Connect with us

Red Pill


Blue Pill

Christianity under attack in the USA [VIDEO]




The concept of the Red Pill was best described in the movie that probably created the concept. The Matrix. See for yourself what it means:

The casual reader to this site may wonder why it is that Red Pill Times often posts newspieces of a profoundly religious nature. In fact, more specific than that.

A profoundly CHRISTIAN nature. In fact, a very TRADITIONAL Christian nature.

The reason for this is simple: Christianity is real. It is reality based, and it has its basis in the Author of Reality. While many other world religions make this claim, it is historically true that only Christianity’s truth has become known just about everywhere. It is so profoundly true that it attracts many attackers who wish to deny its truth.

This is because its truth is personal and sometimes it is painful to us.

This applies to Christian believers as well, especially if they find themselves in a state of external observance of religious practices but they remain as they are every day, without change and with no perspective on their own brokenness.

As no man or woman likes to see their physical reflection if it is ugly, no man or woman seeing their soul in the light of Christianity likes to see it reflected as twisted, ugly and broken. And this happens when we twist the world and our bodies to suit our own desires. Given a choice of personally changing or attacking the mirror, many of us choose the mirror.

To do that is to deny reality and this brings the necessity to continue to persecute that dogged mirror everywhere it exists, because if we don’t it may show us ourselves as we really are… and we will see it and know that the world around us also sees it.

This is the unique character of Christianity that no other world religion has. This ability to force us to see reality, to face and confront the pain and to change ourselves for the sake of the love of God who created each and every one of us, whether we want to believe it or not.

If we look at the present crop of secularists in America and in other places around the world, we see an increasingly deranged group of people. For a while it seemed reserved to just a few fringe lunatics, hippies, drug-users and reprobate types of people. But then it gradually spread through all our culture. Rampant second- and third- wave feminism sought to twist the identity of women and men into something they can never be – the same. Drug use changed the thinking patterns of many people from one of personal responsibility to a culture of eternal victimhood and one where people perceive bigotry everywhere in an endlessly convoluted maze of identity politics, instead of the simple truth that, yes, some people act like jerks. So, what?

But in the last nine years or so, this transformation accelerated like it never had been seen before, and most of the United States was living in something of a fog of self-delusion as the apostle of that fundamental transformation deceived many by his elegance, seemingly tranquil family life, free of scandals, and an unassailable policy set that even a majority of conservatives in Congress would not stop.

By some miracle of grace from God, we were given a break, and a chance to change. The election of Donald Trump and the rise of the conservative populist has been a loud voice, but the other side has all but completed its task of gaining an iron grip on the nation, and they are working harder than ever.

For them, President Trump and his people are a brazen threat. It doesn’t mean that Mr. Trump is a holy man. He probably isn’t. Whether or not all the sexual affair allegations are true, this is not the measure of the man’s character. He is a sinner like all the rest of us, and he is as error prone as any of us are, and he is brash enough to show it publicly whether it helps him in the moment or not.

But President Trump also knows that he is not God. And he is very sincere, as is his wife, about the belief that God is the Ultimate Authority. And very imperfect men and women are often the only way to point to Perfect Authority, as God himself has chosen from such people again and again. The Apostle Paul, who persecuted the early Christian community. David, who committed adultery and murder to cover up the pregnancy he caused. Moses, who killed and hid an Egyptian’s body. Mary of Egypt, who was a prostitute for pleasure and not money, and who chased men and used them against their will, but later became a saint of God of the very highest order.

God calls all of us to himself. When he does it, he invites us to swallow the red pill, to see things as they really are. And like the corresponding scene in The Matrix, this “coming to our senses” is often unbelievably horrifying and painful. But when we see reality, we are made free.

Pastor Robert Jeffress notes this problem in his own way on the Lou Dobbs report in a video we have provided. It is certainly not as hard hitting as what is written here, but it offers the same truth in a very practical sense, reflecting on the manifestation of anti-Christian activity in our political and media arenas. We think it is a great message.

And now, with regard to that prophecy:

“What began in Russia will end in America.” 

This is attributed to the Priest Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria, a Russian Orthodox priest who served in the early 20th Century (he died in 1958), and of course, as all prophecies are, this one is argued about and discussed a great deal. However, three interpretations seem to be among the most prevalent:

  • A cautious and conservative interpretation is that Elder Ignatius foresaw America becoming increasingly socialist in character, in a convergence with Soviet Russia.
  • Another interpretation is that Elder Ignatius expected religious toleration to diminish in America as it did in Soviet Russia, perhaps with the result of martyrdoms.
  • In a third and highly pessimistic view, Elder Ignatius is thought to have meant that America eventually would become a totalitarian state of the same brutal character as Stalin’s USSR, though still more oppressive and violent.

It looks like the first two thoughts have found reality in the USA. The third one… hopefully not. But where the first two were historically fulfilled, the third one often comes.

Heavy thinking. And it makes us look at ourselves far differently than as the “always good guys”, doesn’t it? And, it also does not let us go down the rabbit-hole of self-pity. It places responsibility right on us as to whether or not we are going to be the architects of our own destruction.

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

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Lori Loughlin’s daughter was aboard USC official’s yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was on the yacht of USC’s Board of Trustees when her mom was accused in scheme.

The Duran



Via Fox News

Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli was spending spring break on a University of Southern California official’s yacht when her mother was accused Tuesday of involvement in a college admissions scheme, reports said.

Giannulli, 19, was on Rick Caruso’s luxury yacht Invictus in the Bahamas, a report said. Caruso is chairman of USC’s Board of Trustees.

Giannulli, who currently attends USC, was with Caruso’s daughter Gianna and several other friends, the outlet reported.

“My daughter and a group of students left for spring break prior to the government’s announcement yesterday,” Caruso told TMZ. “Once we became aware of the investigation, the young woman decided it would be in her best interests to return home.”

Loughlin’s daughter has since returned to Los Angeles to face the allegations that could result in her getting expelled from USC.

USC’s Board of Trustees will not decide the status of Giannulli and the other students involved in the case, but rather, the university’s president will make the decisions, according to TMZ.

Business deals in jeopardy?

Giannulli is a YouTube beauty vlogger and social media star, but in the midst of her mother’s charges, she may lose the lucrative brand-sponsorship deals she has landed over the years, Variety reported.

HP, having cut ties with Giannulli, said in a statement, “HP worked with Lori Loughlin and Olivia Jade in 2017 for a one-time product campaign. HP has removed the content from its properties.”

Giannulli also cut brand deals with partners including Amazon, Dolce & Gabbana, Lulus, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Sephora, Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, Smile Direct Club, Too Faced Cosmetics, Boohoo, and Unilever’s TRESemmé, the report said.

Giannulli’s rep declined to comment, Variety reported. Estée Lauder Companies, which owns Smashbox and Too Faced, also declined to comment, while the other brands or companies the magazine reached out to did not immediately respond to their requests for comment.

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


$250M Lawsuit Against CNN Imminent; Covington High MAGA Student Suffered “Direct Attacks”

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February. 



Via Zerohedge

CNN is about to be sued for more than $250 million for spreading fake news about 16-year-old Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann.

Sandmann was viciously attacked by left-leaning news outlets over a deceptively edited video clip from the January March for Life rally at the Lincoln Memorial, in which the MAGA-hat-wearing teenager appeared to be mocking a Native American man beating a drum. Around a day later, a longer version of the video revealed that Sandmann did absolutely nothing wrong – after the media had played judge, jury and executioner of Sandmann’s reputation.

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February.

Speaking with Fox News host Mark Levin in an interview set to air Sunday, Sandmann’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, said “CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes. It’s broadcast into their homes.”

They really went after Nicholas with the idea that he was part of a mob that was attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites, yelling racist slurs at the Black Hebrew Israelites,” continued Wood. “Totally false. Saying things like that Nicholas was part of a group that was threatening the Black Hebrew Israelites, that they thought it was going to be a lynching.”

Why didn’t they stop and just take an hour and look through the internet and find the truth and then report it?” Wood asked. “Maybe do that before you report the lies. They didn’t do it. They were vicious. It was false. CNN will be sued next week, and the dollar figure in the CNN case may be higher than it was [against] The Washington Post.”


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


Rand Paul refuses to support emergency declaration, deepening problem

Rand Paul gives a principled reason for his refusal, and he cannot be faulted for that, but it leaves the borders open and unsafe.

Seraphim Hanisch



Senator Rand Paul indicated he will vote to terminate President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration on Sunday. This continues a story that seems to want no resolution.

Weeks ago, the seed to this news piece started this way:

One 35-day partial government shutdown and almost three weeks later, the debate over a statistically tiny amount of money in the US budget for the building of a border wall drags on with no solution. On February 15th, if there is no agreement that is to President Trump’s satisfaction, the government will once again descend into a partial shutdown.

And on February 15th, the President signed a continuing resolution to keep the government open through the rest of the fiscal year. This CR gave sharply limited authority of funds with regards to the border wall. This prompted the President to take it a step farther and declare a National Emergency.

This is because very few people in the US government actually desire a solution to close and secure the American-Mexican border. In fact, what we see is a government that is largely aligned against the will of its citizens.

President Trump has made repeated statements and speeches in which he outlines a fair array of facts concerning the problems experienced in the US by illegal border crossings of both people and controlled substances.

However, the issue of border security remains something that Congress only supports with words. We saw this in action both last week and the week before with the Democrat led House of Representatives voting 245-182 to terminate the National Emergency declaration. While this was to be expected in the House, on March 3rd, libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a known strong supporter of President Trump, nonetheless penned an Op-Ed piece on Fox News in which he said he planned to also vote against the National Emergency in the Republican-led Senate (emphasis added):

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: “The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must.’

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power…

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding:

  • First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders,
  • and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?

As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

This statement by Rand Paul is extremely – and painfully – fair. It marks not the actions of a liberal but of someone who is trying to do things truly “by the book.” He cannot be faulted for this.

But his “Nay” is very poorly placed because it comes in the context of a Congress that is full of people far less committed to the vision of America and its sovereignty than he or the President are. One of the reasons stated for lax border security is that cutting off illegal immigration also cuts off very cheap labor for several industries. Some of those industry leaders donate lavishly to political campaigns, ergo, corruption.

Rand Paul, in trying to fight for what is right by the letter of the law, may be correct, but in the short term it appears to exacerbate the problem of the porous US-Mexico border.

President Trump is trying to do the right thing in the company of a Congress who does not want this, for various reasons. Some of it is because some Congressmen and women are petty, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer being the crabby National Grandparents in this aspect. But add to the “resist Trump because he is Trump” lobby those people who gain from illegal immigration in the short term, and those like the new socialist crop of Congressional members who are ready to change the very nature of the United States into something like their cannabis-induced dream of Sweden (which didn’t even work in Sweden!) and we see that border security is every bit the uphill climb that President Trump has shown it to be.

The government shutdown did one very good thing: It got the American focus on the border and some opinions on the matter moved – at least among the American people.

But since when did our representatives and senators really represent us, the American people?

It has been a long, long time.


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