Connect with us




The New Prince: What does Charlottesville teach about America’s class consciousness?

The attacks in Charlottesville raises a lot of important questions about the nature of class consciousness in America. Here’s what we have learned.

Haneul Na'avi




The Romans never liked the dictum we constantly hear from the wise men of our day, that time will take care of things. — Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

The aftermath of the Unite the Right protests in Charlottesville, VA raises very important questions about class consciousness in the United States.

Following the Occupy Movement—a subsidy of the Open Society Foundation—and January Women’s March, also linked to over 50 Soros organisations, disturbing trend have revealed that American “class consciousness” is merely the work of billionaire reactionaries.

The 11-12 August rally featured two eclectic camps, whose interactions led to the catastrophe which killed 32 year-old Heather Hayer and two police officers.

The first camp, the alt-Right, was a loose confederation of social-chauvinists, including Charlottesville’s own Proud Boy James Kessler, the League of the South, and others protesting the impending removal of a venerated Robert E. Lee statue.

Alt-Right participants were an umbrella of “pro-Confederate, National Socialist, Republican, Libertarian, Neoreactionary and other post-egalitarian viewpoints”, one observer highlighted, which worked in favour of US intelligence agencies and organisations to brand these groups as racist, extremists, bigots, terrorists, ad nauseam.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre communicated beforehand that,

Unite the Right” is expected to draw a broad spectrum of far-right extremist groups – from immigration foes to anti-Semitic bigots, neo-Confederates, Proud Boys, Patriot and militia types, outlaw bikers, swastika-wearing neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Ku Klux Klan members – all of whom seem emboldened by the Trump presidency.

However, these groups were emboldened by those within the Obama presidency as well, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange noticed.

“The new face of America is eerily familiar,” he tweeted, pointing out the rally’s striking resemblance to the Ukrainian Euromaidan colour revolution.

However, the other camp was a loose confederation of “antifascists”—Leftist reactionaries and enraged Hillary Clinton supporters—some whom employ subversive, agitational tactics.

Libcom explains,

At a regional and national level, [Antifascist Action] actions were mainly based around countering known – or intelligence-indicated – fascist mobilisations. […] These militant AFA mobilisations had the desired effect – the fascists were stopped.

Contrasting American media propaganda, the US Department of Homeland Security (surprisingly) blacklisted AntiFa as an extremist organisation just two months prior to the event.  It warned

“In the past year, Antifa groups have become active across the United States, employing a variety of methods to disrupt demonstrations” 

Most notably, a 7 April video reveals an AntiFa branch taunting—who else—George Soros, after he neglected to pay them for joining the “Fight for $15/ hr.” rally.

As US president Donald Trump struggles to placate both his critics and followers, America’s dilemmatic liberal democracy has turned into a teratoma of various malignant ideologies.

Consequently, one must criticise the underlying bourgeois character of American democracy in order to assess possible outcomes of the growing conflict.

What is American democracy?

American democracy is, in reality, liberal bourgeois democracy, which is oligarchy beneath a thin veneer of republicanism. All power in America is oligarchic and the democratic expression thereof is the product and responsibility of those that wield American capital against the majority.

This democracy is still subject to, according to Marxian philosophy, the base (material) and superstructure (idealism/ immaterial). Oligarchy controls the means of production (base) and influences the American people via bourgeois propaganda (the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.).

The groups in Charlottesville represent superstructural expressions of this bourgeois democracy, controlled by capitalists, whose manufactured protests lead to agitation, whipping America’s emotionalist, liberal public into consent (Annuit Cœptis).

Oligarchy benefits from this dialectic process by securing its power, allowing the superstructure to progress more amicably as oligarchy (base) centralises and concentrates capital via imperialism.

Additionally, it was established in a previous Duran article why oligarchy prefers liberal democracies, where Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin highlighted that,

Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners.

This is entirely true. To accept American (capitalist) democracy, one must accept slavery as an indivisible aspect thereof.

American democracy is a synthesis of Athenian democracy, where one-third of all Greek residents were slaves, and capitalism, a political economy advantageous to bourgeois slave owners, designed to gradually extract the greatest amount of surplus value from human labour and concentrate it within the hands of the bourgeoisie—a natural consequence of capitalism.

Economic History clarifies the following,

[It] is fair to say […] that ancient Greece was a “slave dependent society” [that] were so essential to the economy; and they became so thoroughly embedded into the every day life and values of the society that without slavery, ancient Greek civilization could not have existed in the manner it did. In Classical Athens […] there were around 120,000 slaves [who] comprised over a third of the total population and outnumbered adult male citizens by three to one.

The BBC extrapolates from this:

The architects of the first democracies of the modern era, post-revolutionary France and the United States, claimed a line of descent from classical Greek demokratia – ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, as Abraham Lincoln put it. 

Capitalist proponent Adam Smith himself focused more on the economic disadvantages of slavery (slave vs. freeman productivity), but abjured on the matter of its continued existence.  He passively lamented that 

“Slavery therefore has been universal in the beginnings of society, and the love of dominion and authority over others will probably make it perpetual” 

As in ancient Greece, American slavery is chattel slavery, and has neither been abolished nor diminished in importance. The 13th amendment industrialises slavery by entrusting the judicial system, not the people, to regulate the influx of slaves into the prison system. It states that,

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The key word is “except”, and therefore, Americans must “accept” slavery in all its instituted forms as a necessary component. Both slave institutions will not disappear as a consequence of the Left or Right because, as long as there is liberal democracy, Americans will depend on them.

What is the primary source of conflict between the Left and Right?

It is uncertain why these two camps—the alt-Right and alt-Left—are enemies, and on the contrary, their only conflict is based on competing forms of subservience to slavery.

Charlottesville was not a battle between nationalists and antifascists, but a battle between superstructures within the pre-Industrialist and post-Industrialist epochs of slavery.

A previous Duran article highlighted Karl Marx’s comments on historical materialism,

At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production [which] turn into their fetters.

This is precisely what is happening. To procure new modes of slavery, the American bourgeoisie use colour revolutions to facilitate transitions of power between rulers.

Niccoló Machiavelli explains in his masterpiece, The Prince (Ch. 5),

[If] the inhabitants are not dispersed or driven into quarrelling factions, they will never forget the former government or order of things, and will quickly revert to it at every opportunity […] in republics, there is more vitality, more hatred, and more desire for revenge. The memory of former freedom simply will not leave the people in peace.

However, these “quarrelling factions” belong to the same class stratum— the petit-bourgeoisie. Had America any shred of class consciousness in its virulent 241-year existence, these two camps could unite under a proletariat vanguard.

For instance, Karl Marx clearly states in his essay, “The American Civil War”,

[The] number of actual slaveholders in the South of the Union does not amount to more than three hundred thousand, a narrow oligarchy that is confronted with many millions of so-called poor whites, whose numbers have been constantly growing through concentration of landed property and whose condition is only to be compared with that of the Roman plebeians in the period of Rome’s extreme decline.

He continues,

Only by acquisition and the prospect of acquisition of new Territories, as well as by filibustering expeditions, is it possible to square the interests of these poor whites with those of the slaveholders, to give their restless thirst for action a harmless direction and to tame them with the prospect of one day becoming slaveholders themselves.

So, the “Right” are nothing more than instruments of American bourgeois power, middle-managing serfs, content with the crumbs falling from the tables of oligarchy, also susceptible to the pangs of economic volatility, of wage slavery, and the crises of capitalism when they unfold.

Yet, they claim that their “racial superiority” is a “fortunate” material condition; even more than the blessings of hollowed cheeks and protruding stomachs from “their” bourgeoisie!

Conversely, the “alt-Left”, despite labelling others as fascists, no one, absolutely no one encompasses the evils of modern imperialism better than they.

If there was any “alternative” to the Left, then surely history was rife with examples around 1933.

Even the most simple of Bolsheviks could point out the three grievous sins of the “alt-Left”—spontaneity, idealism, and a lack of class consciousness—but the most fundamental flaw in Leftist reasoning is a lack of understanding of the role and function of the State.

AntiFa class consciousness is best described as liberalism—rather than scientific socialism—endangering the worker’s movement by prioritising race (idealism) instead of class (material condition), and their spontaneous, leaderless platform is antithetical to socialist development.

Lenin exposed this clearly in “What is to Be Done”,

We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

This is handicap of the AntiFa movement; adding a “kopek to a ruble” with trade-unionist tactics, or, as Americans would say, “trying to make a dollar out of 15 cents” ($15 in this case!).

The AntiFa’s maxim is to “keep the fascists out of the streets” (but not its own treasuries), but how does it equate racism with fascism? Debunking this Leftist fallacy lies in the role of the state.

In different forms of political economy, the state wields a dictatorship corresponding to its aim:

– Fascism = dictatorship of the corporation, withers away the public wealth, establishes the primacy of private industrial and finance capital

– Nazism = dictatorship of an ethnicity, withers away other ethnicities, establishes a dominant nation-state

– Communism: dictatorship of the proletariat, withers away class antagonisms and private wealth, establishes a classless workers’ society.

– Democracy = dictatorship of the majority, withers away Federal dictatorship, establishes an liberal bourgeois society

Additionally, the best evidence against the alt-Left is to, firstly, define it. The alt-Left, in its simplest terms, is nothing more than a betrayal of Socialism—fascism itself.

A Spectator article clarifies this,

Mussolini, a revolutionary socialist, founded Fascism in 1919 as an alternative revolutionary movement of the Left: The First World War had made him, and many other European Socialists, realise an essential truth: People are more loyal to their country than their class.

The article continues, citing Benito Mussolini himself in a 1932 interview with Emil Ludwig,

Naturally there is no such thing as a pure race, not even a Jewish one … Race: it is a sentiment, not a reality, it is 95% sentiment. I don’t believe that it is possible to prove biologically that a race is more or less pure …Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy. The Jews have behaved well as citizens, and as soldiers, they have fought courageously.’

With this in mind, the question remains: what exactly is fascism to the AntiFa? Fascism focuses on private wealth and state control, in which race is an integrative rather than divisive tool. However, the alt-Left remains loyal to identities and abhors State control, and this error becomes to fascism and nationalist-socialism a blade used to carve the public into warring factions.

Hypocritically, the “Left” decries Trump and any odd racist as fascists, “except” (key word) industrial-scale corporatists in the previous Obama administration and others responsible for exterminating hundreds of thousands across the Middle East, Ukraine, and Venezuela, caused by refusing to reach any consensus based on the means of production, but to liberal idealism.

Had these primitivists studied scientific socialism instead of “anti-Capitalism”—whatever that means—they wouldn’t bludgeon other sections of the working class like Neanderthals for being comparatively as ignorant as themselves, and they could explain these concepts sufficiently to raise everyone’s class consciousness and unite these two factions of the American proletariat!

Lenin mentioned in Left-Wing Communism that,

The Communists’ proper tactics should consist in utilising these vacillations, not ignoring them; utilising [these] calls for concessions to elements that are turning towards the proletariat […] in addition to fighting those who turn towards the bourgeoisie […] This is a lengthy process, and the hasty “decision”—“No compromises, no manoeuvres”—can only prejudice the strengthening of the revolutionary proletariat’s influence and the enlargement of its forces.

However, he warns that,

Of course, to very young and inexperienced revolutionaries, as well as to petty-bourgeois revolutionaries of even very respectable age and great experience, it seems extremely “dangerous”, incomprehensible and wrong to “permit compromises”.

Potential Outcomes

Charlottesville was merely one example of a long history of failures in the American (and Western) Left. It was a meeting of counterrevolutionaries, under the guidance of the bourgeoisie, for the benefit of the centralising state authority and targeting embryonic forms of resistance.

One can understand that the alt-Right are reactionary, but the corporatist support thrown behind the alt-Left, mainly the AntiFa movement, only reinforces the depravity of the postmodern “Left”.

As a result, what is certain to happen is one of two options:

1. A long-overdue civil war that will benefit the bourgeoisie exponentially.
2. Continued in-fighting amongst proletarians that will benefit the bourgeoisie dialectically.

The Left and Right are wings of the same class stratum, and things may have been different had the AntiFa not liberally applied violence in Charlottesville. In his book, “War in Human Civilisation”, Azar Gat sums up the Left-Right dialectic brilliantly, in which the opposing camps will experience,

“a ‘Red Queen Effect’ […] without gaining the advantage over their rivals or making any gain—that is, they all lost in comparison with what they might have had in the absence of conflict.”



Sergey Lavrov SLAMS new US sanctions over Skripal case

Ruble continues to tank under the spectre of looming American sanctions imposed on the basis of circumstantial evidence and insinuation.

Seraphim Hanisch



TASS News Agency reported on Sunday, 12 August that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov slammed the US Department of State’s accusation against Russia regarding the attack on Sergey and Yuliya Skripal in Salisbury, England earlier this year.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

The State Department made the decision to impose new and very painful sanctions against Russia based on this premise.

This new round of sanctions is hitting the Russian economy very hard. The Ruble slid against the dollar from about 63 rubles on Thursday to more than 67.6 rubles as of 1:30pm UTC (Greenwich Summer Time) on Sunday.

Foreign Minister Lavrov had this to say:

“I think that all who know even a little bit about the so-called Skripal case, understand the absurdity of the statement in the official document of the US. Department of State that the US has established it was Russia behind the Salisbury incident.”

TASS went on to outline the circumstances:

On Wednesday, the US Department of State said in a statement that Washington was imposing new sanctions on Moscow over its alleged involvement in the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the British city of Salisbury. The first round of sanctions will take effect on August 22, while a second round may be introduced in 90 days in case Russia fails to meet certain conditions, the State Department said. Moscow has on numerous occasions rejected all the allegations about its involvement in the Salisbury incident.

The current round of sanctions goes into effect on 22 August, and is directed as follows, according to

The initial round of these sanctions will limit exports to Russia of U.S. goods and technology considered sensitive on national security grounds, including electronics, lasers and some specialized oil and gas production technologies, according to a State Department official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity Thursday. The official said the action could block hundreds of millions of dollars in exports. Waivers will be allowed for space-flight activities and U.S. foreign assistance.

Under the 1991 law — invoked previously only against North Korea and Syria — a second, far more extensive round of sanctions would follow later unless Russia meets conditions including providing assurances it will no longer use chemical or biological weapons and will allow on-site inspections to verify it has stopped doing so, the official said.

Russia Thursday repeated its denials that it has the weapons or used them and held out little hope for compromise.

The added sanctions could include a downgrading in diplomatic relations, blanket bans on the import of Russian oil and exports of “all other goods and technology” aside from agricultural products, as well as limits on loans from U.S. banks. The U.S. also would have to suspend aviation agreements and oppose any multilateral development bank assistance.

The additional sanctions also could be averted if Trump declared that waiving them would be in the U.S. national interest, a politically risky move in light of criticism that he’s been too soft on Russia on issues including interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The action by the US State Department is being viewed as an internal political counterattack against US President Donald Trump in response to his overtures to President Vladimir Putin at the Helsinki Summit in July of this year. In that summit, the two leaders had very frank discussions that looked incredibly positive for the prospect of a true thawing out of the troubled relations between the two great world powers.

However, the event appears to have drawn out the elements within the American power establishment which presently comprises most of Congress and almost all of the news media. Even some conservative media outlets joined briefly in condemning Mr. Trump for “selling out” to Vladimir Putin by saying he had no reason to believe Russia would interfere with the American elections.

While Mr. Trump tried to politically backpedal this remark, the die had been cast and now much of this establishment has invested their time and energy into branding Mr. Trump a traitor to the USA. In a similar vein, as reported by Jim Jatras in his piece here, US Senator Rand Paul also made overtures that were warmly received by Russian senators, and now he too, has been marked as a traitor.

In that light, plus even British media acknowledgement that there is no hard evidence whatsoever that ties the Russian Federation to the poisoning of the Skripals or the second couple in Amesbury more recently, it is clear that all deductions have been made on spurious reasoning and no hard facts.

Continue Reading


War is coming – to the United States and to the world

The all-but-inevitable Second American Civil War is likely to be fought away from US soil if the globalists have their way.

Seraphim Hanisch



Jim Jatras’ piece, reposted in The Duran framed the political mess that Donald Trump – and the United States –  is in, extremely accurately:

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

First US President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and appears to make some progress towards his stated goal of putting ties between Washington and Moscow on a positive course. Immediately, all hell breaks loose. Trump is a called a traitor. The “sanctions bill from hell” is introduced in the Senate. Trump is forced on the defensive.

Next Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky visits Moscow, where he meets with Putin and gives him a letter from Trump proposing moderate steps towards rapprochement. Paul also talks with Russian Senators and invites them to come to Washington to continue the dialogue. Immediately, all hell breaks loose. Paul is called a traitor. The State Department “finds” the Russians guilty of the using illegal chemical weapons (CW) in the United Kingdom and imposes sanctions. Trump is forced even more on the defensive.

It is debatable how much of the US government Trump actually controls. This is the crux of the problem.

One President and one US Senator standing alone against all the Democrats and almost all Republicans in both Houses of Congress. Standing alone against a media culture dominated in the West by interests along the lines of cultural Marxism and anti-Christianity at any and all costs.

The truly fearsome power of the globalists appears to have the upper hand.

President Trump and President Putin are both dedicated and brilliant men. They have been trying to make a difference despite the enormous power being brought to bear against them. Rand Paul, for his part is also contributing to this.

The effort to marginalize President Trump has met with great success, though not total. The Russiagate investigation may be coming to its end; certainly a lot of information has revealed that the matter of election interference was never a Republican, much less Trump-related, phenomenon.

But the matter continues not to die.

The changes in prosperity and economic growth in the United States are astounding, especially in light of former President Obama’s insistence that it could never happen.

But the midterm elections approach, and there is not a clearly resounding wave to get more people who are on the Trump Train so to speak to continue to make and widen the impact of domestic change, as well as geopolitical change.

The inevitable outcome appears to be only one thing: War.

This war will be the Second American Civil War. 

While it must be said that the attribution of fault made is utterly incorrect, the New Yorker piece linked above does correctly list five conditions that set the table for such a conflict:

[Keith] Mines [with the US State Department] cited five conditions that support his prediction [of a new American civil war]:

  • entrenched national polarization, with no obvious meeting place for resolution
  • increasingly divisive press coverage and information flows
  • weakened institutions, notably Congress and the judiciary
  • a sellout or abandonment of responsibility by political leadership
  • the legitimization of violence as the “in” way to either conduct discourse or solve disputes

It is not hard to see how these conditions have come to be so in the US.

The only problem is that it is very unlikely to be fought in the United States. It is likely to end up in Europe, Russia, Ukraine, perhaps parts of the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia.

We might well be faced with the prospect of a “government in exile” as Mr. Trump and those supporting his viewpoints are forced to flee the US.

The ideological viewpoints about Russia are not very important to many American people, but the home front will pit two sides that are both destined to lose.

One side is the ideological Left – like those people we consider “loony California liberals”, whose belief in open borders and the rejection of any sort of Christianity-based or traditional family values will cause their side to eventually implode.

For this reason, this opposition group will also suffer from a great deal of internal weakness.

This would normally lead to a bloody and protracted conflict. However, the greater danger with this lies in the pervasive power of the Western Media. It is extremely likely that the media will work to deflect attention from the true nature of the war and incite American forces to strike at Russia in some sort of direct, or by-proxy military action.

The picture the American people will be presented with is that Russia is trying to take over the world, when in reality Russia is simply trying to hold her own territory and her own ways.

Is there a way to stop this?

Yes. There is a way to stop it. The election of President Trump bought the US and the world a bit of time because Mr. Trump is so dynamic that it is difficult to truly stop him. The hallmark of his presidency is success in just about every aspect he has paid attention to.

But what he needs is congressional support.

It is very unlikely that the upcoming 2018 midterm elections offer a chance to create a truly pro-Trump agenda majority in Congress. But it can raise the number of dissenting voices to a number greater than one (Rand Paul). A strong vocal bloc of senators and representatives that speak with one voice about this issue could be enough to break through the wall of censorship of the American media. It could give voice to millions of Americans who also believe that this fight is coming, and who want to stop it.

Avoidance of this war will certainly not happen if establishment candidates or worse – liberal Democrats – win the midterm. With such a situation, the President will be marginalized greatly, and the rhetoric against Russia as a scapegoat will only increase.

The outcome is mercilessly logical.

Continue Reading


Saudi Crackdown On Canada Could Backfire

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not apologizing for his country’s call that the Saudis release human rights activists.

The Duran



Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via

Like many spats these days, the Saudi Arabia/Canada one started with a tweet. Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland called for the release of Samar Badawi, a women’s rights activist who is the sister of jailed blogger Raif Badawi, whose wife is a Canadian citizen.

The arrests had taken place in OPEC’s largest producer and leading exporter Saudi Arabia, which has amassed its wealth from oil and now looks to attract foreign investors as it seeks to diversify its economy away from too much reliance of crude oil sales.

Canada’s foreign ministry’s global affairs office urged “the Saudi authorities to immediately release” civil society and women’s rights activists.

Saudi Arabia—often criticized for its far from perfect human rights and women’s rights record—didn’t take the Canadian urge lightly. Saudi Arabia expelled the Canadian ambassador, stopped direct Saudi flights to Canada, stopped buying Canadian wheat, ordered Saudi students and patients to leave Canada, froze all new trade and investment transactions, and ordered its wealth funds to sell their Canadian stock and bond holdings in a sweeping move that surprised with its harshness many analysts, Canada itself, and reportedly, even the U.S.

The Saudi reaction shows, on the one hand, the sensitivity of the Kingdom to criticism for its human rights record. On the other hand, it sent a message to Canada and to everyone else that Saudi Arabia won’t stand any country meddling in its domestic affairs, or as its foreign ministry put it “an overt and blatant interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom.”

The Saudi reaction is also evidence of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s harsher international diplomacy compared to the previous, ‘softer’ diplomacy, analysts say. Saudi Arabia is also emboldened by its very good relations with the current U.S. Administration, and picking a fight with Canada wouldn’t have happened if “Trump wasn’t at the White House,” Haizam Amirah-Fernández, an analyst at Madrid-based think tank Elcano Royal Institute, told Bloomberg.

The United States hadn’t been warned in advance of the Saudi reaction to Canada and is now trying to persuade Riyadh not to escalate the row further, a senior official involved in talks to mediate the dispute told Bloomberg.

The row, however, will not affect crude oil exports from the Kingdom, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih has said, adding that Riyadh’s policy has always been to keep politics and energy exports separate.

Canada imports around 75,000-80,000 bpd of Saudi oil, and these barrels can easily be replaced, CBC quoted analyst Judith Dwarkin as saying earlier this week. The chief economist of RS Energy Group referred to this amount as “a drop in the bucket” at less than a tenth of Canadian crude imports compared with imports from the United States, which amount to about 66 percent of the total. The United States could easily replace Saudi crude thanks to its growing production, Dwarkin said.

Still, the strong Saudi message to Canada (and to the world) is not entirely reassuring for the investor climate in Saudi Arabia, which is looking to attract funds for its economic overhaul and mega infrastructure projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars each.

“The Saudi leadership wants to drive home a message that it’s fine to invest in Saudi Arabia and bring your money to Saudi Arabia, but that there are red lines that should not be crossed,” Riccardo Fabiani, a geopolitical analyst at Energy Aspects, told Bloomberg, but warned that such strategy could backfire.

Analysts are currently not sure how the feud will unfold, but Aurel Braun, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Toronto, told Canada’s Global News that Saudi Arabia is unlikely to back down and reverse all its retaliatory measures without getting something back from Canada.Related: The Unforeseen Consequences Of China’s Insatiable Oil Demand

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not apologizing for his country’s call that the Saudis release human rights activists.

“We have respect for their importance in the world and recognize that they have made progress on a number of important issues, but we will, at the same time, continue to speak clearly and firmly on issues of human rights, at home and abroad, wherever we see the need,” Trudeau told a news conference this week.

The economic impact of the Saudi retaliation on Canada is unlikely to be large, but the fact that Saudi Arabia is whipping the oil wealth stick to punish economically what it sees as “blatant” interference with its affairs is sending a message to other countries, and a not-so-positive message to foreign investors.

Continue Reading



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...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter