Posted by: CS | February 8, 2014

While Western Nations Commit Demographic Suicide, Russia Pursues National Regeneration

Western governments and media have made a concerted effort to vilify Russia and Vladimir Putin for a law prohibiting paedophile and homosexual propaganda directed at children, which was passed unanimously by Russia’s Parliament and which is supported by 88% of the Russian population.

For example, Jay Leno, interviewing Barack Obama last August explicitly drew a direct comparison between Russia and Nazi Germany, saying:

Something that shocked me about Russia. Suddenly, homosexuality is against the law. I mean, this seems like Germany: Let’s round up the Jews. Let’s round up the gays. Let’s round up the blacks. I mean, it starts with that.

Obama, apparently, found no fault with the analogy, saying:

I have no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgendered persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.

Speaking later at the the White House, Mr. Obama said:

Nobody is more offended than me by some of the antigay and lesbian legislation that you’ve been seeing in Russia.

It is instructive top compare this reaction, which has been widely echoed in the Western media, with Vladimir Putin’s recent responses to journalists’ questions about the anti-paedophilia and homosexuality propaganda:

Andrew Marr (BBC): A lot of British politicians and celebrities, including Elton John, express concerns over the attitude towards homosexuals in Russia. I would like to ask you, do you think there are fundamental differences between the attitude towards homosexuals in the West and in Russia? Do you think homosexuals are born or made? And what does the concept of propaganda imply, is it philosophical?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I am not in a position to answer the part of your question concerning homosexuals being born or made. This is beyond my professional interest, and I just can’t give you a qualified reply. And as I can’t give you a qualified reply, I would just prefer to leave it at that.

And as for the attitude towards individuals of non-traditional sexual orientation, yes, I can give you quite a detailed reply. I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that in Russia, as opposed to one third of the world’s countries, there is no criminal liability for homosexuality. 70 countries in the world have criminal liability for homosexuality, and seven countries out of these 70 enforce the death penalty for homosexuality. And what does that mean? Does it mean that we should cancel all major sport events in those countries? I guess not.

Andrew Marr: And as for the Orthodox Church, it calls for returning criminal liability for homosexuality. What is your opinion about that?

Vladimir Putin: According to the law, the church is separate from the state and has the right to have its own point of view. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that almost all traditional world religions are in full solidarity on this topic. And is the position of the Holy See different from that of the Russian Orthodox Church? And does Islam treat individuals with non-traditional sexual orientation in a different manner? It seems so, but this other position consists in a much tougher approach. Those 70 countries I have mentioned mostly belong to the Islamic world, and the ones enforcing death penalty all have Islam as state religion. Thus, there is nothing strange in the Russian Orthodox Church’s opinion as compared to that of other traditional world religions, there is nothing strange in that, but I repeat once again: the opinion of the church is one thing, and the opinion of the state is another thing. The church is separate from the state.

Sergey Brilev: Vladimir Vladimirovich, …[concerning] our bill to ban gay propaganda among minors, our country is getting the reputation of being just about the most anti-gay country on the planet …

Vladimir Putin: It is not getting the reputation, there are attempts to create it.

The bill’s name is “Ban on propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality”. The bill banning pedophilia, propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality. There are countries, including European, where public discussions – I have just talked about this at the meeting with volunteers – for instance, on the possibility to legalize pedophilia currently take place. Public discussions in parliaments. They may do whatever they want, but peoples of the Russian Federation, the Russian people have their own cultural code, own tradition. It’s not our business and we do not poke our nose into their affairs, and we ask for the same respect for our traditions and for our culture. My personal view is that the society should look after its children at least to be able to reproduce and not only thanks to migrants, but on its own base. We achieved what we had not experienced for a long time. In 2002, 2003, 2004 it seemed that we would never redress that absolutely terrible situation we had with the demographic crisis. It appeared that it was a demographic pit that would prove to have no bottom and we would continue investing in it endlessly.

At which point, Putin explained the rationale for Russia’s position on sexual propaganda:

And at that time we developed and adopted a program aimed at supporting demography, to increase birth rates in the Russian Federation. Frankly speaking, I was much worried myself: we allocated a big volume of resources, and many experts used to tell me: “Don’t do this, anyway, there is such a trend, which is experienced by many European countries. And we won’t avoid it as well”. This year in Russia, the number of newborns has exceeded the number of deceased for the first time. We achieved a specific positive result. If anybody would like to focus on, so to say, developing the cemetery, they are welcome. But we have different goals: we want the Russian people and other peoples of the Russian Federation to develop and to have historical prospects. And we should clean up everything that impedes us here. But we should do this in a timely and humane manner without offending anybody and without including anybody in a group of secondary people.

It seems to me that the bill we adopted does not hurt anybody. Moreover, people of non-traditional sexual orientation cannot feel like inferior people here, because there is no professional, career or social discrimination against them, by the way. And when they achieve great results, such as, for instance Elton John achieves, who is an extraordinary person, a distinguished musician, and millions of our people sincerely love him with no regard to his sexual orientation, and his sexual orientation does not affect attitudes to him, especially as to a distinguished musician. I think that this quite democratic approach to people of non-traditional sexual orientation alongside with measures aimed to protect children and future demographic development is optimum.

Putin then neatly demolished Obama’s entire case against Russia’s anti-paedophilia and homosexual propaganda law.

George Stephanopoulos: President Obama said he was offended by the act on gay propaganda. He has also recently said that if there are no gay sportsmen and sportswomen in Russia, its team will be weaker. However, if they start protesting, meaning gays and lesbians, will they be prosecuted under this anti-propaganda act if they decide to hold protest actions?

Vladimir Putin: … protest actions and propaganda are after all two slightly different things. They are similar but if we look at this from the legal point of view, a protest against a law is not propaganda of homosexuality itself or child sexual abuse. That is first point.

Second point, I would like to ask our colleagues – my colleagues and friends – before trying to criticize, to solve the problem in their own home first. But I have already said that it is well known. In some US states, homosexuality is criminally punishable. And how can they criticize us for a far gentler and more liberal approach to these issues compared to the one they have at home? However, I understand that it is difficult to do since there are a lot of people in the US itself that share the view that the laws of their state or of their country are just, reasonable and correspond with the sentiments of the larger part of its citizens. But we need to discuss this in some more appropriate international forums, to elaborate some common approaches. Anyway, we have got the message. And I am telling you that none of our guests will have any problems.

Finally, on this topic, in response to a question from Junyi Shui, Putin emphasized the grotesque hypocrisy of Barack Obama and the media parroting his views on Russia’s treatment of homosexuals:

… And as for the issue that we cannot leave, I would like to say the following. I explained that homosexuality is a criminal offence in 70 countries. The same is in the USA. It is still a criminal offence in some states of the United States, for instance in Texas, and may be in another three states. But what the heck, we shouldn’t hold any international competitions, should we? Why does nobody speak about this and why do they speak about us, though we do not have criminal liability for this.

The entire 64 minute interview with Putin provides a stunning contrast between the public face of power in Russia compared with that in the United States and it’s subordinate regimes in Europe and North America.

Instead of soundbites and lying propaganda, Putin engages in intelligent debate, displaying a firm and broad grasp of the details underlying administrative policy.

Putin may be, as the Western media would have you believe, a ruthless monster, but he differs from virtually all Western politicians in two striking respects. First, he is quite openly and explicitly committed to preventing the demographic suicide of the Russian people. Second, he is quite willing to engage in an informed logic-based debate on public policy with the public.

So which should we in the West prefer? Continued self-hating liberal bollocks aimed at the destruction of the Western nations as racial, cultural and religious entities, or a regime of real democratic politics concerned with national survival not self-denigration and destruction?



  1. […] second alternative seems most probably. Putin, as we related in our previous post, appears to be the only European leader unwilling to genocide his own people, to be replaced by […]

  2. Great post.

    I know that Putin acts in the way that you describe. I’ve seen him on RT facing Russian media people firing questions from all sides and calmly responding with detailed, intelligent, responses.

    The contrast with Obama, Cameron et al is remarkable. They are pygmies in comparison.

    I largely agree wit your concluding comments too. I’m not sure about the “real democratic politics” though. Your own previous post demolished that concept:

  3. I’m not sure about the “real democratic politics” though. Your own previous post demolished that concept

    Good point. I suppose by “real democratic politics” I mean a regime that respects the fundamental wishes of the population (for example, their desire to go on existing as a unique racial, cultural and religious community). To do otherwise, as the Western states are doing now, is what Lord Salisbury deemed to be the only real breach of the British constitution. In that respect, one can say that Russia is more genuinely democratic that, say, the UK or France where President Sarkozy warned citizens that if they wished to have any posterity they’d better shack up with an immigrant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: