European Court imposes immorality on Russia

The European court, which has played the part of God to packed houses in continental political theaters for decades, is now trying to assert the same role in Russia, demanding that this sovereign nation yield its sense of moral rectitude to the decadent West’s political correctness — and specifically, demanding that Russia allow “gay” parades and even pay a fine for past infractions of “human rights” in refusing to allow such parades.

Meanwhile Russia has always maintained that homosexuality spreads disease, is unnatural and offends the morals of Russians. 

While the sheeplike European nations have invariably fallen into line behind the unelected officials of the EU, I somehow can’t see Russia bowing to this pressure from the Western know-it-alls.  If they do, these snotty elites will have achieved what Napoleon, and later Hitler, were unable to do when they sent their armies into Russia: make her bow to the wishes of an arbitrary and godless foreign Empire.

Many Christians and the politically incorrect are — secretly or openly — hoping Russia stands her ground and refuses to cede her sovereignty to the arrogant European Court. Most probably think the Russians will flout the decision just to flex their muscles and show us who is boss.

That would certainly be one good reason for them to hold their ground. After all, like China, the other non-western super power, Russia has never shown the least bit of sympathy for the nebulous notion of “interdependence” that is the philosophical foundation for global elitism.  However, Russian history provides clues to an even more deeply rooted motive.

From the 1860s on, there was a smoldering social revolt gaining ground in Russia as the ideas of the “enlightenment” began trickling in, primarily from France, carried back by young aristocrats who had been to Paris and other European capitals and had been infected with the libertinism reigning among young university students there. The ostensible premises for change were political but were served up on a platter garnished liberally with heady promises of sexual freedom irresistible to young Russians of all social strata.

Thus from about the 1860s, Russia was shepherded into a European style socio-political revolutionary mindset that paved the way for the actual revolution in 1917.

But as with all revolutions, unexpected consequences set in. In retrospect, the revolutionaries should have seen it coming. Older Russians, even those sympathetic to the revolution, always had a disdain for the French and their moral depravity, as evidenced in the works of authors like Tolstoy and Turgenev.

Very shortly after the revolution, this titillating sexual apéritif that had provided a kind of euphorigenic drug, numbing the masses to the otherwise less-palatable realities (the blood baths and internecine warfare that led to the murder of thousands, including the czar and his family), was quickly swept away, supplanted by a rigid totalitarianism intolerant of the young idealists and their romantic notions of free love and Parisian-like communes. Anyone nourishing hopes of restoring the cherished libertinism was crushed. Some went to prison, others were murdered, others simply disappeared.

The fiery young poet Mayakovsky committed suicide. Others did the same as it dawned on them that the paradise they had longed for was turning into a sexually repressed hell, at least by their jaded standards.

Now, in terms of mores and sexual libertinism, Europe is approximately where Russia was then. So which way will Russia go this time, you ask?

It is clear that ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the government was in no way sympathetic to the “gay” culture that had tried to carve inroads into its cities. The Muscovite mayor consistently refused permits for gay parades and when the “grassroots homosexuals” defied the bans, he bashed heads.

If we consider that Russian strong man Putin comes from the old-regime’s KGB, it will be no surprise if Russia decides either to ignore this decision by the European Court or even to drop out of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If that should happen, then we can put this Russian intransigence together with China’s refusal to upgrade its Renminbi and glimpse a picture of a West crumbling under the weight of its greed, arrogance, lust for power and loss of common sense and Christian values that once gave it moral authority over the rest of the world.

The West that once gained the upper hand over the Evil Empire, is quickly going bankrupt both economically and morally. As things turn out this time, it is not too big to fail either way no matter how many nations get together and bleat in unison.

Because bears aren’t afraid of sheep.

copyright© Don Hank, M.A. in Russian Studies

Further reading:

Reason or empty chatter: it’s your choice

 by Don Hank

Jesus and Stalin’s Dove” is another English-language debut of a column by Olavo de Carvalho to appear at Laigle’s Forum. It is an article about courageously facing reality in a Christian sense – what that means on a cognitive level and the sacrifices needed to be intellectually honest.

In today’s second column by Mr. de Carvalho “The demolition of conscience,” Mr. de Carvalho discusses “cognitive dissonance,” a recurrent theme of his. The term generally means the uncomfortable entertaining of conflicting ideas simultaneously. However, it goes deeper than that.

In our society, shaped by elitists diametrically opposed to traditional American thought, we see cognitive dissonance manifested as a conflict between what we see and hear (what we actually know) on the one hand and what the elitists – largely through media, “education” and government – impose on us (what we are supposed to “know”).

I witnessed a frightening illustration of cognitive dissonance in my hometown in 2008 and 2009, when record late frosts hit and none of the local papers carried the story either year. Obviously, this actual hard, cold fact would have conflicted with the theory of global warming and that was too risqué for the media. But even townspeople I met and spoke with as the frost still lay on the ground were strangely mum when I mentioned that in my 60+ years of life, I had never seen a frost this late in the year. They knew it was true – undeniably so — on the experiential level, but on a social level, they knew that to acknowledge this truth would be improper, even to the point of blasphemy. Gradually, over the years, they had been successfully programmed like Pavlov’s dogs, and I made them uncomfortable – even scared — just mentioning it. Some were willing to discuss it, but others looked and acted guilty, as if the acknowledgement of what we all could see with our own eyes was a shameful sin. In fact it was a sin — a sin against the leftwing establishment that needed the myth of global warming for its agenda: cap-and-trade, carbon credits, tougher emissions limits, etc.

You see, it is no exaggeration to say that Western society is mentally ill, suffering from a virulent kind of neurosis that is refractory to treatment. We need large, frequent doses of therapy. Not psychological, but philosophical therapy.

Olavo de Carvalho’s writings are all, in one way or another, valuable therapy sessions. Each one undoes a little bit of our distorted preconceptions, like untying a convoluted knot.

Over the years in which I have had the unique privilege of reading, translating and performing translation reviews of his writings, Olavo de Carvalho has gradually convinced me that the study of philosophy – a tool for analyzing thought – is by no means just a luxury item. It is in fact the key to the cage in which our minds are confined by our keepers.

Without this intellectual tool, while most of us can make noises — ranging from incoherent to vaguely cogent – in order to generally express anger, pain, frustration and anguish, and while some observers can even manage to sound authoritative at times, we can’t hope to fully articulate what it is we believe, what we desire, what we should love and what we should hate, who are our friends and who are our enemies, and what sacrifices must be made to preserve our American way of life for our children. We speak of peace when we mean war, of war when we mean peace. Of morality when we mean evil, and so on. We’ve been seduced by the “chatter,” to use de Carvalho’s word for it.

This lack of thinking skills to know with certainty, and of language skills to articulate with unfaltering conviction, what we want and why is at the heart of our malaise and of the destructive infighting among conservative Americans. And it’s the reason so few pundits today can define America’s goals well enough to steer us away from the perilous shoals.

Behind “diversity” the muzzling of Christians

“Diversity” aims to suppress Christianity

I am posting this as a companion piece to the article on Common Purpose and on “diversity” and “leadership” training, both from the UK but both relevant and timely for US readers.

Look how people have been brainwashed by all the PC diversity discussion in the mass media and by diversity training:

‘I have Christian beliefs myself and maybe she meant well. But it could perhaps be upsetting for some other people if they have different beliefs or thought that she meant they looked in such a bad way that they needed praying for.’

Notice how no one of another faith complained, yet a “Christian” was dreadfully afraid a Muslim or atheist might be offended on their way to hell or that a dying patient might think they were dying and realize the need for repentance. Imagine living in a world in which praying for a dying patient is banned. We are just a few goose steps away from that absurdity.

Look what else they say:

‘Your NMC (Nursing Midwifery Council) code states that “you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity” and “you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health”.’

Imagine if someone had prohibited the Apostle Paul to heal people on the grounds of ‘diversity.’ What might the sick have thought of that policy? Imagine the scenario: “Oh, thank God that religious fanatic wasn’t allowed to touch me and allow me to walk again!”


Or the following:

As a result, Mrs Petrie, who qualified as a nurse in 1985 and has worked part-time for the North Somerset Authority since February 2008, was ordered to attend an equality course. Such courses can include learning to make a judgment on whether your words are likely to offend the person they are directed to.

How about bureaucrats taking a course in learning to make a judgment on whether their words are likely to offend an entire nation, their own!

Pray, American, pray hard for an end to this leftward march to nowhere! Nowhere is just around the corner, and its name is Washington.

Donald Hank

PS: I am now in the process of trying to find an email or other address for Caroline Petrie. This brave woman needs encouragement. I would encourage readers to email the reporters at the Mail and ask them if they can convey your sympathy for her and tell her you are praying for her!


Persecuted for praying: Nurse who faces the sack after offering to pray for sick patient

By David Wilkes and Neil Sears

A nurse could be sacked and even struck off for offering to say a prayer for an elderly patient.

Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, has already been suspended for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

She now faces disciplinary action, even though the patient involved did not make a formal complaint.

Suspended: Caroline Petrie offered to pray to help a patient recover

The case has outraged the Christian community, which warns its members are becoming ‘the most discriminated against people in society’.

They cited previous instances including that of Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida, who in 2006 was banned from wearing a cross around her neck at work.

Last night Mrs Petrie, 45, insisted she was not trying to force her beliefs on others, but was simply offering a little spiritual help.

She said: ‘I have trouble understanding how offering to pray for someone could be upsetting. I feel it’s a nice thing to ask and a way to give hope that circumstances can change.’

She made the prayer offer to May Phippen, 79, in December, at the end of a home visit.

Mrs Phippen, a widow who lives with relatives, mentioned the offer in passing to another nurse the next day.

Caroline denies forcing her faith on anyone and said she was only trying to help by politely offering to pray for a patient

The great-grandmother told the Mail last night: ‘It didn’t worry me, it just struck me as a strange thing for a nurse to do. She finished dressing my legs and before she left the last thing she asked was would you like me to say a prayer for you? I said “no thank you” and then she went.

‘It was the first time I’d seen her. She was a nice lady, did the job properly and was quietly spoken. Personally I wouldn’t want to see her sacked for something like that.

‘I have Christian beliefs myself and maybe she meant well. But it could perhaps be upsetting for some other people if they have different beliefs or thought that she meant they looked in such a bad way that they needed praying for.’

Read more here.

Don’t fall for the ruse / Muslim stock falling

 America, beware this ruse of the Left:

The Left often uses the ruse of foisting some totally unacceptable and obnoxious demand on us, and then when we resist, agrees to a “compromise,” which actually gives them 100% of what they originally wanted. Soft headed “conservatives” fall for this time and again, like ripe plums in autumn.

The latest developments in the Angels in America saga illustrate this.

Laurie Higgens reports that some of the parents who had reservations about the reading and/or performance of Angels in America, the obscene homosexual play we reported on in a previous issue, suggested just stressing the obscenity in their protest and giving the homosexuality a pass. A keen observer would know that doing so would be falling right into the trap. You see, the Left has no interest in foisting obscene language on children at this early stage in the demoralization of America’s children. The prize they covet is to mainstream homosexuality and make it appear attractive to children.

The acceptance of obscenity and explicit sexual portrayals in literature and the arts is the next step.

But Americans have been taught the insidious lesson of “reaching across the aisle” a la John McCain, and appeasement — compromising with evil for the sake of peace. We need to unlearn this behavior as quickly as possible to survive as a free nation.

Laurie Higgins writes:

A parent who objects to Angels in America suggested that those who object to the play should “downplay” the issue of homosexuality, to which I responded as follows:

“The homosexual piece is downplayed at our great peril. At the Saturday meeting, I think I was the only person who addressed the homosexuality. I will not retreat from this because virtually everyone else is. Almost everyone I talk to says that they don’t care about the homosexuality; it’s the language and sex they care about. I think that’s both a strategic and moral error. If Angels is pulled from the curricula just because of the graphic sex and obscene language, then the faculty is free to continue to introduce resources that normalize homosexuality as long as the resources aren’t graphic and obscene.

If no one stands with me, I will stand alone because, to borrow shamelessly the words of Martin Luther, ‘I can do no other. God help me.’ ”

DOES it take a village?

Click here to get an idea:

Have you checked out yet?

IT IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT to suggest, or print news item that suggests, that Islam is weakening. The Left likes Islam because it opposes Christianity, the arch enemy of the Red Revolution and the immorality they are pedaling. That’s why the left-leaning Dutch government and media try to show the public that Geert Wilders is a trouble maker who should be ignored. But that just made everyone all the more anxious to view the movie Fitna, which was a smashing success, and did not result in the expected violence. Why? I suspect it is because Muslims saw that their violent response to cartoons mocking Islamo-fascism and the murder of Theo Van Gogh, whose film highlighted Islamic violence, backfired. The love of truth and freedom still smolders under the ashes of Western civilization.

Further, the argument started to emerge that if Muslim groups, such as the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), threatened violence or demanded Islam’s critics be silenced, then that was merely more support for Wilders’ thesis that Islam is violent and cruel to the core.

Laigle’s Forum led the charge with that argument and kept the Fitna site (notice the comment by Asif and Laigle Forum’s response) available to readers even after it was pulled by

Some have said that the response to Fitna proves the West is hopelessly cowardly. But the truth is, the lack of violence so far also tells us something of the war against Islamic fascism, and this overshadows the lack of cogent arguments by somnolent Westerners. Muslims are starting to see that strapping on bomb belts isn’t helping their cause. Terrorist recruitment is in fact getting more difficult these days.

Maybe the next article will help explain why.

MUSLIMS leaving Islam in droves

Ex-Muslim Magdi Allam’s very public baptism on Easter Sunday made headlines, but he is just one among legions converting from Islam around the world.

April 3, 2008 – by Andrew Walden

Pope Benedict’s choice to publicly baptize the most prominent Muslim in Italy, Egyptian-born Magdi Allam, highlights a quiet worldwide exodus from Islam. In recent years, millions have moved on. With this high-profile action, Pope Benedict demonstratively blesses this massive conversion from the highest levels of the Church.

Interviewed by al-Jazeera in 2006, Ahmad al-Qataani, leader of the Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, explains the decline:

Read more here


America has 3 leftwing candidates, and many conservatives have fallen into line on the GOP side, resigned to holding their nose and voting for pro-amnesty McCain of McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold fame.

We don’t have to settle for this. Not by a long shot: