Elites in Davos strategize on how to fight ‘right-wing' groups: ‘Hit back’

Fighting back against the "right wing" and the "disinformation" it spreads is a critical step for restoring trust in nongovernment organizations (NGOs) that are working with governments and other organizations on projects aimed at "improving the state of the world," according to participants on a panel Tuesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

In a discussion about "disrupting distrust," Richard Edelman, CEO of the global communications firm Edelman, said one of the "sadnesses" he’s experienced over the last few years has been the "deterioration of trust" in NGOs. He said companies are now trusted more than NGOs in dealing with civil society issues, and he blamed this change on "right-wing groups."

Elites in Davos strategize on how to fight ‘right-wing' groups: ‘Hit back’

OK, I'm donning my 'presumptuous' hat...

Every time these cabals of power pay someone to help them to "be better" at something, they further drench themselves in their own extraordinary disingenuousness... when the elite world gets together to celebrate the glory of their own perceptions.

Herein they have engaged traditional media venues to engage in the same tactics that have failed repeatedly.

Do you recall the recent 'public relations' strategy people collectively faced over the COVID event? Remember how any inquiry and dissent was immediately (and often explosively) responded to with characterizations amplified and dramatized as coming from "right-wing", "tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist", "anti-vaxx", "non-science following", "selfishly anti-social" pitiful actors bent on 'disinforming' or misleading others? I do.

Here once again we see 'journalism" paid to echo and extend their 'statements" which identify all those critical of WEF activity as "right wing" operatives who engage in "misinformation." They offer a description of themselves as "victims under attack" (but in enlightened style they don't "punch back.")

"My hypothesis on that is right-wing groups have done a really good job of disenfranchising NGOs," he said. "They’ve challenged the funding sources. They’ve associated you with Bill Gates and George Soros. They’ve said that you’re world people, as opposed to actually what you are, which is local."

Aww... he is 'sad.' He states that the negative baggage NGOs (like the WEF) suffer is due to these right-wing groups, and not their own doing; corruption, self-serving policy mandates, and failed governmental collaborations notwithstanding. Just like the failures of the pandemic response, they blame the 'misinformation' of others for the failures they engender.

Edelman said issues like how to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and racial equity are all suffering because of reduced trust in the NGOs. He also suggested one way to regain that trust is for NGOs to fight back against these right-wing groups.

Can we anticipate just how "fighting back" takes form? Does it consist of transparency and accountability for their actions? How about revelations about the exact nature of their business relationships related to global operations? Or perhaps relinquishing their 'mystique' about their status as "global" players as opposed to a cartel of businesses? ... No.

Perhaps we will again see social-engineering contortions (they still proudly haven't 'lost' Facebook for example,) amplified media messages about associations to right-wing organizations which can only be, by definition, evil and destructive. Maybe they might even keep secrets and lie... what? No, never.

"The other is when they hit you and they’re inaccurate, hit back. Don’t take it," he added.

When they hit you and they're inaccurate? But that is the real problem, isn't it? The observations the WEF must confront are not often "inaccurate" outside of a political debate where words can be parsed and 'optics' can be manipulated mainly through the use of a faux middleman from the media, tasked to present reengineered perspectives more amenable to facilitating 'new' imagery of desired outcomes, a perennial think-tank stratagem.

Edelman and other panelists acknowledged that people opposed to environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals in the private sector are also forcing companies to reassess how to talk about those goals. When a representative of the Anti-Defamation League said companies are starting to shy away from the explicit use of "ESG" as a corporate goal, Edelman encouraged companies to hold firm.

"Hold firm." It's almost as if they were in a battle hmm? These all important-ESG "goals" must be really vital to 'them.'

What other phrases might I point out?

... make sure ESG goals don’t force them down a path of "chasing some woke illusion."

Me likeee... they themselves invoked the image "woke illusion." Now I'll be able to say that as a quote and not be accused of applying a 'right-wing' bias. But then insofar as Matreiya-esque utterances go, 'illusion' can mean many things.

More:

... four issues: sustainability, on jobs and re-skilling, focus on diversity, equity and inclusion and geopolitics...

Welcome to a preview of the upcoming wave of "main stream media opinion pieces" soon to be featured near you... make a list, start a pool...it should be fun.

... banning gas stoves can be a difficult subject for many poor Americans and needs to be couched the right way.
"If you go to … a Black woman in the U.S. and tell us we can’t use a gas stove any more because of the emissions, and we need to switch to electric, our comment is, 'Our food’s not going to taste the same,’" she said, adding that another question is how people will be able to afford an electric stove. "So where’s the credit facility that allows me to do this?"

Lots to discern here... notice the focus on America (because no other people will suffer from a ban on gas cooking equipment, right?) notice also how important the "black" association becomes in light of the anticipated objection that comes to their discussion... "Eeew, it will make my food taste icky!" How little they think of people who actually have to cook their own food. Then there's the extra debt this change 'must' engender... hooray for your strategy.

The panel’s moderator, New York Times opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury, said another issue related to trust is the "disinformation" seen on social media sites, saying there are lingering questions about the extent to which Big Tech companies can remove this content.

Whose questions? Your cabal's being "How much?" the publics' being "How little?" or vice-versa?

For me this next part is a joke:

"I think that there are true questions around how the technology platforms disseminate information, particularly disinformation, and they see… significant challenges when it comes to content moderation and how to combat the disinformation online," she said.

They call what they do "moderation." Yup, to me that's funny.

Just like:

This panel was just one of several that were convened on Tuesday. Later in the day, another discussion on the "clear and present danger of disinformation" was held, moderated by former CNN host Brian Stelter.

Thank you for your patience.

a reply to: Maxmars

Bottom line: as always, follow the money.

"They’ve challenged the funding sources."

a reply to: Maxmars

I'm not any wing.

Definitely seems they're trying to make telling the truth about this 'crackpot' cult illegal (if only the average Joe knew the half of it).

Have always wondered why this very old VHS video exists - apparently (according to Rockefeller stooge Maurice Strong) the WEF are to be involved in 'the controlled demolition of first world economies'.

Seemed ludicrous at the time but decades later it now seems incredibly plausible (especially considering the WEF partner list which one can correlate to manufactured 'crisis').

Trust like respect must be earned, you don’t get it simply for be rich or even old. You earn it like everything else via your actions. If these people are no longer trusted and not respected they need only a mirror to see the culprit.

There is a another option for respect and that’s fear and that what these people lean on. Respected only by those who fear them.
a reply to: Maxmars

Anyone who doesn't want to be a slave eating bugs in a pod who is forced to take experimental injections is a right wing extremist.

So they actually admit there's an organized well funded Global effort to discriminate against "right wing" "disinformation" that is determined by anti right wing organizations and their rulings may not be true ?? 👃

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Anyone who doesn't want to be a slave eating bugs in a pod who is forced to take experimental injections is a right wing extremist.

Yep but it's a lot worse than that mate - according to Ezekiel Emanuel (Chair of the WEF Future of Health Care Committee) and the eugenicist 'bioethicists' at the Rockefeller Hastings centre the Hippocratic Oath should become 'obsolete' and 'people should 'choose to die at the age of 75'.

Whether it's Bill Gates discussing 'death panels' or Bill Gates Senior's Planned Parenthood Federation founder Joseph Fletcher promoting 'killing babies with Down's syndrome or other kinds of idiots' it's all rather disturbingly familiar.

Just when you think it can't get any worse then you see John Hopkins hosting bioethicist Norman Fost's query about 'whether it's important that organ donors be dead?' and bioethicist Peter Singer's argument in favor of 'infanticide' stating that 'there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of severely disabled infants'.

"A newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy."

Bioethicist Peter Singer

You've also got insane bioethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva actually promoting infanticide via 'after-birth abortion' arguing that 'the moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus'.

As it states in the main video on this thread these people are rarely trained doctors, researchers or medical workers (more like Rockefeller shill quackademics) and their 'anti-human' eugenics cult ideology can be traced directly back to many of the horrors of WWII.

Would say the average person would be genuinely horrified and humanity does need protecting from these people.. and the WEF should be seen for exactly what it is.

• By the way Fauci's wife is a 'bioethicist' eugenicist and the head of the NIH.

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: Maxmars

... Definitely seems they're trying to make telling the truth about this 'crackpot' cult illegal (if only the average Joe knew the half of it). ...

Have always wondered why this very old VHS video exists - apparently (according to Rockefeller stooge Maurice Strong) the WEF are to be involved in 'the controlled demolition of first world economies'.

Seemed ludicrous at the time but decades later it now seems incredibly plausible (especially considering the WEF partner list which one can correlate to manufactured 'crisis').

That was an excellent thread! It is encouraging to see that (as usual) here on ATS we will not be 'easily sold' on WEF self-serving business activites.

I must point out that there is already talk of "reconceptualizing" free-speech... part of their implementation of a "new system" I might suppose.

I always say, "the proof is in the pudding;" and considering that as their 'recommendations of change" are implemented world economies weakening seems accelerated and even exacerbated... go figure. Like the economy wasn't complex enough without their "gaming" of reality which coincidentally increases their wealth and presumed 'power.'

I too have detected a 'cultish' element within the WEF and it's footprint in the world... but that is for another thread.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Anyone who doesn't want to be a slave eating bugs in a pod who is forced to take experimental injections is a right wing extremist.

Exactly.

Sums it up, nicely.

The Overton window continues to shift.

It's wild that skepticism in big pharma and the American military industrial complex has become a right wing stance. Meanwhile democrats become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the establishment war machine.

If we continue down this path it's only a matter of time before being opposed to the establishment in any way is deemed "far right".

a reply to: Maxmars

By "disrupting distrust" they mean more censorship and persecution of wrong think.

a reply to: Maxmars

Great thread you've got going here mate and suppose when it comes to global subjugation under corporate / psychopathy then you can't do better than the (unelected and unacountable) WEF's 'Shareholder Capitalism'.

Never met anyone who thinks it's a good idea and never met anyone who trusts Klaus Schwab's organisation but they're trying to forcefully impose it on everyone nonetheless.

In closing, stakeholder capitalism is essentially a form of global fascism, where nations are run not by elected governments alone, but by unelected corporations in partnership with government.. The equity they’re talking about is all of us being in the same miserable position of owning nothing and having no human rights.

How The Great Reset Is Accelerating Into Global Tyranny

This one is easy. I should send Schwabby and Co. an exclusive copy of my report along with a bill for a cool billion (I am not greedy; that's chump change for them).

How to restore trust: STOP LYING.

Aren't they openly admitting that the right wing disinformation was actually true?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Hey mate did you not see last year's completely bizarre (and carefully worded ) WEF warning?

Talk about guilt.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Aren't they openly admitting that the right wing disinformation was actually true?

You have synthesized the essence of the message in one sentence.

They seem to believe that no one other than them realizes that their efforts are like trying to hide by flailing your arms around, covering your ears, and loudly saying "La la la la... I'm not listening."

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Anyone who doesn't want to be a slave eating bugs in a pod who is forced to take experimental injections is a right wing extremist.

Count Me In......

The Kissinger Continuum: The Unauthorized History of the WEF’s Young Global Leaders Program

Cheers

a reply to: Maxmars

So the time to get a couple of 2000-gallon propane tanks with a gas stove is now, huh? I don't care about the emissions or environmental impact of a gas stove, sorry I just can't be bothered with it.

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Maxmars

So the time to get a couple of 2000-gallon propane tanks with a gas stove is now, huh? I don't care about the emissions or environmental impact of a gas stove, sorry I just can't be bothered with it.

Only if you believe that they can entice the administration to foist this idea on the population. I certainly believe they can, given my estimation of the lack of weight the government seems attribute to the nations' population generally. They are more interested in themselves as a 'stratum' of society. So, they might go the "regulatory authority" (EO) route to impose the restriction. But I feel the representatives (such as they are) would find it too politically useful to simply acquiesce, as they did with COVID. That behavior didn't pan out well for them.

Also, the energy lobby will suffer greatly, as their patrons stand to suffer a sizeable loss of revenue. It is unlikely that such an effort will be easily effected upon the market. Of course, there are ways to overcome this... primarily by exploiting the centralization common to "big" commercial activity... convince the heavy weights, and the rest follow. We've already seen how promises and posturing evaporates when for example, the president meets the oil cartels...

This avenue of disruption has already begun failing... this may be a desperate distraction from a more fundamental push... perhaps redefining 'free speech.'