The Most Common Defense of Foreign-Funded Subversion... After denying that movements like Occupy Central are funded by foreign interests like the US State Departments National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a considerable about of backpedaling is done when irrefutable evidence finally emerges that indeed, yes, NED is funding them. The final lines of defense include claiming that NED is pro-democracy and so them funding opposition groups and their political activity in a foreign country is perfectly alright. Have these people actually looked at the board of directors of NED? ned.org/about/board Is Neo-Con Elliot Abrams pro-democracy? Is former senior-adviser to George Bush, Margaret Spellings pro-democracy? If you go down the list and read each of their biographies, the only things they have in common is they are all pro-war, pro-Fortune 500 with many of them sitting on the BoD of various Fortune 500 corporations - this includes Exxon, Boeing, etc., which I suppose we are also supposed to believe are genuinely interested in spreading democracy. Upon revealing this nexus of corporate-financier special interests and the inescapable fact that, no, these are not people genuinely interested in democracy or human progress of any kind, the final line of defense is made - that American corporate-fascist global hegemony is the only way forward for peace and stability.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 12:21:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015