In the meantime, Google engages is some "oh so subtle" homo-propaganda

Check out the subtle message of Google to Russia:

The suggested notion is simple: Russia does not give the "possibility of practicing sport without discrimination" to homosexuals.

Pathetic.

The Saker

Why I say that the "homo rights in Russia" lobby is full of crap

In the comments section of my previous post, Jack brought to my attention the following video:

It is supposed to show how a "Gay Reporter Kicked off Kremlin Network After Protesting Anti Gay Law"


Now the way this video ends one could be forgiven for thinking that the homo in question, James Kirchick, was rudely thrown off the set or something similar.  Except that what actually happened is that they simply let him finish his rant and never asked him another question again.  You can watch the full segment here:

http://youtu.be/a1NI2yEMWc4

But that is not the main point.  The main point is that Kirchick claims that the homo topic is not covered on RT.  Of course, it is, like in this panel discussion about just that:

http://youtu.be/KZv0NskSsf0

Kirchick also makes a really funny statement about journalists being routinely harassed and tortured (!) in Russia.  While I cannot prove a negative, I can do something about his outrageous claim that the homo topic is not covered on Russian TV.

One of the most popular TV show on Russian TV is the show "K Barieru" ("To the Stand") of Vladimir Soloviev.  The show is known for inviting guest who strongly disagree with each other and it typically features a lively verbal slugfest between the opposing sides.  Last year Soloviev invited Nikolai Alekseev who is the most famous "gay" activist in Russia and who is the main organizer of the attempts to have "gay pride parades" in Russia.  In the segment above a (rather goofy looking) psychiatrist-sexologist describes the campaign of threats and harassment she has been subjected to by the Russian homo community for publishing a book the homos did not approve of.  In reaction Alekseev begins to hurl insults at her and calls her a liar.  He then makes fun of her wig and calls her a scarecrow.  At which point the host, Soloviev, interrupts the exchange to ask Alekseev how he could claim to be in favor of tolerance and acceptance while at the same time insulting a lady.  At which point Alekseev takes off his mike, smashes it and leaves the studio followed by a group of Western homos who had come with him to the show.  Check for yourself the video of this moment (no need to speak Russian to get it all):



My point?

First - homos have plenty of access to Russian TV.  If only because there is a huge amount Russian journalists who are homosexuals.  True, they don't advertise it like James Kirchick, but they don't do much to hide it either.  Many of them to an excellent job, by the way, like the two main Western Europe correspondents of the TV channel NTV.  Not only that, by tens of talkshows have been organized in Russia when this entire homo furore began. And then there are many homos in arts, such a ballet, of course, or even (crappy) pop music (like Philipp Kirkorov).

Second, the homo lobby (as opposed to Russian homosexuals) in Russia is exactly like the homo lobby in the USA.  It is composed of pathological liars who act in an amazingly rude way, like spoiled kids really, and who deeply antagonize most of the people they are trying to rally to their cause.  The kind of rude hysterics shown by Kirchick is very much in the same style as the antics of Alekseev.  Both display a lack of basic manners and an rudely aggressive personality.

Third, and this is really crucial.  Putin and the Kremlin have absolutely no reason at all to censor folks like Kirchick and Alekseev.  Why?  Because the kind of pathetic and arrogant hysterics these folks always display to make their case is the best possible way to really get the average Russian man or woman to gag in nauseated disgust.  You know what a typical Russian guy would think listening to these two?  "Морда просит кирпича!": "this face begs for a brick!" meaning that this kind of expression deserves to have a brick smashing it.  Mind you - the vast majority of Russian homosexuals do NOT elicit this kind of feelings in most Russians.  The few truly violent homophobes in Russia are still a small minority.  Most people don't care either way.

The Western elites are making a *huge* mistake by engaging in this absolutely imbecile campaign against Russia for having laws which ban homo propaganda aimed at kids.  First, every Russian knows full well that there are many countries out there, including CLOSE allies of the US/NATO/EU (think KSA here!) where homos have it much worse than in the really sexually tolerant Russian society.  But second, this propaganda campaign associates the modern Western culture and civilization with a subservience to, or admiration for, a phenomenon which most Russians see at best as a pathology and, at worst, a sign of degeneracy.  In other words, the end result of this homo campaign will be double: a worsening of the social status of homosexuals in Russia (they will be associated with a hostile, hypocritical and aggressive West) combined with a sense of contempt, if not outright disgust, with the West and its gay parades.

As for me, I would just say that a civilization which allows itself to become the hostage of lobbies like the Zionist lobby or the homo lobby deserves nothing else but the inevitable consequences of this surrender.

The Saker

Bradley Manning wants to be called "Chelsea" and become a woman through hormony therapy

This is Manning's full statement to the public:

Subject: The Next Stage of My Life

I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years. Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong. I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation.

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back.

Thank you,

Chelsea E. Manning

This is not the first time that Manning has these kinds of thought.  Here is, according to the BBC, a photo of him he sent to a supervisor in 2010. 

In this context, I think that there are a few common sense principles which I want to list here.

First,  none of that has any bearing on the "Brandly Manning case" as such.  Of course, his gender identity problems might have contributed to his choice to speak up against the violence and lies which he saw being perpetrated, his defense lawyer actually made that point, but there is no way to ascertain whether that is the case or not.  Nor does it really matter.

Second, whatever one may think of cause(s) of Manning's gender identity problems, this is first and foremost Manning's private matter and none of our business.  Since he made that letter public though, it is legitimate to discuss it.

Third, while I would definitely comply with his request to address him as 'Chelsea' and use the feminine pronoun in any direct contact with him, I would do so simply as a sign of courtesy based on the principle that I think that people should be called whatever they want, just as I would address a Papist bishop by "Your Excellency" or a judge by "Your Honor".  This does not imply however that I actually hold these gentlemen as being particularly excellent or honorable.  Thus in speaking about Manning, I will still continue to use the male pronoun and, therefore, his original name of Bradley.  What I would not do is recognize the fiction that he has somehow turned into a woman or that he always has been a woman in a men's body.  That is a load of crap which I am under no obligation to accept: wanting to be a woman and being a woman are two very different concepts, unless one believes in magical thinking.

Lastly, I think that Manning deserves our full support regardless of any personal issues he might have.  I particularly like the idea of the petition to give him the Nobel Peace Prize even though I am quite sure that this will never happen.  The bottom line is this: Manning did us all a huge favor and he is paying a terrifying price for it, and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.  Heroes are not called heroes because they are flawless, they are heroes because of a heroic action they took at one specific moment in their lives.  By any reasonable standard Manning is a hero and a person who should never be forgotten.

For the foreseeable future, Manning will live in two jails: one provided to him by Uncle Sam, and the other as a consequence of his gender identity issues and I would argue that, knowing the uncivilized and ugly nature of US jails, the latter might be worse than the former.  What is certain is that he would be far more comfortable and safe in a female detention facility than in a male one and I hope that there will be a public opinion push to at least grant him his wish (no, that would not 'make' him into a female, but what harm could a 'male' like Manning do to this female co-prisoners?  None, of course).

It will be interesting to see how the homo lobby will handle this one.  If they have any sense of fairness at all, they should throw their full support behind Manning's desire to be recognized as a woman.  So maybe, just maybe, this will be the one instance where the existence of a homo lobby could serve a higher good.  That would be very nice indeed!

The Saker

The homos want to boycott Russian vodka? Here are a few personal tips on how to best enjoy it!

I just saw an RT report about how the homo-lobby in the West is calling for a boycott of the Olympic games in Sochi and a boycott of Russian vodka.   The footage in the report showed a cute slogan which the homos were promoting: "no Sochi, no Stoli".  Now I don't have anything to say about Sochi or the Olympics, but I will say this: Stoli aka "Stolichnaya" is not a particularly good Russian vodka, and there might be purely gastronomical reasons to avoid it.

The main reason for the fame of Stoli is that in the middle of the Cold War the Pepsi company signed an agreement with the Soviet government to import Stoli in the USA (and export Pepsi to the USSR).  So in the USA Stoli was "THE" Russian vodka.  Happily, the Cold War is over (yeah, I know, Uncle Sam is trying hard to re-start it) and now Americans have much, much better options.  So let me share some of them with you.

First you need to know that all vodka is is pure alcohol and water.  Sounds basic, no?  Not really, because how pure the alcohol and, especially, the water are makes a huge difference.  Just like a top quality Scotch whisky like The Glenlivet is entirely dependent on the quality of the water of the one stream were Glenlivet takes its water, so does the taste of vodka also almost fully depend on the water it is made with.  It appears that seemingly tiny differences in the chemical qualities of various types of water result in big differences in taste.  Top of the line vodkas are therefore distilled and purified several times in proprietary processes which the manufacturers try to protect.  I will not try to explain it all here - there are entire books about this - but I will say this: don't be fooled by the "only alcohol and water" argument as vodkas come in a huge spectrum of quality ranging from the absolutely vile and disgusting "throat burners" to the top of the line products like these:

First, there are the vodkas of the Russian Standard or "Русский Стандарт" official lineup:

1) base version: Russian Standard Original
2) improved version: Russian Standard Platinum
3) superior version: Russian Standard Gold
4) exclusive version: Russian Standard Imperia

Now the sales of liquors is no more than 50% taste and the rest is product positioning.  This is also very true for vodka.  So I will spare you the technical differences and directly go to the bottom line:  Russian Standard Original is an amazingly good vodka (infinitely superior to Stoli) which you can get at a very reasonable price.  Unless you are a vodka cognoscente, I would stick with this one.  If you are willing to pay more for the really good stuff, then definitely try the Russian Standard Platinum which is very perceptibly superior to the Standard version.  But I would skip the Gold and Imperia versions which, while very good, do not strike me as significantly better than the Platinum (honestly, I am not sure that I could tell the Platinum and the Imperia apart).

Second, the other top of the line vodka producer is the Moscow Crystall Distillery.  This company has a big selection of vodkas but one of them really shines: the Youri Dolgoruki or "Юрий Долгорукий" vodka.  Named after the 12th century founder of Moscow, this vodka is at least as good, if not slightly superior, to the best Russian Standard versions.  Alas, it is harder to find, at least in the USA, but if you do see it somewhere - grab it, you will not regret it.

There are, of course, plenty of other good vodkas out there, including quite a few from the Crystall Distillery, but these two (the Russian Standard Platinum and the Youri Dolgoruki) are, in my opinion, the best ones out there, and both can be obtained without paying an exorbitant price.

And while I am on the subject of vodka, allow me to share a few tips on how to drink vodka.

You will hear experts telling you that it is wrong to drink vodka ice cold, that it should be cool or even at room temperature.  Nonsense!  Don't trust them.  Your bottle of vodka must absolutely spend the night in the freezer and should come out "steaming cold".  

The best way to drink it is in a small shot glass called riumka (рюмка) in Russian.  Nothing fancy at all, a basic simple shot glass like the one shown here is fine.

If you want, you can also use a more elegant glass like the second one shown here.

One thing you should absolutely avoid is to drink vodka from a regular glass.  This is a vulgar Soviet-era habit which is the sad expression of a time when vodka was used simply as a source of alcohol simply to get trashed and not as a refined way of enjoying foods.  Foods?  Yes, absolutely.

The best way to enjoy vodka is definitely with food.

What kind of food?

There are many options here.  In fact, most foods do benefit from being preceded by a shot of top quality ice-cold vodka.  How?  Nobody really knows, but it is a fact that our senses of taste and smell seem to be enhanced by a small shot of vodka.  This is just a short list of what can be enjoyed with vodka:

Smoked salmon, crabs, pickles, mushrooms, baked appetizers (with meat or cabbage), black bread, salmon roe, black caviar, hot and cold soups, green onions, smoked herrings, backed potatoes with sour cream, hams, smoked sausages, etc. etc. etc.  To get a feel for the possibilities, just go to google images and copy and paste the following two terms in the seachbar: закуски водка .

My personal favorite is the very basic combination of the Russian black bread, some chopped green onions, a few pickles and maybe a few marinated mushrooms.  Simple stuff yes, but all these products must be 100% organic, top quality and homemade (for the mushrooms).  Not the GMO and chemicals laced canned foods we are fed by corporations.

One more advice: do not waste any good vodka on cocktails.  If you like Screwdrivers or Bloody-Marys use Stoli or even something cheaper.

Anyway, if the homo-lobby wants to boycott Russian vodka I would suggest that drinking it becomes a deliciously politically incorrect crimethink which, if your religion permits it, should be committed and encouraged.  And, as everything else in life, this sampling of vodka should be done with taste, with moderation, and only with the best products possible.

Enjoy!

The Saker

PS: one more thing - don't drink too much vodka, or you might start feeling like this: :-)

Anti "gay parade" poster seen in Moscow

As many of you have probably heard from the outraged Western corporate media, the Russian Duma has passed a law banning the public propaganda of homosexuality (homosexual practices, however, remain legal). 

Supporters of this law demonstrated in front of the Duma building carrying the following poster.  The text in the middle of the posters ask the following question from the Russian deputies: In which parade will your son participate?
 

I would say that this is a well put question.

The Saker

Will pedophilia be the next paraphilia to be declared a "normal and positive variation" of human sexuality?

A month ago I posted a commentary in support for the decision of the city of Moscow to ban so-called "gay pride" parades.  Just as I expected, the post resulted in somewhat of a firestorm of outraged reactions from those who believe that homosexuality is, to quote Wikipedia,  a "normal and positive variation" of human sexuality.   They were particularly outraged at the fact that I stated that homosexuality was just one form among many other of what is known is paraphilia which also includes such "orientations" as pedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania, etc. (source).  In fact, there is even an increasing body of scientific evidence that pedophilia is not a choice, but a condition, that pedophiles where "born that way" to use one of the favorite slogans of the homo-lobby.  But unlike homosexuals, pedophiles are still offered cognitive, behavioral and pharmacological therapies no, not to cure them - they are considered "incurable" - but to help them with their "symptoms"...

"Gay" pride in action

When I pointed out that while homosexuals were asking to be treated like a persecuted minority deserving of some special protections, pedophiles were severely persecuted and prosecuted (just think of the public "sexual predators" databases which list the home address, photo and contact information of any person condemned for, among other crimes, possessing photos of nude children or having sex with an under-age partner) the defenders of homosexuality pointed out that homosexuality is different from pedophilia because it involves two consenting adults whereas sex with underage children implies violence, whether direct or statutory.

What the homo-fanboys missed is that they were comparing apples and oranges.

From a legal point of view homosexuality and pedophilia are, indeed, totally different for the above mentioned reasons.  However, from a psychological point of view, they are not.  Let me clarify: nobody will ever send a person to jail for having pedophile inclinations, only for acting on them.  Somebody who is sexually attracted to children is considered as having a sexual disorder (i.e. sick) and only considered a criminal if he/she acts on this psychopathology.  But if we take this legal/psychopathological distinction to the issue of homosexuality we can just as easily accept the possibility that homosexuality is a psychopathology, a sexual disorder just like pedophilia, and that the only difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that the latter is considered criminal by society if acted upon.

"Gay" "husband"

But are there any experts making the case that pedophilia is, to use this wonderful expression of Wikipedia, just a "normal and positive variation" of human sexuality?  Turns out that yes, there are.

I just came across this rather amazing article, which I want to share with you.  I have bolded out the parts which appear most interesting to me.

Check out this article:

Pedophilia a ‘sexual orientation’ experts tell Parliament (Canada)

OTTAWA, Ontario, February 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent parliamentary session on a bill relating to sexual offenses against children, psychology experts claimed that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality, a definition that was questioned by one Member of Parliament who was present.

Bill C-54, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code, seeks to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties or punishment on sexual offenders of children for particular crimes.

Parliamentary discussion on February 14 centered on the mandatory minimum imprisonment and how offenders respond to treatment. Dr. Vernon Quinsey and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, experts on the issue, were called to witness.

“When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory,” said Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal.

“Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality,” emphasized Van Gijseghem.

“True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” He added, however: “He may however remain abstinent.”

MP Serge Ménard later praised the witnesses. “Mr. Van Gijseghem and Mr. Quinsey,” said Ménard, “corrected some of our impressions.”

However, MP Marc Lemay of the Bloc Quebecois challenged Van Gijseghem’s definition. “I have to admit that I was not expecting, on this Valentine’s Day, to be talking about this inappropriate type of love. It is not really love. It has more to do with violence and control. I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem … because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.”

“That is what I said,” continued Van Gijseghem.

Lemay pursued the point, asking if it therefore should “be compared to homosexuality.”

“Yes, or heterosexuality,” responded Van Gijseghem. “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

During his witness, Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University, said that pedophiles’ “sexual interests” “prefer prepubescent children.” “There is no evidence,” he said, “that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

“You can manage the risk that sex offenders present - even pedophiles,” added Quinsey, “It’s not necessarily that they need to change their sexual orientation; they need to learn to control themselves, with our help.” “In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation,” said Lemay, “I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it … I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011. You are telling me that even if we were to impose a five-year minimum on people it would not solve the problem. Once they get out of jail, they reoffend. That is worrisome.”

One columnist in the Toronto Sun, Brian Lilley, expressed shock at Van Gijseghem’s testimony: “what really shocked me was the Universite de Montreal professor, Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, who showed up to tell MPs pedophilia was a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality.” He argued that “it’s time to take our country back by ignoring the ‘experts.’”

Speaking of pedophilia and its acceptance, did you know that Frédéric Mitterrand, former French Minister of Culture and Communication and nephew of the late President of France François Mitterrand, wrote a book called "The Bad Life" in which he openly admitted using boys in Thai brothels?  Here is the relevant Wikipedia section on this book:

Mitterrand - Homo/Hebe/Pedo?

Mitterrand's autobiographical novel The Bad Life (French: La mauvaise vie) was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting the male brothels of Bangkok, and writes, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide." At the time of its release Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty, but he has had to defend his writings after he publicly defended Roman Polanski when Polanski was detained in Switzerland on an American request for extradition for having sex with a thirteen year old girl.  On 5 October 2009, Marine Le Pen of the French National Front Party quoted sections of the book on French television, accusing him of having sex with underage boys and engaging in "sex tourism", demanding that Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. Amongst others he was also criticised by the Socialist Party spokesman Benoît Hamon, who stated: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.” On the other hand, some conservatives supported Mitterrand, and a close aide to Nicolas Sarkozy said the French President backed his Culture Minister, describing the controversy around him as "pathetic." Mitterrand also insists the book isn't an autobiography, the publisher describes it as a "novel inspired by autobiography" and the BBC refers to it as "autobiographical novel". In his own defence Mitterrand stated, "Each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger – there wasn't the slightest ambiguity – and who were consenting," and that he uses the term "boys" loosely, both in his life and in the book. He also declared, "I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn paedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in."

Now, notice something very interesting here.  France has had many homosexual politicians and members of government, but Mitterrand was the first one to openly display his homosexuality.  And what happens to him?  Soon his "homo only" image gets marred by allegations of pedophilia, and then made even worse by Mitterrand's defense of another pervert, rapist cum pedophile Roman Polanski.  Needless to say, nobody took Mitterrand's denials seriously, even if only a few dared to openly challenge it openly.

For decades now, homosexuals have vehemently denied any link between homosexuality and pedophilia/hebephilia, and yet before the homo-lobby got its way and found an army of experts to agree with such nonsense, a short look into the concept of pederasty clearly showed that there is a strong link between the two.  Heck, there is even an organization openly advocating, quote, "for the end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships".  How do they propose to do that?  By

1. building understanding and support for such relationships;
2. educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
3. cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
4. supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.

Also, make sure to check out their latest bulletin: not only will it tell you everything you need to know about this "persecuted sexual minority", but it will even show you how they too compare their "persecutors" with Nazis.  Priceless...

I am quite sure that Frederic Mitterand would feel right at home in this crowd...

Homo-pedo "poetry"

I could go on for hours and hours giving examples not only illustrating the fact that there is no real inherent difference between the homosexual and pedophile psychopathologies, but also showing that these two are closely linked by the "pederasty" category.

And yet, Western society actively promotes one form of paraphilia (homosexuality) and harshly persecutes another one (pedophilia).  This makes absolutely no logical sense at all, and just goes to show how confused and, frankly, degenerate this society has become.  It reminds me of the Biblical city of Nineve, "in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand" (Jonas 4:11).  It is ironic that this society seem to suffer from what I would call a spiritual form of AIDS, an acquired deficiency of its "spiritual immune system" to differentiate between right and wrong, healthy and sick, fertile and sterile.  This is a phase which many degenerating societies seemed to have reached before their inevitable collapse.

This is all rather pathetic, in particular coming of a society which fancies itself as some kind of leader of the rest of humanity and which has the arrogance of delivering yearly  "human right" reports to the rest of the planet while killings its unborn children by the millions or giving up its kids to "same sex couples". 

These "parents" made their 11 year old child have a sex change

Although all that is only a logical outcome of declaring any form of psychopathology a "normal and positive variation", is it not?  And here, the blame cannot be put solely upon those who suffer from these pathologies.  The main culprits of this pathetic state of affairs are all those who fully know, feel and understand that homosexuality is no more "positive" or "normal" than any other form of paraphilia but who lack the basic courage and decency to speak up.  Why are they afraid?  Because the homo-lobby is very aggressive, very well organized and even violent.  This lobby has learned all the tricks of the Zionist lobby, but it is using them in a much more brazen and arrogant manner.

For example, in France the French comic humorist Dieudonne has declared that poking fun at homosexuals might be even a bigger "crime" than making fun of Jewish organizations.  In Russia the famous Russian sexologist Dilia Enikeeva became the object of a massive campaign of death threats against her and her family after she wrote her book "Gays and Lesbians" which enraged the "gay community".   Again, the examples are all out there, but the corporate media is simply ignoring all the evidence proving that the so called "gays" are, in reality, a nasty and powerful lobby who will not hesitate to hunt down anybody who dares to object to its propaganda and myths.

One last example?  Sure.  Recently, a Russian "feminist puck group" delicately called "Pussy Riot" has organized a "punk-prayers" asking the Virgin Mary to get rid of Putin.  So far so go, except for these ladies organized their "punk-prayer" in front of the altar doors of the biggest Orthodox Church in Moscow, the Cathedral of the Christ Savior.  Here is a video of the "performance" of these ladies:

Predictably, they were eventually kicked out of the church building and eventually had to leave.  What is more interesting, however, is that the authorities decided to prosecute them for "Hooliganism committed for motives of politics, ideology, race, national or religious hatred or religious hatred or hostility towards anybody for motives of hatred or hostility for any social group".  It seems that the Russian authorities did detect a hate motive in this action and decided to treat this as a hate crime.  Well, guess what?  Amnesty International decided to declare that Pussy Riot were, I am not kidding you, "prisoners of conscience".  They particularly objected to the fact that these ladies were held in preventive custody and that they risked a jail term. It seems that the "artists" of Pussy Riot  did not anticipate that the Russian state would actually dare to defend the rights and freedoms of the simple Orthodox people whose beliefs and holy shrines they wanted to mock with impunity.  They clearly miscalculated.

How is all this linked to the topic of homosexuality?  Simple: not only are Pussy Riot at the forefront of the "struggle for gay rights" in Russia, but the homo-lobby has immediately used all its power in Russia and abroad to lionize "Pussy Riot" as the most heroic defender of sexual rights and persecuted "prisoners of conscience".  Something tells me that if some Neo-Nazi punk rock group (of which there are, alas, plenty in Russia) will organized a spontaneous "prayer-concert" in, say, the Grand Choral Synagogue, which is the largest synagogue in Russia, Amnesty International and its homo-lobby allies will not protest nearly as loudly, but that kind of double-standards and hypocrisy is not anything new, not for Amnesty International nor for the homo-lobby.

Nikolai Alekseev, the main organizer of the Russian "gray-pride" parade has recently declared on a Russian TV talkshow "I don't give a shit about the opinion of 99% of Moscovites".  Pussy Riot and the rest of these "gay rights" "activists" are simply putting in action this wholly intolerant and overly aggressive mindset:  better support us or else....

So let's sum it up.  "Gay rights" are neither about gaiety, nor about rights.  This is the organized political expression of a group of psychologically sick people who are seeking to impose their sexual dysfunctions and pathology as a norm on the rest of society and which do so with the utmost regression and intolerance.  History shows than these groups only prevailed in degenerating societies and that when they did achieve their objectives, the society which they submitted to their agenda rapidly collapsed.

A personal note in conclusion: this blog is mostly about ethics, politics and the quest for truth in all matters.  I have no personal axe to grind with those whom I call the "sads".  I am blissfully married for 18 years now, have three kids, and I am not really interested in dwelling in topics of sexual psychopathology.  But I am observing how the issue of "gay rights" is becoming instrumentalized by the West in its current campaign to destabilize or, at least, discredit Russia and, I would add here, Iran.  By turning "gays" some kind of kind of persecuted prisoners of conscience, the West is simply using another tool amongst many others to try to eliminate any regime which would dare to oppose its rule over the rest of the planet.  The fact that they will fail, both Russia and Iran have a strong social consensus on this topic, is no reason not to denounce the substance and form of this type of campaigns.  This is why I will conclude by repeating what I said in my first piece:

"Let the Western homosexuals do whatever the hell they want in their own countries - that is the West's problem - but don't let them engage in cultural imperialism and demand that the rest of the planet submit to their completely subjective and illogical system of double-standards."

The Saker

Moscow bans homosexual "pride" parades for the next 100 years

First, when I saw the RT news item announcing that "Moscow bans gay pride for century ahead" I went "no way!" and had the giggles thinking of how the doubleplusgoodthinking Lefties in the West would cry in outrage if such a decision had really been taken. Then I saw an outraged statement by Human Rights First confirming that the folks on Moscow had really taken such a decision.  Now some of you might wonder what a self-proclaimed "Left Libertarian" like myself might think of all that.  Let me tell you:

I am totally DELIGHTED by this decision!

Now before the inevitable verbal stoning beings, let me explains my reasons, okay?  Then you can hate me for being the bigot that I am...

Before I begin making my case, I would like address two issues: one semantic and one dialectical one.  First, I refuse to use the word "gay" on principle as it should not be applied to homosexuals because it is a "value-loaded"  use of an otherwise perfectly legitimate word designed to shape any discussion of the topic.  Furthermore, there is nothing gay about gays, any psychologist or addiction specialists will confirm that to you (if only in a private conversation).  Frankly,  I always thought that "gays" should really be called "sads", but that would be loaded too.  So  I will thus use "homosexual" - an accurate and value-neutral descriptor.  Second, I will not use any religious arguments in discussing this topic for a very simple reason: most religions already have a clear stance on homosexuality which should be normative for the followers of these religions but which are also irrelevant for everybody else.  Simply put - to discuss the topic of homosexuality to religious folks is preaching to the choir.   So there shall be no mention of "sin" or "fallen human nature" in my argument below.  Now let us turn to the issue itself.

What is homosexuality, really? Here is what Wikipedia reports about it:

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.  Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990.

It is interesting to get some background on how this decision was taken. I have found the following details in the article of Philip Hickey Behaviorism and Mental Health. Here is what the author writes (stress added):

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974. What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. 

Got that? Yup, this was a 100% political decision which had no scientific basis whatsoever. From a scientific point of view, it was as nonsensical as declaring - simply by vote - that cancer or schizophrenia are not more diseases but are "normal". Wikipedia deals with this problem in a single, and yet very telling, sentence:

"A normal and positive variation"

While some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

Right.  Brilliant. So "same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behavior are normal and positive variations of human sexuality".  And yet pedophilia is still considered a psychiatric disorder (source).  What about incest?  Well, guess what? Psychiatry puts incest next to paraphilia, i.e. pathologic sexual activities which is a group name for every sexual activity that is considered unnatural in psychology and sexology.  Apart from incest, paraphilia also includes paedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania… (source).

And how does one distinguish between "normal and positive variations of human sexuality" and paraphilia?  Since up until 1974 homosexuality was considered a paraphilia, why were no arguments presented to remove it from this category?

This is all utter nonsense, of course.  There are only three possible solutions to this conundrum:

a) declare that only one specific form of sexuality is "normal"

b) declare that any form of sexuality is "normal"

c) arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for it.

Most developed countries have opted for the third option, making a completely arbitrary, illogical and absurd list of "normal" and "not pathological" sexual behaviors.  By the way, the same dumb approach was used in dealing with sexual practices between consenting adults (the so-called "sodomy laws") or the codification of a legal age of sexual consent.  Even a cursory look at these laws clearly shows that they are based on nothing except political expediency.

And what does "normal" really mean?  It can mean one of two things: a) consistent with some average or minimum or b) within expected norms, for example, of society.

In the first case, I would gladly admit that homosexuality is "normal" simply because of its prevalence.  But I would immediately add that so are many, if not all, of the forms of paraphilia.  And I would also agree that homosexuality has become "normal" in the 2nd meaning of the word simply because it is socially acceptable to most developed societies, in particular in the post-Christian 'West'.  So to speak of the normalcy of homosexuality is absolutely nonsensical.

Furthermore, is there anything in the above which suggest that the decision of the City of Moscow to ban so-called "gay pride" parades is morally, ethically or even logically wrong?!  Is it not the right of any society to establish its own social norms?

"Gay Pride" in Paris

Furthermore, compare the situation of Russian homosexuals with the situation of Western pedophiles who are the victims of a systematic campaign of vicious persecutions.  Oh, I am not saying that it is wrong to persecute pedophiles, I am only saying that I don't see any logical reason to viciously prosecute the adepts of one form of paraphilia while allowing the adepts of another form of paraphilia to engage in "pride parades".  And if Moscow has no right to ban "gay pride parades" then the West has an obligation to allow "pedophile pride parades" in its Berlin, New York or Rome.  But no, the West gets away with its massive anti-pedophilia campaign while, in July of 2011, the European Court of Humans Rights condemned Russia to pay 30,000 euros in compensation to gay activists over its decision to ban so-called pride marches.  Talk about absolute hypocrisy!

I would like to add one more thing here.  I find militant homosexuals particularly offensive and irritating.  Frankly, to each his own.  There are plenty of sexual psycho-pathologies out there and plenty of people engaging in them.  I don't force everybody to give a standing ovation to my own sexual preferences, and I don't see any reason why somebody would demand from me that I approve and cheer on his/her sexual preferences.  Keep your bedroom in your bedroom and leave the rest of us alone.  But no, that is not good enough for what I call the "Homo Lobby".

"Gay Pride" in Paris

Homosexuals are the only ones who, not content to be left alone, are demanding not only equal rights, but special protections.  They have the nerve to demand that society treat them as some kind of oppressed minority, they want their "marriages" to be considered as equivalent to heterosexual ones, and they even want the right to form "single sex couples" and adopt children.  Amazingly, the very same society which considers it to be a felony to possess photos of naked children on your computer finds its perfectly acceptable to give away its children to homosexual "couples"!

I am delighted that Moscow is pushing back against the "Homo Lobby" and its cultural fascism which considers that "live and let live" only applies to individuals and not to nations.  I say let the Western homosexuals do whatever the hell they want in their own countries - that is the West's problem - but don't let them engage in cultural imperialism and demand that the rest of the planet submit to their completely subjective and illogical system of double-standards.

I have said above that I will not make use of any religious arguments to make my case in defense of the Moscow City Council.  Since I have made my case on this topic, I will now add a few general comment about homosexuality, religion and society.

First, this entire topic is yet another illustration of Dostoevsky's truism that "if there is no God everything is permitted".  The very concepts of "right" and "wrong" must, by logical necessity, either be anchored on some absolute (such as God) or become absolutely arbitrary and subjective.  Secularists can bawl in impotent rage and frustration but there is no logical argument which can be made against this fundamental truth.  In other words, no secular society will ever be able to logically distinguish between right or wrong (other than by convention), much less so in the case of sexuality.

Second, traditional Christianity affirms that since the Fall man has lost his original, true, nature and that his current fallen nature is the cause of his suffering.  The fact that some percentage of any given population is affected by any one type of psychopathology is therefore something Christians fully expect from all humans.  To the homosexual argument "I was born that way" a Christian simply replies "brother, we were all born dysfunctional in some way" and "what we now must do is reclaim our real nature and our full potential" (conversely, the word "sin" really means "missing the target" or "failing to act according to one's true potential).

Thus while Christianity never condemns a condition as such, neither does it consider any putatively "natural" condition as good or in any way "legitimate".  In fact, the very purpose of life is, according to traditional Christianity, to re-claim our *true* human nature by a process of theosis (which I shall not describe here; those interested can read this).

Third, the one and only reason why homosexuality is the only paraphialia which gets an official stamp of approval is that there is a strident, wealthy and well-organized "Homo Lobby" (well, a LGBT lobby, really).  This lobby was very effective in presenting the issue as one of "homophobia" and "hate" against one of tolerance and diversity.  Of course, there will always be some insecure idiots out there who think that their manhood will be somehow enhanced if they beat up a homosexual, preferably in a group.  But to present any rejection of the Homo Lobby's dogmas (because that is what they are!) as an expression of homophobia is, of course, a total misrepresentation of what is really happening.  As far as I can tell, most people do not care at all about what adult and consenting homosexuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms.  What bothers people is the extremely rude and strident "in your face" attitude adopted by what I call the "militant homosexuals".  Frankly, if they did not dress like clowns (or birds! see photos) and if they refrained from organizing "gay pride" parades they would gain far more acceptance from most heterosexuals.  My 2cts.

Now let the stoning begin :-)

The Saker