The Disturbing Cult of Greta Thunberg

"We are periliously close to becoming a society entirely governed by emotion over reason"

The Cult of Greta Thunberg is an extremely disturbing one, and one which marks a new low in the drain-circling that Western civilisation seems bent on. Even if I happened to believe that the naturally occurring gas that each of us breathes out many thousands of times per day, and which plants use for photosynthesis, is going to end up being the death of us, I would still be profoundly disturbed by the use of this girl — who is very clearly mentally unstable — as the poster-child for the agenda.

This video of her speaking at the UN is a case in point, as is her statement to the Davos crowd earlier this year, in which she decided to spread her own brand of hopeless misery to all:

“Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people, to give them hope. But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house is on fire, because it is.”

Causes which are backed up by incontrovertible facts do not need the aid of slightly unnerving and emotive teenage girls to lead the charge. On the contrary, slightly unnerving and emotive teenage girls might be thought by a rational society to be somewhat of a hindrance to the facts, since they are likely to detract from them and move the issues from the realm of reason and rational discourse to emotion and feelings.

Which of course is exactly the point, and why she is where she is. Until this last year or so, it was perfectly possible to hold to the reasonable position that any changes to the global climate are not necessarily the product of human actions, without being considered unhinged. Yes, the utterly disingenuous charge of “Denier” was increasingly used to smear those who questioned the claims being made, implying that to hold such a position was akin to denying Nazi genocide against millions of Jewish people. But despite this, and the fact that most of the corporate media tended to treat the claim that humans are responsible for Climate Change as proven fact, it was still just about possible to dissent without being treated like a pariah and a very wicked person.

This situation was clearly intolerable to those who have the most to gain from propagating the claims, which is why — at least so it seems to me — they decided to up the ante, by using — and I do mean USING — a child to further their cause. And not just any child. One who has a history of depression and other mental illness, and who is capable of making extraordinarily emotional and “prophetic” appeals to “the world”. If it were all about facts, there would be no need for such tactics, yet the relentless pushing forward of such a person is clearly intended to close off of any remaining debate, since those who criticise her or her message can now automatically be portrayed as callous, stone-hearted oafs with not an ounce of compassion in them.

This is yet more emotive guff. No doubt there are some people who are very nasty to Miss Thunberg, and no doubt she has been subjected to some vile abuse. There are, after all, many vile people out there who like being vile to others. But it is perfectly possible to oppose her message, and perfectly reasonable to resent the fact that she is being exploited in this way to further an agenda pushed by those much higher up the food chain, without bearing her any ill or indeed being very wicked. Personally, I wish her every blessing, and that she will find both hope and happiness.

It is, however, worth remembering that it wasn’t from the camp of the so-called “Deniers” of facts and reason that the decision was taken to use an emotionally disturbed child to act as a global spokesperson and to make emotional appeals to the world. Rather, it was from those who claim to have the facts, the proof and the settled science. Why? If the science really is settled, and the facts really are incontrovertible, why the need to use a vulnerable girl to push the agenda, as has clearly happened?

On a personal level, I fear for Miss Thunberg. She will no doubt find out sooner or later that she has been exploited by those whom she thought were her friends, only to find out that they were prepared to drop her as soon as she had served their purpose. She will end up being a question in pub quizzes and Trivial Pursuit in 20 or 3o years (yes, I believe that the world, public houses and board games will still all be here).

On a societal level, frankly it all has the rather unpleasant whiff of a deliberate campaign to shame people into silence by the exploitation of a frankly very disturbed child. And the fact that there are people who are prepared to use this sort of emotive tactic to further their agenda is really quite sinister, and doesn’t bode well. We are periliously close to becoming a society entirely governed by emotion over reason, with the results being seen in the increasing inability of large swathes of people to even accept the possibility that views other than their own should be allowed.

Whether you agree with Miss Thunberg’s message, whether you are sceptical, or whether you reject it outright, her exploitation and the cult that has grown around her ought to disturb you.

Source: TheBlogMire

  1. Lutz Barz says


  2. diacad says

    Direct words about this posting by Rob Slane. It is headed by the most unflattering photo conceivable of Greta Thunberg (selected from many for effect), followed by manipulative text suggesting she is a pawn of sinister forces, never spelled out very clearly. But there are hints. It couldn’t be the fossil fuel industry. Maybe it is those pointy-headed scientists who think climate change is real and human activity might have at least something to do with it. A sinister force indeed, since it is so large a percentage of those who have actually studied the situation. Maybe it is “secularism” that is leading us into what Slane calls elsewhere ( a “quagmire”. The good Christian charitably diagnoses Thunberg as “a frankly very disturbed child” who is being “exploited”. Maybe she is disturbed by the passivity and opposition of some adults. Asberger’s Syndrome has nothing to do with any issue here, according to my wife, a pediatric psychiatrist. Just another pointy-headed intellectual, if not a climate scientist.

    Why else do tendentious posts like this about Greta Thunberg appear? See:

  3. JustPassingThrough says

    “and the cult that has grown around her ought to disturb you.”
    seems to be a lot less harmful than the other cults in vogue today.
    do any of the others disturb the author as much, i wonder?

  4. apoulop says

    any one recalls “children crusade”?

  5. Genghis Gobi says

    “The disturbing scientific illiteracy of the author of this article” would be a good alternate title of this piece.

    Because the carbon dioxide exhaled by plants and animals is, of course, equivalent to the tens of millions of tons of carbon locked into hydrocarbon fossil fuels and wood and now being released into the atmosphere, en masse, while simultaneously removing the forests that might be able to do at least a little bit about that. Right?

    I’m not particularly fond of Thorny Gritta. She’s obviously being cynically marketed and exploited (go sit on your own country’s government house steps demanding action against climate change and see how far it gets *you*). But her personal sincerity (unlike the regime change tool she’s so often compared to, Bana Alabed) is undeniable, a sincerity that’s more acute because of the very mental problems that make her so focused on one thing. And also *some* of the people promoting her are obviously serious and dedicated. But they are all being used; that’s true enough. Who’s using them?

    I don’t think it’s the obvious answer. Thorny Gritta is valuable marketing property. She can be used as a lever in many ways, quite opposed to the official ideas given in her name. Look at the effect she’s actually had, apart from the ludicrous articles like this one. What effect has she had except “climate strikes” and similar tokenism? What has she done in reality except divert the efforts to avert climate change catastrophe (which I believe can no longer be averted) into harmless but eye catching clicktivism? Or the diversion of attention from climate change science to what most people will dismiss as the ranting of a mentally disturbed teen? Anything at all? Perhaps just manufacturing consent to divert money into technologies to “combat climate change” that will do nothing except enrich Wall Street capitalists while making people imagine they don’t have to systematically change their way of life after all?

    I believe she’s being used as a gatekeeper. It’s not her fault and she would be devastated if she knew. Meanwhile the illiteracy of articles like this help those gatekeepers tremendously. They must be very grateful to you.

    1. DarkEyes says

      She is under guardian-ship of Team George Soros.
      Tells us well thinking human beings enough, don’t you think?

      It is mainly cause The Khazarian Mafia is in a hurry to get complete grip over the planet to be executed before 2050.
      This “Climate Change big leap forward” belongs to Actionplan Agenda2030.

      Which on its turn is a subproject of Actionplan Agenda21.

  6. CHUCKMAN says

    “The Cult of Greta Thunberg is an extremely disturbing one”

    I completely agree.

    But I also observe that her twisted facial expressions and unwarranted, self-righteous statements remind exactly of someone else, someone of a far more advanced age and holding an immensely more influential position,

    Every photo of her reminds me of Donald Trump.

    Different words and beliefs, but the same narcissistic angry child.

    1. JustPassingThrough says

      “Every photo of her reminds me of Donald Trump.”
      lol, you’ve got a problem chuckie

    2. diacad says

      I love Pippi Longstocking (Greta is obviously the real-life incarnation of Astrid Lindgren’s mischievous activist, complete with braids but they don’t stick out – Greta wants to direct attention to her words, not her coiffure). There are a few clouds in her sunny sky, part of the pollution, both climatic and political. See nasty CNBC article:

      Astrid would have loved Greta too, but she died a year before Thunberg was born. In spite of his comments about her (meant as sarcasm), Trump doesn’t love her. The two have nothing in common, except being on the same troubled planet.

      Bias disclosure: I am 3rd-generation Swedish-American (born in
      North Dakota) – don’t like Lutfisk, but will defend almost
      everything and everyone else I know about and from that country.

  7. John C Carleton says

    The degree of decline of “Western civilization”, can be directly correlated to the degree of control over said civilization, which has been taken over by lies, fraud, murders and blackmail, by the evil of the Ratschild’s Pedohilic, Usury, Mass murdering, lying, cheating, white slavery practicing, End of Times Death Cult Members NON SEMITIC Khazarian halfbreed reject outcaste Turkmen/slavic Russian Expats and Spawn thereof, from the Steppes of Russia.

    If Russia would repatriate their wayward pedophilic mass murdering and on an industrial scale thieving Non Semitic Khazarian children, then “Western Civilization” would recover.

    These evil deaerates are Russia’s problem, they have allowed to victimize the world.
    Russia’s place to take care of the problem.
    Forceably repatriate them to Russia if necessary.
    It is a Russian disease!

    I assume, Russia still has the Gulags in Siberia!

    1. Mikhail Garchenko says

      Stupid Russophobe, TAKE YOUR PILLS, cretin.

      1. John C Carleton says

        The talk about souls went right over your black as sin glorying in mass murder and child rape soul didn’t it.

  8. Carlos Flanagan says

    Why yes I am quite disturbed by this crowd to use a child but also fascinated by why a number of human beings are so obsessed with the end of the world every 12 years. Is it because our minds can only go in 12 year chunks? I get that the end of the world theme has been used to manipulate the masses ever since man/woman could put together some type of intelligent sentences but the question remains why the masses still listen to this.

  9. Otto310 says

    It is odd she has no views or comments to make on the very real possibility of WW3 breaking out.
    Whilst there is room for debate concerning the causes of climate change, there is none for what the effects would be should there be a full scale nuclear war.
    As she has the backing of the so called “great and the good” of “The West”, one can come to the conclusion she has been wheeled out for the simple reason to make people take their eye off the ball to what are very real and present dangers of starting a nuclear war from something as simple as a computer glitch, which has been brought about by Americas withdrawal from the INF treaty.

    I don´t doubt her sincerity, she is only sixteen and still has much to learn.
    It is her backers and their motives that need close scrutiny.

    1. JustPassingThrough says

      climate change concerns in a ww3 scenario would be moot, i’d should think.

      1. Otto310 says

        My point entirely.
        Thank you.

    2. Genghis Gobi says

      Because she’s got Asperger’s and can only focus on one thing.

      1. diacad says

        Whether Greta has Aspergers or not is beside the point. Otto310 is correct in that the growing possibility of a major war could render all other concerns moot. Does that mean we should drop other struggles? I think Greta has enough on her shoulders with this particular issue, don’t you? I suspect, being from Sweden, if you asked her she most probably would have the same view that Otto310 does; people in Europe are more aware of the war danger than most of us are here. We must be careful not to be a pot calling the kettle black.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.