Pussy Riot attacked freedom of speech and freedom of religion

And the longer they stay in jail, the more secure freedom of speech and freedom of religion is in Russia.

If you desecrate your own altar in your own venue, that is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you desecrate someone else’s altar in someone else’s venue, you are suppressing their freedom of religion, and, in that an altar is symbolic speech, you are silencing their speech.

Pussy Riot have long been exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of religion to attack Putin, the Orthodox Church, Christianity, and public decency. Absolutely no consequences ensued. In Britain, however, you can be jailed for facecrime, or criticizing the presence of immigrants. In the US you cannot be jailed for it, but your business may be suppressed, and left wing terrorists may be deniably encouraged to attack you.

The history of Pussy Riot demonstrates that there is more freedom of speech in Russia than in the US, and far more freedom of speech in Russia than in England.

Emboldened by this tolerance, mistaking it for weakness, Pussy Riot then went after other people’s freedom of speech and religion, and for that, they were punished.

Allegedly Pussy Riot was a creation of the US manufactured and funded to silence hostile speech in Russia (foreign agents). That they have an English language name, and the mainstream media at their backs, suggests that is true, and, true or not, they have been adopted by the west as a tool to attack freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Russia.

There is less freedom of speech in China. English language blogs located in China seem to be pretty frank about problems in China, but Chinese dissidents in China expressing themselves in Chinese get set to jail – to about the same extent as English dissidents in England expressing themselves in English. Ai Weiwei was recently jailed for criticizing the Chinese regime – after several years of condemning the Chinese regime in a wide variety of media and making lots of money out of dissent.

Freedom of speech in China and Russia is steadily improving, while freedom of speech in the west is steadily diminishing, but, until Chick-a-Fil or the Mormons experience a kristallnacht, there is still some freedom of speech in the US.

We have, however, passed the turning point, where democracies are now generally less free than most other forms of regime, so that whosoever loves freedom should hate democracy.

9 Responses to “Pussy Riot attacked freedom of speech and freedom of religion”

  1. Thrasymachus says:

    My theory about communism is that it was encouraged as a way or wiping out social structures the Anglophone commercial elite didn’t like and couldn’t control. No English colony or Protestant country ever went communist. By wiping out Catholic, Orthodox or eastern social structures, a nation could be prepped for capitalism. This worked beautifully most places- China being the perfect example. Russia was supposed to become a capitalist country under the guidance of Jeffrey Sachs, but some of the natives had other ideas. An oligarchic, authoritarian extractive economy under the control of Jewish billionaires and former KGB agents is hardly a threat to the West, but maintaining an indigenous religion and culture is unacceptable.

    In the West “free speech” does indeed include leftists attacking and disrupting non-Protestant religious places- remember ACT UP throwing blood in St. Patrick’s Cathedral during services.

    • jim says:

      The communist takeover of China and Cuba was sponsored by the Anglophone elite. However, Lenin was funded and sponsored by the Kaiser, so you cannot really blame the Soviet Union on the Anglophone elite. The communist takeover of Eastern Europe was initially sponsored by the Anglophone elite, but then they became extremely alarmed and hostile, and regretted it.

      You can pin the Soviet Union on some Jews, but they were self hating Jews, who proceeded to purge each other, so while you can blame it on Jews and the Kaiser you cannot blame “the Jews”. We cannot blame the anglophone elite for absolutely everything, any more than we can blame “the Jews” for everything.

  2. guest says:

    We have, however, passed the turning point, where democracies are now generally less free than most other forms of regime, so that whosoever loves freedom should hate democracy.

    Indeed; Though, this has always been so.

    The Federalist No. 10
    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

    From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

    Democracy Is Not Freedom by Rep. Ron Paul
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html

    Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

    The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere.

  3. red says:

    It’s interesting watching the American right line up in favor of P*ssy riot. They’d never complain about a pot head getting 2 years in jail but they’re in a hissy about p*ssy.

    • jim says:

      A pot head is innocent. Pussy Riot is guilty.

      • red says:

        More like a pot head did no harm were Pussy Riot dessicated a church and celebrated their crime with music video of it. The right(Ace of spades, Instapundit, ect) are jubilant they finally have a case where they can support leftist morality.

  4. Samson J. says:

    An oligarchic, authoritarian extractive economy under the control of Jewish billionaires and former KGB agents is hardly a threat to the West

    Unless, as I hope (and as you imply), their retention of an indigenous religion and culture serves as an example for the rest of the world, so that the rest of the world might look at Russia and realize, hey, we don’t *need* diversi-leftism; there’s something better! Much as the US was formerly supposed to exemplify “freedom” and democracy, without actively trying to impose these things on everyone.

  5. play games says:

    play games…

    [...]Pussy Riot attacked freedom of speech and freedom of religion « Jim’s Blog[...]…

  6. Charly says:

    Charly…

    [...]Pussy Riot attacked freedom of speech and freedom of religion « Jim’s Blog[...]…

Leave a Reply