When you are unable to speak out with the confidence of a patriot on national issues, and while occupied territories exist, you only talk about the annexation by the enemy, and when you avoid talking about genocide due to fear that it would jeopardise the non existent relationship, then, who do you think you are really fooling?
When you try to explain that what’s important is your application of reforms to the country, whereas those, even when there do occur, they have absolutely no impact on the issues affecting the entire nation as such.
In actual fact you are trying to explain journalistically, since you have no historic, or strategic background, that at best you’re describing reality, not as a player of course, but as a mere witness or even as a spectator.
It’s not however a show, a spectacle, or even a representation, and we’ve already obtain its recording.
When you attempt to add a social element, the case becomes even more void.
Because in order to fill the voidance of a thought which obtains no depth, as it’s not integrated in a chronostrategic context, you get the local opinions of the people and you’re trying to analyse them, in order to present the point of view from those unrelated with the issue, as far as the conduct of war goes, which you avoid to name crisis, although it opportunistically relied upon it, in order to startle you and alarm you beyond what’s needful, as you’re unable to make any provision for the future without having your mind in the past, since the present that you are enduring is nothing but an instance which will be converted into a reminiscence, if the memory doesn’t encode it with the intelligence of strategy, in order to convert it into a database for the future of the homeland.