Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Clinton, France, the PKK and the beginning of civil war in Turkey

The resumption of the repression of Kurds in Turkey is nothing more than a consequence of the impossible task of implementing the Juppé-Wright plan of 2011. While it was easy to deploy Daesh in the Syrian desert and the provinces of Niniveh and d’al-Anbar (Iraq), which are mostly Sunnite, it proved to be impossible to take control of the Kurdish populations of Syria. In order to realise his dream of a Kurdistan outside of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has no other choice but civil war.

Published

on

0 Views

Post entitled, “Clinton, Juppé, Erdoğan, Daesh and the PKK” by Thierry Meyssan appeared voltairenet.org.

When they took power in Ankara in 2003, the Islamist party AKP modified Turkey’s strategic priorities. Rather than using reports on the post-« Desert Storm » balance of power, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan harboured the ambition of freeing his country from the isolation it has known since the end of the Ottoman Empire. Based on analyses provided by his advisor, Professor Ahmet Davutoğlu, he advocated solving century-old problems with Turkey’s neighbours, and becoming progressively the inevitable regional mediator. In order to do so, Turkey had to become a political model and build relations with his Arab partners, without losing its alliance with Israël.

This policy, known as « zero problem », began sucessfully at first.Ankara no longer feared Damascus and its support for the PKK, and also asked Syria for help in negotiating an exit. In October 2006, the Kurdish party declared a unilateral truce and began negotiations with the Erdoğan government. In May 2008, Ankara organised indirect negotiations between Damascus and Tel-Aviv, the first talks since Ehud Barack’s rejection of the Bill Clinton / Hafez el-Assad plan. But President Bachar el-Assad withdrew from the discussions after Israël attacked Gaza in December 2009.

Realising that because of the Palestinian conflict, it was impossible to maintain good relations with all the states in the region, Ankara chose to support the Palestinians against Israël. This was the period of the Davos and Freedom Flotilla episodes. Backed by vast popular support in the Muslim world, Ankara approached Teheran and accepted, in November 2010, to participate in a Turkey-Iran-Iraq-Syria common market. Visas were repealed ; the rights of the Customs were considerably reduced ; a consortium was created to manage the oil and gas pipe-lines ; an authority was created to enable the management of water ressources. The overall structure looked so inviting that Lebanon and Jordan presented their candidacy. Sustainable peace seemed possible for the Levant.

When, in 2011, the United Kingdom and France launched a double war against Libya and Syria, at the request and under the control of the United States, Turkey quite logically opposed it. These wars, launched on the pretext of protecting the populations, were far too evidently neo-colonial strategies. Besides, they damaged Turkish interests, since Libya was one of its main economic partners and Syria had become one by way of the new regional common market.

That’s when everything collapsed…

How France caused the collapse of Turkey

In March 2011, on the initiative of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, Paris secretly proposed to support Ankara’s candidacy to the European Union and help it solve its Kurdish problem if Turkey would join France in its war against Libya and Syria. From the French point of view, this was a radically new proposition, since during the period he led the Gaullist party and was a collaborator of Jacques Chirac, Alain Juppé had been firmly opposed to the entry of Turkey into the Union. But, condemned for corruption in France, he had exiled himself to America in 2005 and taught classes in Québec while at the same time following a course at the Pentagon. Converted to neo-conservatism, he returned to France and was chosen by Nicolas Sarkozy as Minister for Defence, then for Foreign Affairs.

Retrospectively, the Juppé plan revealed French intentions : they concerned the creation of a Kurdistan in Iraq and Syria, according to the map which was published two years later by Robin Wright in the New York Times, and was implemented conjointly by the Islamic Emirate, the Regional Government of Iraqi Kurdistan and some ex-collaborators of Saddam Hussein linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. The document, co-signed by Alain Juppé and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoğlu, leaves no doubt : France intended to reconstitute a colonial empire in Syria. Moreover, it had connections within the Islamist terrorist movements and anticipated the creation of Daesh. In order to guarantee the Juppé plan, Qatar agreed to make massive investments in eastern Turkey, hoping that the Turkish Kurds would then abandon the PKK.

This plan has remained secret until today. If the French and Turkish parlementaries could manage to legally obtain a copy, it would amply suffice to bring Messrs. Juppé and Davutoğlu before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Contrary to a popular notion, the Kurds are deeply divided. In Turkey and Syria, the PKK, originally a Marxist-Leninist party, has always defended the anti-imperialist point of view. While the Iraqi Kurds, linked with Israël since the Cold War, have always been the allies of the United States. The two groups do not speak the same language and have very different histories.

It is probable that, from their side, the United States would sweeten the dowry by promoting the Turkish political model in the Arab world, and helping the AKP to take charge of the political parties born of the Muslim Brotherhood, so that Turkey would become the centre of the next Middle East. In any case, and in extremis, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supported NATO’s project, which took over from AfriCom after the revolt of its commander [1].

Immediately, Ankara mobilised the citizens of Misrata in Libya. These are mostly the descendants of the Jewish soldiers of the Ottoman Empire, the Adghams, and the nomadic merchants descended from black slaves, the Muntasirs, who had supported the Young Turks. They formed the only significant Libyan group capable of attacking Tripoli [2].

Simultaneously, Ankara organised several meetings of the Syrian opposition in Istanbul, from August 2011. Finally, the Muslim Brotherhood constituted the Syrian National Council in October, associating representatives from the diverse political and minority groups.

NATO renounces the invasion of Syria

Watching NATO’s implication in Libya, Ankara was logically counting on an identical implication by NATO in Syria. But despite a large number of terrorist attacks and an unflagging international Press campaign, it proved impossible to both inflame the population and attribute mass crimes to President el-Assad in a credible manner. Above all, Moscow and Bejing, angered by the Libyan affair, opposed any Security Council resolution pretending to « protect » the Syrians from their own government (October 2011, February and July 2012).

Washington and London abandoned the game, even though Paris and Ankara continued to believe in it [3]. The two states developed close collaboration, which went as far, in September 2012, as planning the assassination of the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Walid al-Mouallem, and President Bachar el-Assad.

The terrorist attack in Riyadh, a response to the assassination of members of the Syrian National Security Council, seriously wounded Prince Bandar ben Sultan in July 2012, and left the international jihadist movement orphaned. Even though the prince survived his wounds, he only left hospital a year later, and was never again able to assume the role he had played until then. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seized the occasion to replace him. He opened personal relations with Yasin al-Qadi, the banker for al-Qaïda, whom he received in secret several times in Ankara. He supervised a number of jihadist groups, initially created by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.

In January 2013, by intervening in Mali, France distanced itself from the Syrian jihadists, thus leaving on-the-ground military operations to Turkey, even if it left a few legionnaires in place. Shortly afterwards, the Emir of Qatar, cheikh Ahmad, was obliged to abdicate by Washington, which blamed him – after denunciation by Russia – for operating in a way that was damaging to United States economic interests. Even before his son, cheikh Tamim, succeeded him, the greater part of the financing of the war against Syria was being handled by Saudi Arabia.

In order to benefit from this support, and that of Israël, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan began to promise anyone who was listening that the United States were going to ignore the Russian and Chinese vetos and launch NATO in an assault against Damascus. Profiting from the confusion, he organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch [4]. Still apparently unaware of the consequences, with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. But London immediately uncovered the manipulation and refused to engage [5].

Turkey participated in the operation of ethnic cleansing and partition of Iraq and Syria, known as the « Wright plan ». The presence of the Turkish secret services in the preparatory meetings for Daesh in Amman is verified by the publication of a record of decisions by the PKK. Moreover, the « Wright plan » is a copy of the « Juppé plan », which convinced Turkey to go to war. Following this, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself took command of the terrorist organisation, ensuring at the same time its arms supply and the sale of its petrol.

Anxiously observing the talks between Washington and Teheran, Ankara feared a peace agreement which would leave it powerless. Solicited by his Russian opposite number, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Erdoğan accepted to participate in the gas pipe-line project Turkish Stream, intended to break the US monopoly and avoid the European embargo. Then, racking up his courage, he went to see his Iranian opposite number, cheikh Hassan Rohani, who assured him that he had nothing to fear from the agreement which was then being developed. But as soon as it was signed, on the 14th July 2015, it was apparent that it left no room for Turkey in the region.

Without surprise, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan received, on the 24th July, an ultimatum from President Obama, requiring him to

  • immediately renounce the Russian gas pipe-line project ;
    - cease his support of Daesh – of which he had become the excutive chief behind the screen of calife Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi – and go to war with them.

Applying even greater pressure, Barack Obama evoked the possibility of excluding Turkey from NATO, with the concertation of the United Kingdom, even though this situation is not mentioned in the Treaty.

After having begged pardon and authorised the United States and NATO to use the the military base at Incirlik against Daesh, Mr. Erdoğan made contact with the special emissary for the Anti-Daesh Coalition, General John Allen, known for his opposition to the agreement with Iran. The two men agreed to interpret President Obama’s remarks as an encouragement to fight terrorism, a heading under which they listed the PKK. Exceeding his functions, the General promised to create a « no-fly zone » ninety miles wide, over Syrian territory, along the whole border with Turkey, supposedly intended to help Syrian refugees fleeing from their government, but in reality to apply the « Juppé-Wright plan ». The Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, revealed US support for the project on the TV channel A Haber by launching a bombing raid against the PKK.

General John Allen had twice succeeded in prolonging the war against Syria. In June 2012, he plotted with General David Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to sabotage the Geneva agreement between Washington and Moscow for peace in the Near East. This agreement called, amongst other things, for peace in Syria – even though Damascus had not been invited to the conference – but this was considered inacceptable by both the US neo-conservatives and the US « liberal hawks ». The trio Clinton-Allen-Petraeus counted on the new French President, François Hollande, and his new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius, to convene a conference of the « Friends of Syria » and reject the Geneva Agreement. Since he was in the heat of an election campaign, President Obama could not sanction his collaborators, but the day following his election, he had David Petraeus and John Allen arrested, victims of a sexual trap. Hillary Clinton stayed on for a few weeks, but then suddenly retired after an « accident ». Finally, only Petraeus was found guilty, while Allen was whitewashed and Clinton – like Juppé – began preparations for the next Presidential election campaign.

The trio Clinton-Allen-Petraeus staged a second operation in December 2014 which managed to disrupt the Moscow Conference. By promising the Muslim Brotherhood that they would implement the « Juppé-Wright plan », they convinced the Syrian National Coalition to refuse any disscussions on peace. Incidentally, this episode attests to the fact that the aim of the Syrian National Coalition is not regime change in Syria but the destruction of the country and its state.

Learning the facts during his journey to Africa, President Obama officially denied the engagement of General Allen, recognised Turkey’s right to fight the PKK, but denounced any action against it outside of Turkey. President Erdoğan then called for a meeting of the Atlantic Council to inform them of his entry into the Anti-Terrorist Coalition and his double action against Daesh and the PKK. On the 29th July, the Allies coldly replied that they supported his action, but did not recognise his right to bombard the PKK in Iraq and Syria except in cases of « pursuit » – in other words, if the PKK used bases in other countries to manage troop movements against Turkey.

Moreover, President Obama has relieved Daniel Rubinstein of his functions as Special Envoy to Syria, and replaced him with Michael Ratney, a specialist of both the Near East and communications. His main task will be to keep an eye on General Allen.

Turkey enters into civil war

Presently, the actions of the Turkish army against the PKK in Iraq and Syria have no legal justification in international law. Both governments have denounced attacks on their territory. From the US pont of view, the PKK and the Syrian Arab Army – in other words, the army of the Republic – are the only ground forces capable of confronting Daesh. The resumption of the war against the Kurdish minority illustrates the AKP’s desire to continue the implementation of the « Juppé-Wright plan », even after the partial withdrawal of Qatar and France.

However, one fundamental element has profoundly changed the game : Israël and Saudi Arabia, who not so long ago supported the idea of creating a Kurdistan and a Sunnistan in Iraq and Syria, are now opposed to it. Tel-Aviv and Riyadh now understand that these two new states, if they come to be, will not be controlled by them, but by a Turkey which is no longer hiding its imperial ambitions, and will become a de facto regional giant.

By one of those turn-arounds of which the Near East has the secret, Israël and Saudi Arabia have reached an agreement in order to oppose President Erdoğan’s folly, and also, surreptitiously, to help the PKK, despite its Marxist identity. Furthermore, Israël has already contacted the traditional enemies of Turkey, Alexis Tsípras’ Greece, and Níkos Anastasiádis’ Cyprus.

Let there be no mistake – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has chosen civil war as his only political exit. After losing the general election and managing to block the creation of a new government, he is now trying to scare his own people into convincing the MHP (nationalists) to support the AKP (Islamists) and form a coalition government, or call another round of general elections – and win.

The anti-terrorist operation which was intended to fight both Daesh and the Kurdish population is aimed almost exclusively at the PKK and the PYG (its Syrian alter ego). The bombings which were supposedly aimed at the Islamic Emirate destroyed nothing. At the same time, Mr. Erdoğan has begun judicial enquiries against the Kurdish leaders of the HPD, Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ. For a start, the prosecution accuses them of having called for violence against non-Kurds – which is ridiculous – and secondly, of supporting the PYG, the militia of the Syrian Arab Republic and therefore, according to the magistrate, a terrorist organisation.

The civil war which is beginning will not be the same as in the 1990’s. It will be far more wide-ranging and murderous. Partly because Turkey has not one ally left outside its boundaries, and partly because the government’s Islamist policies have divided its own society. Thus there will not be Turkish institutions supported by NATO on one side and Syrian-backed PKK on the other – but a fragmentation of Turkish society – secular against Islamist ; modern against traditionalist ; Alevis against Sunnites ; Kurds against Turks.

References:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article188337.html

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
2 Comments

2
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Great whiteJustsi Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Justsi
Guest

Over The Counter Diabetic Medicine Canadian Health Care Pharmacy Cephalexin Diarrhea Should I Be Worried cialis Donormyl Kaufen Minocycline Vs Amoxicillin

Great white
Guest
Great white

France support many terrorist organisation.

Latest

A dispassionate case for the American border wall

All the arguing on both sides is a rhetorical war that prevents action from happening. Here are simple reasons the border wall should go up.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the hottest news stories in the American press has been that over the border wall, proposed by President Trump during his campaign, and now resting at the center of a debate that has about one-quarter of the US governmental services in a state of shutdown. We have observed fiery, passionate, and even disgusting levels of rancor and bitterness in the political rhetoric concerning the wall. This debate goes on in the news media, and many of the Americans who watch and listen to this take on the fire of these arguments to even more passionate levels.

However, the passion has largely obscured the actual issue of border security, perhaps by design. As long as people keep fighting over it, it still is not getting done. And while thankfully the American government is designed to work very slowly in determining important matters, here, that trait is being exploited, mostly by Democrats, but also by Republicans and even possibly, President Trump himself.

The motives each side has vary.

President Trump wants Congress to pass wall funding because then it is a legislative act that the Legislative and Executive branches of government agree on. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will be called upon to test such a resolution for its legality. This is one very significant reason why the President is trying every way possible to get this through Congress.

If he goes the route of declaring a “National Emergency” then, according to a number of sources, the first thing that is likely to happen after the build order is a lawsuit that stops the process in its tracks – probably a land-use lawsuit regarding eminent domain and damage to the properties of private citizens, who for various reasons do not want a barrier built through their lands. This is a problem that the American government has sadly created for itself with a very poor reputation of proper reparations for the invocation of Eminent Domain land claims.

This is the simplest way to explain the raison d’être behind the President’s hesitation to invoke executive emergency powers.

For the Democrats, the motive is interesting. The rhetoric from conservatives, including the President, is that the Dems do not want the wall simply because the “imposter” President wants one. 

For anyone who thinks that this is an utterly insane, and indeed, childish, argument, well, you would be exactly right. It is.

It also appears to be true. Evidence for this is shown by the fact that almost every critic quoted by the mainstream press is a Democrat. How is it possible that Democrats have a unique hold on facts that other people just don’t? Even when a Republican expresses a concern about the wall, there is still actual logistical information backing the claim:

Republican and Democratic lawmakers raised immediate concerns over shifting funds that have already been approved by Congress for projects in states across the nation.

Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said he has been hearing from lawmakers in recent days concerned that Army Corps projects in their states could be canceled or postponed.

(This is a concrete situation that is based on normal concerns about money and not about ideological political views.)

“If they drag the money out of here,” Simpson said in an interview late Thursday, “a lot of members will have problem with it.”

(But now in come the Democrats, and observe as logic leaves and is replaced by fiery language.)

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the incoming chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an interview that rebuilding the disaster areas is “a way higher priority benefiting the American people than a wasteful wall.”

He said the Army Corps works on dams, levees and other projects across the nation and has an enormous backlog of unfunded needs. “It would be an incredible disservice to the American people and the economy” to divert the money to the border wall, he said.

And Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said in a statement that it would be “beyond appalling for the president to take money from places like Puerto Rico that have suffered enormous catastrophes, costing thousands of American citizens’ lives, in order to pay for Donald Trump’s foolish, offensive and hateful wall.

“Siphoning funding from real disasters to pay for a crisis manufactured by the president is wholly unacceptable and the American people won’t fall for it,” she said.

The Republican here spoke without passion, simply saying there is concern about shifting funds for the wall. But the Democrats used incendiary language like “wasteful” and “foolish, offensive and hateful” as adjectives to describe the border wall. Very passionate expressions, which are being repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream press and all of the Democrat party.

The bias most notably and publicly showed in the accusatory language of the Democrat kingpins themselves, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

There is little true “debate” about the border wall. Most discussion on the news media or social media is verbal rock-throwing rather than respectful, honest and fair discussion. As noted before, this may be part of the design to prevent action on the wall.

However there are dispassionate and reasonable arguments that support the construction of this project. Here are some of those reasons:

  •  A 30-35 foot tall wall running the entire length of the border is probably the cheapest and most cost effective single deterrent to illegal border crossings. Whoever wants to cross the border has to make some provision for dealing with the wall. If that provision is rather difficult, it will dissuade most people from trying it.
  • A wall reduces the need for manpower along the border. While it is absurd to assume that the wall alone would keep every illegal immigrant out, it also facilitates efficient deployment of manpower and other means for active border control.
  • Even if the wall is not continuous along the entire length of the border (which is likely to wind up as the case), where it isn’t is easier to monitor. This is another aspect of the manpower issue. There are likely to be gaps and open spaces for a variety of reasons. But right now, there are about over 1,200 miles of the 1,954 mile long border that have no barrier present. That is a lot of space to monitor actively.

These three reasons are really so close as to be almost the same exact reason. But the arguments for and against the border wall are being conducted in an apparent context that in order to secure a border, this is all anyone needs to do. This is an absurd idea and is being used to try to deflect action.

  • The best border security systems in the world are systems of walls, fences and monitoring facilities. Even the Great Wall of China did not stop all invaders. It deterred a lot of probable attempts though. The wall was also manned so that active attempts to get through it could be stopped in active manners.
  • The North – South Korean DMZ and the Berlin Wall are also particularly effective as parts of an overall border crossing deterrent system. The fences, trenches and watchtowers along the length of these two borders create an extremely effective measure to deter illegal crossings. For example, the Berlin Wall stood from 1961 to 1989, a total of 28 years. During that period, only five thousand people crossed that border. The US Border Patrol conducted over 300,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants crossing the border in 2018 alone.

The imagery of walls like North Korea’s and East Berlin’s are part of the reason why the border wall comes across as an unsavory idea. There is probably no American that does not know this image, and no one in the country like the idea of such a barrier being associated with the United States.

However, that is simply not the issue. The US is not a police state trying to keep people inside. It is dealing with a decades-long stretch of bad policy regarding immigration which will not be stopped except by radical means.

Many families made a very long journey this year in the migrant caravans to try to game the American system. It is understandable that many of these people are trying to get away from bad conditions in the countries they left. But taking advantage of the United States is wrong, and the wrong is shared equally by the actions of the illegals and by the weak posture of the United States herself.

The simplest fact is that only strength assures freedom. A strong border reinforces safe immigration. A strong and effective immigration policy relies on having a tightly controlled border AND an asylum and entry facilitation process that is thorough, lawful and dispassionate. The USA has had this in place in other points of entry, such as Ellis Island. Leaving the Mexican frontier open now is just stupid policy. An integrated, careful process to process would be immigrants as quickly and carefully as possible needs to become part of the new American way of doing things. There is no swifter way to guarantee overall immigration policy change than the construction of the physical barrier along the US-Mexican border.

It does not matter how anyone feels or thinks. Walls work when used rightly. President Trump’s plan satisfies all the required needs for a good US immigration policy as regards the Mexican border.

 

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

Latest

US Women’s March implodes upon itself [Video]

This year’s Women’s March collapses due to not being politically woke enough, in a truly astounding fashion.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

If this doesn’t make your head spin, perhaps you are either dead, or sufficiently “woke.” The Humboldt County Annual Women’s March, set for January 19th of this year got canceled because it was “too white.”

Yes. Too white. This is a county in Northern California, 270 miles north of San Francisco. According to the Wikipedia entry, on this locale, the 2016 census gave this demographic result.

In other words, the county’s own demographics are very white.

So, does this make sense? No? Well, maybe the interview will clear it up.

Still no?

It seems that Jesse Watters was just as stunned as anyone else. The expression on his face is priceless. Should I laugh now, or later? How does this woman actually believe her own rhetoric?

But the woman, Kelsey Reedy, seems to have the logic worked out in her mind.

Maybe that is because she is a woman. A liberal woman. Fantasy turned inside out. But wait! She also even included expletive language on a televised interview, which is indecent in of itself.

It would appear that being “woke” can truly turn in on itself.

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

Latest

“The Criminals Who Run The Deep State Will Be Exposed”: Kim Dotcom Teases “Next Round Of Leaks”

Kim Dotcom: “Get ready for the next round of leaks.”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Hacker and serial entrepreneur Kim Dotcom is out with a new prediction for 2019:

“Get ready for the next round of leaks.”

Dotcom then tweeted “This year the criminals who run the Deep State will be exposed,” adding “The shareholders profiting from war and chaos. The billionaires who turn democracy into an illusion. They own politicians, judges and all your data. They are the biggest pirates in history. Want to know who they are?”

For those paying attention, Dotcom dropped massive breadcrumbs going all the way back to 2015 regarding the WikiLeaks release of Hillary Clinton’s emails during the 2016 US election.

And while he’s has made headlines for years, in February Dotcom boldly stated that the DNC “hack” which kicked off the Russian election interference narrative was bogus, tweeting: “Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn’t even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who did it and why.”

Dotcom says he offered to produce evidence to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, twice, and they never even replied to him.

Apparently Mueller is only interested in the chosen narrative, regardless of whether or not the glove fits.

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