You mean this part:
The superficial interest, if any, that many teenagers take in what they are expected to learn at school, combined with twisted media coverage and educational policies that strongly supports the teaching of AGW CO2 alarmist agenda almost insures that it can hardly be otherwise - say in Scandinavia. There are those children and teenagers and adults that will link "CO2 climate change" to even more outlandish claims that does not even touch the quality of CO2 being a green house gas. They may claim that ozon holes are related to CO2 or propose that changes in the population of some animal, plant or fish is due to CO2, even if the causes may be something objectively totally different.
While one can agree with the content of what Putin says in the above Tweet, there is perhaps also an invitation for educators and parents to consider the education of children, or as a minimum to become aware of the shortcomings of what is being offered, especially in a time where young people are being treated as consumers to be impressed, or used for purposes of business and politics, as Putin also suggests. In the past people were thinking that as long as there was no physical or harsh psychological abuse, there was no problem. Today the abuse is more subtle. It flies under the radar of the conventional perception of what comprises child abuse. Here is a proposal for a list to consider when speaking about the "low intensity" variety:
advertising to get kids to push parents to buy stuff,
computers, tablets and smartphone culture with their addictive games and social media apps,
common access to visual and/or auditory content that disturbs the psychological development of a segment large or small of the "consumers",
a pervasive materialist ideology
GMO foods, vegan diets, low fat diets,
CRISP editing trends,
damaging medicine,
vaccines,
xenohormones,
electrosmog in general, and microwave radiation from cell phone towers and WiFi gadgets,
the promotion of gender confusion,
an increase rate of single mum/dad families run by immature adults that have grown up in - as time goes by - in similar conditions,
- and then I skipped chemical pollution, which is also a concern in agriculture, and some educational programmes, as they have been there for a long time already,
In the
post I made yesterday about Greta Thunberg yesterday, the transcription of the answer Putin gave was not very visible compared to the length of the post. Here it is again with highlights of the areas I think could be elaborated on, and I took the angle that adult, parents and educators might help. At the end it becomes less tight, because I wished to include a whole number of excerpts that reveal what kind of organisation is behind at least one, even two examples of the climate activist movement. It turns out the US, or some level of its Government, recognizing opportunities in this type of movements to further its agenda and wield power. While it may not be so easy to prove just yet, I think the patterns are there. If nothing else, there is a potential for creating more chaos than there already is.
Now to the first part of the answer Vladimir Putin gave when asked about this view on Greta Thunberg:
"I will, perhaps, disappoint you, but I don't share the common enthusiasm in regard to the address by Greta Thunberg. You know, that young people and teenagers draw everybody's attention to the acute issues of nowadays including the problems of ecology, that is right, it is very good. They certainly need to be supported. But when someone uses children or teenagers in their own interests, then it only merits condemnation. - It is especially bad if someone tries to capitalize on that. I'm not stating this is the case, but we have to be be aware and even follow it closely.
From this I get that adults, parents and educators should:
- support interest among young people and teenagers in the acute issues of nowadays, including, (but not only!) the problems of ecology.
- condemn when they see someone using children and teenagers in their own interests, especially if someone tries to capitalize on that.
- become aware and be on the lookout for signs that exploitation of children and teenagers in the above described manner is being done or intended.
After all, has nobody explained to Greta, that the contemporary world is complex and multi-faceted, is developing fast, and that people in Africa or in many Asian countries want to live on the same level of wealth as in Sweden? - But how to achieve that? Force them today to use the solar energy, of which there in Africa is enough? Has anyone explained to her how much this costs?
The above remarks about Greta invites adults, parents and educators to discuss with children and young people:
- why the contemporary world, is complex, multi-faceted and developing fast. This happens not only in the fields of technology, in the changes of living conditions. The world population grows too. From 2015 to 2019 the population in the world increased with about 320 million people, which is close to the total population of the US. Per year this means 80 million more people, or eight times the number of people in Sweden, the combined populations of the people in the UK and Sweden. This number also translates to the amount of people in Sweden approximately every 6 weeks. And between every Friday that Gretha and the other people go on climate strike, there are already 1,5 million more people on the planet.
- why people living in areas of Africa and many Asian countries less affluent than their own want to live on the same level of wealth, as they do in their own country.
- why it is the difficulties of achieving these goals of say solar energy for all in Africa; for example even though there is much Sun in many parts of Africa, it also rains there, in many places a lot, and there is certainly no Sun at night when everybody wants to cook food, watch TV, or have light in the streets. In addition there are areas where is cold.
- ask them to find out how much electricity from solar energy costs. Not only does one need to buy solar panels, one also needs batteries and wires. The equipment needs to be installed and maintained, and the batteries need to be replaced every few years. Add to these considerations that all the elements to produce a functioning solar panel unit, need to be produced in factories. For a factory to work it needs energy, it needs workers who use energy and also raw materials often coming from dirty mines, where workers use big machines that also need energy. From the factory the solar panel needs to be transported, it needs to go to a shop or store. Even for this chain of events, energy is needed before the solar panel can produce electricity and more electricity than it required to produce all the equipment needed and install it.
To help with the above point here is a picture from
Solar power - Types of systems that shows the elements of one setup, but without all the more technical details:
One may also discuss other ways to use solar energy, but even if a
solar thermal collector may be cheaper to make, it will not charge a cellphone, nor will a
solar cooker. And again all this has to be protected from thieves and vandal. Consider having a fancy solar energy equipment in an informal settlement like this one
near Johannesburg in South Africa, where the homicide rate is 35 per 100,000 on average.
- discuss why it is not possible to "
Force them today to use the solar energy, ?"
If the above points may be sensible from the point of view of the the world we live in, there are a few dilemmas of paedagogy. First of all, some teachers also in Sweden and also on Greta's former school, may say that they already discuss these issues. Perhaps some will add that many students either don't get it, or are not interested, so how much might one expect? What should the priority be, when a sizeable number lack skills in reading, writing and doing simple math?
Putin continues:
Just now a colleague spoke about oil, and it is known by everyone probably, that oil is the number one energy source in the global energy balance, and that it will maintain this position for the forthcoming 25 years. This is data from global experts. True, the share will be gradually declining True, many times faster will be the rise of renewable forms of energy.
"Known by everyone probably"!? To make sense of the above information it helps with a diagramme: I found an introduction to the situation the Russian President is mentioning, and it comes from the
Institute for Energy Research that refer to information in a report in
Energy Outlook 2018 by the BP company.
BP provides a worldwide view of energy supply and demand through 2040 in its
Energy Outlook 2018.
The BP Energy Outlook explores the forces shaping the global energy transition. It indicates how
rising prosperity is driving an increase in global energy demand and how that demand may be met over the coming decades through a diverse range of supplies including oil, natural gas, coal, and renewable energy
. The fast growth in developing countries increases global energy demand by a third by 2040. Oil, natural gas, coal, and non-fossil fuels each contribute about 25 percent to the global energy mix in that year. Oil demand increases over much of the forecast period and then plateaus in the later years. Natural gas demand overtakes coal as the second largest source of energy. Together oil and natural gas account for over half of the world’s energy. Global coal consumption and Chinese coal consumption both plateau. Renewable energy (excluding hydro) is the fastest growing fuel source, increasing five-fold and providing 14 percent of primary energy in 2040.
Below the above text, from the institute in Washington DC they show the following graphs. While we don't have Putin's reference to a forecast for the next 25 years we have one for the next 20+ and it essentially confirms what Vladimir Putin is saying.
From diagramme one to the left, one can also read, that the total consumption of oil, coal and gas, which are the lower three bars, coloured green, red and brownish) will increase. If one compares the rate of the rise of the importance of non-fossils with the rate of the lowering of the fossil fuel, then the rise is many times faster for non-fossils. The example is that if the importance of oil goes down 2 % compared to the year before, while renewables go up 10 % compared to the year before, then the rate or the rise of renewables is five times the rate of the decline of oil. The above comment is an elaboration of what Putins says in the above quote. In the next excerpt there is:
That is all true, and we should strive toward it. But today, is this technology available for developing countries and developing nations? It is unavailable, but people there want to live on the same level as in Sweden. They can't be stopped. Just try to explain it to them that they should spend another 20 - 30 years in poverty, and their children will be in poverty! Explain it to them! Everything should to the greatest extend be professional. Of course, emotions are inevitable. But if we want to be effective, then we must be professional.
"We should strive" is probably in the sense of understanding and doing. Plans for the future do not get realized without action. Of course much of the energy sector needs engineers, scientists, and skilled workers, that is one kind of effort. Even if everyone agreed on CO2 being a hoax, there would still be a growing population and there would still be a growth in demands. Parents, adults and educators educators could discuss with young people:
- what roughly, as previously explained, is the present global energy situation in terms of contributions from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewables and what the forecasts are for the next 20 years
- why a desire for more energy, not matter what kind, requires the work of engineers, inventor, scientists, miners, skilled workers, manual workers and many others
- how the demands in the global energy consumption are influenced by
- the growing population of the world, including their need for food, clothing, etc
- the desire for a growth in living standards in developing countries including among parents living in poverty who have children and teenagers
- why the technology to use renewable energy sources is not always available, accessible or affordable in many developing nations, and one might add, even in developed countries
- why several types of especially renewable are not reliable all the time, for example:
that solar energy is not being generated on a rainy day, or when it it is night,
that if there is no wind where the windmill is located, then there is no wind energy,
that if there is no water in the river or dam near the hydroelectric powerplant, then there is no hydroelectric power
that oil wells may dry out, coal mines may become too expensive to operate or run out of coal, gas fields may become empty etc.
that it takes or costs energy to transport energy,
- how they, if asked would "
try to explain it to them that they should spend another 20 - 30 years in poverty, and their children will be in poverty! Explain it to them!"
- that yes we have emotions. They are inevitable, and we accept our emotions, but to be effective in our strivings to solve problems, we need to be professional, skilled and competent in what we are doing.
Finally there was:
And I am certain that Greta is a good girl, and very sincere, but adults ought to do their utmost not to lead children and teenagers into some extreme situations. They ought to protect them from excessive emotions that may ruin the personality. That is what I'm trying to say. As a whole of course, we can't but support the ideas that are related to the development of renewable sources of energy, it is only necessary to proceed from the realities and push this process. And I just now mentioned in my speech how we are doing this in Russia. We not only signed and carry out the process of implementing of the Paris agreement. We have also within the country taken a a whole row of steps in order to reduce emissions, in order to bolster alternative energy sources. We do this, among other things with taxation measures that give preferences to the development of alternative energy sources. We develop gas, as the cleanest of all the hydrocarbons. But I repeat once again - to use children and adolescents for the achievement of even such noble goals, and in a rather hard and emotional way, I think it's wrong."
In the previous comments, I have tried to present some of the realities, but left aside ice age forecast, solar activity fluctuation, variable orbit, slowing rotation, meteors, vulcanoes, that the earth is sinking in some areas of the planet and rising in others, that there has been manipulation of data and that there are changes that would occur anyway. I also left aside that the Earth is travelling with a speed of 30,000 km/s through galactic space, that there is change all the time, but I did include many pieces of data that might be taught to student in grades 7 -9.
As a comment to the above, it is clear that for the adults to be the adults with regard to children, then they need to be knowledgeable. Some are but in the way of how to use children for their own climate purposes. To set the scene
Extinction Rebellion Training, Or How To Control Radical Resistance From the "Obstructive" Left | Black Agenda Report Cory Morningstar probably says where she herself, is coming from (radical left, radical green/radical left green) while also explaining the style of a movement like Extreme Rebellion. The highlights below may show where Morningstar is coming from, but was is said about Extreme Rebellion is more relevant in the current context of finding out what the adults behind movements like those Greta is a poster girl considers valid methods.
For XR leadership, the enemy of Rebellion is not corporate dominance such as Unilever or Volans (as recently
confirmed by XR Business). The enemy of Rebellion is not the capitalist economic system devouring everything in its path.
The enemy of the Rebellion is the radical activist, prepared to defend the Earth “by any means necessary”.
Hallam at least seems willing to manipulate people, as we shall see further down.
Hallam recommends to his students that they study: “
The Psychology of Persuasion “, “The Radical Think Tank” (“
How to Win “), and “
This is an Uprising ” by Mark Engler (with glowing forewords by 350.org’s
Bill McKibben and
Naomi Klein ).
Here, is another orchestrated and ongoing
effort to further pacify the working class in servitude to the state. One would be wise to toss “This is an Uprising” and instead read “
Bloodless Lies: Book Review of This is an Uprising ” (November 7, 2016). This is an excellent example of what those enmeshed in the non-profit industrial complex do not want you to read.
Rather than educating citizens why it is paramount that we become revolutionaries in order to protect the last vestiges of the natural world, Hallam encourages his newly-minted coordinators to embrace the role of “generalists”. [XR Generalists: “run meetings, be good with people, know how society changes, etc.; Revolutionary theorists – hard work is already done!; Books to read – This is an Uprising (Mark Engler)”] [
Source ]
Again the above highlights were just mentioned to show where Morningstar possibly comes from, before continuing using her analysis of Extreme Rebellion and the methods used to manipulate people as a basis to describe what is going on in the movement that Greta participates in. Even if she is not in the
Before continuing with Morningstar, there are a few excerpts from the review she suggested,
Bloodless Lies: book review of “This is an uprising.” an article by
Lorenzo Raymond, The New Inquiry, November 2, 2016 Among other things he explains how the US has used movements similar to those of Friday for Futures, Extreme Rebellion etc in the past and how the knowledge of how to use them has been developed through research and we might add practice.
Erica Chenoweth, now one of the most celebrated social movement theorists working in the field. Chenoweth got her start producing the widely cited study Why Civil Resistance Works (2011) in collaboration with Maria J. Stephan of the U.S. State Department.
[...]
At one point, the Englers note that the same political science prize that Chenoweth won–the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award–was previously bestowed on Henry Kissinger. This, for them, is the height of irony: Chenoweth is, after all, the opposite of the Kissingers of the world. But while they may represent different sides of the aisle in terms of American political divisions, Chenoweth’s work is, in many ways, just as useful to the U.S. empire.
And
At the height of the Cold War, the government used Kissinger’s work to justify the “hard power” of the arms race and violent intervention against communist regimes. Today Chenoweth’s work helps to justify–and in this case, mystify–Obama’s “soft power” agenda of “democracy promotion” exercised through seemingly benign agencies like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United States Institute of Peace (USIP)–the former organization was recently caught covertly organizing against the Castro government in Cuba. And while direct U.S. government involvement with pacifist academics is a relatively new development–emerging in the mid-2000s, around the same time that Gelderloos first observed that “nonviolence protects the state”–their financial relationship goes back at least to Gene Sharp’s first doctoral work in the late 1960s, which was funded by the Department of Defense.
But if the American empire promotes strictly nonviolent movement-building to overthrow its enemies, wouldn’t that demonstrate that it’s as powerful a method as its proponents say it is? The short answer is no. When civil resistance works–and when the U.S. government deploys it abroad–it’s almost always in combination with more violent forms of pressure. To illustrate this, one need look no further than the Yugoslav movement to unseat President Slobodan Milošević, which figures prominently in Chenoweth’s famous study and takes up more than thirty pages in This Is an Uprising.
Apparently the youth climate movements are also possible tools for political powers like the US to influence other states. I guess this danger is also valid for Russia.
Leaving the review and going back to the article by Morningstar there is:
Extinction Rebellion (XR) officially launched on October 31, 2018. On November 2, 2018, a video was uploaded to the
Extinction Rebellion YouTube account. The video documents the training session held by XR co-founder Roger Hallam: “This was filmed at the Extinction Rebellion Local Coordinator training in Bristol.
Roger Hallam explains some the key dynamics of building a mass movement from the level of personal resilience to creating system change.”
[...]
Here, it is critical to remind oneself, that this is the
XR mass organizing model for the mobilization of a global citizenry. Consider between the
official launch on October 31, 2018 , in the UK, to December 6, 2018, it grew to over 130 groups, across 22 countries. By January 29, 2019, the Extinction Rebellion groups spanned across 50 countries.
On April 27, 2019 XR reported they were nearing 400 branches globally.
Extreme Rebellion are looking for pragmatic people, they don't like the true left, ideological greens and socialists or people who want to empower others, this is about recruiting for the purposes of Extreme Rebellion:
Hallam speaks of the dangers posed by the “extreme hard left” viewpoints, “extreme
intersectionalism ” (“we need to be all perfect and that sort of stuff”), extreme desire for diversity, “extreme veganism”, etc.
His examples are deliberately misleading and ridiculous. His mention of anarchism provokes more laughter.
Hallam concedes “and often they’re right” yet
has zero interest in empowering this group to further empower the bottom “non-political” masses targeted by XR. Rather, his aim is to recruit the ones that can be persuaded into adopting pragmatism, while
silencing those that refuse to conform.
In the Rebellion business,
ethics isn’t a driving force, rather it is a detriment:
“Look, all the most effective movements have a central concept and that concept is balance. Balance the pragmatic need and the ethical imperative to change society versus the need to be eternally ethical.”
The message is clear – target the practical and pragmatic. Distance yourself from the self-centered “purists”.
Not only are they manipulating people to join them, they also deceive other groups:
Although XR
claims , “We are working to build a movement that is participatory, decentralised, and inclusive”
– this runs in stark contrast to XR’s own conduct:
“The name of the game is to bypass these people, or at least recruit the little bit of them that get it … and go down here. And that’s how we’ve managed to mobilize thousands of people in three months. By having a public meeting. And if the public meeting is constructed around participative principles, you won’t have the SWP [Socialist Workers Party] guy standing up at the end. Everyone’s feeling good and he does a rant about how it has to be socialist, otherwise it’s rubbish. Which brings everybody down. It happens over and over again. And how we do that, we don’t have a Q & A. Q&A’s encourage nerdy people and absolutists, (laughter), we all know this, right? I mean you can have a Q&A if you’re super confident and you’re in a group of people that are generally like, in the real world, but if you have a public meeting 8o% of the people will be normal people, who are basically interested in the issue, and 20% of the people will be political absolutists. And they will there to appropriate your energy.”
And this ideology upheld by Hallam is the very foundational ideology being taught, encouraged and nurtured by Extinction Rebellion. Hallam:
“This is how you mobilize lots of people.”
Morningstar in the above article also
writes:
“It’s not about climate change information, it’s about the emotional way that we say it – needs to create that emotional response, personal reactions are incredibly powerful.”
Again later:
Another critical imperative Hallam highlights for mass mobilization is “emotion – not information”. Hallam laments that the people who will lead the “rebellion” will be young people:
“The last thing to reiterate is the emotion – not the information … so the people that are going to lead this rebellion are going to be young people, 14 & 15 year olds …omg – a 14 year-old is in tears, right?, on television, about what’s happening…”
Thus, a key strategy for XR was (and continues to be)
“How to engage with younger people – youth mobilisation, talks in schools/colleges, figuring out how to engage on ‘youth’ social media.” [
Source ]
Do they aspire to be the Hitler Youth of the future? Or did that already begin yesterday?
Greta fits the bill quite well, doesn't she?
Hallem is a former organic farmer, or so the story goes, and perhaps he though his extreme weather was due to CO2, because:
Hallam was previously an
organic farmer on a 10-acre farm near
Llandeilo in
South Wales;
[5] he attributes the destruction of his business to a series of
extreme weather events.
[6]
Between at least 2017 and early 2019 he was studying for a PhD in civil disobedience at King's College London,[7]researching how to achieve social change through radical movements.[8]
[...]
Hallam and four other activists were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance on 12 September 2019, the day before a planned action to pilot
drones in the exclusion zone around
Heathrow Airport in order to disrupt flights.
[20] Three days later, in an action organised by Heathrow Pause, Hallam was arrested in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport apparently in breach of bail conditions from the previous arrest requiring him to not to be within five miles of any airport or possess drone equipment.
[21] He was remanded in custody until 14 October.
[22]
Actually when one reads the sources Morningstar gives, then prison is not bad, it is a way to gain publicity.
Later in the same article by Morningstar there is:
We Mean Business is ecstatic over the climate strikes. As is Christiana Figueres.
Figueres, an anthropologist, economist and analyst having studied at London School of Economics and Georgetown University presided over the negotiations that led to the 2015 Paris Agreement. For this achievement Ms. Figueres has been recognized as “forging a new brand of collaborative diplomacy”. With almost four decades of experience in multilateral negotiations, high-level national and international policy, coupled with extensive involvement in the corporate/private sector, in 2016, TIME magazine named Figueres one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
Today, Figueres serves as vice-chair of the
Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy ; member of the board of directors of ClimateWorks;
World Bank Climate Leader ; B Team leader, leader of
Mission2020 (“exponential transformation” focusing on
six sectors that will play a key role in municipal governments and
“Green New Deals”); and board member of the
World Resources Institute .
Above one sees that this is not an innocent school girl finding out all by herself there is something to be done about the climate. And this reminds one of a youtube clip with George Monbiot , the person mentioned in
George Monbiot, Extinction Rebellion And The Madmen Who Want to Wreck Civilization
where he attacks Cory Morningstar and pretends he knows nothing about any abuse of Greta Thunberg by adults,but his answer is not believable.
One link to the
article containing the video and transcript with the response of Vladimir Putin also has a link to an article which contains analysis that contradicts what George Monbiot is saying:
Child hostage: Greta Thunberg caught in 'disintegrating family' and 'devilish covenant' with her mother
It turns out the Extinction Rebellion leads back to the US, and to a person with a fitting family and professional background.
The global expansion is being led by Margaret Klein Salamon [
Source ],
founder of The Climate Mobilization, who launched the Extinction Rebellion US Twitter account on October 31, 2018 – the same day as the launch of Extinction Rebellion in the UK. The Extinction Rebellion demands are not only complementary to The Climate Mobilization’s emergency strategy now in motion; they are a mirror image of it with the slogan, “Tell the Truth”. [Further reading: The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The House is On Fire! & the 100 Trillion Dollar Rescue,
ACT IV ][/QUOTE] Margaret Klein Salamon has a
PhD in
clinical psychology according to
Margaret Klein Salamon | The Climate Psychologist
Margaret Klein Salamon, who trained as a clinical psychologist before founding a climate-advocacy organization, takes the opposite view. She doesn’t see fear as paralyzing but as a necessary response that activates people to recognize danger and take action. What’s more, given the state of the atmosphere, she argues that acute fear is rational. “It’s important to feel afraid of things that will kill us—that is healthy and good,” she said. She believes that reckoning with the scope of the emergency is required, both to activate responsible behavior and to reap the mental-health benefits of “living in climate truth.” Salamon, who grew up in a family of psychoanalysts and considers therapy to be “something of a family business,” is writing “Transform Yourself with Climate Truth,” a self-help book on the subject.
Salamon said that it’s no surprise that people can’t process the truth about the climate crisis and instead construct defense mechanisms against it. In twenty years, what now registers as an extreme heat wave will likely be the norm. By 2045, more than three hundred thousand U.S. homes will be lost to encroaching oceans; by 2100, a trillion dollars worth of real estate will be lost in the U.S. alone. As atmospheric carbon levels rise, plants produce more sugars and fewer nutrients—by 2050, vegetables will be turning into junk food. There’s a huge overlap between things that wreak havoc on the climate and things that serve a materialist version of the good, comfortable life: meat-eating, air-conditioning, air travel. “It’s a basic part of being human that our minds frequently deal with competing interests—that’s how defense mechanisms are formed,” Salamon said.
Salamon, claims that 300,000 homes or 1 trillion in real estate will disappear by 2100. This is a really minor issue, when considering the size of the US defence budget per year, or when considering that there in one week is added about 1,5 million people to the global population, enough to fill up 300,000 homes, or when considering the financial interests behind this push. And to expand on what the goals are, apparently the climate alarmists also gain traction by creating panic in politicians
Thankfully, this is starting to change. Thanks to the efforts of the School Strikers, The Climate Mobilization (the organization which I founded and direct), Extinction Rebellion, the Sunrise Movement, leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, authors like David Wallace Wells, and many more, people are increasingly confronting the terrifying reality of climate truth, and looking for help processing and making sense of what they find.
After you acknowledge the apocalyptic scale and speed of the climate emergency, you must allow yourself time to grieve. There are so many losses: the people and species already lost, your sense of safety and normalcy.
Above all, in order to live in truth, we have to grieve for our own futures—the futures we had planned, hoped for, and thought we were building. Grief is appropriate—while, on one hand, this is the loss of an abstraction, not a living creature. On the other, it’s a huge loss—the loss of our most cherished plans, goals, fand fantasies.
When I was a child, I remember my mother telling me that I could be anything I wanted to be. I knew this wasn’t literally true, but I also knew that I had many options. I studied at Harvard, then earned a PhD in clinical psychology with plans to write books about psychology for popular audiences. I imagined myself married with children. What a lovely life I had planned! It was going to be meaningful, intellectually stimulating, financially rewarding, and rich in relationships.
Her idea, it seems is to instil in children and people the climate fear that she projects for them as being real. The Extinction Rebellion, Salamon has helped bring about in the UK and the world, gets also money from the US. It is hard not to acknowledge this organisation as one more handle for the US Government or Deep State to wield its hand in Europe and generate chaos as desired.
Climate activists including Extinction Rebellion to receive £500,000 from US philanthropists
One could go deeper, and comment more. What we found above was that a person with a PhD in Clinical psychology Margaret Klein Salamon, form a family of psychoanalysts is the founder of The Climate Mobilization who launched the Extinction Rebellion US Twitter account that opened the same day as the UK account and the demands of the Extinction Rebellion should mirror those of The Climate Mobilization. We also found that one strategy for the Extinction Rebellion and its rebellion is not to spread knowledge and information, it is to create a rebellion by stirring the emotions of 14-15 year olds.
Comparing what we read about a couple of the founders of these movement and what Vladimir Putin said, I think it is safe to say that what they are doing merits condemnation. Apart from that, I hesitate to come with particular ideas what to do, it is one thing to dig up some statistics and missing facts, but when emotions of young people by intention are being manipulated to stir up fear and that fear has already taken hold of the possibility of rational decisions, then one needs to be more careful, as some avenues to intervene have been locked by suggestions from the programmers, by the beliefs already accepted.
Children and people are different, some may go along for the fun, some are swayed by the reasons, others run with the emotions of it all. Presenting facts alone may not help to restore balance in all cases. Might it be possible to redirect the fear through facts and then take it in from there?
Getting back to where I began in this last section:
But when someone uses children or teenagers in their own interests, then it only merits condemnation. [...]
And I am certain that Greta is a good girl, and very sincere, but adults ought to do their utmost not to lead children and teenagers into some extreme situations. They ought to protect them from excessive emotions that may ruin the personality. That is what I'm trying to say. As a whole of course, we can't but support the ideas that are related to the development of renewable sources of energy, it is only necessary to proceed from the realities and push this process.
[...]
But I repeat once again - to use children and adolescents for the achievement of even such noble goals, and in a rather hard and emotional way, I think it's wrong."
It is easy to agree with what Putin has to say on the subject of Greta Thunberg. While I should be careful not to make sweeping generalization, it is as if it is not only Greta. It is as if the target is a whole generation and some more. It is not so much about climate change, which we already know is a misrepresentation. It is about changing the minds of people, changing humans, owning them, it is about power and control.
