“Presidents”

Guest Post by Eric Peters

No matter the system, it seems every country now has a “president.” Including “presidents” (for life) like Vladimir Putin of Russia, formerly the Soviet Union. Which – more honestly – once upon a time had a general secretary or a premier.

It was once the case that only America had a president. Other countries – many of them very un-American, like the old Soviet Union – appropriated the title, with the idea that doing so might linguistically convey a don’t-examine-it-too-closely message of democratically elected legitimacy.

Of course, in those days, everyone knew the difference between a premier or general secretary and a president. Hence the importance of eliminating the distinction.

Everyone’s a “president” nowadays.

Because there is no longer much distinction – functionally – between a “president” Putin and a “president” Biden.

Neither presides.

Both rule.

One for an indefinite period, the other a defined period. Does it make any meaningful difference?

The modern “presidency” is in fact a kind of disingenuous autocracy, in some cases (as in ours) episodically elected.

Whoever holds the office wields the power of a premier or general secretary. He – or she – issues “executive orders,” another form of linguistic legerdemain meant to flim-flam the minds of the not-every-thoughtful by giving decrees the imprimatur of “democratic” legitimacy.

The general secretary/premier-president makes vast pronouncements about the “leadership” he will provide; about the “policies” he will pursue. Makes promises – and issues threats – like a Third World el presidente. All that’s missing are the sashes, medals and epaulettes. In fact, it’s confusing to not have those visuals. To see an el presidente/general secretary/premier in a suite and tie, as if legitimate. To see a group of these autocrats gathered together for a Ted Bundy-smile photo op, as if they were normal people.

It was never meant to be such. At least, not here – initially. And for about the first 73 years, it wasn’t.

The Constitution of 1787 – which remained largely in force until 1860 – established the presidency as a kind of administrative office, held by the person elected to assure that the laws passed by Congress were “faithfully executed.” The president was not elected to issue decrees, nor to pursue “policies” of his own.

That changed in 1860, when the office of the president was replaced by a general secretary/premier who styled himself “president” – so as to retain the linguistic legitimacy associated with the title.

For the same reason, the general secretaries/premiers of our time – at home and abroad – are also now in the habit of styling themselves “presidents.”

For the same reason that War Departments are now Defense Departments.

Speaking of democracy . . .

That is another word that used to be used to describe countries that had general secretaries and premieres. For example, the Deutsche Demokratische Republic – the former East Germany. Led – at the end – by Erich Honecker, the general secretary thereof. There wasn’t much “democracy” in the DDR, though. Just as there is a lot of general-secretaryship in the modern “president.”

And there’s not much “democracy” here, either.

Certainly, there is none in the Constitution – in which the word doesn’t appear even once. Yet it is used everywhere, by the general-secretary/premier who play-pretends to be the “president.” He claims to be its protector – and enforcer. He refers to it as the basis of his lawful authority – though, again, there is nothing in the actual law regarding “democracy.”

What is this “democracy”? In theory – and in fact?

In theory, it is majority rule – via the ballot. If 51 of 100 people vote for X then X becomes not only the law, it becomes right, by dint of the majority having voted for it.

A tautology.

This facade of morality gives “democracy” its veneer of legitimacy – in the same way that calling the person who has the decreeing power of a general secretary or premier a “president” – and having him wear a suit and tie rather than a one-piece jumpsuit or sashes and epaulettes – softens it up and makes it sound like something kinder and gentler (to use a phrase used by a general secretary/premier play-pretending at being a “president”).

In fact, “democracy” is minority rule – often, by a general secretary/premier posing as a “president” claiming to rule on behalf of “the majority,” which isn’t.

A minority of one – as in the defunct DDR.

As is becoming the case in the almost-defunct United States, where the latest “president” was (s)elected by a majority of digits finagled into a black box and even if one sets that aside, at best was elected by about 26 percent of the eligible electorate, about half of which didn’t vote for anyone. This “president” acts on behalf of a minority – and even that is a fiction, because he is restrained by not much more than his personal whims.

It sounds an awful lot like the general secretary or premier of a communist country. Which is precisely why they prefer to be called “presidents” instead.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise

16
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Eddy O
Eddy O

Eric: You better do a little research. To quote you, “…Russia, formerly the Soviet Union.” Absolutely untrue. The former Soviet Union was a union of 15 countries. Russia was just one of them.

Javelin
Javelin

Nailed that… also, what planet do you live on if you believe Putin’s reelection was less legitimate than Biden being placed in our white house?

'Reality' Doug
'Reality' Doug

The organic process is replete with tedious details. Russia is the successor to the Soviet Union for practical purposes. By land mass I expect Russia is more than 1/15th of the former Soviet Union. What is the constructive value of your comment? You are a smarter text worshiper? Was the Soviet Union a confederacy, or maybe did Russia sorta invade and coerce the union?

While nominally a union of equals, in practice the Soviet Union was dominated by Russians. The domination was so absolute that for most of its existence, the country was commonly (but incorrectly) referred to as “Russia”. While the RSFSR was technically only one republic within the larger union, it was by far the largest (both in terms of population and area), most powerful, most developed, and the industrial center of the Soviet Union. Historian Matthew White wrote that it was an open secret that the country’s federal structure was “window dressing” for Russian dominance. For that reason, the people of the USSR were usually called “Russians”, not “Soviets”, since “everyone knew who really ran the show”.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#Judicial_system

Eddy O
Eddy O

My wife was born and grew up in the Soviet Union. Try telling her that.

Austrian Peter

My wife was born and brought up in South Africa. I won’t try and tell her either.

Austrian Peter

I don’t think you have your land areas correct: Google:
“The Soviet Union covered an area of over 22,402,200 square kilometres (8,649,500 sq mi), and was the world’s largest country, a status that is retained by its successor state, Russia. It covered a sixth of Earth’s land surface, and its size was comparable to the continent of North America.” Russia is 7.13 million km² or about a third of the former Soviet Union.

Although I don’t wish to ‘quibble’

'Reality' Doug
'Reality' Doug

The phrase ‘union of 15 countries’ implies to the small minds that probably Russia was 1/15 or so of the influence and power. I did not say majority land mass. I said the organic process is messy. There is continuity, that forks, but Russia of today is the main truck of Russian history going back to the Russian Empire. It was not called the Ukrainian Empire or some such.

And I always listen to women for my political opinion. Nevermind the wisdom of ‘seen but not heard’, or ‘let them learn in silence.’

In the academic milieu, some low-IQ technocrats pretend they are smart on technicalities, but they have no working understanding of the theories they use as props for the exhibition of pseudo-wisdom.

It is a technicality to say Russia is not the Soviet Union. That is not wisdom. Why should I care? For someone’s ego to feeeel intellectual?

Making data/facts means something requires listening to the data/facts on their terms, which are organic sloppy. There are many dimensions to might be the dominant factors, and that might not.

That was my point, not to argue that Russia is exactly the continuation of the Soviet Union. It is not exactly. It is approximately, which is approximately enough in some cases but not in others. What case are we arguing? This is a stupid argument of ungrounded language artifacts without a factual, real-world context to give this stupid discussion any factual meaning. This whole debate is ridiculous, especially if coming from people who vote for the least of system filtered evils.

Austrian Peter

Yes, exactly, thank you for your clarification. It was written with tongue-in-cheek in play. 🙂

Austrian Peter

A ‘quibble’ as TheAssegai would say

Auntie Kriest
Auntie Kriest

Auntie is leaning moar and moar towards using “Beloved Leader”, ‘ Generalissimo”, or even “Czar” for the ever evolving position of maximum political person in charge of the now-defunct and cynically named “democracy”.

Yahsure
Yahsure

I haven’t heard anything about those czars they put in office, are they still there as a shadow Gov. for Obama? Fitting titles for people in our Gov.

Austrian Peter
B_MC
B_MC

comment image

subwo
subwo

Had Dear Leader even joined the sea cadets he would have hosted a blanket party. In hindsight, I wish he had.

'Reality' Doug
'Reality' Doug

I think this is not one of Eric Peters better efforts. His presidential equivalence of Putin and Biden is absurd. The U.S. Bureaucracy is a distinct nation with its own people with their own culture. The tail is waging the dog. Joe Biden cannot act unilaterally on very much. Trump, his predecessor, could not.

The distinction is part and parcel of the nasty perversion by inversion of the civilization cycle. The stupid governed want to salvage the bureaucracy rather than themselves, which includes numerous IYI types here. It is this drive to salvage the incorporated farm hand that necessitates the rise of a militant dictator. Putin is to a very large degree already a militant dictator.

Whose presumed evil is worse? The evil of the American system is inherently destabilizing. Putin looks to be the ‘president’ for life. It is obvious which system is ‘more evil’. Barring acceptance of that argument of viability as a comparable reference point (which is arguable), it is obvious which system is getting more evil more, whatever level of evil each government embodies at this time. Nevertheless, y’all will beg for a savior of the enemy infrastructure and narrative that subjugates, I mean lovingly defines, you.

“That Mike Pence is a traitor”, you say. As if you save-me naysayers have a clue. Mike Pence is running circles around the QAnon Christian socialists. Trust God-and-Q’s plan. It’s only a few bad eggs at the top. Amen.

'Reality' Doug
'Reality' Doug

Where are the up votes for this insightful analysis? This does not confirm your narrative because it is educational. Oh, dear.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading