March 11, 2020
Some aspects of “democracy values” don’t even pretend to make sense. Of course, very little about democracy values theory makes actual sense, but for most of the concepts, they will say “blah blah blah, something something something, freedoms and equality.”
One point they do not even attempt to offer an explanation for is why you’re supposed to switch out leaders at arbitrary intervals. Logically, if a chief executive is doing a good job, there is no reason they should have to resign after X number of years, as long as they do democracy values and keep having elections every 4 or 6 years.
But they definitely promote the idea that you have to keep switching people out. You can switch them out for their son or their brother or their wife, but you have to keep this rotation going.
The obvious reason is that the actual power of a democracy is not in the elected government, but in the permanent, entrenched bureaucracy, which is unelected and does not have term limits. And if a person serving in the symbolic position of president or prime minister were to remain in office for too long, he might start trying to gain actual power. But they can’t tell you that. So the reason why the head of state has to play musical chairs to fit in with democracy values remains one of the great mysteries of the wholly mysterious democracy system.
It’s a bit similar to “stare rape,” and some of the other more esoteric aspects of women’s rights theory.
So today, everyone must know that Vladimir Putin has violated democracy values by ensuring that he can remain in office indefinitely. But no one will know why democracy values were violated.
Constitutional changes allowing Vladimir Putin to run for president again in 2024 sailed through Russia’s lower house of parliament on Wednesday, opening the way for him to potentially stay in power until 2036.
Putin, 67, who has dominated the Russian political landscape for two decades as either president or prime minister, made a dramatic appearance in the chamber a day earlier to argue that term limits were less important in times of crisis.
Putin, a former KGB officer, is currently required by the constitution to step down in 2024 when his second sequential and fourth presidential term ends. But the amendment which he backed would formally reset his presidential term tally to zero.
A former intelligence official running the government, that’s just outrageous!
What’s next – is a former intelligence official going to lead a country, then put his son in power after his term is up?
Then what? Is he going to run his other son?
That would human rights violationism on steroids!
Russians are evil!
The 450-seat State Duma, the lower house of parliament, on Wednesday voted in favor of the change, along with other amendments to the constitution, by 383 votes, in a third and final reading. Nobody voted against, but 43 lawmakers abstained. Twenty-four lawmakers were absent.
If, as Putin critics expect, the constitutional court now gives its blessing to the amendment and it is backed in a nationwide vote in April, Putin would have the option to run again for president in 2024.
Were he to do that, and his health and electoral fortunes allowed, he could potentially stay in office for another two back-to-back six-year terms until 2036 at which point he would be 83 and have spent 36 years at the top of Russian politics.
Kremlin critic and opposition politician Alexei Navalny has said he believes Putin will now try to become president for life.
Putin has not spelled out what his plans for the future are after 2024, but has said he does not favor the Soviet-era practice of having leaders for life who die in office.
Yeah, it’s pure Soviet communism, AKA the purest incarnation of diabolical evil.
Because the Islamic threat ran its course, what with needing to bring in unlimited numbers of Islamic immigrants, so now we’re recycling villains.
Because just like any other comic book, the media narrative always has to have some looming villain that you need to fear.
The New York Times is apoplectic over this move by Putin.
I’m always certain that I could do the job of the New York Times better than the New York Times, but referring to what we would typically call “a speech” as “a carefully scripted appearance” is admittedly very good in terms of subtly implying evil.
The lede is equally brilliant.
I’ve been reading the New York Times every day for twenty years, and I have been astonished by its drop into Buzzfeed-tier garbage world since 2015. The author of this piece, one Anton Troianovski, a Moscow correspondent formerly of the Washington Post, is really the only staff writer that touches on the paper’s former glory as an ultra-sophisticated propaganda outlet capable of selling the absolute most inane Jewish garbage to pretentious 115 IQ midwits.
This bit was elegant as well:
He tiptoes all the way up to purple prose without crossing the border and still manages to maintain plausible deniability with regard to objectivity.
As a political propagandist in admiration of another, I tip my cowboy hat to Mr. Troianovski.
“Putin Endorses Brazen Remedy to Extend His Rule, Possibly for Life” has inspired me to work on a New York Times style series of articles. I will build them around the election. We will call it “The Troianovski Cycle.” I’ve been wanting to shake things up a bit, and it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between consistency and staleness. I think a Classic Times series of political articles will be a welcome addition, and help to keep me interested in the election.
Digressions aside, we should probably ask why this was not an issue for Angela Merkel, who was planning on ruling for life before her legitimacy collapsed under the weight of two million Islamic immigrants. When she leaves office in 2021, she will have ruled 4 years longer than Adolf Hitler.
Even as she exits, she is actually appointing a handpicked successor to continue her legacy.
Perhaps the proposed eternal rule of Merkelism is okay because the government of Germany is a literal occupation government, maintained by over 40,000 American soldiers stationed at 38 different military bases?
And maybe there is no internal consistency at all to democracy values theory?
It sure is a good thing that the New York Times still has men like Anton Troianovski to convince the goyim that this is all perfectly coherent.
They might want to consider making him editor-in-chief. Because this paper has gotten vulgar.