Connect with us

Red Pill


Virtue Signalling

Speech about the gun-rights fight goes viral… because it was the Red Pill




The American discussion on gun rights would seem by most accounts to go the way of the world’s discussion on American gun rights. The general opinion of the Western European powers and even Russia seems to rest on the notion that there is something basically wrong with the idea that American people have a very full right to gun ownership. Many Americans that live in larger cities do not understand the need of gun ownership for self-protection because their community is blessed with good police protection. Many of the European countries do not share this, and even Russia has rather strict limitations on the matter of ownership. In light of these different contexts that these people live in, the comments are honestly and entirely fair and it is wise to hear them out.

But when the discussion on this matter dissolves into argument and name-calling, this is useless. This member of the Virginia House of Delegates expressed his frustration with the lack of true debate, which had recently been replaced by egregious slander and name calling instead of constructive action.

Mr. Freitas here expresses clearly the summary of things that have changed in the United States that have contributed to the persistence of the problem of these awful crimes. The assessment is damning, and it is damning of issues that liberals have championed.

The issue of gun-control has become a sensation and hotbed of vicious slander.

The liberal media and the Democrat party operatives in the United States have been rather in lockstep with the attitudes of the Western Europeans. And some of the attitudes expressed are quite judgmental, like this thought from the British paper The Guardian back in 2013:

Last week, Starbucks asked its American customers to please not bring their guns into the coffee shop… Although it was brave of Howard Schultz, the company’s chief executive, to go even this far in a country where people are better armed and only slightly less nervy than rebel fighters in Syria, we should note that dealing with the risks of scalding and secondary smoke came well before addressing the problem of people who go armed to buy a latte. There can be no weirder order of priorities on this planet.

Here is a whole lot of opinion, expressed in just three sentences. The author of this piece offered the novel thought that with all the gun violence in the US, we ought to be considered to be in a state of “civil war” and if so, then the world should intervene and put a stop to it.

However enticing that point might seem to someone who has never lived in the United States, this might seem very logical – indeed, I live in Russia, where the gun laws are far more permissive than they are in many states in Europe, but the issue of guns in the hands of Americans is always met with perplexity at the very least.

There are a number of “mythbusting facts” which must be presented to come to a more realistic view of the situation. We will offer three of them here.

Guns are really not that important to Americans, but the freedom to own one is important.

First, the view on firearms in the United States itself is highly polarized where anyone has an opinion at all. But that last phrase says a lot – because by and large, most Americans do not spend time thinking about guns one way or the other. When an awful crime happens, like the recent Florida massacre, the issue comes up and the press tries to bring home the idea that “something must be done about the gun violence” which is just sensationalism of the worst character possible, as it is built on the blood of the dead who perished in the attack. This in itself is worse than tasteless, it expresses a point of view, be it subtly so, that the political issue is more important than the fact that a lot of people just got killed, and it is this which actually both distracts attention from the debate and also seems to cut off any further critical thought on the matter.

The United States has the oldest and most stable constitutional government on earth.

The second fact is that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that has existed ever since America was founded. Although the nation is young contrasted with nations like Great Britain or Germany or Italy, it has had a stable government for its entire history, Civil War notwithstanding. In other words, the United States is not a place where coups and revolutions happen, so it could rightly be said that our system of government and our corresponding culture is among the worlds oldest. To back that up with numbers, look at these dates for the Constitutions of the United States and those of the other significant powers of today:

  • Brazil – 1988
  • Canada – 1867
  • People’s Republic of China – 1982
  • Finland – 2000
  • France – 1958
  • Germany – 1949
  • Greece – 1975
  • Poland – 1997
  • Russia – 1993
  • Switzerland – 1999
  • The United Kingdom – Parliamentary Sovereignty – means Statutes passed by Parliament are the final and supreme source of law in Great Britain – While Great Britain has no constitution as such, this character of Sovereignty resting in Parliament’s hands could potentially mean the the law of the land might be only one day old at times.
  • The United States of America – 1788

When a nation forms around a constitution, this document is held to be the supreme law of the land. As we can see, the American document is the oldest here, and in fact in the list provided on this site, it is the oldest in the world. Although the US Constitution has been amended, this has only been ratified 27 times in the entire history of the nation, and only once has an amendment ever effectively repealed another amendment.

When something begins to last as long as this, then it psychologically and culturally becomes even more difficult to change. The Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, was put in place early in the formation of the Republic to protect the citizens against their own government if it got tyrannical. While for the most part, gun owners are not concerned with the US government becoming tyrannical, the fact of life that people own guns if they want to has become embedded in the cultural landscape. Removing this would only be possible if the whole population agreed to this, but they are exceedingly unlikely to do that because the Second Amendment warns us to beware of a government that would ask us to give up our arms. Therefore the alarm over any government’s move about weapons is set off very easily when it comes to this matter.

Mental health is the linking factor in all mass shootings, not the nature of the arms used.

A third factor is overall homicide rates in the United States, as well as all crime, has been in decline since at least 1981, from 6.6 people killed per 100,000 then to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2010. The shocking reality of mass shootings has, sadly, increased, and this parallels two other developments that have also increased at the same time – one being the incidence of psychological illness in the populace, and the other – the increasing rejection of religious values and traditions in the culture of the United States. I believe all three of these are inextricably linked, as written about here, and here.

While the overall decline in homicide is forgotten about by most in such tragedies, the statistic is nevertheless there to be seen once someone looks.

It is vitally important to be fair on this issue

Now, a journalist is charged to be fair unless that journalist is expressly writing an opinion piece. My personal opinion is that the problem with such shootings is primarily one of the state of mind and soul of the shooter and how he or she got that way. At the same time I have seen the statistical charts that show that yes, gun-involved crime is very high in the United States per capita compared with the rest of the world.

But I grew up in the United States, and I was taught about guns and respect for them. Something was instilled in me that seems no longer to be instilled in people. There is a reason for that. One blogger in Great Britain was honest about this issue enough to admit that while the incidence of gun crime in England is very low, there are many, even epidemic counts of stabbings. We do not hear talk in England about banning knives. In fact, we hear very little talk at all about this unless someone high-profile gets stabbed. But here again, the facts remain just like they are in the USA with guns: The knife didn’t decide it was going to stab someone. Neither did the gun.

In order to properly conduct the debate over what to do, then, a factual assessment is required. We have offered some information – maybe it can help. We have also acknowledged that this is presently a divisive issue, but it need not be if we care more about our nation than about how to slam one another with rhetoric. While I personally do not support changing the Second Amendment, I do support measures taken to keep unstable people from gaining access to firearms – this seems only sensible. In a future piece we will examine the issue regarding mental health, and the care – or lack thereof that has spiraled into a horrible crisis of its own, of which we believe the shootings is a symptom. But otherwise, this is a time for prayer and mourning, and eventually of reasonable and rational investigation and discussion of real measures we can take to solve this terrible problem.

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

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Is Silicon Valley Morphing Into The Morality Police?

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

The Duran



Authored by Adrian Cohen via

Silicon Valley used to be technology companies. But it has become the “morality police,” controlling free speech on its platforms.

What could go wrong?

In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said:

“Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That’s why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms.”

Here’s the goliath problem:

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

Will Christians who don’t support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It’s already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond.

Their crime?

Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won’t tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.

For context, consider that in oppressive Islamist regimes throughout the Middle East, the “morality police” take it upon themselves to judge women’s appearance, and if a woman doesn’t conform with their mandatory and highly restrictive dress code — e.g., wearing an identity-cloaking burqa — she could be publicly shamed, arrested or even stoned in the town square.

In modern-day America, powerful technology companies are actively taking the role of the de facto morality police — not when it comes to dress but when it comes to speech — affecting millions. Yes, to date, those affected are not getting stoned, but they are being blocked in the digital town square, where billions around the globe do their business, cultivate their livelihoods, connect with others and get news.

That is a powerful cudgel to levy against individuals and groups of people. Wouldn’t you say?

Right now, unelected tech billionaires living in a bubble in Palo Alto — when they’re not flying private to cushy climate summits in Davos — are deciding who gets to enjoy the freedom of speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and who does not based on whether they agree with people’s political views and opinions or not.

You see how dangerous this can get — real fast — as partisan liberal elites running Twitter, Facebook, Google (including YouTube), Apple and the like are now dictating to Americans what they can and cannot say online.

In communist regimes, these types of folks are known as central planners.

The election of Donald Trump was supposed to safeguard our freedoms, especially regarding speech — a foundational pillar of a democracy. It’s disappointing that hasn’t happened, as the censorship of conservative thought online has gotten so extreme and out of control many are simply logging off for good.

A failure to address this mammoth issue could cost Trump in 2020. If his supporters are blocked online — where most voters get their news — he’ll be a one-term president.

It’s time for Congress to act before the morality police use political correctness as a Trojan horse to decide our next election.

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


Paul Craig Roberts: The Disintegration of Western Society

Feminists brought this madness onto themselves.

Paul Craig Roberts



Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:

Radical feminists are now being banned by Twitter not because they hate men, which is perfectly OK as far as Twitter is concerned, but because they object to “transwomen.”

What is a “transwoman?” As far as I can understand, a “transwoman” is a male with a penis who declares himself to be a women and demands his right to use women’s toilette facilities along with the women who are using them.

The feminist, Meghan Murphy, twittered a statement and a question:

“Men are not women.”

“How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?”

Twitter described this as “hateful conduct” and banned Meghan Murphy.

There you have it. Yesterday it was feminists who were exercising their special society-bestowed privileges to censor. Today it is the feminists who are being censored. As this insanity of “Western Civilization” continues, tomorrow it will be the transwomen who are censored and banned.

What precisely is afoot?

My readers, who have partially and some wholly escaped from The Matrix, understand that this is the further fragmentation of American society. Identity Politics has set men, women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and white people against one another. Identity Politics is the essence of the Democratic Party and the American liberal/progressive/left. Now, with the creation of “new” but otherwise nonexistent “genders,” although they are honored as real by the controlled whores who masquerade as a “Western media,” we witness radical feminists being silenced by men pretending to be women.

I sympathize with Meghan Murphy, but she brought this on herself and on the rest of us by accepting Identity Politics. Identity Politics gave Meghan a justification for hating men even, as she failed to realize, it provided the basis for moving her into the exploitative class that must be censored.

Where does this end?

It has already gone far enough that the American population is so divided and mutually hostile that there is no restraint by “the American people” on government and the elite oligarchs that rule. “The American people” are no longer a reality but a mythical creature like the unicorn.

The film, The Matrix, is the greatest film of out lifetime. Why? Because it shows that there are two realities. A real one of which only a few people are aware, and a virtual one in which eveyone else lives.

In the United States today, and throughout “Western Brainwashed Civilization,” only a handful of people exist who are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible. Everything that every Western government and “news” organization says is a lie to control the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.

The ability to control people’s understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kenndy; that a handful of Saudi Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam Hussein had and was going to use on the US “weapons of mass destruction;” that Assad “used chemical weapons” against “his own people;” that Libya’s Gaddifi gave his soldiers Viagra so they could better rape Libyan women; that Russia “invaded Ukraine;” that Trump and Putin stole the presidential election from Hillary.

The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex’s annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money even as Congress debates cutting Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security complex.

Readers ask me what they can do about it. Nothing, except revolt and cleanse the system, precisely as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said.

Is Thomas Jefferson Alive and Well In Paris?

If this report is correct, pray the revolt spreads to the US.

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


Google Employees debated burying conservative media in search

Google engineer Scott Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

The Daily Caller



Via The Daily Caller

  • Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
  • “Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
  • Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban

Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.

Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued.

“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”

Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures

One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.

“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.

“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.

“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.

“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.

“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.

“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.

“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.

Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.

Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.

Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.

A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.

“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.

“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends.

After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.

A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”


Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes.

“I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook.

“I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.

Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.”

Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks.

Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies.

Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.

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