Hail King Putin, First of His Name, Rightful Ruler of the Noviops and the First Sovoks

Voting is a joke.

I am still mad as all hell that my swine-like casual readers didn’t answer my calls to support the blog. I even provided a pretty decent in-depth dive into who and what Gorbachev really was to sweeten the deal. But no, nothing. They’d rather root around in info-filth, gorging themselves on propaganda designed to fatten them up for the slaughter.

OH WELL.

To all the newcomer casual readers who have joined the blog since last month, and didn’t sign up as Stalkers, allow me to extend a heartfelt *oink* *oink* in your direction.

I sincerely hope you all choke on a sugar-glazed donut and die.

Unsubscribe from my blog and go burn in a fat pyre.

*TFU*

I spit on you.

And I’ll have plenty more abuse to send your way, freeloaders, in the days to come, don’t you worry.

**

So, the Russian elections.

What do you want me to say about them? I think Nikola did a pretty good job with his write-up. Here:

While Ukrainian forces were trying to make a breakthrough and infiltrate Russia's Belgorod region, Moscow was too busy holding a presidential election. Vladimir Putin was again reelected, and he will soon be known as Russia’s longest-serving leader.

“Those who count the vote decide everything,” Joseph Stalin once said. Putin won the elections by a landslide with a stunning 87,8 percent of the votes. He will stay in power until 2030, breaking Stalin's record and becoming Russia's longest-ever-serving leader. As a result of the 2021 constitutional referendum, Putin can rule until 2036—if the people want him to, of course.

On election day, voters in Belgorod and Kursk were forced to evacuate to bomb shelters. On this crucial day, their government was not able to protect them from Ukrainian shelling. Despite such insecurities inflicted by the ongoing war against Ukraine, most Russians find Putin and his team are still capable of providing the Russian population with.

Irrelevant to the question “if” the last elections were either fair or accessible, several - relatively independent - opinion polls suggest that Putin still enjoys the support of most Russian citizens.

The Kremlin currently faces several challenges in fully controlling its internationally recognized territory. Not to mention the five Ukrainian regions Moscow annexed in 2014 and 2022. Most Russians, reportedly, think Putin deserves to stay in power for at least six more years. Not that any other organized political force can represent a serious alternative to the current Russian establishment anyway.

On March 17, at noon, thousands of anti-Putin voters in Russia and abroad came to the polls to participate in a symbolic political protest. In many cities around the world, from Beijing to Yerevan to Belgrade, long lines formed outside Russian embassies as Russian dissidents came to vote “for any candidate but Putin.”

Putin’s three counter-candidates, Leonid Slutsky (leader of the allegedly extreme nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia), Nikolai Kharitonov (Communist Party), and Vladislav Davankov (“the most liberal figure on the ballot”), are all, partly by the Kremlin-installed, to function as the so-called, systemic opposition.

Davankov is the only candidate who criticized the government. He opposed the crackdown on the media and freedom of expression. Regarding the war in Ukraine, Putin and his “opponents” do not seem to have significantly different views.

In early February, the Kremlin banned an anti-war candidate, Boris Nadezhdin, from the election. A few weeks later, on January 25, a court in Moscow sentenced Russian nationalist Igor Girkin (also known as Igor Strelkov) to four years in prison. It effectively terminated from running against Putin.

In addition, after the very mysterious death of the opposition figure Alexei Navalny on February 16, something became evident. The Kremlin does not intend to tolerate any presence of the “non-systemic” opposition (be they pro-Western liberals or Russian nationalists) in the country’s political arena.

From the Western perspective, the outcome of the Russian presidential election represents a step in the right direction. Policymakers and strategic planners in the West are aware that as long as Putin is in charge of the Kremlin, Moscow will have zero chance of winning the war in Ukraine.

The Russian President and his team repeatedly refused to take measures that would allow Russia to end the conflict in its favor. To this day, despite Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory, Moscow remains hesitant about striking “decision-making centers” in Kyiv, and there is no political will to launch another assault on the Ukrainian capital or other strategically essential parts of Ukraine.

Instead, the Kremlin continues using its well-known suicidal frontal assault military tactics, aiming to capture strategically insignificant towns and villages in the Donbas. As a result, dozens of thousands of Russian soldiers lost their lives, and two years after Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has not achieved any of its goals in the Eastern European country.

Since Putin has criminalized the expression of any alternative opinions in Russia, he is unlikely to bear the consequences of his adventure in Ukraine in the short term. However, if the West manages to increase weapons production and help Ukraine recapture significant parts of the territory currently under Russian control, Putin’s grip on power could be weakened.

Finally, given that, according to the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, the presidential election in Russia is “not really democracy, but costly bureaucracy,” Putin can never lose power through the ballot box. Under the current circumstances, biology remains the only limiting factor for his reign.

Like Nikola, I think that Putin’s party fluffed the results up, of course, but I also believe that a majority of the voting public does indeed vote for Putin. This is achieved in several ways:

1. Pensioners usually watch TV all day long, and the TV channels support United Russia, so they vote for Putin and UR or the Communists, occasionally.

2. Migrants vote like ethnic blocs and vote for whoever their chieftain tells them to. Bribe the chieftains and you ensure a stable voting block. This includes Chechens, Tuvans, many other non-Russians. Also: observe urban Bantu tribal voting patterns and DNC “machine politics” in America if you don’t believe me.

3. Voter coercion meaning mandatory ballot checks administered by government agencies and large companies. It is common knowledge that many gov-corp companies require employees to vote for UR and to provide proof of their vote.

4. Bribery — simply paying people to vote a certain way. This used to be more common back in the early days of Russian democracy where impoverished grannies would sell their vote or their bodies at political demonstrations.

5. Just general incumbent popularity.

6. Starting a war is usually a very popular move.

7. Christians have to vote whichever way their priests tell them to or risk the fires of eternal damnation for not doing so. Churches tell them to vote for United Russia, because Putin pays them lots of money.

One data point not mentioned by anybody is the clear discrepancy in the reported abroad voting results and the Kremlin’s reported results. The government claimed that Putin had got 72% of the results from voters abroad. Here:

Vladimir Putin in the course of voting in the presidential elections abroad scored 72.3%, follows from the data of the CEC of the Russian Federation.

Nikolay Kharitonov (KPRF) scored 2.22% of the vote abroad, Leonid Slutsky (LDPR) — 1.97%, Vladislav Davankov (New People) — 16.65%.

Recall that Putin gained 87.28% of the vote in the presidential election following the processing of 100% of the protocols. Official voting results will be presented at a meeting of the CEC of Russia on March 21.

How stated Chairman of the CEC of the Russian Federation Ella Pamfilova, the turnout in the presidential elections in 2024 became a record in the recent history of Russia, it amounted to 77.44%.

But, independent data shows that this is a very far-fetched claim indeed.

The results are nowhere near 80 or 70%. Perhaps slight majority at 55%?

Perhaps the Kremlin falsified the vote domestically on the same scale as they falsified the vote from abroad? If so, Putin’s margin of victory drops at least 20 percentage points. But that’s just speculation.

Nunna dis matters anyway.

It is all literally whatever.

Besides, I have always maintained that Putin remains popular in Russia for a myriad of reasons and I support him 100% on this blog to this day and ban anyone who doesn’t, by the way. We can’t have that kind of Satanic and anal sentiment running wild in the comments section, let me just warn you off right now!

And I am not really even condemning Putin for any of these corrupt voter falsification practices. Because this is how a Liberal Democracy is supposed to work. Tactics such as these are necessary to keep and maintain power, especially as a society gets more and more multi-kulti and demoralized and oligarchized. It is totally run-of-the-mill everywhere, not just Russia. Like, don’t even get me started on what a circus Ukraine is. Or ask Iurie about how Moldova is run. Chances are, you have a few dangerous and illegal opinions about how your Western democracies are run as well.

So it really is a race to the bottom, in my opinion.

I do think it is disrespectful to the peasants to keep such a system going because it requires that people believe in lies to prop up the legitimacy of the current government. Peasants shouldn’t be forced to believe in lies at the point of a sword like they were by the Church, the commissars, and, well, whoever it is that whoever runs society now. [Hint: it is the same people who ran Christianity and Communism as well.]

The government should have the decency to declare that they have all the money and the force and the propaganda and that, using these absolutely ancient and perennial tools of coercion and manipulation, they are able to maintain power over the disorganized, undisciplined and gullible masses. The peasants need to learn the hard lessons about what power really is. And they need to really have this understanding forced into their thick skulls like a puppy’s nose is forced into its own mess to get it to learn to do its business outside. Only a truly heroic figure is capable of educating the stubborn swine masses about how their so-called constitutions and social contracts and codexes of morality are all written on toilet paper. Only a mad man would try to open so many people’s eyes to the truth, all at once.

This is why I believe that government by “mad king” is the best.

You know, the real reason why a king was usually declared “mad” by the propagandists of posterity was because the so-called mad kings were usually the good guys and the later religious theocrats and merchant oligarchs hated them and had to discredit the great services that these legendary heroes performed for their people. Mad kings basically revealed the nature of the power game to the society that they ruled over and were despised by “the court” for doing so. Many mad kings were clearly just populists who enjoyed trolling the entrenched interloper oligarchy of any late-stage political state. History simply does not reflect this honest accounting of what occurred.

Like Nero, for example, the archetypical mad king/emperor.

Making a horse a senator could be seen as a sign of “madness” or, conversely, “epicness” because Nero was making a mockery of the Senate, which had become a den of iniquity and bribery and treachery of everything that Rome stood for.

Actually, it was Caligula. But I think the Roman Emperors are duplicates, actually.

Taking a leaf out of Nero’s book, the modern-day young monarch of Thailand did the same thing when he made his beloved dog, Fufu, the head of the Thai Air Force to mock the corrupt and inept military gerontocracy in Thailand.

Question: Is he “mad” too, or are you, perhaps, too dense to understand the joke?

Standing alone himself against an empire in terminal decline, Nero simply grinned and played on his fiddle as the city burned. What else could he do? It was probably the Christian #BLM Antifa terrorists who were to blame for the unrest and the sustained destruction of temples, statues, art and culture, but Nero’s hands were largely tied by the apathy of the Roman people and their twisted political overlord class. The Titanic was going down anyway, so he figured he’d play a last concerto to add some much-needed tragic solemnity to the scene. For having an innate appreciation of tragic beauty, later Christian charlatan-prophets smeared him and made him out to be the 666 Antichrist figure in Revelation.

Either that or the figure of Antiochus was used. I’ll figure it out by the time that I finish my Abrahamism and the Religion of the Future essays.

But a mad king is so obviously the best kind of ruler for a civilization in decay because he uses his office to highlight the absurdity of the political structure of his day and to teach valuable lessons about power to anyone who is wise enough to pay attention to his antics. Many mad kings have historically spent their days humiliating and abusing their own nobility and their high courts especially. This is a very commendable practice because high power attracts the worst kind of toadys and subverters. It takes a truly great personality to overcome the flattery and honey-laced praise and to see the chinovniks and sovetniks of one’s day as the slugs that they are and to salt them publicly and repeatedly, allowing their shrieks of pain to be heard and relished by the whole country, instead of succumbing to their fawning sycophancy and inner-circle scheming.

The best modern media archetype of the mad king is from that god-awful Game of Thrones series. In it, George RR Martin (who is Ashkenazi) portrays a depraved king who, bizarrely, wants to take out his madness on his own people and to burn them all alive for no damn reason other than he’s just a TargARYAN NAZI!

This subversive portrayal of the divine mad king archetype has been used to smear many well-meaning “mad” monarchs in history and even genuinely sane and try-hard leaders like Tsar Nicholas II as being anti-pleb and anti-peasant to justify their overthrow and their sadistic subsequent ritualized murder by racial foreigners. And whether it is Nero, or Aerys TargARYAN or Tsar Nicholas II, the same people seem to be committed to portraying them as unhinged psycho-NAZIS! that needed to be exterminated to save the people from their tyranny and to deliver them into the tender mercies of the Morality Human Rights Freedom Democracy Regime.

But, historically speaking, the worst kings have been the ones who have sided with their own courts.

In contrast, the best kings have been the ones who have instead sided with their own people.

If the king is a founder type i.e., a warlord that sets up an initial dynasty or kingdom, he is usually remembered as an archetypical “good” king. This is because he rose from the ranks of the peasantry and his “court” was just the warband that he rode into a defeated town with behind his back as he set up a new order. There was no oligarchy during his rule, because the martial ethos still remained in place and the spoils of victory had not spoiled the people yet. The mad king is actually cut from the same cloth as the founder king, but he is placed at a most unfortunate point in history, just out of reach of the mythical era of heroes, his progenitors, where he cannot fulfill the role of a founder king, but still carries on the struggle of the peasantry against the court i.e., the proto-oligarchy.

Another example: in LOTR, the steward of Gondor is depicted in a totally different way from in the films.

In the films, Denethor is yet another mad king who demands sycophancy and issues absurd orders to his men that put the kingdom at risk. But in the books, Denethor is an honest-enough man who is simply a bit out of his depth and trying to do his best to keep things together while dealing with personal grief from the loss of his son and Gondor’s best hope (before Aragorn comes along).

This is probably the only flaw in the LOTR trilogy, other than the Legolas skateboarding on an Uruk-Hai shield scene, which, to be fair, a much younger me enjoyed immensely.

…

Now, I think the original article had something to do with Putin, so I may as well circle back to that.

Putin is not a king or a Tsar. He is, in his own words, a CEO of Russia LLC.

The oligarchs and spooks of Russia got together to rig the media and the vote in the 00s to get Putin into office. From that point onwards, Putin served their interests loyally, and tried to converge Russia with the West financially, politically, and even militarily. The results of this strategy — the fruits of this corrupt harvest, you might say — are being reaped right now.

The disaster that is this SMO is entirely the fault of Putin and his friends. They have been in office for 25-50 years at this point, some of them. In that sense, Putin is indeed like a king because he has never had to deal with a change in power and he cannot blame the mess that he has on his hands on the previous administration. All of this nastiness is all the result of Putin’s piss-poor planning, or, conversely, his Judasing of the Russian people.

At this point, the best any of us can hope for is a kind of mad king somehow making his way to power and making a mockery of the entire system in any of our countries. A mad king would take the heat from the ruling oligarchy and give the peasantry room to breath and prepare for what is to come. The best thing that a mad king could do for us is to show us how hollow and cruel and coercive the current system is. All of it — from top to bottom.

And the people, given half a chance, always try to elect a jester into office, haven’t you noticed?

Look at the popularity of that fat orange goofball Trump. Look at how popular Zhirinovsky in Russia was. The Ukrainians elected a literal comedian to office for crying out loud. People like to write in “Joker” or “Mickey Mouse” as a form of protest on their ballots. All in all, you’d have to be pretty thick not to see something deep and primordial and psychological going on here.

All in all, I await the awakening of the king to come that was promised, like so many of us do, whether we admit it or not. That is, the champion of the people that will raise us from our servile condition and fight the good fight against our enslavers, both domestic and xenocrat. This archetype is embedded very deeply in the collective consciousness of all Targaryan/Numenorian peoples.

Only, I await a different kind of king — one that befits this fallen age and the slavish, degraded condition of the very people that he is supposed to rescue and from which this king must emerge. In other words, I welcome the Dionysian King of chaos and destruction to clear up this mess before the Apollonian King or order and stability can come, as is right.

Actually, I legitimately had a dream about all of this and an a-ha! moment regarding the whole mad king archetype, which I had been studying prior to that in the context of Rene Guenon’s The King of the World about a week ago. I was semi-lucid in it and I dreamed that I was in a cafeteria/canteen dressed in an orange jumpsuit and surrounded by other prisoners. For some reason, they reverently put a Burger King crown on my head and made me their leader. No, I’m not making this up. Yes, it is funny as all hell if you get the reference. This probably has very deep spiritual significance somehow, I am sure.

Heavy is the crown.

I think the point I am driving towards here is that you should send me money if you haven’t done so yet.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Go do that now.

And read what I wrote about Gorbachev too.

Thanks.