Laigle’s Forum

Don, you’ve convinced me it’s time to study up my my (uh-hm!) Russian history! I love the “apertif” reference to sex in France and then in Russia. From Russia, with love! “Debauchery” is another good description for the French and I guess the Russians prior to the Revolution.

Here is a comment that John Wayne Tucker was unable to post for technical reasons:

Excellent article Donald. This homosexual thing drives me insane.

John

John Wayne Tucker

Minister/teacher/professor/former candidate for U.S. Congress

http://johnwaynetucker.com

(My response: It drives me insane too but writing about it is good therapy–DH)

I was tolerant of, but not accepting of) Homosexuality when was younger 40-odd years ago, I was in a well-mannered discussion over homosexuals (we could have well-mannered discussions on race, homosexuality and feminism in those days) before PC demanded an immediate hissy-fit from antagonists of the PC view. A charismatic Sergeant-Major had been discovered, and, as I found out later, not for the first time, in a homosexual ménage, and was dismissed from the Army. The older guy said to me ” Study your history –when a civilisation tolerates homosexuality, it collapses.”
Very true.
I had been unaware of his proclivities, but puzzled with regard to his friendship with a rather dull lance-corporal, who was then quickly promoted (he had been sodomising him. This was
a trait I saw repeated with lesbians when I was less naive. Male and female homosexuals network like soldier ants, and are as ruthlessly vicious when they encounter opposition.
Good article, but I take issue on Russia being so “moral” during Communism. Soviet non-religious Jews were the chief propagators and proslytisers of homosexuality and family decline,which, via the Frankfort School, they exported to the West.

George,
You raise and important question: How is it that the Russian commies were so prudish about sexual mores when other Western commies like the Frankfurt School (notably Herbert Marcuse) pushed total depravity?
The answer is simple:
The Russian CP had all the power and didn’t need stealth.
The Western commies have used stealth ever since the first meeting of the Fabian Society in London in the late 1800s. They need stealth because there’s nothing wrong with the free market and free speech and a benevolent Judeo-Christian society and it’s hard to turn people against it. It takes all the pandering they can muster up.
Thus they pretend to be “helping” this group and that group when all they are doing is consolidating their power. Then they pounce like a cat on a mouse and show their true intentions.
Notice how they “helped” the black community in the US by giving welfare to unwed mothers — almost exclusively UNWED mothers. The stealth excuse: we want to “help” the poor and eliminate poverty. Within a few short years, the inner cities were a shambles. Whereas there had been poverty before, it exploded and took on an evil, criminal aspect. To the point that something like 20% of young African males have been or are incarcerated. As a fathers’ advocate, you know better than most what fatherlessness does to people. But combine fatherlessness with a system that makes churning out babies a profession that pays $600 per baby, and you get a synergism designed to destroy the community you were “helping.”
That’s the difference between Russia (and China) and the West.

Just a few notes that I allow to myself as a former Russian citizen:

1. “since the fall of the Soviet Union, the government was in no way sympathetic to the “gay” culture” – not precisely correct.
As long as I remember myself (hmmm…that’s long enough), meaning LONG BEFORE the said fall, not only the government but also common Russians were, to say softly, not much friendly to homosexuals whom they called just “pederasts,” which linguistically is not correct because in Greek it means only “boys-lover.”
Just a couple of examples of an “unfriendly” relation of the Soviet Government to homosexuals:

A brilliant pianist Naum Schtarkman spent 8 years in prison in 1960s for homosexual contacts (even he was married and had children, which, by the way, proves once more that homosexuality is more often a sexual life style vogue rather than a biological feauture.)

The same happened to world-famous movie producer Sergey Parajanov in 1970s (to be precise, 1973-1977.)

2. in 1920s, Bolsheviks were very friendly to any kind of sexual depravity because is served them as a weapon against “bourgeois hypocrisy” (see my comment at http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/suddenly-an-unbidden-thought-came-to-my-mind-why-the-heck-the-sodahead-looks-into-may-pants-and-ask/question-1297873/).
Well-known Alexandra Kollontay (later became a Soviet diplomat) was then propagating the so-called “theory of a glass of water”, meaning that having sex is, as a physiological need, not much different from drinking water.

3. Had the Mayakovsky’s suicide in 1930 (36-year old) something to do with sex or politics is still an open question, but he did live the “life à trois” with his friends Lilian and Osip Brik until the very end.

4. The politics of the Russian government regarding homosexuals after the fall of the USSR became officially more “tolerant” because of very strong pressure of different “human rights” groups. Just in order to avoid unnecessary confrontations and keep those groups as a “5th Column.”
Resistance of some governors and mayors is and was rather “local”, not on the official Federal level.

But the overall feeling the common Russians experience toward homosexuals is mostly unfriendly, because it contradicts Russian traditions and habits and Russians are still not (or not yet) spoiled by idiotic Political Correctness. So, they just say what they truly feel.
Just like Juan Williams regarding passengers in Muslim garb(age). -:)

Unfortunately, many Russian-speaking immigrants in the USA are already poisoned by American liberasts.

[...] http://laiglesforum.com/european-court-imposes-immorality-on-russia/1973.htm [...]