Electoral victories.
When we look at the elections in Russia, where – coincidentally – Putin always wins, we ask ourselves "but why is he organizing elections?". What need does he have? If tomorrow he said "I am the new Tsar, and the Tsar returns to Russia", no one would have the courage to protest. Indeed, perhaps the Orthodox Church would even crown him. What need does Putin have for elections, exactly?
The reason is simple: Putin needs to hold elections because he knows that we see them as elections. We know very well that it is a farce, we know very well that all the other parties have been reduced to nothing and that the other politicians have been eliminated. But the newspapers still say "Putin won the elections", or "after the elections what will change"?
It is we Westerners who take that event which is NOT an event, and behave as if the fiction existed. It is clearly a simulacrum, like Berlusconi's worker president or exploited male Rocco Siffredi, but postmodernism requires us to behave as if the Russian elections were an event that actually happened.
And then the newspapers ask themselves "what will happen now?". Now what? What is it now? A cross festival happened, true, but it's not like it can change anything: non-events produce non-effects.
Let's start from the beginning:
There were NO “elections” in Russia.
We can define what happened in Russia in many ways. One is “a Sunday”. Another way would be “pencil party”. We could also call it “leave the house day”, or “pretend to vote, but all together”.
Look at this article:
Salvini on the "vote in Russia". But what vote are we talking about? This would not be possible, for example, in German. Voting is called “wahl”, which means “choice”. Thinking in German, it is not possible to call what happened in Russia a "choice", even assuming that someone actually started counting the votes.
Look at these idiots:
They wonder "what will happen after the victory". Aha. The same thing that happened before. Were there things that Putin could NOT do before, and what can he do now? And they also bring in the expert's analysis: another six years of Putin, he says. Pretending not to know that Putin will remain there alive. Little details.
Look at these:
“How will Putin govern after the elections?”. Just like before, why the hell would it change? It has exactly all the powers it had before and all the limitations it (didn't) have before. Why should he change his way of governing?
And Rampini could not be missing, who asks himself the same question, starts from the same premises, and deduces that Putin has consensus . The King of Non Sequitur. On the basis of elections that are not elections, and of "polls", which unfortunately in Russia only the government, i.e. Putin, can do. He deduces that hidden behind the false elections is the fact that the result tells the truth.
For me it's drugs.
I close with what some idiots consider the "gotha" of good Anglo-Saxon journalism, that is, the BBC.
And I said it all. What will happen now? Exactly the same thing as before, of course.
And then I feel I can make a simple consideration, and give a simple answer.
Putin doesn't "do" elections. For obvious reasons. Putin PROJECTS the elections in the Western press, because he knows that, fake or not, this non-event will be treated as if it were an event.
Elections in Russia are like the emperor's suit. Why didn't the emperor just dress? Because she knew well that by PROJECTING her beautiful dress into the minds of the population, everyone would imagine a beautiful dress, whereas if she had been wearing a real dress, perhaps 50% of the population would have liked it.
There was no election in Russia, what Putin did is to use the Western press as a PROJECTOR, a projector that did its job and projected the Russian elections onto public opinion, which now reads about the Russian elections as if they had ever existed.
The real question we must ask ourselves is therefore the following: why does Putin project non-existent elections, while for example Kim Jong in Korea doesn't do it, or Xi in China doesn't do it? THE answer is that both Xi and Kim are the products of systems, of precise government systems, with ideologies and economies, and are the expression of systems ORGANIZED precisely to produce the Xi and Kim of the situation.
Putin, on the other hand, is not organic to anything. If you asked what system Stalin produced, well, we would point to Soviet communism, a system that had its OWN methods of electing the leader. Even in the USSR they voted, although only delegates of other communist parties (farmers, workers, etc.) could vote, the result would still have been a Soviet communist.
Putin's real problem is that he doesn't have a truly organized system behind him to produce someone like him. If anything, he came to power, but nothing says that if he had a heart attack tomorrow the power system would elect someone like Putin, or that it would perpetuate itself. Putin's political system rests entirely on Putin's shoulders. Nobody knows what would happen upon his death, while we know very well that if Xi died, the Politburo would meet, then the plenum delegates, etc., etc., etc. The system would resist and the gears would move as expected.
And this is why Putin must project the elections into the Western imagination. He wants us to believe that there is, behind him, a system of robust institutions that produces Putin, ancient to admit that it is a system that rests on him.
And why does he have to make people believe he is a cog in a persistent system?
Because Vladimir Putin is 71 years old.
It is on the extreme limit of life expectancy in Russia, which is certainly a statistical fact, but on the other hand it makes the question "what will the post-Putin era be like?"
We know that the patareligious tradition of North Korea, in the event of Kim's death, would elect his sister as Supreme Leader. We know that in the event of Xi's death, the granitic Chinese communist apparatus will elect another son of the same system.
What would happen in the event of Putin's death, however, we do not know well. It has not created a coherent system, capable of perpetuating itself over time.
So, what Putin wants us to believe (i.e., what is false) is the following:
“I am the product of a very stable democratic system that freely elects me, and therefore after me there will be another me”.
But the very stable democratic system does not exist because there are no real elections, Putin is not really elected, and therefore upon his death there will probably be another period of chaos.
Uriel Fanelli
The blog is visible from Fediverso by following:
Contacts:
- Fediverse: @ uriel@fedi.keinpfusch.net
- MATRIX: @uriel:mtrx.keinpfusch.net
- GNU JAMI: Ufanelli