Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Real Nature of Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
As Far As The Eye Can See
by Moshe Dann
Threats of Pain and Ruin
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky

Sunday, 19 August 2012
Pius Story

'Pius story' is just one of the many anagrams of 'Pussy Riot' -- a radical left-wing collective that has recently had some of its members gaoled for two years for aggravated hooliganism in Moscow -- and I can assure you that the story behind the gaoling has nothing pius about it at all.

It transpires that a group of foul-mouthed young women from the collective known by the innuendo-laden name of 'Pussy Riot' performed an extremely crude, rude and expletive laden song on the soleas, and on the right-hand and left-hand kliroi, in front of the Holy Doors in the Iconostasis and behind the ambon in the Cathedral Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. Apparently, and absolutely unbelievably, they committed this sacrilegious act because they wanted to protest about the closeness of Church and state in Russia and because they believe, so they say, that the Church has no right to ask the faithful to vote in certain ways, ways that would be beneficial to the Church and the faithful, in elections in Russia.

After their charade was stopped, in a very gentle manner, by Church security officials their remarks became increasingly unpleasant and scatalogical and were directed towards Christianity in general and the Russian Orthodox Church in particular. This was hardly surprising as the members of the Pussy Riot collective have close ties to the dissident group known as Voina, which means 'war' in Russian, which is infamous for its peurile ramblings and childish fascination with excrement, filth and bodily functions.

Members of the collective frequently perform in Voina works such as "Fuck for the heir to Papa Bear!", which consisted of five couples, including one pregnant woman four days from giving birth, having public sex in Moscow's Timirayzev State Museum. Another so-called production by Voina was the defacing of the famous Liteyny Bridge across the Neva in Saint Petersburg by the painting of a giant seventy-five yard long phallus on its surface -- exactly the sort of filthy, childish gesture that Voina, and the Pussy Riot collective, is, and are, known for in Russia.

Another typical Voina technique is to bring metaphor literally to life. Playing on the Russian swear slang for "nicked" -- spizdit’, or literally ‘cunted’ -- one work saw a female activist come out of a supermarket with frozen chicken legs inserted in her anus and vagina. While the activist was dealing with the chicken bits, other participants assembled eight large cards into the word "B.E.Z.B.L.YA.D.N.O" (‘unwhored’).

Writing on his blog Alexei Plutser-Sarno, who is the self-styled 'spokesman' for Voina and its associated groups such as the Pussy Riot collective and also an expert on Russian swear language (surprise, surprise) and the editor of a number of etymological dictionaries involving rude words, explains that the word blyad’ (‘whore’) has historically meant two things. In ancient Russia, the word denoted "lying, deceit, delusion"; currently, "it stands for the man in the street who dreams of a car, a dacha, a flat and debauchery". Voina activists, and their friends and associates such as the Pussy Riot collective, are presented in complete contrast to such characters: "A Voina activist is no 'blyad' since they do not buy or sell anything, and live without spending money... anything Voina needs its activists obtain free".

So, when the Pussy Riot demonstrators were charged the usual left-wing retards demanded that the Church forgive them and that the Russian authorities go very easy on them. Why?

Because the Church did forgive them -- something the trendy-lefty western press neglects to mention -- and the Orthodox Church said in a statement after the verdict that the collective's stunt was a "sacrilege" and a "reflection of rude animosity toward millions of people and their feelings". It also asked the authorities to "show clemency toward the convicted in the hope that they will refrain from new sacrilegious actions". That sentiment reflected the sentiment of forgiveness that Archpriest Maxim Kozlov drew on that was vocalised right at the start of this incident: "We are praying and hoping these young women ... realise their acts are awful. And despite this the church is asking for mercy within the limits of law."

And because the authorities did go easy on them -- all they got was twenty-four months in gaol for an act that has scandalised Christians all around the globe -- the Russian authorities are being pilloried for defending their Christian people's right to have their Churches left in peace and not defiled by vile, gratuitous swearing and lewd and libidinous acts. We Christians are being accused of being complicit in some vast conspiracy to suppress freedom of speech because we dared to object to having our places of worship so desecrated -- yes, we dared to object and now such newspapers as The Guardian call the foul-mouthed female thugs who committed this act of depravity and vandalism "articulate", "charming" and "nice".

We Christians can go hang -- our sensibilities aren't worth a damn in the opinion of the western dhimmi press -- for the only thing that matters in today's topsy-turvy world is portraying the potty-mouthed young thugs of the Pussy Riot radical left-wing collective as some sorts of heroes and martyrs when, in reality, they are just feces-fixated exhibitionist hooligans who got exactly what they deserved. Maybe next time the police and the courts will be able to unravel the complicated web of connections to various criminal enterprises that many people believe sustain groups like the Pussy Riot radicals and Voina -- groups that "do not buy or sell anything, and live without spending money... anything Voina needs its activists obtain free".

Finally, and before I get too worked up, I can't help but wonder what would have happened to the shit obsessed females of the Pussy Riot collective if they had chosen to perform their base stunt in a mosque? Would the mosque's security personnel have been as gentle and considerate as the Church's? Somehow I doubt it! Would the western press be hailing these sordid, stool-mouthed females as heroes in that case? Again, I somehow doubt it!

But we Christians are supposed to do more than forgive. For some unknown reason we are also supposed to abrogate our rights in law and demand more than leniency -- we're supposed to demand clemency and pardons. Why should we do that in a civilised country where we are supposed to be free to worship and go about our business unmolested and equal to everyone else? If the Pussy Riot thugs had chosen to defile a mosque would the same be being asked of Mohammedans? I think not!

I forgive them, but now they must do their penance.

Posted on 08/19/2012 12:10 AM by John M. Joyce
19 Aug 2012
Send an emailMary Jackson

What would have happened to the shit obsessed females of the Pussy Riot collective if they had chosen to perform their base stunt in a mosque?

Short answer -- they wouldn't.

Slightly longer answer -- rioting and killing all over the world by "enraged" Muslims. Condemnation from The Guardian et al of  Pussy Riot for fuelling Muslim extremism.

19 Aug 2012
Larry E

I can't help but think that if the thugs of ActUp who committed a similar crime and sacrilege against St. Patrick's Cathedral had received a jail sentence, various low-life organizations wouldn't be so anxious to invade churches today.

20 Aug 2012
Send an emailgavroche

What would have happened to the shit obsessed females of the Pussy Riot collective if they had chosen to perform their base stunt in a mosque?

Pussy riot would have then received the full support of every member of the NER in the name of freedom of speech, standing up for the West, etc. and the sentence would have been widely condemned as unfair and motivated by a desire to placate the evil muslims.

Now if this had happened in a synagogue...I think NER staff would be asking for the death penalty.

20 Aug 2012
Send an emailMary Jackson

Pussy riot would have then received the full support of every member of the NER in the name of freedom of speech, standing up for the West, etc. and the sentence would have been widely condemned as unfair and motivated by a desire to placate the evil muslims.

I would imagine most NER readers would say that the sentence was still reasonable, but that the subsequent fatwas, murders, rapes and other Islamically motivated mayhem was not. That it was "disproportionate", to adopt an Israel-basher's favourate word.

How many murders and death threats have there been about "Piss Christ" as opposed to the Mo-toons?

The question is academic, however, as Pussy Riot would not be that "brave".

20 Aug 2012
Send an emailJohn M. Joyce

Larry E/

Thank-you for your comment.

I can't help but agree with you. Invading prayer spaces, no matter what the denomination or religion, is just plain wrong. Low-life organisations, as you neatly phrase it, should realise that and also realise that because of the offence caused it is also and usually counter-productive.


Thank-you for your comment.

No, They would not have received the full support of me or my colleagues at NER. Please see my reply to Larry E, above. Invading the places where people of any religion seek closer communion with G-d is just plain wrong and is hardly likely to enhance the peace that would allow the one true, loving and caring G-d reach out and sooth troubled minds such as those of Mohammedans - or yours or mine, perhaps.

By the way, I have never demanded the death penalty for anyone and I never will - I am opposed to its use. I cannot, of course, speak for my colleagues, but I am sure that you will find all shades of opinion on that issue amongst us and I do feel that your suggestion that we would call for it in some given circumstance is more indicative of your prejudices against us than of our opinions about the incursions of Sharia Law into the western, liberal democracies coupled with the threats by Mohammedans in the middle east to wipe Israel off the map.

I think that you port a whole load of prejudices about what you perceive as right-wing opinions without ever stopping to actually see if there is any validity in our concerns for freedom and for our countries' futures. It is perfectly permissible for anyone, even someone on the left, to be concerned for and about freedom and democracy in the face of unremmitting cultural challenges and the excessive demands of the extremely religious (no matter what the religion!).

Do, please, continue to read here and to comment here - healthy debate is much needed everywhere, and is appreciated by me at least. Not everything here is serious, as you will have gathered. We also like to have fun sometimes.

20 Aug 2012

What does it mean to be a liberal? It means said liberal has failed to embrace his personal responsibility to mature and therefore remains immature. Immaturity denies reality, and substitutes a prefered illusion in said realitys stead.

Further, the illusion a liberal embraces, and pretends to think or believe is the truth of objective reality, must be, at all costs, protected, defended and supported. Should the liberals illusion be crushed the liberal must stare reality in the face and see it for what it is, and this is what liberals are avoiding in the first place.

This is the well from which the water of liberal stupidity is drawn. This is the secret to liberal stupidity in arguments, and this is why conversations and arguments with liberals is so disingenuous, they are not arguing about the truth of objective reality, they are protecting, defending and supporting their illusion.

There is a price to be paid, by the culture and therefore the collective, for this irresponsible cheat of the maturation process by liberals. This phenomenon is where a culture rots out from the inside. However this will not force the liberal to man up, and embrace his personal responsibility to mature, for in the liberals judgement, for the culture to die, for humanity to be burdened, is but a small price to be paid for said liberals gain of cheating the maturation process.

When a liberal fails to mature beyond cowardice and into courageousness, he must pretend he believes that the threat which elicits his cowardice is admirable and should be nobly defended. Further when one of the liberals fellow citizens courageously stands up to that same threat the liberal must feign courage and stand up against said fellow citizen.

He then sees him or herself as courageous and noble, an illusion, and further thinks that he or she has fooled everyone else as well.

As Islam, which means submit in English, invades our lands of the west, the lands of liberty, wealth and happiness, it pursues its superiority via a conquer, submit and enslave policy. In conquerring our liberty, wealth and happiness they will enslave us to their tyranny, poverty and misery.

Islam has brought the fight to our lands and we must muster the courage to eradicate them, or we must submit. Islam itself leaves only these two possible futures, and it is up to us the recognize this reality.

Obviously liberals will be of no use here, in fact they will be supporting their illusion by attacking the non-liberals trying to defend against the Islamic invasion. They will be inadvertantly helping the enemy of liberty, Islam, defeat and conquer liberty.

Liberalism, and liberals are the iceberg targeting the Titanic.

Woe will be humanity, when all are enslaved to Islamic insanity. Thank you.

PS, some people pretend they know what I, a non-liberal thinks, therefore this post is primarily offered up to tell those very people what it is that I think. I sincerely hope that what I think is now clear and manifest.

24 Aug 2012
Send an emailgavroche

Thanks for your reply. My comment was directed in general at NER staff because I believe that double standard at play here.

I am almost certain that no NER staff supports blashphemy laws or penal sanctions against blasphemers. This in fact is one of the main criticisms made against islamic societies by NER and like-minded sites. But that is precisely what happened to this group (although it is explained differently in the western press). The charge is hooliganism but everyone is Russia knows that the reason the group was prosecuted is due to the grave offense to religious sensibilities.  I think that a similar offense against Muslim sensibilities would illicit a completely different response from NER writers. 

24 Aug 2012
Send an emailMary Jackson

I think that a similar offense against Muslim sensibilities would illicit [sic] a completely different response from NER writers.

This despite repeated assertions to the contrary -- repeated condemnations of any such desecration regardless of religion.

The response that would indeed be different is that of the Muslim world, as opposed to the Christian world. Given that some rather mild cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper led to murder and mayhem, and an equally obscure novel by Salman Rushdie led to death threats and murder, one could expect, on past form, a murderous response far beyond that of imprisonment of the perpetrators. This response would be excused by that same Guardian/BBC axis who fall over themselves to defend Pussy Riot.

And of course, Pussy Riot would not be "brave" enough to pull such a stunt in a mosque, knowing that the Muslim response would be murder and mayhem.

25 Aug 2012
Send an emailJohn M. Joyce


As I wrote, above:

"Invading the places where people of any religion seek closer communion with G-d is just plain wrong and is hardly likely to enhance the peace that would allow the one true, loving and caring G-d reach out and sooth troubled minds such as those of Mohammedans - or yours or mine, perhaps."

I believe that that is a sentiment shared by many, if not all, at NER and I therefore reject your assumption that we would apply some sort of double standard if such an offense were to take place in the house of worship of some other religion such as Mohammedanism.

I note that you make assumptions about us that seem to be based on your own prejudicial assumptions about people who are broadly right of centre. Do, please, continue to read here and see if we all conform to some wicked stereotype!

Finally, I have recently returned from Russia where I spoke with friends both old and new and I have since been in communication with my friends over there on this very issue. I can assure you that the great mass of the Russian people are firmly behind the authorities' actions when it comes to the Pussy Riot collective and other such groups.

Most people are simple offended by the lewd behaviour and sewage-mouthed speech of such groups; groups that  seek only to shock and offend and hide behind some spurious notion of protest when everyone knows that they are nothing more than badly behaved children acting up like little infants in a vain attempt to get heard by mummy or daddy.

There is, no doubt, much wrong in Russia as there is much wrong in most societies. However, glorifyinhg the Pussy Riot collective and setting them up as heroes is simply ridiculous given what they actually are.

I re-iterate: These nasty people would have attracted my opprobrium no matter where thay had chosen to perform their foul-mouthed and libidinous act - there is a world of difference between legitimate protest (which would respect all prayer spaces) and mere scatalogical posing designed to evince disgust and attention, in equal measure, from adults.

Guns, Germs and Steel in Tanzania
The Thinking Person's Safari
Led by Geoffrey Clarfield
Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:


The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31