'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

This link should work better/provide a clearer snapshot:




https://images.assettype.com/swarajya%2 ... =35&w=1200


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 679959.cms

[DrEvil]

Oh no, Thunberg has a PR rep!

And also oh no, people in India are mad at Thunberg. But "international conspiracy" sounds better than "random celebrities supporting farmers".

[JackRiddler]

We siding with the BJP now? Because Greta's evil? For supporting the farmers in India?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Let's attempt to dispense with strawman commentary, Mr. Evil.

No, Greta's not 'evil', far as I can tell. But she is a shill, and there were sentiments otherwise here in the recent past. It's understandable, of course, to have subscribed to her initial outcries.

Not every event is compromised, of course, and we touched on this many times here. Grassroots and organic events happen often. But the compromise of genuine events happen quite as often as well, depending on the extent interests intersect with power entities. And then there are also scenarios when the event or series of events were staged from the onset for obfuscated ends.

[DrEvil]

How do you know that tweet was a sign of her being compromised? How do you know she didn't just ask her PR rep "hey, I want to help support the striking farmers in India. Any pointers?" and got a reply? There's no context, but you immediately jumped to your preferred conclusion.

And no, you don't know she's a shill, because all the evidence for that has been the same kind of nothing-burger shit you just dumped upthread. Your reply to me is just word salad with zero content. Things often are something, but they could also be something different, we just don't know, ergo conspiracy!

And honestly, even if it turns out she's compromised for some nefarious purpose (which conveniently is never specified, but she has to be damn it. It can't possibly be that a young woman means what she says. Women aren't supposed to do that!), I really don't give a fuck. Her message has been consistent all along and I agree with it 100%. I support her agenda (*audience gasps*).

[dada]

Judging from a pr perspective, getting all the attention from the haters, leading to a spot in the Indian press, increases the media footprint, helps the campaign. Every share is like free publicity. If it was on purpose, that would be good strategy. Hire that firm.

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^^
Sure, it may have been part of a savvy marketing strategy, which would only further contradict her early overt presentation as a 'genuine article'.

Her message is crafted by entities that largely don't give a F#ck about the outwardly stated goals of whatever Greta has been informed to state in public.
(It's possible some subscribe to aspects of it. There may also be a useful idiot or two in the mix. Details of the operation won't be forthcoming)

Like a number of other events current and past.

These entities are not your allies.

You don't have to agree with this right now. Wait a few years (though I imagine it'll become clear sooner rather than later).

[dada]

Yeah no, it isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing here, I really just don't care about all that. Not familiar with the situation, and have no interest in getting into it. So I won't see it 'in the future,' either.

I'm saying whatever point you're trying to make, doesn't matter to me, it is in a different reality-tunnel far removed from the ones I inhabit. I don't think getting you to share the story here was part of the pr strategy, I was only pointing out that if it were, it worked.

But what is with the word fuck with the pound sign? Why not just write 'fuck?'

[JackRiddler]

Started out with a really interesting set of articles and exchanges. Whole first page, interesting.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=42029

[dada]

Yes, fun thread. Is the 'green left' a fascist orgainization working from the anthroposophist playbook? Let's discuss.

Have you noticed that the progressive Left is simultaneously non-existent, in disarray, and a highly organized, well-oiled political machine funded by George Soros?

I wonder if it is not such a bad place for the progressive Left to be at. I know you said on one of these threads recently that you don't like lobbying, but I feel like lobbying is how most things get done. Maybe we need to expand our definition of what it means to lobby. The progressive Left is kind of like a lobby that isn't a lobby. It has no platform, but influences platforms. Not a big tent or a small tent, it isn't a tent.

[JackRiddler]

Have you noticed that the progressive Left is simultaneously non-existent, in disarray, and a highly organized, well-oiled political machine funded by George Soros?

Now you mention it... yeh. It's also huge thanks to Bernie; dead since Bernie; a big corporate scam run by the Democrats to betray socialism; an incipient coalition with this or that evil; too purist and impractical; etc., etc.

I wonder if it is not such a bad place for the progressive Left to be at. I know you said on one of these threads recently that you don't like lobbying,

All a question of definition. I don't like that the big money can do what it does.

but I feel like lobbying is how most things get done. Maybe we need to expand our definition of what it means to lobby. The progressive Left is kind of like a lobby that isn't a lobby. It has no platform, but influences platforms. Not a big tent or a small tent, it isn't a tent.

[dada]

"Now you mention it... yeh. It's also huge thanks to Bernie; dead since Bernie; a big corporate scam run by the Democrats to betray socialism; an incipient coalition with this or that evil; too purist and impractical; etc., etc."

Right, all that and more. I think it was an article in last week's NYT that explains how the great popularity of q is a result of progressives becoming disillusioned with the Democrat party machine's treatment of Bernie.

I get the dislike of big money lobbying. But the bulk of these professional lobbyists spend endless sums and work every connection, just to fight against the progressive Left ideas. The progressive lobby isn't a lobby, but the ideas have a natural gravity of their own. The progressive is nowhere to be found, but the progressive ideas work their way into the 'social subconscious,' change the way everyone thinks without their realizing it. It's a glacial, painstaking process. The Liberal slowly becomes a progressive at heart, the Conservative rediscovers his Liberal edge. The far right is put on the defensive, always reacting, always defining itself in relation to the invisible progressive threat.

One way of looking at it.

[Belligerent Savant]

Yeah no, it isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing here, I really just don't care about all that. Not familiar with the situation, and have no interest in getting into it. So I won't see it 'in the future,' either.

I'm saying whatever point you're trying to make, doesn't matter to me, it is in a different reality-tunnel far removed from the ones I inhabit. I don't think getting you to share the story here was part of the pr strategy, I was only pointing out that if it were, it worked.

But what is with the word fuck with the pound sign? Why not just write 'fuck?'

I wasn't addressing you at all times in my reply. Much of what I typed is directed at any given reader. I've noticed a trend, though: you've pointed out a number of times that my comments, in essence, "don't matter to you". Do not presume I'm interested in how my typed words impact (or not) you personally. I'm not. You can express what you will, of course, but your personal reaction to my words have no bearing on my output here.

(Your direct responses to my commentary on a near-consistent basis suggests a bit of a conflict, however: my comments "don't matter" to you, yet you reply to them...)

I don't spell out f#ck out of habit; I visit another forum on occasion -- it covers regional hiking locales, a far cry from our refined tastes here -- and they do not allow 'vulgar' language to be typed. Censorship: it's everywhere.

I'm far from the squeamish type, if that's not already clear.

Started out with a really interesting set of articles and exchanges. Whole first page, interesting.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=42029

Agreed. The first page is a wealth of info. I've been reading undead's contributions, particularly -- lots of great content to digest, applicable across numerous threads here.

[dada]

"Do not presume I'm interested in how my typed words impact (or not) you personally. I'm not. You can express what you will, of course, but your personal reaction to my words have no bearing on my output here."

Sure, I can relate.

[DrEvil]

^^^^^^^
Sure, it may have been part of a savvy marketing strategy, which would only further contradict her early overt presentation as a 'genuine article'.

Her message is crafted by entities that largely don't give a F#ck about the outwardly stated goals of whatever Greta has been informed to state in public.
(It's possible some subscribe to aspects of it. There may also be a useful idiot or two in the mix. Details of the operation won't be forthcoming)

Like a number of other events current and past.

These entities are not your allies.

You don't have to agree with this right now. Wait a few years (though I imagine it'll become clear sooner rather than later).

What entities? Who is pulling her strings and for what purpose?

And having a savvy marketing strategy doesn't mean she's now compromised. Example: she started out small, became wildly popular and decided she wanted help spreading her still genuine message.