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

I'm not doing the research for you.

Look at the reports i provided for the US Territory, it was Jay who brought up the UK.

a reply to: Grenade
I thought that was what I was looking at. This right?

greenpeacefund.org...

a reply to: daskakik

Don't have time to look just now, at work.

I did pull these figures from one of their reports:

Consolidated Statement of Income and Expenditure 2018
(all amounts in EUR 000s )

Income
Contribution from Greenpeace Organisations
80,006 81,258
Other income
3,934 1,302
Total income
82,560 83,940

Expenditure
Grants to Greenpeace Organisations
32,935 33,184
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

Campaign Support
Media and Communications
2,573 2,504
Marine Operations and Action Support
13,316 12,374
Totals
15,889 14,878
Global Engagement and Fundraising
6,989 7,025
Organisational Support
14,299 14,421
Total expenditure
80,839 80,792

Surplus before Share of Result in Participating interests and Financial Result 3,101 1,768
Share of Result in Participating Interests 2 11
Financial Result 22 (1,647) (1,736)
Surplus/(Deficit) after Share of Result in Participating interests and Financial Result 1,456 43

a reply to: Grenade
Found it. Stichting Greenpeace Council consolidated Financial Statements
Still, total revenue 83,940,000, salaries 12,734,000. Still only around 15%

Also, this is the HQ and they send money to local chapters for them to run campaigns.

Grants to Greenpeace Organisations 32,935,000
Campaigns 10,727,000
Campaign support 15,889,000
Total = 59,551,000

a reply to: daskakik

To be fair you would need a proper study to get any real accuracy, due to the way the organisation is structured. I just don't have the time.

That's just the financial side, there's plenty more shady dealings to dive into.

a reply to: daskakik

Grants to Greenpeace organisations are not entirely used for campaigns. In fact, from what i can see scanning over the accounts of the various territories, these funds don't have any well defined use.

Absolutely no way Greenpeace spends 94% on campaigns globally. No-where near.

a reply to: Grenade
Well, I was the one who said early on that you and Jay-Morris can both be kinda right.

If people are being paid to organize a campaign then, even if they get paid a salary for it, and registered in that part of the report, it is part of the campaign. That is probably how they do it to get to the really high number.

Salaries are still not 60%. Whatever they are I don't really care.

a reply to: daskakik

That's my point about creative accounting personified.

Personally over the years i've read too many horror stories about Greenpeace to have any faith in it's mission. Once you become a global entity generating 100's of millions the message becomes lost and the opportunity for systematic chicanery increases.

a reply to: Grenade
But even if that is the case, the 60% for salaries is bunk and campaigns are getting 70% according to the source you provided.

All I said was that the source you provided didn't back up the original claims.

a reply to: daskakik

My initial claims are based on the expose.

I’ve ordered the book as French is my second language, I will translate and post the reference material when it arrives.

a reply to: Grenade
And someone countered with their own claims and, despite a lot of back and forth, nothing was substantiated.

I don't think there will be much need for the translated reference material.

a reply to: daskakik

Well it would be good practice if i post reference material substantiating my claims. You don't however have to read it.

a reply to: Grenade
I doubt you will have anything new.

You have not been able to substantiate your claims with other sources.

Besides, you would be using the claims in the book and backing them up with the book. That is circular logic.

a reply to: daskakik

From my understanding the book contains internal documentation from Greenpeace themselves.

a reply to: Grenade

Probably, but the reply to your claims was that currently the org is overseen and whatever is in the book is dated.

a reply to: daskakik

I can't help what people reply to take the focus away from my claims.

a reply to: Grenade
Your claims will remain unsubstantiated, even with the info from the book. The sources you provided did that. You are arguing against yourself.

a reply to: daskakik

Ok, lets just bury the facts then.

Are you actually offering anything to this thread in the way of resources or references or just going to focus on criticism of mine?

originally posted by: Grenade
Ok, lets just bury the facts then.

Let's look at the facts for what they are. Someone at Greenpeace France got greedy 25 years ago.

Are you actually offering anything to this thread in the way of resources or references or just going to focus on criticism of mine?

I did find that one that you quoted and didn't source.

Also, I'm not criticizing your sources, I am pointing out that your sources contradict your claims and a second posting of the book you already used as a source isn't going to change anything.

a reply to: daskakik

If the book provides internal documentation showing Greenpeace spent 60% on salaries it validates my claim.

That would then make it a fact!

Not someone at Greenpeace France, the entire territorial operation!

Lets just see what the evidence suggests?

Are you able to understand French or would you like me to translate before posting?