DAYS OF ABANDONMENT AND GREAT MISERY
- As you sow, so shall you reap the storm
- PS leadership under the order of the provocation
Since the decision and the notice of the new leadership of the PS were published, a series of rumors and explanations arose concerning a female collaborator of [?!] and a president of [?!] from the PSD.
The chairman of a [?!] union reacted against the action of the PS. This has surprised many. He also appears to have been astonished by the PS’s latest stance. He protests and declares that he considers the act of the PS leadership to be an anti-democratic move. But in what way? They tell him that he seems to have forgotten some of the dates from 1991, one of which is precisely this one. Has he forgotten them, or is he pretending to have forgotten them? Certainly, first of all he and his collaborating colleague of [?!] should have read [?!] and the decisions of that time. Those facts are known and are becoming increasingly convincing in this article. If for two years the opinion has been different, who should be held accountable? Those who today pretend to be surprised [?!] were themselves the ones who provoked and slipped.
In the Marxist conspiracy that keeps [?!] and [?!] alive, hostility toward the PD became ever more visible. But the peak of these attitudes appeared in the final period, before, during and after the July votes. And when it became clear that, facing the democrats, the right was winning, irresponsible actions began, [?!] political statements for [?!], and acts that showed a climate of [?!] was being prepared.
The responsibility of the PS leadership can be recalled in dozens of cases. Their daily polemics with all democrats, with the base of the opponents and with every voice that did not obey the party order, turned into constant action. Even more serious was the provocation of slander and [?!], which intensified especially after the elections of 22 March.
Thus, on the one hand they were [?!] with rhetoric, while on the other they were feeding actions that led to tension. It was clear that [?!] had taken it upon themselves to create a political [?!]. Some of their statements, quite harsh, were immediately used as a [?!] stone for protests and opposition. And it seemed that everything was being done not because of the country’s problems, but out of a thirst to turn back [?!].
The first signs of this behavior were seen early. They made [?!] and launched accusations, with no convincing evidence, against the new institutions. Later, [?!] in the streets [?!], with demands and slogans that had nothing to do with the real problems of citizens. [?!] were said to be defending pluralism, when in reality they were [?!] the climate of confrontation.
The same tone was also used [?!] to stir anger. Different social groups were set against one another. Someone had to be held responsible for this language and this behavior. Instead of calming the situation, the PS leaders poured more [?!] onto it. [?!] everyone saw this, although now some are trying to deny it.
In the end, after all this wave, it had to become clear who had started it and who was inciting it. It was shown that the provocation did not come out of nowhere. It had authors and political names. And today, the very same people pretend to be astonished. If you sow the wind, you reap the storm.
(text partly illegible in the image, some words marked with [?])