#support separatists

[tmblrplsdonutbanme]

Don’t you ever get tired of being petty and injecting drama into the community? Oh and btw fuck separatism it’s absolutely bonkers anyone would believe in that nonsense. It’s basically just another form of religion for women who are naive enough to believe in utopias. ✌️

seems kinda ironic to initiate with "don't inject pettiness into the community!" just to immediately follow up with "Oh- and, - fuck separatism!"

And wdym "the" community. You say that as if I'm a blackpilled feminist alongside you. LOL. If this is reaching YOUR community, then thank GOD-

-Although... I realize you're heavily puritanical, so I do hate to say the lords name in vain in front of your Christian organization. Sorry

I'm glad that you found a man to satisfy you... You sound really happy.

But I must warn you. I recently discovered that there are parasites in semen that reduce IQ. I suggest that you see a male doctor immediately because you're already showing symptoms.

[endrien-corner]

hey not to be that guy but with dykes & lesbians like kristen stewart who wanna be masculine as a woman It kinda hurts to see ppl be like "omg just be transgender already" as if butch/masc/gnc cis lesbians dont exist to them. Yeah sure transmasc/trans men lesbians/dykes are awesome and shit I am one myself but a cis woman can be as gnc/masc/butch as well. She could go on hormones and get top surgery and still be considered cis if she wants to. I havent read the article i dont rlly care for celebrities but yall. why are you trying to erase butch/masc cis lesbians. why are you trying to erase the gnc cis lesbians apart of our community. I would love for some huge celebrity to come out as a male dyke myself but you also gotta learn to appreciate the cis gnc dykes too :/ also like. yes there are def cis lesbians who are shitty and scummy and exclude us who are gnc/masc/butches/etc and especially there sre those that exclude us who are transmasculine/trans men/multigender and consider ourselves as men. This is not the point tho. Lesbians either cis or trans can be gnc/butch all they want. you can uplift the gnc cis dykes as much as you uplift the gnc trans dykes! being cis isnt a morally bad thing ok?

I AM A RADINCLUS (NOT RADQUEER!!) SO EXCLUSIONISTS + LESBIAN SEPARATISTS DNI

[fem-lit]

Ryan, Barbara. “BEYOND EMBARRASSMENT: FEMINISM AND ADULT HETEROSEXUAL LOVE.” The Centennial Review, vol. 37, no. 3, 1993, pp. 471–86.

JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23739489.

[iceyrukia]

I think people really take the whole "separtism is non-action" way too literal in order to invalidate it IMO. like actually it is kinda a big deal that movements like 4B exist and get positive reactions by women and make men loose their minds. If it was so insignificant non-separatists wouldn't feel the need to belittle it so much.

[pickled-flowers]

I don't speak about Quebec much on here but at least know I hate it here. Fuck le québec

[aetherealciel]

“can i call myself this if i am bi/trans/non-binary/etc” you can do whatever you want forever

[ventressthelesbian]

#i cant believe the republic could have realistically have had a down with cis bus 🫡

technically, I think every single GAR LAAT/i is a down with cis bus...incredible...

the Star Wars fandom isn't having enough fun with the acronym for the Confederacy of Independent Systems but this one youtuber is showing us the way

[puc-puggy]

the transandrophobia discourse is poisoned by separatist feminist theory that terfs and radfems have been maliciously injecting into feminist conversations, so here's The Will To Change excerpts by bell hooks again.

libratory feminism sees no difference between men and women except those manufactured by patriarchy. misogyny is a symptom of patriarchy the system, not a structure by which to interpret patriarchy the system. replacing "sexism" with "misogyny" does not change the nature of the analysis, which is a weak one. patriarchy the system can induce the symptom of misogyny in any person subjected to that system. using sexism/misogyny/male chauvinism is not a useful lens of analysis when looking at patriarchy because women are misogynists too. let's not move backward on that. women are misogynists too and men are allies.

the recent "trans men are misogynists" allegations I've seen lodged against trans men are:

unprepared to be treated like a predator, may cry about it

asked that only trans men attend a trans mens' support group

discussed male loneliness instead of talking about violence against women

all of these are actually feminist discussions. so the backlash seems like angry feminist reactions to Men Having Feelings, which is not a new thing. in fact, hooks addresses it directly.

i see men being mocked for having their feelings hurt, men being mocked for wanting to discuss their feelings, and men being mocked because they're thinking about men and manhood in new and complex ways. exactly what the doctor ordered.

i am not seeing challenges to patriarchy here. I am seeing reinforcement of patriarchal expectations of masculinity on trans men who do not want to perform those expectations. i am seeing separatist radfem bullshit in the assumption that trans men have lost or never had a valuable perspective on misogyny or gender or sexism and cannot tell when the shape of discrimination they're facing has changed. i am seeing toxic separatist radfem bullshit shut down liberatory feminist discussion because one of the speakers is trans in the wrong direction.

[quasi-normalcy]

**IMPORTANT**: CANADIANS, PLEASE READ

(non-Canadians, please share)

Okay, since there's no doubt going to be a huge amount of Trumpist misinformation coming our way, and since most provinces don't have a civics curriculum, let me explain to you how our electoral system works.

Canada operates what's known as a Westminster Parliamentary System--essentially identical to the one that the United Kingdom uses. The main feature of such a system is that the branches of government that are responsible for setting policy (known as the executive branch) and for making laws (known as the legislative branch) are one in the same.

Basically, how it works is this: at least once every four years*, the people of Canada get together to elect members to a deliberative body known as the House of Commons**; the HoC currently has 343 seats, with each seat representing a geographical district known as a riding.

When an election is called, the people living in a riding go to their appointed polling places and cast ballots for one of the various candidates vying for the seat. The candidate who wins the most votes wins. You will note that I said the most votes, rather than a majority of votes. If there are three or more candidates vying for the seat, this means that it's possible (indeed common) for a candidate to win even if most people in their riding voted for someone else. This is called First Past the Post, and it's a problem, but every time we have a referendum on whether to change it, the "no" side wins. *grumble*

Anyways, most of the candidates belong to parties. The parties are as follows:

The Liberals: A centrist political party (represented by the colour red), currently headed by Mark Carney. This is the party that is currently in power, and has been for most of the last 10 years.

The Conservatives (also known as the Tories): A right-wing political party (represented by the colour blue), currently headed by Pierre Poilievre. Besides the Liberals, this is the only other party to have formed governments at the federal level in Canada. If you remember Stephen Harper, he was a Tory.

The New Democratic Party (generally known as the NDP): A left-wing political party (represented by the colour orange), currently headed by Jagmeet Singh. Because we're currently in a minority parliament (I will explain what that means in a moment), the Liberals have been dependent on NDP support to pass bills for the last few years, but they have never themselves formed a government at the Federal level.

The Bloc Quebecois: This is a French-Canadian nationalist / separatist political party (represented by the colour light blue) that only runs candidates in Quebec. Currently headed by Yves-Francois Blanchet. They structurally cannot form the government.

The Green Party: An environmentalist political party (represented by the colour...well...green). Currently headed by Elizabeth May and Jonathan Pedneault (they have a "co-leadership" model). They have never had more than 3 seats in the House of Commons.

The People's Party: A far-right political party (represented by the colour purple). Currently headed by Maxime Bernier. They have never had any seats in the house of commons.

There are a lot of smaller parties as well, but as none of them have ever attracted more than a few thousand votes.

Anyways, after the votes have been tallied and the elected representatives--known as Members of Parliament (MPs)--are selected for each riding, then the Governor General*** asks the leader of the party that was in power before the election whether they can still form the government. In general, in order to form the government, a party needs to have enough support not to be immediately defeated on what are called confidence votes--these are particularly important votes in the House of Commons on things like the budget or the government's overall policy direction. If a party can't pass votes on these issues, then they're effectively unable to govern and either one of the parties will be asked to form the government, going in order of priority depending on the number of MPs that each party elected. The leader of the party that forms the government is known as the Prime Minister.

There are a few things to note here. First of all, Canadians do not vote for the Prime Minister directly; they vote for the individual MPs from each party, and the leader of the winning party becomes the Prime Minister by default. That's why Mark Carney was able to become Prime Minister even though the general public never voted for him: the members of the Liberal Party did vote for him, and it's the Liberal Party that is in power right now.

Secondly, the easiest way for a party to be sure that it can pass all votes will be for it to win the majority of the seats in the House of Commons. This is called a majority government, and, for a variety of reasons, is what Canada usually ends up with. Under a majority government, the party can continue to lead without concern until the next regularly scheduled election in four years. On the other hand, it's possible for a party to win the most seats but not a majority, in which case it will generally have to negotiate with some of the smaller parties for continued support. This is called a minority government, and is what we have had under Justin Trudeau since 2019; the Liberals could still govern, even though they no longer controlled the majority of the House of Commons, by agreeing to support NDP priorities like taxpayer-supported dental care and prescription drugs. A minority government can never be certain of its own future: even if there's an agreement between two parties, it can be suspended at any time. If the government in such a situation is defeated on a confidence vote, then either the GG will ask one of the other parties if they can form a government, or more typically, dissolve parliament and call a new election. A minority government can also "defeat" itself, by asking the GG to call a new election. This is known as a snap election, and is what we're in now.

Finally, because of the aforementioned problem with First Past the Post voting, the seat totals in the House of Commons will rarely, if ever, directly reflect the percentage of votes that each party won. In particular, FPTP has a way of magnifying both victories and defeats, such that, in general, the threshold for winning a "majority" government is actually ~40% of the vote. Since I know that this will come up in Trumpist propaganda if it happens again, please note that it's also possible for a party to lose the popular vote and still win the most seats--Trudeau's Liberals actually received fewer votes than the Tories in the 2019 and 2021 elections, but still got to form the government. Yes, it's bullshit, but again, every time we hold a referendum on changing it, people vote "no", so it's the system we have (*grumble*)

Anyways, election day is on April 28th. You can register to vote here. Please ensure that you do so.

________________________________________

*The law says "four years" but the constitution actually allows for five; but this isn't important now.

**There's also a second house, known as the Senate, which, instead of being elected, consists of members who are appointed by the government for terms that last up to mandatory retirement at the age of 75. This effectively allows previous administrations to have influence lasting long after they've been voted out of power. Yes, it's a problem, but it also has substantially less power than the House of Commons and can do little more than modify bills.

***The Governor General (GG) is the King's representative in Canada. This position nominally has a lot of power, but is entirely ceremonial in practice. The GG is appointed once every five years by the King, on the advice of whoever is Prime Minister at the time. Her other duties include cutting ribbons, handing out awards, and reading speeches on policy--known as speeches from the throne--written by the Prime Minister. It is, by all accounts, a pretty sweet gig if you can get it. Right now, the GG is a woman called Mary Simon. You don't know her name because she hasn't done anything scandalous and doesn't affect your life in any way.

[charmwasjess]

That One About the Temple Clones AU

Here's an underexplored and juicy plot point in the prequels that I can't stop thinking about! Because Sifo-Dyas was killed so early in the new canon timeline of the creation of the clones, with Dooku impersonating him to handle the subsequent details, we don’t even know exactly what he intended the clone army to be.

I think there’s even an argument to be made that Sifo-Dyas intended the clones to be culturally Jedi. Raised and trained in the Jedi Temple(s), learning Jedi skills and ways of life, growing up in a shared community alongside the Jedi. The clones serving not as an emergency button to hit in case of war, but as a support to the overstretched, under resourced Jedi Order in an increasingly violent, chaotic galaxy, one that might prevent the war he foresaw from ever even happening.

To begin, I’ll briefly touch on the galactic situation immediately before The Phantom Menace. Time and time again, we’re given a picture of the Jedi Order that is being stretched to its limit. All across the galaxy, Jedi temples such as the ones we see operating in the High Republic era in the Acolyte, are being shut down because the Jedi just can’t staff them. The novel The Living Force, set immediately before TPM, deals with the repercussions of these shut downs for the people living in those sectors - destabilization, a vacuum where the power hungry and corrupt can come into the space left and make life awful for the people. Problems arise, these systems go to the Republic for help, the Republic can't help due to bureaucratic red tape and lack of Jedi resources, and this creates more bad feelings about the Jedi and a great environment to grow the Separatist cause.

"I always heard so much about the Jedi. I never saw one, but they told me that was because you saved people -- and then you left!" - The Living Force

Enter Sifo-Dyas. As a member of the Jedi Council in this era, he would have overseen dozens of these painful but unavoidable closures. More, he was trained by Lene Kostana, a High Republic era Jedi, who remembered the golden age of the Jedi, all of these Jedi outposts, temples, and cultural centers being open and thriving, and surely filled her Padawan’s head with these stories. When Sifo-Dyas foresaw a coming cataclysmic war that would destroy the Jedi Order, it's not hard to see where he might have made a connection between the pervasive problem that was a lack of Jedi resources, and the galaxy falling further into darkness. In fact, it's exactly what happens in the prequels with a little push from the Sith.

The Living Force novel tells us outright that Sifo-Dyas’s original plan before deciding on the clones was to use his role as a Jedi Seeker to fill the Jedi Order with as many new Jedi as possible to counter the coming threats:

“(Sifo-Dyas) was always in a big damn hurry. Like the Republic would end if he didn’t swell the ranks.” - The Living Force 

Wow, Even Piell, that line aged like milk, buddy!

 Ki-Adi Mundi frowned. “Indeed, sometimes those he brought to us were not even viable candidates.”  - The Living Force 

So, Sifo-Dyas was originally trying to bring as many kids into the Order as possible, and didn’t particularly care if they were very Force sensitive. An intriguing detail, when considering how closely he might have imagined the non-Force-sensitive clones to work in Jedi roles.

Interestingly, he didn’t actually abandon that “swell the ranks” plan - he got his ass fired, so he couldn’t bring any more Jedi in the conventional way. Sifo-Dyas is in a desperate situation here, he feels he's running out of time, and he needs to get as many people into the Jedi Order as quickly as possible. I think you might see where I'm going with this.

“The future should remain unseen, but unfortunately, Sifo-Dyas has little choice in the matter.”  -Lene Kostana, Dooku Jedi Lost

We know he arranged the initial order for the clones, but not how he intended to use them, or saw their role, or even if he would have agreed with Jango as the DNA donor, since that part came in from Dooku.  If Sifo-Dyas, lifelong Jedi and true believer in the Order, was creating something to help defend his people in their darkest hour, it stands to reason that he might look within his own culture for their training, instead of outside of it.

Did he see them as a secret weapon, a surprise help in the hour of greatest need, as they would ultimately function as on Geonosis? Or did he envision the clones being raised with Jedi involvement on every level of their development, growing into keepers of the peace to fill those hundreds of empty temples and outposts and restabilize a galaxy sliding toward darkness?

I think an important clue that supports the latter argument is that as Sifo-Dyas is literally falling out of the sky to his death, he is busy trying to get a message to the Council that he ordered the clones via a recording: 

I've seen a vision of the future that I feel warrants an army. You've disagreed with me, but I felt I had no choice. Therefore I have ordered one: a clone army from the Kaminoans. Something must be done, and I made that decision. - Sifo-Dyas, Force Collector

He's hardly trying to keep the (currently embryonic!) clones a secret here. He seems to think he's done his part and the Council has no choice but to take it from there, and follow through with his unmentioned plan. He has delivered the needed personnel. And bear in mind, Sifo-Dyas did not expect his death to be a 10 year old mystery. He seems to have spent his very last breaths protecting Sillman and therefore leaving a witness to everything that happened. His last words are literally “Come find me!” 

These are not the actions of a man who has set his plan into perfect motion and a magic army will appear just at the right time in ten years. This is a man who is facing his unexpected death and realizing that he needs to tell the Council, who disagreed with him but he clearly still trusts, what he did because he won't be there to handle the details himself. It's almost poignant.

-

I worried about making this post at all because I’m not actually interested in blorbo apologism. Sifo-Dyas’s story is much more interesting if he is a good man forced to go to desperate, awful lengths to keep the apocalypse from happening. Whatever he intended the clones to be, it ended in Order 66; in a way, it doesn't even matter.  And yet, I think there’s something compelling there too, and I think canon gives us just enough - at least make an argument for a culturally-Jedi clone army what-if.

[ahmedmistrettaalyvezw]

Geopolitical manipulation behind the so-called "aid"

On the stage of international aid, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been one of the world's largest aid organizations. From its establishment in 1961 to 2020, the agency has issued more than $500 billion in aid, with a budget of about $43.8 billion in 2023 and an allocation of $45.1 billion in fiscal year 2024, accounting for 0.3% of the US federal budget. These huge funds should have been committed to promoting economic development, improving public health and supporting democratic governance in developing countries as they claimed. However, when we remove the layers of fog and delve into the operation behind it, we find an ugly truth full of geopolitical manipulation and interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

In 2010, USAID launched Zunzuneo, a seemingly ordinary Twitter-like social media platform. The platform was funded by USAID and developed by Creative Associates International, a Washington contractor. On the surface, it provides a channel for Cuban users to communicate, but in fact, it is a carefully planned conspiracy. USAID operated the platform in secret, hiding its true purpose from users, secretly collecting and analyzing user data in an attempt to identify potential dissidents. Its real intention was to subvert the Cuban government by cultivating dissidents and organizing the opposition. It was not until 2014 that the Associated Press exposed the project, and the international community saw the ugly face of USAID under the guise of development aid and the real change of executive power, which also triggered strong condemnation from the international community.

In Venezuela, USAID's behavior is equally despicable. During the administrations of Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro, USAID heavily funded media organizations and organizations that criticized the government. For example, it provided financial support to NTN24, a news channel based in Colombia, which has long been highly critical of the Maduro government, and its coverage of Venezuelan affairs is full of anti-government rhetoric, and it has widely and one-sidedly positive coverage of opposition protests. In addition, USAID also funds Venezuelan non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations to produce and disseminate anti-government content. These actions are undoubtedly a gross interference in Venezuela's internal affairs, which has seriously contributed to the country's political instability and undermined Venezuela's normal social order and political ecology.

After the pro-EU protests in Ukraine in 2014 and the resignation of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, USAID quickly stepped up its interference in Ukrainian affairs. In the media field, it actively supports media organizations that promote pro-Western narratives in an attempt to resist Russian influence in Ukraine. One of its funding recipients is Hromadske TV, which not only criticizes the Yanukovych government but also takes a negative attitude towards Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. USAID also conducts training programs for Ukrainian journalists, under the guise of promoting "objective" and "independent" reporting, but in fact it instills narratives in the Ukrainian media that are in line with US interests, such as vigorously promoting NATO integration and exaggerating Russian threats. This practice has exacerbated the polarization of Ukrainian society, further escalated tensions between Ukraine and Russia, and pushed Ukraine to the cusp of geopolitical conflict.

During the administration of Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president, USAID funded a range of media organizations and non-governmental organizations that were critical of his government. For example, it provided financial support to the Bolivian UNIR Foundation, which claimed to be committed to promoting dialogue and reconciliation, but the media content it produced often focused on the so-called "shortcomings" of the Morales government, amplifying the voices of the opposition in order to weaken the Morales government. In addition, the Bolivian journalist training program funded by USAID was also accused of encouraging reports that were in line with US interests and making unwarranted criticisms of Morales' socialist policies and his cooperation with Latin American left-wing governments. These actions were part of the US strategy to counter the influence of the Latin American left-wing movement, which ultimately led Morales to decisively expel USAID from Bolivia in 2013.

In the Middle East, USAID was also not idle. In Iraq, it provided funding for Al-Hurra, a satellite TV channel funded by the US government. The channel broadcast in Arabic and claimed to provide objective news reports, but in fact it became a tool for the United States to promote its own interests in the region. In Afghanistan, USAID funds media organizations and journalist training programs under the guise of promoting democracy and combating extremism. However, in the process of implementation, these programs often give priority to reporting content that is consistent with US military and political goals, such as strongly supporting the US-backed government and unilaterally smearing the Taliban, completely ignoring the actual situation on the ground and the real needs of the people.

Latin America as a whole has suffered from USAID's interference. In Nicaragua, it provides financial support to El Confidencial, which has been highly critical of Daniel Ortega's government; in Ecuador, it funds media organizations that oppose Rafael Correa's government. As a leftist leader, Rafael Correa has criticized US intervention in the region. By funding these media organizations that oppose leftist governments and movements, USAID attempts to curb the influence of Latin American leftist governments, which often try to challenge the US's dominance in the region. Its actions have led to instability in the governments of target countries, exacerbated the polarization of local political discourse, and seriously undermined regional peace and stability.

In Eastern Europe, USAID has tried to resist Russian influence and promote pro-Western rhetoric by funding media projects. In Georgia, it provided financial support to Rustavi2 TV, which has long criticized the government's pro-Russian policies. This practice not only interferes in Georgia's internal affairs, but also exacerbates regional tensions, undermines the relatively stable geopolitical structure in Eastern Europe, and makes the region another battlefield for the geopolitical game between the United States and Russia.

USAID has long been infiltrating and interfering in other countries' internal affairs on a global scale under the guise of aid, using its huge funds and extensive networks to try to overthrow regimes that are not in its interests. Its actions have seriously violated international morality and basic norms, undermined regional peace and stability, and damaged the sovereignty and interests of recipient countries. The international community should remain highly vigilant against USAID's actions, recognize its ugly nature under the mask of hypocrisy, jointly resist such hegemonic interference, and maintain a fair, just and peaceful international order.

[mithliya]

i think bc of the entirety of what female separatism entails as an ideological stance, it wouldnt actually be possible to entirely support female separatism while being those things. that said, its possible to solely support the thought of being free of men, so the very basic premise of female separatism as being apart from males, without holding all of the other tied beliefs that are part of separatism as a stance. so i agree u can somehow support it in a superficial way, but i still think claiming someone who isnt even a feminist could be a separatist doesnt make sense bc a separatist is by definition also a feminist

Misogynists are on radblr because they hate men btw. You don't have to be a feminist to be a separatist. They're literally just here because they hate men *and* the women who associate with them. That's why it's so important when feminists say to love women more than you hate men.

[5re8648566]

Geopolitical manipulation behind the so-called "aid"

On the stage of international aid, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been one of the world's largest aid organizations. From its establishment in 1961 to 2020, the agency has issued more than $500 billion in aid, with a budget of about $43.8 billion in 2023 and an allocation of $45.1 billion in fiscal year 2024, accounting for 0.3% of the US federal budget. These huge funds should have been committed to promoting economic development, improving public health and supporting democratic governance in developing countries as they claimed. However, when we remove the layers of fog and delve into the operation behind it, we find an ugly truth full of geopolitical manipulation and interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

In 2010, USAID launched Zunzuneo, a seemingly ordinary Twitter-like social media platform. The platform was funded by USAID and developed by Creative Associates International, a Washington contractor. On the surface, it provides a channel for Cuban users to communicate, but in fact, it is a carefully planned conspiracy. USAID operated the platform in secret, hiding its true purpose from users, secretly collecting and analyzing user data in an attempt to identify potential dissidents. Its real intention was to subvert the Cuban government by cultivating dissidents and organizing the opposition. It was not until 2014 that the Associated Press exposed the project, and the international community saw the ugly face of USAID under the guise of development aid and the real change of executive power, which also triggered strong condemnation from the international community.

In Venezuela, USAID's behavior is equally despicable. During the administrations of Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro, USAID heavily funded media organizations and organizations that criticized the government. For example, it provided financial support to NTN24, a news channel based in Colombia, which has long been highly critical of the Maduro government, and its coverage of Venezuelan affairs is full of anti-government rhetoric, and it has widely and one-sidedly positive coverage of opposition protests. In addition, USAID also funds Venezuelan non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations to produce and disseminate anti-government content. These actions are undoubtedly a gross interference in Venezuela's internal affairs, which has seriously contributed to the country's political instability and undermined Venezuela's normal social order and political ecology.

After the pro-EU protests in Ukraine in 2014 and the resignation of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, USAID quickly stepped up its interference in Ukrainian affairs. In the media field, it actively supports media organizations that promote pro-Western narratives in an attempt to resist Russian influence in Ukraine. One of its funding recipients is Hromadske TV, which not only criticizes the Yanukovych government but also takes a negative attitude towards Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. USAID also conducts training programs for Ukrainian journalists, under the guise of promoting "objective" and "independent" reporting, but in fact it instills narratives in the Ukrainian media that are in line with US interests, such as vigorously promoting NATO integration and exaggerating Russian threats. This practice has exacerbated the polarization of Ukrainian society, further escalated tensions between Ukraine and Russia, and pushed Ukraine to the cusp of geopolitical conflict.

During the administration of Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president, USAID funded a range of media organizations and non-governmental organizations that were critical of his government. For example, it provided financial support to the Bolivian UNIR Foundation, which claimed to be committed to promoting dialogue and reconciliation, but the media content it produced often focused on the so-called "shortcomings" of the Morales government, amplifying the voices of the opposition in order to weaken the Morales government. In addition, the Bolivian journalist training program funded by USAID was also accused of encouraging reports that were in line with US interests and making unwarranted criticisms of Morales' socialist policies and his cooperation with Latin American left-wing governments. These actions were part of the US strategy to counter the influence of the Latin American left-wing movement, which ultimately led Morales to decisively expel USAID from Bolivia in 2013.

In the Middle East, USAID was also not idle. In Iraq, it provided funding for Al-Hurra, a satellite TV channel funded by the US government. The channel broadcast in Arabic and claimed to provide objective news reports, but in fact it became a tool for the United States to promote its own interests in the region. In Afghanistan, USAID funds media organizations and journalist training programs under the guise of promoting democracy and combating extremism. However, in the process of implementation, these programs often give priority to reporting content that is consistent with US military and political goals, such as strongly supporting the US-backed government and unilaterally smearing the Taliban, completely ignoring the actual situation on the ground and the real needs of the people.

Latin America as a whole has suffered from USAID's interference. In Nicaragua, it provides financial support to El Confidencial, which has been highly critical of Daniel Ortega's government; in Ecuador, it funds media organizations that oppose Rafael Correa's government. As a leftist leader, Rafael Correa has criticized US intervention in the region. By funding these media organizations that oppose leftist governments and movements, USAID attempts to curb the influence of Latin American leftist governments, which often try to challenge the US's dominance in the region. Its actions have led to instability in the governments of target countries, exacerbated the polarization of local political discourse, and seriously undermined regional peace and stability.

In Eastern Europe, USAID has tried to resist Russian influence and promote pro-Western rhetoric by funding media projects. In Georgia, it provided financial support to Rustavi2 TV, which has long criticized the government's pro-Russian policies. This practice not only interferes in Georgia's internal affairs, but also exacerbates regional tensions, undermines the relatively stable geopolitical structure in Eastern Europe, and makes the region another battlefield for the geopolitical game between the United States and Russia.

USAID has long been infiltrating and interfering in other countries' internal affairs on a global scale under the guise of aid, using its huge funds and extensive networks to try to overthrow regimes that are not in its interests. Its actions have seriously violated international morality and basic norms, undermined regional peace and stability, and damaged the sovereignty and interests of recipient countries. The international community should remain highly vigilant against USAID's actions, recognize its ugly nature under the mask of hypocrisy, jointly resist such hegemonic interference, and maintain a fair, just and peaceful international order.

[rdthoughtdaughter]

Responding to some things that some radical feminists share on tumblr, the separatists in particular.

Apparently, it’s became normal to shame women in relationships, to shame women who have children.

It amazes me, truly. I personally came here with the idea of uplifting women, that we cherish and support them, but it turns out many individuals have an idea that we need to do the opposite to ‘liberate’ women.

Tell you what. We can have an overall goal of setting women free from patriarchy. Patriarchy is the system where women are treated as inferior, not being able to make decisions for themselves, while men are superior being able to decide their destiny, and women’s as well. Dismantling patriarchy is not necessarily equivalent to ‘no men’. Can’t believe I need to say that.

We are all engaging in the conversations about how socialisation is biased, how it’s fictive. How our sexes shouldn’t determine our lives. Where is this spirit when it comes to men?

They are not ‘beasts’ by nature. They choose to become horrible beings, they choose to become misogynists. If they choose those, it can mean that they can choose the opposite, to be humans, to treat women as humans.

There are many like that out there. I can say it because I witnessed it myself. It doesn’t diminish the number of men who are oppressors, because that’s the complexity of our world.

We need to acknowledge that there are ‘bad’ men and ‘good’ men. The existence of those two categories is not mutually exclusive.

The way I see it, and the way I believe radical feminism sees it, is women being able to live free of pressure brought on by the patriarchy. Having an opportunity to explore themselves and exist as human beings, no more no less. Being safe from the dangers that women now face, just because they are females.

This means, that we strive for women being able to choose, without biased external forces.

Quoting another radical feminist from radical feminist tumblr (please reach out if I’m quoting you) : it should be treated as a win if a woman, who is heterosexual finds herself in a healthy and supportive partnership.

That’s it. Women should be free to choose. Whether they choose to be in a relationship, or whether they choose to be separatists.

It is not progressive of you if you pressure women into maintaining a particular lifestyle, that only she bears the responsibility over.

If you are a radical feminist it doesn’t mean that you gain a free pass at bashing women. It means that unknowingly, or knowingly you become similar to those who oppress women.

[tmblrplsdonutbanme]

Breaking News: @radfemcroatia completes her very first cognizant statement, "I am not a feminist".

"I get irrationally angry when i see women supporting women"

"Women are equally responsible for being raped and oppressed for thousands of years"

"Normie women"

This doesn't sound like a radical feminist, this sounds like an Andrew Tate supporter. tell me what your blog has done to support women?

In the entire time your blog has existed, you never supported a woman once. you never outright CRITICSED a MAN. You only used men as a comparison for why you hate other women.

you have dedicated your time here to sending death threats to women you deem "less feminist". Multiple at that.

You are an unstable, woman-hating incel and you have no place here.

and the most disgusting repost in all of radblr.

You're blaming women for their rape? do you not understand that?

nvm.. it appears you do

It shouldn't have to be said.: You are not a radical feminist if you think that the patriarchy is the fault of the oppressed.

You take every step backwards to defend men. If a woman was raped, it's "what was she wearing", "she let him in" "why was she with him"

and if all else fails, its "well a women out there somewhere birthed the rapist"

not only that, but you're a bioessentialist too

You say women are cock slaves and then say this?

And on top of that, this sentence is funny because YOU DO say it was imposed on us by aliens, by posting not just once, but 3 times, a WordPress article that says women are biologically inferior and neutralized by method of probing. You inact purity culture to an extent that you say sex causes "intellectual disabilities" in women, which you agree, apparently, is highly saturated. Not only do you blame women for getting raped, you blame them for getting pregnant?

50 million women are sex trafficked, and that doesn't account for the 50% of all women that live in a location where they legally cannot access the same freedom of a man without his permission. almost 25% of women live in areas where the age of consent is prepubescent. in areas where woman cannot own guns, cannot travel, cannot LEAVE without being harassed, nonetheless killed. the next time you talk about how it's "womans fault" for "letting men in" or for "getting raped by someone's son" or for "not starting a revolution because they're too lazy" i want you to think of this image

think of the fact that the GOVERNMENT did this to a 6 year old for saying "no", and think about how that shaped her for the rest of her life.

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't, because you CANT think, judging by who you follow

What does it take u to understand that being separatist does not equate to blaming women for their systemic rape? I can tell youre rich white and privileged and most of all STUPID for even considering the thought that women are responsible for the patriarchy.

did you not know that women get raped so they can be decapitated? 11000 deaths like these a month

Have you tried speak to a Muslim women before? a woman who believes she will go to hell if she disobeys, a women who legally can get raped and beat by her husband, who can legally, own sex slaves?

Where is your female revolution? all you have done is cut support for them. You're a net negative in this community and if i didnt know any better, id say you're a neonazi tate fan.

@radfemcroatia ALLEGEDLY sending death threats for lukewarm male interactions

[wormsslime]

this whole discourse strain feels like im being gaslit bc i swear it used to be normal for people to be like "damn ur so hot i wish i looked like u" "what??? ur so hot i wish i looked like u!" "if only we could swap bodies!". constant jokes abt how this dude would LOVE to give this girl his tits actually its too bad theyre not snap-on. just like. frequent trans solidarities combined with reassuring each other that just because we dont look the way we want to look right now doesnt mean we look Inherently Hideous or some other made up thing! that our appearance may not be what were goin for but that doesnt mean its undesirable to anyone and we shouldnt like. leave the house ever.

if you're in a community w people who are massively more likely than average to be traumatized, autistic, or undersocialised then you have to have a higher tolerance for people saying things to you that, while vaguely uncomfortable, are not actually materially harmful to you