Ah, so now dysfunctional politicians are pinning the blame for a whole generation of depressed citizens on one sixteen year old young woman, barely more than a girl. Would it not be more defencible (yes, that is the proper way to spell it – ask any Fencible) to blame that situation on their own government policies? Policies that support the military-industrial-consumerism-complex under which the world now operates and which brings great riches to the few and great misery and dissatisfaction to the many. And which also, incidentally, is the chief driver of anthropogenic, now verging on running out of control, climate change.
Little wonder they try to shift the blame away from themselves – These same objectors to the passion of Greta Thunberg (which I believe to be genuine – until I see evidence to the contrary – and though she may be being manipulated for the profit of others I have so far seen no evidence that this same motive is what is behind her outspoken and very honest, open, unexaggerated, message to the world – I am reading Cory Morningstar’s expose of the climate NGO betrayals of today’s youth, in an attempt to find any such evidence), want to pursue or continue pursuing, a policy of “rational debate”. Well, let me tell you folks, ‘rational debate’ on climate change is the new ‘climate denial’. There is no need for any further ‘rational debate’. The science is clear. The facts are known. The only thing that nobody much seems to be aware of is that all and every effort to ‘combat climate change’ (which is in fact a non-sequitur – having no meaning or relationship to the subject – other than as a cause for amusement) is actually a very bad idea. All such ideas are specifically designed to make the situation worse while procuring huge profits for the global elites and those (it appears) who would aspire to becoming part of the global elites.
So, Greta, with her very vocal calls for action, is either (whether knowingly or unknowingly) playing along with these proposals in order to gain a platform for her message, or is among those new aspirants to elitehood.
For my vote on that, I believe that if she were such an aspirant (doing it for the money), her message would be much more measured, toned down, and acceptable to the establishment – as so many so-called climate activists do. Greta’s use of the phrase, and obvious disgust with, ‘eternal economic growth’, leads me to believe that – unless it is some rote script she has been given to say (which I doubt) – she possesses a very keen perception of reality for one so young. Her message is so far divergent from established expectations – in fact she says exactly what I would say had I the guts to stand up publicly for what I believe, as she does – with the one exception, that I would not be calling for climate change action. I would instead be calling for a complete and immediate shut down of all industrial and associated activity globally. As I have said elsewhere, that would have no immediate effect on climate change but it might just take the edge off the misery level later this century. It would of course have an immediate and dramatic effect on all of our lifestyles – taking us back to life in the pre-industrial world. A level playing field for all, with the less developed nations – having not strayed too far from that narrative perhaps gaining some advantage (and perhaps a teaching role) in a world without finance and privilege.
Plus it would be the make or break cure-all for a generation of the depressed.