Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Donald Trump is keeping the lid on internal American violence and preventing civil war

If Donald Trump is removed from office, which many of his opponents are now talking about openly, America will see chaos like never before in the lifetime of any American in 2017. One doesn’t need to be on the Trump train to be on the peace train.

Published

on

5,416 Views

In true Orwellian newspeak fashion wherein, “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”, the western mainstream media often accuses Donald Trump of precisely the opposite of that which he is doing. It comes from an arrogant attitude that those who have studied the last 60+ years of American rhetoric in geo-politics will be highly familiar with.

When terrorists become freedom fighters (the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan), patriots of a nation many in the US couldn’t find on the map become threats to America (Vietcong), when the occupiers become the victims (Israel), when torture becomes enhanced interrogation (George W. Bush’s war on Iraq) and when genocidal fascists become liberal Europeanists (the Ukrainian coup), it is easy to see how no nation has mastered what Orwell called “newspeak” in the novel 1984, just as thoroughly as has the United States.

But in recent years, what only those following geo-political affairs were subjugated to, became a mainstay of the domestic American political lexicon. Donald Trump is merely the most prominent victim of the all-American ultra-liberal newspeak.

Donald Trump has been accused of fomenting violence, inciting racial hatred, inciting hatred against women, of dumbing down political rhetoric, of being a traitor, of threatening the peace.

All of this is in actual fact true of many if not most of his political opponents and their mouthpieces in the increasingly vicious mainstream media. One doesn’t need to like Donald Trump’s policies to realise this objective truth.

If one has the objective of keeping the peace domestically, preventing revolution and holding off discontent, the best thing to do is give an agitated majority of would-be revolutionaries (or counter-revolutionaries as the case may be) a leader to call their own.

If one’s views that are felt to be oppressed, suppressed or ignored are given power in the form of a national leader who articulates and seems to genuinely hold such views, the people will be satisfied.

Donald Trump articulated this phenomenon of pure logic when at a post-election rally, he remarked about how much calmer the audience was vis-a-vis during the election. A boxer is always at his most outwardly violent at the weigh-in. He is always at his most subdued during a victory lap.

The fact is that as US salaries fail to catch up with rising prices, as domestic working class (sometimes called middle class) culture  becomes increasingly ignored or mocked by mainstream politicians, as foreign interests are valued more than domestic ones and as foreign wars become increasingly, long, costly and deadly, the silent majority that Richard Nixon spoke of in the late 1960s has become vocal, agitated and angry.

This has been the case for years. In many ways, ever since the watershed of 9/11 when a combination of an economy that left the worker behind (a trend going back at least to the 1980s) became combined with an America whose airports increasingly looked like and whose legislators increasingly sounded like the kinds of soldiers America once sent to places like Vietnam and Korea, the perfect storm was set and the discontent became palpable even if often un-articulated.

Police-state America, complete with a censorship agenda stupidly called ‘political correctness’ not only took away the livelihoods of its working citizens, but it censored their culture, their humour and their colloquialisms to the point that they felt they didn’t even have a right to complain about the problems in their lives, in spite of a Constitutional guarantee to the contrary.

Politicians like Pat Buchanan had voiced these concerns for years. However, Buchanan had the misfortune to reach his political prime during a 1990s when many Americans had not yet begin to feel the full sting of economic disenfranchisement and others could still more or less openly complain about their daily lives without being called racist or sexist. Words like ‘homophobic’ and ‘transphobic’ which are merely epithet’s designed to censor the social concerns of ordinary people were not even part of the vocabulary and America’s post Cold War victory lap (arrogant and incorrect though it was), was miles away from the post-911 crypto police state.

Had Buchanan been a slightly younger man in 2016 and decided to run in the election, he would have beat Hillary Clinton or anyone like her in landslide.

Trump represented a kind of Buchanan with a slightly less specific political theory, less academic rhetoric but a more overt sense of humour.

Trump’s message to America was ‘everything is going to be alright. I hear your concerns, I have many of them myself, I will address them if you make me your President and I’ll not shut you up in any case’. This is what “Make America Great Again” means to the millions of Americans who are invisible to the mainstream media unless they are on the receiving end of a joke from liberal so-called comedians.

Post-election, rather than re-invent the American left from a liberal experiment in social engineering to a kind of socialist bread and butter materialist leftist way of thinking that may have resonated with many of those who agreed with Trump’s diagnosis while disagreeing with his prescription, instead resorted to attacking the new President in the way they once attacked the silent majority and later the vocal majority of working class/middle class Americans. On top of this, Trump is accused of being a Russian stooge, when in reality Turmp’s attitude and temperament is vastly more American than his opposition whose policies range from handing the already broken US medical system to the insurance companies while using tax payer money to fund jihadists in Syria under the guise that such head-choppers are ‘moderate rebels’.

In doing so, the liberal left have gone from an establishment that could have resigned itself to an electoral loss and redesigned its politics, to a kind of shadow-government waiting to take power from the legitimate leader at any time. It’s no wonder the US neo-cons and liberals are so united behind the Venezuelan opposition who are behaving in the same manner, but in a different political and ideological context.

The fact of the matter is that the masses in Venezuela chose socialism although a small vanguard of capitalists refuse to accept this decision. Another fact is that the masses in America, the majority who are no longer silent, chose Trumpism, although a small vanguard of old Republican and Democratic elites refuses to accept this decision.

Should Nicolás Maduro be overthrow by the ultra-capitalist vanguard in Venezuela, the world will see just how big a protest in Venezuela can be. After all, when the legitimate government of Ukraine, imperfect as it was, was overthrown in 2014, the protests throughout the country (not just in Donbass) dwarfed those on the Maidan which was comprised of a combination of paid agitators, zealous neo-Nazis and a few genuine (however misguided) liberals, all of whom delighted in  hearing speeches from John McCain, more so than American audiences who twice rejected him in Presidential elections (the 2000 primary and the 2008 general election)

If Donald Trump is impeached, the violence in America that he is keeping in check will be unleashed with a vengeance. Trump is in many ways the quintessential unity leader. In an era with a more sane opposition, he would be viewed as a king of populist version of an Ike Eisenhower figure, a kind of household name since before entering politics whom one could openly dislike, but whom very few Americans could reasonably detest. Ironically just as Eisenhower was the military man who warned of the military-industrial complex, so too is Trump the businessman warning against the dangers of globalist finance and commerce.

Those who deride Donald Trump for being a throwback to the 1950s ought to really think twice. Is this a 1950s after Korea but before Vietnam when most Americans had unprecedentedly high living standards while the young weren’t being sent to die in a disastrous foreign war? For the generation raised on Bush’s Iraq, Obama’s Middle East and Ukrainian disasters and the idea that one cannot tell a joke about a man who wishes to remove his genitals, 1955 sounds like a rather pleasant place to be and certainly a safe place to be.

Donald Trump is the lid on the pressure cooker. So long as agitated Americans (whether one agrees or disagrees with what they are agitated about) have ‘their man’ in the White House, things will be calm. If he is impeached and replaced by the neo-con Mike Pence, America will see riots that will make the Vietnam/Civil Rights era look like a small and insignificant event.

Donald Trump promised to give ordinary Americans their country back, if Trump is removed from office, they will have clear evidence of an open conspiracy to take what they view as the genuine representative of that country away.

If the American left and neo-con right wants to vindicate every so-called right-wing conspiracy theorist, then remove Trump from office, if the American left and neo-con right wants to see what a Constitutionally “well armed militia” looks like, then remove Trump from office, if the American left and neo-con right wants to see what a genuine protest movement looks like, one that will easily spiral into a riot, then remove Trump from office.

Contrary to what some may feel, this piece is not an endorsement of Trump. It is a plea for those who have for too long said that ‘war is peace’ to avoid making the mistakes that will teach them what actual war looks like, in this case civil war. The liberals often mock Trump supporters for being ‘angry’….BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
S.M. De Kuyper
Guest
S.M. De Kuyper

NO! He is describing the people in the middle you respect. involves you too.

S.M. De Kuyper
Guest
S.M. De Kuyper

Reply to Whispers of 2 months ago, today being September 2017. Americans cannot ever learn from their history as it is hidden before being written, which is why the Deep State was created under President Eisenhower, which he knew and why he gave his warning speech. The Deep State must be removed completely but would rather destroy the country than allow that destruction of itself to happen. There may come a time when for the globe to survive it, the globe must remove the US Deep State entirely. Probably the alien nations watching our globe carefully know this too as… Read more »

tjoes
Guest
tjoes

Hey….lets’ not be questioning President Dotard’s throne….it’s where he does his best work.

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

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

Latest

Vladimir Putin visits Serbia, as NATO encircles the country it attacked in 1999 (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 171.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Serbia.

Putin met with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to further develop bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as discuss pressing regional issues including the possibility of extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline into Serbia, and the dangerous situation around Kosovo.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Russian President Vladimir Putin got a hero’s welcome in Belgrade. The one-day visit to the last holdout against NATO’s ambitions in the Balkans may have been somewhat short on substance, but was certainly loaded with symbolism.

Even before he landed, the Russian leader was given an honor guard by Serbian air force MiGs, a 2017 gift from Moscow to replace those destroyed by NATO during the 1999 air campaign that ended with the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo. Russia has refused to recognize Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence, while the US and EU have insisted on it.

Upon landing, Putin began his first official trip of 2019 by paying respects to the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Belgrade from Nazi occupation in 1944. While most Serbians haven’t forgotten their historical brotherhood in arms with Russia, it did not hurt to remind the West just who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany back in World War II.

After official talks with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, Putin visited the Church of St. Sava, the grand Orthodox basilica set on the spot where the Ottoman Turks torched the remains of the first Serbian archbishop back in 1594, in an effort to maintain power.

Sava, whose brother Stefan became the “first-crowned” king of medieval Serbia, was responsible for setting up the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church exactly eight centuries ago this year. For all its own troubles, the Serbian Church has sided with Moscow in the current Orthodox schism over Ukraine.

Russian artisans have been working on the grand mosaic inside the basilica, and asked Putin to complete the design by placing the last three pieces, in the colors of the Russian flag.

Whether by sheer coincidence or by design, Putin also weighed in on Serbia’s culture war, giving interviews ahead of his visit to two daily newspapers that still publish in Serbian Cyrillic – while the majority of the press, whether controlled by the West or by Vucic, prefers the Latin variant imported from Croatia.

Western media usually refer to Serbia as a “Russian ally.” While this is true in a historical and cultural sense, there is no formal military alliance between Moscow and Belgrade. Serbia officially follows the policy of military neutrality, with its armed forces taking part in exercises alongside both Russian and NATO troops.

This is a major source of irritation for NATO, which seeks dominion over the entire Balkans region. Most recently, the alliance extended membership to Montenegro in 2017 without putting the question to a referendum. It is widely expected that “Northern Macedonia” would get an invitation to NATO as soon as its name change process is complete – and that was arranged by a deal both Macedonia and Greece seem to have been pressured into by Washington.

That would leave only Serbia outside the alliance – partly, anyway, since NATO has a massive military base in the disputed province of Kosovo, and basically enjoys special status in that quasi-state. Yet despite Belgrade’s repeated declarations of Serbia wanting to join the EU, Brussels and Washington have set recognition of Kosovo as the key precondition – and no Serbian leader has been able to deliver on that just yet, though Vucic has certainly tried.

Putin’s repeated condemnations of NATO’s 1999 attack, and Russian support for Serbia’s territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have made him genuinely popular among the Serbs, more so than Vucic himself. Tens of thousands of people showed up in Belgrade to greet the Russian president.

While Vucic’s critics have alleged that many of them were bused in by the government – which may well be true, complete with signs showing both Vucic and Putin – there is no denying the strong pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia, no matter how hard Integrity Initiative operatives have tried.

One of the signs spotted in Belgrade reportedly said “one of 300 million,” referring to the old Serbian joke about there being “300 million of us – and Russians.” However, it is also a send-up of the slogan used by current street protesters against Vucic. For the past six weeks, every Saturday, thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, declaring themselves “1 of 5 million” after Vucic said he wouldn’t give in to their demands even if “five million showed up.”

The opposition Democrats accuse him of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, cronyism – all the sins they themselves have plenty of experience with during their 12-year reign following Serbia’s color revolution. Yet they’ve had to struggle for control of the marches with the nationalists, who accuse Vucic of preparing to betray Kosovo and want “him to go away, but [Democrats] not come back.”

There is plenty of genuine discontent in Serbia with Vucic, who first came to power in 2012 on a nationalist-populist platform but quickly began to rule as a pro-NATO liberal. It later emerged that western PR firms had a key role in his party’s “makeover” from Radicals to Progressives. Yet his subsequent balancing act between NATO and Russia has infuriated both the NGOs and politicians in Serbia beholden to Western interests, and US diplomats charged with keeping the Balkans conquered.

Washington is busy with its own troubles these days, so there was no official comment to Putin’s visit from the State Department – only a somewhat pitiful and tone-deaf tweet by Ambassador Kyle Scott, bemoaning the lack of punishment for $1 million in damages to the US Embassy during a 2008 protest against Kosovo “independence.” Yet as far as Western media outlets are concerned, why Moscow seems to be vastly more popular than Washington on the streets of Belgrade nonetheless remains a mystery.

By Nebojsa Malic

 

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

Latest

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon And Progressive Alliance To Destroy Donald Trump

The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via OffGuardian.com:


The Roman poet Ovid’s masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line regarding the poem’s central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora, which has been translated as “Of shapes transformed to bodies strange, I purpose to entreat…”

Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel.

The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of “strong national defense” to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration’s “weakness.”

The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.

When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran.

Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald reports that, based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or Afghanistan.

The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency because America’s elite is behind that effort.

Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons’ Center for American Progress (CAP) is now working on position papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together(DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not “stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin” and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election.

DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causesin the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.

Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark, which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance” and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it.

Iranian-born Omidyar’s relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two share regarding Donald Trump.

Omidyar has stated that Trump is a “dangerous authoritarian demagogue… endorsing Donald Trump immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust.”

He has tweeted that Trump suffers from “failing mental capacity” and is both “corrupt and incapacitated.”

Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive reasons. That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar’s money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America.

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