This, for those who aren't aware, is a somewhat more eloquent rephrasing of the "Great Reset" neoreactionary conspiracy theory[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Reset#Conspiracy_theorie...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Reset#Conspiracy_theorie...
That's a conspiracy alright, in the sense of coordinated action to specific goals, but hardly a "conspiracy theory".
But of course, if you tag it a "conspiracy theory" knee-jerk idiots will consider it to be the same category as alien abductions, the illuminati, and Elvis being alive...
The former is a "conspiracy" in the sense that there's a bunch of policy being written and applied by various important people, the legitimacy of which you're welcome to contest. But it's not remotely consistent in content with the conspiracy theory, which is a redressing of the iconic "The Other (Jews, Muslims, Last Night's Meatloaf) is going to take away Everything You Value" conspiracy template.
You have some of the wealthiest people in the world flying into Davos on private jets to discuss how society needs to change to save the environment. Pro tip: When they’re talking about society they don’t mean themselves, they mean you. These folks aren’t going to be dining on synthetic meat or cricket protein, and they aren’t going to take public transit or give up a few of their 15 houses to reduce their CO2 footprint.
The reality is they are entirely self serving and it sure would be convenient for them if a few less plebs were crowding up the beaches in Fiji or jamming up the roads in NYC or London when their driver needs to take them to the airport.
It would be a grave error to read these comments as “I endorse whatever our planet’s ultrawealthy think is best for you and me.” I don’t. But that doesn’t mean I’ll hop onto every cheap retelling of the same basic reactionary conspiracy that’s been around for the last 600 years.
Is the above anything else than a word salad to say "thought crime" just with more words?
Label them "reactionary", yeah, because as if being reacted against is "revolutionary". It's convenient how such weasel words can justify anything ("You don't like the gig economy? You're reactionary") - as if there's a monopoly on the definition of societal progress.
>The taboo disgust reaction of eating bugs is just a cherry on top.
Yes. We should rejoice for every such corporate money-making scheme pushed through advertising, subsidies, and policy. And even if eating bugs is not taboo for many, there are still a lot with this taboo about shit eating. They should learn to eat shit with a grin too.
I've read the "broad collection of economic and social policies that generally prioritize environmental and social action" and they're mostly about "getting people to live in the pod and eat the bugs" (and buy into this or that new sector that will serve as an upcoming profit center).
They're not even covert about it, e.g. promoting bug protein as the "solution" to meat production, designing (and legislating) e-cash with full government control and even recommending its use to enforce policy (e.g. driving consumption to specific paths, etc), not to mention the "own nothing" concept (yes, we'll still own some things, just increasingly less, and with more rentiers coming to get a chunk of our income).
>But it's not remotely consistent in content with the conspiracy theory, which is a redressing of the iconic "The Other (Jews, Muslims, Last Night's Meatloaf) is going to take away Everything You Value" conspiracy template.
Nice strawman, but it doesn't have to be Jews, Muslims, or (to further the strawman) Last Night's Meatloaf.
It's enough to be global corporate interests and their lobbies, and government bureaucracies (who historically only know to add to their responsibilities, areas, information they collect and so on, never to take away, and which have been on a huge race on those fronts ever since the 1950s, that got "nuclear" with the advent of the digital era).
In other words, it can just be good old neoliberalism, empowered by the ongoing crises and "exceptional conditions".
Nobody is going to make you eat bugs or live in a pod. If someone tries to, you can do what humans have always done when they're placed in an unlivable situation. It's embarrassing that this even has to be said.
No. They're just going to jack up prices, subsidy bugs and promote them (including with taxpayer paid advertising campaigns) because "environment", and make them the main viable option. Eventually you can also tax meat more (no need for anybody who doesn't make 100K/year to be able to afford much of it).
Similarly, they're also just going to ensure wages are kept down, good public housing and affordable morgages are a no-no, and rent is made increasingly untennable.
Pods then wont have to be enforced - they'll just be the affordable option.
Ah, the naivety in believing that "somebody will make you" can just mean a gun-to-the-head or legal requirement.
I can understand why people are skeptical. Youtube dislike extension shows 10% likes to 90% dislikes ratio on 1.8M views. Youtube's clarification banner doesn't help the impression. Why is Youtube putting warning banners like they did for Covid, but for Great Reset?
The worst thing about all of this is whichever poor soul had to put this video together.
It seems like the facts are not disputed. Just that people disagree with the policy.
Is there a “sounds like a conspiracy theory” fallacy someone can point me to?
"You will eat bugs" is bog-standard reactionary lingo at this point. You can't credibly expect people to not notice it.