With environmental dvuhukha in Western Europe, bad luck happened. They started very cheerfully, putting Berlin, Paris, London, Amsterdam and Brussels on their ears and promised to put on their ears and further - in fulfillment of the green ideals of the youth Greta Tunberg.
For example, I thought by analogy with the previous long-drawn-out movements (“yellow vests”, the Moscow summer, various “occupations”) and assumed that this business would drag on. For the supporters of the green world are desperate people and, to a large extent, are seriously ill, and the authorities are in a delicate situation: after various spells about ecology, as well as about sacred democracy, it’s not easy to start a harsh vintilov, but you must observe hypocrisy .
But it turned out that it was not necessary.
The right of citizens to assemble peacefully and without weapons wherever they want, and without any permission, the right that we completely ate in July and August and which makes up the most important part of the program is piled up, suddenly turned out to be inoperative in the countries of the most perfect democracy. In the two western kingdoms, they announced that citizens interfere with traffic, and sent the police to disperse them. Moreover, as our northern Mordor never dreamed of - with water cannons and tear gas.
What incline the authorities to such austerity is hard to say. Perhaps they decided that such a blockade of the capital's cities was a dangerous business and if timely care was given to indifferent citizens, the initiative could spread with the speed of a steppe fire. Perhaps the conspiracy theorists are right, believing that "Soros came up with it all in the 19th year." Moreover, the grandfather is old - he does not care. Perhaps the role of Soros is generally greatly exaggerated (a kind of Boris Abramovich, great and terrible), while the matter is not at all in the philanthropist, but in some other obscure backstage graters. Damn them there, you can only notice that technologies of nonviolent resistance, like the plague, do not recognize borders and can begin to rage in the house of the organizers themselves.
After that, the European Parliament decided to succumb to the heat, and on the other side, from which they had not expected. The leader of the AdG parliamentary group (“Alternative for Germany”) Jörg Moyten indicated that “these campaigns, for example,“ Friday for the sake of the future ”(Greta Tunberg movement. - M. S. ), Greenpeace actions, civilian rescue ships in the Mediterranean, professionally organized and have serious financial support. Currently, such campaigns have a strong influence on politics, which impedes the achievement of goals such as ensuring welfare, employment, reliable energy supplies, and ultimately contributes to Europe’s loss of global competitiveness and its impoverishment. ”
All right, Moyten said: the destructive nature and destructive consequences of such measures for the European economy are obvious. For a while, it can be saved by a large margin of safety, but after all, everything is transient. Especially if you fight for left-liberal ideals with such enthusiasm.
However, then the thought of the politician developed. He called to look at the green movement in terms of hybrid threats and asked if Moscow was involved in this: “Can the commission exclude the possibility that these campaigns are financed and supervised by Russia?”
In principle, the approach according to which “all adversity, all trouble is from the insidious Russian” is quite common in the most civilized countries. If the Russians ruined H. Clinton, not allowing her to be elected president, if they made a brexit, and also organized the movement of “yellow vests” in France (Macron is not to blame for it, in fact), and generally look everywhere - Moscow’s hand is everywhere , then why can't Greta Tunberg be a puppet in the experienced hands of Petrov and Boshirov? And very much so.
But still, such terrible revelations would have seemed more natural if they had not come from the name of the leader of the AdG. At the end of last year, the same Moyten said: “The resolution of the EU supreme legislative body against SP-2 is a transparent maneuver to harm Russia. However, our AdG party is confident: this gas pipeline is also being built in the interests of the German economy. It will not lead to dependence on Russian gas, but will ensure a constant, stable and cost-effective supply of energy to our country for the next decades. Of course, we are for the diversity of energy suppliers, but we are also for their reliability. This project is useful for people not only in Germany, but also in Russia. That is why we support SP-2 and disagree with this resolution. ”
That is, less than a year ago, the leader of the AdG considered Russia as a reliable and predictable partner, and now he does not exclude the possibility that Kremlin agents are stealthily financing initiatives aimed at the collapse of the German economy.
Of course, it happens that people change their views, but usually it is connected with some significant events. Changing your views on a completely level ground is a much rarer case.
Therefore, it was suggested that Moyten did not say this seriously, but indulging in trolling at the 88th degree. True, he did not seem to have been seen before in this kind of rhetorical devices, but, on the other hand, we must someday begin.
But the undertaking is painfully risky. Famous aphorism: "Do not joke with women - these jokes are stupid and indecent." But if with women still to and fro, then with left-liberal progressists these jokes (for the joking) of death are similar. Since the progressors have only one gyrus, and even that is not in the head. Irony, sarcasm and even an innocent joke are inaccessible to their understanding, for they all perceive with bestial seriousness. Especially trolling 88th degree.
Following them, all public communication generally degrades, and Western politicians do not understand jokes like Moytenov’s (if it was a joke).
Unless the universal answer will finally be put into use: “And am I also the chapel?” It’s also good.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.