does Russia need a Tsar?

[Dr_Woland]

>> Czar: one having great power or authority. <<

I'm not sure this definition is really enough, Nonson! :-)

Firstly, the power of a Tsar is absolute, rather than great. Although Putin's power may appear to be enormous, in 5 years or less he must answer to his people for the decisions made in the interim. Gorby wielded more power, over greater dominions, but he's now reduced to giving talks on the chicken-dinner circuit, and Putin could be there too if he's not careful. There's an undiscerning segment of the Russian populace that always hopes for the next miracle-leader to come and take care of them (so they won't have to take any responsibility for themselves), but they quickly tire of them once they fail to produce the goods. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were hailed as gods initially... the Russian populace is an impatient master to serve.

Secondly, however, there is the issue of heredity. Monarchy is passed from generation to generation of the same family. There is no ability whatsoever to remove those unsuitable from the role of monarch. Russia's Tsars and Tsarina's have included murderers, crooks, lunatics, torturers, the feeble-minded.... adulterers, and even Tsars so criminal that they were excommunicated from the Orthodox Church whilst remaining the head of it!

A return to Monarchy means forcing the yet-unborn great-grandchildren of whomever is first appointed monarch, as omnipotent ruler over our great-grandchildrens generation. Will they thank us for that?

Let's stop talking theory, and look at reality. Right now, this morning, in my home country of Britain, a man who admits adultery throughout his marriage to Diana Princess of Wales, is conniving to employ a loophole in the Church of Scotland to wed his adulterous lover. This man's father has brought disgrace on Britain internationally by insulting his hosts on official foreign visits with rude, racist, outrageous remarks. This man's mother could not pass a basic school examination, and her sister is a notorious alcoholic with a string of sexual scandals around her. Britain pays millions of pounds to employ this useless collection of unemployable social misfits, their children and their grandchildren. Not one of them - except Princess Anne, for whom I hold some respect - has ever done a day's work in their whole lives.

An opinion poll this morning in a right-of-centre newspaper reveals that 44% of those asked do not want Charles to become King.

An opinion poll two years ago, the largest ever held on tv with millions of people responding, revealed that 85% of Scots people want the monarchy abolished altogether.

This is the reality of monarchy.

Dr W.

[Nonson]

DR. Woland, while I am hestitant to deal in any absolute, I will agree that the simple dictionary definition of monarchy is in a constraint mode. However, I can't redefine it according to the acts of deviants and perverts. Of course, in the final analysis any monarchy must be viewed as a criminal enterprise. >>>>>>>>>>The Russian people seem to have always desired a god-man at the helm of State. Maybe its a sugar-daddy syndrome. It is certain that syndicalism is an un-workable system. We both know that the true tyrant has always been an object of idol worship by the Russian populace. Hands that don't shed blood wont hold the reins of power in this land. >>>>>>>>Hereditary continuation of monarchy is but another piece of refuse held over from less-inspiring ages. The total unsuitability of such people to rule is pretty much responsible for the drama of recorded history. Their apparent alien morality and sense of justice makes good copy, and there seems no end to the vast stream. The purveyors of fairy-tales(millions upon millions)will rise up in bloody revolt if one seeks to deny them this wretched excess. >>>>>>>>How did we get on this subject? Shalom

[petryxa]

to Dr_W.
I'm Russian and I would like to see Tsardom restored.Why?Because the only way for Russia to become strong country,once again,is realy strong hand with absolute power.Putin might do that.The Tsar should be able to do what President couldn't.And to restore Russian power Tsar will have to go against the law,because law in Russia works only for kriminals.I think this is the only way.

[Dr_Woland]

Hi Petryxa

If I understand you correctly, you think Tsarism is going to help, because some higher level of power is needed? Power above the law?

Suppose President Clinton arrested Ted Turner, because he did not like being criticised for his personal life on CNN? Would that be right? Would you approve of Clinton doing this?

Well, that's what Putin is doing right now - arresting the heads of TV channels which broadcast news which is is inconvenient.

If what you are proposing happened in America:

1) USA people would be told the Vietnam War was a huge success, no US soldiers were killed.

2) Richard Nixon would never have been removed from office.

3) No-one would ever have heard of Monica Lewinsky, except that she went missing and her body was found in her car at the bottom of a lake.

Dr W.

[petryxa]

tO DR_WOLAND
If someone would criticised my personal life I know I would put him/her in jail or would beat his @ss.
I agree with you about point #2,but point #1 and #3 are wrong(my point of view).
Because if president at the time of Vietnam war(I'm bad with names) would been a Tsar he would just bombed the hack out of Vietnam because he wouldn't listen to Congress or obey any law.
And you are right that no-one would hear abt M.Lewinsky because she would not dare to say anything about it.
Petr.

[Dr_Woland]

Hi Petryxa

Yeah, but the point I'm making is... say you were NOT the Tsar? But some other guy is Tsar, who is waaaaay nastier than you are, who decides he doesn't like you, and wants to put YOU in a car at the bottom of a lake?

Dr W.

[Nonson]

(I)nternal (R)ectification (S)ystem.