Connect with us

Red Pill

News

East Ukraine resistance leader provides amazing military insight on the current conflict

Published

on

0 Views

Their was a scene in the Godfather Part II where Michael Corleone (after just witnessing a Castro revolutionary blow himself and other government officials up in a Havana car bomb) explains to Hyman Roth and other U.S. investors in Cuba why Castro’s guerrilla army would win the Civil War taking place.  

Its a simple and fascinating military insight, from one of my all time favorite movies.

 

The lesson that Michael dispels to all birthday party attendees…the soldiers are paid to fight, the rebels fight for free, they fight for a cause they deeply believe in and thus they can win.

Zerohedge recently ran a translated interview from Igor Strelkov, the man AP dubbed “the face of the insurgency in eastern Ukraine.”  It’s an amazing interview full of insight you will not find in any mass media outlet.  Strelkov shows a logic in his thought and a clarity in his understanding of the military operations that leads a logical man to one conclusion, this is going to be a long drawn out affair that will ultimately be won by the side with the stronger conviction and faith for their cause.  Its a long read, but well worth.

From Zerohedge:

…the fact that he [Igor Strelkov] keeps an ultra low profile certainly doesn’t help his public image, if certainly boosting his shadowy, mystical status. However, yesterday in the aftermath of the swearing in of Ukraine’s new president Poroshenko, Strelkov gave an extensive interview in which he laid out not only the “separatists” take on recent events in Ukraine but how they view the armed resistance strategically, and what, if any, the endgame is.

In any event, the following interview will certainly not be available on any western media outlets so for those who believe in hearing both sides of the story to develop an informed opinion, read on.

What follows is, in my opinion, one of the only times you will be able to cut through the propaganda bullshit being dished out by all sides and get to the heart of the fight for the East Ukraine, Donbass region.

Most Recent Interview by Strelkov, via @Gbazov

I believe that the situation will change for the worse, because now this so-called “legitimate” President immediately will turn to NATO countries, to Western countries, for help, asking, first and foremost, for military help.

We can then expect to be confronted with new NATO tanks, helicopters, aircraft, advisors, instructors, mercenaries. There will be greater numbers of shells, troops and victims. This is all that I expect from this so-called “inauguration.”

This morning [June 7, 2014] there was again artillery shelling of the Artem neighbourhood of Slavyansk. There our checkpoints are located along the perimeter, but the enemy regularly shells homes in civilian neighbourhoods. Specifically, the shells exploded here, here, near the Lenin Hospital, and here.

The enemy can “boast” that they finished off two of their broken-down “BMD” APCs. Well, more accurately, not “BMD” APCs, just APCs. These we had long ago taken apart into spare parts. So they hit these remaining shells; they finished them off, so to say.

With respect to infantry, we are facing a ratio of approximately 5-6 to 1. For one of my fighters there are 5-6 enemy soldiers. This is specifically with respect to the troops stationed directly near the city. Apart from that, there are also 50-60 pieces of heavy artillery, which is dedicated specifically to shelling the city. Also 1-2 Grad systems. A lot of tanks. These elements we cannot, unfortunately, engage directly, given the distance of 1.5-2 kilometres.

All in all, the ratio of forces remains very much not in our favour. So, although the enemy has moved a portion of its forces from our theatre and transferred it, as far as I can tell, to protect the border, nevertheless, we are having a difficult time holding our ground. As a result, first and foremost, we need active help in the form of armoured vehicles, long-range AA elements, and artillery. This is so because the greater part of the enemy artillery force conducts attacks from positions that we are unable to reach.

That is to say, they bombard us from long-range positions of absolute safety. All we can do is dig into the ground, build reinforced installations, but we are unable to counteract them in any way. Unfortunately, our mortars simply do not reach the positions of their heavy howitzers. No wonder, as we are facing such calibres as 240mm. The holes left by shells from these weapons in Semyonovka are easily identifiable.

It has become apparent, long ago, to anyone with even a superficial interest in military affairs that it is far easier to storm an intact city than a destroyed city. The Germans, in their time, got confirmation of this rule at Stalingrad. Yes, they are counting on being able to force the population out of here. And they claim that [once the population evacuates], they would be able to storm the city. In fact, this is simply a way to save face.

A significant part of the population, at least in Semyonovka and Cherevkovka, has already left. Semyonovka has barely anyone left. Same with Cherevkovka. And yet, they do not attempt to storm them. There is one simple reason why: they understand full well that they will suffer significant casualties. Their infantry does not exhibit sufficient fortitude, whether on attack or in defence. In effect, they are simply exacting vengeance against us for precision strikes against their artillery positions, their checkpoints, against their armoured vehicles. They are taking out their anger by carpet-shelling civilian neighbourhoods. In theory, it is possible that they believe they are firing at our positions; however, in 90% of cases they hit areas where we have no fighters present.

They conducted strikes against Nikolaevskaia Power Plant specifically with the intent of taking it out of commission, so at to cut off electrical supplies not only to our city, but to a whole number of cities in the north of Donbass region. In fact, this was a direct attack intended to destroy the infrastructure that feeds urban and industrial regions. The same can be said about the continuing bombardment of industrial locations. In sum, we are witnessing purposeful destruction of the industrial complex. You can draw an analogy to an old joke about a Ukrainian who says “Even if I can’t eat it, at least I’ll bite it.” In other words, if I can’t have you, no one can. About right.

I am predicting that not only the Slavyansk region, which, at this time, acts as a shield for the Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts/provinces, but also the entire territory of Lugansk and Donetsk regions will turn into a battlefield. It is obvious that no one will stop this military operation; no one is intending to terminate it. More than that, military elements are being used that are entirely excessive in fighting against small guerilla units. In fact, these elements are more-or-less useless. In a manner of saying, they are using cannons to shoot down birds. All of this will continue further, it will be transferred to Donetsk, to Gorlovka, to Makeevka, to Lugansk, to all the other cities and parts of the region. At least that’s how the Ukrainian army is acting. These are the conclusion that can be drawn from what the Ukrainian army is doing. This will turn into a humanitarian catastrophe not just at the scale of a city, but on the regional, possibly the world scale. I say this because there are over six (6) million inhabitants [in the region] that will become the targets of this very dumb, very unprofessional, very careless military machine. While guerillas (and we are, in fact, guerillas), i.e. militia, are able to defend cities, are able to repel infantry and even tank attacks by the enemy, we are, unfortunately, incapable of defending the region from airstrikes and artillery shelling. Equally, we are unable to destroy [artillery and aviation] because the ratio of the opposing forces remains disturbingly [not in our favour]. Regardless of how many volunteers we are able to field (and, first of all, we are unable to arm all of them, to this date we lack everything – rifles, ammo, anti-aircraft elements, and, most important, we lack anti-tank defence systems, including anti-tank artillery), and even if we receive all the necessary equipment and are able to match [Ukrainian] regular forces in combat, this would nevertheless lead to a complete humanitarian catastrophe in the region. Unfortunately, without peacekeeping forces (and I obviously mean Russian peacekeepers, as no other peacekeeping force would be accepted by us here, nor considered a “peacekeeping force”), the region will descend into bloody chaos, lawlessness. Everything that was built over decades would be lost, destroyed.

The Lugansk Republic also finds itself in a very difficult military situation, they must think of defending their own territory, their own cities and population. The one thing I can note is that we are coordinating our activities with the garrison in Lesichansk. This garrison made a request to be included in our command structure. Together with this garrison we are defending this part of the front.

Q: Poroshenko promised Putin that, in the nearest future, the war will be either brought to an end or suspended, in some manner. In your opinion, what did he mean when he said this?

A: I believe that what he meant is that the Ukrainian army will steamroll over the entire Donbass region, will eliminate all those who rose up against the illegitimate Kiev government, all those who rebelled against the discrimination directed against the Russian people, and that, in this manner, he would bring the war to an end. I think this is what he had in mind. An oligarch who sponsored the so-called “Maidan,” who made the most warlike claims and adopted extreme positions while still a Presidential candidate, who is a puppet controlled directly by the United States of America, this oligarch cannot change who he is in one day or one night. Of course, what he means is that he plans to “impose order” with an iron fist, the fist of his punitive forces. Put it bluntly, we saw how they “impose order” from the example of what happened in Krasniy Liman. That is why we will, of course, resist to the last man. We will resist successfully, I am emphasizing this again. The real problem is not that we will be unable to defend ourselves or to withstand attacks by the Ukrainian forces, the problem is that if this war continues indefinitely, the region will fall to a humanitarian catastrophe. As a result Russia will become the recipient of millions of disenfranchised, impoverished and angry refugees. Everything that was built, created over decades, if not centuries, will be destroyed.

We continue to prevail over them again and again, on all fronts. Nowhere have they been able to achieve a victory of any real significance. They were able to overwhelm our garrison of one hundred in Krasniy Liman by throwing a force of three thousand (3,000) and coming against them from all sides. Even so … And where they have to square off against a more-or-less trained, numerous, at least somehow provisioned force, they always, regularly suffer defeat. They cannot advance even a step. Their tactic consists of filling the landscape with troops, tanks, APCs, and artillery, and defending themselves, in hopes that, without numerical and equipment parity, we would be unable to push them from their positions. In effect, their positions at Mount Karachun are an example of this approach. We are unable to kick them out of Karachun first and foremost because their force is at least three times the size of my garrison [in Slavyansk].

We are blessed with excellent morale and fighting spirit, our fighters are highly motivated, while they have a great deal of old, but still effective “metal” [Note: i.e. armoured vehicles] that fights against our militia.

Ukrainian mass media lies, lies without end. They lie so unapologetically that Goebbels would have envied their style. He is probably turning in his grave now. And, so, they are interested in ensuring that no one else is able to provide this information. And, because Western media, to a large degree, plays along with its Ukrainian colleagues, and provides only such information that benefits Ukraine, the Russian media becomes their natural enemy. As a result, they consider the Russian media their direct enemy in the field of informational warfare.

With respect to international law and norms, they never cared for them on bit. For example, here they use cluster bombs and similar [illegal] weapons. They shoot, and, as you correctly pointed out, remove entire township from the face of the Earth. They shell cities. They will continue in this manner with ever-increasing [brutality]. This is because they experience no material opposition [to what they do]. They have no other tactic. They are unable to take up their weapons and go on attack, go storm our positions face-to-face with us, despite their profound numerical advantage in troops. As soon as their infantry faces direct combat, it retreats. They retreat even if supported by tanks. They abandon their tanks and retreat. They understand that their infantry is not combat-worthy. Their only option is to shell us from afar, again and again and again, and hope to inflict the greatest possible destruction.

 

References:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-08/shadowy-commander-east-ukraine-insurgency-speaks

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

“This is America” reveals a shocking vision of the United States

The Grammy Award winning Song and Record of the Year feature the very darkest vision of what America has become.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The Grammy Awards are the second of the three most significant musical achievement awards in the United States. Two of the anticipated awards that many fans of this event look forward to learning are the Song of the Year and the Record of the Year.

The Song of the Year is awarded to the songwriters of a given song, where the Record of the Year goes to the artists, producers and engineers involved in crafting the recording (the “record”) of a song. Both categories are huge and both usually go to an artist or organization responsible for a pop song.

It also happens to be that usually the song that is picked is beautiful and in most cases, reflects the character of beauty (whether in music or lyrics or both) for that year.

This year was quite different. Both awards went to Donald Glover, a.k.a. “Childish Gambino” for his song This is America.

This song features a radically different tone than previous winners going back for many years. Though rap remixes are usually less musical, the Grammy winners among these mixes have nevertheless retained some relatively positive, or at least attractive, aspect.

This is America is very different, especially when watched with its video.

Musically, it is genius, though the genius appears to have gone mad. Glover paints a picture of some very positive segments in American life, but then destroys it with his audible form and message that says absolutely nothing positive, but even more so – it doesn’t make sense unless one knows the context.

That context is revealed in the video with frightening images: someone getting their brains blown out (we see the blood fly), a gospel choir shot up with an automatic rifle while they were singing, and cannabis, front and center, being smoked by the artist himself.

This is America?

For Glover, this song and others on his album do seem to reflect that point of view.  Feels like Summer, one of Glover’s other recent songs, also reflects this sense of hopelessness, though it is far more musically consistent. The video gives the most clear contextual information that one could ask for, and while the video is not violent, it features degradation in society, even though the people depicted appear to be trying to make the best of their life situations.

The image Mr. Glover paints of America is a far cry from that which was known to most Americans only twenty years ago, and in fact, in many parts of the country where cannabis is still illegal there is a corresponding sense of positivity in life that is absent in Childish Gambino’s California-esque view of life.

There is a massive change that is taking place in American society. Our music and art reflects this change, and it sometimes even helps drive that change.

The United States of today is at a crossroads.

How many times have we read or heard THAT statement before?  But does it not seem so now? The attempt of identity politics to separate our nation into groups that must somehow fight for their own relevance against other groups is not the vision of the United States only twenty years ago.

Further, the normalization of themes such as drug-use and racism, the perpetuation of one in reality and the other as a mythological representation of how life “really is” in the US is radically bizarre.

In discussions with people who do not live in the United States, we found that sometimes they believed that white-on-black racism really was happening in America, because the media in the US pumps this information out in a constant stream, often with people like Donald Trump as the scapegoat.

But it is not true. Anyone in America’s new “accused class” of white, Christian, European-descent males (and some women who are not feminists), will note that they are not racist, and in fact, they feel persecuted for their existence under the new mantra of “white privilege.”

But it does not matter what they say. The media pumps the message it wants to, and with such coverage it is easy to get to halfway believing it: I know I am not this way, but I guess things are getting pretty bad elsewhere because all of those people seem to be getting this way…

This is the narrative the press promulgates, but upon conversations with people in “those places” we find that it is not true for them, either, and that they may in fact be thinking this is true about us.

Made in America is a visionary song and video. However, the vision is not a dream; it is nothing that anyone in the country would sincerely hope for. Even in Donald Glover’s case – as one of Hollywood’s hottest actors, and as a big success in music, he is far from being one of the “boys in the ‘hood.” In fact, Time Magazine in 2017 named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Certainly his musical work creates a powerful influence, but it also must raise questions, with the main ones being:

  • Are we really like this?
  • Is this what we really want to be as a country?
  • Is this the kind of image we want our children in the US to adopt?

In fact, if Mr. Glover’s work was viewed with care (rather than just as something that is “cool” because the media says it is), it might help us steer away from the cliff that many Americans are in fact heading towards.

We have elected not to link to the video because it is too disturbing for children. It is even too disturbing for many adults. For that reason we are not making it one-click-easy to get to.

Parents reading this opinion piece would do well to screen the video by themselves without the kids around first, before deciding what they want to do. Even though the video is probably something that they have already seen, the parents still stand as the guides and guardians for their children through all the perils of growing up.

These times call for great guardians indeed.

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

Latest

Horrifying New York abortion law marks big Democrat push in US

New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont and Washington also wish to expand abortion access to truly barbaric proportions.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

To some nations in the world, the United States may appear to be overly “conservative” or “backwards” regarding its general position on abortion. Russia, China, Canada, and Australia all allow this practice in generally unrestricted terms. Europeans are generally allowing of first trimester abortions. Social attitudes about the practice vary, with Sweden being the most permissive in terms of attitude, but Russia being the place where a woman is most likely to have had an abortion.

While the legal position in the United States on abortion is generally legal under all conditions as determined by the outcome of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in the US Supreme Court, the social context of the practice is highly debated and generally disapproved of, even by those Americans who believe that the procedure should still be kept legal. One of the most emotionally satisfying statements in the US that actually summarized the attitudes of many “pro-choice” Americans was that of Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton’s statement that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.”

In other words, the legality of the procedure is one thing, and the promotion of the procedure is quite another. It was summarized in this thought: We think that to be in the position of determining whether or not to abort a child is a horrifying and extremely serious matter. However, we believe it to be safer if this procedure is kept legal, lest it actually become dangerous because of inferior resources if it were banned, and done clandestinely.

This point of view was generally accepted as a secular compromise to a horrifying situation. Far from the ultraliberal attitudes of progressive Europe, the United States remained a relatively conservative country, socially guided by Christian attitudes concerning the sanctity of life, even that life which is yet unborn.

All this has changed.

Starting with the signing of New York State’s “Reproductive Health Act”, many states are now moving towards ensuring that abortion is legal under all conditions, to the full term of pregnancy, even to the point where perfectly viable, birthed babies may be killed after delivery if the mother so desires.

This report from New York was immediately followed up by this news item from Virginia’s own Legislature, in its attempt to pass a similar law, made even more clearly brutal by Governor Northam’s defense and explanation of the procedure post delivery in which a living baby would be subject to being deliberately killed at the wish of the mother. 

This law, like the New York constitutional amendment allows the unborn, or just-born (and alive even though “aborted”), no human rights.

There is really no way this action cannot be seen for what it is: infanticide, a very particularly cruel form of murder of the innocent, on no further grounds than that the baby exists and that the mother does not want it.

We covered in another news piece how this ability appears to be the prize “right” of feminist women, who were represented in Congress by the infamous Women in White, who sat stone-faced as President Donald Trump appealed for Congress to make and pass a law banning late-term abortions.

However, the President’s request was well-met by conservatives in the House chamber, and indeed, even some pro-choices were set off their guard by the New York and Virginia legislative moves. Virginia’s attempt failed.

Abortion is legal in the US, and it is legal at any point in the pregnancy in many states. This is not often reported, probably because abortion is not palatable to public discourse when a fully-formed, living baby is to be the subject of this procedure. The national discourse has for years been “safely” diverted to what appears to be more metaphysical debate about the unseen processes in pregnancy, such as “when does life really begin”, and even “when does the embryo receive a soul?”

This is probably by design to avoid the much harsher realities that were exposed in New York, Virginia and Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont. All these states have either passed or are trying to pass laws that protect abortion rights, sometimes to similar extremes as New York’s law contains. However, many other states, such as Colorado, already allow full and late-term abortion procedures.

However, not every state in the US is trying to magnify abortion rights. Some are trying to limit this procedure, or even outlaw it entirely, should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court, a possibility that seems enhanced now with five “conservative” Justices on the US Supreme Court. States like Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, and even the aforementioned Rhode Island are seeking passage of laws to sharply limit or completely outlaw the procedure in this event.

CDC graph showing abortion rates per 1,000 US women from 1969 to 2014. Courtesy: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Guttmacher Institute.

Interestingly, both the abortion rate and the actual number of abortions performed in the US has fallen drastically in the time period between 1980 and 2014. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention record that there were almost 1.3 million babies aborted in 1980, peaking at 1.43 million in 1990, before dropping again to 2015’s rate of 638,000. Numbers and counts vary by statistical poll, however, with 2017’s numbers showing 882,240 in this study. The common feature of declining numbers and rates is still evident.

Statistical sources on this issue were not able to explain the reason for the drop in both rate and number of abortions, but a speculation might be that some exposure to the reality of what abortion actually is has served to deter both unwanted pregnancy from even happening, and also to try to find a way to take care of human beings guilty of nothing more than their existence. Perhaps this is too generous an assessment, but it is one possibility.

President Trump was loud and clear on several occasions about his stance on the issue of abortion. His State of the Union speech featured his saying, “all children, born and unborn are made in the Holy image of God.” This was followed up by further comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, in which he continued to show a strong pro-life position.

Naturally, some pols dismiss this as nothing more than the President’s attempts to energize his base for the 2020 elections. To credit such opinions, it may indeed do this. But President Trump has really put his money where his mouth is in terms of governing as a conservative, or at least, common-sense oriented President.

The combination of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s legislation, the Virginian attempt and the March for Life, featuring its highly slurred story about Roman Catholic teenaged boys who were at the event, plus the President’s speech have made for a truly polarizing moment. To be sure, political winds in the US are so unruly now that longstanding position issues are now pushed aside in mere days, or even hours. However the mainstream media is hard-pressed to refute what happened here. The American Left tipped its hand, perhaps a little too much for even some who are ideologically liberal, and some of the harshest, most sinister aspects of their worldview were brought into focus.

This reaction extends even to both real-life and Internet commentary on such news pieces. Tucker Carlson took on uber-feminist Monica Klein on his program on January 30th, and their exchange, most notably Monica’s sheer fury, was a sign that the Left is energized on this subject, so much so that any sense of nicety has been discarded:

For Ms. Klein, this issue is a source of pure anger, as is clearly evident on her face. This was not a woman who was playing the ideological talking head for the news media hit; far from it. She really believes what she says, and has taken that fury to the point of irrationality.

Some comments on this issue appear in many publications that also reveal extremely fiery emotion on both sides. The rhetoric swings from “baby-killers” to “woman-haters” quite freely on this topic, and this is honestly a shame. Such emotional incendiary bombs are avoidances on both sides. While people call each other names, no one pays attention to the topic itself. This is, of course, by design.

When the real issue is looked at, as was shown so clearly in New York and Virginia, the topic of the value of human life shows its profound reality to everyone. If that happened often enough or long enough, it might change the substance of the conversation.

The result might then be a real change.

 

 

 

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

Latest

Facebook: The Government’s Propaganda Arm?

The social media giant has a disturbing number of former Obama officials in key positions of authority over content.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Jeff Charles via Liberty Nation:


Imagine for a moment what it would look like if the federal government launched its own social media network. Every day, Americans could freely use the platform to express their views on everything from economic theory to the best tips for baking peanut butter cookies. They could even discuss their political views and debate the important issues of the day.

But what if the government were empowered to determine which political views are appropriate and which are too obscene for the American public? Well, it looks like this is already happening. Of course, the state has not created a social media network; they didn’t have to. It appears the government is using Facebook – the world’s largest social media company – to sway public opinion.

The Government’s Fingers In Facebook

The Free Thought Project recently published a report revealing that Facebook has some troubling ties to the federal government and that this connection could be enabling former state officials to influence the content displayed. The social media provider has partnered with various think tanks which receive state funding, while hiring an alarming number of individuals who have held prominent positions in the federal government.

Facebook recently announced their partnership with the Atlantic Council – which is partly funded by tax dollars – to ensure that users are presented with quality news stories. And by “quality,” it seems that they mean “progressive.” The council is well known for promoting far-left news sources, including the Xinhua News Agency, which was founded by the Communist Party of China. Well, that’s reassuring. What red-blooded American capitalist doesn’t want to get the news from a communist regime?

But there one aspect of this story is even more troubling: the government-to-Facebook pipeline. The company has employed a significant number of former officials in positions that grant them influence over what content is allowed on the platform.

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity Policy, prosecuted cybercrimes at the Department of Justice under President Obama. Now, he is responsible for determining who gets banned or suspended from the network. But that’s not the worst of it. He also spearheaded the company’s initiative to scrub anti-war content and “protest” movements. In a blog post, Gleicher wrote: “Some of the Pages frequently posted about topics like anti-NATO sentiment, protest movements, and anti-corruption.” He continued, “We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people.”

The company has also hired others who served in key positions in the Obama administration. Some of these include:

  • Aneesh Raman: Former speechwriter
  • Joel Benenson: Top adviser
  • Meredith Carden: Office of the First Lady

To make things more interesting, Facebook has also hired neocons to help them determine the type of content that is being published. So if you happen to be a conservative that isn’t too crazy about interventionism, your views are not as welcome on the network as others. After all, how many times have you heard of people being banned for posting pro-war or socialist propaganda?

Are Private Companies Truly Private?

The notion that government officials could be using positions of power in the private industry to advance a statist agenda is disturbing, but the fact that most Americans are unaware of this is far worse. It would be inaccurate to argue that the government is controlling Facebook’s content, but the level of the state’s involvement in the world’s biggest social media company is a disturbing development.

This is not the only case of state officials becoming involved with certain industries. This trend is rampant in the certain industries in which individuals move back and forth between private organizations and the FDA. For example, Monsanto, an agricultural and agrochemical company, has been under scrutiny for its ties to the federal government.

It is not clear if there is anything that can be done to counteract inappropriate relations between the government and certain companies – especially organizations with the level of influence enjoyed by the likes of Facebook. But it essential that the public is made aware of these relations, otherwise the state will continue to exert influence over society – with Americans none the wiser.

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