Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

For sale on Amazon: latest edition of CIA anti-Russia propaganda

The Isikoff-Corn book might as well have been written for the CIA

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

889 Views

Michael Isikoff and David Corn lie so many times in their new book, so that the motive would be puzzling, except that it’s really not, because they lie in accord with the U.S. Government’s own demonstrable lies, which happen also to be basic to today’s CIA — so, Isikoff-Corn’s propagandistic agenda, at least, is clear and consistent — they lie for a clearly identifiable propagandistic purpose, the U.S. Government’s purpose, as will be documented here.

Their book is titled RUSSIAN ROULETTE: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. It was published on March 13th, and already (as of this writing) has 541 customer reviews at Amazon, with the average customer-review rating being 4.8 out of 5 stars — almost as favorable as can possibly be. This book will be reviewed here.

There is lots of precedent for the CIA controlling the press in America, starting with the establishment of the CIA’s operation Mockingbird in 1948, which continues to this day. One illustrative example (Udo Ulfkotte) of the CIA’s control over the media will be briefly cited, before getting to the main topic, the Isikoff-Corn book.

Udo Ulfkotte was a prominent German journalist who reported, and finally became an editor, for the Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung, during the 17 years from 1986 through 2003, and who then seems to have become increasingly alienated from the journalistic profession, and consumed by moral pangs about his having been secretly a German propaganda-agent of the U.S. CIA, as he subsequently reported in his confessional book, which is banned in the U.S., and which was titled Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News. (Russian TV interviewed him about it in English.)

The Isikoff-Corn book might as well have been written for the CIA, like Ulfkotte used to do, but at least Isikoff-Corn have done it (if they did — there could be other reasons why they lie consistently in accord with the U.S. Government’s lies) for their own nation’s ‘intelligence’ service, and they seem (unlike Ulfkotte) to be quite shameless in the lies that they indubitably tell. This review will cover just the most consequential of their lies.

The biggest single issue that Isikoff-Corn lie about is the one for which the economic sanctions have been placed against Russia, ever since 2014 — it precipitated the start of ’the new Cold War’ — the events that have been cited also to ‘justify’ the massing now of over 100,000 U.S. and other NATO troops and tanks and other weapons onto and near Russia’s border, prepared to invade. (It’s sort of like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis now, but even more extreme, and in reverse: U.S. now placing missiles on Russia’s border.) That alleged issue, the start of the revived Cold War, is Ukraine, and is Russia’s alleged ‘aggression’ against Ukraine and ‘seizure’ of Crimea. So, these are very consequential lies, which are essential to the restoration, and now even the escalation, of the Cold War.

On page 46, Isikoff-Corn write about a particularly seminal event that occurred on 27 January 2014 and which was uploaded to youtube on 4 February 2014. This key event was a phone call, which occurred 24 days before Ukraine’s President Victor Yanukovych was overthrown on February 20th, and it was 30 days before the new person to head Ukraine’s Government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, became officially appointed to rule the country.

This phone-conversation wasn’t between Ukrainians, however; it was between two U.S. Government officials — between Victoria Nuland, who was U.S. President Barack Obama’s agent controlling U.S. Government policy on Ukraine, and Geoffrey Pyatt, who was Obama’s U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine: she was here giving Pyatt instructions. She told Pyatt not to appoint Vitally Klitschko, the EU’s favorite, to that function, but instead Arseniy Yatsenyuk; and, here is that, the most crucial part of this historically crucial phone-conversation:

Nuland: … Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience the governing experience; he’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tiahnybok [an admirerer of Hitler] on the outside; he [Yats] needs to be talking to them four times a week you know. I just think Klitch going in, he’s going to be, at that level, working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah [you’re right], no [I was wrong to think that Klitschko should become the new ruler], I think that’s right. Ok. Good.

Then, she referred in the call, to her agent (just like she was Obama’s agent), Jeff Feltman, who had been assigned to persuade the U.N.’s Ban ki-Moon and his envoy handling Ukraine, Holland’s former Ambassador to Ukraine, Robert Serry, to go along with the U.S., in this context:

Nuland: I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning; he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry; did I write you that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: Ok. He’s now gotten both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. That would be great, I think, to help glue this thing, and to have the UN help glue it, and, you know, Fuck the EU.

Feltman chose Serry to become appointed on 5 March 2014 by Ban ki-Moon to “mediate the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.” (Whether Putin ever knew that the U.N.’s ‘mediator’ had been chosen by Obama’s people, is unknown.)

On page 46, is the only Isikoff-Corn passage which refers to this crucial conversation; and here it is, so that the Isikoff-Corn version can be compared against the documented one, just presented here:
Nuland and Pyatt were working with the Ukrainian opposition to create a coalition government that would include Yanukovych and opposition leaders. On this call, the two Americans candidly discussed the merits of various oppsition leaders who could join the coalition. They also expressed frustration that the European Union was not doing more to help end the crisis. ‘Fuck the EU,’ Nuland told the Ambassador.”

That’s all the book provides about it.

Here was the youtube that was uploaded on 4 February 2014, of this Nuland-Pyatt phone call, so that you can hear it for yourself, and judge whether that, the Isikoff-Corn account, was an honest summary of it; or whether, in fact, they were covering-up the fact that this conversation was between two U.S. operatives planning a coup, which occurred less than a month later, and which installed the coup-plotters’ chosen person to rule Ukraine after the coup. If Isikoff-Corn are not CIA agents, or at least CIA assets (paid by the CIA or on behalf of the CIA but not formally agents or “officers” of the CIA), then why would they misrepresent this absolutely crucial piece of historical evidence?

On page 48, Isikoff-Corn refer to events occurring during the coup as “demonstrators being gunned down by government [Yanukovich’s] snipers.” Though that is the CIA-U.S.-and-alied official line on that, it has been amply disproven, and the first instance when it was, is this phone conversation which occurred on 26 February 2014 when the coup culminated and the foreign-affairs chief of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, was confidentially informed by her investigator, Urmas Paet, regarding his findings as to what had been the cause of the murders and other violence that brought down the Ukrainian Government of President Viktor Yanukovych — whether it was Yanukovych himself, or the people who had opposed Yanukovych and who had supported Ukraine’s joining the EU (which Yanukovych had finally decided not to do).

This Ashton-Paet conversation makes absolutely clear that the EU had not participated in bringing down Yanukovych and was shocked to learn that Yanukovych had not been behind the violence on that historic occasion, which had occurred only days prior to that conversation.

On page 50, appears: “Russian forces … grabbed the Black Sea port of Sevastopol” in Crimea, but that statement too is a lie. Russia had had that port and all of Crimea itself, ever since 1783; they didn’t “grab” it; and only as recently as 1954 did the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transfer Crimea from Russia to Ukraine, and even U.S-and-allied polls of Crimeans continued to show that the vast majority of Crimeans still, despite what the Soviet dictator did in 1954, considered themselves to be Russians and not Ukrainians, and even after the referendum on 16 March 2014 when Crimeans voted over 90% to be restored to Russia, all evidence is that Crimeans want to remain as Russians and not at all be represented by Ukraine’s Government.

The Soviet dictator, Nikita Khrushchev, never cared what the residents of Crimea wanted, and neither did Barack Obama, but Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, did, and does. Furthermore, even under the Khrushchev-installed regimen in Crimea, Russia’s lease on Sebastopol had been extended in 2010 to expire in 2042 at the very earliest; and, so, even with Crimea as being a Ukrainian region, it’s a lie to say, as Isikoff-Corn do, “Russian forces … grabbed the Black Sea port of Sevastopol.”

Also on page 50 they state: “Putin announced Crimea’s formal annexation into the Russian Federation — the first seizure of land from another nation in Europe since the end of World War II,” and they totally ignore that the U.S. regime had seized Ukraine from its existing neutrality, and turned it rabidly pro-nazi and anti-Russian; it wasn’t Putin who ‘seized’ Crimea; it was Obama, who had seized Ukraine.

Then, on page 181, they employ the phrase “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” Here’s the reality, which was documented in this 19 November 2017 Italian video: some of the U.S-hired 2014 mercenaries themselves, years later, and entirely voluntarily, if not proudly, admitted that they had been hired for the job; and these snipers were from the nation of Georgia and were being paid by Mikheil Saakashvili, upon whom Washington had been relying during the 2008 color-‘revolution’ in Georgia, but whom America’s stooge President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, appointed to be the governor of the rebellious region of Odessa in Ukraine, and Saakashvili then became a favorite of Ukraine’s two nazi parties, to replace Poroshenko; so, Poroshenko fired him.

The U.S. regime is one of only two or three governments in the entire world that stands up, and continues to stand up, at the U.N. for nazis, and the ‘journalism’ and ‘history’ that’s written by the likes of Isikoff and of Corn is in that traditional ideological vein, of propaganda.

Even before that, on 15 February 2015, German state television had documented that definitely there were bullets from Yanukovych’s opponents that were found in the corpses of demonstrators and of police, but that only maybe there were bullets also from Yanukovych’s side. None of the actual evidence clearly implicates anyone but Obama and his people (such as Saakashvili).

If there were others (snipers on Yanukovych’s side), then the evidence for that has been, and remains, lacking — even though the regime that Obama installed in Ukraine has controlled Ukraine’s Government since that time and can therefore reasonably be presumed to be overwhelmingly predisposed to find such evidence.

For a fuller account of how Obama seized Ukraine, see this. (However, when in 2016 Lee Fang and Zaid Jilani, at The Intercept, revealed that NATO Supreme Commander in Europe, Philip Breedlove, with help from Wesley Clark and others, had tried to force Obama to go directly to war against Russia over the Ukraine issue, the 216 reader-comments were as condemnatory against Obama for his having refused to be quite that extreme, as they were against Breedlove for his persistently trying to provoke his own Commander-in-Chief into World War III. Those readers, unfortunately, didn’t know the truth, which is documented here — they were just confused.)

 

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending