An email from Russia
Russia has always been different and it continues to be so. The following email which I received from Russia recently (from a man with the common Russian surname of Kuznetsov) certainly embodies a large difference from the West today. From all that I know of the matter, it is an accurate report. Note however that such views would have been common in the West too just 40 years ago. I have corrected a few minor errors of English expression below
If you would like to know my opinion, I consider the modern Western Political Correctness to be ten times worse than the ideological restrictions which we experienced in the USSR, at least during my lifetime (I was born in 1950).
A normal Russian (or Soviet, if you prefer) citizen (man or woman) could have lived through all of his/her lifetime without a single encountering any filthy fag. Homosexuality was outlawed and resolutely suppressed in the USSR. It existed, of course, but in a strictly latent form. There was Article 121 of the Soviet Criminal Code that provided up to 5 (if I am not mistaken) years of prison for homosexuality. The Article was introduced in 1934 by Stalin, and abrogated by the notorious President Boris Yeltsin on 27 May 1993. Alas...
In Russian Orthodox Christian culture, which has remained alive despite all the Communist indoctrination, the sodomite sin has always been considered as the utmost abomination and deadly sin. For example, for the first time in my life I myself saw real fags only on TV last year when they attempted to have their dirty "Parade of Pride" in Moscow. In five minutes the fags were grabbed and badly kicked in the ass by the normal people around in the street, and then quickly dispersed.
Russia is not the rotten West. We despise the notorious PC. And we the normal Russian people hate fags very much. So, if asked, I can say, too, that we have no gays in Holy Russia. At least, overt and dominant gays.
Segregation: Muslim style
Where there are large concentrations of Muslims in England, "no-go" zones are being established and, according to the Right Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, the Church of England's Bishop of Rochester, non-Muslims who "trespass" in such neighborhoods risk attack. Nazir-Ali, a native of Pakistan and convert to Christianity, writes in The Sunday Telegraph that a spiritual vacuum in Britain, along with its indifference to the rise of Islamic extremism and a growing "multifaith" society, is robbing the nation of its Christian identity and putting its future in jeopardy. He is not alone. A poll of the General Synod - the church's parliament - shows that its senior leaders also believe that Britain is being damaged by uncontrolled immigration....
Anyone who has studied Islamic societies (as Nazir-Ali has, having been part of one) knows segregation and subjugation of non-Muslims is the norm, not the behavior of an "extremist fringe." Former Muslims and others have issued dire warnings about the intentions of these immigrant invaders and their objectives to subordinate Western countries to their view of God's will. Segregation and intolerance are the first fruits of what they intend to impose on everyone. Political leadership in Britain and increasingly in the United States turns a blind eye to such things because they are prospecting for votes, including from those who would end democracy.
No wonder Britons are growing increasingly uneasy, even despondent, about life in their country. A poll conducted by the respected YouGov organization and published in the Dec. 30 London Times found that more than half of all men and four in 10 women said they would rather live abroad if given the choice. The main reasons are antisocial behavior among a growing underclass and immigration. The "state of the nation" poll of more than 1,500 people found that concerns about immigration topped the list of issues of six out of 10 of those questioned. Among self-identified conservative voters, three-quarters consider immigration among their top concerns.
Three British cities already have high Muslim populations, thanks to immigration, high birth rates and conversions (but don't try converting any of them to another faith, which is one reason they are creating "no-go" zones). Seventeen percent of London's population is Muslim (1.3 million out of 7.5 million). In Luton, it's 14.6 percent. Birmingham has 14.3 percent. Other European cities have a higher percentage of Muslims.
Multiculturalism, globalism and an emphasis on "interfaith" are contributing to the decline of the West just as paganism, hedonism and greed undermined past empires. Rather than learn from their mistakes, the West thinks it can engage in such practices without consequence.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has expressed concern about the loss of "Britishness," but unless he does something to slow, even reverse, Muslim immigration, the Britain we've known will be lost and radical Islam will remake it in its own image. As Bishop Nazir-Ali writes, "But none of this will be of any avail if Britain does not recover that vision of its destiny which made it great. That has to do with the Bible's teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God's image." The segregationists didn't believe that at one time in America and the Muslim segregationists in Britain don't believe it now.
Sen. Obama's Calls for Unity Are Not What They Seem
By Dennis Prager
We are repeatedly told by the news media that there is a deep, almost palpable, yearning among Americans for unity. And Sen. Barack Obama's repeated and eloquent claims to being able to unite Americans are a major reason for his present, and very possibly eventual, success in his quest for his party's nomination for president of the United States.
I do not doubt Mr. Obama's sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there are two major problems with it. First, it is not truly honest. Second, it is childish.
First is its dishonesty. Virtually all calls for unity -- whether national, international or religious (as in calls for Christian unity) -- do not tell the whole truth.
If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: "I want everyone to unite -- behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine."
Take any important issue that divides Americans and explain exactly how unity can be achieved without one of the two sides giving up its values and embracing the other side's values. Barack Obama wants American troops out of Iraq now. About half of America believes that American troops abandoning Iraq will lead to making that country the world's center of terror and to the greatest victory thus far for the greatest organized evil in the world today. How, then, will Mr. Obama achieve unity on Iraq? Mr. Obama believes in repealing the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration. How will he achieve unity on that? Many of us believe that re-raising taxes will bring on a recession.
And what is the "unity" position on same-sex marriage? Either one supports it or one supports keeping marriage defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. The only way to unite Americans on this issue -- and I don't know what is more seminal to civilization than its definition of marriage -- is to convince all, or at least most, Americans to embrace one of the two positions.
It is fascinating how little introspection Sen. Obama's "unity" supporters engage in -- they are usually the very people who most forcefully advocate multiculturalism, who scoff at the idea of an American melting pot and who oppose something as basic to American unity as declaring English the country's national language.
Their advocacy of multiculturalism and opposition to declaring English the national language are proof that the calls of the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama for American unity are one or more of three things: 1. A call for all Americans to agree with them and become fellow leftists. 2. A nice-sounding cover for their left-wing policies. 3. A way to further their demonizing of the Bush administration as "divisive."
In case the reader should dismiss these observations about calls for unity as political partisanship, let me make clear that they are equally applicable to calls for religious unity. For example, one regularly hears calls by many Christians for Christian unity. But how exactly will this be achieved? Will Catholics stop believing in their catechism and embrace Protestant theology, or will Protestants begin to regard the pope Christ's vicar on earth?
Ironically, one reason America became the freest country in the world was thanks to its being founded by disunited Christians -- all those Protestant denominations had to figure out a way to live together and make a nation.
Given what Sen. Obama's calls for unity really mean -- let's all go left -- it is no wonder he and his calls for unity are enthusiastically embraced by the liberal media.
For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush's policies "divisive" simply because they don't agree with them. They are not one whit more divisive than Sen. Obama's positions. A question for Democrats, the media and other Obama supporters: How exactly are Mr. Obama's left-wing political positions any less "divisive" than President Bush's right-wing positions?
Second, the craving for unity is frequently childish. As we mature we understand that decent people will differ politically and theologically. The mature yearn for unity only on a handful of fundamental values, such as: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.
The next time Sen. Obama speaks with his usual passion and eloquence about his desire to unite Americans, someone must ask him two questions: Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush's right-wing positions? And if you are so committed to uniting Americans, why did you vote against declaring English our national, i.e., our unifying, language? Without compelling answers, Sen. Obama's calls for American unity are no more than calls to unite around his politics and him.
Bigoted British court
A British Airways worker has lost her case for religious discrimination over wearing a cross to work, she said Tuesday. Nadia Eweida, 56, took BA to an employment tribunal claiming it effectively discriminated against Christians because they were not allowed to wear religious jewellery while Muslims were allowed to wear hijabs and Sikhs bangles.
The airline, which changed its policy to allow crosses on chains over work clothes last year amid controversy over the case, said its clothing policy did not discriminate against Christians.
The row erupted in 2006 when Eweida claimed she was asked to remove or hide her cross. "I'm very disappointed," she said. "The judge has given way for BA to have a victory on imposing their will on all their staff."
A BA spokesman said: "We are pleased that the tribunal's decision supports our position. "Our current policy allows symbols of faith to be worn openly and has been developed with multi-faith groups and our staff."
Eweida, who still works for the airline, pledged to return to work Thursday wearing the cross.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.