Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó called the Nord Stream explosions a terrorist act.

Here is the verbatim text of the statement of the Hungarian minister, which was made during his interview with RIA Novosti: “Whatever happens on the Nord Stream gas pipeline, it is really scandalous.

Because this is, in fact, the first time that such a large piece of European critical infrastructure has been attacked - by anyone, but it has been attacked.

In theory, this statement should not be taken as a sensation.

After all, what Peter Szijjarto said belongs to the category of obvious truths.

The cat was called a cat.

The dog was called a dog.

The attack against Nord Stream was called a terrorist attack.

However, theory, as often happens, does not coincide with practice at all.

As a child, I was very fond of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The King's New Clothes".

Let me quote a short fragment of this masterpiece of children's (and also, if you think carefully, and adult too) classical literature: “- And now, your royal majesty, deign to take off your dress!

the deceivers said.

“We will dress you in new clothes, right here, in front of a large mirror!”

The king undressed, and the deceivers pretended to put on him one piece of new clothes after another.

They grabbed him around the waist and pretended to be attaching something - it was a train, and the king twirled and spun in front of the mirror.

- Oh, how it goes!

Oh, how wonderfully sits!

the courtiers spoke out loud.

What a pattern, what colors!

No words, gorgeous dress!

“The canopy is waiting, your majesty!”

- reported the chief of ceremonies.

“He will be carried over you in a procession.

“I am ready,” said the king.

Invented by the famous Danish storyteller, the king was "ready".

And the modern collective West also turned out to be completely "ready" - to participate in the staging of the fairy tale "The King's New Clothes" in the geopolitical reality of the 21st century.

Everyone in the US and the EU knows very well (or at least guesses) what really happened with Nord Stream.

But to know is one thing, and to say it out loud is quite another.

I quote Andersen again: “So the king went at the head of the procession under a luxurious canopy, and all the people on the street and in the windows said: “Ah, the king’s new outfit is incomparable!

And what a beautiful train!

And the camisole looks wonderful!

Not a single person wanted to admit that he did not see anything, because this would mean that he was either stupid or sitting in the wrong place.

No dress of the king has ever caused such delight.

How vital!

The famous storyteller wrote: "Not a single dress of the king has ever caused such delight."

And here's real life for you: not a single terrorist attack against, to use the wording of Peter Szijjártó, "a large object of European critical infrastructure", has yet aroused such delight in the US and EU.

Of course, this delight is mostly hidden.

Only a few particularly outspoken individuals, such as US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, dare to express it directly: “I believe the entire administration ... is quite satisfied that Nord Stream ... has turned into a pile of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

All other Westerners in their mass participate in a collective conspiracy of silence: first they refuse to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack, and then, remembering that a terrorist attack is generally not good, they condemn this violation of international norms, fantastic in its scale.

Why?

Andersen has the answer: "Not a single person wanted to admit that he did not see anything, because this would mean that he was either stupid or sitting in the wrong place."

In the US and the EU, they can talk as much as they want about the importance of individualism.

But in fact we have a triumph of what psychologists call groupthink.

This is how this phenomenon is described in one of the electronic encyclopedias: “A psychological phenomenon that occurs in a group of people, within which conformism or a desire for social harmony leads to incorrect or irrational decision-making.

Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a unified solution without sufficient critical evaluation of alternative points of view, actively suppressing divergent opinions and isolating themselves from external influences.

In such a situation, unanimity among group members unnecessarily acquires greater value than following logic and rational thinking.

At the same time, the level of conformism increases significantly, information essential for the activities of the group is subject to biased interpretation.

This is the explanation why the statement of the Hungarian Foreign Minister is so important and valuable.

In the circle of European authorities, official Budapest is usually criticized, condemned and even condemned.

Peter Szijjarto's statement about Nord Stream is also bound to cause a lot of negative reviews.

And this will have its own reinforced concrete logic.

Adherents of the sect (I consider the use of this term in this case quite justified) are sincerely sure: those who are not included in this sect are either heretics or, at best, blind.

But about the one who is actually blind, everything is again said by Andersen: “Why, he is naked!

- suddenly said a child.

The only difference with modern political realities is that “not a boy, but a husband” - the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary - acted as a “breaker of foundations”.

Kudos to him for this and respect.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.