Russian Patriots Learn How to Cancel-Culture Their Foes, Shut Down Anti-Russia Music Festival

Big story here, people!

In Mother Russia, right-wingers cancel you!

If you don’t like it, go build your own Russia!

Meet Ilya Bortnyuk:

I’ll give you three chances to guess his ethnicity.

…

..

.

Yep, he’s a Skeksis.

Photos from his social media

So, Ilya came up with the brilliant idea to stage a protest concert in support of Ukraine this year … in Russia … and with a full roster of anti-Russian pop stars. A bold move and one that he could have probably gotten away with in 2019, no doubt. But the times, oh, they are a-changing! Russian civil society mobilized to get his concert (Стереолето, Summer Stereo) canceled and succeeded in pressuring the government to come down on Ilya and the artists hard.

Here’s one group that was headlining the event:

The song title is hard to translate. But the phrase Русские Вперед literally translates to “Russians, Forward” but usually means “Let’s Go, Russians” and uses a similar construction to the French phrase “Allons-y!” So, Русские Назад, which literally translates to “Russians, Backward” means something along the lines of “Fuck Russians”.

Duma Deputy Vitaliy Milonov helped organize the campaign to shut this concert down. Remember him?

The end result: pool’s closed concert’s cancelled. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from an organized right-wing shutdown campaign, bigot.

But let’s take a closer look at who was involved in this anti-Russian psychological propaganda operation. First, we have Ilya himself, of course: a mid-level pot-bellied globalist, with a modest stash of stolen gold sitting in his account at Gringotts - nothing too serious. He runs a music licensing, consulting and event-organizing business. He’s been running concerts in Russia since 2001.

And then we have Manizha (Manizha Hamraev), the headliner of the event.

Here’s the quick rundown on her:

Manizha is a Tadjik. In 2021, she was sent to Euromaidan. There, she put on an ethnic Russian costume and made a song about being a Russian woman, which was really a thinly-veiled critique of Russia’s culture of oppressing women during which she ritually shed her Russian garb like the vile brown snake that she is.

Manizha stated in interviews that she wanted the Russian ethnic costume to look as shoddy and ill-fitting as possible during the performance to symbolize the oppression of patriarchal Russian culture. She also came up with the idea while visiting Israel in 2020 before the debut at Eurovision. There she met with sound producers Ori Avni and Ori Kaplan who became co-authors of her performance. Yes, this woman certainly has many “European-style socialists” running all around her. Manizha’s husband is, apparently, half-Ukrainian and half-Georgian, which prompted her to vocally denounce the Russian operation in Ukraine. I don’t think she needed much convincing, to be quite honest.

The obvious question: why was this Tadjiki with a grudge against Russia sent to Euromaidan to represent Russia? Frankly, I don’t think this question merits a serious answer from me at this point. Have you learned nothing from reading the Slavland Chronicles? Have I failed you as a blogger?

Again, Russia was in a total state of bardak going into this special operation. Russia’s culture creators are almost all from the same vile tribe of lizard-people as the ones who run Hollywood in the West. That’s how stuff like this gets financed and promoted. By the way, Manizha’s sister, Munisa Uzmanov, is a newsreader for Channel 1, the state media channel.

Channel 1 is run by the anti-Russian Konstantin Ernst. Remember him?

It’s all one big mafia of closely-knit people who share the same anti-Russian views running the media, sadly.

All that seems to be changing, slowly, but surely though. These people are feeling the pressure from patriotic groups in civil society who have overcome their reservations about engaging in “cancel-culture” and have instead decided to just start going for the jugular against their enemies by pressuring the government to step in and start cracking skulls.

This concert being shutdown is only the tip of the iceberg. Here’s a list of related shutdowns:

These are just some of the other musical groups being shut down for their vocal support of Ukraine and anti-Russia posturing: Mummy Troll, B-2, Anna Netprebko, Aquarium.

Sad to hear about B-2. They did the soundtrack for the cult classic Russian film Brat 2.

There are others being shut down as well, but frankly, I don’t want to list them all.

Fine, here’s one more:

Leonid Agutin - poet, bard and friend of the brave and independent Ukrainian people.

Guess his ethnicity.

…

..

.

Yep, a half-banker on his father’s side and he’s not going to be playing at Stereoleto either.

All in all, this is very encouraging news. This is cancel culture done right. It’s amazing what right-wingers can do when they aren’t hobbled by commitments to the fake moral principles of their enemy. In the West, the right would start crying that if they mobilized to shut down degeneracy, that would make them no better than their political opponents. And for several years in Russia, I was a vocal advocate of setting up right-wing cancel squads. Me and the boys harassed the CEO of Teremok for introducing the soy-blin to his menu. Then, we harassed Yandex Taxi for firing a Russian with a family for refusing to drive an inebriated negro. We went after Tanuki Sushi for pushing race-mixing in their sushi ads. The full list of companies and people that our little cyber-guerrilla outfit went after would run for half a page. But every step of the way, people in the right-o-sphere whined and complained that we were behaving like the enemy. They bleated that such behavior was not befitting a person or organization of the right. Naturally, we told them to shove it.

In fact, the recalcitrance of the right in Russia and the West to fight degeneracy head-on was what got me thinking about the problems in modern political thinking in the first place. These people on the right believed what we believed, but they couldn’t bring themselves to do in any way shape or form because while their beliefs were “right-wing” their code of conduct was anything but.

I wrote a bit about the sacred cow of free speech in my now-completed book, which I’m fixing to publish soon. I thought I’d share an excerpt now, since it’s relevant:

Free Speech

Free speech is perhaps the most pressing social issue of our time or at least the current cycle of political discourse. Our enemies prohibit anyone even mildly critical of the Liberal regime to voice their opinion with active censorship. They then use more coercive measures against those that manage to get their voice through the net of censorship, with economic sanctions against individuals by monopoly industries, and constant harassment, eventually leading up to imprisonment by the secret police. The hypocrisy is so staggeringly apparent now that it is hardly even worth mentioning here because even the layperson understands the consequences of speaking their mind in public, at work, on the internet or, in some cases, even among close friends and families. There is an active Liberal terror campaign that is constantly on the hunt for individuals to isolate, freeze and make examples of. 

But if we look deeper into the idea of free speech, we are forced to conclude that we should not confuse a simple social instrument for a higher, absolute metaphysical concept worth killing and dying for. To begin with, we need to realize that there are no societies that allow total freedom of speech. Additionally, it should be noted that no society has ever allowed public criticism of people who hold real power. Real free speech aimed at the powers that be was always underground because it was always persecuted, and people who wanted to taste this forbidden fruit were always forced to hide their faces, make great personal sacrifices and risk harsh punishments. In that sense, our situation now is not all the different from any other period in world history only the scope of forbidden has expanded to encompass all aspects of life from child-rearing, diet, the language and of course, the big questions surrounding politics and economics. If in a traditional society criticism of the king was forbidden, then literally all aspects of life under Liberalism are subject to the dogma of the ruling class. This is what Totalitarianism actually is. Authoritarianism is best understood as standing at the complete opposite of the political spectrum - but we’ll have more to say on that later. 

Limits on free speech have always existed. And here it is worth noting that there is nothing inherently wrong in limiting speech in some cases. 

Consider: In sane countries and cultures, there have always been decency laws, customs and norms either on the books or in the collective understanding of the people. For example, America used to ban pornography up until the 1970s when a kvetch of Jewish lawyers convinced the Supreme Court that pornography fell under the protection of the First Amendment. 

America, as a result, got a lot sleazier, true, but it did not become any freer. 

Now it is important for us to understand what freedom of speech was and what it was not. As a concept, it is almost a uniquely Indo-European phenomenon, created to improve the quality of discussion within society. Its purpose was simple: to facilitate the discovery of truth. It was assumed that allowing free debate would create a situation wherein the tribe could consider many options and then make a better informed decision. In other words, free speech was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, and it has been a tool that has mostly worked for the benefit of the tribes of our ancestors for thousands of years.

But for any system to work, several conditions have to be met. In the case of allowing free speech in the form of open debate on important decisions, the conditions are the following: 

• The people participating in the discussion are members of one particular tribe

• The people participating in the discussion are intelligent and competent

• The people participating in the discussion can, if willing, forgo debate and simply slaughter each other to resolve the dispute

The first pre-condition for debate has been completely forgotten in our modern world. We allowed Liberals to take the idea of ​​open debate and tear it away from the ethnic and cultural roots it had in order to turn it into a kind of ephemeral ideal, completely separated from reality. But if someone is not part of a tribe, then they do not have the same interests as the tribe. And since such people have a dual-loyalty, opinions and suggestions offered by them are of no value, because no one can know whether or not they are made in good faith or as part of an ulterior agenda. There can be no debate about a given course of action with outsiders, only negotiations before or after a battle. The fact that we are obliged to allow racial, cultural and religious outsiders to discuss and define our policies for us is nothing short of absolute insanity. Two different tribes engage in debate only with their swords.

Consider: is there any reason to give wolves a chance to hold a debate with sheep? What can there even be a debate about if the two groups have different interests? Only about the hour that dinner will be held and the seasoning that should be added to the meat, perhaps. Some sophisticated sheep, eager to participate in such debates, probably think that they are very cultured for doing so. And yes, they can even win a debate against the wolves by proving that mustard tastes better than horseradish on sheep flesh. See, the wolves are ready to discuss the time of dinner and the number of guests, maybe even the number of courses … but for some reason they do not want to discuss the possible cancellation of the feast. For such thoughts, they can even resort to labeling the occasional brave lamb who ventures to raise the topic a "Wolfaphobe" so that other sheep will ostracize him and his opinions and more willingly hand themselves over to the jaws of the wolves. 

There is a metaphor buried somewhere deep in that story, no doubt. 

But the insanity of the free speech absolutists knows no bounds. At this point, we might as well hold congress in a mental asylum and ask the patients there to take charge of our nations. It might actually be an improvement. And while this sounds like an absurd proposal, it is actually the result of the hellish internal logic of granting free speech privileges to all and so it is an event that must come to pass sooner or later. After all, if freedom of speech is an absolute, sacred ideal, then NOTHING can limit it. Eventually, the mentally retarded will debate the fate of entire peoples’ on stage, while normal people will be arrested for pointing out their mental deficiencies. Impossible? Well, retarded people can vote, can they not? We’re already halfway there. 

It used to be well understood that not all opinions are equally valuable. Only those who had already demonstrated success and brought the tribe victory or honor were allowed to participate in serious discussions. Exceptions were made for those in whom the tribe saw potential as future leadership. No one accepted the opinions of foreigners and incompetents as valid.

In the end, debate was simply an alternative means of resolving disputes. Both sides knew that they could always just fight each other to death, and giving god or the gods the last word, with sword in hand, decide whose opinion was correct that way. But in order to minimize losses from conflicts within the tribe, they created a mechanism for resolving disputes without shedding blood. In this sense, free debate has the same origins as various sports games. It was a clever method of encouraging competition, keeping people alert and ready to fight, but minimizing potential disastrous fratricidal shedding of blood. 

In other words, free speech was useful at promoting the general health of the people. 

This begs the question: Does pornography serve any purpose in society? Are the opinions of foreign agents valuable and worth taking seriously? Should we allow children, the mentally disabled, and women to make our decisions for us? Why?

At some point very recently in our civilizational development, free speech became a political idol - its purpose and proper use forgotten, replaced instead by blind worship. Free speech and open debate was no longer used as a tool to help make informed decisions, but became a false god before whom all respectable people were obliged to fall to their knees. Of course, as soon as the free speech absolutists achieved their political goals, they immediately began to unceremoniously censor everyone else, revealing the nature of the ruse for all who had eyes to see. That is, when the liberals were still a hated and despised political minority, they hid behind the protection of the idea of ​​absolute freedom of speech for everybody. It was important for them to push their extremist version of free speech in society while they occupied a weaker position relative to their enemies. Now though, the mask has come off, coincidentally at the same time as we were all told to mask up.

Until we break this political idol we will not be able to move on to more serious political discussions. 

And I want to repeat one important point: debate is important and debate is needed. The serious thinkers of our time are constantly debating amongst themselves, as they try to brainstorm a way out of the mess that we find ourselves in. But this only works because these people have the same goals and want to improve the condition that their people find themselves in. In other words, they are using free speech as it was intended to be used, unlike others who try to find common ground with sworn enemies of their people. 

**

Patriotic organizations have been roused and rallied by the war. Needless to say, as an early advocate of shutting down literally every single Liberal in Russia, I can’t help but feel vindicated that such opinions and such actions are no longer considered fringe, but considered common sense measures. Now, everyone pretends that they too were in favor of going after the Liberals and shutting them down even though you and I know that this was simply not the case.

Regardless, in Russia, the jackboot is well and truly on the other foot now.

And that’s a good thing.