12781Re: MP nachala sud! Bozos in the woodwork!
- Oct 27, 2004Dear Vova,
You write: "the more absolute their power, the more corrupt they
tend to be. Give me an exception, even one!!!! From Constantine down
to Nicholas II, they all hedged their bets, and even Constantine
covered all options by remaining a pagan."
I give you three exceptional tsars: Nicholas I (the most noble, my
favourite if he was in power no bloody revolution would have taken
place), Alexander III (the most honest Tsar, as declared by many of
his contemporaries and French Ambassador of that time (in his
biography by H. Troyat) and the last but not least, the Holy Martyr
Tsar Nicolas II (crowned in Heaven and on earth).
I do not know about Constantine I will read his biography, but if
he was sanctified, I probably will not share your point of view.
You seem to have a strong dislike of monarchy of divine right and of
monarchs in general. Do you know that the gist of this Divine Right
was that those anointed tsars were responsible before God for their
entire nation? They were invested with an enormous responsibility
and had to answer for it to God. Those three Tsars that I mentioned
(they are those that I know best, through various biographies that I
have read) were very conscious of this and never dishonoured God, and
Russia by the same token. It is also very telling that they never
wanted to become tsars.
Being Tsars was their Cross, and they carried it with dignity and
Also, being an autocrat comes from Greek: avto-kratos, which means
self ruler, independent. This means they were not obedient to any
other influence than their own; any lobbies, sects, etc. Probably
one of the many reasons why they were evicted is this independency.
This was very unpleasant to hidden powers the ones that are now
ruling the planet.
The actual commonly accepted sub-culture, so much enforced by those
ideologies which combated strongly the old regime, is just repeating
the lies and deceits that are taught now. Was it not Lenin, or
Goebbels who said: "Lie, lie, there will always be something left".
Reading you, I can just see how those deceits have taken root.
You write: " frankly, US presidents tend to have a lot more altruism
than any emperor of the Romans or the Russians ever demonstrated, and
that includes the worst of the lot."
Well, give me one US president whose standards were as high as those
of the Tsars?
The Bush(es) (who bombed Irak, wrecked completely the country)?,
Clinton (who bombed Serbia and gave away Kosovo to the Albanese
mafia)?, Kennedy?, Nixon? (both of them were starving for power),
F.D. Roosevelt? (who came to terms with "Little father Jo"?), Lincoln
(the destructive Secession War), etc, etc.
I see no altruism in any of the US Presidents none of them. Their
only drive is power, and history (especially the contemporary ones)
has shown to what extend they were ready to go not very attractive!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>