Those lovely Russians

Reactionaries’ hopes for the future are increasingly being shouldered by the Russians:

Kissing his boyfriend during a protest in front of Russia’s parliament earned Pavel Samburov 30 hours of detention and the equivalent of a $16 fine on a charge of “hooliganism.” But if a bill that comes up for a first vote later this month becomes law, such a public kiss could be defined as illegal “homosexual propaganda” and bring a fine of up to $16,000.

The legislation being pushed by the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church would make it illegal nationwide to provide minors with information that is defined as “propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality and transgenderism.” It includes a ban on holding public events that promote gay rights. St. Petersburg and a number of other Russian cities already have similar laws on their books.

The bill is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to Western liberalism, which the Kremlin and church see as corrupting Russian youth and, by extension, contributing to a wave of protest against President Vladimir Putin’s rule.

Anyone have the over-under for the start date of the Russian Spring?

28 thoughts on “Those lovely Russians

  1. Russia is no trad paradise. Abortion, for example, is extremely common and is funded by the state. Rod Dreher is Orthodox and the stuff he hears about Russia is not good.

      • Orthosphereans might enjoy clicking through to both Dreher’s piece and then the piece by Cathy Young it is based upon. Here is a taste of where the libertarian Young is coming from (talking about the Pussy Riot case):

        The case looked and felt like something out of the Dark Ages. The state-run Rossiya television channel repeatedly referred to the women as “blasphemers,”

        To be clear, she thinks she is insulting Russia’s handling of Pussy Riot in this passage. No word on whether she thinks Pussy Riot are, in fact, blasphemers though. She continues:

        Are these developments harbingers of a new Russian theocracy? While some of the religious zealotry underlying the scandal was undoubtedly genuine, the prosecution was mostly a loud display of pretend medievalism

        Imagine you become the president-for-life of Russia right after Yeltsin and Harvard are done raping her for freedom (TM). Imagine further that, though you yourself are an atheist, you are bright enough to grasp that Christianity is kinda sorta important to Christendom and that abandoning it has not gone well. Is there anything you could do, going forward, to restore Christianity to Russia which would not be subject to the kind of tedious leftist attack Young is deploying here? Doesn’t Pascal’s advice to “fake it till you make it,” involve hypocrisy in the “fake it” stage?

        Of course, Young is just a spazzy leftist, but Dreher oozes slime.

  2. The Russians recognize that there are only two stable states. Either homosexuality is illegal and at least modestly persecuted, or it is legal and it is illegal to criticize it. They have chosen their preferred state. So should we.

  3. Recently, I watched the videos linked at Isegoria on Soviet subversion methods ( ) and had a bit of a revelation of what is happening here.

    Putin was in the KGB. Many of the other Russian politicians also. Therefore, they should be at least casually familiar with the subversion methods of their propaganda people. Enter Pussy Riot, an anti-establishment band/activist group obviously aimed at Western audiences. What does it look like to Putin and company?

    Clearly, USA is trying to demoralize them in an effort to later destabilize Russia and put it in a state of crisis! Immediate harsh response happens, something like a pre-emptive ‘normalization’. Imminent danger over.

  4. Do not forget to include Ukraine in this. They are even more hard-line than Russia. The Ukrainian government is considering banning SpongeBob, Teletubbies, South Park, and the movies Shrek and Bruno. Their homosexuality law would make even speaking approvingly in public of homosexuality illegal. And no one ever seems to mention Belarus which bans gays from military service, legal protection, relationship recognition, donating blood, changing gender, and adoption. There are no protections in Belarus for hate crimes against gays. If you believe Wikipedia then 47% think gays should be imprisoned. Add to that their President attacked the German foreign minister for being gay.

    Malta does not permit abortion under any circumstances. San Marino, Monaco, and Andorra only allow it when the mother’s life is in danger. The US State Department has warned American Blacks not to travel to Greece. Hungary’s new constitution made it that the nation is recognized as Christian and stripped the title of Republic from its official description (leaving the door open to re-institution of monarchy?). Support for monarchical restoration is strong in Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and Bulgaria. So there are still some places in Europe where traditionalism flourishes. Unfortunately not as strongly as we would like.

    • Good for Ukraine!

      One point, though: Although many consider it a fait accompli, I believe it better not to reinforce homosexual circumlocution, and never use “gay” when we mean “homosexual.” There is no penalty for saying “homosexual”—not yet, anyway—and we owe it to ourselves and others to be clear on this.

      It is a minor point, to be certain, but it is one of the important ways we resist liberalism.

      • “Gay” in its original sense was a hybrid of “happy” and “silly”, so the use of that word is half right. “Homosexual” is many times worse a word. Sex and sexuality are by definition hetero. So “homosexual” isn’t a word, it’s a lie. Please don’t ask us to lie. It only helps the other side.

      • I think the term “homosexual” is an indication of and contributor to the problem. It presupposes an equivalence with the tautologous (unless one is a bacterium) “heterosexual”. So people think “what if someone told me I couldn’t be attracted to the opposite sex”, as if homoeroticism was an existential issue like love and marriage rather than a vice like gambling or alcoholism.

        “Gay” is a political movement which seeks to define everyone tempted by a flavour of fornication into a bloc agitating against the institution of the family. Christians should attempt to redefine the issue (at least in their own minds) as about disordered behaviour, rather than permanent identity. Like the “ex-gay” counseling programs liberals gnash their teeth at, it should be treated as just another kind of fornication. There would be no assumption that such men would not go on to marry women.

        I would be interested to see what better thinkers than I at the Orthosphere make of this. I am suggesting a move back to the Classical approach, with the difference that all fornication is disapproved of, according to Christian standards. The Belorussian approach described by ChesterPoe above might be politically/culturally effective, but it doesn’t owe much to Christianity.

      • Well we could just call them sodomites.

        Ian, that is grabbing the bull by the horns! Unfortunately, it will get you excommunicated from mainstream society—not such a bad thing in and of itself, but it is an ineffective way to influence people.

        Reg, your assertion that “Sex and sexuality are by definition hetero” is false on its face, so any conclusions you reach from that false premise have little hope of standing. I think you mean moral or properly ordered sex. “Homosexual” is closer to an accurate description than “gay” could ever be, especially since so many homosexuals are miserable, not happy/silly.

        Anthony, you have some excellent ideas. What I was attempting to say, and clearly failed to, was that in terms of tactics, “gay” is the term that the other side likes and wants us to use, and for that reason alone, we ought not to use it.

        In the same vein, I never say or write “gay marriage.” I much prefer the wordier, but more accurate, “same-sex pseudo marriage.”

      • I have lived in the Ukraine, the people, at least in the big cities, are pretty tolerant of individual homosexuals (it isn’t unusual to see two gay men in the mall holding hands) they are extremely intolerant of Western immorality being forced on them and their children. Also the men haven’t yet turned into metrosexuals like one sees in the Netherlands; if a homosexual is militant and in their face about “gay rights” he will get beaten up. Christian Morality has been taught in the public schools in the Ukraine for at least five years.

      • Absolutely concur. I try to only use that word if referencing something srcastically, or refering to an organization. I typically also use Sodomite, as the idea of sexuality was a morew Modern conceptipon.

  5. You have to take a hard line, or you end up with the opposite problem: Amsterdam siedelt Schwulenhasser aus. No, this is not a joke. Translation from the original German article:

    Amsterdam wants to set an example against intolerance by banning all homophobes and immigrant-haters. They are to be forcibly moved to container-apartments outside of the city. The Liberals, Greens, and Left are all supporting the measure.

  6. It’s no accident that those countries with the lowest illegitimacy rates, countries like Japan and Israel, have no laws against homosexuality. A country that wastes its time worrying about homosexuality is just a country looking for scapegoats instead of dealing with real moral issues.

    • When God burned the wicked people of Sodom and Gomorrah he seemed to think that their homosexuality was a “real moral issue.”

      If you’re implying that Christians of all stripes are hypocrites because we don’t get as upset about divorce as we ought, then I agree with you. Divorce and re-marriage is indeed a “real moral issue,” and the church is failing the test. And if you’re saying that evangelical Christians are ready to criticize the illegitimacy rates of blacks and hispanics, but turn a blind eye to the teen sex going on among the church’s “Christian” youth, then you are right again.

      For clarification, please tell us what the “real moral issues” are. Perhaps orthodox Christians have been missing the point for far too long.

      • Yes the real moral issues are divorce and illegitimate children. Both of these ruin the next generation (since children should be raised by both parents). Since homosexuals don’t have children, they don’t have this issue.

        The Sodom and Gomorrah story has different interpretations, one of which is that the crime is treating guests badly.

      • Since homosexuals don’t have children

        This, as we all know, is incorrect. Homosexuals can adopt children or have them from prior/simultaneous heterosexual relationships or even marriages. Furthermore, if they show off their behavior in public, it leaves those of us with children with some ‘splainin to do, that we’d rather not.

  7. I guess that’s why we call inhospitable hosts “Sodomites.”

    Wait a minute…

    Yeah, what gets me about the argument that Sodom’s sin was “inhospitality” and not homosexual sex is that according to my bible it was BOTH. For crying out loud, people, stop making things harder than they need to be.

    • One of the things that has always set God’s people apart from their neighbors is God’s insistence upon sexual morality. While the Greeks were reviled for their pedophilia and the Romans for their debauchery, the revilers still had their pet perversions. Amongst God’s demands are chastity and continence. Both the Old and New Testaments have injunctions against the sexual immorality of the world around God’s people.

      So, pace Franklin, homosexuality is a serious sin. I don’t know about Israel, but Japan has huge problems with fornication, pornography, prostitution, abortion, and reproduction. Its lack of homosexuality laws is no indicator of spiritual health at all.

  8. Moldbug is right to say that there are only three major sovereigns in the world today: China, Russia, and the US Dept. of State. There will be, therefore, no “Russian Spring”, and for that we may be grateful.

  9. Good luck – they tend to think ALL Westerners are liberals, moreover, they tend to think Westerners pursue their imperial interests first, and use liberalism as a means to this end. I.e. they believe gay marriage is a trick to make Russia have fewer kids, hence soldiers. And thus even if you are not a Western liberal – you are still seen as a Western imperialist. No liberal? No problem. No need to be a liberal to be an enemy of Russia – see WW1, WW2… this is how they tend to think.

    Good luck making friends after that kind of reception!


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s