This time it's a lacunae by Cockburn. You can read it here.
What Cockburn says is that he doesn't quite understand why the left has gone so heavily for the environment and the scare tactics of global warming.
This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left's optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice.
What really is going on is this: the left is really only interested in one thing only, and that is control. They still truly believe that they can reach the promised land if they can only control the means of production.
What Cockburn really should have written is this:
The left has usurped the environmental movement because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then by giving the environmentalists control over the world's economy, the catastrophe can be averted.
Now does that make more sense?
His further points, however, are completely correct and underscores how truly, deliberately anti-progressive the left has become: the Luddite aspects of the environmental movement mesh beautifully with the left's desperate desire to control how people live their lives.
But this time it's enormous: they want to stop the Third World from moving away from poverty into affluence: just think of it, if the Third World lived like us how much damage that would create! Hence we have to keep those poor and misled fools from making a mess of their lives and ensure that they only may live as we see fit to choose.
Seriously, how can anyone, nowadays, be a leftist? Be a progressive? The world has turned these movements on their head, exposing their absurdity, and yet...
There is indeed a sucker born every minute. Those on the left who truly believe this are the useful fools of Lenin. They work, to borrow from Chomsky - hah! - with the bought priesthood of the left, the climate priesthood of the global warming apocalypse, kept happy and complacent with academic grants and positions of power within the climate science peer group and who ensure that peer review takes on new meaning.
The mainstream media, the synodiporia of the Watermelon Movement - green on the outside, red inside - is complacent as well. They are fellow travellers, at the best unwitting agents of influence, manipulated to take actions in the interest of the Watermelon Movement. These are those whose opinions fit into the goals of the Watermelon Movement, for whatever personal reasons: they are interested, for instance, in furthering their own careers, and are more than willing to cooperate, to accept support that would otherwise be severely embarrassing if found out.
Wonder why the image of the US has been so under attack? it is because so many have been able to do so well by attacking the image of the US for their own reasons and interests. The constant beating of the BDS drum, the constant harping and criticism by journalists whose only real interest is ensuring that they get more column-inches than anyone else working for their paper, has a cumulative effect, especially when alternative news sources are limited.
The seduction of the Watermelon Movement is fairly straightforward and literally takes its cues from Soviet-era KGB false flag recruitment techniques (i.e. telling someone that they are spying for Israel when in reality they are being run by the KGB), where careful and deliberate duplicity is the main mode of operations.
This method is goal-oriented disinformation, and the global alarmists are excellent at manipulating the main-stream media journalists: after all, their work is peer-reviewed (failing to mention that the peers in this case all share, basically, the same goals of getting money for their academic careers) and they're scientists, they can't be wrong. So let's not learn the science, find that non-statisticians are using advanced statistical methods that they don't know how to use (and try to hide how they manipulated the tools so that they always get the results they want), that the fundamental data underlying the models is biased due to urbanization and incorrect proxies and is increasingly simply bad science, but instead parrot the goal-oriented disinformation that the activists want spread.
But back to Cockburn: he's right. The global warming alarmists are truly medieval with their new-found ability to buy indulgences.
The Kyoto Accord is and remains fundamentally reactionary, with the goal of ensuring that underdeveloped countries be actively denied progress in meeting the needs of their citizens.
So who are the members of the Watermelon Movement? They are the the NGOs and government people who attend the conferences on global warming, they are the NGOs and government people who write the articles and are quoted in the mainstream press. They range from all over, but have one goal: to get their own goals advanced.
In other words, the Watermelon Movement is based on individual self-interest, but not in terms of the matter at hand, but rather how these groups can best attach themselves parasitically to the world's economy.
Who's behind them?
It's a mixture of guilt-ridden financiers like Soros, dinosaurs of the left like MoveOn and the other ancient leftist groups. But who are they exactly, what are their interrelationships?