One villager who refused to relinquish his property reportedly was killed and 47 who wouldn’t leave have been arrested during the building of ‘The Line.’
Saudi Arabian officials have reportedly allowed the use of lethal force against local villagers to clear land to construct the “green” city named ‘The Line’ that is being built in conformity with globalist agenda-linked 2030 green plans with help from Western-based construction firms.
As per a recent BBC report, former Saudi Arabia intelligence officer Col Rabih Alenezi, who is now in exile in the United Kingdom for fear of his security, noted he was given orders to evict villagers from a local tribe to clear land for the ‘The Line’ project.
Reportedly, one person was shot and killed after refusing to leave the area. Abdul Rahim al-Huwaiti refused to let a land registry committee value his property and was shot by Saudi authorities one day later, when the clearance mission to evict the villagers was taking place. It was reported that he had posted videos on social media protesting the evictions.
As noted by the BBC, the Saudi state security at the time claimed that al-Huwaiti fired on security and that he was then shot in retaliation. However, human rights groups have said he was killed for refusing to leave the area and comply with eviction orders.
While the BBC noted that it was not able to “independently verify Col Alenezi’s comments about lethal force,” it said a “source” who was familiar with the inner workings of Saudi intelligence told them that Alenezi’s testimony about the clearance mission, as well as the details about it, were accurate in terms of that such clearance missions entail.
Another 47 villagers have been arrested for not going along with evictions, many of them being leveled terrorism-related charges.
Alenezi noted that he does not regret his decision to ignore his clearance orders for the project, saying, “Mohamed Bin Salman will let nothing stand in the way of the building of Neom.”
“I started to become more worried about what I might be asked to do to my own people,” he noted.
‘The Line’ is the flagship “green” project of what is known as Neom, a $1.5 trillion development on the area’s Red Sea. It is being built as part of Saudia Arabia’s 2030 strategy, which looks to move the kingdom’s economy away from oil and its vast reserves.
‘The Line’ is in lockstep with United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.
The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda that also promotes population control.
“The Line’ itself is a 170-kilometer-long “car-free” city that is in the northwest of the Gulf country, according to renderings. It will “run into the Red Sea,” where an extension of its structure will serve as a port for ships.
The Neom project is being built by dozens of global construction companies, many of them Western based. According to an analysis conducted by the BBC, satellite images show that three villages’ schools, and hospitals have been demolished to make way for the project.
Future of ‘Dystopian’ project in doubt
‘The Line’ project is being built based on the Saudi Arabian legal system, which is mostly based on Muslim sharia law that criminalizes anyone who “challenges, either directly or indirectly, the religion or justice of the King or Crown Prince. According to Amnesty International, two of 81 men executed by the Saudi Arabian government in 2022 were “convicted of crimes related to their participation in violent anti-government protests.”
When plans for ‘The Line’ were revealed, its promo video noted, “For too long, humanity has existed within dysfunctional and polluted cities that ignore nature. Now, a revolution in civilization is taking place.”
However, the future of the 170-kilometer-long project remains in doubt.
As per a recent Bloomberg report, it appears that only a 2.4-kilometer portion will be completed by 2030, according to a source familiar with the project.
Plans to have 1.5 million residents living in ‘The Line’ will not pan out as planned, sources said, and it is expected there will be less than 300,000 when the project finally comes online.
Some commentators slammed the project as “dystopian,” with one describing it as a “blatant greenwashing PR exercise by the heads of this rotten regime,” pointing out that “it’s an attempted distracting cop-out” since “Saudi Arabia is still at the very bottom for human rights (just pick next to women, any minority).”
Tech blog Engadget has raised concerns that The Line “is expected to be loaded with countless sensors, cameras, and facial recognition technology that in such a confined space could push government surveillance to almost unthinkable levels.”
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
Parents should take precaution this holiday season when it comes to artificial intelligence toys after researchers for the new Trouble in Toyland report found safety concerns.
Illinois Public Interest Research Group Campaign Associate Ellen Hengesbach said some of the toys armed with AI raised red flags ranging from toys that talk in-depth about sexually explicit topics to acting dismayed when the child disengages.
“What they look like are basically stuffed animals or toy robots that have a chatbot like Chat GPT embedded in them and can have conversations with children,” Hengesbach told The Center Square.
The U.S. PIRG Education Fund report also points out that at least three toys have limited to no parental controls and have the capacity to record your child’s voice and collect other sensitive data via facial recognition.
“All three were willing to tell us where to find potentially dangerous objects in the house, such as plastic bags, matches, or knives,” she said. “It seems like dystopian science fiction decades ago is now reality.”
In the face of all the changing landscape and rising concerns, Hengesbach is calling for immediate action.
“The two main things that we’d like to see are more oversight in general and more research so we can see exactly how these toys interact with kids, really just identify what the harms might be and have a lot more transparency from companies around how are these toys designed,” she said. “What are they capable of and what the potential risks or harms might be. I just really want us to take this opportunity to really think through what we’re doing instead of rushing a toy to market.”
As for the here and now, Hengesbach stressed parents would be wise to be thoughtful about their purchases.
“We just have a big open question of what are the long-term impacts of these products on young kids, especially when it comes to their social development,” she said. “The fact is that we just really won’t know what the long-term impacts of AI friends and companion toys might be until the first generation playing with them grows up. For now, I think it’s just really important that parents understand that these AI toys are out there; they’re very new and they’re basically unregulated.”
Since the release of the report, Hengesbach said one AI toymaker temporarily suspended sales of all their products to conduct a safety audit.
This year’s 40th Trouble in Toyland report also focuses on toys that contain toxins, counterfeit toys that haven’t been tested for safety, recalled toys and toys that contain button cell batteries or high-powered magnets, both of which can be deadly if swallowed.
Generous social programs come with trade-offs. Pretending otherwise is political fiction
Nordic societies fund their own benefits through taxes and cost-sharing. Canadians expect someone to foot the bill
Like Donald Trump, one of my favourite words starts with the letter “T.” But where Trump likes the word “tariff,” my choice is “trade-off.” Virtually everything in life is a trade-off, and we’d all be much better off if we instinctively understood that.
Think about it.
If you yield to the immediate pleasure of spending all your money on whatever catches your fancy, you’ll wind up broke. If you regularly enjoy drinking to excess, be prepared to pay the unpleasant price of hangovers and maybe worse. If you don’t bother to acquire some marketable skill or credential, don’t be surprised if your employment prospects are limited. If you succumb to the allure of fooling around, you may well lose your marriage. And so on.
Failing to understand trade-offs also extends into political life. Take, for instance, the current fashion for anti-capitalist democratic socialism. Pushed to explain their vision, proponents will often make reference to the Nordic countries. But they exhibit little or no understanding of how these societies actually work.
As American economist Deirdre Nansen McCloskey notes, “Sweden is pretty much as ‘capitalistic’ as is the United States. If ‘socialism’ means government ownership of the means of production, which is the classic definition, Sweden never qualified.” The central planning/government ownership model isn’t the Swedish way.
What the Nordics do have, however, is a robust social safety net. And it’s useful to look at how they pay for it.
J.P. Morgan’s Michael Cembalest is a man who knows his way around data. He puts it this way: “Copy the Nordic model if you like, but understand that it entails a lot of capitalism and pro-business policies, a lot of taxation on middle-class spending and wages, minimal reliance on corporate taxation and plenty of co-pays and deductibles in its health care system.”
For instance, take the kind of taxes that are often derided as undesirably regressive—sales taxes, social security taxes and payroll taxes. In Sweden, they account for a whopping 27 per cent of gross domestic product. And some 15 per cent of health expenditures are out of pocket.
Charles Lane—formerly with the Washington Post, now with The Free Press—is another who pulls no punches: “Nordic countries are generous, but they are not stupid. They understand there is no such thing as ‘free’ health care, and that requiring patients to have at least some skin in the game, in the form of cost-sharing, helps contain costs.”
In effect, Nordic societies have made an internal bargain. Ordinary people are prepared to fork over large chunks of their own money in return for a comprehensive social safety net. They’re not expecting the good stuff to come to them without a personal cost.
Scandinavians obviously understand the concept of trade-offs, a dimension that seems to be absent from much of the North American discussion. Instead of Nordic-style pragmatism, spending ideas on this side of the Atlantic are floated on the premise of having someone else pay. And the electorally prized middle class is to be protected at all costs.
In the aftermath of Zohran Mamdami’s New York City win, journalist Kevin Williamson had a sobering reality check: “Class warfare isn’t how they roll in Scandinavia. Oslo is a terrific place to be a billionaire—Copenhagen and Stockholm, too … what’s radically different about the Scandinavians is not how they tax the very high-income but how they tax the middle.”
Taxation propensities aside, Nordic societies are different from the United States and Canada.
Denmark, for instance, is very much a “high-trust” society, defined as a place “where interpersonal trust is relatively high and ethical values are strongly shared.” It’s often been said that it works the way it does because it’s full of Danes, which is broadly true—albeit less so than it was 40 years ago.
Denmark, though, has no interest in multiculturalism as we’ve come to know it. Although governed from the centre-left, there’s no state-sponsored focus on systemic discrimination or diversity representation. Instead, the emphasis is on social cohesion and conformity. If you want to create a society like Denmark, it helps to understand the dynamics that make it work.
Reality intrudes on all sorts of other issues. For example, there’s the way in which public discourse is disfigured on the question of climate change and the need to pursue aggressive net-zero policies.
Asked in the abstract, people are generally favourable, which is then touted as evidence of strong public support. But when subsequently asked how much they’re personally prepared to pay to accomplish these ambitious goals, the answer is often little or nothing.
If there’s one maxim we should be taught from childhood, it’s this: there are no panaceas, only trade-offs.
Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
