Home » today » World » Companion/s on call for “politically correct” propaganda orders? – 2024-02-23 21:45:23

Companion/s on call for “politically correct” propaganda orders? – 2024-02-23 21:45:23

/ world today news/ A frequently observed phenomenon in the Orient, in our country and in the New “Atlantic-Europe”. There have always been paid mercenaries and professional «careerists at any cost». Callboy, in Czech it sounds funnier poskok ? It’s a pity when people with high intellectual capacity succumb to the «new €-$ and/or reckless careerist morality. Inflation covers not only the prices of goods and services. She was preceded by her step-sister in scientific degrees, ranks and clerical and party hyperbolized positions and titles. A propaganda pearl that I came across was the article by a political scientist I deeply respect (with the initials D.S. and a bunch of titles and positions), placed after the publication in “Deutsche Welle” on 04.02.tg. under the editorial titles “How Bulgaria can pass more easily under the turbulence” in “Weekend”, or “How to pass more easily through hell” – in “Golden Age”. Have even the mentioned weekly editions fallen into ideological uncriticalness, creative impotence and lack of authors?

I remember the author’s brilliant lecture in Bratislava in 2008, including for the populism of Bulgarian political parties. Then called “Attack”, GERB, NDSV or its wing, with excellent in t.c. factual analysis. In the present publication he is hardly the same example of precision and academicism to readers and students. What leads me to this?

1.Mr. D.S. uses the popular “proletarian” thesis that “President Radev leads an increasingly open pro-Russian policy. According to the biblical phrase borrowed by Stalin: “He who is not with us is against us”, “costified” as: “He/she does not jump is red!”, modernized with the neo-demo-pleasing epithets: Russophile, communist, Putinist, Americanophobe, Eurosceptic … Mr. Radev’s statement that giving arms to Ukraine “is putting out the fire with gasoline”… was even “commented (ironically) by the presidents of Poland and the Czech Republic – Duda and Zeman. Milos Zeman urged in the context of election campaigns not to take “some regrettable and thoughtless statements” seriously.

After a thorough review of the publications about the Zeman-Duda meeting of January 24 this year. in the town of Nakhod, Czech Republic, i.e. 3-4 days before the runoff for the new Czech president, I did not find a similar comment by Mr. Zeman regarding President Radev. The Polish and Czech presidents have commented negatively on presidential candidate Andrej Babis’ initial response to whether the Czech Republic would send troops in the event of an attack on Poland and the Baltic states. Babish answered, most likely, initially frankly: «No, definitely not. I think we should talk about peace. And that under no circumstances would he send his own and the children of Czech women to war». Then he remembered a text about the collective defense of NATO, not wanting a third world war, and that the TV presenters’ question was provocative. At R. Radev’s metaphor for arms supplies to Ukraine, Duda “joked” with the comment that our president was once the chief of the Air Force and he knew from personal (Dudov’s) experience that “asking a general to provide military equipment for another country meant bringing tears to his eyes. No soldier wanted to lose a weapon, this also applied to politicians».

2.According to Mr. D.S. mainly Radev and his caretaker governments fanned sentiments among the Bulgarians, contributing to a lack of synchronicity between the president and our western allies (As if we have eastern ones? – O.G.). D.S. also distanced itself from Rumen Radev’s «affinity towards maintaining energy relations with Russia. Even the communist Zeman (?) is beginning to look like a staunch European against the background of the Bulgarian president”.

I remind you that until March 8, 2023, Miloš Zeman continues to be the president of the Czech Republic, and after him the newly elected Gen. o.r. Peter Pavel. Zeman was a member of the CPSU from 1968 to 1970, but was expelled due to disagreement with the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops and the beginning of the so-called “normalization”. And in 1993 – 2001 he was the chairman of ChSDP (social democrats). In 1996-1998 he was the chairman of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in 1998-2002 he was the prime minister, and since 2013 – the president. It is hardly appropriate for a Bulgarian political scientist to comment in a nominal style on the distant past of an acting Czech president who, despite his balanced policy towards world empires, immediately condemned the invasion of Ukraine! Petr Pavel, born general and ex-senior NATO official, was also a member of the Cheka. And is he still a communist, once a matter of trust and a condition for professional development for many?

3. The author, in commanding style, decided that the “anti-system” referendums were an attempt at a poorly disguised circumvention of the ban on holding referendums on topics under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (for changing the form of government in a presidential republic), i.e. unconstitutional hypocrisy. And the poll on the introduction of the euro was a method of sabotaging already undertaken by Bulgaria (?) commitments, such as D.S. forgets that we were the only ones to join the Atlantic-European structures without a national referendum. And through command-administrative decisions of governments and parliament, even though public sentiment was overwhelmingly pro-European.

About the euro I wouldn’t rush to make up deadlines in the face of rampant inflation and other multi-faceted crises. I have experienced its acceptance in Slovakia, disappointments in other smaller countries, except in Germany and France… – countries with working economies and exports. Why did Great Britain, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary not adopt the euro? How many years has Denmark been sitting in the waiting room of the Eurozone? See more about the two referendums in an interview for fakti.bg with Kalin Kamenov/30.01.2023 or in expert-bdd/31.01.2023. The author admits that there has been dissatisfaction with the rulers, but not the voters’ right to reflect on change of the form of government after the next early parliamentary elections, roughly repeating the configuration of party state budget users. Despite the growing lack of trust in the political leadership of the system in our country, at least from the outside, the USA continues, for example, to function successfully as a presidential republic, and France, Finland, Austria, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, Poland, Taiwan – as a semi-presidential one. And the periods of non-party or two-party government in Bulgaria are characterized by economic stability, normalization and at least relative prosperity.

4. On the Povardarieto (=RSM), the author glides over the surface for instrumentalization of the topic “Macedonia” against the background of recent incidents and events. He assumed that both in our country and in the RSM there are politicians and public figures who staked their careers on blocking the membership of our neighbor in the EU. And that the radicals should not have been left to dictate bilateral relations through beatings and provocations, and that governments should have shown maturity to avoid them. Logical, easy and non-binding to say. And in the service of the theses “Divide and rule!”, and the aspirations not only of Skopje to turn the geographical concept of Macedonia into a geo-political one, ignoring the history of Bulgaria and its dignity in the name of permanent political lackey.

We know that the bones of Gotse Delchev were handed over to Skopje on 7/10/1946, not yet by the States and the Brussels cabal, but by Prime Minister Kimon Georgiev, with the knowledge of Georgi Dimitrov. Times, Influences, Politics, Results !?

Ivaylo Nikolov impressed me in “Weekend”/ 4.2.tg that a few days ago he got access for 30 minutes to the Madrid manuscript, i.e. The “Historical Synopsis” of the Byzantine historian Ioan Skilitsa from the 11th century. With the full title of the manuscript of 233 sheets of parchment (in critical condition) «History of the Greek Emperors in Constantinople from 811 to 1057». The front reader of the chronicle was in 1968 the art critic Prof. Atanas Bozhkov (!?). The manuscript, with 574 drawings, incl. of our kings/khans and the “Manasian Chronicle” are the two unique medieval source books to which we owe 90% of our knowledge about the First Bulgarian Kingdom. In the Madrid Chronicle, Samuil was mentioned 15 times as the Bulgarian king, commander of the Bulgarian army. Capitals Preslav and Ohrid later. His son Gavril Radomir and his nephew Ivan Vladislav are also mentioned as Bulgarian kings. Aristotle Onassis offered a fabulous sum to buy her back for Greece, without success. Mr. Nikolov considers it proper finally, Bulgarian politicians can bang the wooden heads of the Skopje cabinet historians with this 20-kilogram book, written by an impartial Greek! And the members of the historical commission, negotiating with the Povardaria, should show them reprints and forever shut their mouths on the topic of whose king Samuel was!

5. The conclusions of D.S. to overcome new political turbulences are the imputation of banal foreign policy boundaries for uncritical obedience, pandering and subservience, regardless of the consequences. First: (Euro-Atlantic orientation, aid to Ukraine, independence from Russian energy sources, “Bulgaria’s constructive role in relation to the Western Balkans and especially North Macedonia”). Second: Membership of the Eurozone in the shortest possible time. The author admits that inflation will surely be higher than the Maastricht criteria, but “if we had argued well and energetically, a compromise on this issue could have been reached”?! The culmination of the inconsistency and inconsistency with the real problems in the life of the Bulgarian (inflation, speculation, the Baiganism of the National Assemblies, the amateur irresponsibility of the government to the voters…) are the conclusion of the conclusions: “These two promises were not a call for a “Euro-Atlantic coalition” ( I understand as “Atlantic-Euro…” O.G.), but a guarantee that whatever the coalition is, there will be main parties in it that will not deviate from the most important priorities of Bulgaria and will not allow compromises with them”.

If we believe the “investigative journalist” (from MI-6?) Hristo Grozev, that articles written by the GRU to influence public consciousness or disinformation in the Bulgarian media cost 150-300 euros, what will be the tariff for the likes of “Deutsche vele” or do they write there only from democratic-freedom-loving idealism and Putinophobia?

Subscribe to our YouTube channel:

and for our Telegram channel:

#Companions #call #politically #correct #propaganda #orders

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.