In his September 9th speech, President Joe Biden addressed the nation. He spoke about recent spikes in the Delta variant of Covid-19 and the responsibility of all Americans to get vaccinated. To that effect, he offered an Executive order, mandating that all federal employees receive vaccinations and ordering the Labor Department to issue mandatory vaccine rules for large companies.
This sweeping policy decision will directly affect about 80 million workers. With such contention over the issue, groups were fast to criticize this policy decision, calling it a violation of civil liberties and associating it with “Big Brother” government. Responding to criticisms, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki described, “what you heard the President convey yesterday is the next steps that he is taking using every lever of government to reduce sicknesses, to reduce hospitalizations, to protect more people, and save more lives.”
Public Health Should Be the Top Priority
Most Americans (179.2 million people) are fully vaccinated. Nevertheless, America remains immersed in a political battle between civil liberties and public health. While both sides have merit to their arguments, protecting public health is (and should be) the clear priority of governments. The good health of a population is a precursor to all economic, social, and political development. Death is real and sickness has contributed to the demise of far more nations than war or corruption. In a democracy, laws are meant to strike a balance, rigid enough to maintain order while flexible enough to adjust to the times. While the argument around protecting civil liberties is logical, it is unreasonable when applied to the times.
Their rigid perception of civil liberties has not adjusted to the situation at hand.
In 2020, before the vaccine was distributed, the United States saw over 80 million cases and 375,000 Covid-19 related deaths. Millions were laid off while thousands of small businesses and mid-sized companies were shut down indefinitely. The nation was in crisis, vaccines were developed to stop all of that.
Vaccines were presented as the ultimate solution. And while that promise has not come to fruition, studies show vaccines to have 90%+ efficacy when it comes to protecting the vaccinated against severe cases of Covid-19. While it did not eliminate the risks completely, with the inclusion of the vaccine, rates of contraction, hospitalization and death have all decreased significantly. Vaccines do protect populations from contracting the virus.
Societies have short memories, but after witnessing the tragedy of last year, avoiding massive losses of life should remain the top priority. While individuals do have the right to make personal health decisions, it is the responsibility of the government to promote public health.
And when personal health decisions threaten public health, the government has a responsibility to intervene.
Vaccine Mandates Will be Hard to Enforce
Although vaccines are beneficial and necessary to combat a global pandemic, President Biden’s vaccine mandates will be hard to enforce. Yes, President Biden is well within his right to enforce the vaccine mandate as President of the United States. However, implementing a mask mandate has its struggles, let alone mandating citizens to inject themselves with a pretty new vaccine. In a recent Gallup Poll, over 100 million Americans were still unsure about the vaccine.
It takes time to get Americans to buy into these vaccines. History shows Americans are slow to get vaccines. Only about half of adults in America get the flu shot, despite decades of safety provisions and evidence that proves it is okay. To go further, Biden’s tactic of relying on the laws to force vaccination is how someone could remain unvaccinated.
Protestors were outraged by President Biden’s new vaccine mandates.
According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employee, student, etc., could be exempt from taking the vaccine under religious beliefs and disability status. In theory, Biden can mandate 73 million federal employees to get the vaccine; nevertheless, those same 73 million could fall under those categories and add complications to enforcing the vaccine mandate.
President Joe Biden speak on September 9th, 2021 about vaccinations.
President Biden’s new scare tactic by leveraging American’s job is a stretch and ironic. A president’s job is also to create jobs, not take them away. As the commander and chief, he has the right to dictate what he will and will not allow in positions under his branch. He also has a right to ensure that Americans stay employed.
In part, President Biden is desperate for solutions and will try anything to rid the virus that has plagued his nation. On the other hand, President Biden fails to understand why the majority of Americans are cautious. Vaccinations do not happen overnight. “Losing patience” over something relatively new is ludicrous when the vaccines first appeared less than one year ago. The fact that Biden was able to get a little under half of the population fully vaccinated in a matter of ten months is a small victory. As far as the other half of unvaccinated people, it will take time to understand it will not happen tomorrow.
In this episode, Mike takes questions from our podcast community! Every few episodes we will have episodes like this. Michael will take your questions. If you would like your questions to be considered for the next Q&A episode then send them over to hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk
We are an independent news outlet. We were founded by 500+ ordinary people who saw a problem with the mainstream media and did something about it. This means we are not solely driven by profit margins or vested interests. We are a platform kept alive by our community who we exist to serve. In a digital age, where the news cycles moves at dizzying speeds, news has become noise. The Common Sense Network is a platform our readers visit to discover stories that matter. To discover stories from across the political spectrum, local stories, stories that hold power to account, that uncover wrongdoing, that empower the forgotten and the unheard. We are on a mission to build the broadest coalition of diverse commentators in the UK. Our articles are well researched, well written and straight-talking. We remain committed to providing multiple perspectives on issues because we believe, there are two sides to every story….
In this episode Mike and Zuby tackle politics, transgenderism in sport, music, racism and the queen and more. The conversation was wide-ranging. Like what you watched?
We are an independent news outlet. We were founded by 500+ ordinary people who saw a problem with the mainstream media and did something about it. This means we are not solely driven by profit margins or vested interests. We are a platform kept alive by our community who we exist to serve. In a digital age, where the news cycles moves at dizzying speeds, news has become noise. The Common Sense Network is a platform our readers visit to discover stories that matter. To discover stories from across the political spectrum, local stories, stories that hold power to account, that uncover wrongdoing, that empower the forgotten and the unheard. We are on a mission to build the broadest coalition of diverse commentators in the UK. Our articles are well researched, well written and straight-talking.
We remain committed to providing multiple perspectives on issues because we believe, there are two sides to every story….
Speaking during an interview for Channel 4, Sir Ken Olisa, the first black Lord-Lieutenant for London said the “hot topic” of racism had been discussed between himself and members of the royal family since the death of George Floyd, who was killed by police in the US in May 2020, sparking a historical wave of anti-racism protests across the globe under the banner of Black Lives Matter.
He said that the family cares “passionately” about removing racial “barriers” in the UK.
The comments come after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex accused the royal family of racism in their Oprah Winfrey interview earlier this year.
In the wake of the recent movement against racial injustice following George Floyd’s death last May, a senior palace aide has stated that the Queen and many other royals support the Black Lives Matter movement.
Kenneth Olisa, the first Black lord-lieutenant of London, spoke on how the race had become a “hot conversation topic” among the royal family, especially after George Floyd’s death. The issue was also touched on following Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey earlier this year. Olisa went on to say that “the question is what more can we do to bind society to remove these barriers. They [The royals] care passionately about making this one nation bound by the same values.”
When asked about whether the royal family supported the Black Lives Matter Movement, Olisa answered in the affirmative and was later supported by a Buckingham Palace spokesperson who told NBC that they had nothing to add to the comments. The statement comes as a shock to many especially since the Queen has stayed silent on such issues in the past. The question left to answer is: why does the Queen support Black Lives Matter and what does this mean for the monarchy?
Source: NBC.
The recent allegations of racism from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have emboldened royal critics’ claims that the monarchy is outdated. Historically, the Queen has represented Britain, the Church of England, and the Commonwealth. It could be argued that the royal family continues to represent a version of Britain that no longer exists and therefore needs to adapt its image in line with more secular, ‘politically correct’ and united values in order to stay relevant.
The Queen’s support of Black Lives Matter can be seen as a way of reconfiguring the royal family’s image to mesh with modern-day values. Also, pledging support for a movement that claims to champion the rights of ‘black people across the globe’ could perhaps reverse the reputational damage caused by Harry and Meghan’s racism claims in the Oprah interview earlier this year.
For many, this may seem like a good step forward for the royal family. That being said, it is still a very random statement for the Queen’s aide to make. The royal family fails to realise that they cannot overturn decades of colonial history with a single statement. Although the intention seems to be positive and some may even go as far as saying that the monarchy understands the direction it needs to take in order to reform its image, the support still comes across as somewhat insincere and cursory in light of recent events with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Black Lives Matter has also become heavily politicised. Supporting the organisation disrupts the monarchy’s politically neutral stance and potentially sets a new precedent for the royals to live up to when it comes to contentious issues like race and class, making it even more difficult to understand why the palace would endorse such a statement.
This has to be ‘tin can’ support
Adjoa, a spokesperson for BLM UK, said: “We were surprised to learn the Queen is a BLM supporter. But we welcome anyone that agrees with our goal of dismantling white supremacy. Of course, actions speak louder than words. The Queen sits on a throne made from colonial plunder. Until she gives back all the stolen gold and diamonds from the Commonwealth and pays reparations, these are nothing more than warm words.”
This is what many reading the story may be thinking. Perhaps the Queen was simply expressing her support for the statement ‘Black Lives Matter’ something, almost everyone would support. Support BLM, the organisation would require the queen to go a little further.
Patrick Vernon, a cultural historian and co-author of 100 Great Black Britons, said if the Queen truly embraced BLM “the next logical question would be what is she going to do about it, in terms of allyship, which is no different to conversations I’ve been having with people in the private sector when I’ve done talks on this issue in the last couple of years.
“What is she going to demonstrate through allyship around supporting black and brown people and also acknowledging her privilege? In many ways, she is the ultimate in privilege.”
He suggested several actions she could take, including:
Making an explicit statement supporting BLM.
Increasing the diversity of staff employed by Buckingham Palace.
Ending the Queen’s personal exemption from equality laws.
Acknowledging the Windrush scandal and supporting a proper compensation scheme for its victims.
In June, the palace said it “must do more” after publishing figures that revealed its proportion of ethnic minority employees stood at 8.5%, against a target of 10% by next year. It declined to comment on Olisa’s remarks.
America and abortion have always been an issue that has divided its citizens, with recent figures showing 49% pro-choice and 47% anti-abortion. Since the decision in the controversial Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, Conservative states in America have been trying to figure out a master plan to get the courts to repeal the law. Hope seemed to be lost until Donald Trump became president. One of Trump’s main campaign points was to overturn Roe. Once Trump nominated three conservative judges during his presidency, it gave the green light for conservative states to develop loopholes to get around the federal abortion law. Recently, Texas succeeded in its plans to slowly disseminate Roe v. Wade and change the rights of women’s bodies as we know it. The new Texas law sets a dangerous precedent for society, and it is only the beginning.
What is the Texas Abortion Law?
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, shown displaying a voter suppression bill he signed Tuesday, also signed the state’s uniquely draconian antiabortion law. (Associated Press)
In short, the “Heartbeat Bill” bans abortion procedures after six weeks of pregnancy. At least eight types of similar heartbeat bills have passed in recent years but have faced court challenges that counter Roe v. Wade, the case that established the right to an abortion in 1973 America. The signing of Texas’ Heartbeat Bill opened up a new gateway in a battle over abortion restrictions.
The lawmakers in Texas were very strategic in how they wrote the bill. Rather than having state officials enforce the abortion ban, the law empowers private citizens by suing abortion entities, providers, and other citizens who aid in the abortion process. This particular provision makes it harder for abortion rights groups to sue state officials because they are not the ones who enforce the law.
Why does it Matter?
Abortion rights activists rallied outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
While the landmark case ultimately gave women the right to have full authority over their bodies, Texas’ Heartbeat Bill is just one step closer to overturning those rights. Most women do not know that they are pregnant before six weeks. This bill also opens the door for almost any private citizen to sue anyone for aiding in abortions. Simply put, a citizen can sue the Uber driver that takes the woman to the abortion procedure because they were involved in the process. By restricting abortion laws, any abortion will be denied, including rape and incest cases. The signing of this bill unleashes new restrictions that are the first of its kind, making it harder for the courts to block.
One Step Forward for Texas, Five Steps Back for society.
Various protests broke out against the new Heartbeat Bill.
Although this bill has received extensive criticism, earlier last week, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case allowing the ban to go into effect. The fact the highest Court of the land refuses to listen to the issues with this bill is genuinely frightening. This bill sets back women and their rights to determine what is best for their bodies. The bill restricting abortions on incest and rape forces women into an uncompromising position that no one should force upon them. Additionally, the law aids to help people turn against each other and play unnecessary rent- a- cops while having an odd economic incentive for doing so.
Texas set a dangerous precedent that other states will surely follow. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing on social issues and fighting for one’s beliefs; however, the fight should be fair and not observed with malice against thy fellow neighbour. The Heartbeat Bill blatantly disregards the right to privacy a woman has over her own body, and no one has the right, especially a private citizen, to tell her what is best for her.
In recent weeks, we’ve seen the rapid changes made by OnlyFans when it comes to banning, and then promptly lifting the ban, of adult content on their platform.
It came as a significant shock to many of us when OnlyFans announced that they were going to ban explicit content from 1 October 2021. In popular culture today, OnlyFans has been lauded as a ‘safer’, and more ‘sustainable’ form of sex work, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those selling explicit content via the platform do not have to meet their subscribers in real life. Viral tweets advertise to young adults and teenagers how easy it is to make ‘a quick £100k’ via OnlyFans.
Some celebrities also use the platform to share non-explicit content, e.g actor and musician Chet Hanks, who recently joined OnlyFans to give fans an ‘exclusive look into his life and celebrity parties’. This announcement was shouted down on Twitter with the response: ‘maybe promo the ones who built your platform’. And there it is. The reason that OnlyFans ‘changed their minds and went back on their decision to ban explicit content from their platform. The significant backlash on social media from OnlyFans subscribers and content creators, in justifiable outrage, that their livelihood was being snatched from them, caused them to backtrack on their decision. Or was it? How much power do sex workers really have, and were they the victims of the OnlyFans decision, or the victors?
In the article ‘Does Only Fans Have Too much Power Over Sex Workers’ by Aaron Fenton-Hewitt, it’s explored how OnlyFans creators were effectively ‘used’ by the platform to bring it up to its current popularity and social cult status, and then promptly discarded when large financial institutions such as Visa and Mastercard saw fit to distance themselves from the platform. The work of publications such as the New York Times and the BBC has exposed how prolific human trafficking, sexual assault, violence, racism, and objectification can be in the porn industry. Therefore, it might seem like a victory on the part of OnlyFans creators, to have effectively coerced the platform into allowing them to provide explicit content for their subscribers despite the public backlash against the absurd availability of explicit digital content.
Dahria Smith banks $5,000 a week on OnlyFans
As the NYT’s exploration stated, “Mindgeek’s [the conglomerate that owns Pornhub] moderators are charged with filtering out videos of children, but its business model profits from sex videos starring young people”. In the same way, a young girl using TikTok can see a video from an influencer happily sharing how much money they’ve made from OnlyFans, and decide that could be an avenue they explore to make an online income. What young people fail to understand is that only the top percentile of OnlyFans creators actually make significant income from it, and more often they have to provide far more than just photos of themselves, leading to extremely damaging consequences for their future careers if such material was found and connected to them.
Consequently, it seems that OnlyFans has performed an interesting coup with the assistance of ‘mob psychology. Their announcement stating the removal of adult content from the site in early October sent a rallying cry of ‘defend sex workers!’ throughout every social network, particularly Twitter. It can be seen as an example of large scale manipulation, deflecting the blame of hosting potentially illegal content on their site onto those who are creating it. OnlyFans’ leadership team may as well have stated: ‘If our creators are so driven by the strict requirements of popular culture to use OnlyFans for adult content, then what can we do?’ OnlyFans has seemingly put themselves on the side of ‘morality’ by being seen to ban adult content due to the censure of their financial backers, and due to the decision made by Visa and Mastercard to withdraw support from Pornhub after child abuse allegations were made. They then have secured renewed support from their creators by being seen to publicly overturn that decision, as shown in the below tweet thread.
give sexworkers a 100% payout percentage a month for every hour you caused them irredeemable stress/strife since the moment you said you were cutting out all explicit content on your platform & start tweeting out adult models on your Twitter feed regularly from now until forever
It appears that some Twitter users at least can discern how eager OnlyFans appeared to throw its creators under a bus. After using their labour to boost the site’s customer base, they were willing to remove their brand of content creation from the site completely, ruining the fanbases they had managed to build.
Having established the OnlyFans was financially rather than morally moved to ban adult content, the question remains about who the real villains and victors are. Did those who responded to OnlyFans’ adult content ban with outcry really help adult content creators? Should adult content creators be entering into a business relationship with a platform that clearly doesn’t have their needs and concerns at heart? Did OnlyFans actually do adult content creators a favour with the initial ban of their content?
It’s no secret that many of those who create an OnlyFans account for extra money can end up making as low as $150 a month from the platform. 33% of OnlyFans’ revenue comes from the top 1% of OnlyFans accounts. OnlyFans will take a 20% cut from the income generated by creators. The top 10% of accounts make 73% of OnlyFans’ revenue, which doesn’t bode well for a young woman hoping to earn a life changing amount of money, signing up for the platform with zero existing following and no real perception of how much her life and hopes for a career can change if photos of her are identifiable, found and then linked to her.
The real victims in this situation are these struggling OnlyFans creators, who may be celebrating the chance to return to an exhausting, unprofitable and potentially very damaging way of making an income. OnlyFans’ public rejection of adult content followed by their speedy backtracking, seemingly only in response to the outcry from their adult content creators, portrays them as the party that is reluctantly acceding to the demands of their ‘valued’ creators. However, this most likely has been a clever publicity stunt: announce adult content will be banned from the platform, then reverse this decision to seem like the ‘perfect bosses’ who listen to their employees.
This time OnlyFans has been truly exposed as a disingenuous platform that exists solely to make a profit rather than protect vulnerable young people using the platform. We shall see whether these young and impressionable creators will migrate from the platform in the future, perhaps creating their own, where there may be far better provision to prevent the uploading of non-consensual content.
Extinction Rebellion (XR) recently vowed to ‘come back stronger’ as 500 arrests were made in London. The direct action group, which seeks to compel the government into action against climate change by engaging in disruptive civil disobedience, launched a two-week campaign – dubbed the Impossible Rebellion – in the capital, where hundreds of protestors were arrested.
Thanks to Priti Patel’s new legislation, police now have the power to be more forceful with XR demonstrators. A report from the Guardian said that police scaled a double-decker bus and drew batons in order to combat them, which to many represented a shift in the state’s approach to the movement and its followers.
XR protestors are known for pulling off crazy stunts and causing criminal damage in order to get attention. Two such people were caught vandalising by using hammers to deface and shatter the glass at a J.P. Morgan bank, whilst in 2019 an infamous video showed a demonstrator on top of a Tube carriage to stop it moving being dragged off by angry commuters.
XR supporters break panels of glass at a J.P Morgan bank branch. Video credit: Extinction Rebellion
The group has certainly divided opinion of the public, and with the government now being more abrasive and confrontational with the group, XR seem to be becoming more desperate by attempting to pull off more and more increasingly dangerous stunts.
Many have questioned the tactics of the movement. Many support it, as they draw comparisons with other historical events where direct action was needed in order for change to be implemented. XR supporters have been seen comparing themselves to the civil rights movement in the United States.
Others disagree, as they question the motives behind the protests, as well as the repercussions of their demands being met. Many of these demands would have a direct impact on the working class, and so there is a social injustice that comes with climate awareness.
Make no mistake about it: XR are a terrorist group. Putting aside the politics and nuance of the situation, they are textbook terrorists, no matter how noble they attempt to make themselves appear. It’s very easy to define them as such, as the movement has identical characteristics to the definition of terrorism.
So, what is terrorism? According to the Crown Prosecution Service, terrorism is defined as: ‘the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’
‘Examples include serious violence against a person or damage to property, endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action), creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public [and] action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.’
Infamous video from 2019 where XR protestors are dragged down from Tube carriages. Video credit: The Telegraph
Are XR guilty of this? Yes, they are. XR have three main demands (not requests): governments to declare a climate and ecological emergency, reduce greenhouse gases to net-zero by 2025 and for them to ‘create and be led by a Citizen’s Assembly on climate and ecological justice.’
How do they try and force this? Via non-violent direct action and disruptive civil disobedience. Examples of this include blocking Tower Bridge, stopping newspapers from being delivered due to an alleged ‘anti-climate change bias’, attempting to build wooden and metal structures in busy parts of central London and dousing the Treasury building with fake blood.
Have XR ‘used action’? Yes, as seen in videos for years. Are they doing these things to directly ‘influence the government’? Yes, as proved in their demands on their website. Have they caused ‘damage to property? Yes, in a video they themselves uploaded to social media for the world to see.
Have they taken ‘action to seriously interfere with or disrupt an electronic system’? Yes; XR co-founder Roger Hallam was arrested after trying to fly a drone onto a runway at Heathrow Airport. Have they ‘created a serious risk to the safety of the public? Yes, when a campaigner climbed on top of a Tube train and was dragged off.
The Met, for now, have massively redeemed themselves. They put aside their double standard policing and stopped Extinction Rebellion before they even started to cause trouble.
We need more of this. Free protests are fine but illegal obstructions are not. pic.twitter.com/oDY2qBtFsb
Police stop XR protestors from building a construct in the middle of the street.
All these things confirm XR’s status as a terrorist group. Their actions and motives prove this, objectively. Not many people can deny climate change, neither are people claiming that XR should not have a voice.
In fact, many people disagree with Patel’s new legislation as it defines certain groups as ‘annoying’, which is a subjective notion, meaning the state decides what ‘annoying’ is and isn’t, which is dangerous.
However, there is a difference between peaceful protest and direct and disruptive action. In a democracy, people have a right to protest and make themselves heard. People also have a right to go to work uninterrupted and free from harassment.
The two can coexist, but it seems this isn’t enough for XR. They wish to involve people in situations where they don’t want to be.
XR protestors stop newspapers from the press being delivered due to their owners being ‘anti-climate. Video credit: Sky News
The repeated yet indefensible rhetoric from XR is ‘we are non-violent’; but unfortunately, ‘non-violent’ does not mean ‘legal’. Being ‘non-violent’ does not give you permission to cause traffic, delays and chaos in busy areas. It does not give you the right to vandalise private property. It does not give you the right to try and disrupt aircraft at international airports.
The government’s new legislation is certainly questionable but groups like XR cause it. Direct action will have direct consequences. XR only have themselves to blame for any and all consequences that come their way. It’s only a matter of time before they’re recognised as a terrorist group, and it can’t come soon enough.
Climate change is the real terrorist here.
The infamous video of an Extinction Rebellion protester being dragged from the roof of a London train in October 2019 is one that sent shockwaves of outrage throughout the public, and with good reason. XR protestors, those fortunate individuals ensconced in Surrey, appeared to have not bothered to research London boroughs, and decided to pick on Canning Town that morning.
According to Newham Council, Canning Town is among the five per cent most deprived areas in the UK. In one of the video clips from the incident, XR protesters are seen apologising to commuters, stating ‘This isn’t directed at you, I’m so sorry.’ Be that as it may, XR had, it seemed, irreversibly damaged their reputation among just the individuals they needed to support them. But was that really the case? Are XR’s methods really the work of terrorists, or are they the work of desperate climate campaigners doing their utmost to ensure they are noticed by those in power?
Protests that consist of standing in public places and handing out leaflets tend to generate zero media attention. That isn’t a risk a protestor against the lack of climate change prioritization can be prepared to take, as their whole aim is to secure media attention and consequently awareness of the actions they are taking, and why they are taking them. It’s very true that XR’s behaviour when obstructing trains in Canning Town and other stations portrayed them in a negative light rather than a positive one. However, we must ask ourselves: when did it become a requirement to do drastic acts of obstruction and vandalism for media coverage? Throughout history, e.g during the suffragette campaigns that generated both censure and praise from the media during the 1910s, political organisations have engaged in direct action and civil disobedience. Both these approaches appear ‘radical’ to the general public, but they originate from existing political technique – not terrorism. From the quote in the video, it’s clear that XR protestors were remorseful about the negative effects they were having on commuters. They had no evil intentions. They are hardly an example of terrorists, as opposed to saviours – they are willing to risk potentially violent public and police backlash in order to get their demands across, just as the suffragettes of the Women’s Social and Political Union were.
An easy way to counteract the work of XR protestors and dismiss them as ‘terrorists’ is to argue that everyone cares about the climate. Indeed, I’m sure more of us are concerned or worried about intergovernmental climate inaction in 2021 than we were in 2019. We’ve experienced a global pandemic, raging wildfires, enough melting of ice in Greenland to cover Florida in 2 inches of water, and dangerous heatwaves across Europe, Canada and beyond. XR should be commended for renewing its momentum despite the effects of a global pandemic naturally shaping individual and governmental priorities. Given that COVID-19 most likely affected humanity through zoonosis, the pandemic is inextricably linked to climate change and humanity’s impact on the planet. In addition, COP26 in Glasgow is only 2 months away; it would be remiss for any group of committed climate activists to not take every opportunity to get the word out there and dominate media coverage in the run-up to a global climate event.
There are other ways to accomplish this, of course. XR may consider taking a fresh stand on politics. They claim to be apolitical, which perhaps they are, but they provoke far too much division to be labelled that way. If they stand for local councillor or MP roles, promoting tactical voting, and put their strongest candidates forward with the intention of making climate action a priority, they will be able to ensure that radical change does indeed happen within official policy channels. We’ve all seen instances where this does not work or takes years to work. It’s perhaps preferable to engendering public hatred, but does it really work? And can we afford to wait so many years for changes to be enacted through governmental policy (a notoriously slow system) while our planet hangs in the balance?
If it can be concluded that XR’s approach is tone-deaf, (that is if they desire to elect an activist into Parliament), then that’s fair enough. But if XR exists to drive up media attention and be an example of how the fear of climate change can drive us to do incredible, dangerous things, then surely they cannot be doing such a bad job. Those accusing them of terrorism may simply not want to look climate change in the face. Many of us, as the incident at Canning Town station proved, are simply not able to dedicate a certain number of hours per week to keeping the climate at the top of the media agenda. If XR is in a fortunate position where it can do so, why stop them?
Allied forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan, and the country has been declared an “Islamic Emirate” by the Taliban.
The international community is on the fence about engaging with the Taliban, but China has been one of the few countries more open with the organisation.
China’s top diplomat suggested that the international community needed to “guide” the Taliban regime actively in a phone call with United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken,
Because of this, there are reports that China is preparing to fill in the power vacuum left behind by allied forces.
What is going on with China and the Taliban?
The Taliban have expressed interest in wanting China to be its prominent financier for its government. A senior member of the Taliban’s political office in Qatar has said that China will “beef up” its relations with the group and increase its humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. China is pledging $31 million worth of aid to Afghanistan, including food supplies and coronavirus vaccines. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi declared these measures during a meeting with Afghanistan’s neighbours Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
The BBC is reporting that China is making serious efforts to establish good relations with the Taliban. But, even before the group took over Afghanistan, Chinese officials were meeting with the Taliban. In July, China invited representatives of the group to a meeting to offer economic support but have said to the group that they cannot allow Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists. China has yet to formally recognise the new regime in Afghanistan, as some of the Chinese public are unhappy with these links.
Why is China Engaging with The Taliban?
So, while they see the necessity of taking on a more active political role to deal with the fallout of what is now underway, there is considerable wariness about being sucked in.”
Andrew Small, Associate Senior Policy Fellow on the European Council on Foreign Relations on China’s links with the Taliban.
Many analysts are trying to understand why China is taking such a different approach from the rest of the world regarding the Taliban. China has been critical of how the United States withdrew troops from Afghanistan and have said that the United States caused “havoc” because of their withdrawal. Tom Tugendhat, a British Member of Parliament, said that China is engaging with the Taliban to ensure stability in the neighbourhood and Andrew Small, Associate Senior Policy Fellow on the European Council on Foreign Relations, believes that it is all about “managing threats” rather than viewing Afghanistan “through the prism of opportunities.” China has many interests in neighbouring countries like its China-Pakistan Economic Corridor worth $60 billion. This is at risk due to the withdrawal of allied forces, and by engaging with the new regime in Afghanistan, China could limit the spill-over effects into countries in which it has its interests.
However, the likes of Samina Yasmeen, the Director of the Centre for the Muslim States and Societies at the University of Western Australia, thinks it is more than managing threats. She said that China is trying to create a zone of influence within the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. There are even suggestions of China expanding its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) into the country. Chinese officials have repeatedly expressed interest in increasing its China-Pakistan Economic Corridor into Afghanistan. With allied forces withdrawing from the country, it could be possible for this to happen. Not only that, but Taliban officials want investment specifically from China, and the BRI could be a way for this to happen.
Aljazeera explaining China’s Belt and Road Initiative
What Does China Want to Gain Out Of Afghanistan?
As reports say, there are links with China and the Taliban, but it is more about what both parties want to gain. It seems China doesn’t want to expand its BRI into Afghanistan and is worried that the new regime will harm this project. That is why they are sending aid into the country so that the situation doesn’t spill over to places like Pakistan, where it has established this economic corridor. Funding for the BRI has declined over the last few years, and with the pandemic impacting China economically, they may have to revaluate where it is spending its funds. As a result, this may displease the Taliban, who are hopeful that China will fund most of its operations.
There is scepticism from the west that China will expand its sphere of influence into Afghanistan. However, this narrative is being overblown. If China were to expand the BRI into this country, it would have to contend with a security situation that is becoming worse by the day, with ISIS-K and the Taliban currently fighting within Afghanistan. In doing so, a country like China would be more concerned about Afghanistan’s instability rather than it being viewed as an opportunity. And so, despite this narrative that China will fill in this power vacuum left behind by the allied forces, it will be more about stabilising the situation rather than taking advantage of it.
The depiction of Black people online is often narrow or problematic. Cotta is building a platform where people can find authentic images of Black people and their community.
Internet access remains unevenly spread, but it is more ubiquitous than many people realize: 45% of women in the world are online today, and 74% of the online population is connecting from outside North America and Europe.
But the content published on the Internet is deeply skewed. On Wikipedia — the fifth-most-visited website in the world and a good indicator of the world’s online knowledge — fewer than one-quarter of all biographies are of women. And although the population of Africa is more than one-and-a-half times greater than that of Europe, only 15% of the articles available on Wikipedia focus on it.
There are more articles written about Antarctica than about many parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia. This is what intrigued me about Cotta. They said they were building a platform to find authentic black images curated by the community. It’s important the World sees images of Black people beyond pain. Images that flooded our scenes last year was one of reeling and righteous anger. However, it’s important that people see the full breadth of the Black experience. I sat down with one of the Co-Founders of Cotta, Rotimi Soyombo
How did this all begin?
At the height of the pandemic, I started designing websites for products and services, many targeted toward black community. In searching for representative images, I realised that the pool of content was limited and if available, very much inauthentic of what I know the community to be. Later shared with Joey and Basheer, and a few weeks later we were gathered in Joey’s living room drawing up a plan of action.
In retrospect, the journey to Cotta began a lot earlier than that. Collectively, we were all interested in the creator economy, social impact, and the intersection between technology and culture. Joey (co-founder) and I were in the early stages of building an agency seeking to connect influencers to social enterprises and charities to drive campaigns for various social issues, while Basheer was working on creating an online marketplace to connect artists to consumers interested in custom footwear and apparel. In Cotta we found a project we were each passionate about solving and put simply, we saw a vision that allowed us to build something special around those interests.
How have things been since you started?
We lived on zoom calls for the first few months of the project. There are so many relevant groups within the Cotta ecosystem and we wanted to make sure we properly understood the problems that needed solving from the perspective of different stakeholders. We spoke to black photographers, graphic designers, content creators, media and advertising agencies and large corporations.
Things have been positive from a product standpoint too. It’s taken just under 6 months to progress from an idea to delivery.
What do you hope to achieve with this project?
Throughout history, narratives have been shaped by those who hold the pen or own the lens, and it’s no secret that the black community, our history and our truth has been told by people other than ourselves. We’re fortunate enough to live in a time where the role of the storyteller has been decentralised and all over the world, the experiences and cultures of the black community are being captured by our creators.
We want to share that truth with the world. In a generation where visual media is arguably the most prevalent means of communication, it’s so important our stories are shared and told by us. We want to provide a platform for the free, truthful and raw expression of black creators.
We’re really optimistic about the future, and what it looks like for creators. The lines between profession and passion get blurrier by the day with more and more people able to earn a living through their creative pursuits. We want to make this a reality for more black creators. Those who create value are only rewarded in proportion to their ability to communicate that value, which isn’t always easy to do as an individual. Our goal with Cotta is to leverage community and technology to amplify the work from our creators, increase their reach, recognition and reward.
Finally, we want to contribute to the growth of an ecosystem, supporting black businesses in particular. For a long time in the physical world, the black community has been underserved and underrepresented across a multitude of sectors. As the digital world evolves, we have an opportunity to ensure that doesn’t happen. We’ve been inspired by a number of businesses and brands that sit at the intersection of technology and culture. We hope we can do the same.
What’s surprised you so far about your personal Journey?
A lot of creativity has been born out of our constraints. Naturally, there is an element of personal growth and stepping out of your comfort zone that’s required to bring a vision to life – however, the speed at which the Cotta team members picked up new skills and field knowledge has been remarkable.
I’ve also been surprised by the level of commitment and belief consistently shown by the team. The freedom of thought, ideas and execution that comes as a result of individuals who have a deep connection to what is to be achieved is something we knew, but what started off as a desire now feels more akin to a duty. We’re building Cotta not just because we want to but because we have to. That evolution was a result of the conversations we’ve had with creators especially, about the impact photography has had on their lives and where they hope their talents will take them.
What have you found most personally challenging about leading on this project?
The most challenging aspect of the project is finding contentment and patience with the earliest versions of the platform. We’ve got some pretty big ideas for the platform, unique features and partnerships, but we can’t run without walking. It’s important to prioritise implementing the core features that give users the most value and ensuring they have a quality experience. We’re also self-funded at the moment which places an additional constraint on what we decided to implement. I don’t imagine the challenge of contentment ever ends but we’re committed to continuously closing the gap between the vision that we see in our minds and the platform that our users get to experience.
What does success look like to you?
We’ll find our success in leveraging technology to propel these images to the world and enrich people’s lives. A home that enables our creators to tell their most authentic and raw visual stories, made accessible for anyone to download in just a few clicks. Hopefully we’ll see a growth in representation in the content created by small businesses and large corporations alike.
We’re tunnel vision on creating economic and social impact within the black community through this platform, so rewarding creators for the value they create as well as using photography as a tool for social change are two key areas we consider when we visualise success. There’s also an element of success that can’t yet be visualised. We use the term “conduits of creativity” a lot when we describe the role Cotta plays. The hope is that the creativity housed within the platform takes on a direction of its own and leads to the types of success we didn’t preconceived.
Also, there’s an element of success that we’ve intentionally made no attempt to visualise. We often describe the role of Cotta as being “Conduits of Creativity”. We’re genuinely hopeful that the creativity we see on the platform will take on a life of its own and create new metrics of success that we couldn’t have preconceived.
How can people get involved?
The first way for everyone to get involved is to sign up for the waitlist and follow our socials so they can be the first to know when the platform goes live. For any individuals or businesses who have something they can contribute to the vision, we’d love to speak. We’re also planning to expand the team over the next few weeks, starting with a Community Manager and CTO. So we’d welcome anyone interested in those positions to reach out to have a chat.
What can we look forward to from you?
The main thing to look forward to is the launch of the platform which is coming very soon. Alongside it, we’ll be hosting Cotta Challenges; a continuous series of photography competitions where creators are invited to submit images around selected themes. We’re looking forward to seeing a breadth of creative interpretations on display.
We’ve also got some events in the works to connect with our creators both virtually and in person, and a few campaigns addressing issues that are close to the heart of the community.
Despite being Britain’s longest-serving monarch, Queen Elizabeth’s funeral arrangements (dubbed ‘Operation London Bridge’) were recently leaked to the press. The recently leaked documents show that officials will refer to the day the Queen dies as ‘D Day’, and she will be buried 10 days after her passing. Her coffin will lie in state for three days at the Houses of Parliament whilst the new King Charles will deliver a televised broadcast and tour the United Kingdom. The Queen has for a long time been the figurehead of the British monarchy and is considered the most popular royal. Although her funeral plans have been exposed it is unclear what her passing means for the future of the monarchy and whether or not the British people will accept a new sovereign.
Will we take the monarchy seriously after the Queen?
Part of the reason why Queen Elizabeth II has been popular amongst the British public for so long is her stoic nature. Crowned sovereign at the age of 27 after the sudden passing of her father and abdication of her uncle, the Queen has since grown into her role and developed a stalwart and reliable persona that her successors will likely struggle to live up to.
There was little expectation that she would be the heir to the throne until her uncle, King Edward VIII, abdicated to marry divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson. Yet despite unexpectedly assuming the responsibility of sovereign at a young age, many feel the Queen has proved to be an institution in and of herself after dealing with adverse events in her usual steely manner, including the death of the ‘People’s Princess’ Diana, the mining disaster in Wales during the 60s and many others. The gravitas and grace that the Queen has brought to the throne these last 69 years may not be replicated by the likes of Charles and Camilla as both have been involved in social scandals and are widely disliked by the British public.
Source: Buzzfeed. The recent launch of season 4 of the Netflix show The Crown has rekindled the animosity people had towards Charles and Camilla following the Prince’s cheating scandal.
Following recent events, other members of the royal family like Prince Harry, Prince William and Prince Andrew as well as Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle have also developed problematic reputations. Without the Queen as the bedrock of the monarchy, the family may not be taken seriously as internal rivalry and pointless feuds continue to make tabloid headlines. What this means for the royal family is unclear, but without the Queen, it is likely that the British public may not see the point of even having a monarchy that contributes more drama than service to British society.
Source: Insider. Photo of Queen Elizabeth as a mechanic during WWII.
New opportunities?
On the other hand, the passing of the Queen could open up new opportunities for the royal family to modernise. Although many have grown to admire the Queen’s stalwart and serious personality, others may hold the view that her approach is stuffy, and her role somewhat outdated. The Queen has made no material contribution towards running the country but upon her passing the monarchy could become more significant as younger members impose their leadership. Younger royals have the option to divert their efforts towards issues that have divided the country in recent times such as racial tensions and class conflict as well as build upon existing high-value social projects such as Prince William and Harry’s mental health initiatives. After the Queen’s reign is over there is scope to create a more open monarchical system where the general public has the opportunity to interact with the royals and relate to them on key issues.
Humanising the royal family has undoubtedly become a priority as the public grows to resent the family’s inherent privilege. Once the Queen passes, there is a crucial window of time during which the royal family will need to establish a new approach that resonates with the majority of people in the country. Increasing the level of public service the family provides is a good way of removing the ‘untouchable’ status that has alienated the monarchy from the majority of Britons and would allow them to carve a new more pertinent role for themselves in today’s society.
The content-sharing website Only Fans – which has become synonymous with adult content – recently reversed a decision to ban sexually explicit content from their platform, following a huge backlash from sex workers and adult content creators.
At first, the platform did not give a reason for banning such material. Many accused it of using sex workers to build it into a multi-billion dollar business and then dumping them. After PR failings, the spokespeople of the platform said that it ‘was the banks’ that forced their hands.
Following a BBC investigation, it was alleged that Only Fans’ approach to illegal content (such as revenge porn) was not only lax but intentionally preferable to users who made the most money and had more followers. It claimed that it was lenient towards the more popular creators and had a three-strike rule for such content, which should never be the case.
Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard.
We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change.
OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators.
Only Fans claim they’ve ‘secured assurances’ to halt the policy change.
Consequently the banks and other independent investors, to prevent reputational damage, pulled out of backing initially, as there is a legal requirement and social responsibility to not promote such material. The sex industry has long been plagued with issues regarding safeguarding, with many platforms accused of not doing enough to prevent illegal and harmful content from being readily accessible.
The decision was reversed shortly afterwards. In a statement, Only Fans said, “Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard. We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change. OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators.”
It comes after Visa and MasterCard banned adult website PornHub from using their services after an investigation by the New York Times demonstrated the scale of revenge porn featured on the site, among other alleged things such as underage performers and inadequate filtering services.
Moral and social ambiguities
This is a complicated situation to dissect. Whilst there have been questions regarding the future of banking, and whether or not banks should adopt the role of moral guardianship on behalf of their users, it does beg the question as to how and why Only Fans (and the sex industry in general) has this much political power to make banks think twice.
It is understandable why investors were hesitant to be associated with the sex industry. There are legal, moral and social ambiguities in regards to pornography. It is no secret that there are dark realities and uncomfortable truths about the industry.
As demonstrated by the New York Times, PornHub allowed material with underage children and revenge porn to be readily accessible to the world, and the BBC reported Only Fans’ leniency towards high-profile content creators who shared illegal content; and, in some cases, even overlooking the situation entirely.
Non-profit Fight the New Drug says porn is fuelling the demand for sex trafficking. Video credit: Fight the New Drug
There have also been links between adult filmmaking and the sex trafficking trade. According to Fight the New Drug (FTNG, a non-profit organisation), a study of 854 women was conducted, which found that 49% of these women “said that porn had been made of them while they were in prostitution”, and 47% “said they had been harmed by men who had either forced or tried to force their victims to do things the men had seen in porn.”
Social consequence is also a factor to consider. There have been many studies that have shown that pornography has the same effect on the human brain as some hard drugs, forcing people to keep chasing a ‘high’ by consuming more harmful content.
Dr. Gail Dines, professor of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College, said,
“we know that trafficking is increasing — which means demand is increasing. This means that men are increasingly willing to have sex with women who are being controlled and abused by pimps and traffickers.”
Dr. Gail Dines, professor of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College
“The biggest sex educator of young men today is pornography, which is increasingly violent and dehumanising, and it changes the way men view women.”
FTNG also reported that “when these customers [men looking for sex] show up, many come ready with porn images in hand to show the women they’re exploiting—many of which are human trafficking victims controlled by pimps—what they’ll be forced to do.”
An illustration of the effect that pornography has on the human brain. Video credit: AsapSCIENCE
Irrespective of the concern regarding financial freedom, even the most libertarian person can acknowledge and understand why investors did not want to associate with such an industry. It’s demonstrable that the social, moral and legal issues are inherently linked to each other.
The question, therefore, remains: why did Only Fans and its creators have so much influence to be able to reverse a seemingly wise decision? The simple answer is money.
Many investors find the idea of a regulated sex industry too lucrative a deal to turn down. For the 20/21 fiscal year, Only Fans generated an estimated $400 million in post-tax revenue. During lockdown due to the pandemic, many adult creators used the platform as a means to earn money after they could not perform in real-world adult films due to social distancing guidelines.
Only Fans as a platform has undeniably benefitted financially from adult content to the extent where the platform has become synonymous with this material. To many people, it seems to be a no-brainer to invest in an industry that is highly profitable.
GB News discusses the adult material ban, with adult star Brooklyn Blue. Video credit: GB News
Another answer might be PR and social attitudes towards adult content. The main issue that sex workers had when Only Fans announced their ban was that they felt marginalised and exploited. The platform was all too eager and prepared to profit from sex workers, but as soon as more substantial figures were introduced, they were abandoned.
They argued that it is fundamentally disrespectful to sex workers, as other times in history have shown that sex and prostitutes have been used as little more than a means to an end. They’re used to establish a business to a certain financial level, then discarded when not needed.
It would be, therefore, hypocritical for Only Fans to abandon an entire group of creators who have helped to build up the platform to what it is today. To do so would be to demonstrate the little regard the platform has for its creators and the industry as a whole, as well as potentially put sex workers at risk of exploitation.
There is also the reality that Only Fans has now become a platform synonymous with adult content creation. To not invest in the platform due to adult material would be pointless, nonsensical and counterproductive. It would be like wanting to invest in KFC but not in the purchasing of chicken.
Political commentator Sargon of Akkad discusses the ban (before its reversal).
What this case does show is that, with the right amount of political power and social pressure from certain communities, banks can and will back down from making moral decisions on behalf of their users. It’s a shame that the sex industry is the highlighted group.
Many feel this will be the exception and not the rule. Not all communities have the same political clout, and banks will target them. Although banks want to adhere to legal and social responsibilities, there is no guarantee that they will share your view of what those responsibilities are.
Payment processors being allowed to dictate content is not going to end well for any publisher.
Alexander Chee, a professor at Dartmouth College, is concerned at the amount of power financial institutions have.
In this case, many would agree with the banks on a moral level, but disagree with other things. Without the appropriate social protection, will personal financial decisions be free to make by the customer, or will banks impose a moral gatekeeping paradigm?
It seems it’s less to do with money and more to do with power. There’s safety in numbers. With social protection, anything is possible. Without it, you are at the mercy of the banks’ moral and ethical standards, which sometimes come into conflict with your own. They’re both poisons, but you’re forced to pick one.
Benyamin Ahmed has gone viral after making £290,000 in non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
He has sold digital pictures of whales in cryptocurrency and has stored these images on the blockchain.
And because of this story and how much Ben has earned through this project, it puts into question if NFTs will be part of our future.
How did this happen?
Mintdropz explaining Benyamin Ahmed’s viral story
Ben created a set of 3,350 whales in the style of a common whale meme on a pixel art website. This whale meme was seen on the popular video gaming platform Minecraft, and from his creation, he was able to sell his designs on the blockchain as an NFT. This project cost $300, mainly because Ben had to pay gas fees, which help verify each NFT. Ben started to code this whale collection from online tutorials and mentors he met on Discord, an online chatting platform. A developer for a different NFT project called Boring Bananas sent Ben a script to use as a template so that he was able to code his design.
After that, Ben placed the images on the blockchain and started to share his story about getting involved in NFTs on multiple online platforms, like posting a Twitter thread and creating a LinkedIn page. From there, interest in Ben’s images skyrocketed, where after nine hours of launching his collection in July, it had sold out. Since then, he has made over $350,000, which equates to £290,000. Ben is currently storing his earnings in Ethereum, a form of cryptocurrency, and he used this format to sell his whale artwork. Ben’s father Imran says he is “100% certain” that his son hasn’t broken copyright law, and he has engaged with lawyers to “audit” his work and to find ways to trademark Ben’s designs.
Ben’s backstory into NFTs
Ben was very much connected to the technological world from an early age, where he and his brother Yousef started coding at the age of five and six. Imran encouraged his sons to take up coding, where they did around 20 to 30 minutes of coding exercises a day. Ben said that he would try at least one coding exercise a day and has been doing this for a few years. He and Yousef got so good that they were ranked in the top 6% on a platform called Codewars, and Ben has gone from strength to strength ever since.
He started to take an interest in NFTs, where he began an NFT project before his success with Weird Whales. He launched the Minecraft Yee Haa project earlier in the summer, which consisted of 40 colourful avatars, and according to him, this was created “after spending too many hours playing Minecraft”. Ben made the artwork and coded each NFT by himself, and though this collection didn’t have as much success as his Weird Whales collection, Ben saw Minecraft Yee Haa as a learning experience. And because of the success he has made from Weird Whales and the lessons he has learnt from it, he is planning on doing another NFT project, which he is yet to name what it will be.
People are saying that this guy might be a harbinger of where we are going to be in maybe 10, 15, 25 years. It kind of validates what everybody has been saying about blockchains, about bitcoin and Ethereum. He is potentially the first person in history that has done this.”
Imran Ahmed, Benyamin’s father speaking to the Guardian
Are NFTs The Future?
Ben and Weird Whales’ success story has again shown the potential that NFTs can bring. So much so, we have headlines by Fortune saying that NFTs are the new digital “flex”, with OpenSea, which is the world’s largest NFT marketplace, expecting to see $1 billion in transaction volume this month alone. That is up from $300 million in July and $8 million in January, illustrating skyrocketing growth. All of this is not surprising, especially when you look at the benefits of NFTs, like how efficient it is to trade NFT gaming items, more minor copyright infringements and much more. These benefits point towards an adamant NFT future, but it is not as simple as people are making it out to be.
The art world, for example, is still divided over these tokens like former Christie’s auctioneer Charles Allsopp, who believes it makes “no sense” to buy these tokens. He thinks this because it is “strange” to purchase something that isn’t there, compared to traditional artworks. This may alienate people who want the physical copy of a painting, a card or an item from a popular gaming title. Plus, though it should be impossible for people not to make fake NFTs, this has occurred in recent weeks, meaning there is still work to be done over these tokens. And, on top of this, you still have a volatile market.
The idea of buying something which isn’t there is just strange. People who invest in it are slight mugs – but I hope they don’t lose their money.”
Charles Allsopp, former Christie’s auctioneer speaking to BBC News
But back to the question about whether NFTs are the future; the answer is that it depends on what the next few years will bring.
We have seen these viral stories of 12-year-olds making a massive amount of cash through NFTs, but for these tokens to be the future of our existence, there needs to be more work.
This includes infrastructure that allows these NFTs to go mainstream and for there to be less of a knowledge gap between people regarding these tokens.
It is uncertain if these things will be met, but for now, Ben and his Weird Whales collection is another example of why we should at least consider NFTs, even if they might not be the future.
With the chaos ongoing in Afghanistan right now, one cannot help but wonder how we ended up in this position? It might not be a shock to many that the Taliban, after the western capitulation, retook the reigns again, however, what is shocking is how fast they were able to take over the country. While people can blame President Joe Biden for the U.S. withdrawal, he was not the only U.S. president who made questionable decisions. The Taliban control in the 1990s, the U.S. invasion in 2001, and Doha Deal in 2020 aided in the Taliban takeover.
1996-2001: Rise to Power
Taliban forces wat
In the early 1990s, the Taliban emerged in northern Pakistan once the Soviet troops had withdrawn from Afghanistan. The Taliban’s main motive was to restore peace and security; once in power, they wanted to enforce their version of Sharia, Islamic law. In 1995, the Taliban quickly gained influence in south-western Afghanistan. They captured the province of Herat, bordering Iran, and one year later captured the Afghan capital, Kabul, overthrowing the regime of President Burhanuddin Rabbani.
By 1998, the Taliban were in control of 90% of Afghanistan. Some of the early successes of the Taliban happened due to driving out the corruption of the previous regime. However, Taliban control meant strict interpretation of Sharia law that came with brutal punishment if violators broke Sharia law.
2001:The Taliban Fall
9/11 World Trade Center attacks. Kent Kobersteen, former Director of Photography of National Geographic
The Taliban gained worldwide attention on September 11, 2001, World Trade Center attacks in New York. The Taliban provided sanctions for Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda movement. After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. and U.K. military launched attacks in Afghanistan. American Warplanes started to bomb Taliban targets and bases belonging to the al-Qaida network. By December 2001, the Taliban regime collapsed, leading to Taliban leaders and other senior officials, including Bin Laden, fleeing.
2004-2009: Regrouping
President George W. Bush and President Hamid Karzai
President George W. Bush calls for a reconstruction of Afghanistan, leading to Afghan forces regaining control of their country. During this reconstruction period, the U.S. Congress appropriates over 30 billion in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan from 2001 to 2009. During 2005, President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai developed a partnership giving U.S. forces access to Afghan military facilities to prosecute the war against international terror.
Amidst the growing number of foreign troops, the Taliban gradually regain some influence in Afghanistan. With rapid killings from the U.S. military on Afghan people, the Taliban restructures their leadership after killing their military commander in 2008.
2008-2016: The Obama Administration
President Barack Obama’s announces Osama Bin Laden is dead
Despite a promise to bring troops home, President Barak Obama sent more than 30,000 troops to Afghanistan during his tenure as president. The primary commitment was to “win the war” in Afghanistan, focusing on capturing Bin Laden. In 2011. U.S. forces kill Bin Laden in Pakistan. At this point, Obama is facing pressure from lawmakers and Americans to bring troops home. Despite peace talks with Taliban leaders, it became uncertain that Afghans would secure their country against the Taliban.
2020: Trump’s “Big Doha Deal” With the Taliban
The Doha deal will prove to haunt the Trump Administration in the history books.
Afghan-U.S. relations took a significant turn once Donald Trump came into office. Trump did not shy away from wanting to pull troops from Afghanistan. On the surface, Trump just wanted out of the war, something his predecessors could not accomplish. However, he did not look at all that it entailed. The Doha deal took over 18 months to complete, with Trump taking various secret meetings with the Taliban.
Finally, in February 2020, Trump announced that the U.S and Taliban secured an agreement. The fundamental objective of the deal: The United States was to get out of Afghanistan in 14 months; in exchange, the Taliban agreed not to let Afghanistan become a haven for terrorists and stop attacking U.S. service members. The deal laid out a specific timeline for removing all NATO, Allied, and U.S. troops by September 11, 2021.
Additionally, the U.S. would release around 5,000 Taliban prison with the Taliban releasing 1,000 of its prisoners. The main problem with this deal is that it acted on faith and trusting the Taliban would abide by the agreement. There was no enforcement to ensure the Taliban would keep their word.
The Present: The Regaining Power
The Taliban had seized power in Afghanistan two weeks before the U.S. was set to complete its troop withdrawal after a costly two-decade war.
Months after the deal, the Taliban proved to have ties with the terrorist group al-Qaeda still. The Taliban thought of the arrangement as a necessary deal to ensure U.S. removal in the country with little obligation or effort on their part. Fast forward to August 2021; President Joe Biden is following through with the Doha Deal. Although President Biden claimed he was left with little to no choice when he became president, Biden agreed with a deal he vocally criticized just months prior.
With the troops withdrawing, this opened the window for the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan with little to no resistance. These events led to the bombing outside of the Kabul airport killing U.S. troops, and the horrific evacuation of the city.
The sad reality of the situation is that removing troops from the country is not the same as ending the war. The removal of American and allied soldiers puts the country in the same position we were 20 years ago, with the threat of terrorist attacks still looming and another 9/11 attack very prominent. The changes within Afghanistan, along with the lives lost and billion dollars spent, are now in vain as we just took five steps back in a 20-year war.
Last week, we reeled in horror as An attack on a crowd gathered outside Kabul’s airport on Aug. 26, 2021, left at least 100 people dead, including at least 13 U.S. troops and 3 UK nationals including a child. According the Reuters, ISIS-K claimed responsibility for the coordinated suicide bomb and gun assault, which came just days after President Joe Biden warned that the group – an affiliate of the Islamic State group operating in Afghanistan – was “seeking to target the airport and attack U.S. and allied forces and innocent civilians.”
Ex-Taliban filled ISIS-K’s ranks early on, and the two groups have morphed into enemies, fighting each other and trying to sell their competing ideologies to recruits. The United States-led coalition in Afghanistan also battered ISIS-K in recent years — occasionally even ending up on the Taliban’s side of the battle against the ISIS offshoot. Those efforts weakened the group but never dismantled it.
Who are ISIS-K?
The Islamic State Khorasan Province, which is also known by the acronyms ISIS-K, ISKP and ISK, is the official affiliate of the Islamic State movement operating in Afghanistan, as recognized by Islamic State core leadership in Iraq and Syria.
ISIS-K was officially founded in January 2015. Within a short period of time, it managed to consolidate territorial control in several rural districts in the north and northeast Afghanistan and launched a lethal campaign across Afghanistan and Pakistan. Within its first three years, ISIS-K launched attacks against minority groups, public areas and institutions, and government targets in major cities across Afghanistan and Pakistan. By 2018, it had become one of the top four deadliest terrorist organizations in the world, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace’s Global Terrorism Index. But after suffering major territorial, leadership and rank-and-file losses to the U.S.-led coalition and its Afghan partners – which culminated in the surrender of over 1,400 of its fighters and their families to the Afghan government in late 2019 and early 2020 – the organization was declared, by some, to be defeated.
Members of the Islamic State group stand alongside their weapons, following their surrender to Afghanistan’s government in Jalalabad in 2019 CREDIT: AFP/AFP
Background
ISIS-K was founded by former members of the Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Over time, though, the group has poached militants from various other groups. One of the group’s greatest strengths is its ability to leverage the local expertise of these fighters and commanders. ISIS-K first started to consolidate territory in the southern districts of Nangarhar province, which sits on Afghanistan’s northeast border with Pakistan and is the site of al-Qaida’s former stronghold in the Tora Bora area.
ISIS-K used its position on the border to garner supplies and recruits from Pakistan’s tribal areas, as well as the expertise of other local groups with which it forged operational alliances. Substantial evidence shows that the group has received money, advice, and training from the Islamic State group’s core organizational body in Iraq and Syria. Some experts have placed those figures in excess of US$100 million.
What are its aims and tactics?
ISIS-K’s general strategy is to establish a beachhead for the Islamic State movement to expand its so-called caliphate to Central and South Asia.
It aims to cement itself as the foremost jihadist organization in the region, in part by seizing the legacy of jihadist groups that came before it. This is evident in the group’s messaging, which appeals to veteran jihadist fighters as well as younger populations in urban areas.
Like the group’s namesake in Iraq and Syria, ISIS-K leverages the expertise of its personnel and operational alliances with other groups to carry out devastating attacks. These attacks target minorities like Afghanistan’s Hazara and Sikh populations, as well as journalists, aid workers, security personnel and government infrastructure.
ISIS-K’s goal is to create chaos and uncertainty in a bid to push disillusioned fighters from other groups into their ranks, and to cast doubt on any ruling government’s ability to provide security for the population.
What relationship does ISIS-K have with the Taliban?
ISIS-K sees the Afghan Taliban as its strategic rivals. It brands the Afghan Taliban as “filthy nationalists” with ambitions only to form a government confined to the boundaries of Afghanistan. This contradicts the Islamic State movement’s goal of establishing a global caliphate.
Since its inception, ISIS-K has tried to recruit Afghan Taliban members while also targeting Taliban positions throughout the country.
ISIS-K’s efforts have met with some success, but the Taliban have managed to stem the group’s challenges by pursuing attacks and operations against ISIS-K personnel and positions.
These clashes have often occurred in tandem with the U.S. and Afghan air power and ground operations against ISIS-K, although the full extent to which these operations were coordinated is still unclear. What is clear is that the majority of ISIS-K’s manpower and leadership losses were the results of U.S. and Afghan-led operations, and American airstrikes in particular.
