Where a citizen was accused of slandering the Tsar, he was forced to, in court, repeat the slander, then promptly have his tongoue cut off and exiled to Siberia. In some rare cases execution was meted out. Perhaps this is considered benign, but I would argue differently. At the same time denizens of Tsarist Russia hallowed not the individual but the position of Tsar, just like in Japanese civilization.
Quite right OVERLORD.
Lets think together. To solve this problem why dont we finance a revoloution to free the oppressed masses...oh, i forgot. They already did it and it worked out real well.:-D
It reminds me of Socrates and his execution. Plato was distraught and blamed "Athenian Democracy" for the murder of his venerated Master.
From their Plato decided that the stupid peasants could not be trusted and only an Elite Class...Plato's "Philosopher Kings" could possibly have the right qualities to rule. Plato forgot however that Athens was not perfect but Socrates did manage to annoy people for MANY years before people got sick of him. In Sparta down the road, he would have been killed immediately.
So yes, the Tsarists wer'nt perfect but you still had some leeway. Even today in Russia...speak your mind and some ex-Spetnaz Special Forces will gun you down on the street. Such is the economic freedom the Russian people enjoy yet again. Who would EVER want to go back to the stability of the Tsar?
In my opinion christianity is no better than any other revolutionary force, whatever we call them.
Please, point out the evil that is Christs word? It's a rhetorical question actually. Their is none. The Churches are a seperate matter. Make the distinction.
If one loves and adores the pomp and circumstance that is fascistic rule (which in essence is what Monarky is) then one will surely find literature supporting that view. It is incorrect but nevertheless, it is there.
That is an absurdly ridiculous statement that can be turned instantly on you and makes debate and the finding of truth impossible. I thought you a reasonably clear thinker. For Gods sake. Get a freakin grip.
But does it really make sense to any sane person that someone is BORN to rule?
They say some are "born to sing". "Born to dance". "Born to surf". "Born to make money". "Born to stupidity". I am not so sure that there are not people "born to rule". I have not yet made up my mind on the matter.
Surely that is the reasoning behind the empowerement of G.W.Bush and similar incompetent gunworshipping loonies...
No, there is a big difference between "monied power" and the "born to rule" based on tradition and community values espoused by DRAK.
You need to brush up on your definitions and be MORE specific. You prattle like old people fcuk. Very boring. I'm sorry but you are not worthy. This forum is not an Ickian Reptile hating site. There are intelligent people here. You are being energised by the Banker financed neo-con (read Bolshevick) pretend "right". The soloution is a one world government run by the U.N. It is ALL here on this site if you will take the time to read.
You are the boriongly predictable product of the Globalist agenda and are "reacting" in EXACTLY the way they want.
I am bored of debating with people like you. I'm sorry. You are in high school now and I do NOT want to go over grade 2 mathematics with you.
Get back to me when you've done some more broarder reading and thinking.
Also...we need to clean up the Neo Cons and their true nature...
What Is A Neo-conservative?
The exact opposite of a conservative. Neo-conservatives are the Bolsheviks of the Right. Like the Bolsheviks, they appear in restrained groups driven by a simple idology. They seek practical ways to acheive real power in order to make revoloutionary changes. These "practical ways" usually involve creating a misunderstanding over the "revoloutionary changes" to follow.
The first step in the advancement of a Bolshevik movement is the establishement of intellectual respectability. This was acheived by hiring bevies of academic consultants to lay out a marginal idea - that the West could revert to the rough capitalism of the 19th century - as if it were not only an historic nescessity but a natural inevitability. Their determinism literally mimmicked the Marxists. What a few years before had been marginal nonsense was now driven home as received wisdom by right wing newspaper columnists.
The second stage involved a series of coups d'etat within established conservative parties, beginning with those of Britian, the United States and Canada. The movement was then able to enter elections disguised as conservative renewal. They won power with the support of an electorate which would be among the first to suffer from their policies - the middle and lower middle classes.
The third step again mimmicked the Bolsheviks. This was the key to destabilising the opposition - including the now confused and captive conservatives - in order to win re-election. They redefined the political spectrum so that their marginal ideas occupied all of the territory from the extreme right to the center. This left many conservatives redefined as dangerous Liberals (the Wets, moderate Republicans and radical Tories). The Liberals suddenly resembled socialists and the socialists, communists. In other words, the great mainstream which had presided over the remarkable rise of the West was squeezed over to the marginal edge of public debate.
Since the essential characteristics of Neo-Conservatism are revoloutionary, it was perfectly natural for them to begin by disguising their actions behind reassuring phrases. What they believe is that wholesale change in structures is the only way to change society. Continuity, careful progress and memory are their enemy. However, to admit this in the early stages of holding power is to risk losing it. Eventually they felt free to turn on those who rejected their ideas of change and tar them as cowards.
With hindsite it can be seen that the movement was and remains a paradoxiacal mixture of silly abstract ideology andcrude self interest. The Neo-conservative recipe for public action seemed to have been drawn directly from that of Mussolini, which turned on praise of free enterprise, insistence on the need to reduce beauracracy, suggestions that unemployment relief was part of the economic problem, sotto voce hints that social inequalities should be increased not removed, and an aggressive foreign policy.
By the early 1990's they had so successfully redrawn the intellectual map that whenever Liberals returned to power they spent their time mouthing Neo-conservative formulae. At the same time, a growing number of political parties appeared who were openly corporatist or Mussolinian. Thanks to the respectability given their ideology by the Neo-conservatives they could present themselves as moderate conservative reformers. They began to make serious political inroads in Canada, the United States, Germany and, of course, Italy. There, three parties drawn from the Mussolini mould triumphed in the 1994 general elction. No Neo-conservative movements elswhere in the West expressed dispair or concern.
All of this explained why the Neo-conservatives treat cynicism as a sign of wisdom. It is not unreasonable to place them amongst the last true MArxists, since they believe in the inevitability of class warfare, which they are certain they can win by provoking it while they are in power.
John Raulston Saul. The Doubters Companion: A Dictionary Of Aggressive Common Sense. p.220
Though a rabid Secular Humanist (who sometimes mentions God:-?), I cannot recommend Sauls books enough.
"The Unconscious Civilization".