Connect with us




Spanish PM says “there was no referendum in Catalonia” – Madrid has passed a point of no return

Spanish Prime Minsiter Mariano Rajoy has turned his government into a genuine basket of neo-Francoist deplorables.




In the Autumn of 2013 and into the Winter of 2014, violent protesters, including well organised and armed neo-fascist militias descended on the Maidan in Kiev with one goal in mind: to overthrow the weak, imperfect but ultimately reasonable and moderate government and President of Ukraine.

In spite of a foreign funded insurgency descending on Kiev, the then President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych did not resort to lethal force against the militants. To put it in perspective, a duo of average policemen in the United States engaging in a traffic stop are more heavily armed than the Berkut officers of Ukraine were when taking on protesters who had already killed and injured police officers.

Ultimately, even when the militants pulled off a coup in Kiev, Yanukovych refused to use his legal option in calling in foreign allies to help preserve civil order. Where Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad called in his allies to help fight terrorism and restore peace, Yanukovych literally ran away in the middle of the night. Some call Yanukovych’s flight an act of cowardice and betrayal, others say that it was an act of preserving the life of his family.

The story today in Catalonia could not be more different. Whereas in Ukraine, latent fascist elements worked to overthrow a moderate government, in Spain peaceful voters have been brutalised by Spanish police in the heart of the European Union, a place which was supposed to have mechanisms in place to avoid such a disaster. These mechanisms have clearly failed.

Catalonia has voted and it is almost certain that a majority of Catalans have voted to separate from Spain. What’s more is that today’s police brutality against voters and the Spanish regime’s attitude has been one of arrogance, violence, defiance and anti-democratic posturing against people who by Madrid’s own narrative are fellow countrymen. If there is one way not to get people on your side, it is by treating them like dirt, but this is exactly what Madrid’s forces have done.

I have previously made the case that the referendum in Catalonia, cannot be judged through the prism of previous secession movements. All secession movements, like all countries and all cultures are unique. Furthermore, each place and time is also unique. Thus, while Donbass voted for survival, Yugoslavia was broken apart by terrorists, and Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey are all under threat from an Israeli backed Kurdish movement which seeks to disenfranchise traditional indigenous non-Kurdish local populations, Catalonia is different.

While emotions were bound to run high, unlike Donbass where separation was a matter of life or death or Yugoslavia where preserving the state was a matter of life and death–sovereignty versus terrorism and imperialism, Catalonia was not this at all.

CATALONIA: Not Iraq nor Yugoslavia, but a uniquely EU problem

Catalonia was fundamentally about two things. First of all, it was about Catalan pride in resisting a Madrid regime that had become increasingly neo-Francoist in attitude, something appalling to the traditionally anti-fascist patriots of Catalonia. Catalonia was indeed given autonomy by a punitively left-leaning government in 2006. However, Spain’s High Court which was packed with neo-Francoist judges stripped Catalonia of its hard won autonomy shortly thereafter.  The Court’s decision set the pace for a showdown wherein an increasingly disrespectful Madrid ignored, debased and disengaged from Catalonia’s interests.

Secondly, the vote was a matter of economics and governance. Catalonia is the most wealthy part of what is presently Spain and matters of wealth distribution between regions of a country were very much a part of the matter being voted on.

Unlike Spain which disregarded Catalan grievances, in 1974, Josip Broz Tito authored a new Yugoslav constitution which accounted for the autonomous privileges of ethnic minority dominated regions of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina). However, in 1986, Serbs authored the SANU Memorandum, in which Serbian students complained about the lack of Serbian representation in majority Serb areas of Bosnia and Croatia as well as increased Albanian terrorism in what was then the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo.  This ultimately led to the Anti-Bureaucratic Revolution of 1989, a political re-organisation effort that was ultimately crushed by an illegal NATO war on Yugoslavia ten years later.

The Yugoslav leadership did everything it could to make all groups feel included in the organs of state and in civil society. This was crushed by western backed terrorists, ultra-nationalists, fascist groups and ultimately by NATO itself.

Yugoslavia & Ukraine: a tale of western double standards

Spain by contrast has not tried to listen to the grievances of Catalans. Madrid has treated Catalans as though they are terrorists when they are not. This de-facto means that Madrid is terrorising innocent people who still hold Spanish citizenship. They are treating their own people as though they are an enemy, when Catalonia’s democratic process has never once been violent or threatening to Madrid.

Because of this, Madrid had the luxury of engaging with Catalonia and making a positive case for national unity. Geo-political expert Andrew Korbyko has made such a rational case for Spanish unity, in a piece just published in The Duran.

The Catalan Referendum is a classic bait-and-switch operation by Barcelona

While I personally disagree with Mr. Korybko’s penultimate conclusion, this is because I view the conflict through the prism of neo-Francoism versus Catalan, anti-fascist patriotism. Were I inclined to view the conflict in purely economic and geo-civilisation terms, I would probably be inclined to reach similar conclusions to Mr. Korbyko.

But the pleasant discussions I have had about this subject are now consigned merely to the realm of theory. In refusing to engage with the people of Catalonia in such a manner, Spanish leader Mariano Rajoy has turned what could have been a peaceful dialogue between Barcelona and Madrid into a kind of early stage civil conflict.

After sending police to beat civilians and fire plastic bullets at unarmed voters, Rajoy now says, “No referendum has been held in Catalonia today”. Such an arrogant statement at a time when reconciliation is required, irrespective of the future of Spain’s borders, means that many Catalans who were previously ambivalent or pro-Madrid will have joined the independence camp.

Unlike the legendary footballers of Barcelona, Rajoy has scored an own goal. He has turned a matter that could have been handled calmly and respectfully, into a matter of conflict and all out confrontation.

Many countries facing similar secession movements do not have the luxury of time and calm that Spain had. In throwing this opportunity away and in plunging his country and the entire EU into crisis as a result, Mariano Rajoy has behaved in a manner that is both cruel and self-defeating.

Unless someone feels like a slave, they will generally not wax lyrical about the need to be free. Today, Mariano Rajoy made the Catalans into slaves, this is why soon they will make themselves free.

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

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou



Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

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


New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.



Via Zerohedge

An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

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


“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”



Via Zerohedge

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

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


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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter