Let there be the darkness! TV urged not to shine flashlights into the sky on February 14

Sergey Mitrofanov

This time the TV did a very strange thing. He spoke in detail about plans to return to protest activity on February 14. (* But they promised to postpone it until spring, shameful ones!) The second topic also turned out to be voicing the "Navalny plan". The fact is that a few days ago, some fantasy political scientists put forward the crazy idea that Yulia Navalnaya could, say, replace her husband in election campaigns and so reach the president of Russia. And for some reason TV also repeated this dream. But he promised punishment to everyone who believed in it.

Moreover, it cannot be said that this time some kind of hard-to-implement protest activity was proposed. Or confrontational, after which "Mordorian arrests" are required. On the contrary, the opposition's headquarters did everything to make as few claims as possible to the “navalnists” from this side. He suggested, and TV reproduced this to a multimillion-dollar audience, that all Navalny's supporters should each go out to their local courtyards and shine a flashlight or telephone into the sky at exactly eight o'clock in the evening until, say, eight fifteen. Obviously for the delight of American intelligence satellites!

If it succeeded, it would turn out very beautifully in satellite photography. The task of the TV is to portray this truly super-world action as confrontational, unauthorized, i.e. requiring permission from the authorities, and, if possible, really promise real reprisals for her.

So, on the one hand, we were told what to do - go out on the 15th with a flashlight, - and on the other hand, they began to "dance on the bones", showing how bad it is (after all, it is not sanctioned!) And how stupid it is (because regime will not collapse because of the flashlight's light into the sky).

The idea of repression was reinforced by the statement of Dmitry Peskov, who promised not to "play cat and mouse with the Protestants." What this means is not clear. And the red line went: "if the law is violated, the guilty will be punished".

From which it can be assumed that if you light a flashlight in the yard at eight in the evening, you will become "guilty", and the local police officer will have every right to run up and wring your hands behind your back, then take you to the police station, and the court will make a decision the next day, what to do with you in the future.

And maybe, of course, none of this will happen, shine on your health, the regime will not collapse, because even a dystopia of this kind, if someone writes it, will look like an obvious overkill of a tired mind.

Meanwhile, an additional threat to the protesters came (not for the first time) from the Duma in the form of an innovation to equate the call for sanctions against Russia with treason, to which the Kremlin (it seems for the first time) reacted with a deliberately incomprehensible phrase, which was again represented by a red line.

Here it is (* I beg your pardon. I am not inventing anything, but I see everything exclusively on TV): "Kremlin: de jure, calls for sanctions are not treason to the Motherland, we remind you of the initiative in the State Duma to equate this with a crime".

I understood that de jure appeals are not a crime and will not fit into the “Mordorian” law, because freedom of speech and - blah-blah-blah - has not yet been completely abolished. But repressions against the "summoners", if they happen solely at the behest of the hearts of law enforcement officers and judges, will enjoy our (Kremlin) support and approval.

On the idea of making Yulia Navalnaya a candidate for the presidency of Russia.

From the very beginning, to me personally, this idea seemed to be a fantasy dream of political scientists seeking fame. There really is no criminal prosecution for Yulia, she is clean before the law and, as it were, can be nominated. However, the time of Jean d'Arc has either passed or has not come. And nowhere to advance. Nevertheless, Television took this idea very seriously and based it on a picture: Tikhanovskaya turns to her “friend in misfortune”. Both of them, as shown by TV, are heroic women, both wives, and both have husbands in dungeons. Tikhanovskaya became a symbol of the anti-Lukashenko presidency, and this was considered a successful PR decision in the West, so all reason to make Yulia such a symbol too!

Why did Television planted this idea, really to secretly join the campaign for the nomination of Yulia Navalnaya?

It would be curious and conspiratorial. But officially - because it was necessary to show that the Belarusian, Moscow and Ukrainian protests are stylistically similar. They are also similar in terms of flashlights (* Remember? “Suddenly, a Little Komarik flies from somewhere, and a small flashlight is burning in his hand”) , initially - with Ukraine, then - with Belarus. Therefore, everything is tailored according to the American technology of making color revolutions. Consequently, you will not just wave your flashlight for fifteen minutes, but embark on a coup d'état at the behest of the US State Department.

(* I am beginning to fear that the police officer, having heard all this, will go crazy and will not just disperse people with flashlights in the yard, but shoot them without warning, as in one of the series “Born by the Revolution.)

Mikhail Markelov, adviser to the head of the United Russia faction: "You are participating in a coup". And the next message from him: "If the Navalnists seize power, it will be the collapse of the country." At the same time, Maria Zakharova said that powerful forces and Western finances are behind Navalny's activities. And it went to the TASS tape, like everything from Zakharova.

There is a TV liberal Boris Nadezhdin in the studio, and I would like to say a few words about that. He tries to behave as tolerantly as possible in relation to TV, maintains politeness, but cunningly returns memes that seem to have been worked out and rejected by telepropaganda into discourse.

For example, on TV they often talk about Navalny's moral decline, and Nadezhdin stubbornly repeats that if he himself were poisoned, like Navalny, I don't know how angry and adequate he would be. Those. returns the subject of poisoning. But Navalny was not poisoned! - our Skabeeva denies in despair. And Nadezhdin does not seem to hear her and after a while repeats again: "Now, if they poisoned me, like Navalny, I don't know how angry and adequate I would be..."