|
0 members (),
1,082
guests, and
72
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743 |
I will repeat myself: I can personally guarantee anyone that the cult of Nicholas Romanov is not and will not be approved in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. Litany of the Those Murdered by Nicholas Romanov Martyered Jewish Victims of Nicholas Romanov, Pray for us! Martyered Catholic Victims of Nicholas Romanov, Pray for us! Martyered Victims of Nicholas Romanov on his coronation day, Pray for us! Father Gagon and the poor and humble Martyered Victims of Nicholas Romanov, Pray for us! [ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712 Likes: 1 |
Svjatije Rossijskije Novomučeniki, Nikolaje, Aleksandro, Marije, Tat'jano, Ol'ge, Anastasije i Aleksije, molite Boga o nas. + Slava Otcu i Synu i Svjatomu Duchu, i nyne i prisno i vo veki vekov. Amin'. [ Linked Image] [ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Friends,
No one is forcing the cult of the Romanov Martyrs on anyone, period.
As someone of Ukrainian background, I perhaps have the least "cultural" reason to be interested in their cult. Yet I am interested and I DO venerate them.
Why?
For the reasons Kurt has explained. Father Hapon (not "Gagon") had nothing against the Tsar and his family.
If one goes beyond the pro-Bolshevik and later western lib-left propaganda against Tsar Nicholas, one will see that Father Hapon carried portraits of the Tsar and his family on Bloody Sunday and was later loyal to him to the end.
(Father Hapon, though, did not remain loyal to his priestly vows, but that is another story).
The calamity of Bloody Sunday was caused by trigger-happy police and the Tsar was not at the Palace.
The Tsar later helped the victims of that massacre, paying for the funerals, helping with the families etc.
The secret police would have done what they would have done, with or without the Tsar. The same is true about anti-semitism throughout Europe and North America at the time.
I have met Russian generals from "over there" who have spent their lives in the Soviet service.
They've told me that Tsar Nicholas Romanov was a "pussycat" and a true saint by comparison to what was unleashed on the world through communism.
Sorry, Kurt, and I know you will strongly disagree with me on this point as well.
But since you once charged me with being misguided by unecumenical bishops, let me take the opportunity to express my deep belief that you are simply defending an outdated historical revisionism from within a liberal perspective that historical research can no longer defend.
I have also met people who have undertaken a scientific historical inquiry into the lives of the Romanov family.
They are now pious Orthodox Christians and one of them has an icon of them on his desk.
The veneration of the Romanovs is wide throughout Russia.
I think it would be best, in an overall ecumenical spirit friend, for which you are well-known, to leave other's saints alone.
God bless,
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743 |
Alex,
I would be happy to leave alone those who other communions call saints. Certainly, they have internal issues around this and ecumenism might well be advanced by Catholic silence.
However, the decision seems to be made not to go that route. Nicholas Romanov's character is not something created by pro-Bolshevik and later western lib-left propaganda. In his own lifetime, he was universally recongized as an anti-semite and and cruel dicator, going far beyond the standards of his time and his father. As Autocrat of all the Russias, he could hardly claim to be innocent of actions of his secret police and pogroms. His advisors, who were no pussycats themselves, constantly urged him not to move backwards on tolerance towards the Jews, the poor, and political democrats.
His religiosity came with a false belief he was God's annointed to rule the Russias in a totalitarian manner.
The Russian people are not subhuman. They are not constitutionally cruel and hateful. Others in Russia tried to move the empire in the direction of tolerance and human rights and create a stable, civil society that might have saved Russia from Communism. Nicholas moved in the other direction.
Furthermore, saying he was not as bad as Stalin is hardly a case for his sainthood. His veneration in Russia today is in large part conencted to a new anti-semetic and anti-democratic secular political movement. The majority of Russians take no part in his veneration.
k.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Kurt,
Alas, and in Christian love, I must take exception to your "facts" that you list about Nicholas Romanov.
He had, in fact, excellent relations with Russia's Jewish Community, something that has been attested to by those Russian Rabbis who knew him personally.
I did not, nor did the generals say "he wasn't as bad as Stalin" but that he was quite the beacon of democratic reawakening in Russia and cultural tolerance.
In 1905, he actually promoted the Moscow Academy of Sciences' statement that Ukrainian culture and language were quite distinct from that of Russia (and had the right to separate existence) and to say otherwise was being vicious.
It is true that various monarchist groups venerate him. Not all of them are backward. I too am a monarchist and know Russian monarchists. Perhaps you would call me backward too. That's fine. I came from a very left-leaning, sociological tradition, in which discipline I hold three degrees, and came to realize the true folly of much of that tradition's view of history.
Russia today needs a constitutional monarchy. Nicholas Romanov himself supported eventual reform of Russia's monarchy to that of a constitional form.
I could pick up a beautiful portrait of him at a Moscow subway that I could see many, many people on their way home from work were also picking up.
History was not kind to Nicholas Romanov. The liberal-leftist historians have done enough damage to twentieth century history but this is not the place to go into those kind of details, at least not for me.
The grand republic of the U.S. is also realizing its twentieth century follies by helping to take down monarchies in those countries that are now its worse and most dangerous enemies.
I understand that there is some talk about restoring Afghanistan's King? The Shah of Iran etc.?
As for anti-semitism, that is a charge that can be levelled at many countries, including the U.S. historically.
Nicholas Romanov was not a good administrator, as anyone will admit. That he did not have absolute power over the government and his lower administrators is a fact. So much for the "Absolute Dictator" his detractors make him out to be.
I have yet to meet a Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbeki etc. who did not express great esteem and admiration for Nicholas Romanov and the Tsars.
But then again I lead a sheltered life and seem only to meet government and former party officials from the former Soviet Union.
His cult is strong in the Russian Orthodox Church and in other Orthodox Churches.
Sorry, but I reject your understanding of the history of the Romanovs and of Russia in this century.
It isn't your fault, as it wasn't mine when I was inundated by skewed historical assessments by scholars with particular ideological agendas and axes to grind.
I also reject much of the particular understanding of monarchies by American and other republican commentators.
Time is proving them to be wrong, in any event.
You have a right to hold your view, as I have a right to hold mine.
God bless,
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698 |
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Russia today needs a constitutional monarchy. Nicholas Romanov himself supported eventual reform of Russia's monarchy to that of a constitional form.
Dear Alex, Just curious. Why would Russia--indeed any nation--NEED a constitutional monarchy? What benefit does that system have that others don't? Not trying to criticise your view, as I myself like the idea of Kings and Queens and stuff (how could I not? I have way back in the ancestry a relationship to an Indian royal family). If you don't want to answer it here and potentially drag the thread off course, feel free as always to email me privately. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Catholicos,
Certainly constitutional monarchy isn't for everybody.
About 25% of the world's nations are monarchies, and they are among the most stable of economies etc.
Republicanism works for the U.S. and for some European countries, but it is a democratic failure in most other nations that practice it.
But you asked what is the "good" of a constitutional monarchy?
For one thing, such monarch is the formal Head of State. He is not a politician and leaves politics to the Head of Government who is an elected political leader.
Under this system, "power" is "deposited" into a kind of bank which we call the "crown." The sovereign is its guardian.
Politicians use such power on behalf of the people who elected them, but they cannot actually "have" that power. When they have it, or possess it, history has shown that they won't give it back within the framework of general accountability. Then we have dictatorship.
Monarchs have been autocrats, to be sure. But over time these have evolved into more democratic systems such as the U.K. Spain and others.
Russia was moving in this direction under the Tsars when the Bolsheviks made their revolution. They did not kill the Tsar because he was "bad" but because, like other European monarchs at the time, he was moving toward land reform and greater democratization and decentralization. With that in place, the Bolsheviks would have lost much politically and so they had to move quickly - which they did.
Most countries in the world accept the principle that the Head of State should be distinct from the Head of the Government. The Head of State is elected in republican states or appointed and he or she is largely a ceremonial Head.
In that case, I would argue that it is much better and politically healthier to have a constitutional monarch as head of state and not a politician - why do you need one more whose political views are not representative of the history and culture of the people?
There is really too much that can be said about this to really do justice to it or to deal with the truisms that surrounds this issue.
The U.S. have united their head of state with their head of government, an anomaly in the world, to be sure.
The Civil War resulted, in part, because those in the South that didn't vote for Lincoln (everyone) wouldn't have allegiance to his administration. If the U.S. had been a constitutional monarchy, as many Americans at the time of the Revolution had actually wanted, and Lincoln was the Prime Minister, then the matter could have remained an internal government matter without the spilling of blood, as one historian has said (Professor Hereward Senior, McGill University).
Whether the Americans have a monarchy or not is not an issue really. The fact is that Americans have imposed their republican will on other countries, especially those countries that are now "sticking it" to them in the side.
Tradition is a big part of monarchies and for many countries the fast-paced cosmopolitanism of American-style democracy just isn't for them.
A monarchy, just as a King for Afghanistan, will go along way to balancing tradition, religion, culture and the need for responsible, democratic reforms.
You can argue with me about this. But the U.S. government agrees with me!
India too would benefit from having its Emperor back, especially given its multicultural character as a nation.
The Canadian system of monarchy has also helped us evolve into a multicultural nation, since my allegiance to The Queen is a personal one that does not change me culturally, religiously or in any other way.
In the U.S., the English American mainstream is the dominant cultural force.
In deference to my friend, Kurt, our monarchical tradition up here has led to the development of a strong liberal and social democratic tradition. I know many constitutional monarchists who are liberal and social democrats.
God bless,
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743 |
Soon after his accession Nicholas stated that he intended to maintain the autocratic system. He continued the suppression of opposition, the persecution of religious minorities, and the Russification of the borderlands. The liberals pressed for constitutional government. In foreign affairs, Nicholas supported an aggressive policy in E Asia. The humiliating outcome of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) resulted in the peasant revolts, industrial strikes, and violent outbreaks known as the Revolution of 1905. In Jan., 1905, a crowd of workers who had come peaceably to petition the czar were fired upon in front of the Winter Palace by troops under the Czar's command. After the general strike of Oct., 1905, Count Witte, who soon became premier, induced Nicholas to sign a manifesto promising representative government and basic civil liberties. But Nicholas soon curtailed the Duma and dismissed Witte in 1906. This act led to a constant stream of resignations from the ministers; their posts were filled by the sycophants.
To Nicholas, the Jews were an anarchic, cowardly, parasitic people, damned perpetually because of their deicide and heresy; they were best dealt with by repression, persecution, and if possible, conversion. Meanwhile the Jews themselves were becoming politically conscious and active, interested in both Zionist and socialist ideas. And they were engaging in union activity through their Bund to organize Jewish factory workers to better their lot. Nicholas II seized on these facts, trying to incite the population against social reform by claiming it was a Jewish plot.
During 1905 Nicholas increased the pogroms dramatically. Things began with a bloody Sunday--January 9, 1905--when great numbers of striking workers marched to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to petition the czar for economic and political reform. They were greeted with bullets and large numbers were killed. The scandalous conduct of the Czar, who had replied with bullets to a peaceful appeal for reforms, led to a series of demonstrations, labor strikes and terrorist acts in the provinces. Then on February 4, the governor-general of Moscow, one of the most detestable and anti-Semitic members of the House of Romanov, was assassinated by a bomb (thrown by a non-Jew.) In fear, the Czar issued a manifesto that promised constitutional reforms and the establishment of a national assembly, the Duma, with "consultative rights." However, the Czar was not giving up that easily.
To counter the revolutionary tide growing in Russia, a terrorist organization of armed rowdies and hooligans, called the Black Hundred, was set up throughout Russia in 1905 by the highest officials of the Czar's government and with the Czar's knowledge and consent. They used a 10-million ruble counter-revolutionary fund nicknamed the "black money," which was under the exclusive control of the Czar. With this group Nicholas II carried out his threat of acheronta movebo--"I shall set the underworld in motion." The Black Hundred--officially known as the Union of the Russian People--instigated general rioting against the Jews in the summer and fall of 1905. With a sense of irony the Jews dubbed the manifesto issued by the Czar "a constitutional charter wrapped up in pogroms."
In the course of one week (Nov. 1-7, 1905), 660 Jewish communities were attacked. In all, 1000 Jews died, 7,000-8,000 were wounded (many permanently crippled), and property damage of 62,700,000 rubles occurred (ca. $31,000,000). One of the worst pogroms during this week was in the city of Odessa, which housed one of the great Jewish intellectual centers in Russia, with 160,000 Jewish residents. The pogrom raged for four days; at least 300 Jews lost their lives, thousands were wounded, and 40,000 economically ruined. Bessie Davidson remembers her mother's story of a gentile peasant who witnessed these riots. "They took about thirty or forty Jewish kids, little kids, and drove them right into the river and drowned them. He said he saw the kids crying," a sight so horrible that he found he could not live with the memory. "
An echo of the horrible pogroms which had raged through the length and breadth of the Jewish cities and towns in Russia also reached the town of David-Horodok. A Horodoker miatchona [town citizen] named Zuchter murdered with an ax an entire Jewish family of seven souls in the nearby village of Orly. The murder was carried out at night when everyone was sleeping. Terror fell on the town and the surrounding villages. Everyone prepared for pogroms, and the horrible murder was regarded as a "downpayment."
I remember as if it were now the frightful funeral: the wagons with the massacred bodies and the blood-soaked bed clothes. That tragic night with the wagons and bodies is engraved in my memory to this day like a horrible nightmare. The belief in a Jewish conspiracy against Russia is held by some right-wing nationalist members of the church, who revere Nicholas as a martyred saint and champion his official canonization. In June 1998, the Russian Government ordered the reburial of Czar Nicholas II and his family in St. Petersburg. During the preceding months, the Russian Government and the Russian Orthodox Church conducted an investigation into the killing of the Czar and his family, which included a probe into whether they perished in a "ritual murder" perpetrated by a Jewish conspiracy. The Church also published this xenophobic assertion in a final report on the death of Czar Nicholas II. The church had come under pressure from its extremely conservative monarchist wing, which reveres Nicholas as a saint and victim of a "world conspiracy of Jews and Masons" guilty of regicide in 1918. Lastly, in reponse to Alex's interest to a constituational monarchy in Russia, all I can say is that it is an interesting theory. However, in Russia, no one is calling for a constitutional monarchy. The actual existing (to use a cold war term) Russian monarchists are not constitutionalists. They are for autocracy, hypernationalism and persecution of the jews and Catholics. They are not an element that any decent person would want to knowingly give even indirect support to. K. [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Kurt,
Number one - constitutional monarchy is more than a theory as 25% of the world's governments are such.
Secondly, what you quote is also interesting, but highly tendentious. One would have to get a handle on who it is that wrote it, their own personal beliefs etc. to get a better appreciation for their perspective.
It is true there are right wing nationalists in Russia who venerate the Tsar.
It is also true that there are many more Right-believing Orthodox who venerate the Tsar, and now world-wide Orthodoxy has glorified him and his family as saints and passion-bearers.
As for the "facts" that you've quoted, well, there are similar tirades against a number of people beatified by Pope John Paul II and their alleged Nazi connections.
And do you agree with what "progressive" writers say about Pope Pius XII?
As for the Russification of the minorities in Russia, countries like Ukraine and others actually experienced greater freedom under St Nicholas Romanov than at any other time.
Tsar St Nicholas went out of his way to protect Russian communities in union with Rome (Bl. Leonid Fyodorov) and minority languages and cultures (the history of the Moscow academy of sciences). You don't need to tell this Ukrainian about that!
The argument that writer of yours makes, that somehow anti-semitism began and ended with the Romanovs is the real hype.
Again, one should always reflect carefully on not only what is written but on who is writing it and their own political perspectives.
Sorry, but I kept that part of my sociological background and am unphased by that quote. There is much more to be read about Nicholas Romanov and much wider perspectives on his life and person.
Again, I don't deny you your right or those of others to believe in your perspective.
But, even more importantly, if the entire Orthodox world admits the glorification of St Nicholas Romanov, and Rome does not question it either, what does this say about the Apostolic Churches of Christ, do you think?
I think I know what you'll say, but you can say it anyway.
Have a great day and let's both calm down about this, shall we?
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712 Likes: 1 |
the Bolsheviks ... did not kill the Tsar because he was "bad" but because, like other European monarchs at the time, he was moving toward land reform and greater democratization and decentralization. With that in place, the Bolsheviks would have lost much politically and so they had to move quickly - which they did.Yes. Just like the revolutionaries who murdered Tsar Alexander II, not because he was a monster but the opposite: he did things like free the serfs. http://oldworldrus.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743 |
The source for the latter quote is the Union of Jewish Councils (of the ex-USSR). The first is from a college textbook, rather bland and with no axe to grind.
My point about constitutional monarchy was not as to the universal or Canadian concept, it was to Russia. The Russian Monarchist movement does not include a CM element, but is strong anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic.
Nicholas II reversed many reforms that had been previously done, and amazed even his more conservative advisors in his unwillingness to consider needed reforms. Under him, oppression of the Jews increased. After forced to stablish a Duma, he abolished it at the first chance.
I still have not seen anyone write they believe Nicholas Romanov's murderous actions against his Jewish subjects were "saintly".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698 |
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
India too would benefit from having its Emperor back, especially given its multicultural character as a nation.
Dear Alex, Good stuff, and interesting too. Just a minor point. India before the British was not one country, but a bunch of kingdoms. The Kingdom of Travancore and the Kingdom of Cochin are the two that together form Kerala. Jaipur was its own kingdom, so also Hyderabad, etc. A Maharajah ruled each of these. When the British came, they took over a lot of territory, but to the more established kingdoms they gave a break. We were under supervision, of course, but we had liberties that others didn't; our own money, stamps, press, not to mention the royal families, our own governments, etc. Eventually H.M. Queen Victoria became "Empress of India", and all monarchs up to and including H.M. George VI took this title (Note: don't say India should get its Emperor back...Maharajahs maybe, but not the Emperor...I don't think we want to deal with the British that intimately anymore...you Canadians can keep them if you want :p ). When the British granted India independence and created Pakistan, they did quite a job creating new borders without much regard to the ancient borders of kingdoms and by extension, peoples and cultures (remember each kingdom was basically its own country, with a culture, language, etc. all its own). Hence a lot of the bad stuff going on in my country even today. While the Pakistanis fight for Kashmir (even to the point of "importing" wretched Taliban fighters, whom we now know care not for their own lives, and so wreak much havoc in the land), they forget one important fact: the Maharajah of Kashmir, when he decided to join either India or Pakistan, legitimately chose India, while other kingdoms legitimately chose to belong to Pakistan (Bahawalpur comes to mind), and those who wanted to be with India or with Pakistan but were in the other country migrated to whatever side of the border they wanted (remember the Partition riots?). In my opinion, parliamentary democracy/republicanism/whatever-the-system-there-is-officially-called works the best...you could never have one king for India...too many cultural conflicts, I would think. A lot of people have a problem with Hindi as the official language of government, along with English, because Hindi is just another language of a Kingdom...it implies to some the superiority of this language and by extension the people over others. Better to use English, they say, and in one way I agree with them. And if it's that way with a language, imagine a King.  I would be in support of all the old kingdoms coming back, but in a state by state way. So, for example, the Kingdom of Travancore-Cochin (the two merged shortly before or after independence) would be a constitutional monarchy, but for the State of Kerala, as a part of India, which in its turn would still be the way it is now. I don't know how feasible that would be, but I'd go for it. Who knows, maybe the special privileges granted to Syrian Christians by the Maharajahs would be recognised again?  OK, so that wasn't a minor point...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Kurt,
Sorry, but we can get into the game of exchanging quotes and books with one another. I just don't have the ambition to do it.
I wonder what these same people would say about Pope Pius XII and his role during World War II?
Is what they would write factual in that case as well?
Again, you and others of your perspective (which you have every right to hold) begin with your own axe, for whatever reason, and then amass quotes that appear to give factual basis to it.
I am simply saying that there are other perspectives on this period of history and that, yes, I show my own (new) bias in favour of those. I am less inclined to put the world in terms of black and white and "factual" info as you do.
If I did, I probably wouldn't be a Catholic today.
The historical views of Nicholas Romanov have shifted. Many no longer see progress in terms of linear progression, or revolutions as harbingers of democratization and reform in favour of the masses.
That was nineteenth century naivete about human nature as contained in the writings of Marx, Engels and Freud.
I think we've "advanced" beyond that and have a more enlightened view of our nature and of history.
Nicholas Romanov was personally neither murderous nor anti-semitic. I dare anyone to produce HARD EVIDENCE, rather than rhetoric, to PROVE IT.
I can hear that axe against the grindstone already . . .
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Catholicos,
Actually, you did my work for me!
Yes, India could only have an Emperor, not a King, to be sure.
Ethiopia's empire, for example, was composed of 99 Kingdoms, each with their own cultural heritage, dialect, traditions etc. The Emperor was a kind of "referee" in which they all found their unity.
The Emperors of India exercised a similar kind of role over the constituent Kingdoms of their subcontinent.
Germany's Kaiser also ruled over Kingdoms and Principalities. The King of Bavaria is still around and he is always on hand to cut ribbons etc. Many of these lesser monarchies still persist either territorially or else in the enduring titles of the hereditary princes and kings.
Scotland's High King ruled over seven and then nine subkingdoms or "Ri." Spain is to this day a country composed of four smaller kingdoms, each with their own flag, language and traditions who find unity in the King of Spain. Without a King, Belgium would become two countries.
One could argue that the collapse of Yugoslavia and the ethno-religious problems there could have been averted with a King allegiance to whom would have cut across ethnic and religious lines.
Here in Toronto, I know that Moroccan Jews continue to celebrate the birthday of the King of Morocco who is a Muslim - how wonderful.
My mother lived under the Orthodox King of Rumania, King Michael, under whom Christians and Jews were on very good terms.
I met the King when he was on a visit here for a charitable event to raise money for Rumanian children infected with AIDS.
I took the King's hand, did a neck bow and then, overcome with emotion, made the Sign of the Cross, before which the King bowed.
A Rumanian reporter then came up to me with tears in his eyes and told me that this was how Rumanians formerly greeted the King in Bucharest.
The Parliamentary/Constitutional Monarchy system is, I believe, the most evolved and sophisticated system we've developed. It isn't perfect, but I prefer it to republicanism of any variety.
My preference, that's all.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743 |
Alex,
I'm sorry, but the standard biographies of Nicholas II can't be compared to the very contraversial books on Pius XII. This is just apples and organges.
One can maintain that Nicholas II was a complex person in a complex setting. That is a long way off from saying he is a saint.
If one can't present facts, what are we supposed to do? Maybe this is the issue. No, I don't accept that the canonization process of the ROC is a mystical, sacramental, infallable act that the Holy Spirit works contrary to all evidence of facts and history.
I cannot accept that objection to the murder of Jews, democrats, and the poor Iare things we have now "advanced" beyond that and have a more enlightened view of our nature and of history.
Nicholas Romanov was personally murderous and anti-semitic. Golda Meir, in her autobiography tells that she and her family left Kiev in 1905 because of the murder of Jews by those under the Czar's command. Nicholas II restored the "Pale of Settlement" expelling the Jews from Moscow, shwoing he was more reactionary than the times. The Russian prisons and execution chambers were full of people guilty of no more crimes than they were Jewish or seeking justice.
Are you saying that the self-proclaimed Autocrat was like Henry II? Unaware of the activities of the Black Hundreds, the Secret Police, the pogroms led by the Czar's army (which he removed his relative from the command and took personal control over)?
The simple truth is that Nicholas was an evil man, who repealed the previous reforms, was universally seen as a backwards anti-semite even by the standards of his time and nation.
Who do you think were in these gulags? Only horse theives?
K.
|
|
|
|
|
