Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

111

Climate child Greta Thunberg is the subject of a new criminal investigation after she tweeted a list of her scripted marching orders, apparently accidentally, to her 4.8 million Twitter followers.

It appears as though the 18-year-old global warming activist was trying to tweet an “organic” post in support of the farmers protest in India when she mistakenly shared a document from her handlers outlining tactics for rallying left-wing Twitter users to join the movement.

“These are just some suggested posts, but feel free to tweet your own,” read the first bullet point on the document, which Greta quickly deleted once she realized, apparently, what she had done.

“It’s helpful if you add images or videos to your tweets (some images below),” the document went on to explain. “You can also tag others who can either reshare and/or the potential tags listed above to put pressure on them as well.”

Below these instructions was a series of sample tweets with a “CLICK HERE TO TWEET” button for each one. All Greta had to do, it appears, was click on one and pretend it was her own, and voila: instant support from her drone followers.

“The list gave a series of tips on what to post, asking her to also repost and tag other celebrities tweeting about it, including pop star Rihanna,” reported the New York Post.

“As well as the Twitter storm, the ‘toolkit’ she shared also suggested highlighting planned demonstrations at Indian embassies.”

Climate child Greta Thunberg is the subject of a new criminal investigation after she tweeted a list of her scripted marching orders, apparently accidentally, to her 4.8 million Twitter followers. It appears as though the 18-year-old global warming activist was trying to tweet an “organic” post in support of the farmers protest in India when she mistakenly shared a document from her handlers outlining tactics for rallying left-wing Twitter users to join the movement. “These are just some suggested posts, but feel free to tweet your own,” read the first bullet point on the document, which Greta quickly deleted once she realized, apparently, what she had done. “It’s helpful if you add images or videos to your tweets (some images below),” the document went on to explain. “You can also tag others who can either reshare and/or the potential tags listed above to put pressure on them as well.” Below these instructions was a series of sample tweets with a “CLICK HERE TO TWEET” button for each one. All Greta had to do, it appears, was click on one and pretend it was her own, and voila: instant support from her drone followers. “The list gave a series of tips on what to post, asking her to also repost and tag other celebrities tweeting about it, including pop star Rihanna,” reported the New York Post. “As well as the Twitter storm, the ‘toolkit’ she shared also suggested highlighting planned demonstrations at Indian embassies.”

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (116).
[–] • 0 pt

Where's the MSM promotion of this guy though? Mostly I'm seeing organic interest from normies taking him as their first redpill.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

That's a fair question, but I'd return with a couple of points.

(1) I don't take Jordan to be an authentic redpill. I suppose this depends upon your definition, but there's no mistaking the fact that Jordan discourages thinking in conspiratorial terms. He has used several mainstream psychological arguments for why such thinking is effectively irrational (the system is too complex to identify these kinds of patterns, except if they're Jungian archetypes of course) and a cop out (delocalization of self-control through externalization).

A public rebuke of Communist ideology and the psychology that gets you there might be on the way to a redpill, if it causes a person to question today's cultural Marxism, but I don't think it constitutes a redpill proper. His counterpoint is basically to warn against group identity, which constitutes potentially perilous advice when a highly ethnocentric class of enemy with a powerful historical group identity is what you're up against.

(2) Are there many academics getting huge legacy media exposure (matching the level Jordan is online)? Your question seems to imply that this is necessary for my earlier comment to be true. Today's 'mainstream' media caters to a shrinking and specific market segment. Influential personalities in the digital world like Rogan or Jones or Shapiro were never mainstream media starlets either (with the exception of Joe's Fear Factor). Given the demographics that Jordan demonstrated his appeal to, it's clear that television was never going to be his springboard. This division between information sources (legacy versus the internet) has been a kind of hallmark of a movement that paralleled Jordan's rise, along with the other pet names like Rogan, Rubin, Shapiro, Crowder, etc.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't take Jordan to be an authentic redpill. I suppose this depends upon your definition, but there's no mistaking the fact that Jordan discourages thinking in conspiratorial terms.

I don't mean that he's an express freight train to rejecting globalism, he's the first stop along the way. That's why he's so popular: He's presenting a marginal shift away from basic-bitch leftyism without requiring his listeners to make huge leaps away from what they know. Whether or not they take the next step is up for them.

Are there many academics getting huge legacy media exposure (matching the level Jordan is online)?

From what I've seen he's gotten a few hostile interviews, and that's about it. I wouldn't call that huge legacy media exposure, mostly he's been successful through organic sharing on social media.

And yes, they do have pet lefty academics they shower with much more attention and actively attempt to promote.

[–] • 0 pt

I wouldn't call that huge legacy media exposure

Yep, that was my point exactly. I don't see the academic types getting a whole shitload of legacy media exposure at all. Even Jordan's interviews tended to be online posts. As far as the lefty professors, you do see handfuls of them get interview spots on MSNBC panels and the like, but it doesn't seem like any real charismatics have been put forward by the Left lately who are strictly academics. Chomsky is still somewhat relevant, but the last two I recollect making waves were McKinnon and Paglia. Cornel West gets some mainstream attention, and he's always a racial sympathizer. Overall it seems like the news programming itself has become the major manipulator in mainstream media.

People today are so beholden to authority, it hardly matters anymore what professor (or whatever fancy title they grab) makes the appearance. The news just has to set the person up as an expert and the boomer crowd begins nodding heads.