Connect with us

Latest

Red Pill

Analysis

University of Texas rolls out “MasculinUT” program to brand men as violent rapists

Why the War on Men Is Hurting Everyone

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

952 Views

The war on men continues to ramp up on American University campuses, with the latest assault on “toxic” masculinity coming from the University of Texas.

Why the War on Men Is Hurting Everyone“, by The Organic Pepper


These days, it appears that being a man means you’re crazy. You’re a rapist waiting for a woman to rape. You’re a misogynist, just looking for a woman to oppress. You’re a brute, looking for a woman to punch in the face. You are violent, domineering, and angry.

At least according to the University of Texas at Austin.

They’ve rolled out a program called MasculinUT that treats men as though they are violent rapists just waiting for a woman on whom to force themselves. And, you know, slap around a little, because apparently, that is what men do. The project praises a poster of a black man with a flower crown, but mourns that masculinity “should go further than that.”

Photo Credit: University of Texas

This makes me curious about what “further than that” would look like. Curious in a morbid, car accident on the side of the road kind of way, where you want to see it but you don’t want to see it all at the same time.

Outrage about the mental health aspect

The program is a project of the Counseling and Mental Health Center, and many media outlets immediately objected to this, stating that they were treating traditional masculinity as though it was a mental health issue. American Thinker and PJ Media both voiced their outrage.

In response, UT has rewritten their webpage about the MasculinUT program. (Emphasis mine)

The MasculinUT program does not treat masculinity as a “mental health issue,” and any such statements are simply not accurate. It was established to bring more men to the table to address interpersonal violence, sexual assault and other issues.

Like other UT programs related to sexual assault and interpersonal violence, MasculinUT is housed administratively in the university’s Counseling and Mental Health Center. Its goals include helping men explore ways to reduce sexual violence, helping students take responsibility for their actions, and fostering healthier relationships on campus and beyond.

These are important goals that we strongly stand behind. It has become clear that some of the communication and discussion surrounding MasculinUT did not convey this fully or clearly and was not effective at reaching the broad audiences the program envisioned. As a result, we will be reviewing the website and other content to ensure that it serves the program’s goals and will make any appropriate changes as we receive feedback from stakeholders.

Earlier this year, the UT System Board of Regents approved funding for mental health, student safety, and alcohol-related initiatives including efforts to reduce sexual assaults on campus. The new staff position that will oversee this program, and coordinate with other UT System schools, is part of those efforts funded by the Regents. (source)

I dunno. I mean, maybe it’s just me, but it still sounds kind of mental health-ish, doesn’t it?

And this thing at UT is only the tip of the iceberg in this war on men.

This is part of a war on men.

I hate to sound melodramatic, but this seems to me like another part of the ongoing war on men. Lately, there is little that a man can do without the Social Justice Warriors taking him to task. God help them if they dare to hold the door for the wrong woman. (Not me, though. I’m going to be ticked off if you don’t hold the door, because MANNERS.)

Let me be absolutely clear. Men who behave like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby are accused of doing are indefensible. Harassment as part of a job should never happen and should be harshly punished when it does. Secretly drugging a woman or coercing a woman to have sex is wrong. Treating women like they are stupid is wrong. Paying them less for the same performance at the same job is wrong.

But most men, at least the ones I know, are not like that. My dad was kind, generous, loving, and armed to the teeth.  He was a veteran and a healthcare professional. He showed me the best of both worlds. He would never have let anything bad happen to me, he treated me like a lady so that I knew how I should be treated, and he encouraged me that I could do anything I wanted if I put in the work. He was a gentleman, and that is a wonderful thing for which to strive.

We now live in a world in which some people who promote “gender equality” feel that men should have to cater to women, step aside and let them have the promotions just because they have female parts (or say that they’re female), and refrain from speaking in meetings so that the women can do all the talking. This article has 100 helpful hints for men to help make women’s lives more “bearable.” (I do have to agree with the one about the word “feisty.” Call me feisty and risk getting punched in the throat. But I digress.)

In what possible world is that EQUAL? I personally don’t want some kind of vagina handicap and I’m delighted to compete against men fairly in the workplace because I sincerely believe that my skills, intelligence, and talents put me on equal footing with them. I wouldn’t feel any sense of accomplishment if someone treated me like that. In fact, it’s so condescending that it would infuriate me.

And this isn’t all. There are numerous examples of women discriminating against men. Words like mansplaining and manspreading, for example, are pretty offensive, Tell them to shut up or move over instead of making up words for it. Heck, I have been known to sprawl a bit too much on the subway too, but a polite “excuse me” is all it takes for me to make more room.

One author even went so far as suggesting we don’t need to “redefine” masculinity, but instead, completely “get rid” of it:

It might sound rash, getting rid of masculinity. But it’s really not a crazy thought. We only have to look back a little over 100 years to understand that, in America, the concept of masculinity was constructed to defend white supremacy and white male dominance over black men and women of all races. (source)

To me, the idea of a world so unisex that we can’t tell the women from the men sounds very dull indeed. The differences between us are the things I enjoy the most.

I don’t have to hate women to like men, I don’t have to hate men to support women. Why is everyone insisting that it’s either/or?

It’s also an attack on the future.

And our boys. Our poor boys.

Like the 4-year old boy who hugged his teacher and got written up for “inappropriate sexual contact.” Does the average 4-year-old boy even know what that means?

Or this list written by a group of 9-year-old boys about why they don’t like being boys.

-Not being able to be a mother
-Not suppost to cry
-Not allowed to be a cheerleader
-Suppost to do all the work
-Suppost to like violence
-Suppost to play football
-Boys smell bad
-Having a automatic bad reputation
-Grow hair everywhere

Boys who are just average kids, you know, the ones who are active, enjoy bugs and have trouble sitting still for an entire day when they’re 6 years old, end up getting drugged and treated for ADHD. Popular culture is urging us to encourage our boys to be girlie. And while I certainly don’t think we should shame little boys if they want to play with a doll, I also think that boys need to be able to embrace being boys and have positive male role models.

The war on men will hurt everyone eventually.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a man who is manly and boys shouldn’t be taught that there is. We’re screwing up an entire generation here. We’re politically correcting ourselves into extinction. Many women prefer men that are masculine, and men enjoy being appreciated for who they are. How do you think birth rates are going to be in a generation of soft, sensitive men wearing eyeliner and a pink shirt, and brash, angry women who constantly point out what they’re doing wrong? Think I’m exaggerating? Birth rates among millennials have hit historic lows, and they’re having less sex than any generation in 60 years.

I for darn sure don’t want to be the “guy” in the relationship, going downstairs to check out the source of the crash in the kitchen while my man stays upstairs and calls 911. I mean, I can do it, but I’m not going to have much respect for him after that.  To win my heart, bring me flowers and then open the car door for me when we go to the shooting range for a hot date. Then, let’s talk about politics, philosophy, and the state of the world. I don’t have to have someone to defend me or pay my bills, because I have been a single mom for a lot of years. I want my abilities to be respected, but, the idea that someone would want to do that doesn’t make me angry. I think it’s nice.

And what about defending our nation in a generation or two? These kids being raised to be terrified of guns and violence. They will be completely at a loss if we’re invaded. I shudder to consider the military of the generations to come. To become so weak and homogenous puts our very future is at risk.

It seems like men can’t act like men without the risk of a lawsuit lately, but you guys should know that not all women stridently condemn you for being your wonderful selves.

Once upon a time, feminism was about equality. Now, it’s about anything BUT equality. It’s about denigrating half of the population and forcing them to behave in a way that is completely unnatural to them.

Not all masculinity is “toxic.” Men and women are different, and this is biology. There’s nothing wrong with this. It happens in every single species. And to try and stamp this out is a dangerous experiment that will not end well.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Clapper Turns On Brennan: “John And His Rhetoric Have Become An Issue”

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper threw former CIA Director John Brennan under the bus on Sunday.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper threw former CIA Director John Brennan under the bus on Sunday, telling CNN‘s “State of the Union” that “John and his rhetoric have become an issue in and of itself,” adding “John is subtle like a freight train and he’s gonna say what’s on his mind.”

Somebody wants to keep their security clearance…

Brennan’s latest “rhetoric,” of course, is his Sunday morning threat to sue the Trump administration following the stripping of his security clearance.

That said, Clapper empathized with Brennan over shared concerns regarding what they say is a threat to the United States from the Trump administration.

“I think that the common denominator among all of us [in the intelligence community] that have been speaking up … is genuine concern about the jeopardy and threats to our institutions,” said Clapper.

Brennan’s increasingly inflammatory commentary of late has also drawn the attention of Congressional GOP. On Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) slammed Brennan for “purport[ing] to know, as fact, that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power.”

If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the special counsel, not The New York Times,” said Burr, who added that Trump had the “full authority” to rescind Brennan’s clearance if the former CIA Director’s statements were “purely politicial and based on conjecture.”

President Trump promptly tweeted Burr’s statement:

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC‘s “Rachel Maddow Show,” Brennan defiantly stood behind his statement that Trump committed treason during the Helsinki summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which he called “nothing short of treasonous,” before walking it back moments later.

“After Helsinki, you were stark, and even a little bit scary in your criticism of his behavior. You said it rose to treason,” said Maddow.

“I said it was nothing short of treasonous,” replied Brennan.

Maddow pushed back: “In this current controversy, that specific comment has been singled out by a number of people as a comment that maybe, by you, crossed the line, that was maybe –.”

“Crossed what line?” Brennan responded.

Maddow said that she wasn’t going to question Brennan’s right to his remarks, though then asked “But do you stand by that consideration, and can you explain, can you elaborate what you mean by treasonous? It’s a very serious allegation.”

Brennan answered: “I know what the Russians did in interfering in the election. I have 100% confidence in what they did. And for Mr. Trump to stand on that stage in Helsinki, with all the world’s eyes upon him, and to basically [say] he wouldn’t — he doesn’t understand why would the Russians interfere in the election. He’s given Mr. Putin and the Russians a pass time after time after time, and he keeps referring to this whole investigation as a witch hunt, as bogus, as — and to me, this was an attack against the foundational principle of our great republic, which is, the right of all Americans to choose their elected leaders. And for Mr. Trump to so cavalierly just dismiss that, yes, sometimes my Irish comes out, and — in my tweets, and I did say that it rises to and exceeds the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and is nothing short of treasonous. … I didn’t mean that he committed treason, but it was a term that I used, nothing short of treasonous.

Is Brennan starting to come apart at the seams.

Continue Reading

Latest

Afghanistan: The War That Shames America

After 17 bloody years, the longest war in US history continues without relent or purpose in Afghanistan.

Published

on

Authored by Eric Margolis via EricMargolis.com:


There, a valiant, fiercely-independent people, the Pashtun (Pathan) mountain tribes, have battled the full  might of the US Empire to a stalemate that has so far cost American taxpayers $4 trillion, and 2,371 dead and 20,320 wounded soldiers.  No one knows how many Afghans have died. The number is kept secret.

Pashtun tribesmen in the Taliban alliance and their allies are fighting to oust all foreign troops from Afghanistan and evict the western-imposed and backed puppet regime in Kabul that pretends to be the nation’s legitimate government.  Withdraw foreign troops and the Kabul regime would last for only days.

The whole thing smells of the Vietnam War.  Lessons so painfully learned by America in that conflict have been completely forgotten and the same mistakes repeated.  The lies and happy talk from politicians, generals and media continue apace.

This week, Taliban forces occupied the important strategic city of Ghazni on the road from Peshawar to Kabul.  It took three days and massive air attacks by US B-1 heavy bombers, Apache helicopter gun ships, A-10 ground attack aircraft, and massed warplanes from US bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar and the 5th US Fleet to finally drive back the Taliban assault.  Taliban also overran key military targets in Kabul and the countryside, killing hundreds of government troops in a sort of Afghan Tet offensive.

Afghan regime police and army units put up feeble resistance or ran away.   Parts of Ghazni were left in ruins.  It was a huge embarrassment to the US imperial generals and their Afghan satraps who had claimed ‘the corner in Afghanistan has finally been turned.’

Efforts by the Trump administration to bomb Taliban into submission have clearly failed.   US commanders fear using American ground troops in battle lest they suffer serious casualties.  Meanwhile, the US is running low on bombs.

Roads are now so dangerous for the occupiers that most movement must be by air.  Taliban is estimated to permanently control almost 50% of Afghanistan.  That number would rise to 100% were it not for omnipresent US air power.  Taliban rules the night.

Taliban are not and never were ‘terrorists’ as Washington’s war propaganda falsely claimed.  I was there at the creation of the movement – a group of Afghan religious students armed by Pakistan whose goal was to stop post-civil war banditry, the mass rape of women, and to fight the Afghan Communists.  When Taliban gained power, it eliminated 95% of the rampant Afghanistan opium-heroin trade. After the US invaded, allied to the old Afghan Communists and northern Tajik tribes, opium-heroin production soared to record levels.  Today, US-occupied Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium, morphine and heroin.

US occupation authorities claim drug production is run by Taliban.  This is another big lie.  The Afghan warlords who support the regime of President Ashraf Ghani entirely control the production and export of drugs.  The army and secret police get a big cut.  How else would trucks packed with drugs get across the border into Pakistan and Central Asia?

The United States has inadvertently become one of the world’s leading drug dealers.  This is one of the most shameful legacies of the Afghan War.  But just one.  Watching the world’s greatest power bomb and ravage little Afghanistan, a nation so poor that some of its people can’t afford sandals, is a huge dishonor for Americans.

Even so, the Pashtun defeated the invading armies of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, the Mogul Emperors and the mighty British Raj.  The US looks to be next in the Graveyard of Empires.

Nobody in Washington can enunciate a good reason for continuing the colonial war in Afghanistan.  One hears talk of minerals, women’s rights and democracy as a pretext for keeping US forces in Afghanistan. All nonsense.  A possible real reason is to deny influence over Afghanistan, though the Chinese are too smart to grab this poisoned cup.  They have more than enough with their rebellious Uighur Muslims.

Interestingly, the so-called ‘terrorist training camps’ supposedly found in Afghanistan in 2001 were actually guerilla training camps run by Pakistani intelligence to train Kashmiri rebels and CIA-run camps for exiled Uighur fighters from China.

The canard that the US had to invade Afghanistan to get at Osama bin Laden, alleged author of the 9/11 attacks, is untrue.  The attacks were made by Saudis and mounted from Hamburg and Madrid, not Afghanistan.  I’m not even sure bin Laden was behind the attacks.

My late friend and journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave shared my doubts and insisted that the Taliban leader Mullah Omar offered to turn bin Laden over to a court in a Muslim nation to prove his guilt or innocence.

President George Bush, caught sleeping on guard duty and humiliated, had to find an easy target for revenge – and that was Afghanistan.

Copyright  Eric S. Margolis   2018.

Continue Reading

Latest

The CIA Owns the US and European Media

The CIA invented fake news.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:


William Blum shares with us his correspondence with Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum’s replies, he comes across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.

When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post’s takedown of President Richard Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China. Watching President Nixon’s peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon inherited and did not want.

The CIA knew that Nixon’s problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical “Domino Theory.” I have always wondered if the CIA concocted the “Domino Theory,” as it so well served them. Unable to get rid of the war “with honor,” Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America’s “honor” and losing his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn’t bend, but the US Congress did, and so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon’s war management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.

Here is Blum’s exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is to disabuse readers of the “Russian Threat” when Bezos’ Amazon and Washington Post properties are dependent on the CIA’s annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a “contract.”https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told

The Anti-Empire Report # 159
Willian Blum

The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter:
July 18, 2018

Dear Mr. Birnbaum,
You write Trump “made no mention of Russia’s adventures in Ukraine”. Well, neither he nor Putin nor you made any mention of America’s adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure. Therefore …?
If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in Mexico?
William Blum

Dear Mr. Blum,
Thanks for your note. “America’s adventures in the Ukraine”: what are you talking about? Last time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn’t the Americans who did it.
It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014, according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts.
Best, Michael Birnbaum

To MB,
I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next president. And he’s the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a while.
William Blum

To WB,
I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to the actual actors on the ground myself – that’s my job.
And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for overthrowing the government. I’m not saying the United States wasn’t involved in trying to shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver’s seat the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych in November 2013; he’s not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don’t stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific. Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides.
Best, Michael Birnbaum

======================= end of exchange =======================

Right, the United States doesn’t play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments; never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT “reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time.” “All the time”, no less! That should make it easy to give some examples.

For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it’s bias, not “fake news” that’s the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird.

To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So … we’re still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner.

The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I’m looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK. But I do not find such evidence.

Each day brings headlines like these:

“U.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England forces White House to act”

“Is Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?”

“Experts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat”

These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article, but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY. Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia’s preference of Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn’t begin to explain how Russia could pull off any of the electoral magic it’s accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.

There’s the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads … The people who are influenced by this story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many are both; many are neither. It’s one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I’ve read is that they come from money-making websites, “click-bait” sites as they’re known, which earn money simply by attracting visitors.

As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.

However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They’re particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.

But we’re the Good Guys, ain’t we?

For a defender of US foreign policy there’s very little that causes extreme heartburn more than someone implying a “moral equivalence” between American behavior and that of Russia. That was the case during Cold War I and it’s the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the wall.

After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to register as a “foreign agent”, the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to require foreign media to register as a “foreign agent”. Senator John McCain denounced the new Russian law, saying there is “no equivalence” between RT and networks such as Voice of America, CNN and the BBC, whose journalists “seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments accountable.” By contrast, he said, “RT’s propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin’s agenda.”

And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had “charged that the U.S. government had interfered ‘aggressively’ in Russia’s 2012 presidential vote,” claiming that Washington had “gathered opposition forces and financed them.” Putin, wrote Malinowski, “apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other’s elections.”

“Is this moral equivalence fair?” Malinowski asked and answered: “In short, no. Russia’s interference in the United States’ 2016 election could not have been more different from what the United States does to promote democracy in other countries.”

How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?

We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED’s wings wrote: “A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow’s campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance.”

“Democracy assistance”, you see, is what they call NED’s election-interferences and government-overthrows. The authors continue: “This narrative is churned out by propaganda outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. … it is deployed by isolationists who propound a U.S. retreat from global leadership.”

“Isolationists” is what conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they can’t easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don’t want the US to be involved in anything abroad.

And “global leadership” is what they call being first in election-interferences and government-overthrows.

https://williamblum.org/aer/read/159

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending