Reichstag 2 arson

Neither the Investigative Committee does not agree, nor Udaltsov does not add up - the parties to the conflict are very similar

It seems to me that it is incorrect to compare the “Udaltsov case” with 1937. This is rather the 33rd year and the burning of the Reichstag. Remember?

The crazy Dutch communist and freak Marinus van der Lubbe, after the victory of the Nazis in the elections, for some reason decided that now the entire German people would rise up and go to take part in this uprising, and when it turned out that for some reason the people did not rise, the freak broke the window of the Reichstag , climbed inside and made two dozen fires from the kindling that was then sold in all shops: firewood soaked in gasoline. Another such touching detail: when there was not enough kindling, Marinus took off his jacket and shirt to maintain the fire - they took him out, my dear, into a twenty-degree frost in only his pants.

Well, then, of course, it started. Hitler arrived, saw the fire, shouted: "Communist conspiracy!" Two dozen fires, it seemed to Hitler, too much for one person: he shouted that the rest of the Communists had left through the underground passage. There was some moron who said that he saw van der Lubbe at a meeting with the communist deputy Torgler - Torgler was arrested. A waiter came running, who said that he had seen Van der Lubbe in his diner with some suspicious faces: the persons were arrested - they were Bulgarian communists led by Georgy Dimitrov, who was the head of the Comintern and had nothing to do with the Reichstag fire.

In a word, the Germans did not completely suck everything out of their fingers, but rather, at the request of the boss and the zeal of informers, they took a button and sewed a jacket to it.

Well, what is better than our SC? Yes, there was a button. Well, Udaltsov met with Givi Targamadze, an indefatigable chatterbox and adventurer; Well, they told each other seven barrels of prisoners. Well? Where is the money, where are the explosions, where are the seizures of power in cities, where, finally, are the fake passports that Udaltsov allegedly so convincingly asked for? Judging by the fact that Razvozzhaev tried to escape through Ukraine, and did not get into a business class and did not fly to the United States to his overseas masters, he did not have any money or false passports ...

In a word, I am not surprised by the Investigative Committee. Our investigators have gone absolutely crazy from the desire to please the authorities. Because by accepting his point of view, you thereby demonstrate your loyalty.

The problem - in the case of the Reichstag fire - was, however, also that the Communists, too, had mastered these methods to perfection. And they staged a pseudo-trial, at which they said that the Reichstag was set on fire by Hitler. This pseudo-trial was organized by the Stalinist propagandist Willy Münzenberg, and it took place in London, and the assessors were a dozen "useful idiots" from all over the world. The "Useful Idiots" listened to one witness with a sack over his head (it was Rote Fahne publisher Albert Norden) who said that he was a Nazi stormtrooper and that Hitler set the Reichstag on fire, and another witness with a sack over his head who said that he had seen the list of lovers of Ernst Röhm and in it - the name of Marinus van der Lube. And they decided on the basis of these wonderful testimonies that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag. Because it was politically correct. "You must admit the testimony of a perjurer with a bag over his head as the truth, otherwise you are a bad anti-fascist."

The problem with the communist Udaltsov is exactly the same as with the communist Stalin: he, too, mastered these methods to perfection.

What, you doubt that Udaltsov really met with Targamadze, this orange Khlestakov, who has already been noted in Moldova, and in Kyrgyzstan, and in Ukraine, and in Belarus - and everywhere with the same texts about "two thousand militants", terrorist attacks, money etc. etc.? And even managed to get on tape everywhere?

What prevents Udaltsov from honestly saying: yes, there was a case, two peasants got into a fight and measured who had a larger revolutionary penis, but: a) the conversation was shamelessly cut up, b) there was nothing but idle chatter? Instead, Udaltsov chooses his phrases very carefully, so that the progressive public will deny the fact of talking for him, Udaltsov.

Or take the story of Leonid Razvozzhaev, who was kidnapped in Ukraine and brought to Moscow, and then declared that he turned himself in: do you really think that Razvozzhaev was tortured? Khodorkovsky was not tortured, “Pusei” was not tortured, but Razvozzhaev was tortured? Did they drive needles under his nails so that he wrote a confession?

Do you want me to tell you what happened? They pressured him. Bred. They didn’t let me sleep, they interrogated me for 48 hours, etc. You will say that this is also torture. To this I will answer you: Razvozzhaev is a professional revolutionary. This is how he positions himself.

Dimitrov was also not allowed to sleep. "Pusyam" were not allowed to sleep. Sybarite, esthete, collector of expensive watches Aleksanyan was kept in appalling conditions, and he could go home at any moment, handing over Khodorkovsky. And so Aleksanyan did not give up, and the professional revolutionary Razvozzhaev signed everything they wanted from him, and immediately declared: "I was tortured."

SC, as I said, does not surprise me. This is a structure that proves what High Don Reba needs. But I am disgusted that his communist opponents, like seventy years ago, demonstrate exactly the same in structure (although, of course, incomparable in consequences) contempt for reality and call the horse a deer in full confidence that everyone who is against the authorities should shout: "Yes, it's a deer!"

Unless they, the communists, have been crushing for 70 years. Dimitrov did not write confessions.