Connect with us



5 steps to becoming a western approved Russian ‘opposition leader’

The west clearly has low standards and no democratic basis when naming Russian opposition figures.




With the eyes of the anti-Russian western mainstream media focused on Alexei Navalny’s latest antics in Moscow, it seems appropriate to discuss just what constitutes a ‘Russian opposition leader’ in the eyes of western mainstream media pundits who are both misinformed themselves and seek to pass that misinformation on to their declining audience.

With this in mind here are 5 ways to become a Russian opposition leader….in the eyes of the west.

1. Don’t Be An Actual Opposition Leader 

Russia has a vibrant opposition movement that receives millions of votes during both Duma and Presidential elections. Since 1993, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation led by Gennady Zyuganov and the conservative/proto-populist LDPR founded and led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have been consistent political forces to be reckoned with.

More recently, the moderate socialist  Fair Russia Party (sometimes called a Just Russia) led by Sergey Mironov have also done well.

These are the opposition parties which have contended with the governing United Russia Party during much of the period where Vladimir Putin has been the most popular figure in Russian politics. Compared to the United States which  has only two major parties, Russia has four.

Perhaps America needs foreign funded NGOs to organise marches in the streets to give a fairer deal to smaller parties like the Libertarians and Greens who don’t have any Federal representation?

2. Receive At Least One, But Ideally Several Criminal Convictions 

Most notoriously, self-appointed Russian opposition leader Boris Berezovsky, gained infamy in Russia for covertly funding Chechen terrorists during the North Caucuses conflict of the 1990s.

After running away to Britain where the UK press worshipped Berezovsky as a kind of champagne soaked saint, he received two criminal convictions in Russia,  one in 2007 for embezzling money from Aeroflot and another in 2009 for defrauding major Russian car manufacturer AvtoVAZ.

But Berezovsky was not exceptional in this respect.

Disgraced business tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky is frequently held up in the west as a kind of hero of liberalism in spite of the fact that the only thing he is liberal about is his financial ethics. He has been convicted and imprisoned for tax evasion, fraud and embezzlement. After being released from prison he quickly fled to Switzerland.

Although in his early life he had few political ambitions, his time as a felon led Khodorkovsky to transform himself into an instant opposition leader. Of course the western media portray him as a kind of leader in waiting, even though he probably couldn’t even be elected dog catcher anywhere in Russia.

Of course Alexei Navalny himself has been twice convicted in matters related to embezzlement.

Boris Nemtsov may have felt left out, only being convicting of offences relating to disrupting public order.

By contrast none of Russia’s actual opposition leaders have a criminal record.

3. Support Regime Change In Kiev 

Whether Berezovsky’s financing of 2004’s so-called ‘Orange Revolution’ in Kiev, Khodorkovsky’s speeches in favour of regime change in Kiev in 2014, Dmitry Voronenkov‘s opposition to Crimean democracy or Alexei Navalny’s marches in favour of the fascist regime that took power in Kiev, all roads must lead to fascists, nationalists and war-hawks in Kiev if one is to be taken seriously by the west as an ‘authentic’ Russian opposition leader.

It seems that it is not enough to oppose the Russian government, one must also support illegal regimes that are openly hostile not only to the Russian state but also to Russian people, not least those being slaughtered in Donbass.

It takes a certain amount of self-hatred in order to be let into the prestigious club of western approved ‘Russian opposition leaders’.

4. Don’t Live In Russia 

Apart from criminal records and support of far-right anti-Russian foreign regimes, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky,and Voronenkov  had something else in common. They each planned to lead their opposition revolutions from outside of Russia. It’s rather hard to be taken seriously as an opposition figure, when one prefers to sit in London, Geneva or Kiev than to get work done in Moscow.

5. Avoid Popularity At Any Cost 

One needn’t be a criminal or emigrant in order to disagree with Russian government policies. Indeed Russia has legally registered liberal parties who take a European stance on major political issues. The fact is that few people vote for them in spite of having both the Moscow Times and Echo of Moscow acting as their home grown media bullhorns in a modern Russia which has extremely open free speech laws.

The fact of the matter is that a handful of criminals in addition to some honest but out of touch homegrown liberals, are not democratically popular in Russia. It’s one thing to support democracy, but in elevating these obscure figures to the position of the ‘opposition in waiting’, western governments and mainstream media are doing the opposite of promoting democracy.

They are in actual fact, suppressing democracy, as the majority of Russians simply do not care for liberalism or globalism. It was tried in the 1990s and the legacy liberalism left on Russia was one of economic collapse, international humiliation, increases in health problems, inflation, prostitution, drug  use and a suicide epidemic. It’s no wonder that Russians have solidly turned their back on those offering the road back to the dark 1990s.

So there you have it. Follow these five easy steps and YOU TOO could be a self-appointed, western approved, Russian opposition leader.




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


US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”





Via RT

Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

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


Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career



Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.


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


Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan



Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:

Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

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