Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 09, 2013

On "Punishing" Russia

There is a campaign building in the "western" media and by the "western" elite to "punish" Russia for not doing what those elites want it to do.

The theme the campaign is now using is a law the Russia parliament recently voted on that prohibits "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors". The existence of that law is used in a campaign to boycott the Olympics in Sochi in the name of LGBT "rights".

How much that Russian law really touches on "rights" is not yet obvious to me. The Russian LBGT groups for one have spoken out AGAINST such a boycott. But they will soon find that no one in the "west" really cares about them. The campaign against Russia it is not about LGBT rights but all about "punishing" Russia.

Yesterday president Obama joined the Russia LGPT rights bashing club:

"[I have] no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them" ... "One of the things I think is very important for me to speak out on is making sure that people are treated fairly and justly because that’s what we stand for, and I believe that that’s a precept that’s not unique to America,” Obama said. “That’s just something that should apply everywhere.
So how about the gays Saudi Arabia hangs? What was the last time Obama showed "no patience" with the Saudi royal family? And all those people that get killed by Obama's drones are "treated fairly and justly"?

The Russian law may be stupid. But Russia does not kill anyone for his or her sexual preferences. To use such an issue to call for a boycott of the Olympics, against the declared will of the Russians effected by the law, is rather embarrassing.

To think that such calls or even an Olympics boycott would change Russia's behavior is childish. Russia is again an independent country. It can no longer be "punished".

Posted by b on August 9, 2013 at 18:15 UTC | Permalink


I agree with you. It's empty rhetoric and hypocritical to the bone. The pinkwashing of Israel and the use of 'human rights' as a blunt object to attack other countries is blowing up horribly in the face of the U.S. Credibility drips away by the day.

In the end, there can be no boycott, as NBC paid roughly 1 billion dollars for the rights, and the advertisers crave the exposure. It is not 1980, when only a few millions were lost.

Posted by: Crest | Aug 9 2013 18:25 utc | 1

Not only that but Russia could stop those trains shipping materiel to Afghanistan. (They want the games back in Vancouver in 2014 to circumvent the NBC issue.)

Posted by: Albertde | Aug 9 2013 18:40 utc | 2

B you are correct. I had to throw up when I read the hypocrite statement by Obama on homosexuals. Wasnt it Obama that bowed for the Saudi king? Is he totally ignorant or who is he fooling? What about his own or americans view on this issue.

As usual the empire try to find a reason to hate (Iran, Russia, China..).

Besides whats "harmful" forbidding propaganda directed at kids?

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 9 2013 18:54 utc | 3

According to RT, no deal were made during that meeting between Bandar and Putin, even if I think the leak to Reuters came from the Russians:

But according to RT again, the supply of S-300 air defense system has been postponed until at least June 2014:

Sounds like a deal to me...

Posted by: Greggg | Aug 9 2013 18:56 utc | 4

Obama in his press conference just dissed Putin, saying he needed to stop being "backward looking," meaning he should think like Obama.

Obama, the running dog Corporatist lackey, who is presiding over the greatest growth in income inequality since the late 1800's in the USA.


It sounded to me like Obama was openly declaring the 21st Century version of the Cold War.

So, Barry, who's looking backwards now???

Posted by: jawbone | Aug 9 2013 19:43 utc | 5

More Big Macs, more Kardashians, that's what those darn Russkis need.

Posted by: dh | Aug 9 2013 20:03 utc | 6

Odummy is such an imbecile

Posted by: Fernando | Aug 9 2013 21:16 utc | 7

Yeah the timing is not coincidental. Last week Russia granted Snowden asylum allowing him to leave the airport and almost immediately afterwards, this controversy over Russia's gay rights started up.

If the US boycotts the Winter Olympics it will have as much to do with gay rights as the Afghanistan war was about securing Womens Rights. It's a nice facade to paint on a war or boycott. But we all know that if Putin had handed over Snowden, this talk of gay rights in Russia wouldn't exist.

And on the topic of Gay Rights. Maybe he should look at his own country. Hell they only allowed gay people to serve in the military openly, what 6 months ago? Something that has always been allowed in Europe because of Anti-Discrimination laws. Texas and half a dozen other States still have Anti-Sodomy laws on the books. Instead Obama says about Russia. "I have no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them."

Anyway the US won't do anything. The Sochi Winter Olympics has been Putin's pet project for years. If they were to boycott it, no doubt Putin would cut of supplies to Afghanistan.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Aug 9 2013 21:20 utc | 8

Colm, I don't see it reaching that pitch (I hope.) If the US boycotts by itself, it would be a huge embarrassment to the US government and would be akin to shooting itself in the foot. If they want to hang themselves, I'm sure Putin will generously provide the rope.

OTOH, if they force the European satellite states to boycott along with them it would cause enormous anger and backlash. Not to mention the clearest sign of the EU's lack of independence. That's just a longer rope.

Posted by: Lysander | Aug 10 2013 0:17 utc | 9

Just in case you haven't seen it Pepe Escobar has a fine piece over at ATOL
"....The cluelessness of the Obama administration - not to mention US Think Tankland - cannot be overemphasized. Nobody in the Beltway has articulated a sound Russian policy - apart from demonizing Putin. That suits Vlad the Hammer fine; he's busy carefully constructing a new strategic reality not only in Europe's periphery but at the core as well. Russia is back - with a bang...."

Posted by: bevin | Aug 10 2013 0:59 utc | 10

Oh, the hypocrisy is astonishing.

I'll start by saying I think the Russian law is foolish, but then again, I'm not a Russian voter. It's certainly no less foolish than than, as Colm pointed out, the anti-gay legislation that exists in the US. It's certainly less harmful than the sickening anti-gay legislation that private US groups press for in countries like Uganda. Of course, Obama can't seem to make bold pronouncements about that, now can he.

It's amazing how the LGBT movement has been completely coopted, and turned from radical outsiders to another cog in the machine. The aptly christened "Gay Inc." - the big name gay groups pressing for symbols of "respectability" like marriage and the right to serve in the military (congrats, you've ruined the last good excuse for war resisters, I guess it's back to shooting oneself in the foot - jk) while letting those gay soldiers who serve in the military twist i the wind like they have Bradley Manning (truly one of the saddest display of failed solidarity imaginable). So, if gay people as a group once more let Obama so cynically use them so as to crack down on other outsiders and radicals, it's pretty pathetic.

Obama really is looking more and more like a joke. What must the average American (already fed up with the supposed "gay agenda") going to say when they're asked to risk international tensions over legislation they most likely support themselves regarding gay people thousands of miles away?

One of the most astonishing victories of US propaganda is to make every event in a foreign country seem as though the government is responsible. Putin is no more responsible for the anti-gay legislation than Obama is for the stand your ground laws in Florida.

Let Obama play the fool. He truly looks so idiotic at this point. Its like they believe their own hype now. Do they really think that we don't notice the chain of events? No matter that so completely on-cue the media takes this up and in one voice. Anyone following world events with even one eye half open isn't going to suddenly fall for this switch up. So let Obama bark at shadows like a toothless dog.

If Obama wants to pretend to take stands for a small segment of the Russian people, go ahead. Its only an invitation for Russia to take a stand for a large group of Americans. Next time the US Congress decides to cut off unemployment benefits and food stamps, Russia should feel free to make waves and declare, as they did in the 20th century, that they have "no patience for countries that try to treat workers, minorities, and the poor in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them."

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 10 2013 1:20 utc | 11

@bevin #10: Could have been alternately titled "Crushed by a ton of BRICS", eh? This is a big contributing factor to the non-stop tantrum.

Mr. Pragma (and other tech-heads), have you seen this?
Samsung’s 3D Vertical NAND Set to Improve NAND Densities
. Will we have the capacity to store everything? Yes...soon we will.

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Aug 10 2013 2:00 utc | 12

I read an article a few days ago in so-called progressive media that claimed that these new laws effectively made homosexuality illegal in Russia which is obviously not the case. I wonder how many so-called progressives read that article and took it at face value?

Posted by: blowback | Aug 10 2013 2:10 utc | 13

My suspicion is that Obama pushed for gay rights because it better fits the MIC hiring/retention needs. Similarly, I suspect MIC recruiting needs factored into the 1960's civil rights movement. (Regardless of color, we're all "grist for the mill".)

And now, yes, gay rights is good for marketing.

Posted by: nsane-in-the-mbrane | Aug 10 2013 2:15 utc | 14

Actually, I'm enjoying the evident Russia and Putin bashing by zusa. For multiple reasons.

For one, that lbgt law simply writes down what the majority of people feel - globally, not only in Russia. Funnily the western media whores confirm that fact by very often "misunderstanding" the facts and writing as if homosexuality per se were forbidden and gays would be hunted down. Those whores, of course, know that writing the truth would have even the western people people ask, what's wrong about that reasonable law.

Then, of course, because zusas gay president, the serial liar, pointing fingers at Putin, the man respected even by many western people simply for being straight and upright, is a great thing to happen. In fact it's double-good *g - first, it shows to anyone with a brain and the will to occasionally use it that obama is a weakling and a liar and secondly, by repeatedly (trying to) punishing Putin he, obama himself, introduces punishment as an acceptable means in international policy. So many people will find it just right when Putin one day knocks out obama.

But there is more to it, more complex and more important. It is to do with souvereignty.

Souvereignty can't be simply decided on. Since the dawn of mankind souvereignty was something that referred to and depended on an external reference, typically God. Modern societies replaced the external reference by "we the people" - which is a major logical problem. Logically speaking they replaced a reference with a system of probes and, possibly more importantly a floating system and a system that can be easily manipulated which quite evidently is pretty much the opposite of a reference.
While this need for a reference has, of course, been abused by churches and religious functionaries it actually isn't so much about this or that God or religion but about a principle based on the observation that there are cosmic laws or, more precisely, the assumption that there are "cosmic" i.e. basic and undisputable laws for men, too or, more simply, that there is right and wrong and that they can be usually discerned.

Which leads us quite directly back to Putin and the issue at hand. He, Putin, is widely perceived as a guy whom one might like or not but who is clearly oriented and trying to be guided by those principles. This has become strikingly clear when he underlined the importance of religion and gave the Russian church both more power and more responsibility. Doing that, he provided a stronger reference system to the Russia.

zusa on the hand is like a ship inmidst of the ocean whithout orientation and reference. Which, of course, is exactly what the zionists love.

Where zusa (and generally western) politicians wheel and deal and weazle, Putin acts quite straight, logical, well thought and almost naturally with a broad support in his constituency; of course, after all, his guiding values and principles are those of the vast majority.

And he is straight. Which is another important point. The simple truth concerning lbgt (and many other issues) is - as so often happens to be - that zionists invert things; when they steal they talk about sharing.
The real issue of lgbt is that the zionist forces do *not* want to tolerate (and risk) a free decision and evolution; they want to "educate" (read: brainwash) children toward homosexuality and to paint lbgt as totally normal or possibly even desirable. And *that* is what the new law is about: It interdicts zionist forces the brainwashing of people, in particular children, and protects their right to act upon their own compass.

As to consequences of zusa being angry with Russia and Putin, frankly, it shit on it. Let'em bring it on. They've lost a war against medieval mountain villages and against a brutally worn out and weakened Iraq. Going against Russia plain and simple would be suicidal for zusa.
They want to punish Russia economically? Ridiculous! What exactly would it be that a country with tens of trillions of debt, a rotten economy and collapsing bridges could bring up against Russia and BRIC?

Even if they would boycott Sochi that would turn against zusa way worse than against Russia. But then, to be honest, I was against Sochi since early on. It's simply too early in my minds eye. And, no surprise there, the georgians (which is *very* close to Sochi, close as in "some ten miles") rear their ugly heads again and make noise.
So, I think, Sochi is one of the very few points where Putin really didn't act very smartly.

@ Dr. Wellington Yueh (12)

have you seen this?
Samsung’s 3D Vertical NAND Set to Improve NAND Densities. Will we have the capacity to store everything? Yes...soon we will.

Nope, that's hype. It is, of course, attractive to have larger flash memory on chips but this is no danger at all. All it will do is to have reasonable sized SSDs in reasonable sized space and quite probably somewhat cheaper than the current insane SSD prices.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 10 2013 3:10 utc | 15

The real target of the law is the use of LGBT propaganda for anti-Russian agitation. This newest campaign to boycott the Olympics in Sochi is a prime example of such use of the LGBT "rights" issue for anti-Russian and anti-Putin attacks.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Aug 10 2013 3:22 utc | 16

@Mr. Pragma #15:

It marks a major (exponential!) increase in storage that is faster and more reliable than spinny disks and sucks far less power. They will be able to store everything they want to collect. I certainly do agree with your assessment that the NSA will choke on it, and with such an increase in capacity the convulsions will be that much more spectacular. They cannot trust good programmers, so they have not the ability to construct useful automated analysis.

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Aug 10 2013 4:17 utc | 17

Anyway...sorry for the "attempted thread hijack."

More to the point of the thread, I think the Masters of the Universe may be putting their own balls in a twist. Now any politician who got elected on the anti-gay platform risks the ire of their base by opposing/demonizing Russia simply on the premise that they are "ZOMG - trying to outlaw teh gays!" Are they unwittingly dividing and conquering their own constituencies?

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Aug 10 2013 5:34 utc | 18

Dr. Wellington Yueh (17)

Sorry, no.

Actually it (Samsungs new "3-D") NAND technology is different from currently available flash storage only in one major regard, in stacking multiple dies vertically within one chip.
This is not exponential but merely allowing for more storage in the same space or for the same storage capacity in smaller space. That's it.

Not to be outdone, sure this is attractive in a similar way it was attractive to have 4, 6 or 8 processor cores in one chip rather than in 4, 6 or 8 chips. Both are largely linear improvements, attractive and advantageous but definitely not exponential or groundbreaking.

More important though is an inherent paradoxon. Unlike classical hard disks NAND (or other "flash") based disks can be written to only a limited amount of times (typical numbers are 10.000 - 100.000 times). Databases, however, are typically written to extremely frequently and do lend themselves well to flash based storage unless its mostly a read only data base.
At the same time, database reading accesses tend to have a pattern that makes it unattractive to have them on very fast storage completely. It is more attractive and therefore usually done differently; one has the relatively small amount of data that is very frequently needed (like indices) in really fast storage (*way* faster than SSDs), typically large memory caches, and the vast rest, that is comparatively rarely used on cheaper disk storage.

So, what Samsung is going to offer is attractive in one major regard: It will bring SSDs of reasonable sizes (say one or a few terrabytes) in a more attractive price range.

As for power consumption modern 2,5" hard disks are quite moderate and not far away from SSDs.

The trap here - as so often - is to think in hardware terms only and to compare feature by feature. When applying technology though one must think and plan in overall system terms and, of course, cost (even the nsa won't simply and unnecessarily waste lots of money for little gain).

Last but least, with all due respect, one should not "think" in consumer terms when discussing major projects. For someone buying a plastic consumer notepad the life time of an SSD will be a widely irrelevant factor; his notepad will break (or be exchanged for a new model) before his SSD wears out anyway. In a professional context, however, it *does* make a big difference.

And btw. the major reason for SSDs in consumer electronics is something else, anyway, that is weight that plays almost no role on the professional segment. or all those consumer plastic box builders 50g or even 100g saved weight are a *major* point though.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 10 2013 6:17 utc | 19

The NSA databases are not the standard model. They are collecting but not editing the content. Indexes must be kept on something reliable and fast. Since Samsung is still a ways from 'operational' with this tech, it's gonna mean storing actual data on something cheaper and slower. But that is changing quickly. Also, current enterprise SSDs are vastly more durable than consumer models. They are usually well overprovisioned to compensate for write fatigue.

What this Samsung tech will provide is much more SSD storage for the same footprint and not very much more power consumption. Remember that SSDs use an order of magnitude less power when at idle, while spinny disks have to keep spinning or risk the latency of a spin-up when the data is requested.

And NAND cell tech is not standing still. I've read another article (looking for the link) about newer cell tech that greatly reduces write fatigue.

And...there's the photolithography process itself. New ultra UV laser tech is being prepared so that the 10nm barrier can be broken. The power consumption and efficiency are crap at the moment, so this tech is a few years down the line.

And there's lots more where that came from.

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Aug 10 2013 6:54 utc | 20

Obama cant stop hating Putin.

Besides Mr Obama, its often the bored kids that are the most interested and also often the smartest, not the one sitting in the brown-nosing-the-teacher-front-row where you come from.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 10 2013 7:56 utc | 21

'It's amazing how the LGBT movement has been completely coopted, and turned from radical outsiders to another cog in the machine.'

not really, just as people were coopted thru the media to wage war on syria

most people are naive and trusting

Posted by: brian | Aug 10 2013 8:00 utc | 22

It is both hilarious and sad that 0bama complained to Jay Leno about Putin - as though he hopes Jay can call Vlad's parents and tell them to have Vlad quit stealing little 0bama's lunch money every day. It is just pathetic for a President to go on a talk show and complain about another country's leader. Very beneath the office.


"Teacher, teacher, bad Vlad stole my lunch money on the playground and teased me real bad!"

Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 10 2013 11:31 utc | 23

Cynthia | Aug 10, 2013 7:31:15 AM @ 23.

Yep. And one could add dangerously stupid.
Corporate Sport, imo, fills the role of Bread & Circuses in today's world. I'm curious to see what happens in Sochi IF O'Drama calls for a boycott. I suspect that sports fans wouldn't give a tinker's cuss what O'Drama thinks about the Olympics. And Olympians the people who pull ligaments and crack bones to get on the start line of an Olympic event would be outraged by the mere suggestion.

The only way O'Drama can negatively impact the games is to order his Western satraps to ban attendance and/or participation. But it's a good way for him to further publicise the fact that, when it comes to being a good sport, O'Drama Queen isn't.

It would be nice if Putin brushed him off, publicly, as the Gay Cavalier. But I'm sure he's not that petty.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 10 2013 14:34 utc | 24

Obama is a puppet, as were ALL modern day USA presidents.He will do and say what the real rulers of the american empire want. They have all been merely front men, with limited autonomy. Obama, through the efforts of his speech writers, and a good delivery, was vetted to still the bleating of the american minorities, so the empire could work their magic globally.

This is encouraging:

Posted by: ben | Aug 10 2013 14:59 utc | 25

Obama does not care about protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. That includes ordinary citizens who are either gay and lesbian. This is why I see all of this Russian LGBT rights bashing coming out of the White House as nothing more than just Obama kowtowing to the rich and powerful in the LGBT community:

Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 10 2013 15:01 utc | 26

Obama isn't even really black. He counts himself above others, he might have empathized and fancied black American cultural mores. However this man is part of the global elite. Pure and simple, he lied to America and whoever continues to believe is a pendejo.
He is a liar, a cheat, a butcher, a murderer, a crook. What did he steal? He stole our hope
Who did he cheat?
America and the world, cheated by saving those doomed companies that should have failed, saved them with the people's money.
He was given a Nobel without having done a thing to deserve it.
He is the butcher of Afghans, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Libyans and Syrians.
Putin is like the reverse of Obama.
What a sad baby Obama is.

Posted by: Fernando | Aug 10 2013 17:46 utc | 27

on the LGBT movement and Soros in the ME (and lots more); it's psychological warfare;

by Gilad Atmon:

Posted by: claudio | Aug 11 2013 0:29 utc | 28

@Mr Pragma (15)
Unless you think that all straights are just suppressing their inner gayness, presenting LGBT as normal will not turn kids gay, it will just decrease gay-bashing and the all to frequent suicides among kids who are feeling attracted to other kids of the same gender. Hardly a dastardly plot.

No, the LGBT rights is just a stick to beat Russia with over Snowden. In particular since an Olympics is otherwise an opportunity for improving the national brand (in addition to the corrupt construction and land-theft that always goes with Olympic games). And disloyal states does not get to glorify themselves as much as loyal states.

So does anyone remember why it was the China olympics was to be boycotted?

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Aug 11 2013 13:21 utc | 29

Page Not Found?
It looks as if Gilad might have called those thoughts back. Pity if he did.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 11 2013 14:11 utc | 30

Bevin (@c30)
The URL is broken over multiple lines. Try this link.

Posted by: Philippe | Aug 11 2013 14:43 utc | 31

re Page not Found

Well, his blog is still there; complete with the 'not found' article. That's effing Google et al I suppose. A week or so ago someone posted a link here to Drudge or some such and I got a "Forbidden" message. An 'android' tablet is even worse - when it's not 'finding' things one didn't ask for, it's Forbidding things one did.

Re Gilad; I'm not aware that he or anyone else has removed things from his blog. I've persuaded myself that its continuing, politically incorrect, existence in the UK is a form of Brit nudge & wink Balfour atonement...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 11 2013 15:12 utc | 32

sorry, my fault; the link:

Posted by: claudio | Aug 11 2013 15:17 utc | 33

Claudio, thanks for the link, which really does work.
The article itself is superb, Atzmon is at his best: nobody earned his enemies more honestly.
Hoarsewhisperer: you are right, and I ought to know better than to suspect that Atzmon would recall his ideas.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 11 2013 18:16 utc | 34

LGBT Inc. in the USSA is a wholly owned military subsidiary. Do you not remember Lisa L Williams and SF Gay Pride Inc. on Bradley Manning?

Posted by: john francis lee | Aug 11 2013 21:12 utc | 35

@34, none the wiser: Is Atzmon opposed to BDS in principle or because it has been hijacked by stealth Zionists?

Posted by: ruralito | Aug 11 2013 22:32 utc | 36

"Is Atzmon opposed to BDS in principle or because it has been hijacked by stealth Zionists?"
You'll have to ask him-I don't follow these debates very closely so I don't know. But I suspect the latter.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 12 2013 2:49 utc | 37

How much that Russian law really touches on "rights" is not yet obvious to me.

"The Kremlin Stooge" translated the law:

Propaganda of homosexuality among minors -

is punishable by an administrative fine for citizens in the amount of four thousand to five thousand rubles; for officials –forty thousand to fifty thousand rubles; for legal entities – four hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles”;

Propaganda of homosexuality in Russia took a wide sweep. This propaganda is delivered both through the media and through active social actions that promote homosexuality as a behavioral norm. It is especially dangerous for children and youth who are not yet capable of a critical attitude to the avalanche of information that falls upon them every day. In this regard, it is necessary to primarily protect the younger generation from the effects of homosexual propaganda, and the present bill pursues this goal...

...Given the above, a bill suggesting amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences was prepared to introduce administrative responsibility for propaganda of homosexuality among minors. In this case, administrative responsibility is established not for the sheer fact of the person’s homosexuality, but only for propaganda of homosexuality among minors.

This bill imposes the right to make records of administrative offences for public actions aimed at propaganda of homosexuality among minors on the law enforcement officials (the Police), and trial of cases of administrative offences– on the judges.

Maybe we should compare this law with the "right" to sell porn - how many countries in the west allow a sex shop in front of a school, or in front of a church? Or the "right" to sell booze - How many countries in the west allow the sale of alcohol to minors?

This new episode has nothing to do with a new russian law, it's just another facet of commies eat babies, shameless propaganda. What really puzzles me is how people still fall for it. Pavlov, maybe?

Posted by: estouxim | Aug 12 2013 3:13 utc | 38

obviously, it depends how those "propaganda" laws are applied - is it enough to kiss your partner when minors are around?

and obviously, the outrage is fabricated and politically instrumentalized as long as more outrage is not directed at Saudi Arabia.

Russian and Ukrainian society is homophobic, so yes I support LGBT people to fight for their rights in Russia they have a long way to go. Being supported for a different political agenda does not help their case at all.

Historically the Soviet Union was more enlightened on sexuality than the West until Stalin made a deal with the Orthodox church. It is the Russian Orthodox Church and the way Putin uses the church for Russian identity, that is the major issue. Having an interviewer ask him if his divorce is contrary to church rules and answering that it is not as he was not religiously married to his wife, is one of the many ironies of this approach.

At present, stable and mutually beneficial relationships have been established between the political elite of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. The President Dmitry Medvedev, and especially his wife, regularly go to church and participate in various religious holidays. The Russian Orthodox Church is virtually the only all-Russia independent public organization which enjoys popularity and confidence among the population. Apart from that, the ROC has virtually retained its influence over nearly the entire territory of the former USSR, which is also efficiently used by the government. There has been established an organization named Worldwide Russian People Council whose mission includes the resolution of spiritual issues in Russia as well as working with compatriots abroad. Higher officials of the Kremlin, including Vladimir Putin, take part in the sessions of the Council. Patriarch of Moscow an All Russia Kirill is the head of the Council.

Recently, a real political union Between the Kremlin and Orthodox faith has been
outlined. This is attributed to serious ideological issues inside the ruling establishment. 

The United Russia party virtually lacks political ideology: on the one hand, right liberal views predominate within the party and the government, while on the other, they are vigorously rejected by the population which is why the leaders of the state have to make populist political declarations of patriotic or even socialist nature. In case of the union with the Kremlin, the Orthodox Church due to its authority could spiritualize, sacralize the power, and ensure it with complementary legitimation.

To confirm this thesis, on 8th July an announcement was made that further on
in accordance with a preliminary accord the United Russia would agree drafts with
Moscow patriarchate. Moreover, for quite a long time and not without success, the
church has been speaking for the introduction into secondary school curricular of a subject named ‘the fundamentals of Orthodox culture’. The church is actively involved into the activities of the army and unit of the Ministry of Internal affairs.

However, there are some issues between the church and the government which
have not been solved so far. Among the ruling elite firm position is held by pragmatic liberals who negatively think of initiatives to merge the church and the power and regard the ROC as a competitor for economic assets and another irrational entity to influence the Kremlin policy. Among the Orthodox, the ideas about establishing Russia as a monarchy are quite popular, which would not be right for everybody. There is a serious conflict between the ROC and museums who occupy the premises which had belonged to the church before 1917 and which the church claims for. A number of problems also occurs as to the double function of values, icons first of all: the patriarchate asks a museum to transport an icon to a church for worshipping, but the administration of a museum refuses alleging possible damage inflicted during a transportation or improper storage.

One more fact is concerned with different views on the history of Russia. It is
known that Moscow is often criticized from the part of Eastern Europe and a number of international organizations for the Soviet regime crimes. In particular, on 3rd July the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe approved of Vilnius Declaration according to which the blame of launching the World War II is laid equally on Hitlerite and Soviet regimes. Such decisions to great extent strain relations between Russia and the West, and Moscow ends to negatively respond to anti-Russia initiatives of such sort.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 12 2013 6:32 utc | 39

actually, the existence of the journal I quoted above and the fact that Russia - St Petersburg - establishes a political science around this subject - probably is an indication that Russians have some competitive edge here.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 12 2013 6:39 utc | 40

@ruralito #36

Is Atzmon opposed to BDS in principle or because it has been hijacked by stealth Zionists?

Atzmon's answer in

Anyone who participates in boycotting, divesting from or sanctioning anything that supports Israel is part of BDS ... There is no single standard for BDS, no single person who speaks for the entire movement, no wrong way to practice BDS

To be sure, there is a group calling itself the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC). However, that group appears to speak less for Palestinians and more for western groups, with carefully crafted policies and statements designed to assure that Zionists critical of Israel are not offended by anti-Zionist statements


This is not to say that the anachronistically-named BNC is not performing a useful function by organizing a section of the BDS movement. All BDS efforts are welcome


No group should claim to set the standard for everyone else, but all should be transparent about who they are, whom they represent and the processes and motivations that drive their statements and policies.

Posted by: claudio | Aug 12 2013 8:34 utc | 41

Russian and Ukrainian society is homophobic, so yes I support LGBT people to fight for their rights

Et voila, there you got it, that reliable indicator ...

"homophobic", "fight for their rights"? Once more I find somebody realiably siding up with what certain people in a shitty little country want.

Now, just suppose for a moment that I liked to fart. Isn't farting my right? How about next to you while you eat? Or how about on the stairs, right into your face?
Or, let's go a step further, let's sh*t in front of other people, possibly in a restaurant or, as you don't care about children, in class. Being a biological function,taking a sh*t is sure enough a right and one should think that it's just fine to fight for the "right" to take a sh*t no matter where and when.

Of course not.

If you did it, sure enough, quite soon some police officer would take you away or someone would simply beat the sh*t out of you.

Let me be clear: I wouldn't tolerate a situation where a gay person got into trouble just for being gay, I'd stand up for him/her. If, however, I saw that gay person "fighting for his rights", I' happily look away if police beat him up.

The right to live your sexuality in peace - you have it. The right to unnerve and molest other people with your stupid fights for made up "rights" - no way. The right to blow your shit into my kids brains - I'd rather pale you.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 12 2013 8:46 utc | 42

+972 Magazine is especially irritating in this respect. One could almost imagine that they exist in order to maintain a phantom 'liberal Left' for Israelis, in order to waste time and energy that might otherwise be devoted to real leftism. I have told them so, once or twice, but they're set in their ways.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 12 2013 9:12 utc | 43

42) Well, let's assume that homosexuality is genetic (that is the state of research), i.e. something kids find out about themselves when they are 12 to 14 and possibly earlier than that ...

What do you think is the psychological effect when adults are only allowed to talk to them about heterosexual relationships? How do you think your kids feel when they know their sexuality does not work that way?

Noone is blowing shit into your kids brains, they get born that way. By the way, "paling" is a figure of speech for what? Vigilante justice?

Posted by: somebody | Aug 12 2013 9:32 utc | 44


paling stands for driving a wooden pole through someones intestines. In case, my english (once more) is insufficient just feel free to replace it by any act of brutal and cruel application of force.

As for the matter itself things aren't as simple. How would one, for instance, make assumptions about homosexuality, a sexual orientation, when even the sex itself is hotly debated (coming from the same corner as the lgbt shit). Actually many in academia (western academia, that is) seriously explain that the human gender is for the most part the result of socialisation - excuse me, I just had to bite my carpet.

Yes, those braindead acadumbians seriously contend the human sex to not be biolgically but socially determined.

And those same zombies now want to tell us the truth about lbgt and their right to fight?

Know what? They should have spent another year or two to discover that a right to fight brings a right to fight back with it.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 12 2013 9:46 utc | 45

45) thanks for the explicit description of paling. Should you ever act on it I would consider you a criminal murderer not the person who dared to talk about homosexuality to a minor.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 12 2013 9:58 utc | 46

It is the Russian Orthodox Church and the way Putin uses the church for Russian identity, that is the major issue.

Cheers for the ROC for Supporting Syria and the Syrian people.

Posted by: hans | Aug 12 2013 10:32 utc | 47

Thrusting a sharp wooden stick into another's belly (paling, according to Mr Pragma) seems to me to be one of the few forms of penetration that the state ought to take exception to.

The most dangerous and perverse form of sexual activity is the compulsion to control the activities of others. This includes that form of oral sex which consists of telling whole nations how to conduct themselves.

It is always useful to bear in mind that rape is as central to imperialism as murder and pillage. So imperialists, particularly those of mixed race, are not well positioned to lecture humanity about love.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 12 2013 13:36 utc | 48

Somebody, does it not seem to you very improbable that homosexuality or heterosexuality are genetically determined?

I cannot imagine how such a theory could be established and it seems exceedingly likely that socialisation plays the dominant role in determining our sexual tastes.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 12 2013 13:43 utc | 49

Another pretext to bash Russia.The Zionists and Jews hate Russia because of historical antisemitism and that BS about "Let our people go"when most of the fifth columnists left Russia mostly for here in America to buttress our own fifth columnist malignant entity,the Zionists.
And since when is another countries internal business ours,nobody is being killed for being gay(what a misnomer)and pinkwashing is the only weapon left in the quiver of the monsters,as every other load of BS has been exposed as such,and if you think Americans in general are gonna go to war for sexual preference, think again.(In fact,it probably makes Putin look good to Americans,as our people are mostly not receptive also to this homonazi and feminazi crap,which if one examines,is prevalent among those practitioners of racial superiority,and whats up with that,domineering mothers?Sheesh and you wonder why they invented psychiatry.)
And,to my mind,gay soldiers and women warriors is probably our best hope of destroying the cohesiveness of our armed forces,and I'd love to see that,as to me they are the most destructive and out of control force in this world,and need to come home to America and defend our freakin borders and protect US from Canada and Mexico,those two Wehrmacht imitating neighbors(snark)instead of being the Israeli security and expansion enabler.

Posted by: dahoit | Aug 12 2013 14:39 utc | 50

49) how so, when homosexuality was stigmatized throughout the history of the Catholic church and yet ...

Seriously, it is state of research though they call it "epigenetic".

Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children.

A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother.

The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.

Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks — extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed. These epi-marks are usually, but not always, "erased" between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased — they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son, explains William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author of the study.

Of course people's sexuality is very diverse and most of us can enjoy it both ways (that is what homophobes find impossible to admit, and that is why they react so strongly). However most people have a preference and to suppress sexual preference is difficult if not impossible for any culture, education or socialization.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 12 2013 15:45 utc | 51


It is this insidious implication that gives you away.

Of course people's sexuality is very diverse and most of us can enjoy it both ways (that is what homophobes find impossible to admit, and that is why they react so strongly).

So, it's the heterosexuals who are actually the perverse and psychologicaly cracked who supress what the lbgt proponents declare as the natural standard.

Yeah, right. And dolphins are actually cows who have been socialized to prefer swimming ...

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 12 2013 15:56 utc | 52

... and it seems exceedingly likely that socialisation plays the dominant role in determining our sexual tastes.
Posted by: bevin | Aug 12, 2013 9:43:11 AM | 49

By what (precise or otherwise) mechanism, pray tell?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 12 2013 15:58 utc | 53

52) do you think this fantasy from 45)

paling stands for driving a wooden pole through someones intestines. In case, my english (once more) is insufficient just feel free to replace it by any act of brutal and cruel application of force.

is normal?

Posted by: somebody | Aug 12 2013 16:38 utc | 54

@somebody #51

it is state of research though they call it "epigenetic"
my feeling is that they don't know what they are talking about, but know very well what sort of theories or "research" will get headlines on mainstream press

Posted by: claudio | Aug 12 2013 17:42 utc | 55


shalom (that's the correct way to greet you, no?)

You forgot a small but important detail: My remark wasn't in the context of sexual phantasies but referring to what I consider appropriate when lbgt activists want to brainwash kids in schools and dump their weird dirt into childrens minds as "normal".

Just look at it constructively. You claim it to be OK to dump your sexual preferences into the minds of defenseless kids. Well, I consider it OK to protect children; if doing so is supported by or requires ripping out the intestines of lbgt activists, well so be it.

Or did you mean *your* right to fight is OK but mine isn't?

You and your lgbt friends just don't get the message, do you? The "evil Russians" who beat lgbt activists don't do that because their "victims" are gay but because those assh*les molest and terrorize others with their sexual quirks and, even worse, because they try hard to spoil our children.

In the end it comes down to a simple question: What's worth more, the freedom of propaganda for lgbt activists or the well being of our kids?

It's up to you to find the right answer, be it intellectually or be it very physically right in your intestines ...

Now you call me a bad guy? I couldn't care less.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 12 2013 17:44 utc | 56

"By what (precise or otherwise) mechanism..."
The senses? Eyes, ears and so on. Learning. Thinking about experience...
What do you think? That tastes are genetically inherited? If they are then, are character traits, too?
Don't trouble yourself with an answer, this thread is getting out of hand.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 12 2013 18:21 utc | 57

bevin (57)

I'm afraid you are wrong here. Although it should be mentioned for fairness sake that your pov is heavily propagated throughout (western) "science" circles.

But: It's not just badly wrong but the whole "gender research" has meanwhile been proven scientifically as being without any basis and merit, in other word, that whole gender bullshit was merely politically driven.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 12 2013 19:13 utc | 58

@Mr. Pragma:

"Impaling" may be the term you are seeking; as in Vlad the Impaler. Frankly, your description of paling brings to my mind other murders of gay people, as in Marlowe's Edward II. Since the Russian law deals particularly with GLBT "propaganda" aimed at minors, it may spring from some of the same misconceptions about pedophiles that have been aired during the pedophile priest scandals in America.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same. Pedophiles prey on children. Even though American pop-culture glorifies and sexualizes youth, gay men are no more likely to chase after teenage boys than straight men are likely to chase after teenage girls -- while a small percentage do, most don't. Russian children and teens do not need any more protection from GLBT adults than they do from straight adults.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Aug 12 2013 19:26 utc | 59

56) Your kids expect you to explain the world, no? Or at least tell the facts of life. You think their well being is served if you refuse to talk about homosexuality? Or refuse to accept their coming out in case they are the 1 - 3 percent of the population who are, indeed, completely gay.
57) Bevin, it is bound to be all of it. The self identification as gay and the identity politics surrounding it, is cultural Western as is the mix of marriage, love and sexuality. Different cultures have different solutions for it, but homosexuality occurs everywhere so it is unlikely to be cultural only.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 12 2013 19:32 utc | 60

bevin @ 57.

It's no trouble. The thread may be getting out of hand but I considered the OT-ishness of the question before posing it. The reason I asked is because I don't agree with your view (which doesn't make it wrong, btw), partly because it runs counter to my own enquiries and partly because I have never heard it persuasively or rationally articulated. And I thought that if anyone could fill that vaccuum it might be your good, articulate, clear-thinking self.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 12 2013 19:38 utc | 61

"most of us can enjoy it both ways"

Ok, let me stop you right there. You just said it was "diverse" implying more than two ways. And how do you know anyway? Do you know "most" people.

"shalom (that's the correct way to greet you, no?)"
What are you implying M. P? That somebody[sic] is a covert Zionist?

Posted by: ruralito | Aug 12 2013 19:46 utc | 62

Boycotting the Olympics did not work out well for Jimmy Carter. I doubt that Obama will want to deal with the fallout from all of those disappointed American athletes and their supporters. He's just using the GLBT issue as a distraction to avoid talking about Snowden and Syria. If it nets him some more wealthy GLBT donors, that would be a bonus.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Aug 12 2013 19:46 utc | 63

62) you are right, I am guessing ...

however there is this list of mammals displaying homosexual behaviour :-))

Posted by: somebody | Aug 12 2013 19:58 utc | 64

Then again, maybe the Russians heard about the Robert Mapplethorpe Children's Museum and didn't know that the Onion is satire.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Aug 12 2013 21:56 utc | 65

@64 "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals."


Posted by: ruralito | Aug 12 2013 23:24 utc | 66

somebody@44 Well, let's assume that homosexuality is genetic (that is the state of research)

Why should we assume it? Plain common sense should prevent us from assuming that, or other supposedly genetic caused behavior, even if they make headlines every other day: Scientists search (or find) the gene for drug addiction, or the gene for shoplifting, the gene for car-speeding, such garbage is popular with newspaper editors. And for a number of reasons, none of which as to do with science, in this brave new world of privatized science such self-named research gets funding.

This August 8th Counterpunch article by Jonathan Latham Political Paralysis and the Genetics Agenda explains some of the background to this absurdity:

Most directly of all, there is clear evidence that the search for genetic predispositions is the centerpiece of a longterm corporate agenda whose purpose is to sway public opinion. It began in the 1960s with the tobacco industry at a time when smoking was first implicated in lung cancer. The strategic purpose was to deflect the public fear of smoking, minimize the likely policy responses, and eliminate potential legal expenses, by funding, encouraging, and then exploiting, human genetic research. This could be done, so the industry thought, by building from scratch a science of genetic risk factors.

The tobacco industry also pioneered ‘behavioral genetics’. The idea that even addiction to cigarettes was a genetic phenomenon (and not a characteristic of cigarettes or tobacco) originated with the tobacco industry. The consistent aim behind promoting genetics, according to a memo written by Fred R. Panzer, Vice President of Public Relations for the Tobacco Institute, was to change the focus of attention “from one product to a type of person”.

So, if we don't assume the genetics, and assume instead that sexual orientation is mainly a result of the sociocultural environment, that present day pop culture glorifies "non-traditional sexual relationships" and that pop culture emanates from the anglo-saxon world the question that must be asked is, must Russian society (or any society, for that matter) submit to and adopt anglo-saxon pop culture?

Let's look at it from the perspective of the Belfast Orange marches. The loyalist consider they have the right to march trough the catholic neighborhoods. Irish catholics consider that an aggression. Should the march be allowed? Aparently, for the sake of some measure of peace, a wall blocks the parade, and for a change the cops pay the price.
Now, replace Belfast with Moscow, Orange march with gay pride parade, and catholics with the russian, now orthodox, majority. Should we agree that they must submit to a minuscule group that claims the right to march their ensigns through the center of Moscow as stormtroopers of western pop culture, knowing full well that will be offensive to the majority? I don't think so. I think that the ban on gay pride parades in both Leningrad, sorry, St Petersburg, and Moscow is perfectly reasonable, and I think the amendment to the childhood protection law is defensible as well.

Elle n´a pas encor de plumes
La flèch´ qui doit percer son flanc
Et dans son cœur rien ne s´allume
Quand elle cède à ses galants
Elle se rit bien des gondoles
Des fleurs bleues, des galants discours
Des Vénus de la vieille école
Cell´s qui font l´amour par amour

N´allez pas croire davantage
Que le démon brûle son corps
Il s´arrête au premier étage
Son septième ciel, et encor
Elle n´est jamais langoureuse
Passée par le pont des soupirs
Et voit comm´ des bêtes curieuses
Cell´s qui font l´amour par plaisir

Croyez pas qu´elle soit à vendre
Quand on l´a mise sur le dos
On n´est pas tenu de se fendre
D´un somptueux petit cadeau
Avant d´aller en bacchanale
Ell´ présente pas un devis
Ell´ n´a rien de ces bell´s vénales
Cell´s qui font l´amour par profit

Mais alors, pourquoi cède-t-elle
Sans cœur, sans lucre, sans plaisir
Si l´amour vaut pas la chandelle
Pourquoi le joue-t-elle à loisir
Si quiconque peut, sans ambages
L´aider à dégrafer sa rob´
C´est parc´ qu´ell´ veut être à la page
Que c´est la mode et qu´elle est snob

Mais changent coutumes et filles
Un jour, peut-être, en son sein nu
Va se planter pour tout´ la vie
Une petite flèch´ perdue
On n´verra plus qu´elle en gondole
Elle ira jouer, à son tour
Les Vénus de la vieille école
Cell´s qui font l´amour par amour

Georges Brassens
“Le Mouton de Panurge”

Posted by: estouxim | Aug 13 2013 3:05 utc | 67

67) You forget that gay research (and the fight for gay rights) has a tradition in Germany reaching back to the 19th century i.e. pre the 1960's industrial lobbying you quote (what should the industrial interest be - treatment? - I doubt people would buy that, neither do I buy your argument) and all research back to the 19th century assumes as evident that people are born with sexual orientation not that they acquire it by education (education has always tried to rid them of sexual orientation)

There is nil research claiming people acquire sexual orientation by indoctrination or environment, if you want to argue that quote the research.

Gay rights are about personal freedom, and the Russian atmosphere created by "propaganda laws" is toxic. It is not the fault of gay activists that they get used for political reasons by the US government.

Genetics is an ethical and political powder box. To close your eyes and pretend it does not exist does not help.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 13 2013 5:30 utc | 68

67) With that argument - demonstrations are offensive to the majority - no demonstration, ever, could take place.
That argument would also be the end of any new idea. Remember, the Catholic church (the majority then) found the idea of a world that was not flat very offensive.
People are better off in the end accepting that other people express their opinion. Those people could be right.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 13 2013 5:35 utc | 69

Rusty Pipes (59)

Thank you. As so - or too - often my english is lacking. Thanks for the correction and hint.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same. ...

I know that and I do not wish to imply that lgbts are in any way pedophile (nor any other negative).

The reason for children coming into this is that the lgbt very much strive to "educate" people and particularly (school)kids about lgbt being "normal and healthy".

zomebody (60)

Your kids expect you to explain the world, no? Or at least tell the facts of life. You think their well being is served if you refuse to talk about homosexuality? Or refuse to accept their coming out in case they are the 1 - 3 percent of the population who are, indeed, completely gay.

You are right, there, but you fail to underline "you". It's *ME* and the mother, the grandparents, in short the family of the kids to explain and deal with that.

That's a very decisive difference. Like in "It's also OK for parents to touch the private parts of their children (to clean them, apply medicine, etc) but not for others".

It might surprise you but I wouldn't have the slightest problem if a kid of mine was gay. That's not the point, I have no problems with gays.

The problem is what you and lgbt activists call their "fight for their (made up) rights" and particularly their insane and evil attempts to establish their weird and rotten views as "normal" in schools or otherwise in public.

ruralito (62)

What are you implying M. P? That somebody[sic] is a covert Zionist?

Well, he quite reliably has a zionist position and fights for zionist waste.

ruralito (66)

Careful there! *g

The mit (in zusa) just recently blocked access to Shakespears Hamlet due to "violent content".


@ estouxim (67)

Whatever. After lots and lots of strongly biased, groundless and completely rotten and made up "gender research" both the relevant branches of psychology as well as sociology (in general) have lost whatever credibility they may have had.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 13 2013 5:39 utc | 70


The problem is what you and lgbt activists call their "fight for their (made up) rights" and particularly their insane and evil attempts to establish their weird and rotten views as "normal" in schools or otherwise in public.

So you agree it is about is suppressing opinion? Or how would you define "propaganda"?

How can anybody "make up" rights? Either you got them or you haven't, either you can have a civil marriage document with all the obligations and advantages that carries or you can't. Either you are discriminated against or you aren't. You might not get what you are fighting for, but there is no way you can make up anything you have not got and feel you should get.

All LGBT activists insist on is that school kids who feel they are gay get informed that it is okay. And that their class mates get informed that it is okay. Otherwise gay kids get mobbed mercilessly in puberty.
They get mobbed in the enlightened Federal Republic of Germany I am told though the atmosphere generally is quite gay friendly. I do not want to imagine what it feels like in Russia.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 13 2013 7:03 utc | 71

zomebody (71)

Try your tricks on someone else.

How can anybody "make up" rights? Either you got them or you haven't, either you can have a civil marriage document with all the obligations and advantages that carries or you can't. Either you are discriminated against or you aren't. You might not get what you are fighting for, but there is no way you can make up anything you have not got and feel you should get.

You put marriage, an official and legally established act right next to being discriminated, which is largely an issue of subjective perception.

That's how you want to establish "discrimination" and lgbt "rights"? Ridiculous. Tell your handlers in tel aviv to have their cut-outs and go-fors better trained.

All LGBT activists insist on is that school kids who feel they are gay get informed that it is okay. And that their class mates get informed that it is okay.

How about me fighting for my "right" to have your house searched by police twice a week? Or, more importantly, how about the right of Russians to defend their culture and their kids against lgbt thugs and social terrorists?

You just don't get the point.

There simply is *no* right whatsoever concerning other peoples children. It's up to the parents to take care of their childrens education.
That's what I said. The "rights" of the lgbt social terrorists are made up. And frankly, all they really want is to disturb the social fabric of countries and to recruit fresh meat for their sexual desires.

The vast majority of Russians agree with Putin (and myself). They don't want to have their society destroyed and smashed by zionist dissolution tactics.

Doesn't it strike you that there might be a correlation between Russia being immensely strong and Russians defending their culture, their society, and their children?

It's simple. With sarkozy, merkel, obama and the like the zionists can impose their will upon people and destroy their countries. With Putin they fail.
That whole lgbt issue has just one reason and one goal, to weaken Russia by using the zionists western puppets and servants along with a lot of lgbt biowaste and their shrieking noise.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 13 2013 8:15 utc | 72

72) I realize perception does not equal reality, I do wonder however how a country with a GDP per capita below Greece forced into high military expenditure dwarfed by neighbouring NATO or China can be perceived as strong.
The old order of huge blocks dividing the world is over, Putin like Obama has to deal with the spheres of influence that are left. The quality of people's lives depends on security, peace, economic development and personal freedom, not on imaginary strength.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 13 2013 9:28 utc | 73


Your vain attempts get ever more ridiculous.

Sure, one can judge a country by gdp. One can, however, also judge it by coherence, military power, surviving the financial crisis quite well or by not having tens of trillions debts.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 13 2013 9:41 utc | 74

74) don't know where you get your information, do you dream it up?

This here is 2013 Pravda putting on an optimistic face in support of present power brokers:
Russia braces up for another wave of economic crisis

Does Russia have reserves to avoid economic collapse?

Many experts, including those with highly authoritative Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank of the G7 and G20 determined that the country does not have such reserves.

However, the Ministry for Economic Development is more optimistic. First of all, Russian experts point out an opportunity of additional investment. Gross and national savings, that is, Russia's financial resource for investment, is one of the largest in the world. It accounts for about 30 percent of GDP, while investments in fixed capital do not exceed 20 percent; the rest is wired abroad. The state should create economic and legal incentives that would give an opportunity to reach investments measuring 25, and in the future - 30 percent of GDP.

The structure of exports should be changed too by increasing overseas sales of non-energy goods, including engineering products. Today, producing such product at $173 billion, Russian exports of engineering products worth only $27 billion. The figures, as Mr. Belousov emphasized, were shameful. The same amounts were exported by Taiwan and South Korea 20 years ago. The Philippines exported similar amounts ten years ago. Russia may increase engineering exports by the end of the decade at least up to 60-65 billion dollars, and by 2025 to $120 billion.

It is also possible to dramatically increase the labor productivity, on which Russia lags behind the United States (36 per cent of the U.S. level) and Europe - 45 per cent. In medium and high-tech industries, the gap is much, much larger. The consumption of GDP per capita on average accounts for 60 percent of the European level. The country thus lives beyond its means, consuming more than it produces. Meanwhile, Russian companies have very good opportunities to increase productivity by introducing new domestic and foreign technologies, until it is possible to replace raw materials with advanced developments.

In a diplomatically veiled fashion, the minister described as unsuccessful the concept of the use of the assets of both the Reserve Fund and the National Welfare Fund. During the times of Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, significant additional funds from energy exports, collected in these funds, were used to acquire U.S. securities. The funds were thus working for the U.S. economy. Probably for this reason, some Western connoisseurs described Kudrin as "the best finance minister", without specifying the country. The assets from the funds should be used in infrastructure projects, the minister added, to develop transport, logistics and communications to enable the movement of human and material resources. Otherwise, the funds will evaporate in two or three years and the country will have nothing to protect itself from a new attack of the crisis.

Undoubtedly, the domestic economy has extremely disturbing prospects. However, unlike in the previous years, when there were illiterate and unprofessional people in economy, the sitting leadership of the Ministry for Economic Development has a clear understanding of economic realities.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 13 2013 10:19 utc | 75

These western institutions have been predicting the imminent economic collapse/demise of Russia for ten years now with a new "economic crisis" on the horizon" almost daily. Just scan Google/yahoo and you'll find countless articles from numerous western think tanks and economic rags going back a decade predicting disaster to no avail.

The western press' track record On Russian economic matters are about as good Israel's when it comes to predicting when Iran will get nuclear weapons (hint; it's been "within 6 months" going back to 1982). When Russia said it would diversify it's energy assets with pipelines to Asia back in 2008 to offset the bitching coming from Europe about Russia holding them hostage, there were all kinds of articles claiming that it wasn't possible and that Russia lacked the infrastructure and technical know-how to do it. Lo and behold five years later, we now have the western press pissing their pants wondering how they did it. Russia has the lowest debt it has seen in decades, a large cash surplus and a steadily-increasing standard of living. I'm willing to bet that the US economy, which has to raise it's debt ceiling regularly in order to avoid a default and in which surveys of business leaders suggest only 20% expect the U.S. dollar to still be the world’s reserve currency by 2025 (I'm betting it'll be sooner than that), will go bottom up before Russia does.

We'll see if any of these dire predictions about Russia's economy comes to fruition.......

I'm willing to bet that this will be another in a long line of failed predictions as wages continue to increase and the GDP continues to grow.

Posted by: RC | Aug 13 2013 17:47 utc | 76

It's real easy to "cherry pick" doom and gloom in the western press when it comes to Russia, but the FACT remains that the reason we're hearing so much demonization coming from the west is because Russia IS getting stronger economically and geo-politically. The data from the World bank for 2012 is finally out, as preliminary data indicated, Russia did indeed overtake Germany in economic output and became the largest economy in Europe and the 5th largest in the world.

On the GDP per capita side, Russia continued to close the gap with the west with its GDP per capita rising to 65% of British and French levels. It seems that Russia will overtake Greece in per capita terms this year as in 2012, it reached 95% of Greek levels and the continued decline in economic output in Greece and increase in economic output in Russia is bound to equalize their GDP per capita's.

In addition, Russia's GDP per capita has reached 47% of American levels, a level which the Soviet Union was never able to attain, it failed to lift its GDP per capita above 40% of American levels. Russia today is closer to the west in terms of economic development than it has ever been in the past. In this sense, the current government of Russia has been more successful than any in the past in achieving economic convergence with the west.

Posted by: RC | Aug 13 2013 17:52 utc | 77


You are, of course, right. I did not respond to zomebody, however, because it gets boring to play his game "I put some bullshit and zio prop there and you must jump and clean it away".

One important point, for instance, is that gdp is a) a capital oriented/based criterion that has a lot of weight in the zusa + satellites, colonies and rectal cleaner "hemisphere" only and b) gdp is relative. If I can enjoy comparable life and life quality somewhere with half the income then "only half the gdp" quickly turns treacherous.

Also, the conditions and start points must be seen.
When Russia was (re)born after the fall of the Sowjets, zusa was near its zenith and Russia was basically broken. Even worse, Russia then was plundered and crashed by the zio-zusa thugs and their willing Russian accomplices in crime (e.g. jelzin) and what little had survived was crashed again and worse.
What we call "Russia" actually took its first breath around 2000 with Putin.

So, we have, if we want to compare, to compare the last ca. 15 years, during which zusa consistently and unstoppably declined and decayed while Russia rapidly and very strongly recovered and grew.
Today its not anymore Russia who must be afraid of zusa; it's the other way around and while zusa must strike here and there and considerably shrink their military, Russia can afford and does recover and upgrade their military. While zusa looses more and more of what little respect it could still enjoy, Russia strongly gained and gains in respect and relations. While people all over the world laugh about obama, mc cain't, and palin and other retards and liars, Putin is respected, maybe hated by some but respected - and well deservedly so.

And, this shouldn't be ignored, what Russia achieved couldn't be done in peace, no, it happened under a barrage of social terrorism, while being - illegitimately - encircled by the west and molested, attacked and terrorized by all means except direct open military war.

obama won't meet Putin at St. Petersburg? So what, that just gives Putin time to do more important things like watching branches of trees move. The zameritards might boycott Sochi? So what, it will turn against them, not against Russia.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 13 2013 18:36 utc | 78

78 using the World Bank Data from 77 I find a rise of US GDP from 2008 to 2012 from 14,219,300,000,000 to 15,684,800,000,000 compared to Russia from 2,878,201,301,032 to 3,373,163,707,798. I seriously do not know what you base your "decline of the US" on except wishful thinking.
Taking into account that Russia owns the largest oil and gas reserves of the world (though difficult to extract) and is the second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia, plus taking into account that GDP per capita varies widely within the Russian Federation, I keep my fingers crossed for the Russian economy.
Russia/the Soviet Union (Iran, Al Qaida ...) has always been demonized into something much bigger than it ever was. So when you paint it into something it just isn't you play into the hands of bureaucracies that get funded to fight it.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 13 2013 19:15 utc | 79

"Different cultures have different solutions for it, but homosexuality occurs everywhere so it is unlikely to be cultural only..."

I don't disagree. The relationship is dialectical. It is not hard to understand that ours is a social species, in which affection, solidarity, "love" are concomitant with survival, life. Whether the transmission of such verities is genetic or inherited otherwise I have no idea. And less idea of how one could tell.
But, as to the forms of behaviour, of display, courting, associated with the conjunction of sexuality and companionship that, surely, is largely mimicry.

And that, it seems to me, is what the fuss is about: not the right of a champion luger to fall into the arms of a cross country skiier of the same sex, but the right of tourists to show off to the locals by going through the sort of tedious displays to be seen at Gay Pride Parades in Toronto.

When in Rome why on earth set out to offend the Romans? I suspect that for generations the ordinary people of Sochi (?) have been at least as tolerant of their neighbours' behaviour as, those "Johnnies come lately" to outrageous behaviour, the Orangemen of Canada or the Puritans of New England.
The truth is that most of these Gay Rights people are closet imperialists who thrill to think that the Empire's bayonets will champion their cause. Both imperialism and gay evangelism are deeply imbued with sado-masochism.

I comment on these matters reluctantly because I am not only, by comparison with most others here, inexpert in but bored by them.

"...all research back to the 19th century assumes as evident that people are born with sexual orientation not that they acquire it by education (education has always tried to rid them of sexual orientation).."
Or, to put it more plainly, "research is premissed on the unproven assertion that people are born with, rather than acquire by education, sexual preferences."
This is a text book example of a question being begged.

As to education: it is notorious that teachers, priests, scoutmasters, etc etc on occasion set out to shape the sexual preferences of their charges. I am not sure that it is unnatural or even undesirable that they should do so. The idea that "education" sets out to rid people of sexual orientation makes Sysyphus's tasks look enviably routine.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 14 2013 2:52 utc | 80

80) Bevin, it is proven as far as you can prove something like that without going to the unethical side of experimenting with humans. You acknowledge the fact yourself by stating

The idea that "education" sets out to rid people of sexual orientation makes Sysyphus's tasks look enviably routine.


When in Rome why on earth set out to offend the Romans?

But shouldn't Romans be entitled to rattle the cage of local customs?

Posted by: somebody | Aug 14 2013 3:58 utc | 81

There was this little gem today:

For anyone interested in the Russian economy, I would recommended the new site by Anatoly Karlin: The Russia Debate:

Posted by: RC | Aug 14 2013 6:07 utc | 82

From a site dedicated to the BRICS:

As I've said, all of the doom and gloom is short-sighted.

There's a reason the predictions of the Russian economy falling off a cliff never materialize. Chalk this up to agenda driven journalism.

Posted by: RC | Aug 14 2013 6:12 utc | 83

On business being just interested in business :-))
RT interview with the US chamber of commerce representative Andrew Somers

Oh and business is all in favor of stability.

So what is the policy of tension with Russia (and other countries) about? Some bureaucracies trying to retain their cold war funding? Depriving tax payers of the peace dividend? Ensure the survival of weapon's industries? Jobs for the secret service (and other) boys (hat tip Annie Machon)?

Russia is neither a vile superpower nor a place without problems. Seems to be difficult to get used to it.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 14 2013 6:28 utc | 84

"obama won't meet Putin at St. Petersburg?'

Let us call it Leningrad, not because Lenin's name would thereby be immortalised (he would have hated it) but because of the 900 day siege and the defence against heavy odds. And in honour of the memories of those who suffered.
And let's call the place in Florida, outside of Tampa, Leningrad too, just for the hell of it. And to honour the Red Army.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 15 2013 4:31 utc | 85

hat tip Annie Machon
It seems obvious to me that Annie Machon never stopped working for MI5, actually. She has never revealed anything not already known, and her attachment to David Shayler seems to have been totally opportunistic. I still find it impossible to believe that Shayler just accidentally took too many magic mushrooms one day and discovered he was the Messiah (and also that his persona from then on should be that of a dominatrix named Delores Kane). It seems to me that if ever there was a case of psychedelic poisoning by state agents, this is it. I mean, who else would he trust to give him 'something nice' but Ms M?

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 15 2013 5:01 utc | 86

hat tip Annie Machon


Zomebody pimpin Anne (MI5) Machon.


Two professional liars

A match made in heaven no doubt

Posted by: hmm | Aug 15 2013 7:31 utc | 87

another way to punish russia?

and you thought the Cold War was over? Hollywood does Putin? the following in Comingsoon is not very promising and sounds nasty:

'In present-day Russia, ruled by blue-eyed, unblinking President Vladimir Putin, Russian intelligence officer Dominika Egorova struggles to survive in the post-Soviet intelligence jungle. Ordered against her will to become a “Sparrow,” a trained seductress, Dominika is assigned to operate against Nathaniel Nash, a young CIA officer who handles the Agency’s most important Russian mole.'

ruled by? is US 'ruled by black eyed unblinkin president Obama?

it makes president Putin sound like a dictator(item: who is it seeking peace in the middle east? Black eyed Obama or Blue eyed Putin?

and who is it has to act against his/her will? the american? no...the russian....its as if Snowden/Manning didnt exist

Posted by: brian | Aug 15 2013 7:45 utc | 88

Sparrow? Do they Mean Swallow? Encycl of Cold War Espionage

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 15 2013 8:25 utc | 89

The comments to this entry are closed.