Not really impressed by the rest of the articles though. It starts out reasonable enough and the blindspot on cheering NED-backed colour revolutions is important to point out (hadn't seen that part of their analysis before). But it quickly descends into a hatchet job on Gail Bradbrook and a conspiracy theory about 5G that has nothing to do with XR's stated purposes. Seems like the writer has a personal axe to grind. So she's worked for NGOs most of her life... Does that mean what she's saying now isn't true and hasn't (rightly) sparked off long-overdue actions from thousands of people on these issues? Judge for yourselves here:
Constructive criticism welcome - XR often go out of their way to request it, and I've been thinking of writing in with my own - but this just seems malicious and diversionary.