Greenpeace is known for breaking the law, trespassing, putting other people at risk, and chaining its members to drilling platforms to protest and, more importantly, to reap the capital of publicity. That’s one thing – but it’s quite another to recruit, psychologically manipulate, and exploit a child for the purpose waging psychological war on people who have different opinions. Greenpeace is ratcheting up the level of violence.
In the video that follows, posted by a reader at WUWT, Greenpeace instrumentalizes a hooded young boy as a propaganda pawn. The boy’s anger is clearly visible as he threatens and intimidates people with generational conflict. His expressions are militant, like those we see on tapes of crazed Islamic radicals released to publicize their threats. This is the new level of violence, directed and produced by Greenpeace.
Above: The new face of Greenpeace
No pediatricians in their right minds would condone such a use (misuse) of children. The boy is likely damaged behaviorally and socially because of it. Greenpeace needs to reflect on what it has done.
The child has been fed a diet of radical, angry and intolerant ideology; he makes his thinly veiled threats as prompted by his adult instructors. It’s possible the child is only acting out the part, so it’s not so bad – some will claim. But what has it taught him? That anger, intolerance and intimidation are power? That this is the way to reach objectives? And what message does he send to other children? It’s hardly an example of rational discourse. In fact it’s militant, shockingly militant.
The child is not even at an age that would allow him to form a balanced, informed and well thought-out opinion on the issue. Clearly he’s radicalized; he’s been manipulated. Greenpeace has preyed on a very young mind and used it as a psychological instrument of attack. These are methods and tactics which were once normally limited to most radical of religious groups. For sure the boy got pats on the back and high fives from his directors for his performance. The clip, after all, went viral. Aggression rules.
This new quality of violence by Greenpeace is not an isolated incident. The increasingly disturbing level of violence the once peaceful organization has resorted to is demonstrated by a rash of other violent incidents. The trend could not be more troubling. Gone are the days of a real environemtalal concern and peaceful protest.
Actively seeking violent confrontation
Today, Greenpeace purposely goes out and seeks confrontation – not in democratic debate with lawmakers, but in violent and at times bloody collisions with companies or organizations it disagrees with. Not long ago Greenpeace attacked French fishermen, who were minding their own business, working long days to make ends meet. See video here. If you’re against over-fishing, it’s okay. But take the issue up with the responsible lawmakers. That’s the appropriate avenue. Don’t go vandalizing and sabotaging legal businesses and putting families in financial jeopardy.
In another incident, a Greenpeace ship rammed into a Japanese fishing vessel, see below. Greenpeace claims, with the cover of the media, that the accident was the fault of the Japanese vessel. Judge for yourself:
Not long ago a leading Greenpeace official made threats directed at global warming skeptics. Prison Planet writes:
An article carried by the official Greenpeace website written by a Greenpeace member urges climate activists to resort to criminal activity in an effort to reinvigorate momentum for their stalling global warming agenda, while ominously threatening climate skeptics, ‘we know where you live.’
Demands dissenters be charged with high crimes
The promotion of widespread violence has not only been restricted to Greenpeace. Sympathizers like environmentalist staff writer Dave Roberts of Grist Magazine called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry”.
Then NASA’s James Hansen complains about democracy, and is quoted by the the UK Guardian as saying:
The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working.
He called fossil fuel CEOs criminals, not citing any particular law – except his own. Read here. Hansen says:
In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
James Hansen, and former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, have actively and openly called for civil disobedience.
Clearly they’ve lost all sense of reason and rationale. With such extreme rhetoric and a poisoned environment, it’s no wonder we got someone like James Jay Lee. And unless radicals like Greenpeace sober up and realize the folly and hazard they’ve become, expect worse to come in the future. It’s time to put these well-known radicals under close observation.
22 responses to “Greenpeace Violence Is Escalating: “The Lines Are Drawn””
[…] There is no doubt that Greenpeace will escalte their actions as the roof falls in on the Church of Climatology Today, Greenpeace purposely goes out and seeks confrontation – not in democratic debate with lawmakers, but in violent and at times bloody collisions with companies or organisations it disagrees with. Not long ago Greenpeace attacked French fishermen, who were minding their own business, working long days to make ends meet. If you’re against over-fishing, it’s okay. But take the issue up with the responsible lawmakers. That’s the appropriate avenue. Don’t go vandalising and sabotaging legal businesses and putting families in financial jeopardy. Hat tip P Gosselin […]
Hmm… my take on it: A highly mechanized agro-industrial system allows us in the developed world to do as we please, largely without ever working hard. Some people use their leisure to find thrills; for some it’s burning cars under the guise of leftism, for some it’s this law-breaking sea tourism operation on board a Greenpeace vessel. The cause is interchangeable; the action is what’s important. They are all vulnerable people; they are True Believers as described by Eric Hoffer.
I think the lower ranks of the activist organizations all lack the capability of strategical thinking.
I’ve seen the Whale wars show on animal planet a couple of times, with the Steve Irwin. I don’t agree with whailing but after watching the show I am on the whalers side. Or mostly against Greenpeace.
The “science” supporting AGW has pretty much been shredded.
So, do we think AGW will go quietly into this good night with its tail between its legs? The documentation in this post makes me think we are in for the fight of our lives…
Finally got around to watching the video – only had bad mobile connectivity the last days. The kid looks malnourished – not enough iron, very pale, shadows under the eyes, probably vegetarian or vegan – and is worried about his future. I would give him the advice to have more hamburgers, eggs, milk, maybe a pile of German bratwurst, or a T-bone steak. If his parents read this: Go put your kid on an iron-rich animal protein-laden diet immediately. It’s good for his future.
Repy: Don’t forget the Pommes und Mayo! (Myself I prefer ketchup) – PG
Greenland to GreenPeace: Your hunger for publicity is putting our lives at risk
Reply: Thanks, now I know what my next post will be about. More needs to be written on how the organisation has lost its way.
That kid in the video is enough to make one sick to their stomach and so is the whole of the Greenpiece filth
That’s not a Greenpeace vessel.
That’s Sea Shepherd, an organisation infested with criminal super loonies that even Greenpeace rejected.
im all for sea shepard. Someone needs to defend the oceans.
But i would sure love to punch that little rat headed kid in the face.
Punch the kid? No violence please – we aren’t like Greenpeace!
Sea Shepherd have a chequered history of endangering lives at sea. As pointed out above, the right place to tackle these issues is with Lawmakers. Putting anyone (regardless of how these Left wing crazies think of them) in danger on the High Sea is not only committing an act of outright bastardry, it is against International Maritime Law, and needs to be prosecuted to it’s full extent.
Too right, we are in for a fight against Left Wing Idealism. All they’ve done is replace Russia with the Environment. Everything else is the same, and they are a Clear and Present Danger to our way of life.
I really don’t like Greenies very much… at all…
Ummmm, can anyone say child actor? It’s obvoius he’s reading from a script, it probably has and parts in it. “Your either with us, or against us”? It’s a parody of George Bush and his famous little line. Take a few deep breaths, it’s all fine.
Becuase of your sensationalism on the above issue, you’re not fully grasping the overall message they’re sending. It’s “STOP F(-snip) UP THE WORLD YOU GUYS, or our kids won’t have a good live and probably resent us”.
Reply: You’re ignoring the method employed, and what the child learns from it. But at least now it seems you realise what an utter embarassment this has been, and now are trying to downplay it. “Ha ha – we we’re just kidding!” Pretty lame, I must say.
Sensationalising? Oh dear oh dear, not that Greenpeace would ever do such a thing. -PG
I can’t see how it’s an embarrasment. I think it’s embarrasing for you that you’re getting so worked up over one child’s welfare, when it’s obviously not in jepordy. Child actors get thousands of roles where they have to act angry or evil and it doesn’t affect them in their everyday lives. Do you think Draco Malfoy is going to grow up to be an evil wizard because of his role in the Harry Potter movies? Did the children from the Lord of the Flies movies grew up to be cannibals?
Here it’s slightly different, because he’s presenting one sides facts, selling Greenpeace’s ideas, and looking mean doing it. Is it dangerous because he’s presenting facts rather than fantasy? After filming this he probably went off and got a Cheeseburger and auditioned for Spy Kids 3.
It’s also not a “ha ha, just kidding” situation, it’s parodying the phrase that Bush to make a point that slow-witted conservatives understand, because the language is over-simplified. It’s more a “ha ha right wing catchphrases can be used both ways” nod to the people that understand the situation.
Also, even if this child is indoctrinated up the waazo with Greenpeace memes, how is it any different to the kids homeschooled by end times evangelicals or gun-toting rednecks? There are kids out there younger than him that know how to shoot guns, and I’d say 95% of those come from conservative families. If this is the worst they have to offer they’ve got a way to go yet.
Also, with the Sea Shepard incidence, I’ll say this: Hardcore Lefties go to Greenpeace, Right wingers join Blackwater. Which do you think is more violent?
Oh! I get it – Blackwater and rednecks do it, and so it’s okay if Greenpeace kids do it too. Brilliant argument! (Be happy I even took the time to answer the nonsense).
Whoops. Looking at your site a little more closely that last post might have worked a little better on an American/Right wing website rather than a German climate science denial website. My bad. Followed a link here and it’s not really what I expected on just reading this post.
We did understand you, Geoff. But it’s interesting that you think that your argument might have worked better with that audience, and less well with that other audience. The art of dialectic materialism? 😉
Let me see if I have this right Geoff. Knowing how to shoot a gun at a young age proves that you are mentally deranged.
It’s really sad how far the left has sunk.
[…] The rest: Greenpeace Violence Is Escalating: “The Lines Are Drawn” […]
[…] Greenpeace exploits and brainwashes a child to make a hate speech. […]
[…] the impressive collection of crazy, no? But we’re not done yet. Greenpeace is escalating the ‘climate war’, then they fly their operatives home. We are warned environmentalists are ‘getting mad as […]
[…] the director of GREENPEACE, who constantly refers to “peaceful environmental groups”. Ahem. Of course, that speaks to his character, not his arguments–but I think I’ve covered […]