This channel is managed by Zohar Entertainment Group UK, Zohar Entertainment Group International Inc, USA and AdRev, USA.
This channel is managed by Zohar Entertainment Group UK, Zohar Entertainment Group International Inc, USA and AdRev, USA.
By now, you’ve probably started hearing world leaders speak of “the Great Reset,”1 “the Fourth Industrial Revolution”2 and the call to “Build Back Better.”3 One example among many is this speech by Matt Hancock, British Minister for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, given during an All-Party Parliamentary Group meeting on the Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2017:4
“One of the roles of Parliament is to cast ahead … and tackle the great challenges of our time … The nature of the technologies is materially different to what has come before. In the past, we’ve thought of consumption as a one-off, and capital investment as additive.
Yet put resources into the networks that now connect half the world, or into AI, and the effects are exponential … I’m delighted to speak alongside so many impressive colleagues who really understand this, and alongside Professor Klaus Schwab who literally ‘wrote the book’ on the 4th Industrial Revolution.
Your work, bringing together as you do all the best minds on the planet, has informed what we are doing … Our Digital Strategy, embedded within the wider Industrial Strategy, sets out the seven pillars on which we can build our success.
And inside that fits our 5G strategy, like a set of Russian Dolls. Our Strategy covers infrastructure, skills, rules and ethics of big data use, cyber security, supporting the tech sector, the digitization of industry, and digitization of government.”
But what do the terms “Great Reset,” “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “Build Back Better” actually mean? What do they refer to? In the October 16, 2020, Corbett Report5 above, journalist James Corbett breaks down the new social contract planned for the world, otherwise known as “the great reset.”
“The Great Reset not only ties you to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, but even gives you a “social credit” ID that can run every facet of your life.”
While the current pandemic is being used as a justification for the movement, the agenda has nothing to do with health and everything to do with a long-term plan to monitor and control the world through technical surveillance. In other words, the world will be reset to depend on digital technocracy run by self-appointed elitists.
It’s a power grab of unprecedented magnitude, and involves the restructuring of social classes to dismantle democracy, erase national borders and allow for the governing of communities from a distance by a group of unelected leaders. What was in the past referred to as the “new world order” is now known as “the Great Reset.”
This Great Reset not only ties you to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, but even gives you a “social credit” ID that can run every facet of your life. This isn’t a lofty conspiracy theory — it’s real. It’s happening now. And you need to know how to fight it before it’s too late.
Ultimately, it’s a technocratic agenda that seeks to integrate mankind into a technological surveillance apparatus overseen by powerful artificial intelligence. Ironically, while the real plan is to usher in a tech-driven dystopia free of democratic controls, they speak of this plan as a way to bring us back into harmony with Nature.
If you’re unfamiliar with the term “technocracy,” be sure to go back and listen to my interview with Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation” and “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.” You can also learn more on Wood’s website, Technocracy.news.
In a nutshell, technocracy is an economic system of resource allocation that revolves around technology — in particular artificial intelligence, digital surveillance and Big Data collection — and the digitization of industry (which includes banking) and government, which in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule, thereby doing away with the need for elected government leaders.
According to the World Economic Forum,6 the Great Reset “will address the need for a more fair, sustainable and resilient future, and a new social contract centered on human dignity, social justice and where societal progress does not fall behind economic development.”
And what is the World Economic Forum? It’s an international organization for public-private cooperation that “engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”7
The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum is professor Klaus Schwab, who, as mentioned by Hancock in his 2017 speech, wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020. In his report, Corbett summarizes the Great Reset thus:
“At base, the Great Reset is nothing more, and nothing less, than a great propaganda, marketing rollout campaign for a new brand that the would-be global elite are trying to shove down the public’s throats … It’s just a fresh coat of lipstick on a very old pig. This is The New World Order, just redefined. It’s just a new label for it.”
And, as explained by Corbett, for those who forgot about what the New World Order was/is all about, it was all about “centralization of control into fewer hands, globalization [and] transformation of society through Orwellian surveillance technologies.”
In other words, it’s technocracy, where we the people know nothing about the ruling elite while every aspect of our lives is surveilled, tracked and manipulated for their gain. Four key take-aways from Corbett’s research into the Great Reset are:
1. The Great Reset has NOTHING to do with a virus, the COVID-19 pandemic or anything else related to public health.
2. The Great Reset is a coordinated agenda that has been years in the making — The pandemic is simply being used as a convenient “cover” for an elitist, globalist agenda that has been planned for decades.
3. The Great Reset is NOT the end of globalization — On the contrary, it is globalization turbo-charged. As noted by Schwab in the policy book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” co-written with Thierry Malleret and cited in Corbett’s report:
“If no one power can enforce order, our world will suffer from a ‘global order deficit.’ Unless individual nations and international organizations succeed in finding solutions to better collaborate at the global level, we risk entering an ‘age of entropy’ in which retrenchment, fragmentation, anger and parochialism will increasingly define our global landscape, making it less intelligible and more disorderly.”
In other words, there’s no room for the spontaneously arising social order that occurs when people are allowed to freely interact. Instead, there must be “one power” to enforce whatever the desired social-environmental-economic-geopolitical order is.
4. This process is not meant to end — The end of the pandemic will not be the end of this totalitarian, digital enslavement agenda. The plan is not to “reset” the world back to some earlier state that will allow us all to start over with a cleaner environment and more equitable social structures. The plan is to circumvent democracy and shift global governance into the hands of the few. As noted by Schwab in “COVID-19: The Great Reset”:
“When confronted with it, some industry leaders and senior executives may be tempted to equate reset with restart, hoping to go back to the old normal and restore what worked in the past: traditions, tested procedures and familiar ways of doing things — in short, a return to business as usual.
This won’t happen because it can’t happen. For the most part, ‘business as usual’ died from (or at the very least was infected by) COVID-19.”
COVID-19 Transformation Map
What might the Great Reset transformation look like? As noted by Corbett, the following illustration, created and released by the World Economic Forum, shows the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various aspects of life, and how pandemic responses are transforming these areas.
If you go to the original site for the illustration,8 you’ll also find listings of publications, videos and data relating to all of these facets. Around the 25-minute mark, Corbett explains how you can use this map to get a feel for the scope of the transformation being prepared — everything from finance, business and education to health care, human rights and global governance.
Importantly, the pandemic is being used to destroy the local economies around the world, which will then allow the World Economic Forum to come in and “rescue” debt-ridden countries.
However, the price for this salvation is your personal freedom and liberty. The World Economic Forum and the central banks will, through their facilitated financial bailouts, be able to effectively control most countries in the world. And, again, one of the aspects of the technocratic plan is to eliminate nation borders and nationalism in general.
A related term to the Great Reset is “the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” This refers to the merging of digital, physical and biological systems. As noted by Schwab, “It doesn’t change what we are doing, but it changes us.”9
What they’re talking about is the creation of a new economic system built around the merger of the human body and mind with machines and artificial intelligence. In other words, technocracy — a resource-based economic system with centralized control by a technocratic elite who have the know-how to program the computer systems will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone.
Of course, it’s sold to us as a means to harness and elevate human potential, when in fact it will do the complete opposite. Ultimately, they’re not just trying to change the definition of what it means to be human — they’re openly conspiring to alter humanity through technological means.
In addition to the sources cited earlier, Corbett also fleshed out the history of technocracy in his December 28, 2015, report,10 “How Big Oil Conquered the World.” In short, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is nothing but a rebranding of technocracy, melded with the transhumanist movement.
You can also learn more about Schwab, the figurehead of modern technocracy, by reading the June 29, 2020, Technocracy.news article11 “The Elite Technocrats Behind the Global ‘Great Reset,’” and the October 12, 2020, Off-Guardian article,12 “Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset.”
According to Off-Guardian,13 Schwab ensures us that “smart” Big Data technologies will “’deliver new and innovative ways to service citizens and customers’ and we will have to stop objecting to businesses profiting from harnessing and selling information about every aspect of our personal lives.”
In that article, Schwab is also quoted as saying, “Establishing trust in the data and algorithms used to make decisions will be vital” — which about sums up the technocratic view of “government.”
In some parts of the world, a second wave of COVID-19 is reportedly14 emerging, and according to some researchers, the best way to combat it is to implement another round of more stringent lockdown measures — a so-called “circuit breaker” strategy to bring the infection rate under control.
Meanwhile, other reports15 warn that while COVID-19 can be deadly for a small minority of people, so are lockdowns, thanks to the poverty, famine and mental health challenges they bring about.
According to an October 13, 2020, article16 in The Sun, COVID-19 restrictions “could hurl 90 million into ‘extreme poverty,’” with the poorest nations bearing the brunt of the economic collapse. The New York Post also recently reported17 that “COVID-19 lockdowns were a risky experiment” that failed, and have proven deadlier than the virus itself.
“No ethical scientist would conduct such a risky experiment without carefully considering the dangers and monitoring the results, which have turned out to be dismal,” the New York Post writes.18
“While the economic and social harms have been enormous, it isn’t clear that the lockdowns have brought significant health benefits beyond what was achieved by people’s voluntary social distancing and other actions.
In a comparison of 50 countries, a team led by Rabail Chaudhry of the University of Toronto found that COVID-19 was deadlier in places with older populations and higher rates of obesity (like the United States), but the mortality rate was no lower in countries that closed their borders or enforced full lockdowns.
After analyzing 23 countries and 25 U.S. states with widely varying policies, Andrew Atkeson of UCLA and fellow economists found that the mortality trend was similar everywhere once the disease took hold: The number of daily deaths rose rapidly for 20 to 30 days, then fell rapidly …
The cost-benefit rationale becomes even bleaker if you use the standard metric for determining whether a drug or other intervention is worthwhile: How much money will society spend for each year of life being saved?
By that metric, the lockdowns must be the most cost-ineffective intervention in the history of public health, because so many of the intended beneficiaries are near the end of life. In America, nearly 80 percent of COVID-19 victims have been over 65, and more than 40 percent were living in nursing homes, where the median life expectancy after admission is just five months …
No one wants to hasten the demise of the elderly, but they and other vulnerable people can be shielded without shutting down the rest of the society, as Sweden and other countries have demonstrated …
Early in the pandemic, Scott Atlas at the Hoover Institution and researchers at Swansea University independently calculated that the lockdowns would ultimately cost more years of life than COVID-19 in the United States and Britain, and the toll seems certain to be worse in poor countries.
The World Bank estimates that the coronavirus recession could push 60 million people into extreme poverty, which inevitably means more disease and death.”
We’re now also seeing reports19 that “unexplained excess deaths at home” are outpacing COVID-19 deaths by nearly 900%, likely due to people with chronic illnesses avoiding medical care. Unfortunately, physicians and scientists continue to butt heads when it comes to the sanest path forward.
As noted in an October 6, 2020, article20 in The Conversation, whether or not the coronavirus cure is worse than the disease has become “the most divisive question of 2020,” with dozens of doctors signing on to one side or the other.
A recent Kaiser Health News story21 also highlights the impact of “pandemic stress” on public health, as more and more people are reporting problems ranging from insomnia and excruciating headaches to hair loss and cracked teeth:
“Throughout the pandemic, people who never had the coronavirus have been reporting a host of seemingly unrelated symptoms: excruciating headaches, episodes of hair loss, upset stomach for weeks on end, sudden outbreaks of shingles and flare-ups of autoimmune disorders.
The disparate symptoms, often in otherwise healthy individuals, have puzzled doctors and patients alike, sometimes resulting in a series of visits to specialists with few answers. But it turns out there’s a common thread among many of these conditions, one that has been months in the making: chronic stress.
Although people often underestimate the influence of the mind on the body, a growing catalog of research shows that high levels of stress over an extended time can drastically alter physical function and affect nearly every organ system.
Now, at least eight months into the pandemic, alongside a divisive election cycle and racial unrest, those effects are showing up in a variety of symptoms. ‘The mental health component of COVID is starting to come like a tsunami,’ said Dr. Jennifer Love, a California-based psychiatrist.”
As detailed in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun,” an international network of legal experts and health professionals are preparing to launch the largest class-action lawsuit in history, against all those responsible for the global lockdowns, from local policy makers to the World Health Organization and everyone in between.
According to the four attorneys who founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, which is leading the tort case, the COVID-19 pandemic is “probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.” Pandemic measures were intended to sow panic in order to allow for a massive transfer of wealth, and fraudulent testing has been used to keep the ruse going.
In reality, mortality statistics reveal COVID-19 has not led to an excess of deaths above the annual norm, the proposed action says, and there’s no evidence lockdowns and economic shutdowns have produced favorable results.
While the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee hasn’t specifically addressed the pandemic as a vehicle for a technocratic revolution, it highlights that it has been fraudulently used as a means for wealth transfer and elimination of basic human rights.
As noted in the June 29, 2020, Technocracy.news article,22 “The Elite Technocrats Behind the Global ‘Great Reset”:23
“The UN Agenda 2030 with its Sustainable Development Goals is claimed to ‘ensure peace and prosperity for people and the planet.’ The actions are said to tackle poverty and hunger, bring better health and education, reduce inequalities, and save the oceans, forests and the climate. Who can argue against such benevolent goals?
But the promised Utopia comes with a price — it sets shackles on our personal freedom … The leading partners of the United Nations Global Goals project reveal the real technocratic agenda that lies behind the polished feel-good façade — it involves a plan to fully integrate mankind into a technological surveillance apparatus overseen by a powerful AI.
The current pandemic scare has been a perfect trigger to kickstart this nefarious agenda … The current COVID-19 crisis is seen by the World Economic Forum and its chairman Klaus Schwab as the perfect trigger to implement their grandiose technocratic plan. Big Tech will come to ‘rescue’ the world …
This techno-fascist recipe will then, in an utmost non-democratic fashion without any public debate or skeptic inquiry, soon be integrated into the agenda of G20 and the European Union — relabeled as the Great Green Deal …
Unsurprisingly, Klaus Schwab fails to mention his own and his cronies’ role in creating this global economic mess in the first place — as it was ‘foreseen’ with stunning accuracy in World Economic Forum’s and Bill Gate’s Event 201 (October 2019) and in the Rockefeller Foundation report24 Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development (2010).”
As I discuss in “The Global Takeover Is Underway,” technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering, and Big Tech censorship is part and parcel of this. In other words, the medical tyranny and censorship of anti-groupthink that has emerged during this pandemic are an unavoidable element of the Great Reset, and if you think it’s bad now, just wait until the whole system is brought fully online.
The mere idea of dissent will become a thought of the past, because your life — your health, educational and work opportunities, your finances and your very identity — will be so meshed with the automated technological infrastructure that any attempt to break free will result in you being locked out or erased from the system, leaving you with no ability to learn, work, travel or purchase anything.
It sounds far-fetched, I know, but when you follow the technocratic plan to its inevitable end, that’s basically what you end up with. The warning signs are all around us, if we’re willing to see them for what they actually are. The only question now is whether enough people are willing to resist it to make a difference.
Every 26 seconds for the last 60 years seismologists have detected a ubiquitous pulse emanating from deep inside the Earth. The debate over the cause of this mysterious “microseism” has gone on for decades and produced several cogent hypotheses, but scientists still don’t know decisively what’s behind the phenomenon.
First observed and recorded by geologist Jack Oliver in the early 1960s, then studied more extensively in the following decades, the pulse is known to be stronger during storms. But storms don’t turn off and on every 26 seconds, nor do volcanos, which have also been proposed as the source.
In 2005, a graduate student named Greg Bensen tracked the origin of the pulse to a more narrow location, a single source in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western coast of Africa; six years later, another team honed in even closer, pinpointing the origin in an area of the Gulf of Guinea called the Bight of Bonny.
This team believed the waves crashing on that coast were responsible for the seismic blip. Others, however, weren’t convinced. Some believed it was caused by the sun itself. While tectonic activity, earthquakes, and volcanos regularly trigger solid seismic sounds, a more mellow soundscape of seismic static runs in near perpetuity.
Mike Ritzwoller, a seismologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who has studied the pulse for decades, says that while the pulse is a mystery, seismic activity, in general, is not.
“Seismic noise basically exists because of the sun,” whose energy hits the equator and the poles unevenly, creating wind, storms, ocean currents, and waves, all of which work to displace and buffet energy onto the coastline.
“It’s like if you were tapping on your desk. It deforms the area near your knuckle, but then it’s being transmitted across the whole table,” Ritzwoller explains. “So someone sitting at the other side of the table, if they put their hand, or maybe their cheek, on the table, they can feel the vibration.”
With the advent more advanced tools and technologies, scientists have been able to study the pulse more closely and most generally agree that the Bight of Bonny is ground zero for whatever is happening. Currently, many researchers are beginning to think the cause may be that this specific place on the edge of the enormous North American continental shelf (far below the ocean floor) is basically the other end of the desk Ritzwoller used as a metaphor. In other words, a drum the size of a continent is somehow consolidating its reverberations into a single spot.
Some researchers still believe volcanism is the answer and point to an active volcano on the island of São Tomé in the Bight of Bonny as evidence.
Why any of these physical phenomena would produce such a strange clockwork pulse every 26 seconds remains a mystery.
“We’re still waiting for the fundamental explanation of the cause of this phenomenon,” Ritzwoller says with a beat of optimism about the next decades of seismology. “I think the point [of all this] is there are very interesting, fundamental phenomena in the earth that are known to exist out there and remain secret.”
Could British levels of support for an income cap ever take root in the U.S.? Sam Pizzigati says the idea isn’t as un-American as it may seem.
On Nov. 9, 1932, the day after Election Day, progressively minded Americans woke up feeling a sense of relief — and a sense they might finally have an opportunity to forge real social change. At that moment, in the depth of the Great Depression, progressives could sense a new beginning.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the new president, would soon bring some immediate relief from the callous approach to massive deprivation that the previous Hoover administration had so often displayed. FDR’s “First 100 Days” in 1933 would see a torrent of moves to arrest the economy’s frighteningly downward spiral.
But what we know today as the “New Deal” — Social Security, labor rights, and so much more — would only start taking shape two years later, after massive mobilizations of workers, seniors, and the unemployed recast the popular sense of what government could and should do.
If Joe Biden emerges as the winner on our upcoming Election Day, his new administration — like FDR’s — will need to quickly focus on providing some badly needed immediate relief, from pandemic this time and not just economic collapse. But then what? How can we take advantage of the opportunity for real social change that a Biden victory would put on the table?
What sort of fundamental change should Americans be mobilizing to achieve?
We now have one bold and daring new suggestion from our British cousins.
Earlier this month, two leading U.K. research groups — Autonomy, a think tank that focuses on the future of work and economic planning and the High Pay Centre, a nonprofit that highlights excessive British corporate executive pay — jointly called for a “maximum wage” throughout the British economy.
Corporate executive salaries, the two progressive centers advise in a new joint report, “should be capped to raise wages for lower-paid workers and to help save jobs.”
“With the UK economy likely to be much smaller than previously envisaged for the foreseeable future,” explains the High Pay Centre’s Luke Hildyard, “we urgently need to think about sharing the wealth we do have more evenly.”
But wouldn’t a cap on direct compensation be too extreme a step to take?
“Tolerating the vast gaps between those at the top and everybody else in this country,” responds Hildyard, would be “a far more extremist policy than putting a cap on annual earnings of £200,000 — enough to enable a lifestyle of absolute luxury compared to the vast majority of the population.”
An income in the United States equivalent to £200,000 would amount to over a quarter-million dollars.
Top U.K. corporate execs currently average 126 times the pay of average British workers, a gap substantially wider than the corporate pay divide in the rest of Europe but far lower than Corporate America’s astounding gap. U.S. CEOs, the Economic Policy Institute reports, last year averaged 320 times the compensation of average workers in their industries, up from 31.4 times in 1978.
Pay gaps as wide as these raise important moral questions.
“Should any individual,” the new British report asks, “be valued in excess of a hundred times more than another?”
Wide pay gaps raise a host of additional questions as well, on everything from overall levels of empathy within societies to great wealth’s influence over public policy. The new British report, for its part, focuses in on the economic impact of maldistributed income and wealth — at a time of corona crisis.
“In the aftermath of the pandemic, with many businesses operating at reduced capacity, it seems highly likely that the UK economy will be much smaller than previously envisaged for a considerable period of time,” the report notes. “It seems likely that significant falls in incomes and living standards will occur unless better methods of redistributing existing resources are found.”
That redistribution, the authors concede, will require some political heavy lifting.
“If a painless pay increase for low (and middle) earners could be conjured up at no cost to anybody else,” as the report aptly quips, “it would probably have already happened by now.”
“Pay and incomes are not necessarily a ‘zero sum’ game where less for those at the top means more for everyone else,” the report goes on to observe. “But equally it would be naïve to think that there is no relationship between the two.”
What sort of relationship?
Researchers at Autonomy and the High Pay Centre have crunched the numbers — to show “the huge benefits and minimal costs that wage caps on the very highest earners could produce.”
One example: Capping U.K. corporate salaries at £187,000 — nearly $250,000 — would free up enough corporate cash to increase the basic adult British minimum wage from the current £8.72 to £10.50 an hour. A cap at £187,000 would only affect the U.K.’s top 0.6 percent of earners and “give pay rises to over 3 million workers.”
“If we capped excessive pay, we could end poverty pay,” notes one analyst impressed by the Autonomy-High Pay Centre numbers, former Labour Party Senior Policy Adviser Andrew Fisher.
Would a move to cap excessive pay be politically viable in the U.K. today?
The new Autonomy-High Pay Centre report includes the results from surveys conducted by Survation, a blue-ribbon London-based pollster. This polling found that the British public would “support a maximum wage” by a 54 percent to 29 percent margin, with 17 percent undecided.
If the U.K. had an executive pay cap in place, 31 percent of the public would like to see that lid set at £100,000, 24 percent at £200,000, and 14 percent at £300,000. Another 9 percent would place the cap at £1 million, with the remaining 21 percent unsure.
Could such levels of support for a maximum wage ever take root in the United States?
The notion of an income cap actually has deep roots on this side of the Atlantic. Back in 1880, the philosopher Felix Adler — later the co-founder of the movement to ban child labor — proposed a 100-percent tax rate on income above the point “when a certain high and abundant sum has been reached, amply sufficient for all the comforts and true refinements of life.”
Such a levy, said Adler, would tax away “pomp and pride and power.”
Franklin Roosevelt attempted just that in 1942 when he proposed a 100 percent tax on all individual income over $25,000, about $400,000 in today’s dollars. FDR didn’t get his cap, but Congress did establish a 94 percent tax rate on income over $200,000, and the nation’s top marginal tax rate would hover around 90 percent for the next two decades, years that would see the emergence of a mass middle class in the United States, the first such class in the world.
That FDR income-capping spirit has re-emerged today in proposals to penalize companies that pay their top execs over 50 or 100 times what they pay their most typical workers. In Oregon, the city of Portland already has such legislation on the books, and a similar measure will appear on the San Francisco ballot this Nov. 3.
In Congress, senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have joined with representatives Barbara Lee and Rashida Tlaib and introduced similar federal-level legislation.
In a post-Trump America, proposals like these just might start to move — but only if we, like our progressive forbears back in the 1930s, really start to push.
Sam Pizzigati co-edits Inequality.org. His latest books include The Case for a Maximum Wage and The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970. Follow him at @Too_Much_Online.
This article is from Inequality.org
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Many people on all sides have praised President Donald Trump for expressing his desire to pull troops out of the Middle East and bring them home. As these wars have cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and led to the immeasurable suffering of millions of innocent civilians and created a suicide epidemic among US troops and veterans, the idea of ending them and bringing home the troops is certainly worthy of praise. However, like all politicians beholden to the military-industrial complex, when it comes to Somalia, Trump says one thing while doing another.
According to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), beginning under George W. Bush in 2007, and spanning all the way through the Obama administration, the US launched 42 airstrikes in Somalia. In the first seven months of 2020, alone, the Trump admin has acknowledged 43 airstrikes beating out both of those administrations.
AFRICOM claims in their quarterly “Civilian Casualty Assessment” that during these strikes, only a single civilian has been killed. But those on the ground, and advocacy groups investigating the real death toll, paint a far darker and bloodier picture.
According to one of the only reports in the mainstream we could find on Somalia, out of TIME, AFRICOM has launched hundreds of air and ground attacks in Somalia since 2007, but the command has admitted to killing only five civilians in three separate attacks over the last 13 years. An investigation by Amnesty International found that in just nine of those airstrikes, 21 civilians were killed and 11 others were injured. According to Airwars, evidence suggests that as many as 15 Somali civilians have been killed by U.S. strikes in 2020 alone. Airwars – whose database incorporates local and international news reports, photos, videos, social media posts, mapping, and geolocation, and other data for every known U.S. air and ground action in Somalia – contends that between 72 and 145 civilians have been killed in U.S. attacks since 2007.
According to AFRICOM, the US strikes are a part of a concerted effort to increase security in the region by degrading al Shabaab, an extremist group linked to Al Qaeda, and, to a lesser extent, the Islamic State.
However, anyone who pays attention to how terrorist groups build their ranks, these strikes actually act as a recruiting tool for terrorists. If someone loses a child or a relative to a US missile, rest assured, that person will likely dedicate their lives to going after the ones responsible.
In Somalia, 145 dead civilians can potentially turn into a recruiting tool for thousands of people.
It is for this reason that in spite of the record number of airstrikes, billions in taxpayer dollars, and US military troops on the ground, al Shabaab remains resilient after more than a decade in the cross-hairs of the world’s largest military.
The result of such a policy of airstrikes and civilian casualties creates an inevitable cycle of more terror and subsequently more death.
Even during the midst of a global pandemic, the US continued to rain hell down on the Somali people who live in constant fear of a missile falling from the sky and killing them.
Imagine if a country was claiming to fight terror here in the United States and was doing so by invading the country with troops and launching missiles in various places. Imagine that they claimed they were here for our “freedom.” Imagine that they “accidentally” killed a family during these strikes and imagine how angry relatives and friends of that family would become. Imagine those relatives and friends taking up arms against the occupying force and fighting back any way they could. And then imagine that invading country continuing to think that dropping more bombs and killing more civilians would be the answer to stopping this resistance.
Sadly, as is evident in Somalia and elsewhere, this is the only policy in which the US engages and this is in spite of decades of endless wars that show it does nothing but lead to more suffering. When Iraq voted to expel the US military from its borders earlier this year, it was a democratic decision that expressed the will of its citizens. The US should have immediately pulled out and left. Instead, we stayed, against their will.
When a country stays in another country despite that country openly agreeing they do not want you in it, you must ask yourself who the bad guy is in that situation. Spoiler alert: it is not the people who want to stop seeing their kids’ limbs blown off.
Are the leaders of the USA incompetent, ignorant fools, or just stupid? India has way more people than the USA and has way fewer cases.
A recent study by an international team of researchers using data from 399,000 patients found that people with obesity who contracted coronavirus were 113 percent more likely than people of healthy weight to end up in hospital, 74 percent more likely to be admitted to intensive care, and 48 percent more likely to die.
If you want to avoid dying of Covid-19, one of the most important things you can do, if you are overweight, is to shed the pounds
A recent study by an international team of researchers using data from 399,000 patients found that people with obesity who contracted coronavirus were 113 percent more likely than people of healthy weight to end up in hospital, 74 percent more likely to be admitted to intensive care, and 48 percent more likely to die.
Why? Well, the ‘why’ centres around the damaging effect of raised blood glucose on endothelial cells and… it gets complicated.
The most important thing is not to understand the complex metabolic and physiological pathways involved, but simply to help people to lose weight, and this is where Dr. David Unwin comes in.
For years, this family doctor from Southport, in northwest England, has believed, as I do, that the main driver of weight gain, eventually leading on to type 2 diabetes, is a high-carbohydrate diet. That means consuming too much pasta, potatoes, rice, bread, processed sugar, and so on, and not enough red meat, olive oil, butter, eggs, and the like.
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what we have been told for decades by the ‘experts’ who demonise fat and promote carbohydrates. We have the ‘eat-well’ plate, and the ‘food pyramid’, and hundreds of thousands of dieticians around the world, all promoting carbohydrates as the ‘healthy’ option.
Dutifully following this advice, the entire population of the Western world has become fatter, and fatter… and fatter. And more and more unhealthy. By the way, this is not a coincidence; it is cause and effect.
But getting back to Dr. Unwin – years ago, he despaired of ever getting any of his patients to lose weight. It was so disheartening, he furtively studied his pension plan and dreamed of retirement. Then, one day, a patient came in to his surgery who had lost a lot of weight and kept it off.
At first, this woman was reluctant to say how she had done it, as she feared the inevitable criticism. In the end, however, she confessed to Dr. Unwin that she had achieved it by eating a low-carbohydrate diet. In Dr. Unwin’s own words:
“I was interested to find out how the patient had improved her diabetic control. She confessed she had ignored my advice and learnt a much better way to look after herself from the internet. I suppressed my wounded pride and looked at the low-carb forum on diabetes.co.uk. There were thousands of type 2 diabetics on there ignoring their doctors – and getting great results ([but] now that is just not allowed).”
The GP did not criticise his patient; instead, he was intrigued. Could this possibly be true? It went against everything he had been told about healthy eating, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes – fat has twice the calories per gram as carbohydrates… and suchlike. Eating fat, he’d been programmed to believe, makes you fat, and then you develop diabetes and heart disease.
Dr. Unwin did more research, then made the decision to work with his patients, mainly those with diabetes, to see if a low-carbohydrate diet could be beneficial. Lo and behold, it was – very beneficial. In fact, it was like a miracle cure.
In 2014, he published a paper on his results on a small number of patients. It stated:
“It was observed that a low-carbohydrate diet achieved substantial weight loss in all patients and brought about normalisation of blood glucose control in 16 out of 18 patients. At the same time, plasma lipid profiles improved, and BP [blood pressure] fell, allowing discontinuation of antihypertensive therapy in some individuals…
“Conclusions: Based on our work so far, we can understand the reasons for the internet enthusiasm for a low-carbohydrate diet: the majority of patients lose weight rapidly and fairly easily [and,] predictably, the HbA1c levels are not far behind. Cholesterol levels, liver enzymes, and BP levels all improved. This approach is simple to implement and much appreciated by people with diabetes.”
Now, he has published results of a much larger study, of nearly 200 patients over a six-year period, which has just been published in the British Medical Journal’s Nutrition, Prevention & Health.
Its main findings make an impressive case for the low-carb diet and how it can lead to people being much healthier and getting off lifelong medication:
This paper will be attacked, of course, as there are massive financial interests involved here. The savings that the NHS could achieve would be dwarfed if the US, with its much higher drugs costs, adopted the policies: we could be looking at around $2 billion a year. Around the world, who knows, but it would be vast sums of money.
So, you can imagine the joy that this paper will be met with in pharmaceutical company boardrooms around the world. The words ‘lead’ and ‘balloon’, spring to mind. Equally, the massive low-fat high-carb food manufacturers will be throwing their hands up in horror – “My bonus, my bonus! Nooooo!’ You can take all your low-carb yoghurts and…
As for the rest of us, I can assure you that Dr. Unwin has only ever been interested in one thing: working out how to help people lose weight and control their diabetes. He has achieved this for his patients and is showing the rest of the world how to do the same.
Will his research now be taken up by the authorities around the world? Will we move away from promoting a high-carbohydrate diet? You have to be joking. There is far too much money to be lost by the companies who exert tight control over the world of medical research, and whose lobbyists swarm around politicians in rich countries.
Which is a damn shame, because more than ever in this endless Covid-19 pandemic, obesity represents a health crisis. This paper, and the tireless work by Dr Unwin, clearly tells us what we need to do – now, urgently. If Boris Johnson is serious about his plan for the nation to get slimmer and fitter, he himself should go on a low-carb diet and extol its virtues.
Dr Unwin’s approach won’t work instantly, and it won’t work for everyone – nothing ever does. However, it represents hope. It could save hundreds and thousands of lives. Perhaps more than any vaccine. His research should be shouted from the rooftops.
Waiting for the results of the US presidential election is like waiting to find out if you’re going to get hit by the mugger with the bat or the mugger with the crowbar.
Dave Calhoun, CEO of top war profiteer company Boeing, said back in July that he’ll be quite happy regardless of what happens on November third.
“I think both candidates, at least in my view, appear globally oriented and interested in the defense of our country and I believe they’ll support the industries,” Calhoun said. “I don’t think we’re going to take a position on one being better than the other.”
And of course, he didn’t take such a position. Why would he? Arms manufacturers have been pouring money into the campaigns of both candidates, and they both know that no matter who wins the presidential election they’re going to reap highly profitable mountains of corpses. Since they know they win no matter who wins, why risk offending a future business partner?
The fact that war plutocrats are happy with either candidate tells you more about the reality of this presidential race than all the billions of dollars worth of mass media reporting and punditry that’s gone into it over the last two years combined. No matter what happens in the election and its aftermath, this is the real headline.
It’s so unspeakably insane that people can become unimaginably wealthy by using campaign donations to help warmongering politicians rise to the top of the political system of the most bloodthirsty government on earth and then selling the weapons used in the wars those politicians start.
Really, just think about that for a second. Imagine if someone said “I’m going to become a billionaire by killing people in the Middle East and Africa and selling their organs on the black market.”
That would be insane, right? That person would immediately be branded the most disgusting person in the world.
But if someone becomes a billionaire by starting wars in the Middle East and Africa and selling the weapons used to kill the same number of people in those wars, they’re considered industrious businessmen and philanthropists.
They did functionally exactly the same thing as someone killing those people and selling their organs, but their evil is completely invisible to the scrutiny of the mass media which informs the way people think, act and vote. War profiteers pour money into political campaigns, think tanks, mass media advertising and other narrative management operations which have the direct result of more mass military violence and more public support for it, but they are seldom even criticized for that depravity let alone held accountable for it.
The more you think about it, the creepier it gets. This is true not just of the military-industrial complex, but of the US-centralized empire as a whole.
There is nothing more creepy than the close power alliance loosely centralized around the United States which functions as a single empire on foreign policy.
Its leaders promote ideals like “freedom” and “democracy” while brutalizing any nation which disobeys its dictates and squeezing its own populace with increasingly authoritarian measures.
They extol the virtues of “human rights” while butchering human beings around the world whenever it is geostrategically convenient.
Their media virtually never point out the fact that their government is never not murdering human beings to fill the coffers of war profiteers and ensure unipolar planetary hegemony, but they will churn out sitcoms and feel-good stories about unity and togetherness like no one’s business.
The reality that they are riding on the parade float dressing of an insatiable death machine is carefully concealed from the denizens of this murderous empire, and instead, they are fed a constant Hollywood diet of movies and shows about how fun and hilarious and awesome their country is.
The US empire is a serial killer with a horrifying grin stretched over its blood-spattered face. A smiley-faced psychopath babbling about civil rights and the importance of inclusive language while chopping a Yemeni child to pieces.
Once you’ve seen it, you can never see the smiling nice guy again.
Despite all the partisan shrieking and melodrama and hyperbole, Trump is not uniquely evil.
Despite all the partisan shrieking and melodrama and hyperbole, Biden is not uniquely evil.
What’s uniquely evil is the murderous globe-spanning empire which dictates the fate of our species fueled on human blood and posing as a nice guy. Our world has never seen anything quite like it. It is a one of a kind monster.
Only deeply depraved people are capable of serving such a deeply depraved machine, and only deeply depraved people will ever be given an opportunity to. Trump and Biden are not unique in their depravity. They’re not even remarkable. They’re just the next in line to serve at the front desk of the smiley-faced murder factory.
This will be the case regardless of who is inaugurated on January 20th. It should remain at the forefront of everyone’s attention above the hysterical partisan fray. Ignore the drama over who gets to be DeathCorp’s secretary and keep your gaze fixed on the smiling killer.
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.