Connect with us

Red Pill

News

How The Incredible One-take Fight Scene In The New “BadBoy” Movie was made?

Purus ligula. Morbi sed diam eget dolor posuere convallis vel vel nisl. Nulla sagittis efficitur ex, at sodales massa pulvinar a. Nunc quis lacinia eros. Fusce ac ipsum gravida, tristique sed felis augue dictum nec consectetuer quis. Elementum eu arcu nunc ornare nam. Vitae libero mauris suspendisse vitae.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

20 Views

Far far away, behind the word mountains, far from the countries Vokalia and Consonantia, there live the blind texts. Separated they live in Bookmarksgrove right at the coast of the Semantics, a large language ocean.

1. Image with share buttons

single_content_01_v01

A small river named Duden flows. Source: MediaSource

Far far away, behind the word mountains, far from the countries Vokalia and Consonantia, there live the blind texts. Separated they live in Bookmarksgrove right at the coast of the Semantics, a large language ocean.

2. Advanced GIF control

single_content_gif_v01

Far far away. Source: MediaSource

Far far away, behind the word mountains, far from the countries Vokalia and Consonantia, there live the blind texts. Separated they live in Bookmarksgrove right at the coast of the Semantics, a large language ocean.

3. Self hosted responsive video

embed_intro

4. YouTube responsive embed

Behind the word mountains, far from the countries Vokalia and Consonantia, there live the blind texts. Separated they live in Bookmarksgrove right at the coast of the Semantics, a large language ocean.

5. Vine responsive embed

Behind the word mountains, far from the countries Vokalia and Consonantia, there live the blind texts. Separated they live in Bookmarksgrove right at the coast of the Semantics, a large language ocean.

6. Instagram responsive embed

Behind the word mountains, far from the countries Vokalia and Consonantia, there live the blind texts. Separated they live in Bookmarksgrove right at the coast of the Semantics, a large language ocean.

7. Twitter responsive embed

Behind the word mountains, far from the countries Vokalia and Consonantia, there live the blind texts. Separated they live in Bookmarksgrove right at the coast of the Semantics, a large language ocean.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Charles Wellington
Guest

Pellentesque pretium ante non velit vehicula, at efficitur dolor egestas. Quisque lacinia lobortis lorem, id malesuada ligula finibus sed. Nulla ut nisl dui

George Brzozowski
Guest

Quisque lacinia lobortis lorem, id malesuada ligula finibus sed. Nulla ut nisl dui. Vestibulum sapien eros, finibus a nunc at, pellentesque efficitur dolor. Mauris eleifend mattis purus, ac tincidunt felis bibendum ac. Suspendisse non volutpat lorem. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.

Peter Thompson
Guest

Sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Donec eu mollis felis, a maximus augue. Phasellus mi dui, tincidunt id venenatis vel, luctus quis lorem. Curabitur a ante non leo eleifend pretium. Vivamus efficitur ex varius dignissim imperdiet.

Britney von Lausitz
Guest

Pellentesque pretium ante non velit vehicula, at efficitur dolor egestas. Quisque lacinia lobortis lorem, id malesuada ligula finibus sed. Nulla ut nisl dui

Trevor McGregor
Guest

Pellentesque pretium ante non velit vehicula, at efficitur dolor egestas. Quisque lacinia lobortis lorem, id malesuada ligula finibus sed. Nulla ut nisl dui

Jessica Williams
Guest

Venenatis vel, luctus quis lorem. Curabitur a ante non leo eleifend pretium. Vivamus efficitur ex varius dignissim imperdiet.

Kim Anderson
Guest

Pellentesque pretium ante non velit vehicula, at efficitur dolor egestas. Quisque lacinia lobortis lorem, id malesuada ligula finibus sed. Nulla ut nisl dui

Trevor McGregor
Guest

Morbi ac nisi sit amet nisi condimentum cursus in id metus. Sed consectetur a arcu non eleifend. In posuere ullamcorper urna, sed sodales orci auctor vel.

Britney von Lausitz
Guest

Quisque lacinia lobortis lorem, id malesuada ligula finibus sed. Nulla ut nisl dui. Vestibulum sapien eros, finibus a nunc at, pellentesque efficitur dolor. Mauris eleifend mattis purus, ac tincidunt felis bibendum ac. Suspendisse non volutpat lorem. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.

George Brzozowski
Guest

Mi dui, tincidunt id venenatis vel, luctus quis lorem. Curabitur a ante non leo eleifend pretium. Vivamus efficitur ex varius dignissim imperdiet.

Charles Wellington
Guest

Pellentesque pretium ante non velit vehicula, at efficitur dolor egestas. Quisque lacinia lobortis lorem, id malesuada ligula finibus sed. Nulla ut nisl dui

Latest

White privilege shaming attempt goes hilariously wrong

A well-trained racist ran afoul of her own side when she accused a black man of white privilege – because he has a conservative worldview.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Racism is on the increase in America. In the liberal world, anti-white sentiment is reaching untold heights. It went so high for CNN reporter (and legal analyst!!) Areva Martin that she fearlessly called out radio host David Webb on his own program for executing his white privilege and not listening to her. At this moment, no doubt, many fellow black racists who were watching CNN (and many guilt-ridden white people too!) were cheering her on for “putting it to” this radio host for being so shamelessly white. But then, this happened:

Yep. This is David Webb. He broadcasts on Sirius XM’s Patriot network (Sirius is a satellite radio network broadcasting for US audiences). He is politically conservative, believes in the rule of law and personal responsibility, aaaannndddd… he’s black.

National Review’s Kevin Williamson dug in a bit more to give us some information about who Mr. Webb actually is (in other words, he did research before making allegations or accusations as did Ms. Martin):

And here I thought I was the only black man with white privilege.

Areva Martin, a CNN “analyst” — whatever in hell that means anno Domini 2019 — was in the middle of a spirited exchange with the conservative talk-radio host David Webb about racial preferences in hiring. Webb argued — as conservatives of many different races argue! — that race should not be a factor in such decisions, which should be based strictly on qualifications.

Martin, predictably, leaned on identity. “That’s a whole ’nother long conversation about white privilege,” she sniffed. “The things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don’t have the privilege of.” Webb, sensing something amiss, asked: “How do I have white privilege?” Her answer: Because he is a “white male.”

Half right.

(Disclosure: I don’t think I’ve ever met Mr. Webb, but I did guest-host his radio show a few times a couple of years ago. They stopped asking me to do that after I made fun of his awful bumper music. People are touchy.)

Somehow, we as a culture have managed to forget that ad hominem is a rhetorical fallacy. Which is to say: Relying on the ad hominem mode of argument means that you are stupid, if not generally and categorically stupid then limited-purpose stupid in the context of the debate at hand.

It would seem that CNN has indeed forgotten this, or has assumed (with some success) that America has been successfully weaned of people able to quickly and easily discern such fallacies, and now ad hominem rhetoric is mainstream, and actually counts among the talking heads of the Left as “reasonable discourse.”

Just consider how effective this sort of bullying has been against many people, and how it is used over and over against Donald Trump, though it fails miserably with him (probably because he does not drink or smoke cannabis and has therefore kept his mind.)

Mr. Williamson went on to underscore his point:

Dennis Prager, relating the story above, mentions that he was denounced — as he must be denounced! — before a college campus speech as a racist, sexist, homophobe, and . . . anti-Semite. Prager is Jewish. He has made opposing anti-Semitism a fundamental part of his public career. The reaction to that news was predictable: “Oops. Well, he’s still a racist, sexist, homophobe . . .”

I’ve heard Charles C. W. Cooke dismissed as a fundamentalist Christian (he’s an atheist) and Guy Benson denounced as a homophobe (he’s gay). I have even heard myself denounced as a sellout self-hating black man (I’m white). We have been the beneficiaries of Voltaire’s prayer: “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”

But here’s a question: What if they were right? Cooke’s views on abortion or the First Amendment are what they are, and they either have merit or they do not, irrespective of his religious views. David Webb and I have the same views on many things, I imagine. He’s black. I’m white. Presumably, an erroneous opinion bouncing around in my head would be equally erroneous bouncing around in his head, just as a useful observation coming out of my mouth would be an equally useful observation coming out of his.

Not if you are a progressive, apparently. For the Left, public discourse is Lord of the Flies, and victimhood is the conch — that is how they believe we should decide who gets to speak. That’s what the nonsensical business about “intersectionality” is all about. It is at its heart very little more than a reconstitution of old, dumb, primitive, superstitious ideas in the same genus as racism and nationalism, i.e. the belief that certain demographic markers of questionable real-world relevance are supernaturally cementitious determinants of moral meaning.

Mr. Williamson was very polite in his last sentence, and probably not a little bit sarcastic.

What we see here with Areva Martin’s behavior is racism. Pure and simple.

She said, essentially, “I am a black woman, so that makes me better than you.”

So, let’s play with this a bit.

“I am white, so that makes me better than you.”

This would create a network meltdown if someone who was a public figure tried to say it and uphold this as a belief. Let’s make it even better. “I am a white, Christian, wealthy man who is married and has children and lots of success. But I have it because I am white. You are not white, so you cannot have it.”

Now we probably have riots in the streets and death threats to the hapless soul who ventured to say this. But then, flip it:

“I am a black man. Whitey owes me.”

How is this not racism?

Liberals interpret this as being “true” because “black people were oppressed by white people.” And, so? They are not now, and few indeed are the numbers of white men or women in America that would even dare to think of themselves as superior because of the color of their skin.

Racists don’t know that, and they will not accept it.

To be racist and / or feminist (which behaves the same way but with regard to the “man” part) is to claim the title of victim. Racists are victims. Feminists are victims. They are wedded to a victimhood viewpoint from the moment that they take on these roles. Frederica Matthewes-Green, a former feminist and now the wife of an Antiochian Orthodox Christian priest (she got better!) commented once about feminism, saying approximately this:

Feminism is a very difficult trap. Once a woman engages the idea that she is a victim because she is female, she sees everywhere how this is actually true by the way people treat her. She sees it because she is emotionally attached to the idea of being superior to men, but for the fact that men are just jealous of her.

The same thing happens for racists. Let’s be honest here: this is not “inverse racism” – for that would appear to make it somehow relevant because “whitey deserves it.” Racism is racism. It is the idea as stated above that one’s appearance or place of origin makes one superior to others. Whites are better than blacks. Why? because they are white. Blacks are better than whites. Why. Because they are black.

Essentially the conversation is, “Why?” and, “Because!” is the one word answer, or more accurately, “because I said so.” There is no truth to this. As David Webb himself said, “our skin is an organ. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t formulate ideas.”

So what does this mean? By standards of racism and culture, it appears to mean the following:

  • White men talk about following the law because they are white and they can do this.
  • They therefore do not understand black men and women, because black men and women are special cases (for Areva)
  • Their special nature means that the arguments of following the law do not – and must not – apply to them
  • Apparently this means that black people are incapable of following laws
  • It means that they are incapable of taking personal responsibility for themselves
  • If this is so, then it also follows that someone must run their lives, which leads us to upholding…

Slavery! Hell, seen in this light, slavery is the only humane, reasonable and kind way to treat such people!

CNN has stocked its newsroom top anchor positions, therefore, with victims. Anderson Cooper (gay), Don Lemon (gay and black), Jim Acosta (his last name is Hispanic, so he is a victim too). The list probably can be easily extended. And in fact, Areva Martin (black and a woman) holding the post of legal analyst in this news organization displayed the victim card prominently. CNN spends a lot of time and money defending the idea that white privilege exists, even though it doesn’t. Just ask any white person.

Pride of identity is always false. There is nothing anyone did to earn their race, their sex, their skin color, their ancestry, and so on. So being proud of such attributes is utter foolishness. At most, these are interesting conversation topics, but they all accomplish precisely nothing in any field of life.

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

Latest

Trump’s wish to take the US out of NATO leaves NeoCons seething

The US President has seen the truth of the irrelevance of NATO, but there is enormous resistance to change.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Tucker Carlson, Fox News and Russian and American news outlets alike have picked up the story that US President Donald Trump has on numerous occasions, opined that the United States would do well to depart from the North Atlantic Military Organization, or NATO.

This wish caused enormous fury and backlash from those opposed, which, oddly enough include both Democrats and Republicans. Their anger and alarm over this idea is such that the media networks through much of the US are alive with the idea of impeaching the President or bringing 25th Amendment proceedings against him for insanity!

Take a look:

Tucker Carlson, as usual, nailed it.

NATO was formed to make Western Europe secure in the face of a perceived Soviet threat. In 1991, the USSR collapsed and the threat of Ivan the Communist bad guy collapsed with it.

But 28 years later, NATO is still here. And, why?

Well, many “experts” continue to point at Russia as a threat, though after that statement no one seems honestly able to elucidate precisely how Russia would, in fact, threaten any nation, take over it, or conquer the world. Indeed, if anyone seems to understand the perversity of being in charge of the whole world, it seems to be Russia, as expressed by politician and LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky (see how this is so here).

Zhironovsky observed that China is the other nation that is running at full force, but viewing the problems the US is having with being the leader of the world, China stops short of trying to attain this position itself. The question becomes “What does a nation that rules the world actually do then?”

President Trump appears to be seeing the same question, or some similar variant based on the same theme. NATO serves no constructive purpose anymore. Despite the conflicts in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Israel and Syria, there simply are no great threats in the world as it stands today. While there are certainly still wars, none of these wars represents an existential threat to the United States.

Why wouldn’t a US leader want out? In fact, there is further no existential threat to Europe from any present war, nor is there a threat from Russia itself. In fact, Russia has been entering into business relations with many European countries who wish to buy cheap and easily available Russian natural gas. Turkey purchased an S-400 antimissile system in addition to its US made Patriot battery.

There would seem to be very little in the way of concrete and reliable reasoning for the alliance to continue.

But the American Deep State and liberal establishment have come together to resist the US President in a truly furious manner, and it is revelatory of the hypocrisy of anti-Trump politics that American liberals, typically the “sing Kum-ba-yah peacenik” crowd, displays paroxysms of outrage and horror that NATO might be disbanded.

As the result of that, the American media is determined to choke off any possibility of one thinking, “well, what if we were to disband NATO?”

Why is this?

Simple. A lot of people make their living by preparing for the Russian “threat”, and it would mean the end of their work, the end of their money, and a great disruption in life. It does not matter that while this is true, these same people could conceivably apply their considerable skill sets to deal with real problems that face a world that no longer has a dipolar alignment, or to help prevent a real problem from arising from real situations, such as the recent and current Islamization of many European cities.

One of the great afflictions of American politics and policy has been that so much of it appears to be focused on “short term” or “no term” matters. We see this with the problems related to border security, the coming advent of AI-based automated processes that may furlough low-skilled workers in tremendous amounts in a short period of time. Rather than solve real problems, the elected representatives and media seem more content to oppose Donald Trump when he, as a businessman ought to do, makes a federal case out of what he sees on the horizon.

The Border Wall, for example, is a highly logical part of a properly handled set of immigration policies. But the very direct behavior of President Trump helped amplify the resentment the Democrats still hold against him for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and so, the Democrats have effectively said “nuts!” to the needs of the nation and they take out their resentment on the nation by refusing to negotiate with the President about how to close the border.

NATO is another example. The alliance served its purpose. It is time for the alliance to end, or to be radically restructured in terms of new goals based in real, and not just flimsy rhetorical, needs.

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

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

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