Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12781Re: MP nachala sud! Bozos in the woodwork!

Expand Messages
  • goossir
    Oct 27, 2004
      Dear 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!

      In God,

      Irina Pahlen
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic