Connect with us

Latest

Staff Picks

The muddy waters of history – from Latin America to Europe

Is the world of politics being turned on its head?

Greg Simons

Published

on

475 Views

Recent events in Brazil illustrate well the notion of the volatile nature of the perception and practice of politics in the contemporary world. The political events around the resignation of Dilma Rousseff, the first woman in the president’s palace in Brazil and an easily recognizable face of the Brazilian “pragmatic leftists,” in power since 2002, have led to a confused and completely inadequate reaction in the Western mainstream media.

This begs the question are mainstream media only an objective observer and chronicler of political events and processes or are they a subjective participant? Given the falling subscriptions of mainstream newspapers and calls within the European Union to have journalism declared a public good, it seems that mass media are part of the political problem, rather than its solution.

Inside the pages of The New York Times, one can read that Mrs. Rousseff “lifted millions of Brazilians up from extreme poverty into the middle class” and that her rule “led to massive corruption and unemployment.” One can read that 49 senators out of 60 that voted Mrs. Rousseff out of power – that all 49 of them were investigated on accusations of corruption.

But two lines down the text one can read that Rousseff was still arrogant and wrong not to treat this congress with respect and nicety, which that legislature deserved. Which legislature? The one where 49 senators out of 81 are suspected of being corrupt? But this seemingly one small and isolated incident is part of a much wider and interconnected series of political processes and trends.

DECLINE AND CONFUSION

There are numerous analysts, academics and others that are struggling to fathom the course and nature of these mismatching statements. The problem is, however, that confusion around Rousseff’s resignation is typical for contemporary politics. It is like the world of politics has been turned on its head!

Why is this situation the case? The author suggests, at least in part, it is the result of the manner in which we view and measure politics in order to analyse and make sense of it. The political environment is a market place of ideas and relationships.

People choose the idea that resonates with them and form a political relationship with the person or organization that offers it. Politics is the process of priming and mobilizing people through the projection and communication of various ideas and realities.

It so happened that in the case of Latin America, the United States traditionally supports political and economic elite, whom hold right-wing and conservative values, relationships are created with pro-Western dictators. But at the same time the US politicians want to look like “progressive” people, who abhor racism and generally wish some kind of democracy for their southern neighbours.

Hence many moans in the American press about the fact that there were no viable minority races, few women and many Evangelical Christians (and not the generally less affluent Catholics) among Mrs. Rousseff’s detractors. This would project the illusion as if Brazil would be better off, if Rousseff had been ousted, instead of white males, by some analogue of Condoleezza Rice or a Catholic double of Madeleine Albright. The problems are of course, much deeper and not all domestic in origin.

Well, the press always reflected the interests of its owners and the prejudices of its readers, so one might be tempted to say that there is nothing special about the present flood of hypocrisy in the Western media. Latin America, since the 1830’s with the arrival of the geopolitical concept of the Monroe Doctrine was laid claim to as the continental zone of privileged interests for the United States.

This is seemingly at odds with a country born recently from the 1776 War of Independence from Great Britain and professing anti-Imperial values. It was not until other geopolitical interests occupied the United States, namely the Global War On Terrorism from 2001, when Latin American countries were able to briefly pivot away from the orbit of US control and influence. Relationships and cooperation were quickly established with countries such as China, Iran and Russia. These countries were politically symbolic as geopolitical competitors to the US.

One of the organisations born from this period was BRICS. However, with changing geopolitical priorities, US attention returned to the region and soon discovered the loss of influence in the region. The result has been a return of political activism that has affected the governments of those countries deemed as straying too far, such as in Argentina and Brazil.

But was the media really that bad in the more “ideological” times? Whether it was Socialism, Fascism or Democracy, the constituency decided on the basis and perception of which particular political offering matched their wants and needs.

This was an act of political faith on their part, one that was not always rewarded with the desired expectations that they held. The power and reach of the perception and deception carried by mass media may be more intense and wide ranging, but this is still not something that is novel or new to mankind.

Audiences are mobilised and primed according to opposing sets of values and norms, which strike at the right place and time for maximum effect. What happens after the actual goal is achieved, is in some senses, rather superfluous. A recent case in point is the recent the ICTY declared that Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war. Yet in 1999 he was Europe’s new ‘Hitler’ and the way for a ‘humanitarian war’ was open.

RIGHT VERSUS LEFT

Traditionally, politics has been viewed and measured through and by a political scale that rated people and parties according to a left-right scale. However, in the current political climate this scale is inadequate as it does not and cannot account for the events and processes that are currently underway – BREXIT, the Dutch Referendum and Donald Trump to mention but a few instances.

Both the Dutch referendum and BREXIT were the culmination of a backlash against what has been seen by some as an excessive and unaccountable EU bureaucracy, than an anti-Ukrainian stance in the Dutch case.

In the case of Dilma, she was formally punished not for enriching herself (which she apparently didn’t). She was punished for trying to make Brazil’s budget look better than it was.

And this is a rather typical capitalist and oligarchic practice, one need only look at the common practice of padding the numbers by numerous governments, especially in the run up to elections. But the oligarchs did not forgive Mrs. Rousseff something that they gladly forgive themselves. So, the left and right scale is indeed quickly losing its ability of measuring modern politics.

ESTABLISHMENT VERSUS ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT

There is a need for a new way of looking at and analysing what is happening in the political market place and why it is happening. As such, there is a need to move away from seeing and measuring politics according to a left-right dichotomy. In its current form it has moved to a dichotomy and scale of establishment versus anti-establishment.

Few people agree on who was right and who was wrong in the impeachment saga, but most would agree that it was clearly an example of the OLD establishment (the Brazilian senate) going against the NEW establishment. From an anti-establishment point of view, there is something deeply unfair in the fact that 61 senator undid the decision of 54 MILLION Brazilian voters, who cast their bulletins for Dilma – twice.

The will of the people was clearly ignored in Dilma Rousseff’s case. This is a game of projected perception, but there are many different actors and interests in the same information space vying for attention and influence. The world currently is at a point, where there is no common understanding of information or knowledge, the information space has gradually become more fragmented. This is in part owed to the development of information communication technology, but even more importantly, to the increasing fragmentation of political opinion.

ALIENATION

Why did these 54 million voters fail to protect their vote? Currently, there is an increasing level of political cynicism and alienation of large segments of voters, such as the working class, from mainstream (read establishment) politics. This is even more right about the countries of the European Union than about Brazil.

This is the culmination and the result of the public not having their perceived wants and needs met. There is a growing feeling of having their interests and needs ignored, such as can be witnessed in the growing reaction to the mass migration being experienced in Europe and the United States.

It seems as though their voice is not being heard or listened to by the mainstream political establishment, such as Merkel pledging to stick to her controversial migration policy in face of increasing resentment and alarm in the German public.

COUNTERACTION FOLLOWS ACTION

So, is there little hope? I would not say so. A noticeable shift is occurring in the political market and environment, which is akin to a political version of laws of physics. For each and every action, there is an equal, but opposite reaction.

More people and groups are feeling disenfranchised from mainstream politics and are increasing looking to alternative political offerings. The natural response in an interactive political market place is for politics to evolve and create an offering to appeal to and satisfy the anti-political establishment demand.

Political debate and discussion is becoming much more descriptive than analytical currently. This is used to dumb down the reality in to a subjectively understandable reality as desired by the messenger. These debates and discussions are not intended as a means with which to accurately detail what is happening, but to prime and mobilise publics towards different political causes.

In Europe, much of the anti-establishment sentiment, the one which feeds leftist forces in Latin America, much of that sentiment is expressing itself in the movement of “Russia lovers” or “Putin apologists.” This phenomenon is still awaiting its accurate explanation. Much of sympathy to Mr. Putin may evolve not so much from his actual personage as from crude demonization to which Russia and its president are subjected in the Western media.

Besides, the “demonized” Putin’s image created by Western media has some of the qualities, which the European politicians are lacking: the Western media’s “Putin” stands for traditional values, which are seen as being in opposition to mainstream politics’ rigid adherence to liberal and multi-cultural values in times of an unprecedented crisis brought about by Western-led regime in North Africa and the Middle East.

Those on the left side of the political spectrum also like or admire Putin, not for his traditional values, but for his opposition to US global hegemony. The two ends of the old political spectrum supporting the same person, because of his perceived anti-mainstream political establishment stance.

As a consequence there is a new level of negative politics that is based on emotionally charged perceptions. This is situated within the context of a crisis, a process or event where publics are primed and mobilised through competing sets of norms and values. Information flows and perception are keys to the eventual outcome of this crisis.

Those that are able somehow to manage or control that information and perception are much better placed to emerge as winners in the political environment as they are able to restrict their opponent’s brand potential, his operational choices and strategy. Having said this though, the information space in the political environment is a highly volatile zone, today’s winner may well be tomorrow’s loser.

So, Dilma Rousseff was probably right when she quoted the Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky soon after her ousting. The muddy waters of history really do not give us a reason to be too happy or too sad. We just never know what tomorrow’s discontent of the currently deceived “mainstream” voters’ and media audience will bring us.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US continues to try to corner Russia with silence on Nukes

Moscow continues to be patient in what appears to be an ever more lopsided, intentional stonewalling situation provoked by the Americans.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

TASS reported on March 17th that despite Russian readiness to discuss the present problem of strategic weapons deployments and disarmament with its counterparts in the United States, the Americans have not offered Russia any proposals to conduct such talks.

The Kremlin has not yet received any particular proposals on the talks over issues of strategic stability and disarmament from Washington, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Sunday when commenting on the statement made by US National Security Adviser John Bolton who did not rule out that such talks could be held with Russia and China.

“No intelligible proposals has been received [from the US] so far,” Peskov said.

Earlier Bolton said in an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis aired on Sunday that he considers it reasonable to include China in the negotiation on those issues with Russia as well.

“China is building up its nuclear capacity now. It’s one of the reasons why we’re looking at strengthening our national missile defense system here in the United States. And it’s one reason why, if we’re going to have another arms control negotiation, for example, with the Russians, it may make sense to include China in that discussion as well,” he said.

Mr. Bolton’s sense about this particular aspect of any arms discussions is correct, as China was not formerly a player in geopolitical affairs the way it is now. The now all-but-scrapped Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, was a treaty concluded by the US and the USSR leaders Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, back in 1987. However, for in succeeding decades, most notably since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been gradually building up weaponry in what appears to be an attempt to create a ring around the Russian Federation, a situation which is understandably increasingly untenable to the Russian government.

Both sides have accused one another of violating this treaty, and the mutual violations and recriminations on top of a host of other (largely fabricated) allegations against the Russian government’s activities led US President Donald Trump to announce his nation’s withdrawal from the treaty, formally suspending it on 1 February. Russian President Vladimir Putin followed suit by suspending it the very next day.

The INF eliminated all of both nations’ land based ballistic and cruise missiles that had a range between 500 and 1000 kilometers (310-620 miles) and also those that had ranges between 1000 and 5500 km (620-3420 miles) and their launchers.

This meant that basically all the missiles on both sides were withdrawn from Europe’s eastern regions – in fact, much, if not most, of Europe was missile-free as the result of this treaty. That is no longer the case today, and both nations’ accusations have provoked re-development of much more advanced systems than ever before, especially true considering the Russian progress into hypersonic and nuclear powered weapons that offer unlimited range.

This situation generates great concern in Europe, such that the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called on both Moscow and Washington to salvage the INF and extend the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or the New START as it is known.

“I call on the parties to the INF Treaty to use the time remaining to engage in sincere dialogue on the various issues that have been raised. It is very important that this treaty is preserved,” Guterres said at a session of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Monday.

He stressed that the demise of that accord would make the world more insecure and unstable, which “will be keenly felt in Europe.” “We simply cannot afford to return to the unrestrained nuclear competition of the darkest days of the Cold War,” he said.

Guterres also urged the US and Russia to extend the START Treaty, which expires in 2021, and explore the possibility of further reducing their nuclear arsenals. “I also call on the United States and the Russian Federation to extend the so-called New START Treaty before it expires in 2021,” he said.

The UN chief recalled that the treaty “is the only international legal instrument limiting the size of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals” and that its inspection provisions “represent important confidence-building measures that benefit the entire world.”

Guterres recalled that the bilateral arms control process between Russia and the US “has been one of the hallmarks of international security for fifty years.”

“Thanks to their efforts, global stockpiles of nuclear weapons are now less than one-sixth of what they were in 1985,” the UN secretary-general pointed out.

The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the New START Treaty) entered into force on February 5, 2011. The document stipulates that seven years after its entry into effect each party should have no more than a total of 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and strategic bombers, as well as no more than 1,550 warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and strategic bombers, and a total of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and strategic bombers. The new START Treaty obliges the parties to exchange information on the number of warheads and carriers twice a year.

The new START Treaty will remain in force during 10 years until 2021, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. It may be extended for a period of no more than five years (that is, until 2026) upon the parties’ mutual consent. Moscow has repeatedly called on Washington not to delay the issue of extending the Treaty.

 

 

 

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

Latest

Trump witch hunt dots connected: CNN to Steele to John McCain (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 110.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss documents released which show that Christopher Steele admitted to using posts by ‘random individuals’ on the CNN community website ‘iReport’ in order to back up his fabricated Trump dossier.

President Trump took note of Steele’s use of CNN citizen journalist posts, in a twitter tirade that blasted the British ex-spy for running with unverified community generated content from a now now-defunct ‘iReports’ website as part of his research.

Trump the proceeded to rip into late neocon Arizona Senator John McCain, tweeting that it was “just proven in court papers” that “last in his class” McCain sent the Steele’s dossier to media outlets in the hopes that they would print it prior to the 2016 US election.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The Daily Caller

A federal court unsealed 43 pages Thursday of a deposition that former British spy Christopher Steele gave as part of a lawsuit over his infamous anti-Trump dossier.

To the disappointment of many observers, the full deposition was not unsealed in Thursday’s motion. Instead, portions of Steele’s interview, which he gave in London on July 13, 2018, were unsealed in separate court filings submitted in the lawsuit.

Steele’s full deposition totaled 145 pages. The portions published Thursday focus mainly on questions about the dossier’s claims about Aleksej Gubarev, a tech executive who Steele alleges took part in the hacking of Democrats’ computer systems.

Gubarev has vehemently denied the claim and sued Steele and BuzzFeed News, which published the dossier on Jan. 10, 2017.

U.S. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro, who handled the lawsuit, ordered a slew of previously sealed documents to be made public Thursday. Ungaro dismissed the lawsuit on Dec. 19 but did not weigh in on whether the dossier’s claims about Gubarev were accurate.

It is unclear whether Steele’s entire deposition will be released. A source familiar with Steele’s interview tempered expectations of any bombshells in the document, saying that Steele avoided going into detail about his efforts to create the dossier and his sources.

A deposition given by former State Department official David Kramer was perhaps the most enlightening document contained in the dump.

Kramer, a longtime associate of late Arizona Sen. John McCain, was BuzzFeed’s source for the dossier. Kramer shared the dossier with at least 11 other reporters, including CNN’s Carl Bernstein. (RELATED: John McCain Associate Gave Dossier To A Dozen Reporters)

Kramer obtained the dossier in late November 2016 after visiting Steele in London. Steele acknowledged that Kramer and McCain were picked as conduits to pass the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey. McCain met with Comey on Dec. 9, 2016 and provided all of the dossier’s memos that had been written up to that point.

“I think they felt a senior Republican was better to be the recipient of this rather than a Democrat because if it were a Democrat, I think that the view was that it would have been dismissed as a political attack,” Kramer said in the deposition when asked why Steele and his business partners at Fusion GPS wanted McCain to meet with Comey.

Via Washington Examiner

Former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that he relied on an unverified report on a CNN website for part of the “Trump dossier,” which was used as a basis for the FBI’s investigation into Trump.

According to deposition transcripts released this week, Steele said last year he used a 2009 report he found on CNN’s iReport website and said he wasn’t aware that submissions to that site are posted by members of the public and are not checked for accuracy.

web archive from July 29, 2009 shows that CNN described the site in this manner: “iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked, or screened before they post.”

In the dossier, Steele, a Cambridge-educated former MI6 officer, wrote about extensive allegations against Donald Trump, associates of his campaign, various Russians and other foreign nationals, and a variety of companies — including one called Webzilla. Those allegations would become part of an FBI investigation and would be used to apply for warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

During his deposition, Steele was pressed on the methods he used to verify allegations made about Webzilla, which was thought to be used by Russia to hack into Democratic emails.

When asked if he discovered “anything of relevance concerning Webzilla” during the verification process, Steele replied: “We did. It was an article I have got here which was posted on July 28, 2009, on something called CNN iReport.”

“I do not have any particular knowledge of that,” Steele said when asked what was his understanding of how the iReport website worked.

When asked if he understood that content on the site was not generated by CNN reporters, he said, “I do not.” He was then asked: “Do you understand that they have no connection to any CNN reporters?” Steele replied, “I do not.”

He was pressed on this further: “Do you understand that CNN iReports are or were nothing more than any random individuals’ assertions on the Internet?” Steele replied: “No, I obviously presume that if it is on a CNN site that it may has some kind of CNN status. Albeit that it may be an independent person posting on the site.”

When asked about his methodology for searching for this information, Steele described it as “what we could call an open source search,” which he defined as “where you go into the Internet and you access material that is available on the Internet that is of relevance or reference to the issue at hand or the person under consideration.”

Steele said his dossier contained “raw intelligence” that he admitted could contain untrue or even “deliberately false information.”

Steele was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to investigate then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Fusion GPS was receiving funding at the time from the Clinton campaign and the DNC through the Perkins Coie law firm.

The series of memos that Steele would eventually compile became known as the “Trump Dossier.” The dossier was used in FISA applications to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

When asked whether he warned Fusion GPS that the information in the dossier might be “Russian disinformation,” Steele admitted that “a general understanding existed between us and Fusion … that all material contained this risk.”

Steele also described his interactions with Sen. John McCain’s aide, David Kramer, whose own deposition showed that he provided BuzzFeed with a copy of the dossier and had spoken with more than a dozen journalists about it.

“I provided copies of the December memo to Fusion GPS for onward passage to David Kramer at the request of Sen. John McCain,” Steele said. “Sen. McCain nominated him as the intermediary. I did not choose him as the intermediary.”

When asked if he told Kramer that he couldn’t “vouch for everything that was produced in the memos,” Steele replied, “Yes, with an emphasis on ‘everything.'”

When asked why he believed it was so important to provide the dossier to Sen. McCain, Steele said: “Because I judged it had national security implications for the United States and the West as a whole.”

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

Latest

Trudeau’s Top Bureaucrat Unexpectedly Quits Amid Growing Corruption Scandal

In a scathing letter to Trudeau, Wernick said that “recent events” led him to conclude he couldn’t hold his post during the election campaign this fall.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Since it was exposed by a report in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper earlier this month, the scandal that’s become known as the SNC-Lavalin affair has already led to the firing of several of Trudeau’s close advisors and raised serious questions about whether the prime minister was complicit in pressuring the attorney general to offer a deferred prosecution agreement with a large, Quebec-based engineering firm.

And according to the first round of polls released since the affair exploded into public view…

…it could cost Trudeau his position as prime minister and return control to the conservatives, according to the CBC.

Campaign Research showed the Conservatives ahead with 37% to 32% for the Liberals, while both Ipsos and Léger put the margin at 36% to 34% in the Conservatives’ favour.Since December, when both polling firms were last in the field, the Liberals have lost one point in Campaign Research’s polling and four percentage points in the Ipsos poll, while the party is down five points since November in the Léger poll.

Meanwhile, as the noose tightens around Trudeau, on Monday another of the key Canadian government officials at the center of the SNC-Lavalin scandal has quit his post.

Michael Wernick, clerk of the privy council, the highest-ranking position in Canada’s civil service and a key aide to Justin Trudeau, announced his retirement Monday. Trudeau named Ian Shugart, currently deputy minister of foreign affairs, to replace him.

In a scathing letter to Trudeau, Wernick said that “recent events” led him to conclude he couldn’t hold his post during the election campaign this fall.

“It is now apparent that there is no path for me to have a relationship of mutual trust and respect with the leaders of the opposition parties,” he said, citing the need for impartiality on the issue of potential foreign interference. According to Bloomberg, the exact date of his departure is unclear.

As we reported in February, Canada’s former justice minister and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, quit following allegations that several key Trudeau government figures pressured her to intervene to end a criminal prosecution against Montreal-based construction giant SNC. Wernick was among those she named in saying the prime minister’s office wanted her to pursue a negotiated settlement.

Wernick has since twice spoken to a committee of lawmakers investigating the case, and during that testimony both defended his actions on the SNC file and warned about the risk of foreign election interference, as “blame Putin” has become traditional Plan B plan for most politicians seeing their careers go up in flames.

“I’m deeply concerned about my country right now, its politics and where it’s headed. I worry about foreign interference in the upcoming election,” he said in his first appearance before the House of Commons justice committee, before repeating the warning a second time this month. “If that was seen as alarmist, so be it. I was pulling the alarm. We need a public debate about foreign interference.”

Because somehow foreign interference has something to do with Wenick’s alleged corruption.

Incidentally, as we wonder what the real reason is behind Wernick’s swift departure, we are confident we will know soon enough.

Anyway, back to the now former clerk, who is meant to be non-partisan in service of the government of the day, also criticized comments by a Conservative senator and praised one of Trudeau’s cabinet ministers.

Wernick’s testimony was criticized as overly cozy with the ruling Liberals. Murray Rankin, a New Democratic Party lawmaker, asked the clerk how lawmakers could “do anything but conclude that you have in fact crossed the line into partisan activity?” Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said he seemed “willing to interfere in partisan fashion for whoever is in power.”

Whatever Wernick’s true motives, he is the latest but not last in what will be a long line of cabinet departures as the SNC scandal exposes even more corruption in Trudeau’s cabinet (some have ironically pointed out that Canada’s “beloved” prime minister could be gone for actual corruption long before Trump). Trudeau had already lost a top political aide, Gerald Butts, to the scandal. A second minister, Jane Philpott, followed Wilson-Raybould in quitting cabinet.

Separately, on Monday, Trudeau appointed a former deputy prime minister in a Liberal government, Anne McLellan, as a special adviser to investigate some of the legal questions raised by the controversy. They include how governments should interact with the attorney general and whether that role should continue to be held by the justice minister.

As Bloomberg notes, the increasingly shaky Liberal government hasn’t ruled out helping SNC by ordering a deferred prosecution agreement in the corruption and bribery case, which centers around the company’s work in Moammar Qaddafi’s Libya. Doing so would allow the company to pay a fine and avoid any ban on receiving government contracts. That decision is up to the current attorney general, David Lametti; of course, such an action would only raise tensions amid speculation that the government is pushing for a specific political, and favorable for Trudeau, outcome.

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