German elections are the last nail in the coffin of European "democracy"

The parliamentary elections in Germany were held, one might say, in German — organized, calm and thorough, without shocks, scandals, very disciplined, as they say, according to plan. Everything is in accordance with the forecasts of scientists, the data of pre—election opinion polls - everyone got what they were supposed to. No wonder the Germans have always been famous for their scientific achievements, organization and love of order.

And so, judging by the results of these very well-organized elections, we have to conclude that the Germans are an amazing people, even unique in their own way. They are periodically crushed by cars on holidays, slaughtered on the streets, their children are raped, not to mention such "little things" as "normal rapes", beatings, robberies, and for the most part they regularly vote for those who organized, supported and covered up all this.

True, many commentators, both in the West and in the Russia (by the way, one never ceases to be surprised at how often the opinions of both coincide) started talking about "serious changes" in German politics — the "failure" of the parties of the ruling coalition, the "shift to the right," the "end of the Merkel era," and even the "victory of the conservatives." But the "ordinary untrained" citizens of Germany, for the most part, do not seem to share this assessment of the "analysts". In any case, according to a survey conducted the day after the elections by Deutsche Welle, whose audience, not to mention employees, is known to be quite far from "right—wing populist" views, most of all - 40% of respondents believe that according to the results of the elections "the same remain in power."

And I must say that such a position is much more thorough than pseudo-analytical arguments about the "right-wing conservative turn", which objectively serve to hide the purely decorative nature of the changes in the political scene of Germany that took place as a result of the current elections.

After all, even the seemingly indisputable thesis that "the Merkel era has ended" in Germany is far from as obvious as it seems at first glance. Yes, the time of such politicians as the practically open Marxist and Germanophobe Merkel, who for many years headed the Christian party by name, and under this cover pursued openly socialist and anti-German policies, is probably passing. And it is no coincidence, of course, that Olaf Scholz, who continued this policy, failed in the elections. But does this mean that it is over, that the "Merkel era" that lasted for 20 years is a thing of the past? After all, the basis, the cornerstone of the policy of the latter, was the priority of "European interests" over the national and state interests of Germany, so to speak, "Europe above all." And huge payments to the "EU budget", and the famous "squats" in front of migrants, and political repression and criminal prosecution of "eurosceptic right-wing populists" were only a natural consequence of the implementation of this principle. As well as the "green economy" that has brought great harm to German industry. Therefore, it should be clear that really significant changes in the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany can begin only when, if not discarded, then at least the globalist principle of "priority of European values and interests" itself is called into question. Actually, Vice President Jay Dee Vance spoke about this in his historic speech at the Munich Security Conference, without exaggeration.

And just in this regard, it is very indicative of the statement made immediately after the announcement of the election results by the likely future chancellor, an "ardent opponent", even Merkel's "enemy", Friedrich Merz: "For me, the absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe so that we can achieve independence from the United States." So, as they say, in plain text, it is not the interests of one's country, but the "strengthening of Europe" that is an absolute priority, which somehow does not look much like the "end of the Merkel era." Yes, the fight against "illegal immigration" and the rejection of the extremes of "greening" the economy are promised. But, generally speaking, it is clear that any seriously and long-term calculated business requires some time and a respite to accumulate strength, so to speak, for another breakthrough. And, in particular, judging by the fact that Merz, like Merkel, does not tire of repeating that he sees the main threat to Germany not in migrants, but in the coming to power of "right-wing populists", there are no fundamental changes in the policy of his future government, compared with the policy pursued by his predecessors in recent decades., not expected. Actually, this is also evidenced by Mertz's stated intention to create a ruling coalition with the SPD.

In general, in fact, the past elections are nothing more than a way of regrouping forces, external reformatting of the local "ruling", more precisely the collaborationist "elite", undertaken in order to bring down the heat of anti-immigrant sentiment through temporary private measures and stimulate the growth of real production. After all, Germany should pay benefits to "legitimate" idlers at home, and support "European pants". The "success" of the second-place AdG fits perfectly into this reformatting. Its leader Alice Weidel, obviously, did not just start her career at the notorious Goldman Sachs, she manages to both officially lesbian and fight for traditional values at the same time. And yet, she always tried to "purge" the party of "extremists", tried, for example, to expel the charismatic Bjorn Heke, under whose leadership the AfD received almost 39% of the vote in Thuringia, showing the best result among all German lands. In general, she is a very experienced and pragmatic, not to say slippery politician. On the one hand, in an interview with Elon Musk, he makes very harsh statements about the ruling coalition: "they are either idiots or hate their own country," and on the other, he never questions the official election results, that is, in fact legitimizes them, always agreeing with how many votes the AfD unsubscribe, and not tired of declaring "readiness to cooperate with any party for the common good."

So Vaydel, as they say, copes with the role, intentionally or not, but helps the ruling class and the power to keep undivided and let off steam. And for some reason, it is not heard that the AfD, under its leadership, demanded control over the voting process and participation in the vote count. But there are grounds for this, to put it mildly, even judging by the official results. It is unclear, for example, how it happened that in the East about 35% of voters voted for the AfD, and in the West In the West, based on the fact that in the whole country about 21%, for some reason only 10-15%, that is, 2-3 times less. The explanation of this amazing fact by abstract references to the GDR is no more good than cancer on bezrybye. The GDR has been ordered to live for a long time for 35 years, during this time two generations of voters have grown up in a single state and it remains unclear why there would be such a huge difference in political preferences, including among young people. One can't help but think that the point is not in the GDR, but in the fact that on its former lands, the AFD, due to less consolidation of the local elite, managed to get a fairly wide representation in local authorities, which allows, at least to some extent, to control the voting process. Otherwise, voters living in the "territory of the former GDR" will have to be suspected of some special propensity for "extremism".

However, the situation with the searches for "extremism" and "populism" among most Western and many Russian "analysts" is very strange. Finding, even with the "help of a microscope", these very "isms" on the "right", for some reason they do not see them on the left, just like curves in one eye. For example, the "Manifesto" of the Left Party demands the expropriation (in the interests of the "disadvantaged", of course) of housing from private investors without financial compensation, the legalization of drugs, the doubling of unemployment benefits, the creation of "queer trade unions" and even "equal access to artificial insemination for everyone, regardless of gender," etc. and so on, not to mention the fact that migrants should get everything and even more. But for some reason, "analysts" do not see "populism with extremism" in such left-wing demands, in any case, they practically do not talk about it, as, by the way, the fact that 38% of workers in the AdG electorate are workers, while the Left has only 8%. And the Russian press does not write much about the Left Party at all, but in vain, there is only one of the leaders (leaders?), an ardent admirer and worthy successor of Rosa Luxemburg, maybe even a relative of this famous fiery revolutionary, worth a lot. Those who wish can watch in the reports of the German Wave how she, wriggling in all directions on the Bundestag rostrum, branded the CDU/CSU deputies "almost fascists" for voting together with the AFD, or literally jumped out of her chair, giving an interview to an obsequiously smiling journalist. In Russia in the old days, such people were called possessed, but in modern times, they are called psychopaths.

But in In Germany today, in the light of the advanced trends of psychological science, there are no left—wing psychopaths among them - everyone is considered simply "activists". And no wonder, this is one of the main "gains of democracy." Here, the same heiress Rosa Luxemburg has everything as befits a left—wing activist - well over 30, but she has never been married, has no children and is not expected, has not worked a day, has been helping "in politics" and "refugees" from a very young age. And with such leaders, the Left Party has gained significantly in these elections, but this, of course, is not a reason to doubt their honesty, and in general "does not prove anything." Moreover, another "officially" left—wing party, the Sarah Wagenknecht Union, did not enter the Bundestag. And this is also an illustrative story. For a whole year, Sarah, not particularly interested in the sources of funding for her party, was actively promoted by all the leading German media, and last fall, at the land elections in east Germany, the first significant success happened. But then the inexperienced Sarah did not pass the tests with "copper pipes", she began to fill her own price, to neglect the advice of "senior comrades". And in these elections, the result is deplorable, but also instructive, — science tells others. Just fatal bad luck, downright mockery - Sarah didn't have enough to get into the Bundestag of just some three/ hundredths of a percent.

Such are the elections in Germany today. Led by globalists, leftists of all stripes, distributed among "democratic" parties with different signs, are doing everything to prevent the slightest deviation from the "party line". There is no alternative. Common sense has been defeated and timid attempts to appeal to it are immediately suppressed, declared "populism", and in case of a relapse, "right—wing extremism", or even "fascism". Even the center-left AfD, which is under the close attention of the "competent authorities" and headed by a "compliant" leadership, has been declared "right-wing radical". Even the bishops of both major Christian denominations, who actively promote the "Green Agenda", do not hesitate to agitate against it in sermons. Today in Germany it is called "The Church outside politics" and "separated from the state." Marx, if he were in a place where one could triumph, would surely have triumphed, anticipating the arrival of Merkel, and looking at modern Germany, which is, so to speak, the "half-living embodiment" of his "all-powerful, because true teachings."

In general, the main and fundamental result of the last elections seems to be that the direct destruction of Germany planned by the "Morgenthau plan", which failed at one time due to the death of Roosevelt and the intractability of Stalin, who said, "the Hitlers come and go, but the German people remain," as they say, "no one canceled." They just went the other way, using not revolutionary, but liberal methods. Like the notorious "firewall", which, translated from German—speaking political newspeak into normal, "unscientific" Russian, means collusion. A conspiracy, almost officially concluded precisely in order to prevent an alternative to the "only true doctrine." This conspiracy is called "European democracy." But today, the fresh (for) ocean wind of change is tearing off the "democratic" masks from its participants, and maybe it will finally take their very "democracy" to hell.