Connect with us



Staff Picks

Here’s what the results of the Russian election mean and for whom

Russia’s parliamentary elections show a contented and stable country, but one where was an intense intellectual discussion between the two main opposition parties – the Communist Party and the Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party – over Russia’s future direction.




I’d like to begin my piece with a new entry to the increasingly valuable Duran Lexicon. Dull election = Peaceful exercise of democracy.

That’s what Sunday’s election was. But do not be fooled by the calm, the results are significant.

Whilst the four parties that dominated the Duma after the previous election in 2011 remain the parties of power, the shift in the particular balance of power represents an intellectual referendum on the state of Russian affairs over the last 5 years, more than it represents changing feelings towards particular parties.

With over 97% of votes now counted, United Russia have increased their percentage of the vote from 49.3% in 2011 to 54% in 2016.

That United Russia were going to win the election was an assured assumption. In a country that is broadly contented with its government and exceptionally contented with its President who supports the party of government, it is only natural for such a party to win and win big.

Whilst some early indications pointed to United Russia getting a bit of a bloody nose due to general ‘success fatigue’ as well as regional allegations of corruption, this didn’t pan out. The status quo won and won convincingly.

The most interesting race of the evening was the race for second place, the race for the official opposition party.

Contrary to western claims, Russia has vibrant, strong, respected and respectable opposition parties, the leaders of which are household names.

To many in Western media a Russian opposition leader is a failed, corrupt ex-pat businessman hiding his failures behind a half-arsed hatred for the government and shareholders to whom he owes money.

When this doesn’t pan out, it often seems as though western media wait with camera in hand by the exit door of a regional lunatic asylum. They then shove the microphone into the face of the first person they see and presto…instant opposition leader.

The reality is completely different.  Russia does have real, diverse and respected opposition parties.

The fact of the matter is that since 2003 the official opposition has been the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Last night’s early results however indicated that this might change as the LDPR was set to come in second. However after a long night and early morning, the democratic dog fight between the Communists and the LDPR was won by the Communists, but with only around 0.2 of a percentage point.

I said earlier that the race for second was going to be close and important, but this was closer than most commentators had imagined.

To put things in perspective, in respect of the notion of an ‘intellectual referendum’ a Communist vote was a referendum on the notion that with the West’s economic warfare against Russia showing no signs of stopping, the Communists had been right all along in saying that Russia must be increasingly self-sufficient in industry and agriculture, and must form fraternal trading bonds with Russia’s true friends, rather than strike what appear to be short term economic deals with unreliable western partners.

A general downturn in the world economy has also vindicated many traditional Communist polices.

Demographically, older individuals tend to vote Communist, though this should not be thought of as a negative statement the way it is in the West. The West’s glorification of the vanity and stupidity of youth is not much of a social phenomenon in Russia, with society there on the contrary still tending to respect and value the contribution of those with life experience.

Whilst the strong-willed and tough Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov would never ape western politicians like Tony Blair and speak in the guttural slang of misguided youths, the Communists did run advertisements designed to show that a Marxist-Leninist government could be a thing of the future rather than a reminder of the past. When further demographic information on voter trends becomes available, it will be interesting to see if these ads were effective.

If a Communist vote was an ‘x’ next to ‘economic self-sufficiency’ in the intellectual referendum, a vote for the LDPR was an ‘x’ next to the ‘Zhirinovsky was right about foreign affairs after all’ box.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the founder and leader of the LDPR, the second official party in both the USSR and Russian Federation (after the Communists), is a deeply misunderstood figure.

Contrary to what one might read in the Western media, Zhirinovsky is amongst the most historically and geo-politically informed politicians in the world.  He is deeply educated, multi-lingual and understands the delicate nature of culture, nations, religions and ideologies better than most.

For years he has warned that the West’s ultimate goal was to encircle Russia with NATO and its political proxy the EU. This has become reality.  He has also warned that the West would ignite Ukraine and would turn what should be a brotherly and friendly country into an enemy. This too has become reality.  He has said that Russia should extend itself to the Arab world and help stable regimes there combat extremism. This is now official Russian policy.

Zhirinovsky has also said that Russia’s friends lie in the east and south, not in the west and north. This is now a proven fact.

The voters know this and it is why the LDPR came within inches of becoming the official opposition (aka second party).

Many in the west call Zhirinovsky an extremist or a clown. This is simply not true.

Zhirinovsky came to public attention at a time when Russian democracy was very young. Even in a mature democracy, one often needs to court attention in order to get one’s message across whether it be an intellectual message or otherwise.

As an undeniably clever man, Zhirinovsky knows that he often needs to be hyperbolic, humorous or outrageous in order to capture public attention over issues that few would otherwise have the time to pay attention to.

This is a fact of democracy. One has to make the intricate exciting and the serious entertaining.

It also doesn’t help that much of Zhirinovsky’s sarcasm is translated as straight speech, and that much of his humour is lost on Western audiences who take his poetic sentiments far too literally.

Another misconception is that the LDPR is ‘far right’.

‘Far right’ ought to be a term reserved for parties which bring matters of race, ethnicity and religion into the public debate, and which seek to exclude or discriminate against people on that basis.

For Zhirinovsky, the understanding of Russianness is a civic rather than ethnic term, and he is the first to condemn the actual far right if one is patient enough to listen to his speeches. Take for example the LDRP’s condemnation of Rodina, a truly extremist far-right party, and one that has little popularity anywhere in Russia.

Finally, one has A Just Russia (sometimes translated as A Fair Russia) who fell behind the LDPR to become the fourth and last of the major parties.

A Just Russia prides itself as being the socialist conscience of United Russia, often proposing more equitable solutions to government proposals whilst claiming that it is less corrupt than United Russia. However, A Fair Russia, due to its rather lacklustre campaign, did not really have an easily defined place in the intellectual referendum, and it lost votes as a consequence.

Finally, one must discuss the mechanics and logistics of the election. Because the Duma elections implemented a single member ‘first past the post system’ in addition to the traditional party list proportional representation system.

Once the final votes come in this means that there is a possibility that some independents or members of smaller parties will have some Duma seats. The effectiveness of this however remains to be seen.

Many observers are commenting on the low voter turn-out of around 48%.

Turnout in the UK election of 2001, which was generally seen as a contest between a competent but disliked party versus an incompetent and disliked party, was 59%. Barack Obama won his election campaign in 2012 with a voter turnout of just under 54%. Turnout in the 2012 French Parliamentary elections was 55%.

Bearing this in mind, the Russian voter turnout isn’t radically different from that in recent elections in many other countries. It is again symptomatic of contentment rather than frustration.

The election was calm, free and fair. The most interesting battle may have been the intellectual struggle between the Communists and LDRP,  but ultimately, the entire election was a referendum on the fact that most Russians are happy with the way Russia is run, and they are the only people whose opinion matters.

To say otherwise would be undemocratic, and the West wouldn’t want that now would they?

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

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Every dirty Democrat trick shows in bid to oust Kavanaugh

American democracy truly is mob rule now, and the mob is stupid, with no one taking a moment to truly consider the situation.

Seraphim Hanisch



The most amazing thing about what is ostensibly the last minute “Hail Mary” smear campaign by the left against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is how utterly transparently partisan it is. Let’s look at the list of tactics used thus far in this very dirty escapade:

  • Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein sat on this allegation for three months, until after the confirmation hearings were over (and after no other barnstorming tactic during the confirmation hearings worked against the nominee).
  • The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat, and a feminist. RT notes that she appears to have a strong interest in politics.
  • Reports of “death threats” against Dr. Ford have been reported. This is a common feature of any anti-Trump attack, to relate him to some sort of “right-wing” radicalism. This radicalism does not exist among conservatives, but the media is determined to say otherwise.
  • Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, naturally, believes Ford’s story.
  • Every Democrat senator is in agreement that this matter should table the confirmation vote. Some Republicans were at first but appear to be backing away.
  • A woman Democrat senator,  Mazie Hirono, went on record telling men to “shut up and step up.” It seems abundantly clear that this assumes that there can only be one “step” that the men are expected to do. A second lady senator , Patty Murray of Washington, gave all men a warning against stepping off the plantation by saying “Women are watching.”
  • The Senate Republicans offered a chance for Dr Ford to testify on Monday. She refused, but now she is offering to come “next Thursday” – this is ten days later, past the October 1 start date of the US Supreme Court, and closer to the November Midterm elections.

We interrupt this list to make this point. The issues at hand are threefold.

First, the Democrats and other left-wing activists are terrified that they will lose the “Warren Court”, which is the name of the Supreme Court Justice who was a major left-wing judicial activist that enabled the Court to “legislate from the bench” along liberal policy lines since 1969. If Kavanaugh comes in, even if President Trump is somehow magically removed from office, his mark will remain on the Court for at least a generation. Of course, the removal of President Trump is predicated on the Democrats regaining control of the House, which actually looks somewhat likely if polling data is to be believed, and of course a Democrat Senate. (The actual tiny caveat that the President has done absolutely nothing which warrants impeachment will not be taken into consideration. He is to be eliminated. That is Democrat point number one, and make no mistake.)

Second, if the Judge is confirmed, it will look great on the President’s achievement list and energize his voter base even more than it already is. The result could be that the Senate expands its Republican majority, and gains Trumpian conservatives in its ranks, which would likely help the President continue his really great agenda. A defeat in the House that holds or expands GOP, again with Trumpian conservatives, would solidify this, and make it more difficult to stop Trump’s re-election and further solidification of reforms in 2020.

Third, and probably even more important, is that the possibility of a third seat getting vacated on the Court in the time period between now and 2024 is relatively high. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest Justice on the Court, and she is a raving liberal. If she retires (which she promises not to do), or if she is retired by the processes of old age, Trump can score a three-peat and get a third constitutionalist justice into the Court and that will signal the closure of one of the biggest avenues of liberal activism.

To return to the list, some of the further characteristics that make this situation patently obvious are these:

  • As reported in The Duran, the smear job is looking a bit ragged around the edges as time goes by. President Trump called Dr Ford’s bluff by saying he is interested in having her come to testify and that it would be “unfortunate” if she didn’t do so. Ford’s response was as shown above, to try and delay this testimony.
  • The Hollywood “sisterhood” is on record defending Dr Ford. For them, she’s right. She said Kavanaugh did this, so she is right. And why? Because she is a woman, a feminist and a Democrat. She is one of them. It would very interesting to know if the sisterhood would stand behind a conservative woman raising such a concern against a Democrat, but we have President Clinton to show how well that all went.

This by no means concludes the list of characteristics, but as noted earlier here, anyone that does even just a little critical thinking about this can see that this issue is no moral outrage, it is strictly partisan hackery, making use of the greatest weapon against conservative men put in use over the last fifty years – the sexual allegation from a woman, who must always be believed, because the woman is always right. 

The unfortunate truth is that this tactic works. It works because most men are actually gentlemen. We honor women, and we are taught to defer to them in America, because that is what a gentleman does. Feminism takes this characteristic of men, especially in modern times who really want to make sure they treat the ladies right, and it throws it back in their face in contempt. It is so bad it even has a physiological effect on men, who are now marrying less, and having fewer kids. There are even physiological changes that result from this abuse.

Further, there is an appalling lack of critical thinking in our society. The British news site, The Independent offers a poll with questions about the Kavanaugh case. The astonishing lack of critical thinking is clearly evident as the reader votes his or her thought and then sees the results for that question. Going through the questions and observing their responses can be very illuminating.

Dr Ford is demanding an FBI investigation, but she has no date, time or location attached to the incident she accuses now-Judge Kavanaugh of perpetrating. Rush Limbaugh did a great job at showing just how absurd this demand actually is, given these glaring areas of non-knowledge and we include some of that transcript below:

What would happen, let’s say — I don’t know — in the last 10 years up to last week if any woman had walked into any FBI office in the country and said the following: “Hi. I’m here to report that I was abused 35 years ago. I was — I was — I was at a party. Uh, I was 15, a little bit to drink, and a 17-year-old guy pushed me down on top of a table and laid on top of me. And then — and then and then I think — I think — a friend came in and did something and anyway they left and I was left locked in the room. And I want to you to investigate.”

Do you think if somebody shows up at an FBI office with that story, if they show up in person with that story, that the FBI is gonna give it any time whatsoever? The agents are gonna look at each other with kind of wary eyes and they’re gonna crack silent jokes to one another. I’m not kidding. You take this out of the realm of a letter to a crazed, partisan United States senator, Dianne Feinstein, and just move this into the victim walking into an FBI office, “It was 35 years, 34 years. I’m not sure where. But I know that when I was 15, I was at a party, and some guy jumped on top of me.”

So let’s say the FBI agent decides to actually take this further and in a very respectful way says, “Well, Miss, were you raped or injured?”

“Uh, no, not really.”

“Did you report this or tell anyone at the time, 36, 35 years ago?”

“Uh, no.”

“What year was this, again, that this happened?”

“Uhhh, I’m not — I’m not sure. I think it was 1982.”

“Where did this happen?”

“I don’t know! I don’t know. I was so traumatized; I don’t remember any of it. I just remember some guy jumping on me and I was drunk and — and I don’t know. But I want you to investigate it.”

“Okay. Ma’am, were there any witnesses?”

“Just the one friend of his that pushed him off, and then they left before he could do anything.”

What would the FBI do with this, if that scenario happened in one of their field offices? I will tell you what they would do: Zip, zero, nada. And the reason for bringing it up this way is to try to shine some kind of a different light on this and try to put this kind of allegation in some kind of context. The president is handling this in a quite fascinating way. He’s saying, “I hope she shows up. I want to hear what she has to say. I really hope she shows up. I’m very interested in what she has to say. We all are. And if she shows up and if she’s credible, why, then we’re gonna have to do something about that.”

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


Russian Hierarch explains Ukrainian issue in detail (VIDEO)

A Russian Orthodox Hierarch explores the incursion of earthly politics into the life, pastoral activity and needs of the Orthodox Church.

Seraphim Hanisch



RT’s “Worlds Apart” interview program recently interviewed Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), a hierarch who heads the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Duran has covered the crisis in Ukraine surrounding the activity of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, of Constantinople, intended to create a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This effort falls completely outside the normal and authorized operating procedures of the Orthodox Church, but to the lay listener it is difficult to understand what the fuss really is all about.

Metropolitan Hilarion and Oksana Boyko do an excellent job with both the answers, but more importantly, the questions, since Ms. Boyko asks the questions that someone who knows nothing about the Church might ask. This situation is completely about politics and not about the true work of the Church, and Met. Hilarion answers these questions very completely and thoroughly.

One of the really interesting points that Met. Hilarion makes is the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch seeks to bring about the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church from these four groups:

  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which is canonical and which has not requested self-rule, called autocephaly
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church “Kyiv Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko, which is a completely schismatic group. This group, and Filaret, are leading the charge.
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church – another schismatic group that is not in communion with Filaret’s church
  • The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine – and this is truly interesting, because this group is not even Orthodox, but is an Eastern Rite group under the Pope of Rome, and is in fact Roman Catholic.

The notion of bringing together such a disparity of groups is stunning to the Metropolitan, and yet he understands the motives of the men driving this idea, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew, and Filaret Denisenko.

While the United States is not mentioned in this interview in any prominent sense, it should be noted that this move also does have strong US support as the American political leadership has been advocating for the Poroshenko government in an effort to continue to surround and isolate Russia. As we have noted elsewhere, this series of moves may well create more problems for Russia, by design.

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


James Woods Suspended From Twitter Over Satirical Meme That Could “Impact An Election”

James Woods crushes Jack Dorsey: “You are a coward, @Jack.”

Alex Christoforou



Via Zerohedge

Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor’s tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.

The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with “nu-male smiles” and text that reads “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” Above it, Woods writes “Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible.”

According to screenshots provided by an associate of Woods’, Twitter directed the actor to delete the post on the grounds that it contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.

In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote. 

In a statement released through associate Sara Miller, Woods said “You are a coward, @Jack,” referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.

Earlier this month, Woods opined on the mass-platform ban of Alex Jones, tweeting: ““I’ve never read Alex Jones nor watched any of his video presence on the internet. A friend told me he was an extremist. Believe me that I know nothing about him. That said, I think banning him from the internet is a slippery slope. This is the beginning of real fascism. Trust me.”

Nu-males everywhere non-threateningly smirk at Woods’ bad fortune…

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