Complete and utter disgrace in the left

You know, I seriously think that the left-wing has completely abandoned concepts like the freedom of assembly, the rule of law and generally the ability to just live with people you disagree with politically without turning to violence. I don’t think they support the idea of peaceful protest anymore as demonstrated by supporters of Bernie Sanders, most recently in San Jose, California. And now, progressives in America seem to hit a new low. Yesterday the news website Vox had released a statement announcing that one of their editors, Emmett Rensin, had been suspended. Rensin had put out a tweet the previous day saying:

“Advice: If Trump comes to your town, start a riot.”

When I saw this statement, I felt a question arise, “what the fuck are you doing!?”. It didn’t seem to be particularly sarcastic, nor did it seem to be a joke – but even if it was a joke it seems to be in pretty bad taste given recent events. It seemed obvious that Emmett Rensin was directly supporting the idea of premeditated violence as a legitimate form of protest aimed at a presidential candidate simply because, let’s be honest, he just doesn’t like. Don’t get me wrong, there are legitimate reasons to criticize Donald Trump and I ultimately do not support him, but he has the same right freedom of speech and freedom of assembly as everyone else as he should do under the rule of law in what should be a free and civilized country. By endorsing violence as protest against a candidate, you are advocating that a someone be suppressed by violence or the threat of violence and you are rejecting the concepts of freedom of assembly and the rule of law. You are advocating. Simply put, you are advocating for authoritarianism, I dare say you might also be advocating fascism. This is same mindset that a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters seem to be harboring – the mentality that the best way to get what you want is by throwing a tantrum (like in the Nevada Democratic convention) and assaulting your political opponents (as it looks they they do a lot of with Donald Trump), the latter seemingly with the attempt of suppressing the other side through violence.

I bet they think that Donald Trump encouraging violence somehow justifies Bernie Sanders supporters being violent to Trump supporters, but I can’t help but wonder if some of the violence associated with Trump was actually, at least in part, mostly to do with anti-Trump people causing a ruckus (and there some who actually experience this, like Tuscon police officer Brandon Tatum), whether it’s in support of Bernie Sanders or just in support of Black Lives Matter. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt for a minute that Donald Trump’s supporters can be violent, nor do I have any doubt that Trump is lying when he says he doesn’t condone violence (he clearly does), but I think the mainstream media narrative should be treated with a lot more skepticism than even John Oliver manages to display on the matter. And even if it is mostly Trump supporters who are violent, does that really justify the behavior of Bernie Sanders supporters in San Jose? They, like Black Lives Matter, just want to control the conversation through violent suppression. And I’m willing to bet they know that all the violence will get blamed on Donald Trump regardless by the media or anyone else. San Jose’s mayor certainly resorted to blaming Trump. And you know what, I just bet that the media will do everything they can to somehow take advantage of this like the duplicitous profiteers of outrage and violence that they are. But I think what might also be going down is that the progressive left has decided to resort to violence because simply referring to Trump and his supporters as racists just isn’t working.

And going back to what I said in the beginning, it is clear to me that leftists in general are up to the same thing in the Western world. In America, Black Lives Matter are the kind of people who last year disrupted a Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle, Washington in order to take his platform from him while threatening to shut down the event if he did not relinquish said platform, and more recently they’ve been attempting to disrupt Milo Yiannopoulos’ speeches in various universities. Two people associated with Black Lives Matter even managed to accost Milo at DePaul University in order to try and silence him. While we’re on the subject of universities, the entire social justice movement is nothing more than an exercise in attempting to control political discourse through coercion – they want to silence the opinions of others because they detest the notion of freedom of speech and expression. They did it all through Gamergate and they continue to do so in American universities, and they driven by the same bullshit as Black Lives Matter and taught by progressive and often feminist academia.

Then you have events like in Paris, France where protesters decided that freedom of assembly does not exist for officers of the law so they attack them and their cars, which I’ve written about before. The people behind the attack were the kind of thugs who believe that there is no justice as long as the police are around and who disavow the notion of the rule of law, preferring to get their way through violent coercion instead. I don’t care what their cause is, if they go about suppressing police officers through violent coercion. Oh, and they weren’t above wearing a Guy Fawkes masks either, as some of them apparently did. They seem like self-styled anarchist activists.

And while we’re on that subject let’s talk about the left in my own country, Britain. The left is also in the business of trying to take control, albeit less violently than in America. They also really hate the British public for re-electing David Cameron of their own free will last year, and when he was re-elected people took to the streets to try change the fact that the Conservatives had been re-elected. The whole thing just screamed like a massive sermon of “TORY SCUM!”. They took to riots and clashed with police hoping to get the Conservatives out of power, but they did not prevail. They like to suppress anything right wing as basically an act of virtue signalling. Recently there was an anti-EU protest in Dover where apparently far-right individuals complained about immigration and burned EU flag (the latter part, frankly, is just awesome in my opinion). They were met with opposition by left-wing “anti-fascist” protesters who blocked the anti-immigration protesters and did but call the anti-immigration protesters racist and virtue-signal all the way, but some of them were arrested for, surprise surprise, interfering with the free assembly of the anti-immigration protesters. There’s a group active here called Antifa, a self-described “anti-fascist” group that spends their days showing up to the sites of “white pride” and apparently fascist rallies in order to protest not their cause but simply the fact that they have the right to free assembly and speech. Of course, they often like to push a strongly pro-mass migrant message, which itself should be a red flag because it means Antifa’s actions serve no purpose other than as a giant belligerent virtue signal. When I was in Swansea, I saw areas of the city marked “anti-fascist” areas. Do you know what that looks like to me? It looks like a gang marking territory. And that’s just perfect. In my mind, they aren’t fighting for freedom, they aren’t resisting tyranny, and they are certainly not interested in debate. They want to control the conversation and drown out the voices of those they deem morally and politically inferior.

Not to mention, the UK has its own social justice warriors. They’re active in a majority of British universities, and use “No Platform” policies to silence the views of those they disagree with. Often times it’s after pressure and bullying from a vocal minority who feel threatened by ideas they don’t like. And these snowflakes are led by an NUS that is not only notoriously illiberal and censorious, but is now also being led by one Malia Bouattia – a woman who is about as black as Rachel Dolezal, but claims to be “politically black”. Bouattia is also known for her obsession with the “Zionist-led” media, leading to some to think of her as an anti-Semite, and for her refusal to condemn ISIL for fear of Islamophobia. And just like in America, British universities capitulate to these snowflakes and crackdown on freedom of speech, expression, assembly and thought on their campuses. Sometimes on universities even political parties merit you being the subject of bullying: you can be bullied out for being a Tory or a supporter of UKIP.

Then you sometimes have more violent examples. Self-styled left-wing anarchist protesters, who are actually thugs, once attacked Cereal Killer Café in Shoreditch. Why? Well supposedly, they were fighting gentrification. Yes, they decided to oppose gentrification by getting into a mob and vandalizing Cereal Killer Café, of course. Oh, and they seemed to align themselves with an anarchist group called Class War. That makes sense. Because anarchists totally respect free enterprise and the rule of law, right? And just take a look at what Class War said in order to justify the incident.

“Our communities are being ripped apart – by Russian oligarchs, Saudi Sheiks, Israeli scumbag property developers, Texan oil-money twats and our own home-grown Eton toffs. Soon this City will be an unrecognizable, bland, yuppie infested wasteland with no room for normal (and not so normal) people like us.”

Class War were also planning to accost the Ripper Museum because they thought it was misogynistic, and they only cancelled because they knew the police would be on the scene and they thought there would a lot of arrests.

All this and more is enough to lead me to the conclusion that the left wing is increasingly prone to seeking the advance of its ideas through coercion, often through violent means. And what are the ideals that the left feel can be justified by both social pressure and violent coercion? Progressivism. So-called equality (not so much the idea that we all have the same rights and are all capable of achieving merit, but rather things like equality of outcome or equal parity or the idea that we’re all worth the same even when we’re not). Concern for tolerance. Promoting diversity and inclusiveness. Social justice. Fighting hatred and prejudice. Fighting misogyny. Or just even the idea that they’re sticking it to the man. Or simply to stop the people from electing the wrong man or woman into a position of political office. Even if you agree with all of these premises, you must be faced with the following question: why do these premises justify the endorsement and implementation of coercion and violent suppression, and the abandonment of the rule of law and political freedom, especially in civilized countries where the rule of law is a given? Why must this be? And the answer to me always seems to be about control and power. They just want to prevent another point of view from being heard or even considered. And now it’s clear that much of the left is willing to use or simply support violence in order to achieve that.

Well, as of yesterday, I’ve had it! I am sick of the left wing and its methods. I know that currently I’m not exactly left-wing, but that doesn’t stop me from being exceptionally revolted at the left because they have decided that violent suppression of ideas and people that they dislike is OK. I believe in freedom, and I know that having freedom in a system of political organization requires the concepts of freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, and it requires those things be protected under the rule of law (preferably through constitutional principles). By choosing to abandon these principles, the left has chosen to reject freedom, thus proving themselves opposed to a principle that I hold sacred.


What France is becoming should not surprise you

Recently, France has passed a law banning people from paying for sex, with clients facing fines of €3,750 if they flout the law. Apparently, prostitution is not a crime in France, but paying for it is, which basically means that the French government isn’t criminalizing sex workers, but rather banning people from paying them for their services. If you think that sounds stupid then guess what? It is. Seriously, how do you ban people from paying for sex work without criminalizing prostitution as a whole? How does that work? It doesn’t. If your government wants to ban people from paying for sex, you might as well just criminalize prostitution altogether because the whole point of prostitution is that one person pays another for sexual services. It’s fairly obvious that laws like this exist only to work against the sex industry. The people passing these laws seem to not want to punish sex workers directly so they want to punish the clients instead – but such a thing by itself is a punishment of sex workers because it directly harms their industry as a whole. If you want to protect sex workers, just decriminalize prostitution as a whole and allow sex workers to operate in a regulated industry. The pimps and traffickers can’t exploit sex workers if they operate in an environment where their rights are protected by the law. But of course, that’s common sense, and governments don’t often consistently operate under common sense.

To be honest, though, I actually don’t feel too surprised with this law being passed in France. The French government has made notable moves towards authoritarianism before, despite their president Francois Hollande’s claims that their country values freedom (specifically freedom of speech). In 2011, France banned Muslims from performing street prayers in the absence of adequate mosques, apparently to appease the French far-right’s concerns that the street prayers are a sign of “invasion”. In 2010, the French government passed a law banning the wearing of the burqa, the traditional veil often worn by women in Islamic culture. Four years later, the ban was inexplicably upheld in the European court of human rights. The law was passed on the pretense of preserving the freedom of women, presumably under the delusion that women only wore the burqa under coercion, but anyone who knows anything about freedom and liberty can inform you that it is totally possible to wear a burqa by choice and that banning the burqa does nothing to protect the civil liberties of women. Just last year, in the wake of the attack on Charlie Hebdo by Islamic terrorists, the French authorities arrested the comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala over apparent anti-Semitic remarks and for supposedly inciting racial hatred and sympathizing with one of the attackers, and he was also given a jail sentence in Belgium on similar charges. He’s been sentenced seven years imprisonment for the specific charge of his social media comments that supposedly sympathize with terrorism. The French authorities also opened up several other cases of people “condoning terrorism” or mocking murdered policemen, and similar instances of what some might describe as “hate speech”. And later last year, in the wake of the Paris attacks in November, France decided to extend a state of emergency and pass a bill whose provisions are very much characteristic of a country panicking about terrorism. Around the same time, the French government closed 3 mosques that were supposedly linked with radicalization, and suggested that about 100 more mosques would follow under the pretense of preventing radical ideology and hate speech. Oh, and the government has also raised plans to police online “hatred” – twice – which at this point you know is not going anywhere good..

It should also be noted that, again, despite Hollande’s claims that France is committed to freedom of speech, France is not completely liberal. So-called hate speech is illegal in the country, and specifically speech that characterizes a group as a mortal danger is illegal. Which of course, is stupid. You’re not coercing individuals, truth be known you aren’t violating any of their rights. Only the mythical right to not be offended or insulted. France also has laws prohibiting Holocaust denial, as well as libel laws and online surveillance curtailing freedom of speech online, and it actually endorses the concept of a “public speech offense” with regards to the arts. And as you surely know, when you legally divide speech into acceptable and unacceptable speech, you do not have freedom of speech. And no, there’s no such thing as “partial” freedom of speech either. Because of this, it’s clear that France is not the liberal example of democracy the media sometimes has you believe it is (at least during coverage of the attacks in France), but in fact an illiberal democracy, or rather an authoritarian state – after all, any country that decides what you can and can’t say is in fact authoritarian because it does not recognize freedom of speech.

So in my opinion, France is slowly but surely embracing full-on authoritarianism. The only peculiarity seems to be that it frequently seems to center around women, Muslims, and Jews, and a noticeable paranoia concerning terrorism.

The laws of “God” and the laws of Man

Recently, I heard that the Hunt County Sheriff Randy Meeks published an editorial for a local newsletter wherein he wrote that the people have a “moral obligation” to obey the police because their authority comes from “God”, which is stupid (for reasons I’ll get into later on). In the editorial, he claims that the government allows criminals to do whatever they please until they are proven guilty while law enforcement officers are immediately found guilty are found guilty as soon as it appears they have done something wrong, which is just as stupid. This man has no idea about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. No is “allowed” to commit crimes, and being presumed innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean you get to walk free until you’re found guilty. You can be arrested if you are suspected of having committed a crime and if you are found guilty of committing that crime you will be punished, but you can’t be sentenced for that crime until you are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are guilty through hard evidence and a court of law. That’s how what innocent until proven guilty means.

Meeks published his editorial just days after a Grand Jury declined to indict a deputy of his for assaulting Deanna Robinson, who was pregnant at the time, and also declined to indict Robinson for allegedly assaulting the officer. Here’s the thing, Meeks complains that law enforcement officers are immediately found guilty as soon as it appears they have committed wrongdoing, which would presume the absence of the involvement of a trial, but I’m a tad confused what he thinks “appears” means because the video clearly shows the deputy assaulting the pregnant woman, which would be taken as visual evidence. Does he not recognize it when an officer of the law is exerting undue force against a pregnant woman? Or is it that he simply doesn’t believe law enforcement officers should be held accountable for any kinds of abuses.

Pictured: Randy Meeks

He states explicitly that the authority of law enforcement over the people comes directly from “God”, which in this case can only mean the Judeo-Christian deity Jehovah since he refers to the Bible as supposedly mandating his views. Specifically he refers to Romans 13:1 and 2, which together state:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Romans 13:1

Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” Romans 13:2

It’s not hard to imagine why this is inherently problematic, or just plain entirely wrong. If you believe the above verse to be true, then it suggests that law enforcement officers are infallible, due their authority having been established by a “higher power” so to speak. The problem with this is that this means that law enforcement officers can do whatever they want to people, even if it wildly exceeded what we would consider to be their authority because to them nothing exceeds their authority, and even if it consisted of killing, raping, and generally abusing the people they are supposed to be protecting. You can’t let law enforcement become infallible because it means they can’t be held accountable for any abuse, wrongdoing, misconduct, or incompetence on their part, and it also means the people can’t demand any redress of grievances caused by abuse, wrongdoing, misconduct, or incompetence, which in my opinion can only do more harm to law and order than any sort of good. In any case, we would definitely have authoritarianism at work, individuals would have no liberty and law and order would be inadequate because it is based on brute force and tyranny rather than sound governing principles.

The other problem is that, in any case, the idea that the authority of law enforcement and governments is mandated by any sort of “God” is complete bullshit because, when you think about it, it’s entirely inaccurate. All systems of law, order, and government are, and have always been, constructed by human beings. They are human constructs, they require human investment, and without human beings they are nothing. No matter how much they are inspired by anything “divine”, they are human. It doesn’t matter what the Bible or any texts like it say, because human history contradicts this assertion indefinitely and consistently.

But of course, this stuff is all something that the foolish Randy Meeks has failed to account for.

The future of America…

I have been hearing about many bad things happening in America. Congress has been proving once again that they are incapable of upholding the principle of E Pluribus Unum (which is found on the seal of the United States itself), through the conservative half of congress turning their backs on a pagan speaker in an act of pure hypocritical intolerance and ignorance. Politicians are proving themselves to be out of touch with the knowledge of modern times as well as the true meaning of liberty, and dis-servicing the country for it. Lawmakers are not only trying ever more to back away from enabling full equal rights to all, but they’re also trying to make themselves immune to corruption. The state is still trying to surveil its own people under the guise of protection. And police brutality is not only alive and biting at people for even small crimes, it has culminated in a riot.

I don’t believe all of America is going downhill, but from what I have heard from friends who live in America, it is becoming an increasingly divided, increasingly savage, and increasingly authoritarian place, all thanks to ignorance on part of those in the government as well as the people themselves. At any rate, the America we know now and may yet see is certainly very different from the America of even 10, 20, 30, or even 50 years ago, and certainly different from the America that I have experienced (then again, I personally have only ever been in three states, all of them in the Northeast). And who can imagine what America will be like after the election in 2016.

And yet, I feel like I can’t go without a sense of hope. I just can’t believe America is totally unliveable for anyone. Maybe it’s because I honor America as the place where a lot about me started, and in the UK where I live it’s a source of uniqueness because no one else where I live speaks in an American accent. I couldn’t talk when I was a toddler in the UK and I had certain special needs, and my parents decided to get me special education in America for about 5 years. For better or worse, America is a part of my personal development and my life and I’ve met nice people, a few of whom I still manage to keep in touch with. I’ll fully admit I haven’t really suffered the injustices people talk about in real life (well, unless going through customs and being hassled and delayed by staff counts), so I can’t say I experienced a lot of America’s truly nasty side, but nothing will change the fact that I can’t bear the thought of me losing any sense of hope, or in rejecting an important part of my personal identity. I don’t like the way America is heading, and the government leaves a lot to be desired, but I can’t bear to lose hope for America either.

The way I see it, America was the first and only country to at any point recognize liberty as sacred, right down to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. America was the first nation to establish that from the beginning. While the British did create a document known as the Magna Carta, that document is not like the American Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It did grant certain rights to the common man (such as the right not to be arrested, exiled, or mistreated except by lawful judgement) and placed limits on the ability of the king to exploit his barons, but it is not as set in stone into British law as people seem to think. After the Middle Ages, it became outdated and in modern times it is redundant in British law, and the UK still has no Constitution like America’s. Only America has the tradition of exalting liberty from the outset, but its people and its government do not always observe this tradition, let alone intelligently. History shows that America’s government has indeed violated the concepts of liberty, equality, and justice that were meant to define America, and both the people and elected officials have also proved ignorant of what those concepts truly mean, but I believe this only proves the true problem: ignorance. I believe that the way for America to restore its way is for everyone to know what the values of freedom, justice, and equality really mean in practice, so that the tradition of liberty can be observed truthfully by both the state and the people. That way, we can see the true America, the way it was meant to be, come into view. A land of justice for all individuals, where no one is denied justice and no one can get away with fraud and the violation of the right to life and liberty, and where no laws can be created that infringe upon the rights of the individual who commits no wrongdoing. A land where everyone has the same rights, and the same opportunity to succeed. A land of tolerance where everyone can comfortably live their lives as they please without trespassing upon the rights of others, with support from people who care. A land where no religion has is dominant in the government, and every belief is  And, crucially, a land of unlimited freedom of speech and expression, where no one can violate those things, and a land where a person, regardless of race, sex, creed, and socioeconomic class and make any choice within his/her means without infringing on the rights of others.

This isn’t just the responsibility of the state or elected officials. The people must do their part to make the true America take shape, and their’s is a large part. But success will only come with true understanding of freedom, justice, and equality for all, and the breaking of ignorance and deception (be very careful of those who cry freedom but do not know what liberty means). And unless the American people manage to recapture the spirit of enlightened individualism and the ideals of America’s Founding Fathers, then America may yet lose its identity and moral worth.

I must also mention America’s propensity to claim its special moral place in the world as the promoter of liberty, justice, equality, and democracy. I feel that not only should America stop acting like some world police, but also that America must prove to itself, its people, and the world, that the nation can fulfill the values it so desires and that it is restored in those values.

Reject fake Satanists

What do I mean by fake Satanists? I mean those who advertise themselves as Satanists but in reality do not espouse the Satanic philosophy or ideology. This could be those who simply pretend be Satanists in order to sound cool, but it could also be those who identify themselves as Satanists while simultaneously backing authoritarian ideology or have nothing to do with the philosophy of Satanism.

Most Satanists, regardless of their position on the existence of Satan, regard Satan as representing individualism. This isn’t exclusively in the form of Church of Satan teachings, which espouse that while Satan doesn’t actually exist, he is a powerful symbol of individualism and personal pleasure. Many theistic Satanists view Satan as encouraging individualism, freedom of thought, and raising oneself up, though they value the achievement of this through magic. The Temple of Set, which views Set as the dark lord behind Satan, espouses enlightened individualism in the form of the concept of Xeper. However, there are some organizations and/or individuals who claim to identify with Satanism but whose philosophy has nothing to do with Satanism.

For instance, Boyd Rice is associated with the Church of Satan, which is known for espousing an individualist philosophy, but has a Social Darwinist outlook and is the founder of an organization called the Abraxas Foundation, which promotes this outlook along with authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and elitism. This, I believe, contradicts the Satanic philosophy of individualism, thus I deny the legitimacy of Boyd Rice’s organization. There’s also the Joy of Satan, which is an organization that believes Satan is actually a creator god called Enki, who is believed to be an alien. They believe Satan/Enki is the creator god who wanted man to reach perfection and they tend to campaign against Christian oppression of paganism and the occult. Problem is, they’re Neo-Nazis. And if we know anything about Nazism, we know that it is certainly incompatible with Satanism, for the same reasons the Abraxas Foundation is not real Satanism. There’s even a “Satanic” group that tries to blend Satanism with communist ideology. To be honest, neither communism nor fascism are worthy of the Satanic mantle, for they reject freedom and individualism.

Personally, I classify myself as an independent Satanist. This means that I espouse the essential philosophy of Satanism, while not affiliating with any organizations. I feel it’s less restrictive this way, after all a Satanist should not restrict themselves to a doctrine the way a Christian subjugates him/herself to the doctrine of the church. Anyways, as an independent Satanist, I feel I must deny the legitimacy of those who pretend to be Satanists, of those who claim to be Satanists but do not understand the philosophy, and of those who claim the Satanic mantle but whose ideology is very much the opposite of what Satanism is about. I encourage that other Satanists trust in their good judgement and not be taken in by those who pretend to be Satanists.

It should be noted, however, that the diversity of opinion across Satanic groups could be interpreted as a manifestation of the individualism represented by Satan. Still, I don’t feel we should let posers and authoritarians get away with thinking they are worthy of the Satanic mantle.

Russian tyranny

With the three Pussy Riot members still in jail (apparently the whole Free Pussy Riot thing in the West didn’t do much, which is disappointing to say the least), and the world abandoning the cause of Pussy Riot and fighting tyranny in Russia in favor of “trendier” causes of late, I still take the time to look into the whole thing and learn a little about the nature of tyranny in Russia.

I don’t think Russia was ever a very free country. From the Czars, to the Communist regimes, to modern Russia, it’s always been autocratic, and there is anti-individualist sentiment afoot in the country, as always. It’s reflected in the Pussy Riot trial where one guy (presumably a prosecutor) shouted that “lawlessness reigns in Russia”, and that the Pussy Riot members on trial should “repress their individuality”, “lick the judge’s boots”, and “become nothing”, in order to get a more lenient sentence. Another example of the sentiment is one found in Russia’s Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, who at one time kept blabbing on about combating “legal nihilism”. It sounds like meaningless crap, and it probably is, but it’s probably just something he uses as part of his preaching of the so-called value of law and order.

Russia, much like China, places value on social order over individual liberty, which finds its expression in recent times not just in the arrest of feminist punk rockers, but also in Russia’s recent crackdown on homosexual activity. Russia, it seems, has never caught on to the idea of gay rights, despite how massively gay Putin’s shirtless performances are. There’s also an intimate relationship between church and state in the country. The Russian government has a very special relationship with the Orthodox Christian church, and it seems orthodoxy and obedience to the government go hand in hand. You could compare it to America, except it’s a lot worse. Christians in Russia are certainly as annoying as Christians in America, and when they were protesting Pussy Riot, they harassed people. Hell, they actually believe that the Orthodox Church is the source of stability or structure in the country, and that without Orthodox Christianity “we’d all be dead”, thus the reason why they wear admittedly badass T-shirts that say “Orthodoxy or Death”.

Come on, you gotta admit it looks badass.

Keep in mind though, it wasn’t always this way. When the Soviet Union took over and implemented their communist regime and policies, Orthodox Christianity lost influence. For example, in the 1930’s, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was demolished, and a public swimming pool was built where it once stood. After the fall of communism, however, the Cathedral was rebuilt, and eventually the relationship between Orthodox Christianity and Russian government came back.

You know something else? There actually exists a ultra right-wing metal band in Russia, I think it’s Corrosia Metalla, which, ever since the 90’s, was like a kind of spokesperson for the far-right, fascist, ultranationalist youth in Russia, and from what I heard about the band, they advocate that Russia rise up and become an empire and conquer the rest of Europe, and ultimately the world, and these guys didn’t really get in a lot of trouble there. I think that tells you all you need to know about the Russian government’s attitude towards music: you can be an ultranationalist far-right band promoting pretty much Nazism-like politics, but if you’re in a feminist punk rock band who questions the leader and the relation between church and state, you get arrested.

Going to back to the topic of gays, it could be argued that Russia is implementing a brutal crackdown on gays in order distract the country, and the rest of the world, from the fact that Pussy Riot members are still unjustly in jail, that there is a gross intimacy between church and state, and that the government is still very much an authoritarian mess that deserves to be annihilated. In this regard, Russia displays behavior typical of any authoritarian nation, or for that matter any government, since they wish to control as many people as possible. And is it any coincidence that the Western nations, or other nations in general, don’t seem to be fighting or opposing Russia at all? And no, publicly criticizing Russia doesn’t count as anything other than lying, since deep down they don’t oppose Russia’s tyranny.

What’s sad is the only part of Russian tyranny most of us are paying attention to is the crackdown on gays, and not everything else as well, such as what I already mentioned, and most people are most likely going to stop paying attention to it after it stops being trendy, even if it’s still going on. And so I end the post with a message: don’t abandon causes that are still relevant and still going on just because they are trendy.