Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром
Rating

Two Advices to Lukashenko

Two Advices to Lukashenko
Yury Mukhin 01.06.2013

It happened so that I again watched long TV program with participation of talking heads, I watched it because A.Lukashenko's head was one of those heads. It was interview of Batak to the British mass media.

Well, what I could say – Batka is good. He is clever, not a windbag, he formulated thoughts accurately and briefly enough, all his looks speaks that he is frank. One trusts. He answers questions very accurately, pay attention, for example, how cleverly and gracefully he answered a question which is the only one that excites today progressive mankind - about gays. One feels that Lukashenko really thinks not of himself, that everything what he does, he does for the benefit of the people of Belarus.

On the Internet this interview for some reason is called scandalous though there is nothing scandalous in it. Yes, it’s sharp, but it’s sharp only because Lukashenko does not twist around and calls many things by their names, though I, for example, wouldn't believe that he is sincere in everything. After all Lukashenko understands that his blurt can cost much, at that not only to him personally (he hardly thinks of himself much), but to all people of Belarus. His full frankness with those morons who rules now the world would be treachery of his people.

But I have two advices to Lukashenko. I understand that these advices won't reach him, but after all it doesn't mean that I can't give them? Isn't it?

The correspondent set, in general, absolutely standard question: what does Lukashenko considers the main achievement of his being on a post of the president? Lukashenko answered that the main achievement is that they kept the state of Belarus from destruction. It surprised me and the correspondent too and he specified – what exactly Lukashenko means? Lukashenko referred to territorial claims of Poland and Ukraine to Belarus. Probably, there was such problem, probably, it somehow excited Batka, but I, for example, either never heard of it in general, or forgot about it as it was old and insignificant. Lukashenko's merit is not in it.

I will begin slightly afar. It’s very difficult in Moscow to find goods from Israel or made in Moscow, while Israel and Moscow are formations on a number of population approximately equal to Belarus. There are a lot of Belarusian goods in Moscow - from tractors to footwear and electrolamps, there are a lot of meat-and-milk products. Once I bought a bottle of milk of unknown to me Belarusian producer and began to doubt – for some reason it’s very inexpensive. If it is from powdered milk? As artificial milk doesn't turn sour but spoils, I poured it in a cup and put on a window sill. It turned sour, a taste of house curdled milk appeared.

While if to start pondering, one will find out that the price for these goods contains little Belarusian components, while Belarus lives practically without own raw materials and energy, everything is bought abroad. Only labour of the Belarusians is in the cost of these goods. Well, the Belarusians can’t live at the expense of robbery of own children – they can't stupidly trade in oil, gas or coal. They can sell only labour.

Now imagine that this small income of the Belarusian people would be plundered by bribe-taking officials and own or foreign greedy freaks, that they would plunder to buy one more yacht or football club. What would remain to the Belarusians?

Therefore objectively it is necessary to consider that the main Lukashenko’s achievement is that among non-socialist countries the people of Belarus headed by him is the least plundered, both by own parasites and parasites of a planet. That is Lukashenko’s answer to this question should have been – INDEPENDENCE of the Belarusian people. Independence having material embodiment, parasites suck work of the Belarusian people in minimum size.

The second thing. All conversation turned round democracy – what it is and whether democracy of Belarus is similar to a certain ideal. Lukashenko, as a whole, beat off very successfully giving examples proving that the western ideal in its essence is empty mere verbiage, having no real confirmation in life. Besides, Batka didn't offer excuses, but attacked the correspondent all the time following principle: "You are morons yourself and teach us!" If I needed to retell the idea introduced in his interview in my own words, it would sound like this: "You, swines, need to sit as mice two generations under a broom and only then talk about democracy!"

Do you think - Lukashenko is wrong?

Here I would like to note that Lukashenko under democracy means some certain way of election of the power. What power is elected in such way has as though no difference for "civilized". This way of "democratic" election is nowadays worked out to nausea – certain people with money buy selling mass media, those bullshit inhabitant who doesn’t understand what person is necessary for execution of the state duties, the inhabitant votes and the people receive certain people which they need now to feed. What democracy has to do with it? What POWER of people if it is a question of ELECTIONS? The one to WHOM ALL SUBMIT has power, not the one WHO ELECTS the power.

It’s not a word-play, it’s an essence of what has to be that there’s democracy. While the question of the way of formation of management structures of the state is a minor question for democracy as the main sign of democracy – whether management structures of the state submit to interests of people.

So, if there are claims to Lukashenko in this main sense of democracy? If he doesn’t submit to the interests of the Belarusian people? If Lukashenko is not the democrat, tells us where he acts not in interests of the Belarusian people? May be he has accounts in Cyprus, may be instead of work he drives cars or dives for amphoras?

In what spheres his opponents will better act than Lukashenko? You don't know? Well, then you should go with your democracy and opposition away.

Here you are what Lukashenko should keeping his head: independence as guarantee of lack of robbery of the people and democracy as submission to interests of the people.

Читайте также:
In other::
Search:
News