Mandatory Propaganda

Mandatory Propaganda

A ruling by the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates the reach and pettiness of the current international regime, while showing why we must break free from the international system

by Jay Lorenz

What a strange land Europe has become. Once the undisputed civilizational center of the world, the continent has devolved into a post-first world wasteland. The healthy competition between nations has turned into a contest to see which nation can destroy itself the quickest and the most completely. From importing third world invader “refugees” to imposing anti-White and other destructive policies, White nations around the world are engaging in a race to the bottom. At the same time, those who attempt to fight back are stifled by powerful Orwellian institutions which crack down on any deviation from the path toward the destruction of Europe and the broader White world. Even low level disruptions to the system lead to intervention from the international regime due to its reach and intolerance of dissent. Very few cases better demonstrate the strange, degenerate petty politics this has produced than the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling last Tuesday against a Russian law which bars the promotion of homosexual propaganda to children. The interests of the European people far from the minds of the continent’s elites, they focus instead on punishing the few who choose to fight their agenda and its monstrous bureaucratic mass.

The court, of which Russia is a member, ordered the Russian government to pay 43,000 euros total in damages to three men it had convicted of violating the law against proselytizing homosexuality to minors. The crux of the court’s reasoning in its decision was, “by adopting such laws, the authorities reinforce stigma and prejudice and encourage homophobia, which is incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance,” which must be upheld. Perhaps the court is right that the law is incompatible with those notions, but does that mean we should allow anyone with any message to propagandize our children, or does it mean we should reconsider whether equality, pluralism, and tolerance should be the central values of our civilization?

The men who filed the cases, on the basis that the law discriminated against them and violated their freedom of expression, were found guilty via the Russian law against “public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors.” By any reasonable standard, that is exactly what they were doing. The men held multiple demonstrations in front of schools and children’s libraries, holding banners with messages, including, “Homosexuality is normal,” “I am proud of my homosexuality,” “Deputies are child-killers. Homosexuality is good,” “Children have the right to know. Homosexuality is natural and normal,” and “Homosexuality is not a perversion.”

As a sovereign nation, why is Russia not allowed to prevent these activities? In Europe today, sovereignty is secondary to degeneracy—you are only afforded the first if you condone the second.

The advisory body to the court, the Venice Commission, made the following statements in its recommendation, which the court adopted: “measures which seek to remove from the public domain promotion of other sexual identities except heterosexual, affect the basic tenets of a democratic society, characterized by pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness, as well as the fair and proper treatment of minorities,” “neither cultural, traditional, nor religious values, nor the rules of a ‘dominant culture’ can be invoked to justify hate speech or any other form of discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity,” and “they do not provide any evidence of harm that may result for minors” who are exposed to homosexual propaganda.

The leftist logic used in the commission’s opinion is highly flawed. In the first statement, it uses the common leftist tactic of equating democracy with the current-year egalitarian ideology. This is a post-hoc rationalization, as democracy existed for millennia without modern leftist ideology. The democracies of the past had much different views on the “proper treatment” of minorities and the place of tolerance in a society. The opinion then attacks the notion that a dominant culture can exist or be legitimate, essentially saying that Russia does not have a right to its own culture and must submit to enforced multiculturalism. This argument should sound familiar, as it is the same one used to deconstruct White identity across the world. Because we have no culture, we lose nothing by being swamped with foreigners or allowing cultural Marxism to flourish, so we are told. Finally, the commission does not see the harm that can come from propagandizing minors with these messages because the commission supports the messages, and likely many other subversive notions as well. Moscow has vowed to appeal, arguing that the purpose of the law is to “defend morality and children’s health,” something, as shown by the language in the ruling, the European system has absolutely no interest in.

The fundamental assumption underlying the ECHR’s and the Venice Commission’s reasoning (and the most pernicious aspect of all) is that discrimination is bad no matter what—that there can be no good  discrimination. This is the moral paradigm we live in. Even discrimination against pedophiles is now being pushed as a moral wrong, akin to discrimination against other races, gays, women, und so weiter. Never is it considered that discrimination can be a good thing, and even a societal bulwark against forces that will degrade and destroy it. In reality, a certain amount of discrimination must exist in a society for that society to exist. A society defines itself by what it isn’t and what it won’t tolerate. When those distinctions are removed, the society will crumble. As it stands, discrimination against minorities is considered a heinous act, maybe even the worst thing an individual or a government can do. The court says that Russia could not prove how gay propaganda is detrimental to their society, yet the court and the policy makers have never proven how the overprotection of minorities benefits society. Of course, it would be an impossible task to prove this. The only people that extravagant and excessive minority rights benefit are the minorities themselves, not the normal majority population that is the lifeblood of any country.


Discrimination is always wrong.


It is not the amount awarded in the ruling that is alarming; after all, it is not a large sum. It is the sheer fact that the ruling was made. It is a petty thumb in the eye to Russia for maintaining a traditional society. This sends a message to the other Eastern European nations, such as Poland and Hungary, which are resisting the program: Western Europe plans to drag you down with it. The European Union has already announced plans to punish the Visegrad group, a group of European countries composed of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, for refusing to take in their allotment of non-White invaders. Of course, that is a more serious matter, but the Russia case shows that this draconian mentality will be applied to any case that disrupts the cultural program, no matter how seemingly insignificant.

I do not wish to overstate the importance of this single ruling (I referred to it as petty, and it truly is), but I do not wish to understate the implications of the underlying agenda either. Already, many corporations consistently push gay propaganda in the West, adorning products with rainbow flags and supporting “gay pride.” Even the police departments of many major cities are turning their cruisers into (literal) vehicles for homosexual propaganda by adorning them with gay pride decals. In most of Europe, not only is degenerate propaganda legal, it is widespread and shown to children daily. In Spain, a poster campaign emerged earlier this year showing naked children with the genitalia of the opposite sex linking hands. The posters read, “There are girls with penises and boys with vulvas. It’s as simple as that.”The campaign was predictably funded by an (((anonymous New York businessman))). Also in Spain, a book teaching that transsexualism is normal by showing animals engaging in gay sex, transexualism, and the like has been distributed to preschools and elementary schools by an LGBT group. In Sweden, schools are carrying out a genderless experiment, where teachers are instructed to refer to boys and girls by the same pronoun and to not distinguish between them. These are just three examples out of thousands, and one could likely find even worse perversions.

One wonders where this is headed—how far it will go. This week in Europe, dozens of homes were raided in Germany for posting anti-invader “hate speech” online. In the U.K., a man was sentenced to over a year in jail for criticizing Muslims on Facebook. Soon this protection will likely be given to gays and others. The international regime will continue to take greater control over what we see and what we say. Propaganda will be mandatory, and dissent criminalized. This issue gives off the same feeling as the general trajectory of our politics—it is headed to a dark place. That is, unless something is done to stop it. The beginnings of a backlash are forming, but the tide of degeneracy in our institutions has not been halted, or even slowed. What will happen to the children who are bombarded with even more intense propaganda in the future? What notions will they be encouraged, even forced, to believe? What will be done to those who oppose it? With more and more generations of this practice, what will Europe become? Let us not wait and see. Opposition to this program must start now and must be strong. Russia would be wise to pull out of the ECHR, and any nation that values its continued existence should disengage from the current international system. Our future depends on it.



Jay Lorenz

Related Posts