The latest “Dude, eating insects is so hip and cool” article dropped this week, this time from The Guardian, and with a little twist thrown in.
It’s pushing the idea of “ento-veganism”, that is to say “vegans” who won’t eat animals…except insects.
Or, what we used to call non-vegans.
It’s just another step in the redefining of language as needs must, yet another front in the war on words.
They are shifting the meaning of veganism from saving animals to being “sustainable”. The philosophy of “ento-veganism” is apparently to “do the least harm possible”.
…except to crickets, I guess.
The greater point here is that, while the mainstream has been promoting veganism for years, that’s much more about stopping people from eating meat and dairy than it is about getting people to eat vegetables.
After all, a vegan could hypothetically be living on a small holding in the middle of nowhere and surviving entirely on their home-grown vegetables…and that’s the last thing the WEF-types want.
They’re not going to all the trouble of resetting society so we can eat organic cauliflower.
They want everyone eating GMO soy cubes dusted in cricket flour.
They want processed. They want artificial. Most importantly, they want to make it so no one can ever be self-sufficient.
And while that means promoting veganism for now, it also means slowly redefining what “veganism” actually means.
Last year, eating lab-grown meat became “vegan”…
Which, technically, you can argue from an ethical point of view.
But then this year, eating crickets is “vegan” too.
Who knows what “vegan” will mean next year?
