This past weekend, the World Economic Forum wrapped up, and the main issue in the press was not some of the daft things proposed by the global elites. No, what had the press bothered is that those of us on the right noticed the inanities.
As noted prior, things began to go sideways early in Davos, Switzerland, when a panel allegedly addressing disinformation was headed up by the famed practitioner of that craft, Brian Stelter. But more speeches and more proposals were trotted out, and the press appears to be rather bothered by the fact that these details were reported on by conservative media.
"In increasingly mainstream corners of the internet and on conservative talk shows," writes Sophia Tulp of the Associated Press, "'The Great Reset' has become shorthand for what skeptics say is a reorganization of society, using global uncertainty as a guise to take away rights. Believers argue that measures including pandemic lockdowns and vaccine mandates are tools to consolidate power and undercut individual sovereignty." She appears bothered by the use of this phrase, except it was not created out of whole cloth. "The Great Reset" was coined by the WEF in 2020.
Tulp resorts to an "expert" who guides us through the pitfalls of quoting the things spoken at the WEF. "This isn't a conspiracy that is playing out on the extreme fringes," said Alex Friedfeld, a researcher with the Anti-Defamation League who studies anti-government extremism. "We're seeing it on mainstream social media platforms being shared by regular Americans. We were seeing it being spread by mainstream media figures right on their prime time news, on their nightly networks."
Tulp goes on to cite that Fox News, in particular, has been attached to that phrase, invoking the term as much as 60 times in 2022. Imagine the obsession, alluding to "The Great Reset" barely more than once a week!
Joining in on the condemnation of the right-wing press noticing things was Oliver Darcy, the man bequeathed CNN's media watchdog duties when his mentor Stelter had been dispatched last Fall. Darcy, in a recent "Reliable Sources" newsletter entry, is bothered by all of the talks of nefarious proposals being made at the conference. He references a Glenn Beck interview where he entertained a guest "who claimed, unchallenged, that the gathered world leaders want you to eat insects rather than meat." He was echoing Tulp, who also insisted this was a right-wing conspiracy. "Social media users claimed leaders wanted to force the population to eat insects instead of meat in the name of saving the environment."
Why was there the need to challenge someone when the WEF has been doing precisely that?! There are a number of articles attesting to the very goal of getting people to transition to a bug-based diet, touting the merits of this foodstuff and listing off its benefits. And Oliver, Sophia? These were all found on the WEF website.
Last week, the CEO of Siemans spoke at the Davos conference, and he proposed that we, as a planet, need to move 1 billion people off of eating meat. "And I predict that we will have proteins not coming from meat, in the future."
This is not even something being looked at as a future enterprise – it is happening right now. This month, the European Union approved the use of insect-based protein powder for commercial food production, authorizing the placing on the market of Acheta domesticus (house cricket) partially defatted powder as a novel food. This cricket powder is now acceptable to be used in the production of foods such as multigrain bread, crackers, cereal bars, biscuits, beer-like beverages, chocolates, sauces, whey powder, soups, and other items "intended for the general population."
Yep, those crazy conservatives are at it again, noticing when the authorities are acting in a manner that the press claims is just a fantasy. Seriously, how can allegedly professional journalists pretend they are deluding people with their deflecting accusations when this is easily verifiable information?! But, pretend they do, and they seek out sycophantic "experts" to push their claims.
"When we have very high levels of ambiguity, it's very easy to fill in narratives," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who is the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Well, Ms. Jamieson, one might suggest that when you have these very high levels of ambiguity delivered by heads of state, business executives, cultural trendsetters, and representatives from international organizations who gather for a global conference, the blame should rest with those elites for not being clear enough in their proposals. (For the record, I am one of those "ones who might suggest"”)
These high-minded elitists are suggesting global change, yet they are the same who utter unfocused proposals. That ambiguity may, in fact, be by design, as the open-ended plans leave open numerous possibilities down the road. You are mad at those filling in the blanks but not those who originally laid out those blank spaces.
Then you have the very evidence arising that dispels the claim of conspiracies being weaved. That subsequent proof, of course, makes for inconveniences in the reporting – so it is the decision to not report on them at all. This way, the accusations stand, and the outrage is justified.