Greta Thunberg is herself a farting cow whose toxic verbal effluvia should be reduced or eliminated
The global climate scam offers frequent opportunities to revisit the corporate "fact check"—its origins and its funders' real purposes
Greta Thunberg is a 20-year-old woman chosen around five years go to be mascot of the global climate scam solely because of her youth and ineffable weirdness.
By “global climate scam,” I do not mean “global climate hoax,” though this is not the space to investigate the distinction. I mean the ruthless and unhidden effort by elites to depopulate Earth by impoverishing the masses under the guise of addressing a problem they care nothing at all about—human-caused warming of the planet. Whatever anthropogenic global warming’s true magnitude and whatever can still be done to slow, stall or reverse it, everything being done at scale in the name of climate mitigation (as well as public health) is simply one more channel for elites to vacuum more wealth upward to themselves by forcibly transforming the economic landscape, just as they did during “the pandemic.” However sickeningly patronizing and transparently hypocritical these elites are in their messaging—always a version of “You have to make sacrifices for all of us that we don’t have to because we’re more important”—plenty of American liberals lap it up.
And by “ineffable weirdness,” I mean that Thunberg is not constituted to give straight answers to even the most benign and straightforward questions, let alone challenging and complex queries about carbon credits or the sustainability of Chinese-manufactured items appearing more and more in the “clean” American power-service landscape. I have no idea how many of her own media releases and other materials she writes herself; I’d guess close to none. She seems to have some idea at times that she is participating in a wide-open fraud, but if so, it is perhaps not owing to conscious financial, sexual, or other time-tested, nuclear-war-accelerating incentives.
Some say Thunberg is autistic. While none of the friends I have who live on the spectrum would willingly take part in multi-tiered, polythematic plan to eliminate a huge chunk of the planet’s sentient human biomass, they might agree to do so if somehow selected to participate against their will and without knowing their will had been subverted. Especially if ignorant of the fact that they merely possessed, in certain critical contexts, the right outward-facing qualities at the right time.
Either way, Thunberg has conclusively demonstrated her lack of fitness for serving, in any context at any time, as a spokeswoman for the Common (or Greater) Good. You’ll soon understand why I find her presence offensive and, having rapidly joined me in this camp, why the universal, automatic reaction to Thunberg’s public face-flapping should be a hail of rotten tomatoes so thick it blots out the sky (thus degrading the ozone layer) accompanied by a multilingual tsunami of invective so eye-wateringly profane that Thunberg hauls goofball ass for one of her dozens of private jets and commands the pilot to land it on a wind-turbine farm in central Wyoming. And in a moment, you’ll understand why I chose the state of Wyoming as well as an unlikely number of personally owned aircraft.
Regardless of the extent to which Greta Thunberg is aware of spouting pure propaganda, her billionaire handlers are and always have been acutely aware of it; this, after all, is the role they designed for her. And the media is fully complicit in protecting her; the collective eagerness and uniformity with which they always rush to “fact-check” claims made against Thunberg reveal that she is a hollow and capacious turd-vessel and, more broadly, that the Western climate movement is utterly divorced of Earth’s climate and as such is an outright, deeply inhumane swindle—one whose countless outward-spiraling harms include selectively crushing the will of younger Americans in ways I’m only beginning to appreciate.
Among those in the know, Thunberg reveals herself to be the ideal, perverse avatar of an unholy, spirit-crushing, soul-annihilating religion. Among those in the dark, she’s also perfect, because she always says exactly what’s needed to keep the room perpetually dim. It feels good to say “the right thing” all the time, in some cases resisting the periodic temptation to grope around for the light switch.
Thunberg is on my mind because the government of Ireland recently proposed that its country’s farmers should kill 200,000 cows in the next several years the name of “meeting climate targets.” Ireland, you’ll recall from middle-school (or “junior-high”) geography class, is smaller than the state of Maine.
“That won’t happen in the U.S.,” some might think, before reading to the part of this story out of cattle-happy Wyoming about how, yeah, it will. And look who shows up in the tale, now wanting even cows to be masked outdoors while awaiting an accelerated slaughter.
Thunberg, or a transmitter inside her head, was already saying four years ago that she would love to see cows die the world over. Because of her future.
The elites have been talking for years about killing cows everywhere because of the methane emissions of cattle being a major contributor to global warming. As if automobiles, airplanes, factories, coal-powered plants, online pornography, and most of all the U.S. Military—not just its needless wars but its "peacetime" training exercises—do less damage to the atmosphere, and to the way the landscape looks, than cows do. Even taken singly. And this omits consideration of the many elements of the environment’s well-being that have nothing to do with climate change, which the elites also worsen and dissemble about with twat-faced gusto.
This bovicide is a cornerstone in the syphilitic plan to concomitantly reduce the eight-billion-strong human herd. Why do you think Bill Gates owns so much U.S. farmland? Because the fucker likes corn on the cob? Less actual meat means more protein from other sources, including insects, and a radically shifting worldwide food economy that will soon involve the implementation of a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, and all the geolocation monitoring and ramped-up speech-crackdowns this will not just facilitate but assure (FedNow has just arrived).
And this really is a thing. The WEF used to brag more openly about common folk eating bugs and various Orwellian "own nothing, shut up, and be happy” principles.
Cars will soon be unaffordable except to those willing with the resources to buy electric. That will keep more potentially disruptive individuals from moving around, which will make their movements easier to track, especially in times of unrest. Which will soon be the norm.
Anyway, the apocalypse can wait. Thunberg has been expelling, and sometimes slyly retracting, patent absurdities for some time. For example, she, or someone with access to the verified Twitter account in her name, deleted the tweet below from June 21, 2018 sometime before June 21 of this year, perhaps forlorn that no one would be alive to appreciate it.
This was worth tracking, because Thunberg isn’t some jabbering convenience-store clerk. She is, or is framed as, a recognized climate expert or at least a reliable spokesperson for the experts in the field.
What the tweet plainly says, no matter whom it is quoting, is that if humans don't stop using fossil fuels by June of 2023, we're done. Since that clearly didn't happen, by the logic in the deleted tweet, we might as well just start burning nothing but coal and put cows, butcheries, and gas stoves in every home.
And this is precisely how most of Thunberg’s earnest critics reacted, with many also noting that she had deleted the tweet. Deleting tweets on the sly is a scumbag move when it comes from a nobody account, much less from someone with Thunberg's forced but nevertheless massive following.
But the "fact-checkers" didn't underscore, or even mention, how sleazy it is for someone to delete a tweet like that without prompting, even though this is clearly something genuine experts in fact-spreading and flimflam-squelching would inherently understand. And tellingly, the one falsehood these outlets claimed to debunk is the aforementioned straw man.
Yes, some Internet users wrongly asserted that Thunberg's claim was that human life itself would end within five years if humans kept burning fossil fuels, when the actual claim was that an irreversible triggering of that demise would be enacted by such negligence. But to avoid the substance of the issue and instead yell "FALSE" at people adjacent to the core issue is a lowbrow move. And because plenty of Internet users who rail against the elites—or anything—get things wrong, unethical moves form the entirety of the corporate "fact-checking” choreography set.
You can always tell when someone has exposed a truth inconvenient to the elites’ narrative, because at least half the stories about the matter uncovered by a Google search are these bogus "fact-checks" promulgated by outlets literally or in effect owned by those same elites. If it wasn’t important for the elites to lie about, they would let the masses “misinform” away.
While you won’t get exactly the same set of results I do when search topics even if we both maximally depersonalize our settings, note that when I searched for “Greta Thunberg 2018” (without quotes), Google, which coincidentally is overrun with “former” CIA and FBI personnel, moved the Daily Mail's critical and accurate article to a spot below bullshit-pieces from sites with far less traffic:
Just imagine if these “fact-checkers” went after MSNBC or CNN one-tenth as robustly, or after Fox News on the less-frequent occasions that network sides fully with establishment narratives anymore. It’s all wildly, and irreparably, insane.
Then there was Thunberg’s bizarre chatter after being ambushed (that is, unexpectedly peppered with legitimate questions by reporters) at this year’s World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland in January.
Either Thunberg was cracking wise, which is, like, totally inappropriate since climate change is no laughing matter, having caused all the ongoing unexplained deaths the jabs never mentioned in the suddenly innumerable stories like those below surely didn't…
…or she doesn't know to just not say stupid, callous things like this. If she doesn’t know to not say things like “I have 100 private jets,” then even if deep down she’s a bona fide sweetheart—or at least organically blameless—she’s a bad spokesperson for something as allegedly vital as climate change for the same basic reason even the hardest-working and nimblest dwarf would make a grossly subpar NBA center or heavyweight-class MMA fighter.
If the elites wanted to give honest answers to serious questions, they wouldn’t use spokesclowns like Greta Thunberg and other dialectically inaccessible fleshbots to pretend to supply them. And if the honest answers they’re hiding were benign or at least acceptable to the majority of curious citizens, they wouldn’t need someone who explicitly cannot communicate as a central communicator.
But even without Thunberg on board, there are plenty of signs the world is not going to be the same as it was for a while. I reiterate here my gratitude for being born not one day later than I was, because pre-Internet and especially pre-smartphones, this country really was a cool place for all sorts of different people to hang out for a while, my own whimsies and vicissitudes and mercurial ways and moods aside.