just loses money.” Blood and Gore make “the case for long-term greed” In another move apparently intended to burnish its green image while padding its assets, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund invested over $100 million in Generation Investment Management’s Generation Climate Solutions Fund II and Generation IM Global Equity Fund. These entities are jointly managed by Al Gore, the former US vice president who negotiated a notorious carbon offsets loophole at the 1997 Kyoto Climate Protocol that has been blamed for the release of 600 million tons of excess emissions. Gore launched the fund alongside David Blood, the ex-CEO of asset management for Goldman Sachs, in order to promote a climate-friendly capitalism. In a 2015 profile of Blood and Gore’s Generation Investment Management fund, The Atlantic’s James Fallows described their investment strategy as “a demonstration of a new version of capitalism, one that will shift the incentives of financial and business operations” toward a profitable “green” economy – while potentially saving the system of capitalism from itself. Blood was blunt when asked about his agenda: “We are making the case for long-term greed.” The banker Blood and the green guru McKibben shared a stage together at the 2013 conference of Ceres, a non-profit that works to consolidate the mutually beneficial relationship between Big Green and Wall Street. Bill McKibben (on the right) and former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood at the 2013 Ceres conference The event featured a cast of corporate executives from companies like Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and GM. Sponsors included Bank of America, PG&E, Bloomberg, Citi, Ford, GM, Prudential, Wells Fargo, TimeWarner, and a collection of Fortune 500 companies. During their conversation, the investor Blood pledged to mobilize “something in the order of $40 to $50 trillion of capital” in renewables, underscoring the massive profit center that a transition to “green” energy represents. “It’s entirely dependent on what kind of political will we can muster,” McKibben proclaimed, pledging to work toward Blood’s goal. The unsettling sight of McKibben discussing multi-trillion dollar profit possibilities with a former Goldman Sachs banker was featured prominently in “Planet of the Humans,” and undoubtedly helped inspire the ferocious backlash against the documentary by the 350.org founder’s network. McKibben was far from alone among climate justice warriors in his dalliance with the billionaire class, however. A foundation-supported “ragtag bunch” Before Josh Fox launched his media blitz against “Planet of the Humans,” he directed a full-length documentary vehicle for 350.org, titled “Divest.” For the 2016 film, Fox followed McKibben and allies like Naomi Klein as they embarked on a cross-country road trip to promote fossil fuel divestment. Fox’s ties to the professional activists extend to the funding network centered around the Environmental Grantmakers Association. Between 2012 and 2017, Fox’s film company International WOW reported grants totaling $2.5 million. Much of that funding came courtesy of the Rockefeller Brothers Cultural Innovation Fund and Rockefeller MAP fund, as well as the Ford and Park Foundations. Josh Fox International WOW funding foundations Foundation funding for Josh Fox’s production company International WOW (Source) In 2012, the year Fox and his allies launched their campaign promoting fossil fuel divestment, he co-founded an environmental advocacy group called the Solutions Project. He conceived the organization alongside celebrity actor Mark Ruffalo, former Tesla executive Marco Krapels, and Stanford University’s Mark Jacobson – the professor behind the dubious 2050 all-renewables projection. The four founders gathered seed money from the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation of the eponymous film actor, and from the 11th Hour Foundation of Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife, Wendy, according to Fox. Fox said that after a power struggle and an attempt to force him out in order to raise several million from the Sierra Club, he, Krapels, and Jacobson eventually left the organization. Krapels has since launched an electric battery company in Brazil – another country that happens to hold a massive reserve of lithium and other minerals necessary for his products. Brazil has experienced a rush on lithium mining in recent years thanks to the roaring demand for lithium-ion batteries. Krapels’ former partner at Tesla’s disastrous Solar City project, Elon Musk, announced plans this year to build an electric car factory in Brazil. Musk has even reportedly sought an audience with the country’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, to further his business interests. Today, the Solutions Project is “100% co opted and sold out,” Fox acknowledged. Indeed, the group’s board members currently include Brandon Hurlbut, a former Obama Department of Energy official who founded Boundary Stone Partners – a lobbying firm that represents the nuclear industry. Also on the board is Billy Parish, the founder of Mosaic, a financial firm that declares its “mission to revolutionize two of the biggest industries in the world: energy and finance…” Mosaic’s website states. “We focus on the integration of doing good (for the planet) and doing well (financially).” According to its website, the Elon Musk Foundation is among the Solutions Project’s funders. The organization describes Musk as “the guy who is trying to save humanity in like four or five different ways,” comparing him to a Marvel Comics superhero. In reality, Musk is a ferocious union-buster who recently fired workers for staying home as the Covid-19 pandemic hit – but not before deceiving them into believing they had permission to safely quarantine. Other Solutions Project supporters include the Skoll Global Threats Fund, run by eBay billionaire Jeffrey Skoll. Skoll funded Al Gore’s film on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which went into production soon after Gore launched his Generation Investment Management fund – an inconvenient truth pointed out by “Planet of the Humans.” The 11th Hour Project foundation of Google CEO Schmidt and his wife remains a supporter of the Solutions Project after ponying up the seed money to launch it. Asked in 2014 about the inequality and displacement that start-up tech businesses bring to the Bay Area, where Google is located, Schmidt responded, “Let us celebrate capitalism. $19 billion for 50 people? Good for them.” When I challenged Fox about the co-optation of climate justice politics by tech oligarchs like Skoll, Schmidt, and Musk, he grew defensive. “You have to see these things in a time continuum of us trying to take off big, something bigger than anybody’s ever tried to take on in the world,” he stated, referencing his and his allies’ fight against the fossil fuel industry. “They’re bigger than Nazi Germany, bigger than America. Bigger than all of them combined. We’re a ragtag bunch of extraordinarily committed people who are willing to put our lives on the line to stop the fossil fuel industry. “Yeah, that’s that’s really laudable,” Fox continued, referring to his own efforts, “and for a multi-millionaire circus barker, as Bill McKibben calls Michael Moore, to take potshots using flawed science, dishonest techniques, misrepresentation of the timeline, and 1,000 other things that are journalistic malpractice and that was called out by an extraordinary number of people – that’s the real story here. The real bully is Michael Moore here. It’s not me.” The Producer This year, Josh Fox launched a one-man show and film called “The Truth Has Changed.” According to promotional material for the performance, Fox narrated his experience as “an eyewitness to history” who “was the subject of a 100 million dollar smear campaign from the oil and gas industry.” “Josh Fox was the beta test for the types of propaganda and smears the gang that created Cambridge Analytica is now known for world wide,” the film’s website stated. “And Josh is telling his story in an uncompromising way like never before.” The performance was supposed to have enjoyed a lengthy run this January at one of the most renowned venues for political theater in the country, The Public Theater in New York City. But the show was abruptly canceled after the Public accused Fox of violating the theater’s code of conduct through “a series of verbal abuses to the staff.” Fox, who is Jewish, retaliated by accusing the theater’s directors of anti-Semitism. According to the New York Times, Fox “said he had been told that he was too passionate, too loud and too emotional.” “To me that is distinctly cultural,” Fox told the paper. “That’s a classic anti-Semitic trope.” Behind the drama over the monologue’s cancellation, a more salient issue lingered. The executive producer of Fox’s “The Truth Has Changed” was Tom Dinwoodie, a wealthy “cleantech” entrepreneur and engineer who owned dozens of patents on solar technology, and therefore stood to reap a massive windfall profit from the renewables revolution that Fox and his allies were campaigning for. Dinwoodie, who signed Fox’s letter calling for the retraction of “Planet of the Humans,” was a top donor to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a so-called “do-tank” where he serves as a lead trustee. In 2014, Dinwoodie helped oversee the merger of his think tank with billionaire Virgin CEO Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room, which was founded with “a mission to stimulate business-led market interventions that advance a low-carbon economy.” “Increasingly, the solutions for climate change are those policy measures that drive economic growth,” a spokesman declares in a video announcing the strategic partnership between Branson’s non-profit and Dinwoodie’s Rocky Mountain “do-tank.” In the same video, billionaire former Democratic Party presidential candidate and Rocky Mountain Institute donor Tom Steyer emphasized the profit motive behind the renewables transition: “Changing the way we generate and use energy is the largest industry in the history of the world. There is no time to waste.” This July 9 – the day after the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force released its policy recommendations – the Rocky Mountain Institute launched the Center for Climate Aligned Finance in partnership with four of the biggest banks in the world: Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase. The initiative, according to Rocky Mountain, will serve as “an engine room for the financial sector to partner with corporate clients to identify practical solutions through deep partnerships with industry, civil society and policymakers to facilitate a transition in the global economy to net-zero emissions by mid-century.” The partnership represented an obvious boon for green tycoons like Dinwoodie who profit from renewable energy. And for the big banks that continued to top the list of the world’s most prolific investors in the fossil fuel industry, it was another opportunity to greenwash their public image. Given the economic interests represented by Dinwoodie and his “do-tank,” it was easy to understand why he signed Fox’s letter calling for “Planet of the Humans” to be retracted. The documentary had not only hammered his political partner, Richard Branson, as a PR savvy oligarch exploiting environmental politics; it took aim at the ethos of Big Green outfits that comforted their ruling-class funders with the promise that they could do good while continuing to do well. When I asked Fox why he thought big tech tycoons and their family foundations were plowing their fortunes into climate activism, he responded, “Probably saving the planet.” The Danish connection While wealthy green businessmen like Dinwoodie and Elon Musk furthered their commercial interests by underwriting green advocacy, the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation and its closely affiliated KR (Kann-Rasmussen) Foundation have strategically directed their resources into nurturing a who’s who of professional climate warriors – including several that played a role in the campaign to suppress “Planet of the Humans.” Brian Valbjørn Sørensen, the executive director of the KR Foundation, was a former special advisor to the center-left Danish government that lost power in 2015. KR’s chair, Connie Hedegaard, was the ex-minister for climate and energy for the center-right Danish government of Anders Fogg Rasmussen, who went on to serve as secretary general of the NATO military alliance. As the European Union’s first climate chief, Hedegaard argued that renewable energy could strengthen NATO’s soft power against Russia by reducing natural gas imports from the designated enemy state. KR’s support for groups like 350.org surfaced in “Planet of the Humans” during the cringe-inducing scene in which journalist Karyn Strickler grilled Bill McKibben about his organizational funders. According to the KR Foundation, it donated $2 million to 350.org in 2019. Toby Smith, the photographer who filed the copyright claim against Planet of the Humans on explicitly “personal” grounds, happened to have been the media outreach director of a KR-funded non-profit called Climate Outreach. As the Rasmussen family’s KR Foundation stated in a recent financial filing, it initiated grants totaling nearly $2 million to Climate Outreach in 2019 alone. When British columnist George Monbiot published a vitriolic condemnation of “Planet of the Humans” in The Guardian, he neglected to mention that he had been a board member of the Rasmussen-backed Climate Outreach. The V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation has also supported Naomi Klein’s environmentalist outfit, The Leap, according to the foundation’s website. Klein, a longtime critic of elite family foundations and the billionaire class, was among the most prominent figures to join the campaign to censor “Planet of the Humans.” As her ally McKibben acknowledged, she unsuccessfully pressured Michael Moore to retract “Planet of the Humans” before it was even released. Klein has celebrated the Danish government where KR Foundation leaders have served for advancing “some of the most visionary environmental policies in the world.” At the same time, she has denounced the “autocratic industrial socialism” of the Soviet Union and the “petro-populism” of the socialist government of Venezuela, where Denmark has recognized US-backed coup leader Juan Guaidó. Klein’s recent broadsides against Venezuela contrasted strongly with her signing of a 2004 open letter that proclaimed, “If we were Venezuelan… we would vote for [Hugo] Chavez”; and a 2007 column in which she wrote that thanks to the Chavez government, “citizens had renewed their faith in the power of democracy to improve their lives.” Naomi Klein and Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on November 4, 2015. Gurria was a former Finance Minister in the administration of Mexico’s neoliberal former president, Ernesto Zedillo. Gurria won the OECD’s “Globalist of the Year” award for his role in negotiating the NAFTA free trade deal and “promot[ing] trans-nationalism.” From Big Green critic to “Planet of the Humans” opponent Naomi Klein’s opposition to “Planet of the Humans” was surprising given the views she has expressed in the past on mainstream environmental politics. In 2013, for example, she bemoaned the “deep denialism in the environmental movement among the Big Green groups [on how to fight climate change]. And to be very honest with you,” she continued, “I think it’s been more damaging than the right-wing denialism in terms of how much ground we’ve lost.” In her widely acclaimed 2008 book “The Shock Doctrine,” Klein documenting the Ford Foundation’s role as a CIA cutout that helped establish the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Chicago. The Ford-funded academic department nurtured the infamous “Chicago Boys,” a group of neoliberal economists led by Milton Friedman who conceived the disaster capitalist “shock doctrine” that inspired the title of Klein’s book. They applied their program to Chile as General Augusto Pinochet’s economic advisors following his CIA-backed military coup to destroy the leftist government of Chilean President Salvador Allende. Klein also surveyed the Ford Foundation’s support for the “Berkeley Mafia” at the University of California that advised the hyper-repressive junta of General Suharto, which toppled Indonesia’s socialist government in 1965. “The Berkeley Mafia had studied in the US as part of a program that began in 1956, funded by the Ford Foundation…” Klein wrote. “Ford-funded students became leaders of the campus groups that participated in overthrowing Sukarno, and the Berkeley Mafia worked closely with the military in the lead-up to the coup…” Henry Kissinger, the Nixon foreign policy guru whom Klein identified as the mastermind of the dirty war in Chile, had previously served as the director of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Special Strategies Project, which helped conceive US national security strategies for countering the spread of communism. Today, the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund support an array of liberal causes, from diversity and racial justice initiatives to the network of NGO’s organizing for fossil fuel divestment. At the same time, the Ford Foundation backs organizations that push regime change in Latin America, partnering with the US government to fund Freedom House, a DC-based NGO which supported the failed coup to oust Nicaragua’s elected leftist government in 2018. For its part, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has supported The Syria Campaign, a public relations outfit that clamored for US military intervention to remove the UN-recognized government of Syria. In 2011, when Klein was appointed to 350.org’s board of directors, she joined forces with an environmental organization incubated by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and supported by the Ford Foundation. “As 350.org founder Bill McKibben puts it: unless we go after the ‘money pollution,’ no campaign against real pollution stands a chance,” Klein wrote at the time. Klein’s 2015 book and documentary film on climate change, “This Changes Everything,” was initially launched as a project called “The Message.” It was supported with hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from a who’s who of major family foundations that help sustain McKibben’s political apparatus. In one of several grants to the book and film project, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund contributed $50,000 to “The Message” via a non-profit pass-through called the Sustainable Markets Foundation. [PDF] Susan Rockefeller served as a co-executive producer of the documentary version of “This Changes Everything.” Her husband, David Rockefeller Jr. is the son of tycoon David Rockefeller, a US government-linked cold warrior who co-founded the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and helped back the US-managed coup that put Pinochet and the Chicago Boys in power in Chile. Rockefeller Jr., a major supporter of conservationist causes, is a former chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and board member of Rockefeller Financial Services. In 2014, the Ford Foundation chipped in with $250,000 to Klein’s project. [PDF] Klein’s “The Message” also benefited from $140,000 in support from the Schmidt Family Foundation of Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife, Wendy. The Schmidt Family Foundation is an ongoing contributor to McKibben’s 350.org, kicking in $200,000 in 2018 [PDF]. In April 2019, Klein released “A Message From The Future,” a video collaboration with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and artist and pundit Molly Crabapple, which promoted the Green New Deal as a pathway to a renewable-powered economic utopia. Crabapple, a vehement supporter of Washington’s campaign for regime change in Syria, is an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at the New America Foundation, a Democratic Party-linked think tank substantially funded by Google’s Schmidt, the Ford Foundation and the US State Department. In a recent The Intercept column, Klein took aim at Schmidt, describing him as one of the billionaires exploiting “a coherent Pandemic Shock Doctrine” to begin “building a high tech dystopia.” She noted that Schmidt is closely aligned with the national security state as chair of the Defense Innovation Board, which consults for the Pentagon on the military’s application of artificial intelligence. Schmidt also happens to be a proponent of a “smart” energy grid, which he says will “modernize the electric grid to make it look more like the Internet.” Such a model would not only benefit tech companies like Google which make their money buying and selling data, but the U.S. national security state, whose partnerships with big tech companies increase the capacity of its surveillance apparatus. The Senate version of the Green New Deal calls for the construction of “smart” power grids almost exactly like those Schmidt imagined. Klein and other high-profile Green New Deal proponents have neglected to mention that this seeming benign component of the well-intentioned plan could represent a giant step on the way to the “high tech dystopia” of Silicon Valley barons and their national security state partners. In May 2018, Klein became the Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University. The position was created “following a three-year, $3 million campaign…including a dozen foundations.” Among the “early and path breaking contributors,” according to Rutgers, was the Ford Foundation. Gloria Steinem (L) and Naomi Klein at the 2018 Rutgers ceremony inaugurating Steinem’s endowed chair Contributions also poured in for the endowment from tycoons like Sheryl Sandberg, the billionaire chief operating officer of Facebook and advocate of corporate “Lean In” feminism; and Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood mogul who was sentenced this March to 23 years in prison for first degree criminal sexual assault. According to Rutgers, Weinstein provided “a gift of $100,000 in honor of his late mother, who shared Gloria Steinem’s hopes for female equality.” I had hoped to have a conversation with Klein, a former colleague at the Nation Institute, about her reflexive opposition to a documentary that advanced many of the same arguments that appeared in her past writings. Was the exclusive focus on carbon emissions by professional climate warriors not a blinkered approach that ignored the environmental damage inherent in producing still-unproven renewable technology? Did “cleantech” tycoons not have a vested interest in advancing a global transition to the renewable products their companies manufactured? And when she had clearly articulated the problems with billionaire-backed Big Green advocacy, why had Klein cast her lot with a political network that seemed to epitomize it? My emails were met with an auto-reply informing me Klein was “off grid,” and referring me to her personal assistant. According to Fox, high-profile climate warriors like McKibben and Klein had no interest in speaking to me about their opposition to the film because “it’s like four months ago, man, everybody’s moved on.” Seeing green in Biden By August, members of the professional climate advocacy network that saw its interests threatened by “Planet of the Humans” was preparing for a much more elaborate on-screen production that promised new opportunities. In the weeks ahead of the Democratic National Convention, climate justice organizations like the Sunrise Movement 501 c-4 which emerged in the shadow of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential run and condemned former Vice President Joseph Biden as a tool of the establishment suddenly changed their tune. Flush with dark money from Democratic Party-aligned billionaires, Sunrise Movement co-founder Varshini Prakash stated on July 14 – the day Biden released his clean energy plan: “It’s no secret that we’ve been critical of Vice President’s Biden’s plans and commitments in the past. Today, he’s responded to many of those criticisms: dramatically increasing the scale and urgency of investments… Our movement, alongside environmental justice communities and frontline workers, has taught Joe Biden to talk the talk.” While it brands itself as a grassroots movement that has organized anti-establishment stunts putting centrist figures like Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the spot, the Sunrise Movement was incubated with a grant from the Sierra Club, the Mike Bloomberg-backed juggernaut of Big Green organizing. Today, offices of the two organizations are located a floor apart in the same building in downtown Washington DC. Ahead of the DNC, the Biden campaign introduced a $2 trillion plan pledge to invest heavily in renewable technology to achieve “a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.” The plan promised to erect 500 million solar panels in the next five years alongside 60,000 new wind turbines. With the demand for solar plummeting due to the coronavirus pandemic, the prospect of gigantic government subsidies was music to the ears of the “cleantech” tycoons who sponsor Democratic Party-aligned climate advocacy organizations. Many of these green millionaires and billionaires had feasted at the trough of Obama’s stimulus package, which was directly responsible for powering the rise of America’s solar industry. After promising upon his inauguration to invest $150 billion in “a new green energy business sector,” Obama doled out an eye-popping $4.9 billion in subsidies to Tesla’s Elon Musk and a $1.2 billion loan guarantee for Tom Dinwoodie’s SunPower US to construct the California Valley Solar Ranch. In June 2019, an “avian incident” caused a fire at the SunPower Solar Ranch project, impacting over 1200 acres and knocking out 84% of generating capacity for several weeks. “Planet of the Humans” presented viewers with the disturbing story of the Ivanpah solar plant, a signature initiative in Obama’s green energy plan which was co-owned by Google. Gifted with $1.6 billion in loan guarantees and $600 million in federal tax credits, Ivanpah was built on 5.6 square miles of pristine public land close to California’s Mojave National Preserve. In its first year, the massive plant produced less than half its of its planned energy goal while burning over 6000 birds to death. The Ivanpah solar thermal plant and its three power towers spans across the Mojave Desert Because of the intermittency inherent to solar power, the gargantuan energy project has had to burn massive amounts of natural gas to keep the system primed when the sun is not shining. Despite its dependence on fossil fuel, Ivanpah still qualifies under state rules as a renewable plant. “The bottom line is the public didn’t expect this project to consume this much natural gas,” David Lamfrom, California desert manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, told the local Press-Enterprise. “We did not have full knowledge that this was what we were signing up for.” Even after the Obama administration poured billions of dollars into solar projects, solar energy output increased between 2008 and 2016 by just .88% as a total of American energy production. Meanwhile, across the country, many new wind projects remain stalled due to community concerns about land destruction. In the home state of Green New Deal advocate Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only remaining wind project was canceled this January. For raising questions about the efficacy and environmental cost of renewable projects like these, and proposing an explicitly anti-capitalist solution to the corporate destruction of the planet, the makers of “Planet of the Humans” were steamrolled by a network of professional climate activists, billionaire investors and industry insiders. Now, with the Biden campaign promising a new flood of renewable subsidies and tax breaks under the auspices of a “clean” energy plan, the public remains in the dark about what it is signing up for. Even if the ambitious agenda fails to deliver any substantial environmental good, it promises a growing class of green investors another opportunity to do well. Planet of the Humans censored corporations ‘Green’ billionaires behind professional activist network that led suppression of ‘Planet of the Humans’ documentary MAX BLUMENTHAL·BIG TECHNON-PROFIT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX·SEPTEMBER 7, 2020 The Michael Moore-produced ‘Planet of the Humans’ faced a coordinated suppression campaign led by professional climate activists backed by the same ‘green’ billionaires, Wall Street investors, industry insiders and family foundations skewered in the film. By Max Blumenthal “We must take control of our environmental movement and our future from billionaires and their permanent war on Planet Earth. They are not our friends.” -Jeff Gibbs, director of “Planet of the Humans” It is hard to think of an American film that provoked a greater backlash in 2020 than “Planet of the Humans.” Focused on the theme of planetary extinction and fanciful proposals to ward it off, the documentary was released for free on YouTube on April 21. The date was significant not only because it was the eve of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, but because a global pandemic was tearing through America’s social fabric and exposing the human toll of the country’s globalized, growth-obsessed economic model. Even before “Planet of the Humans” was released, however, the producers of the film had fallen under pressure to retract it. Upon the film’s release, a who’s who of self-styled climate justice activists proceeded to blanket the internet with accusations that it was a racist, “eco-fascist” screed that deliberately advanced the interests of the oil and gas industry. When “Planet of the Humans” was briefly yanked from YouTube thanks to a questionable copyright claim by an angry climate warrior, the free speech organization Pen America issued a remarkable statement characterizing the demands for retraction as a coordinated censorship campaign. What had this documentary done to inflame so much opposition from the faces and voices of professional climate justice activism? First, it probed the well-established shortcomings of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power that have been marketed as a green panacea. “Planet of the Humans” portrayed these technologies as anything but green, surveying the environmental damage already caused by solar and wind farms, which require heavy mining and smelting to produce, destroy swaths of pristine land, and sometimes demand natural gas to operate. While major environmental outfits have lobbied for a Green New Deal to fuel a renewables-based industrial revolution, and are now banking on a Democratic presidency to enact their proposals, “Planet of the Humans” put forward a radical critique that called their entire agenda into question. As the director of the documentary, Jeff Gibbs, explained, “When we focus on climate change only as the thing destroying the planet and we demand solutions, we get used by forces of capitalism who want to continue to sell us the disastrous illusion that we can mine and smelt and industrialize our way out of this extinction event. And again, behind the scenes, much of what we’re doing to ‘save’ the planet is to burn the ‘bio’ of the planet as green energy.” “Planet of the Humans” crossed another bright green line by taking aim at the self-proclaimed climate justice activists themselves, painting them as opportunists who had been willingly co-opted by predatory capitalists. The filmmakers highlighted the role of family foundations like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in cultivating a class of professional activists that tend toward greenwashing partnerships with Wall Street and the Democratic Party to coalitions with anti-capitalist militants and anti-war groups. Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org and guru of climate justice activism, is seen throughout “Planet of the Humans” consorting with Wall Street executives and pushing fossil fuel divestment campaigns that enable powerful institutions to reshuffle their assets into plastics and mining while burnishing their image. McKibben has even called for environmentalists to cooperate with the Pentagon, one of the world’s worst polluters and greatest exporters of violence, because “when it speaks frankly, [it] has the potential to reach Americans who won’t listen to scientists.” Perhaps the most provocative critique contained in “Planet of the Humans” was the portrayal of full-time climate warriors like McKibben as de facto lobbyists for green tech billionaires and Wall Street investors determined to get their hands on the whopping $50 trillion profit opportunity that a full transition to renewable technology represents. Why have figures like Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Michael Bloomberg, Virgin’s Richard Branson, and Tesla founder Elon Musk been plowing their fortunes into climate advocacy? The documentary taunted those who accepted these oligarchs’ gestures of environmental concern at face value. For years, leftist criticism of professional climate activism has been largely relegated to blogs like Wrong Kind of Green, which maintains an invaluable archive of critical work on the co-optation of major environmental organizations by the billionaire class. Prominent greens might have been able to dismiss scrutiny from radical corners of the internet as background noise; however, they were unable to ignore “Planet of the Humans.” That was because Oscar-winning documentarian Michael Moore put his name on the film as executive producer, alongside his longtime producer, Gibbs, and the scholar-researcher Ozzie Zehner. “Michael Moore validates this film,” Josh Fox, the filmmaker who led the campaign against “Planet of the Humans,” told me. “So if Michael Moore’s name is not on that film, it’s like a thousand other crappy movies.” By racking up millions of views after just a month on YouTube, “Planet of the Humans” threatened to provoke an unprecedented debate about the corruption of environmental politics by the one percent. But thanks to the campaign by Fox and his allies, much of the debate wound up focused on the film itself, and the credibility of its producers. “I had some sense that the film was going to ruffle some feathers, but I was unprepared for that response from what ended up being a group of people who are like an echo chamber – all related to the same funding organizations,” said Zehner. “It’s a pretty tight circle and it was a really strong, virulent pushback.” The line of attack that may have gained the most traction in progressive circles portrayed a convoluted section of the film on the dangers of population growth and overconsumption as Malthusian, and even racist. Zehner told me he considered the attacks opportunistic, but “from a public relations standpoint, they were effective. What we were trying to do was highlight the dangers of a consumption-based economic model.” The backlash to “Planet of the Humans” also related to its portrayal of renewables as badly flawed sources of energy that were also environmentally corrosive. Many of those attacks painted the film’s presentation of solar and wind to present the documentary as out of date and filled with misinformation. Oddly, the professional activists who coordinated the campaign to bury “Planet of the Humans” glossed over an entire third of the documentary which focused on the corruption and co-optation of environmental politics by “green” foundations and “green” investors. As this investigation will reveal, those climate justice activists were bound together by support from the same family foundations, billionaire investors, and industry interests that were skewered in the film. Josh Fox Planet of the Humans billionaires Filmmaker Josh Fox “Censorship, plain and simple” The ringleader of the push to suppress “Planet of the Humans” was Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated director of the film “Gasland,” which highlighted the destructive practices inherent to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Fox launched the campaign with a sign-on letter calling for the documentary to be retracted by its producers. Then, in an incendiary takedown published in The Nation, he branded Michael Moore “the new flack for oil and gas,” a racist, and “eco-fascist” for producing the film. As videographer Matt Orfalea reported, Fox’s crusade began the night Moore’s film was released, with an unhinged mass email to online publishers that blasted the documentary as “A GIGANTIC CROCK OF SHIT.” Fox commanded, “It must come down off your pages immediately.” Hours later, Fox fired off another breathless email to a group of public relations professionals. “A number of reputable websites are hosting this abomination and I need your support in getting them to take it down,” he wrote. The following day, Fox took to Twitter to assure his ally, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, “We are on it.” Next, Fox organized a sign-on letter demanding the film “be retracted by its creators and distributors and an apology rendered for its misleading content.” Among the letter’s signatories was academic and renewables advocate Leah C. Stokes, who proclaimed her wish in an article in Vox that “this film will be buried, and few will watch it or remember it.” On April 24, Josh Fox claimed he had successfully pressured an online video library, Films For Action, into removing “Planet of the Humans” from its website. His victory lap turned out to be premature, as Films For Action re-posted the film and publicly condemned Fox’s campaign to drive it into oblivion. The relentless push by Fox and others eventually triggered a striking statement by PEN America, the free speech advocacy group. “Calls to pull a film because of disagreement with its content are calls for censorship, plain and simple,” PEN America declared. “Listen, nobody called to censor this movie,” Fox insisted to me. “We asked the filmmakers as part of their community to retract it, because it unfairly attacked people that we know are good, honest dealers and its premise was wrong and false.” Fox likened “Planet of the Humans” to radio host Mike Daisey’s monologue on visiting the Foxconn factory in China where iPhones are made, and which was retracted by NPR after major fabrications came to light. “It’s clear to me that the filmmakers… put incorrect information into the film that they knew was incorrect. That thing was out of date,” Fox said of the Moore-produced documentary. “And many, many people from within our community reached out to them, which I didn’t know actually, prior to the release of the film and said, ‘This information is incorrect. What are you doing?'” Fox was particularly incensed at Michael Moore for attaching his reputation to the film. He described the famed director as one of “the bad guys”; “a megalomaniacal multi-millionaire who craves attention unlike anyone I’ve ever met”; “the 800-pound elephant in the room”; the maker of a “racist” and “eco-fascist” film; and “a multi-millionaire circus barker” guilty of “journalistic malpractice.” “The real bully is Michael Moore here,” Fox maintained. “It’s not me.” Though Fox and his allies did not succeed in erasing “Planet of the Humans” from the internet, the documentary was momentarily removed from YouTube on the grounds of a copyright claim by a British photographer named Toby Smith. In a tweet he later deleted, Smith said his opposition to the film was “personal,” blasting it as a “baseless, shite doc built on bull-shit and endless copyright infringements.” As the attacks on “Planet of the Humans” snowballed, director Jeff Gibbs attempted to defend his film. Following an article at The Guardian branding the film as “dangerous,” Gibbs emailed the paper’s opinion editors requesting a right of reply. He told me they never responded. However, just hours after Toby Smith’s politically-motivated copyright claim prompted YouTube to remove Gibbs’ documentary, he said The Guardian reached out to him for comment. “How’d they catch that so early?” he wondered. A few left-wing journalists tried to push back on the attacks as well. But in almost every case, they were spiked by editors at ostensibly progressive journals. Christopher Ketcham, author of “This Land: How Cowboys, Capitalism, and Corruption are Ruining the American West,” was among those unable to find a venue in which to defend the documentary. “I have come across very few editors radical enough to have the exceedingly difficult conversation about the downscaling, simplification, and the turn (in the developed world) toward diminished affluence that a 100 percent renewable energy system will necessarily entail,” Ketcham reflected to me. “You see, they have to believe that they can keep their carbon-subsidized entitlements, their toys, their leisure travel — no behavioral change or limits needed — and it will all be green and ‘sustainable.'” Naomi Klein, perhaps the most prominent left-wing writer on climate-related issues in the West, did not weigh in to defend “Planet of the Humans.” Instead, the Intercept columnist, social activist, and Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University was an early participant in the campaign to suppress the film. According to McKibben, “Naomi [Klein] had in fact taken Moore aside in an MSNBC greenroom” before the documentary’s release to lobby him against publishing the film. Klein later signed Josh Fox’s open letter demanding the film be retracted. On Twitter, Klein condemned “Planet of the Humans” as “truly demoralizing,” and promoted a “big blog/fact check” of the film by Ketan Joshi, a former communications officer for the Australian wind farm company Infigen Energy. Mining a green future and burying the cost Like most opponents of “Planet of the Humans,” Ketan Joshi painted the documentary as “a dumb old bull in the china shop that is 2020’s hard-earned climate action environment.” And along with other critics, he accused the film’s co-producers, Gibbs and Zehner, of wildly misrepresenting the efficiency of renewables. To illustrate his point, he referenced a scene depicting the Cedar Street Solar Array in Lansing, Michigan with flexible solar panels running at 8% efficiency – purportedly enough to generate electricity for just 10 homes. Because that scene was part of a historical sequence filmed in 2008, Joshi dismissed it as an example of the film’s “extreme oldness.” However, this February, the solar trade publication PV Magazine found that Tesla’s newest line of flexible solar shingles had an efficiency rate of 8.1% – almost exactly the same as those depicted in “Planet of the Humans.” While it is true that mono-crystalline solar panels boast a higher efficiency rate (between 15% and 18% in commercially available form), they were also on the market back in 2008. These panels are significantly more expensive than the flexible, less efficient panels, however. And their efficiency levels do not account for the intermittency inherent to solar energy, which does not work well in cloudy or dark conditions. Yet according to Josh Fox, the most vehement opponent of “Planet of the Humans,” the planet-saving capacity of solar and other supposedly clean forms of energy was so well-established it was beyond debate. “The premise of the film is renewable energy doesn’t work and is dependent on fossil fuels. And that is patently ridiculous,” Fox remarked to me. “And the reason why I got into this is because I had young environmentalists – young people who are steadfast campaigners – calling me in the middle of the night, freaking out, [telling me] ‘I can’t believe this!’ And I looked at them and I said, ‘Well, there’s a reason why you can’t believe this; it’s because it’s not true.'” But was the presentation of renewable energy sources in “Planet of the Humans” actually false? Ecological economist William Rees has claimed that “despite rapid growth in wind and solar generation, the green energy transition is not really happening.” That might be because it is chasing energy growth instead of curtailing it. Rees pointed out that the surge in global demand for electricity last year “exceeded the total output of the world’s entire 30-year accumulation of solar power installations.” Are there not reasonable grounds then to be concerned about the practicality of a full transition to renewables, especially in a hyper-capitalist, growth-obsessed economy like that of the United States? A September 2018 scientific study delivered some conclusions that contradicted the confident claims of renewables advocates. A research team measured solar thermal plants currently in operation around the world and found that they are dependent on the “intensive use of materials,” which is code for heavily mined minerals. minerals renewable energy IEA Minerals needed to produce renewable energy (Source: International Energy Agency / IEA) Further, the researchers found that the output of these plants was marred by “significant seasonal intermittence” due to shifting weather patterns and the simple fact that the sun does not always shine. The negative impact of massive wind farms on the environment and marginalized communities – an issue highlighted in “Planet of the Humans” – is also a serious concern, especially in the Global South. Anthropologist and “Renewing Destruction: Wind Energy Development, Conflict and Resistance in a Latin American Context” author Alexander Dunlap published a peer-reviewed 2017 study of wind farms in the indigenous Tehuantepec region of Oaxaca, Mexico, which has been marketed as one of the most ideal wind generation sites in the world. Dunlap found that the supposedly renewable projects “largely reinforced income inequality, furthered poverty entrenchment and increased food vulnerability and worker dependency on the construction of more wind parks, which cumulatively has led to an increase in work-related out-migration and environmental degradation.” When wind turbines reach the end of their life cycle, their fiberglass blades, which can be as long as a football field, are impossible to recycle. As a result, they are piling up in rural dumping sites across the US. Meanwhile, the environmentalist magazine Grist warned this August of a “solar e-waste glut” that will produce “megatons of toxic trash” when solar panels begin to lose efficiency and die. In response to my questions about so-called renewable energy, Fox referred me to a close ally, Anthony Ingraffea, who signed his letter calling for “Planet of the Humans” to be pulled. A civil engineer and co-founder of Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, which advocates for renewables, Ingraffea is a former oil and gas industry insider who turned into a forceful opponent of fracking. In the past six years, he has produced scientific assessments for the governments of New York State and California on a transition to mostly renewable energy sources. Ingraffea slammed “Planet of the Humans” as “way off base” and derided research by Ozzie Zehner, the co-producer, as “conspiracy theory shit.” He contrasted his credentials with those of Zehner, boasting that while he has earned 15,000 citations in peer-reviewed academic journals during his career as an engineer, Zehner had chalked up a mere 300. When I turned to the subject of social and environmental damage caused by so-called renewables, Ingraffea argued that the burning, storing, and transportation of fossil fuels outweighed any of those costs. According to Ingraffea, when New York State makes a decisive transition to renewables, only about 2% of the state’s land would be occupied by solar and wind farms – which translates to about 1,100 square miles. He pointed to the New York State Assembly’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act as an embodiment of the foresight of proponents of a near-total transition to renewable energy. The bill, which calls for the state to run 70% of its publicly generated energy off of “renewable energy systems” by 2030, also mandates that “35 percent of investments from clean energy and energy efficiency funds [be] invested in disadvantaged communities.” “That’s wisdom speaking,” Ingraffea said of the legislation. “That’s telling you that yes, we are aware of the problem that you said we should be aware of. Yeah, we’re not all dumb. We’re not all crazy. We’re not all ideological. Not all technical nerds who just fall in love and want to make sex with solar panels.” However, the communities (or their designated NGO representatives) supposedly compensated through the New York State bill are not located in the regions that will be most impacted by the extraction necessary to manufacture so-called renewables. Already devastated by coups and neocolonial exploitation, swathes of the Global South from Bolivia to Congo – home to massive reserves of cobalt hand-mined in “slave conditions” for electric car batteries and iPhones – are being further destabilized by the minerals rush. Even mainstream environmentalists acknowledge that rising reliance on renewable energy “means a lot of dirty mining” to extract the minerals required for electric batteries and solar cells. This prospect has sparked excitement within the mining industry, with the editor of Mining.com, Frik Els, dubbing Green New Deal spokeswomen Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg “mining’s unlikely heroines.” “Going all in on the green economy and decarbonisation requires siding with the greens against fossil fuels,” Els informed fellow mining industry insiders. “It means selling global mining as the solution to climate change because mining metals is the only path to green energy and green transport.” Mining com Greta Thunberg AOC The inevitable rush on minerals required to power the green revolution has not exactly delighted residents of the Global South, however. Evo Morales, the indigenous former president of Bolivia, was driven from power in 2019 by a military junta backed by the United States and local oligarchs, in what he branded a lithium coup. With the world’s largest untapped lithium resources, Bolivia is estimated to hold as much as half of the world’s reserves. Under Morales, the country guaranteed that only state-owned firms could mine the mineral. The ousted socialist leader argued that multi-national corporations supported his right-wing domestic opponents in order to get their hands on Bolivia’s lithium – an essential element in the electric batteries that provide the cornerstone to a digital economy dependent on smartphones, laptops, and electric vehicles. “As a small country of 10 million inhabitants, we were soon going to set the price of lithium,” Morales said. “They know we have the greatest lithium reserves in the world [in a space of] 16,000 square kilometers.” minerals electric cars IEA Minerals needed to produce electric cars (Source: International Energy Agency / IEA) Just before the military coup in Bolivia, a report (PDF) by the World Economic Forum’s Global Battery Alliance reported that the global demand for electric batteries will increase 14-fold before 2030. Almost half of today’s lithium is mined to produce electric batteries, and the demand for the mineral will only rise as power grids incorporate high levels of battery powered tech and the demand for electric vehicles increases. Electric batteries are also heavily reliant on cobalt, most of which is mined from Congo, and often in illegal and dangerous conditions by child labor. In December 2019, over a dozen Congolese plaintiffs sued Apple, Google’s Alphabet parent company, Microsoft, Dell, and Tesla, accusing them of “knowingly benefiting from and aiding and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children in Democratic Republic of Congo (‘DRC’) to mine cobalt.” This July, Tesla CEO and electric battery kingpin Elon Musk appeared to take partial credit for the 2019 military coup that forced Bolivia’s Evo Morales from power, asserting that big tech billionaires like him could “coup whoever we want.” The payoff for all the dirty and deadly mining required to manufacture the solar panels, wind turbines, and electric batteries required to power the new industrial revolution is supposed to be a planet no longer faced with a “climate emergency” – and nevermind the damage to the Earth and its non-human inhabitants. But with the demand for electricity constantly growing, is it even possible to power an economy like that of the US with entirely renewable sources of energy (excluding nuclear)? A scientific projection by one of the closest allies of Josh Fox and Anthony Ingraffea was supposed to have answered that question and put all doubts to bed. Instead, it resulted in acrimony and embarrassment for its author. The 2050 transition goal: real science or a murky crystal ball? In his piece hammering “Planet of the Humans” in The Nation, Fox touted “the proliferation of 100 percent renewable energy plans put forward by Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson” as one of the most important pieces of evidence refuting the film’s grim narrative. Jacobson’s study, according to National Geographic, was “a foundation stone” of the Green New Deal proposal put forward by Democratic Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It was also central to the energy plan advanced by the presidential campaigns of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who co-authored an op-ed with Jacobson that called for a full transition to “clean” energy by 2050. Jacobson, like Ingraffea, is an environmental engineer and political partner of Fox. The Stanford professor helped Fox found the environmental advocacy organization the Solutions Project, alongside actor Mark Ruffalo and the banker and former Tesla executive Marco Krapels in 2011. (More on this group later.) Besides his working relationship with Jacobson, Fox failed to acknowledge that the professor’s all-renewables projection was strongly challenged by 21 leading energy scientists in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal. The scientists concluded Jacobson’s paper was rife with “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” A survey of the debate by Scientific American scoffed at Jacobson’s remarkable assumption “that U.S. hydroelectric dams could add turbines and transformers to produce 1,300 gigawatts of electricity instantaneously… or the equivalent of about 1000 large nuclear or coal power plants running at full power.” Jacobson retaliated against his critics by filing a $10 million defamation lawsuit, which he was forced to withdraw in 2018. Legal commentator Kenneth White described the suit as “clearly vexatious and intended to silence dissent about an alleged scientist’s peer-reviewed article.” This April, a DC Superior Court judge invoked anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation that reportedly ordered Jacobson to pay the defendants’ legal fees. “Planet of the Humans” co-producer Ozzie Zehner saw Mark Jacobson’s flameout as a symptom of a wider problem within mainstream climate activism. “When Big Greens talk about ‘facts,’ they often aren’t talking about what most people understand to be facts,” he explained. “They’re usually talking about models, which attempt to predict the future based on estimations of physical conditions, projections, and assumptions. Greens industrialists claim they can accurately model a renewable energy future and its effects on the global biosphere. But our best science can’t even model a fish tank.” Ingraffea insisted that Jacobson’s legal fight had only begun, and said the professor’s critics were “partially driven by Mark [Jacobson] having made a very famous name for himself in an arena with many other people working, and they’re not getting all the fame.” Jacobson echoed this line in his own defense: “They don’t like the fact that we’re getting a lot of attention, so they’re trying to diminish our work.” “Give the guy a break,” Ingraffea appealed. “You know, if he’s wrong, of course he’s wrong. No one’s going to be right. No one could possibly be right right now about what’s going to happen in 25 years. We’re all entitled to our projections. We’re all entitled to our crystal balls.” That same courtesy was not extended by Ingraffea and his allies to the makers of “Planet of the Humans,” however. “We were unable to identify any factual errors in the film, and we’re open to the idea that we could be wrong about some things,” Zehner said. “But we’d like to have that debate and not be shut down.” Among the wave of attacks on “Planet of the Humans,” a disproportionate number were churned out by renewables industry insiders, from an “innovation strategist” at the Green Power Energy firm that was criticized in the film for clearing a Vermont mountaintop to build a wind farm (“For me, this film was personal,” he stated), to Now You Know, a podcast by two mega-fans of Elon Musk who fawningly refer to the billionaire as “Elon” and have proudly declared that they are “long on Tesla stock.” Missing from nearly all of the takedowns was the documentary’s scathing critique of the corruption of environmental politics by billionaires and elite family foundations. “The conversation our critics really didn’t want to have was about the last one-third of the film,” Zehner remarked, “which dealt with the influence of billionaires and money in the environmental movement, and the divestment sham.” The shell game of fossil fuel divestment The tactic of fossil fuel divestment is at the heart of the so-called climate justice movement’s plan to defeat the fossil fuel industry. Launched by Bill McKibben’s 350.org and a coalition of professional activists soon after the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012, the campaign has resulted in institutions like Oxford University and Goldman Sachs supposedly divesting their holdings in oil and gas companies. Campaigners like McKibben simultaneously encouraged their constituents to invest in funds whose portfolios were supposedly free of fossil fuel companies. “Planet of the Humans” raked this tactic over the proverbial coals, demonstrating how investment funds endorsed by 350.org have engaged in a shell game in which fossil fuel assets are simply replaced with investments in plastics, mining, oil and gas infrastructure companies, and biomass. “The big issue with divestment is that it absolves the destructive power of extreme wealth,” Zehner explained. “It’s saying that family foundations can be forgiven and money can be moved into mining, gas and oil infrastructure, solar, wind, and biomass. They divest from the brand name coal companies while investing in infrastructure companies that support coal mining.” In one of the most controversial scenes in “Planet of the Humans,” Bill McKibben was seen inaugurating a wood-burning biomass energy plant at Middlebury College, where he has been a scholar-in-residence. The environmental leader praised the initiative as “an act of courage.” Because the event took place in 2009, McKibben and his allies have attacked the scene as an unfair representation of his current position. In an official 350.org response to “Planet of the Humans,” McKibben claimed that his views on biomass have evolved, leading him to cease his support for the energy source in 2016. Yet less than a week after The Nation published Josh Fox’s incendiary attack on Michael Moore and “Planet of the Humans,” Nation editor-in-chief D.D. Guttenplan hosted an event with McKibben that was sponsored by a fund with major investments in several wood-to-energy biomass companies. Called Domini Impact Investments, the fund claims to hold investments in “68 companies… that both impact forests and depend on them, whether for forest derived products or ecosystem services.” One such Domini holding is a wood-to-energy company called Ameresco, which builds “large, utility-scale biomass-to-energy plants,” according to its website. Domini Impact also features its sustainable “timber” holdings, including Klabin SA, a company with logging operations spanning 590,580 acres in Brazil. Klabin SA manufactures pulp and paper products and operates a 270MW on-site black liquor biomass plant. This May, just days after Domini sponsored McKibben’s talk, the company purchased a second biomass plant. (Fabio Schvartzman, the former CEO of Klabin SA, was charged with 270 counts of homicide in Brazil this January, after allegedly concealing knowledge of an imminent dam burst to protect the share price of his current company, Vale. The 2019 Mariana dam collapse has been described as Brazil’s worst environmental disaster.) While introducing the Domini-sponsored event with McKibben, The Nation’s Guttenplan stated, “By investing in the Domini Funds, you can help build a better future for the planet and its people, and be part of a movement working to address a wide range of social and environmental issues including human rights, climate change mitigation and forest stewardship.” Neither McKibben nor Guttenplan responded to email requests for comment from The Grayzone. Domini Funds was hardly the only investment fund that McKibben has partnered with to promote fossil fuel divestment – and which has engaged in the shell game exposed in “Planet of the Humans.” In what was perhaps the film’s most devastating scene, narrator Jeff Gibbs detailed how McKibben has advised 350.org members to direct their money into the Green Century Fund, an investment portfolio that boasts of being “wholly owned by environmental and public health nonprofit organizations,” and free of fossil fuel stock. Green Century Funds Bill McKibben invest fossil fuels As “Planet of the Humans” revealed, however, the Green Century Funds’ portfolio has contained heavy investments in mining companies, oil, and gas infrastructure companies, including an exploiter of tar sands, the biofuel giant Archer Daniels Midland, McDonald’s, Coca Cola (the world’s leading plastic pollution proliferator), logging giants, and big banks from Bank of America to HSBC. Asked about this section of the film, Josh Fox dismissed it as out of date. He claimed that “the entire idea of what constitutes a divested fund has changed really radically over the last eight years, starting at first from just oil, coal and gas investments, to then encompassing things like plastics and the meat industry and derivatives and all other options.” However, a probe of the 2019 Securities and Exchange Commission filings by Green Century Funds showed the fund held thousands of shares in meat giant McDonald’s and Royal Caribbean Cruises, among other mega-polluters. The latter company’s Harmony of the Seas ship happens to be the most environmentally toxic cruise liner on Earth, relying on three massive diesel engines to burn 66,000 gallons of fuel a day. By the end of one voyage across the Atlantic, the ship has expended the same amount of gasoline as over 5 million automobiles traveling the same distance. Green Century’s SEC filing boasted that it elicited a pledge from Royal Caribbean “to make its food waste management and reduction strategies more public.” It also claimed to have “helped convince McDonald’s, the largest purchaser of beef in the world, to restrict the use of antibiotics in its beef and chicken supply chains.” It was a classic case of greenwashing, in which corporate behemoths burnished their reputation among progressives by embracing cosmetic reforms that did little to challenge their bottom lines. When I informed Fox about Green Century’s ongoing investments in carbon-heavy industries, he said, “Well, I’m all for an investigation of those things on real grounds.” In the same breath, Fox pivoted to another complaint about “Planet of the Humans”: “The film attacks Bill McKibben in ways that were unfair and untrue.” Was that the case, though? One of the most provocative points about McKibben and his allies in “Planet of the Humans” – that they function as de facto public relations agents for the “green” billionaires seeking to cash in on the renewables rush – was never coherently answered. But as this investigation reveals, the climate warriors criticized in the film are sponsored by many of those same billionaires, as well as the network of family foundations that help set the agenda for groups like 350.org. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund incubates 350.org In perhaps the most uncomfortable scene in “Planet of the Humans,” Bill McKibben was shown visibly squirming as an interviewer asked him about family foundation support for his 350.org. “We’re not exactly Big Greens,” McKibben insisted during a 2011 interview with climate journalist Karyn Strickler. “I’m a volunteer, we’ve got seven people who work full time on this 350.org campaign.” With a telling smirk on her face, Strickler asked McKibben how his group sustained itself. “To the degree that we have any money at all it’s come from a few foundations in Europe and the US,” McKibben insisted. He mentioned “a foundation based in Sweden, I think it’s called the Rasmussen Foundation that I think has been the biggest funder.” After some prodding by Strickler, a visibly uncomfortable McKibben divulged that the “Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave us some money right when we were starting out. That’s been useful too.” However, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rasmussen were not observing the birth of 350.org from the sidelines. In fact, the Rockefeller Brothers were instrumental in establishing 350.org and guiding the organization’s agenda. It began when the foundation incubated a group called 1Sky with a $1 million grant. McKibben immediately joined as board member. As documented by radical environmentalist Cory Morningstar, 1Sky’s launch was announced at a 2007 gathering of the Clinton Global Initiative by former President Bill Clinton, who stood on stage beside Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz. Four years later, the Rockefeller Brothers announced “the exciting marriage of 1Sky and 350.org — two grantees of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Sustainable Development program.” Why McKibben was so uncomfortable about discussing his relationship with Rockefeller was unclear. Perhaps he was concerned that the organization he once described as a “scruffy little outfit” would be seen as a central node in the donor-driven non-profit industrial complex. Whatever his motives were, since the testy exchange with Strickler, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has contributed over $1 million to McKibben’s 350.org. Alongside a network of foundations and “green” billionaires, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and its $1.2 billion endowment serves as a primary engine of the network of self-styled “climate justice” activists that sought to steamroll “Planet of the Humans.” These interests have cohered around the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA), which is located in the New York City offices of the Rockefeller Family Fund. The EGA enables elite foundations and billionaire donors to cultivate a cadre of professional “doers” during retreats in scenic locations. One first-time student attendee said the retreat experience was designed with “the intention of strengthening relationships between funders and build[ing] relationships within the environmental movement.” As soon as she arrived, she was “paired with mentor ‘buddies,’ folks who had been to past EGA Retreats to show us the ropes.” These encounters take place in Napa Valley, California, or at the Mohonk Mountain House resort in New York’s Hudson Valley.A report by the Threshold Foundation described the theme of the 2015 EGA fall retreat at Mohonk: “‘Fund the Fighters!’ That’s the rallying call from the stars. Not the celestial stars, but from well-known artists such as Mark Ruffalo and Naomi Klein.” In accordance with its relationship with the EGA’s network of environmental cadres and outfits like 350.org, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund embraced their fossil fuel divestment campaign, shedding its stocks in oil and coal while increasing assets in other industries that can hardly be described as green. A look at the results of the foundation’s move offers another disturbing case study in the divestment shell game. The Rockefeller Brothers go “green,” invest in Halliburton In 2014, following consultations with 350.org, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund announced that it was divesting from fossil fuels. “We were extremely uncomfortable with the moral ambivalence of funding programs around the climate catastrophe while still being invested in the fossil fuels that were bringing us closer to that catastrophe,” Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz said. At a December 2015 side session of the UN climate conference in Paris, 350.org executive director May Boeve joined Heintz to celebrate the foundation’s decision to divest. “A growing number of investors representing a growing amount of capital do not want to be associated with this industry any longer,” Boeve stated. 350.org’s Boeve and Rockefeller’s Heintz at the UN climate summit in 2015 A look at the most recent publicly available financial filing of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, from 2018 (PDF), offered a clear glimpse at the shell game that divestment has entailed. According to the filing, while the Rockefeller Brothers freed itself of fossil fuels, the foundation remained invested in companies including the oil services giant Halliburton, the Koch-run multinational petroleum transportation partnership Inter Pipeline Ltd, and Caterpillar, whose bulldozers are familiar at scenes of deforestation and Palestinian home demolitions. (Several NGOs that advocate divestment from companies involved in the Israeli occupation of Palestine, such as +972 Magazine and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, have also received support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund). The foundation padded its portfolio with stock in financial industry titans like Citigroup and Wells Fargo, as well as Newcrest Mining, Barrick Gold, Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation, and Agnico Eagle Mines. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund listed at least $20 million of investments in Vision Ridge Partners, which was itself invested in a biomass company called Vanguard Renewables under the guise of “renewable energy.” In December 2019, Vanguard Renewables forged a partnership with Dominion Energy – the energy giant whose Atlantic Coast Pipeline was defeated this June thanks to grassroots environmental mobilization – to convert methane from farms into natural gas. Since the Rockefeller Brothers Fund answered 350.org’s call to divest from fossil fuels in 2014, the foundation’s wealth has increased substantially. As the Washington Post reported, “the Rockefeller Brothers fund’s assets grew at an annual average rate of 7.76 percent over the five-year period that ended Dec. 31, 2019.” The outcome of the Rockefellers’ widely praised move established a clear precedent for other elite institutions: by allowing organizations like 350.org to lead them by the hand, they could greenwash their image, offload stocks in a fossil fuel industry described by financial analysts as a “chronic underperformer,” and protect their investments in growth industries like mining, oil services, and biomass. McKibben, for his part, has marketed fossil fuel divestment as a win-win strategy for the capitalist class: “The institutions that divested from fossil fuel really did well financially, because the fossil fuel industry has been the worst performing part of our economy… Even if you didn’t care about destroying the planet, you’d want to get out of it because it just loses money.” Blood and Gore make “the case for long-term greed” In another move apparently intended to burnish its green image while padding its assets, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund invested over $100 million in Generation Investment Management’s Generation Climate Solutions Fund II and Generation IM Global Equity Fund. These entities are jointly managed by Al Gore, the former US vice president who negotiated a notorious carbon offsets loophole at the 1997 Kyoto Climate Protocol that has been blamed for the release of 600 million tons of excess emissions. Gore launched the fund alongside David Blood, the ex-CEO of asset management for Goldman Sachs, in order to promote a climate-friendly capitalism. In a 2015 profile of Blood and Gore’s Generation Investment Management fund, The Atlantic’s James Fallows described their investment strategy as “a demonstration of a new version of capitalism, one that will shift the incentives of financial and business operations” toward a profitable “green” economy – while potentially saving the system of capitalism from itself. Blood was blunt when asked about his agenda: “We are making the case for long-term greed.” The banker Blood and the green guru McKibben shared a stage together at the 2013 conference of Ceres, a non-profit that works to consolidate the mutually beneficial relationship between Big Green and Wall Street. Bill McKibben (on the right) and former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood at the 2013 Ceres conference The event featured a cast of corporate executives from companies like Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and GM. Sponsors included Bank of America, PG&E, Bloomberg, Citi, Ford, GM, Prudential, Wells Fargo, TimeWarner, and a collection of Fortune 500 companies. During their conversation, the investor Blood pledged to mobilize “something in the order of $40 to $50 trillion of capital” in renewables, underscoring the massive profit center that a transition to “green” energy represents. “It’s entirely dependent on what kind of political will we can muster,” McKibben proclaimed, pledging to work toward Blood’s goal. The unsettling sight of McKibben discussing multi-trillion dollar profit possibilities with a former Goldman Sachs banker was featured prominently in “Planet of the Humans,” and undoubtedly helped inspire the ferocious backlash against the documentary by the 350.org founder’s network. McKibben was far from alone among climate justice warriors in his dalliance with the billionaire class, however. A foundation-supported “ragtag bunch” Before Josh Fox launched his media blitz against “Planet of the Humans,” he directed a full-length documentary vehicle for 350.org, titled “Divest.” For the 2016 film, Fox followed McKibben and allies like Naomi Klein as they embarked on a cross-country road trip to promote fossil fuel divestment. Fox’s ties to the professional activists extend to the funding network centered around the Environmental Grantmakers Association. Between 2012 and 2017, Fox’s film company International WOW reported grants totaling $2.5 million. Much of that funding came courtesy of the Rockefeller Brothers Cultural Innovation Fund and Rockefeller MAP fund, as well as the Ford and Park Foundations. Josh Fox International WOW funding foundations Foundation funding for Josh Fox’s production company International WOW (Source) In 2012, the year Fox and his allies launched their campaign promoting fossil fuel divestment, he co-founded an environmental advocacy group called the Solutions Project. He conceived the organization alongside celebrity actor Mark Ruffalo, former Tesla executive Marco Krapels, and Stanford University’s Mark Jacobson – the professor behind the dubious 2050 all-renewables projection. The four founders gathered seed money from the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation of the eponymous film actor, and from the 11th Hour Foundation of Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife, Wendy, according to Fox. Fox said that after a power struggle and an attempt to force him out in order to raise several million from the Sierra Club, he, Krapels, and Jacobson eventually left the organization. Krapels has since launched an electric battery company in Brazil – another country that happens to hold a massive reserve of lithium and other minerals necessary for his products. Brazil has experienced a rush on lithium mining in recent years thanks to the roaring demand for lithium-ion batteries. Krapels’ former partner at Tesla’s disastrous Solar City project, Elon Musk, announced plans this year to build an electric car factory in Brazil. Musk has even reportedly sought an audience with the country’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, to further his business interests. Today, the Solutions Project is “100% co opted and sold out,” Fox acknowledged. Indeed, the group’s board members currently include Brandon Hurlbut, a former Obama Department of Energy official who founded Boundary Stone Partners – a lobbying firm that represents the nuclear industry. Also on the board is Billy Parish, the founder of Mosaic, a financial firm that declares its “mission to revolutionize two of the biggest industries in the world: energy and finance…” Mosaic’s website states. “We focus on the integration of doing good (for the planet) and doing well (financially).” According to its website, the Elon Musk Foundation is among the Solutions Project’s funders. The organization describes Musk as “the guy who is trying to save humanity in like four or five different ways,” comparing him to a Marvel Comics superhero. In reality, Musk is a ferocious union-buster who recently fired workers for staying home as the Covid-19 pandemic hit – but not before deceiving them into believing they had permission to safely quarantine. Other Solutions Project supporters include the Skoll Global Threats Fund, run by eBay billionaire Jeffrey Skoll. Skoll funded Al Gore’s film on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which went into production soon after Gore launched his Generation Investment Management fund – an inconvenient truth pointed out by “Planet of the Humans.” The 11th Hour Project foundation of Google CEO Schmidt and his wife remains a supporter of the Solutions Project after ponying up the seed money to launch it. Asked in 2014 about the inequality and displacement that start-up tech businesses bring to the Bay Area, where Google is located, Schmidt responded, “Let us celebrate capitalism. $19 billion for 50 people? Good for them.” When I challenged Fox about the co-optation of climate justice politics by tech oligarchs like Skoll, Schmidt, and Musk, he grew defensive. “You have to see these things in a time continuum of us trying to take off big, something bigger than anybody’s ever tried to take on in the world,” he stated, referencing his and his allies’ fight against the fossil fuel industry. “They’re bigger than Nazi Germany, bigger than America. Bigger than all of them combined. We’re a ragtag bunch of extraordinarily committed people who are willing to put our lives on the line to stop the fossil fuel industry. “Yeah, that’s that’s really laudable,” Fox continued, referring to his own efforts, “and for a multi-millionaire circus barker, as Bill McKibben calls Michael Moore, to take potshots using flawed science, dishonest techniques, misrepresentation of the timeline, and 1,000 other things that are journalistic malpractice and that was called out by an extraordinary number of people – that’s the real story here. The real bully is Michael Moore here. It’s not me.” The Producer This year, Josh Fox launched a one-man show and film called “The Truth Has Changed.” According to promotional material for the performance, Fox narrated his experience as “an eyewitness to history” who “was the subject of a 100 million dollar smear campaign from the oil and gas industry.” “Josh Fox was the beta test for the types of propaganda and smears the gang that created Cambridge Analytica is now known for world wide,” the film’s website stated. “And Josh is telling his story in an uncompromising way like never before.” The performance was supposed to have enjoyed a lengthy run this January at one of the most renowned venues for political theater in the country, The Public Theater in New York City. But the show was abruptly canceled after the Public accused Fox of violating the theater’s code of conduct through “a series of verbal abuses to the staff.” Fox, who is Jewish, retaliated by accusing the theater’s directors of anti-Semitism. According to the New York Times, Fox “said he had been told that he was too passionate, too loud and too emotional.” “To me that is distinctly cultural,” Fox told the paper. “That’s a classic anti-Semitic trope.” Behind the drama over the monologue’s cancellation, a more salient issue lingered. The executive producer of Fox’s “The Truth Has Changed” was Tom Dinwoodie, a wealthy “cleantech” entrepreneur and engineer who owned dozens of patents on solar technology, and therefore stood to reap a massive windfall profit from the renewables revolution that Fox and his allies were campaigning for. Dinwoodie, who signed Fox’s letter calling for the retraction of “Planet of the Humans,” was a top donor to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a so-called “do-tank” where he serves as a lead trustee. In 2014, Dinwoodie helped oversee the merger of his think tank with billionaire Virgin CEO Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room, which was founded with “a mission to stimulate business-led market interventions that advance a low-carbon economy.” “Increasingly, the solutions for climate change are those policy measures that drive economic growth,” a spokesman declares in a video announcing the strategic partnership between Branson’s non-profit and Dinwoodie’s Rocky Mountain “do-tank.” In the same video, billionaire former Democratic Party presidential candidate and Rocky Mountain Institute donor Tom Steyer emphasized the profit motive behind the renewables transition: “Changing the way we generate and use energy is the largest industry in the history of the world. There is no time to waste.” This July 9 – the day after the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force released its policy recommendations – the Rocky Mountain Institute launched the Center for Climate Aligned Finance in partnership with four of the biggest banks in the world: Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase. The initiative, according to Rocky Mountain, will serve as “an engine room for the financial sector to partner with corporate clients to identify practical solutions through deep partnerships with industry, civil society and policymakers to facilitate a transition in the global economy to net-zero emissions by mid-century.” The partnership represented an obvious boon for green tycoons like Dinwoodie who profit from renewable energy. And for the big banks that continued to top the list of the world’s most prolific investors in the fossil fuel industry, it was another opportunity to greenwash their public image. Given the economic interests represented by Dinwoodie and his “do-tank,” it was easy to understand why he signed Fox’s letter calling for “Planet of the Humans” to be retracted. The documentary had not only hammered his political partner, Richard Branson, as a PR savvy oligarch exploiting environmental politics; it took aim at the ethos of Big Green outfits that comforted their ruling-class funders with the promise that they could do good while continuing to do well. When I asked Fox why he thought big tech tycoons and their family foundations were plowing their fortunes into climate activism, he responded, “Probably saving the planet.” The Danish connection While wealthy green businessmen like Dinwoodie and Elon Musk furthered their commercial interests by underwriting green advocacy, the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation and its closely affiliated KR (Kann-Rasmussen) Foundation have strategically directed their resources into nurturing a who’s who of professional climate warriors – including several that played a role in the campaign to suppress “Planet of the Humans.” Brian Valbjørn Sørensen, the executive director of the KR Foundation, was a former special advisor to the center-left Danish government that lost power in 2015. KR’s chair, Connie Hedegaard, was the ex-minister for climate and energy for the center-right Danish government of Anders Fogg Rasmussen, who went on to serve as secretary general of the NATO military alliance. As the European Union’s first climate chief, Hedegaard argued that renewable energy could strengthen NATO’s soft power against Russia by reducing natural gas imports from the designated enemy state. KR’s support for groups like 350.org surfaced in “Planet of the Humans” during the cringe-inducing scene in which journalist Karyn Strickler grilled Bill McKibben about his organizational funders. According to the KR Foundation, it donated $2 million to 350.org in 2019. Toby Smith, the photographer who filed the copyright claim against Planet of the Humans on explicitly “personal” grounds, happened to have been the media outreach director of a KR-funded non-profit called Climate Outreach. As the Rasmussen family’s KR Foundation stated in a recent financial filing, it initiated grants totaling nearly $2 million to Climate Outreach in 2019 alone. When British columnist George Monbiot published a vitriolic condemnation of “Planet of the Humans” in The Guardian, he neglected to mention that he had been a board member of the Rasmussen-backed Climate Outreach. The V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation has also supported Naomi Klein’s environmentalist outfit, The Leap, according to the foundation’s website. Klein, a longtime critic of elite family foundations and the billionaire class, was among the most prominent figures to join the campaign to censor “Planet of the Humans.” As her ally McKibben acknowledged, she unsuccessfully pressured Michael Moore to retract “Planet of the Humans” before it was even released. Klein has celebrated the Danish government where KR Foundation leaders have served for advancing “some of the most visionary environmental policies in the world.” At the same time, she has denounced the “autocratic industrial socialism” of the Soviet Union and the “petro-populism” of the socialist government of Venezuela, where Denmark has recognized US-backed coup leader Juan Guaidó. Klein’s recent broadsides against Venezuela contrasted strongly with her signing of a 2004 open letter that proclaimed, “If we were Venezuelan… we would vote for [Hugo] Chavez”; and a 2007 column in which she wrote that thanks to the Chavez government, “citizens had renewed their faith in the power of democracy to improve their lives.” Naomi Klein and Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on November 4, 2015. Gurria was a former Finance Minister in the administration of Mexico’s neoliberal former president, Ernesto Zedillo. Gurria won the OECD’s “Globalist of the Year” award for his role in negotiating the NAFTA free trade deal and “promot[ing] trans-nationalism.” From Big Green critic to “Planet of the Humans” opponent Naomi Klein’s opposition to “Planet of the Humans” was surprising given the views she has expressed in the past on mainstream environmental politics. In 2013, for example, she bemoaned the “deep denialism in the environmental movement among the Big Green groups [on how to fight climate change]. And to be very honest with you,” she continued, “I think it’s been more damaging than the right-wing denialism in terms of how much ground we’ve lost.” In her widely acclaimed 2008 book “The Shock Doctrine,” Klein documenting the Ford Foundation’s role as a CIA cutout that helped establish the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Chicago. The Ford-funded academic department nurtured the infamous “Chicago Boys,” a group of neoliberal economists led by Milton Friedman who conceived the disaster capitalist “shock doctrine” that inspired the title of Klein’s book. They applied their program to Chile as General Augusto Pinochet’s economic advisors following his CIA-backed military coup to destroy the leftist government of Chilean President Salvador Allende. Klein also surveyed the Ford Foundation’s support for the “Berkeley Mafia” at the University of California that advised the hyper-repressive junta of General Suharto, which toppled Indonesia’s socialist government in 1965. “The Berkeley Mafia had studied in the US as part of a program that began in 1956, funded by the Ford Foundation…” Klein wrote. “Ford-funded students became leaders of the campus groups that participated in overthrowing Sukarno, and the Berkeley Mafia worked closely with the military in the lead-up to the coup…” Henry Kissinger, the Nixon foreign policy guru whom Klein identified as the mastermind of the dirty war in Chile, had previously served as the director of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Special Strategies Project, which helped conceive US national security strategies for countering the spread of communism. Today, the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund support an array of liberal causes, from diversity and racial justice initiatives to the network of NGO’s organizing for fossil fuel divestment. At the same time, the Ford Foundation backs organizations that push regime change in Latin America, partnering with the US government to fund Freedom House, a DC-based NGO which supported the failed coup to oust Nicaragua’s elected leftist government in 2018. For its part, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has supported The Syria Campaign, a public relations outfit that clamored for US military intervention to remove the UN-recognized government of Syria. In 2011, when Klein was appointed to 350.org’s board of directors, she joined forces with an environmental organization incubated by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and supported by the Ford Foundation. “As 350.org founder Bill McKibben puts it: unless we go after the ‘money pollution,’ no campaign against real pollution stands a chance,” Klein wrote at the time. Klein’s 2015 book and documentary film on climate change, “This Changes Everything,” was initially launched as a project called “The Message.” It was supported with hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from a who’s who of major family foundations that help sustain McKibben’s political apparatus. In one of several grants to the book and film project, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund contributed $50,000 to “The Message” via a non-profit pass-through called the Sustainable Markets Foundation. [PDF] Susan Rockefeller served as a co-executive producer of the documentary version of “This Changes Everything.” Her husband, David Rockefeller Jr. is the son of tycoon David Rockefeller, a US government-linked cold warrior who co-founded the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and helped back the US-managed coup that put Pinochet and the Chicago Boys in power in Chile. Rockefeller Jr., a major supporter of conservationist causes, is a former chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and board member of Rockefeller Financial Services. In 2014, the Ford Foundation chipped in with $250,000 to Klein’s project. [PDF] Klein’s “The Message” also benefited from $140,000 in support from the Schmidt Family Foundation of Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife, Wendy. The Schmidt Family Foundation is an ongoing contributor to McKibben’s 350.org, kicking in $200,000 in 2018 [PDF]. In April 2019, Klein released “A Message From The Future,” a video collaboration with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and artist and pundit Molly Crabapple, which promoted the Green New Deal as a pathway to a renewable-powered economic utopia. Crabapple, a vehement supporter of Washington’s campaign for regime change in Syria, is an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at the New America Foundation, a Democratic Party-linked think tank substantially funded by Google’s Schmidt, the Ford Foundation and the US State Department. In a recent The Intercept column, Klein took aim at Schmidt, describing him as one of the billionaires exploiting “a coherent Pandemic Shock Doctrine” to begin “building a high tech dystopia.” She noted that Schmidt is closely aligned with the national security state as chair of the Defense Innovation Board, which consults for the Pentagon on the military’s application of artificial intelligence. Schmidt also happens to be a proponent of a “smart” energy grid, which he says will “modernize the electric grid to make it look more like the Internet.” Such a model would not only benefit tech companies like Google which make their money buying and selling data, but the U.S. national security state, whose partnerships with big tech companies increase the capacity of its surveillance apparatus. The Senate version of the Green New Deal calls for the construction of “smart” power grids almost exactly like those Schmidt imagined. Klein and other high-profile Green New Deal proponents have neglected to mention that this seeming benign component of the well-intentioned plan could represent a giant step on the way to the “high tech dystopia” of Silicon Valley barons and their national security state partners. In May 2018, Klein became the Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University. The position was created “following a three-year, $3 million campaign…including a dozen foundations.” Among the “early and path breaking contributors,” according to Rutgers, was the Ford Foundation. Gloria Steinem (L) and Naomi Klein at the 2018 Rutgers ceremony inaugurating Steinem’s endowed chair Contributions also poured in for the endowment from tycoons like Sheryl Sandberg, the billionaire chief operating officer of Facebook and advocate of corporate “Lean In” feminism; and Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood mogul who was sentenced this March to 23 years in prison for first degree criminal sexual assault. According to Rutgers, Weinstein provided “a gift of $100,000 in honor of his late mother, who shared Gloria Steinem’s hopes for female equality.” I had hoped to have a conversation with Klein, a former colleague at the Nation Institute, about her reflexive opposition to a documentary that advanced many of the same arguments that appeared in her past writings. Was the exclusive focus on carbon emissions by professional climate warriors not a blinkered approach that ignored the environmental damage inherent in producing still-unproven renewable technology? Did “cleantech” tycoons not have a vested interest in advancing a global transition to the renewable products their companies manufactured? And when she had clearly articulated the problems with billionaire-backed Big Green advocacy, why had Klein cast her lot with a political network that seemed to epitomize it? My emails were met with an auto-reply informing me Klein was “off grid,” and referring me to her personal assistant. According to Fox, high-profile climate warriors like McKibben and Klein had no interest in speaking to me about their opposition to the film because “it’s like four months ago, man, everybody’s moved on.” Seeing green in Biden By August, members of the professional climate advocacy network that saw its interests threatened by “Planet of the Humans” was preparing for a much more elaborate on-screen production that promised new opportunities. In the weeks ahead of the Democratic National Convention, climate justice organizations like the Sunrise Movement 501 c-4 which emerged in the shadow of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential run and condemned former Vice President Joseph Biden as a tool of the establishment suddenly changed their tune. Flush with dark money from Democratic Party-aligned billionaires, Sunrise Movement co-founder Varshini Prakash stated on July 14 – the day Biden released his clean energy plan: “It’s no secret that we’ve been critical of Vice President’s Biden’s plans and commitments in the past. Today, he’s responded to many of those criticisms: dramatically increasing the scale and urgency of investments… Our movement, alongside environmental justice communities and frontline workers, has taught Joe Biden to talk the talk.” While it brands itself as a grassroots movement that has organized anti-establishment stunts putting centrist figures like Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the spot, the Sunrise Movement was incubated with a grant from the Sierra Club, the Mike Bloomberg-backed juggernaut of Big Green organizing. Today, offices of the two organizations are located a floor apart in the same building in downtown Washington DC. Ahead of the DNC, the Biden campaign introduced a $2 trillion plan pledge to invest heavily in renewable technology to achieve “a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.” The plan promised to erect 500 million solar panels in the next five years alongside 60,000 new wind turbines. With the demand for solar plummeting due to the coronavirus pandemic, the prospect of gigantic government subsidies was music to the ears of the “cleantech” tycoons who sponsor Democratic Party-aligned climate advocacy organizations. Many of these green millionaires and billionaires had feasted at the trough of Obama’s stimulus package, which was directly responsible for powering the rise of America’s solar industry. After promising upon his inauguration to invest $150 billion in “a new green energy business sector,” Obama doled out an eye-popping $4.9 billion in subsidies to Tesla’s Elon Musk and a $1.2 billion loan guarantee for Tom Dinwoodie’s SunPower US to construct the California Valley Solar Ranch. In June 2019, an “avian incident” caused a fire at the SunPower Solar Ranch project, impacting over 1200 acres and knocking out 84% of generating capacity for several weeks. “Planet of the Humans” presented viewers with the disturbing story of the Ivanpah solar plant, a signature initiative in Obama’s green energy plan which was co-owned by Google. Gifted with $1.6 billion in loan guarantees and $600 million in federal tax credits, Ivanpah was built on 5.6 square miles of pristine public land close to California’s Mojave National Preserve. In its first year, the massive plant produced less than half its of its planned energy goal while burning over 6000 birds to death. The Ivanpah solar thermal plant and its three power towers spans across the Mojave Desert Because of the intermittency inherent to solar power, the gargantuan energy project has had to burn massive amounts of natural gas to keep the system primed when the sun is not shining. Despite its dependence on fossil fuel, Ivanpah still qualifies under state rules as a renewable plant. “The bottom line is the public didn’t expect this project to consume this much natural gas,” David Lamfrom, California desert manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, told the local Press-Enterprise. “We did not have full knowledge that this was what we were signing up for.” Even after the Obama administration poured billions of dollars into solar projects, solar energy output increased between 2008 and 2016 by just .88% as a total of American energy production. Meanwhile, across the country, many new wind projects remain stalled due to community concerns about land destruction. In the home state of Green New Deal advocate Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only remaining wind project was canceled this January. For raising questions about the efficacy and environmental cost of renewable projects like these, and proposing an explicitly anti-capitalist solution to the corporate destruction of the planet, the makers of “Planet of the Humans” were steamrolled by a network of professional climate activists, billionaire investors and industry insiders. Now, with the Biden campaign promising a new flood of renewable subsidies and tax breaks under the auspices of a “clean” energy plan, the public remains in the dark about what it is signing up for. Even if the ambitious agenda fails to deliver any substantial environmental good, it promises a growing class of green investors another opportunity to do well.