The authors of the same-sex marriage bill argue that by passing it, they move the country into the futureand those who support the opposite point of view, are driving us into the deep Middle Ages. But is it?
Recently I came across a text by a high-ranking Eastern official who, instead of talking about theory, spoke about practice. He explained convincingly why all this was wrong.
And he explained what the Bolsheviks did in 1920 in the former USSR. I leave this to your judgment and at the end of the text I will reveal the name of this person.
He writes the following: “Supporters of the so-called “social progress” They believe that they are leading humanity to some new and better consciousness. Good luck, raise your flags, as we say, and move on. The only thing I want to say in this regard is that their recipes are not new at all. This may come as a surprise to some, but Russia has already walked this path. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, based on the doctrines of Marx and Engels, also declared that they would change existing customs, not only political and economic rules, but also the very concept of human morality, and lay the foundations of a healthy society. Destruction of age-old values, religion, relationships between people, even complete abandonment of family 1 (this happened to us too) encouraging denunciation of loved ones 2 – all this was perceived as progress and, by the way, was widely supported in the world at that time, and was quite fashionable, as it is today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of views different from their own.
Book with Putin’s historical speech
This, I think, should remind us of some of the problems we see today. Looking at what is happening in some Western countries, we are surprised to see domestic practices that we, fortunately, abandoned, hopefully, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has become an aggressive dogmatism bordering on the absurd, with the works of great writers of the past – such as Shakespeare – no longer taught in schools and universities because their ideas are considered retrograde. The classics are considered backward, not recognizing the importance of gender and race. In Hollywood, reminders are being distributed on how to construct plots correctly and how many characters of a given color or gender should be in a film. 3. This is even worse than the practice of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
In some Western countries, the debate about the rights of men and women has become a complete phantasmagoria. Be careful, carefully, so as not to go where the Bolsheviks once intended to go – not only to socialize chickens and livestock, but also to make women common. One more step and you will get there.
Fanatical supporters of these new approaches go so far as to want to abandon these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares to suggest that men and women actually exist, as a biological fact, risks being ostracized. “Parent number one” and “parent number two”, “parent who gives birth” instead of “mother” and “human milk” instead of “mother’s milk”because otherwise people who are unsure of their own gender may be annoyed.
Not to mention the truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. That is, the teachers are actually impose on them the choice that each of us should have. At the same time, they exclude parents from the process and force the child to make decisions that can turn his whole life upside down. They don’t even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at that age capable of making such a decision? To put it bluntly, this borders on a crime against humanity, and this is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.
Well, if someone likes it, let them do it. I have already said that in forming our views we must be guided by healthy conservatism.
Today, when the world is experiencing structural upheavals, the importance of reasonable conservatism as the basis of political course has increased sharply precisely because of the multiplication of risks and dangers and the fragility of the reality around us.
This conservative approach has nothing to do with ignorant traditionalism, fear of change or restrictive planning. And even more so, it is not associated with the desire to withdraw into one’s shell. This is, first of all, reliance on time-tested tradition, maintaining and increasing the population, a realistic assessment of oneself and others, accurate prioritization, correlation of necessity and opportunity, reasonable formulation of goals and a fundamental rejection of extremism as a method.
And again, for us Russians, these are not some hypothetical axioms, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments sometimes exceeds all forecasts. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral debris, in the place of which nothing can be built for a long time.”
This is an excerpt from President Putin’s speech at a discussion club Valdai in 2021. It was called “How I See Today’s World” and published in Greece by Korontzi Publications, who were kind enough to send it to me some time ago.
Putin is clearly not an angel of democracy – this is evidenced by his disqualification of fellow candidates in the presidential elections in the spring. He’s also no fan of international law – his invasion of Ukraine proves that. But what he says about the experience of Bolshevik “progressive change” in his country is worth keeping in mind. These are not just words and not just a theory. This is an experience!
Manolis Kottakis, author of the book “How I see the world today”which presents Russian President Putin’s speech at the Valdai Discussion Club in 2021.
Related materials:
More Stories
The Minister of Health called the protesters "insignificant people, kafirs"
Gold Switzerland: “We are in the last 5 minutes of our financial system – the collapse of everything is approaching”
Union of Judges: “People’s courts were created against us with the loyal attitude of the government”