American sensation: Horses banned in Texas for racism

Dmitry Kosyrev

The American sensation this week is that last week’s sensation turned out to be a fake. It’s about the now famous photograph: border guards in Texas chase illegal migrants on dashing horses and beat them with a whip. (And what is a whip in the hands of a cowboy, everyone who has seen the corresponding episode of “Indiana Jones” knows.) The Democrats are furious, tearing their hair out over America ‘s “racist shame”. Racism is such a universal accusation they now have on all grounds, before it was Nazism.

Then completely different people – it is clear that the Republicans – began to look at that very photo and figure it out. And they did not see the whip there. They found a man named Paul Retzhe – and this, by the way, is a photojournalist, the author of that very picture. He said: Yes, no one beat anyone. This is not a whip, these are long reins, the rider twisted them like this.

Okay, they were wrong – but what next?

Further, the picture is familiar to us: for example, Russia is once again accused of something, someone in response asks to present facts, and someone finds out what the facts really were. The fake has burst, reactions are zero. But then Russia, and here America eats itself by the same method.

And Jen Psaki appears. Forgot her? And she, by the way, is busy with the same, but does not represent the State Department, but already the President of the United States. And he answers the question: no, our reaction to these photos has not changed.

And the reaction was as follows: President Biden spoke and said the following: “This is outrageous. I promise you that these people will pay. An investigation will begin now, and there will be consequences. There will be consequences” (he always says the key things twice).

The consequences, in fact, have already arrived. The border guards were temporarily banned from using horses. Another story typical for the United States immediately arose: the Daily Signal resource re-published a video clip from 2017, explaining that the border with Mexico is difficult to guard otherwise than on horseback. The horse will go where the car gets stuck, not to mention that the animal is more environmentally friendly.

And after all, for the democrats this argument is roughly like “racism” – unkillable: ecology, saving this planet of yours, and so on. However, an office called Twitter immediately censored the 2017 clip as “politically sensitive.” And she exposed for three days. Then, again in the style of Twitter, she stopped exposing without explanation.

There is good news from the same Texas where the photo was taken. Governor Greg Abbott, one of the leaders of the Republicans nationwide, has invited the feds (i.e. border guards) to transfer, if they are finally bitten, into the subordination of the state. And bring the horses with you.

There is no doubt that the border story is indeed politically sensitive. This is one of the unsolvable crises of the Biden administration, as described by the quite democratic The Washington Post. On the one hand, says its author, there is a key democratic audience for whom borders are an outrage. These people are similar to those who recently launched crowds of migrants from the Middle East into Europe to talk about the immorality of any other policy. And if we are talking about a whip…

But, on the other hand, the Biden administration suffered severely from the cancellation of the policy of Donald Trump, who tried to tightly close the southern border. And now tens of thousands of people from the south are coming to the United States – not even Mexicans, but, as in the story with that photo, Haitians. This is a disaster for millions of Americans, even Democrats. As a result, Biden needs to close the border again and at the same time – to say that doing this with cavalry and whips is unacceptable.

Yes, it’s difficult. But su-ch is the fate of any politician – to spin like a snake between opposing interests. The question is how to spin. For example, you should not insult and persecute pe-ople who are doing their job, defending the country and its borders. Countries without borders, as you kn-ow, have not yet been inve-nted, but they are needed, among other things, so that tens of thousands of incomprehensible characters do not break through them.

For some reason, bullying of the defenders of their country and its citizens has become the norm in the United States. Now the turn has come to the border guards, who cannot stand guard over the borders, and earlier it was the police, which cannot protect citizens from pogromists. The police have been bullied for years, the call to strip them of funding has become the norm for Democrats – and banditry, including murder, is flourishing.

Although who said that the latter is in the past? It continues. These days, in Washington State on the West Coast, a teacher hung a flag in a classroom used by the police: it is striped in the United States, but blue. The fact is that her brother works in the police, a hero who saved people during the shooting at school several years ago. She also hung a photograph of her brother on the board. So, it turned out to be impossible to do this at school: police symbols cause “unrest” and disrupt the educational process, because “people feel in danger.”

This is despite the fact that in America there is a tradition – to decorate the class with flags and photographs of those of whom you are proud. In the same school they hung up a rainbow banner and a photo of a homosexual relative of another teacher, simply because he is gay: it is possible.

So, the hunted border guards, the police. Who is next?

In world history, there was a country in which there were two episodes of persecution of the defenders of citizens. This country is called the USSR. Many remember about the second such episode: it was during the years of perestroika and after it. And not that at the official level, but above all among the democratic public it was fashionable to simply mock the military and the army, as well as disperse it with hooting, destroy the military industry and much more. Was the reform of the armed forces necessary then? Probably. Bullying is another matter.

Another such episode took place under Nikita Khrushchev. It was clear that after the end of the war, the army simply could not help but be reduced, and that was a long process that stretched out for years. The question is what to say. Khrushchev said a lot: that the major is less useful than the pig, and the like. However, with his sad combat experience, he generally disliked the military and especially the veterans.

Khrushchev’s country withstood, and then removed from power. But the second such episode, which was part of perestroika, ended – along with perestroika – we know how. I wonder how the war between the democratic half of America and the people performing their duty to protect the people will end. It remains to defeat your own armed forces – this is how it happens, follow the debriefing that began in the United States after fleeing from Afghanistan.

Leave a Comment