Is Greta Thunberg a False Flag Tool for The New World Order and Why Is Sweden Exploding?

a reply to: Grenade


Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that! Post evidence that 60% of there funding (donations) goes on salaries! Either it's true, or greenpeace are lying! 83p from every pound goes to campagins, so if what you say is true, then greenpeace are lying!

If 83p from every pound goes to campagins, then how can 60% go on salaries?

a reply to: Jay-morris

I just posted figures from their own website which shows no-where near 83p from the pound goes to Campaigns.

I've provided resources, i've provided concrete figures. How about you counter my argument with some of your own.

The onus of proof is in your court.

Campaigns:
Oceans 1,347 1,406
Forests 2,149 1,883
Food for Life 1,493 1,454
Detox 1,245 1,355
Climate and Energy 2,732 2,485
Save the Arctic 2,318 2,144
Totals
10,727 11,284

11 million from a total of 85 million is not 83%

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

I just posted figures from their own website which shows no-where near 83p from the pound goes to Campaigns.

I've provided resources, i've provided concrete figures. How about you counter my argument with some of your own.

The onus of proof is in your court.

Campaigns:
Oceans 1,347 1,406
Forests 2,149 1,883
Food for Life 1,493 1,454
Detox 1,245 1,355
Climate and Energy 2,732 2,485
Save the Arctic 2,318 2,144
Totals
10,727 11,284

11 million from a total of 85 million is not 83%

So, basically, let me get this straight. You are saying that greenpeace are lying to the fundraiser regular, and are also lying by putting false information on their website about how much from every pound goes to campagins.

You do realise that this is illegal? Greenpeace would be in trouble for this, yet, they have gotten away with blatantly lying to their supporters and the fundraising regular?

Do you actually realise how stupid that is?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Would you like me to direct you again to their own financial results?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Would you like me to direct you again to their own financial results?

Obviously you are missing something in your figures because it is illegal for any charity or organisation to blatantly lie to their supporters. Do you know how much they would most prob be fined and how many supporters they would lose.

The fact that they don't would not be able to get away with it tells me you are not pulling up the whole figures obviously.

Please tell me how they could get away with that for so long!? The givernment for a start would jump on that straight away!

What part of illegal do you not understand?

Green peace is a registered charity! It's impossible for them to get away with what you are saying!

a reply to: Grenade


So, clearly you are wrong about this, which basically means your other rants about Greenpeace should not be taken seriously!

You went out of your way to find information that looks at greenpeace in bad light! A lot of it not true, so clearly you have an agenda there. Greenpeace are not perfect, what organisation is? But I cannot stand people lying about them to fit their agenda. So next time you type in google "negative things about greenpeace" at least get the information from good sources!

a reply to: Jay-morris

My source is greenpeace own financial figures?



Are you going to counter with your own sources witch contradict mine?

Didn’t think so.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

My source is greenpeace own financial figures?

Are you going to counter with your own sources witch contradict mine?

Didn’t think so.

I don't have too! The some fact that that would not be allowed to lie lime that tells us that you either are not reading the figures properly,, or do not have the whole figures.

They are a registered charity! How many times do I have to say that! The fundraising regular would not let them get away with that, becsuse it's illegal!

That says it all! So am arm chair no it all, has cracked it and the financial companies and regulators have missed it after all these years lololololol

a reply to: Grenade
The financial statement that you linked for 2018 states $18M in assets and 1.9M in salaries and benefits. That isn't 60%.

You can both be kinda right though. Salaries might not be 60% and there might be a few golden parachutes. Don't really see what the big deal is about.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Grenade
The financial statement that you linked for 2018 states $18M in assets and 1.9M in salaries and benefits. That isn't 60%.

You can both be kinda right though. Salaries might not be 60% and there might be a few golden parachutes. Don't really see what the big deal is about.

The fact of the matter, and what I have been trying to explain to him, is the fact that green peace would be in a lot of trouble if they are saying that 83p from every pound raised goes to campagins, and if was not true.

Greenpeace is a registered charity, and the have to be honest and transparent, just like any charity or organisation like this. If they are not, then they will be fined, and of course lose loads of supporters/members.

You can request a yearly financial report from green peace for all to see!

originally posted by: Waterglass
I looked into the on goings in Sweden to see what was going over there in lieu of their exportation of the Greta Thunberg tour. I am all for the environment and getting it right but I am not for Greta nor the ways and means of her hate speech [aka: environment] tour. I also don't live in awe of children as in my opinion we already live among way too many adult children, nor do I worship children as gods or some sort of deity. I will leave that up to those of you who do so let’s just leave it there.

Several weeks ago the city of Malmo, Sweden popped up on my screen. I didn't write a thread about it then but you can read about it here now:

Bombs, shootings are a part of life in Swedish city Malmo

So now this story pops on my screen on 31Dec2019:

Why Is Sweden Exploding?


Lets go back to the Greta Thunberg launch. Is she just a toddler gone wild from Sweden or a New World Order "plant" on standby just ready for the call and marching orders? I think the latter. Why? First of all Global Warming already had an agenda. Germany had a platform along with many other countries in the EU. Then all of a sudden the UN gets back into the game with all of these dire warnings about climate change in 2019. Practically an about face from their position in 2018. So was up? Our global scientists are that incompetent?

The German plan was to be fully implemented in 2050. It’s called;

The German Climate Action Plan 2050 (German: Klimaschutzplan
2050)

No I don't think so. First of all The New World Order consists of the United Nations, Vatican, West Asia, Europe and North America. It doesn't include Russia or President Donald Trump. China, India and Brazil are neutral but complicit in the ways and means of The New World Order. Just back in the summer a smack down on Trump was attempted by the United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York by the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein. It wasn't really about Epstein but it was all about taking out Trump. That fizzled out so Epstein disappeared. On the heels of that drama, the Democrats began the impeachment hearings because of Ukraine, a New World Order favorite state who apparently broke away from Putin's Russia. As things were winding down the Greta Thunberg Global Tour appears. Obviously she or her parents planned the global world trip all by themselves [cough, cough]. So global citizen so just pick up the phone as we can just do a meet and greet the Pope or some one percent celebrity personalities as Greta has met. Right.

So what is this all about; Power & Control

The New World Order needs to keep all people of the world dumbed down so they maintain control. As technology and the internet increased greater freedom for all in Europe and North America to learn and discuss the on goings of the world began, they had to invent something new as Christianity was also losing its grip. So they got the United Nations on board along with the Vatican and the entire European Union and West Asia. They lost Russia and The Donald got elected unexpectedly. So on goes the Trump Russia collusion to this day. So then the New World Order invite and release all of the other guys from West Asia into Europe. They also tried it here in the United States. The trouble is that many of these migrants are who they are. Troublemakers. It was an opportunity for those West Asia countries to export their junk so thye can improve themselves. Sweden is now loaded with them and what’s left of a free press is reporting on it. So what’s a nice way as in a reverse psyop to cover up for the bad stuff? Greta should be more concerned about her Sweden than Climate Change should she not? So The New World Order says let’s play the environment child card as in Greta Thunberg. You see the New World Order knows that no one is taking their bait at the adult level so they are no going after the children; both on Open Borders, Migration and Climate Change.

Why I say is that I was trained in the same ways and means back in the day. So you dint believe me? Read it and sit back and watch what’s going on. It’s in the manual!

FM 33-1

Psychological Operations Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures

So what say you?

S&F for the linked PDF alone!

I like your points. To me, it’s pure child exploitation to turn our attention elsewhere and kill two birds with one stone - take the eyes off the troubles in Sweden and globally push the climate change agenda.

Despicable stuff.

a reply to: Jay-morris

The financial reports i sourced and referenced.

The financial reports where i took the campaign figures from clearly show nothing like 83p per £1 go toward campaigns.

Donations to Greenpeace for 2014 are a reported $318 million. Fund raising costs are reported to be 36% or $116 million. Administration, including generous salaries for the executives, is another 16% or $51 million. That's over 50% right there, but don't let facts get in the way.

I have provided the figures showing more like 15p per £1 goes toward campaigns. The expose and book i provided to you from the French investigation clearly shows salaries at that time accounted for over 60% of their expenditure, this may have changed however they no longer list salaries directly. daskakik you need to examine their financial report more closely, why don't you calculate how much of their income goes to campaigns? It would be easy to confirm 83% to campaigns, except it's no-where near that figure.

Please either provide evidence to support your claims or stop espousing your opinions as fact.

www.reuters.com...

"India’s home ministry last month blocked foreign funding to the local branch of Greenpeace and suspended its registration for six months. Officials said the charity was misreporting funds and using unaccounted foreign aid to stall development projects."

Is reuters a reliable enough source for you? Would you like to brush this under the carpet as well.

Or how about New Zealand rejecting their charity status:

www.nbr.co.nz...

Your argument that Greenpeace wouldn't engage in illegal activity is ridiculous, they are founded on their illegal activism.

Occupying drilling rigs, trespassing, ramming ships, the list goes on and on up to and including paying people to torture animals for their propaganda videos, watch Survival in the High North should you have doubts of the validity of this claim.

“The final blow to Greenpeace came when it lost the libel case in Oslo that it had brought against Gudmundsson in March, 1992. The chairman of the Norwegian Greenpeace, Bjorn Okern, resigned his post and stated that Gudmundsson was right about Greenpeace’s dishonest fundraising tactics, that none of Greenpeace’s money was used for ‘environmental protection,’ and that Greenpeace was an “eco-fascist” group. Okern was on the board of Greenpeace International.”

According to the a memo by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police about Greenpeace prepared for the Canadian Government regarding Greenpeace:

“Those aligned with the most extreme factions use the internet to promote and instruct on the use of violent criminal techniques, including arson, vandalism and sabotage. Demonstrated criminal activity associated to this extremist faction includes: threats to life and property, improvised explosive devices, arson, vandalism, sabotage, thefts, and break and enters, most notably in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.”

There are many member of Greenpeace with good intentions however when your organisations starts handling hundreds of millions of dollars you can be sure it's aims will be corrupted and positions exploited.

How about this story:
www.businessinsider.com...

Why is a greenpeace employee trading millions of dollars on the forex markets?

a reply to: Jay-morris

So your answer is i have to be wrong, you can't show me why, just expect me to re-calculate and re-examine my sources and evidence because i must be wrong.

No sources, no calculations of your own, no references.

Great work.

I've gone to the effort of researching and doing my own calculations based on official Greenpeace financial declarations. I've provided you links to books on the subject, suggested films to watch, reputable news sources, quotes from board members.

But i must be wrong, because you say so without a shred of your own research.

Why are you human fools paying a buffalonickel worth of attention to your main detractors? Do you all have mental AIDS? Stop asking questions and accept reality. Stop trying to rationalize killer mushrooms, Mario. You fools create your own damnation. You gripe about music you wouldn't have heard had you chosen not be be gripers, you vote in rigged elections because some idiot told you it earns the right to complain. You are fools, not the fool, the revelator, but embeciles, utter children,, victims of your own devices, victims of the time and dedication YOU give your detractors.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hey ... sorry it took some time to get the evidence, but here it is -- it looks like it is her DAD using her as a puppet, probably among others :


www.zerohedge.com...

"A Thursday evening software update at Facebook accidentally allowed anyone to view exactly who is posting under the accounts of public figures, businesses and other entities, according to Wired.

The result? For starters, some 3 million followers of teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg have been reading posts written by her father, Svante Thunberg, and a climate activist in India who serves as a delegate at the UN's Climate Change organization, Adarsh Prathap. Thunberg, Inc. claims Greta is still the one writing the content."

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

So your answer is i have to be wrong, you can't show me why, just expect me to re-calculate and re-examine my sources and evidence because i must be wrong.

No sources, no calculations of your own, no references.

Great work.

I've gone to the effort of researching and doing my own calculations based on official Greenpeace financial declarations. I've provided you links to books on the subject, suggested films to watch, reputable news sources, quotes from board members.

But i must be wrong, because you say so without a shred of your own research.

LOL you are still going on about this! God you have being wrong don't you! I do not have to look into anything! It would be illegal to say that 83p from every pound goes to campagins when that is not the case. Why? Because you are blantently lying go your members to get money out of them.

So you think an arm chair expert like you is right, and all the actual experts that look at greenpeace finances are wrong, and have been wrong for years and letting greenpeace get away with that lololol

Do you know bow arragont that sounds? Let it go! You are wrong! No one can be right all the time, even you of great one!

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Jay-morris

Hey ... sorry it took some time to get the evidence, but here it is -- it looks like it is her DAD using her as a puppet, probably among others :


www.zerohedge.com...

"A Thursday evening software update at Facebook accidentally allowed anyone to view exactly who is posting under the accounts of public figures, businesses and other entities, according to Wired.

The result? For starters, some 3 million followers of teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg have been reading posts written by her father, Svante Thunberg, and a climate activist in India who serves as a delegate at the UN's Climate Change organization, Adarsh Prathap. Thunberg, Inc. claims Greta is still the one writing the content."

LOL this is your evidence? This has ready been explained. You think Greta is the only person in the spotlight that lets others run the page!? lol If you think that, then you know little about Facebook!

Greta Thunberg

on Saturday

Some people have been asking who manages this page. First of all, since last spring I only use Facebook to repost what I write on my Twitter and Instagram accounts.
Since I have chosen not to be on Facebook personally ( I tried early on but decided it wasn’t for me) I use my father Svantes account to repost content, because you need an account to moderate a Facebook page. The rest that is shared on Facebook is reposted from Twitter and Instagram by the guy who founded the Greta Thunberg Facebook page long before I knew it existed. His name is Adarsh Prathap and he lives in India. Since a lot of people thought it was my official page in the beginning I asked if I could co-manage it and he said yes.
All texts posted on my Facebook page has of course been written by me, just like everything else.

a reply to: Jay-morris

What experts?

Again, stop espousing your beliefs as fact. Either back it up or stop talking crap.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Wasting your time, evidence and references, what use are those when you know everything already.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

What experts?

Again, stop espousing your beliefs as fact. Either back it up or stop talking crap.

Write to the financial ombudsman of the charity commission or Advertising Standards Authority if you don't believe it. Charities are strictly regulated in the UK and such claims can't be made unless their accounts back it up, which have to be submitted every year.

If caught making false claims or cooking the books a charity will be closed down, fined or banned from advertising in the UK.

www.gov.uk...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
www.gov.uk...





ETA: The figures you supplied are for Greenpeace Fund, Inc. LLP which is the US arm. Seeing as you're British the UK figures are here on the Charity Commision website: beta.charitycommission.gov.uk...

Last year it was 88% charitable spending, 5% Income generation (including training and bidwriting process for future grants).