Life with the Thunbergs

Yesterday’s Observer has a long extract from the book written jointly by the Thunberg family about their famous daughter. The extract is by Greta’s mother, opera singer Malena Ernman, and I found it extraordinarily interesting and moving.

She discusses the family’s struggle to deal with Greta’s psychological problems with apparently admirable honesty, and much that seemed obscure and suspicious about the sudden appearance of Greta on the world media stage suddenly becomes clear. There is no need to posit a conspiracy by media-savvy luvvies to exploit their sick child. The fact that journalists, film-makers and Greenpeace activists buzzed round her from the beginning like flies round a honeypot is the most natural thing in our peculiar world. Malena and her husband actor Svante Thunberg come over as less than perfect parents, but what parents are perfect? And how many would own up to their imperfections like this, even in the cause of saving the planet?

If there’s a villain in the story, it’s the school, which seems to have responded with the sensitivity of a 19thcentury Lutheran pastor. The health authorities eventually came up with a sensible sounding psychiatric diagnosis, but we don’t learn much about that. Psychological “help” comes in a hundred different forms, but psychoanalysis or family therapy are never mentioned.

When Malena was pregnant with Greta, she and her husband decided that, since he earned far less than she did, it was sensible for him to give up work.

So now I’m a housewife.”

The sentence appears like that in the text, and from the context it can only be an interpellation by Svante. I’d say “househusband,” but maybe the Swedish language is different.

So Malena is pregnant, and Svante stops working. OK, it makes economic sense. But maximising your revenue is not what life’s about, is it? Since saving the planet implies that we’re all going to have to take a cut in our living standards anyway, why not start by giving the pregnant mother-to-be a break? If you’re an Asian peasant you don’t have that choice. But if you’re a couple of well-paid cultural workers in the most advanced, feminised country in the world, you do. A therapist might make the same observation, but far less brutally of course.

The rest of the article details how Greta became the person she is, and how her militant action appears to have cured her of a life-threatening psychological disorder. It’s a touching story of a family’s struggle against a situation which would have destroyed less caring, thoughtful people.

The message I take from it (and I’ve only read this small part of the whole story) is the message which is central both to the major religions and to psychotherapy: that we can only be saved one person at a time.

Which is the exact opposite of the message which Greta and her supporters are conveying, of course.


  1. PS
    The Guardian, bless it, manages to completely destroy the effect of the Thunberg Erman story in an accompanying article
    which contains an embedded video interview with the anti-Thunbergs, a climate activist lady and her daughter who tour Hertfordshire in a Mercedes 4X4 with a large dog annoying the natives with their climate proselytism. The mother is, by her own account, quite mad, while the daughter, who resembles Greta physically, seems extremely well-balanced.


  2. OK, I’ve got part way through now and I can see that the young Greta is a very, very disturbed child, with an eating disorder and a real feeling of ‘disconnectedness’ from her peers. She comes across as different to her peers and she is bullied mercilessly in response. She loved her dog because he loved her, unconditionally, and was not judgemental. I can relate to all that and sympathise. The anorexia though is a life theatening psycho-physical disorder which they were lucky to get on top of. Hopefully they have – Karen Carpenter died from starvation even though she had everything in terms of wealth and fame and real talent.

    The authorities ‘diagnosed’ her condition, labeled it, recognised it officially and thereafter she seemed to get better. But she didn’t. She just shifted the focus of her psychological unease onto the environment and matured just enough to be able to cope with and adapt to that transition. But here’s the thing. Here’s where the dishonesty of her parents comes in. Her original dismay was at the amount of plastic pollution in the oceans, something which is tangible and understandable. But then, seamlessly, her mother leaps straight from that first environmental ‘awakening’ to talking about CO2.

    “In school one day, Greta’s class watches a film about how much rubbish there is in the oceans. An island of plastic, larger than Mexico, is floating around in the South Pacific. Greta cries throughout the film . . . . . . .

    She saw what the rest of us did not want to see. It was as if she could see our CO2 emissions with her naked eye. The invisible, colourless, scentless, soundless abyss that our generation has chosen to ignore. She saw all of it – not literally, of course, but nonetheless she saw the greenhouse gases streaming out of our chimneys, wafting upwards with the winds and transforming the atmosphere into a gigantic, invisible garbage dump.”

    Spot that? Straight from a real environmental problem to an imaginary Thermageddon caused by planet-destroying GHGs. It’s bullshit. What happened in between is what I want to know. Who brainwashed the young Greta into believing in man-made climate change?

    Liked by 4 people

  3. If there wasn’t a Greta, there’d be a Hreta or Ireta or… …Yreta or Zreta. Possibly not female although this is much more likely for millenarian prophets; with or without a syndrome, nevertheless an ideal vehicle for that which they represent. Strong cultural movements create conditions which will surface, from an immense diversity of humanity and numerous adherents, those who’ll most closely identify with the culture and most effectively wield its narrative as commands. She’s a modern Nongqawuse.

    It is indeed deeply ironic that the saving of one child lends such a powerful tool to catastrophic climate culture. And hence global damage. And this is the real sense of her being a tool, not really one of her parents financial or fame interests I think; to a large extent they appear to be sucked in too. I wonder if Nongqawuse’s uncle was also grateful she’d settled into a noble cause. However, there’s a sense in which Greta’s personal psychology matters not a jot; there’s an endless supply of Xreta’s and a powerful process in play that would inevitably surface one. And just as easily drop her, should the culture evolve on a direction where this becomes optimal.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Jaime:

    “Straight from a real environmental problem to an imaginary Thermageddon…”

    It is indeed a real environmental problem, but it wasn’t quite in one leap. The plastic problem was also over-scarily presented, there is no Mexico sized island of plastic. Wiki: ‘Despite the common public perception of the patch existing as giant islands of floating garbage, its low density (4 particles per cubic meter) prevents detection by satellite imagery, or even by casual boaters or divers in the area.’ And of course many other steps, also mal-communicated whether some real basis or not, e.g. the polar bears. Huge conflation and exaggeration and misinformation – a diet of same to the young is counter-productive to say the least.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Maybe Greta and the rest of the mob that has swallowed the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis have unfortunately inherited a very strong version of the gullibility gene.

    ” .. What causes gullibility? According to scientists .. gullibility developed from the positive need to acquire knowledge from other members of your herd. Being ready to learn about the world from the experiences of others is thought to have been a major factor in human development.

    Gullibility is an inherited condition .. Hearts, flowers, true love and alcohol are often aggravating features .. “. (

    Well, would you believe it!!!!!!


  6. Andy, Dan Hannan has a good article in the Telegraph which I imagine aligns quite closely with your views on climate alarmism as a predominantly cultural phenomenon:

    “When I say “we”, I don’t mean the general population: most people take the sensible view that damaging property is a more serious matter than expressing an opinion. I am referring, rather, to what Antonio Gramsci called the “cultural hegemony”, the dominant ideology as upheld by public intellectuals, broadcasters, politicians, commentators and, these days, actors. It is to their mood, not that of the country at large, that ambitious chief constables defer.

    Hence the readiness to see Extinction Rebellion, whose vandalism in Cambridge is just the latest in a series of destructive protests, as well-meaning. Yes, they may go too far, we are supposed to think, and yes, they may technically break the law, but at least their hearts are in the right place.

    In fact, Extinction Rebellion is a profoundly illiberal, anti-democratic and misanthropic movement. It displays a disregard for the scientific consensus that would shame even the most extreme climate change sceptic. Its claims are not exaggerations, but inventions. It tells us that “billions will die” of climate change, when not a single scientific body thinks that. It says climate change is causing mass population movements, when the chief causes of migration are economic ambition and political violence.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. JAIME 24 Feb 20 10.38am

    The authorities ‘diagnosed’ her condition, labeled it, recognised it officially and thereafter she seemed to get better.

    The authorities seem to have done nothing for her. Her parents disapproved of the strike, but let her carry on because she seemed happier. She only started to “get better” when two passing Greenpeace activists offered her a vegan snack – a tale straight out of a Mediaeval “Lives of the Saints,” as Andy will no doubt note.

    Do you all like the image of “an army of Greta Thunbergs” concocted by the Guardian, that opens the video? Nothing mediaeval about that. It recalls far more recent history.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Greta is not the Messiah, she’s just an emotionally very fragile girl. The world of make-believe she has constructed around herself – with huge assistance from the media, politicians, Green activists, celebrities and hordes of adoring fans – is going to come crashing down to earth. It has to. Real, visceral public anger is growing exponentially now that the true social, economic and even environmental costs of net zero climate change mitigation policies are becoming apparent. There is anger at the deception employed to disguise those costs, anger at the deceptive way their dubious effectiveness has been covered up. There is also real anger at the grand deception played out by climate scientists, activists and politicians re. the communication of the ‘science’ and ‘evidence’ which supposedly points to a ‘climate emergency’ happening now and getting much, much worse if we don’t go Middle Ages by next Friday. Greta saved herself by saving the world, but the world is not going to save her when the cultural spell of climate change alarmism wears off. That may be far off; it may be just around the corner.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. As Andrew Montford’s GWPF report concludes ” .. If we accept the figures shown in this paper, it is implausible that the cost of decarbonisation to net zero – running to several thousand pounds per household per year – will prove acceptable to voters. Much of the problem can be put down to the absurd cost of off-shore wind power and dealing with its intermittency, but the wholesale cost of electricity is only a third of the price paid by customers; delivering electricity to customers is an expensive business. Even if electricity could be produced for free, decarbonisation of domestic heat would leave customers considerably out of pocket.
    Perhaps more importantly, however, the costs far outweigh any reasonable estimate of the damage done by a tonne of carbon dioxide: Gibson and Aris suggest the cost of decarbonising the electricity system is £1.4 trillion, yielding emissions reductions of 2 GtCO2e. So even if the cost is discounted, each tonne of abatement would still cost hundreds of pounds, far more than any reasonable estimate of the cost of the damage done by greenhouse gases, typically £30 or £40/t.
    The conclusions are therefore rather stark: any attempt to decarbonise the power system in the way envisaged by the CCC and National Grid is futile and will do more harm than good. And any attempt to decarbonise domestic heat – either through insulation or electri cation –will be disastrous too. That said, the alternative scenarios developed by Gibson and Aris suggest paths that are more likely to be successful, if only partially so, and not on the timescales demanded. Their nuclear scenario, in particular, might lead to a fundamental change, particularly if the small modu- lar nuclear programme is retrieved from its current position in the long grass; Allam cycle gas tur- bines might also bring about a transformation of the energy landscape.21,22 But there should be no doubt that renewables represent a monumentally expensive dead end. The madness must stop .. “.

    Will it stop? I doubt any time soon. It the mindless support for Extinction Rebellion is anything to go by then I doubt any time soon. Our politicians need the votes of the gullible.

    [changed 2 words in the last sentence, I hope correctly _ Geoff]


  10. Jamie,
    At the risk of encountering the expected ridicule of my Catholic faith, I should point out that “our” delusional Pope, just yesterday, blamed global warming for having a large part to play in the influx of our ‘religion of peace’ visitors into Europe.
    I know, I know – he is as much of a scientist as Blundering Boris or crazy Bernie Sanders, but as we are discussing Saint Greta I just thought I would mention it – the religion of global warming.
    And btw no one has ever seen or measured this “vast” floating flotsam in the Pacific.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. @Pete from up top about half twelve, re: gullibility

    I don’t think you need to be gullible to believe CO2 is going to wreck the planet. It’s entirely rational. Think of it this way. The easy info is solidly in one direction and folks are exposed to it from an early age. All it takes after that is for someone to either: not seek out contrary opinions, or not seek out raw data, and if they do not, there is really no way to shift that belief.

    For my part, I accepted the catastrophe idea (starting an ecology degree in ’88), my problem more than anything a naive belief in the infallibility of science. The first thing that really put a crack in that was a graph of CO2 levels during the era of life on Earth I saw on wiki: if prehistoric CO2 levels were several times higher than the threatened 560 ppm, then…


  12. Patrick, I don’t think the Pope and his absurd pontifications about climate change, migration and Islam brings ridicule to the Catholic Church – mainly on account of the fact that I don’t think he’s a Catholic. He must be the first Pope ever who lends doubt to the traditional saying ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’


  13. I think the pope is trying to shift Catholicism towards Unitarianism, which is probably not a bad thing. Unfortunately, he’s also shifting it towards Malthusianism. He famously, likes to sneak out at night to go feed the poor, so this is a bit self indulgent. If the world goes Cornucopian, what does it need him for?


  14. JAIME 24 Feb 20 9:52pm

    “…the first Pope ever who lends doubt to the traditional saying ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’”

    And when one sees what a mess the bears have been making in the world’s stock markets today, a sceptic doesn’t know what traditional sayings he can pin his faith on any more.


  15. “If there wasn’t a Greta, there’d be a Hreta or Ireta or… …Yreta or Zreta. Possibly not female

    They’re always female. And just at puberty (in Greta’s case, delayed by her eating). A boy would seem like an idiot if he tried the tears and histrionics. They need to seem vulnerable and like they couldn’t possibly be lying, or they would be torn apart by those who might otherwise be sceptical.

    The only male equivalent I can think of was Stephen of Cloyes and Nicholas the Shephard with the Children’s Crusade.


  16. Thanks Jamie,
    Yes many of us “cradle” Cats. have long ago had to stop asking that question ‘ is the pope a Catholic’
    I think the answer to that one has to be ‘Wait a minute – I’ll ask George Soros’

    Liked by 1 person

  17. If Greta believed, until recently, her life was one that wasn’t worth living, the most useful response she could have met with is an agreement. After all, a life spent believing it wasn’t worth staying alive to live, is a life which actually is not worth anybody living. As an obstacle to living, the belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy (or a vicious cycle) – unless the missing object able to counter and disengage that belief is found.

    By contrast – and as illustrated by the Guardian excerpt – Greta’s mother believed her own life was very much worth living… not only for herself, but for the privilege of all those who provided it with a nightly fix of adulation and ovation in the world’s opera houses. It may be that Greta’s mum had become so used to this affirmation that even to contemplate its absence (for example, as a requirement to being a good-enough parent to a new child) was to face a life she believed would have no perceivable worth.

    If Greta’s life was missing the adulation appropriate to her age (or, if she felt what did came her way was insincerely given and by someone altogether preoccupied in the pursuit of a praise which necessarily excluded her daughter), a refusal to swallow its substitutes – be it food, an education or the social value her peers placed in material accruements – may be seen as the act of a saboteur. Put another way, Greta discovered that as long as she maintained a militancy, she could distract the attention of the mother away from her own neediness and focus it upon the real needs of her daughter.

    Being as unguarded as she could dare to be, Greta then brilliantly diagnoses her mum as suffering from “celebrity” – a condition whose symptoms, in this instance, pretty much all boil down to “ignoring me and my needs as your daughter”. For the young Swede, taking away the aeroplane from someone addicted to universal adulation is akin to taking away the syringe from a heroin addict – that is to say, it cuts off the means of access in the hope that the ‘patient’ will find something more worthwhile (and closer to home) to stay alive for. And with that, the young Swede brushed aside the countless inhumane and mechanical categorisations the medical ‘experts’ had further ensnared her in and thoroughly outclassed them all in identifying the actual cause of her despair – and its cure.

    I suppose it’s somewhat ironic that, having famously rescued herself in this way, we now find Greta travelling the world to soak up universal adulation (Greta’s life has become worth living by telling everyone else their’s isn’t). Like mother, like daughter – as they say.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Hi Jit,
    Reference “gullible” in relation to the Catastrophic Anthropogeibic Climate Change (CACC) religion, here’s a relevant quote from atheist W. Cassity-Guilliam ” .. Faith is selective gullibility, a virus, every drop of which contaminates reason and honesty with the comfortable poison of self-deception .. “.
    Many otherwise intelligent individuals demonstrate selective gullibility in their support of the CACC hypothesis.

    Parents, guardians and teachers carry much of the responsibility for this because they fail to encourage their charges to think for themselves and question what they are told. It does make it more difficult to control them but pays dividends in the long run.

    As I understand it, those with ASD have a tendency to be more gullible than normal, accepting on face value what they are told.


  19. Pete R:

    “Faith is selective gullibility, a virus, every drop of which contaminates reason and honesty with the comfortable poison of self-deception…”

    Albeit there’s a gist here which is true, this is an overly dramatic way to put it and somewhat misdirecting too. Strong culture (as spread by emotive narratives aka emotive memes aka mind viruses) bypasses rather than contaminates reason. This is an important difference because a) outside of the domain of the relevant culture, the rationality of afflicted individuals will be working perfectly fine and 2) we all share the mechanism that allows this bypass at brain architecture level. Also, honesty is not ‘contaminated’ for most people; the bypass is simply so strong that most of those who have been sucked into cultural belief *honestly* and passionately think that they are doing the right and most noble things. For a typically small minority in whom the belief is especially strong, they may potentially be dishonest in finding some means to further the culture’s goals. This for sure *is* dishonesty, but not in the sense of trying to foster something they know is false, but in the sense of cheating to desperately foster something they think is the most important *correct* and honest cause there can be. We know this as ‘noble cause corruption’.

    “As I understand it, those with ASD have a tendency to be more gullible than normal, accepting on face value what they are told…”

    It would be more accurate to say they tend to interpret things they are told more literally, which as the latter part of your sentence implies, is not the same as gullible. They may think these things very odd and (usually cognisant of their own condition) struggle often to understand what the real meaning might be, which isn’t the same as wholesale belief every time. If the literal interpretation just seems too bizarre, it could be they’ll reject the whole thing. The effect of ASD when interacting with strong culture is not fully known, but for instance it was thought at one time that there wouldn’t be many religious ASD folks, because interpreting religious narrative relies on *subconsciously* knowing that it is *not* literal. If ordinary folks took religion literally, for example, the levels of belief and rule adherence would be far far higher, because everyone would ‘know’ that they’d burn in Hell if they didn’t follow the rules. But even in religious societies with high belief, very few truly follow the rules as though they’re literally true. These rules really just say “I’m in the same club as you, we’re part of the same group”, and somehow, we know about this encoding for strong culture and we know not to take it literally. But as has become clearer now, there are many religious ASD folks as well as atheist ones, and although some of the former have described their belief, I don’t think it’s generically understood. In theory, their literal interpretation ought to come to a fork in the road at some point when they are old enough to understand the narratives – a) these fairy tales are true, and everyone who pays lip-service to the belief but *isn’t* doing all the things they say one should, are being lazy / dishonest / pretending / whatever, or b) the fairy tales are simply not true and it is the propagation of these fairy tales themselves that is utterly wrong. The latter is of course the real answer. Unfortunately, in the case of catastrophic climate culture, Greta took a) not b). She *correctly* divined that culture narratives don’t really mean what they say (this is absolutely right, they evolved for a different purpose – group cohesion)! Virtue signalling CACC narratives aren’t meant to solve the problem, they’re only meant to advertise who’s in the club. But she picked the wrong answer as to why. More on this here: including children generally and their vulnerability to cultural templates.

    Incidentally, this same difference between what cultural narratives instruct, and what adherents actually do, is why many think that adherents must be lying. But they are not. Their cultural machinery jumps in to interpret and to tell them it is not literal, and bypasses their logic regarding the many contradictions that this causes. In case one thinks this is some kind of flaw, it is a *feature* of all humanity, conferred due to the enormous evolutionary advantage of groups, and this system sticks groups together like super-glue. But it’s a net advantage, to say the least, there are downsides. I don’t think anyone has a clue as to whether it is still an advantage overall, but imagine trying to promote any common purpose in a large group of humans, *without* cultural assistance (‘team spirit’, ‘us versus them’, moral high ground, etc). Without it, a 1000 humans have 1000 different views.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. o/t – Andy West says:….

    No offence Andy, but as a lurker/reader your comments need to be a bit more short & to the point!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  21. “her militant action appears to have cured her of a life-threatening psychological disorder.”

    and replaced it with another…

    She has had a lot of contact with Tyndall’s arch-warmist Kevin Anderson and he advises her on her speeches, which he says she writes herself. He is a visiting professor at Uppsala University.–how-big-is-the-influence-of-your-mentor-.S1bXoGcuV.html
    “The Thunberg family approached me some time ago. Greta was already very interested in climate change. Since she started the strike, we are in regular contact.”

    Here’s a long discussion on what scientists should do with regard to politics. Note it is from “Physics World” which has joined the Press Collusion Cabal, Covering Climate Now. That’s great for a supposedly scientific journal:
    “This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.”

    Prince Charles has joined the fray again, moving his moveable feast for climate catastrophe once more.

    Of course we do need to move towards an economy totally based on renewables:

    “Industry experts expect the complex bidding process to raise record sums, which could increase energy bills and hand a windfall to the crown – potentially generating hundreds of millions for the Queen.

    The Crown Estate, which manages the monarch’s property portfolio, holds exclusive rights to lease the seabed around the British Isles for wind and wave power. Its profits go to the Treasury, which then sends 25% back to the royal household in the form of the sovereign grant.

    The sovereign grant was increased two years ago, from its previous level of 15%, in order to pay for extensive renovations at Buckingham Palace. It is to stay at 25% for a 10-year period, meaning the royal household should benefit directly from the money raised from the new leases.

    The Crown Estate does not make its forecasts public. However, if the government’s 2030 target is met, the Queen [or King Charles, or King William] could be collecting more than £100m a year within a decade.”

    All without lifting a finger, or investing a penny, Harry and Meghan are fools for walking away from this goldmine…

    Sod the wildlife, let’s have the high life:

    Liked by 2 people

  22. The comment by PETERS 25 Feb 12.49pm is also quite long. I urge everyone to read it.

    Activities which involve listening closely to what people say, like psychoanalysis, religious confession and general medical practice, are out of favour, and are being largely replaced with more efficient means of discovering general truths, like psychiatry, opinion surveys, and ten minute speed prescribing. Many websites warn you if an article is likely to take more than three minutes to read. Some things need reading slowly.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Hi Andy,
    You may regard your comments as “explanations” but my reaction to the one directed at me was somewhat similar to that of DFHunter – long-winded expression of unsubstantiated opinion.

    Soon after I started reading it I was reminded of my reaction to Juval Harari’s best-seller “Sapiens: .. ” (a book with which you are familiar). After struggling through the first 20 pages I concluded that Juval was simply offering his own unsubstantiated opinions under the guise of expertise in the subject. Struggling through the next 100 pages did not change that opinion. Your reference to memes immediately brought to mind Juval’s discussion of “human social immaginings” (one of the few ideas about which I had no strong dusagreement).

    I struggled through your article on Judith Curry’s blog – same reaction.

    Thank goodness there are some who think for themselves rather than just accept the science fiction from self-proclaimed experts.


  24. Peter R:
    “Thank goodness there are some who think for themselves rather than just accept the science fiction from self-proclaimed experts.”

    Ah… so you think it’s science fiction, which your independent thought knows is wrong. Well fine, on for instance the article at Climate Etc. then put forward your structured critique as to why it’s wrong. Should be very easy if you think it’s obviously SF. I feel I ought to point out too that probably 97% (to pick a topical figure) of the experts in relevant disciplines, would think I’m wrong regarding the main cultural aspects of CC, because their own biases on the topic have prevented them from looking at this angle. So clearly, some heedless acceptance of expert opinion could hardly be a main factor here (and indeed this angle forms the basis of most of my posts). For that article as with other guest posts, I generally provide copious footnotes showing the root of my thoughts, whether or not they are in agreement with a majority of experts (both apply). For your critique, albeit not in long-form, please provide some of the same.


  25. Geoff C: “Activities which involve listening closely to what people say, like psychoanalysis, religious confession and general medical practice, are out of favour…”

    Another activity which requires “listening closely” is, of course, opera singing. The convention here is that we listen so closely you could hear a pin drop in between the words. Unlike psychoanalysis, religious confession or motherhood, a diva wouldn’t expect the other party to the relationship she’s entered into to interrupt, join in or offer what they consider to be a better interpretation of what she has to say (in this respect, it’s worth wondering what the difference is – if any – between an opera singer and a climate scientist). An overbearing therapist or a preoccupied mother might come to reflect on whether the other person’s responding silence is a listening closely or a protesting mutism.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. On Saturday, TheTimes Mag had a plug for Greta Family book
    Greta article has 5 pages on her and her sister
    + extra page on Asperger’s Chris Packham
    + extra page on Lucy Siegle eco evangelist reporter

    Then Sunday’s Countryfile had an item lauding a 16yo Autistic Eco warrior boy
    … Twitter mostly ignored the progs other agenda pushing items,
    but hundreds of tweets supported that boy
    … I do wont if it was an orchestrated thing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.