Posted 1 июля 2020, 23:24

Published 1 июля 2020, 23:24

Modified 24 декабря 2022, 22:37

Updated 24 декабря 2022, 22:37

Изображение материала

Thus we will win! TV repelled the aggression of five Western countries at once

1 июля 2020, 23:24
Five Western states risked "rhetorical aggression" against Russia, and, of course, received a worthy rebuff from telepropagandists.

It all started with the fact that a rainbow LGBTQ flag was hung from the window of the US Embassy. Later, the British embassy also hung the same flag, and the ambassadors of other “western” countries, including Australia, joined the action.

Sergey Mitrofanov

Western countries went to rhetorical aggression only because they didn’t have the usual strength, while Russia has enough tanks, planes and missiles with a nuclear engine to repel any aggression of the West, the TV concludes. Therefore, in impotent rage, they are trying to bite us exclusively rhetorically. Now for the parade on June 24 during the coronavirus, then for voting in the courts, then for LGBTQ people.

Regarding the "bite for the parade", Igor Korotchenko spoke vividly. So bright that his performance “NI” even took a separate column. The Facebook audience drew attention to the images used. Korotchenko described a certain hypothetical situation when the desecrator of the Gozman parade was turned into ashes, the desecrator of the parade Makarevich would be made into a lampshade, and the desecrator of the parade Sobol would be turned into a brothel.

But this time I have to defend Korotchenko from criticism. He did not intend to do this himself or his colleagues, but how would he even condemn such a situation if it happened as a result of oblivion of the Great Victory by the above-mentioned comrades.

As for the Facebook audience’s misunderstanding, it happened due to the fact that Korotchenko is a “general” and not an “intellectualist”, and therefore does not think through his images and symbols to its logical conclusion. Why someone might have crept in the false assumption that he describes the situation of a certain future for Russia, and not the historical past, and that he is happy about something in this situation.

In fact, worse (than Korotchenko) and more dangerous are the intellectuals in the studio. Nikonov, Tretyakov and Zhuravlyev.

Especially when they talk about protecting "our values." Then take out the saints. Because they have wild values.

Take Nikonov - a man made a biography solely on the fact that he is “the grandson of Molotov-Ribbentrop”, and does not hide this, but rather sticks it out. The other would somehow distance himself from the fact that the grandfather had something to do with the shameful agreement of the century of two cannibalistic regimes, but Vyacheslav understands that the Russian political class likes to poke the "free world" with Russian outrage. Over the years, he turned from a perestroika adviser to Gorbachev into a full-fledged “grandson”. And for this reason, Nikonov is invited to sit on various presidiums, and he freely moves up the career ladder.

Deputy Zhuravlev is a neophyte and loves the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact sincerely, with loving love, right behind the pact itself. For this reason, he even proposed in the Duma a bill prohibiting all criticism of the pact and repealing the decision of the 1989 Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. However, the bill for some reason did not take root. Until. Then the fans of the pact decided to enter it from the reverse side. From the inadmissibility of distorting the story. To condemn the pact, it turns out, is to distort history, and “understand” the pact, in their opinion, to love history.

The fact that he is for the pact, Tretyakov, the former chief editor of the perestroika Nezavisimaya Gazeta, never hid, although he did not often talk about it. However, offhand I found a quote: “My opinion (I will fix it right away, without argumentation): on the part of the USSR and Stalin this is a normal (in historical, political and military-strategic sense) diplomatic and political move, mostly positive (for the USSR) in its consequences. Therefore, this agreement cannot be subject to any condemnation by modern Russia. It is all the more strange for him to repent and apologize to someone. "The negative assessment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which seems to have been given in 1989 by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR or the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, must be disavowed".

This is the year 2009, long before Zhuravlyev.

And when these people start talking about it together, they are very convincing, but when they stop, you catch yourself on the clearness of the crystal clear fact: guys, you are talking about friendship and cooperation with the greatest villain of the 20th century, where did you get that Is this a normal, mostly positive diplomatic and political move? For ten Yeltsin years, did you understand that this is abnormal, and then abruptly ceased to understand?

And it’s not just about a formal agreement for averting eyes, as you assure today, but about which you began to act, the troops moved to Poland, Bolsheviks nationalized the enterprises of the local owners there (*Trotsky praised him from abroad) and went about shooting color of the Polish officers. How does your language turn after that to talk about “our values”. I can’t have the same values with you!

When Tretyakov begins to broadcast, it seems that he is joking. But he is not joking. The Americans at their embassy hang out the LGBTQ flag, committing a criminal offense against Russia, because along with the flag propaganda among children of non-traditional sexual relations takes place. Apparently, it is believed that the pediment of the building of the American embassy, already, firstly, not the American embassy, but with streams of air flowing around the walls, sovereign Russia begins, and the images emanating from the walls are seriously harmful to it. At the same time, some children constantly look at the embassy and the abstract flag without inscriptions and pictures makes them an irresistible desire to abandon the family of father and mother. (*I envy the imagination and libido of these children).

And let's, ”Tretyakov suggests,“ on the contrary, on the next house across the street in retaliation for the Americans we will hang out a huge poster about Hiroshima, - obviously forgetting that during the war the USSR did not fight on the side of Japan, but rather fought against it along with the Americans. Flaming himself, Tretyakov continues in the style of terrorism-light. And you can also answer in such a way that the sewage system will break down in the embassy or in the ambassador’s house, because Sobyanin of the type can do it. Here the main leitmotif: why should we be shy? You give us the LGBTQ and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and we will simply mug you. And strong young people in dark glasses really appear around the embassy, bearing nonsense about “God told us” and fiery hell. Just don’t say that these are civic activists.

Although it’s obvious to all normal people that the whole topic of LGBTQ people is not about LGBTQ people, but about the attitude of society towards otherness, which can be sexual, can be racial, and maybe even liberal, with a lean towards humanism, freedom of speech and the right to picket. A healthy and strong society is ready to accept and respect otherness, to resent even the accident with the unlucky bully Floyd. A sick and weak society poisons the "different" like a pack of dogs.

Formally, the followers of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact are also ready to portray civilization and tolerate otherness in accordance with modern international standards (*we are looking at Korotchenko), but only as if behind tightly buried doors so that nothing would leak out from there, it would not bother us. So that the “different people” would not blather, but would sit conspiratorially, they would know their place, and they would endure more and more young men with fiery hell arriving on the street.

Is it any wonder that the "friend of Hitler" smiled at us from the next world?