Czar? You Mean Commissar
17.07.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/108218-czar-0
There is a new silliness in the Western Anglo Media, comparing the US Emperor's
Czar program to the number of Tsars that Holy Russia had. It is a good thing
that the US/UK public is ignorant not only of ancient history but also of recent
history, otherwise they might start to worry.
So let us go back and establish some historic references. Czar or rather Tsar,
is a degradation of the Latin term Ceasar, similar to Germany's Kaiser. Ceasar,
originally the family name of one Julious Ceasar, who almost became Rome's first
Emperor, before his assassination, lent his family name to the title of Roman
emperors.
The first use of the term in Russia was during the reign of Ivan Grozny (Ivan
the Feared, which the Anglos mistranslate to "The Terrible") Before this, the
term " князь " knyaz or " принц " prince, was used. The Moscow princes, being
the new center of the Rus, Kiev being held by Catholic Poles, were called the
grand princes (велики князь).
Ivan Grozny got the other princes under his rule, to refer to him as Tsar. They
did it to humor their half mad overlord, not realizing the importance of words.
Ivan, however, knew their power and that of titles in the human psyche and knew
that once the title of Tsar stuck, he and his prodigy would forever be
associated as some one absolutely separate and above the regular knyazi: an
emperor rather than a challengable grand prince.
Now we forward several hundred years to the Wall Street sponsored Russian
Revolution and Civil War and the Marxists take over of Holy Russia.
In order to control the vast nation and its revolutionary reshaping during a
chaotic time, Lenin and later Stalin, created a system of Commissars. These were
not limited to military and instilling party loyalty, but were used throughout
Soviet society. A commissar and his staff had absolute authority, answering only
to the dictator and by-passing the various local councils and people's senates.
Two things to note here:
1. their spheres were ambiguous and often over lapped responsibilities of other
commissars. This in turn caused a large volume of infighting. Sure this is very
wasteful of resources and confusing, but what it does do, is allow the dictator
to keep ultimate power by keeping his most powerful minions at each others
throats with the dictator as the ultimate arbitrator of power.
2. The commissars were mostly young, had little achievement outside the power
structure, self assured, true believers. They knew very well that outside their
positions, created and granted by the dictator, they had little hope of career
success. They were given responsibility much higher then their experience
levels, further beholding them to their owner. It made them extremely jealous of
their power, which in turn made them vengeful against anyone who stood in their
way, especially other power hungry commissars.
Fast forward to modern transitional America. The American Emperor has taken the
six commissars of his leftist predecessor and created at least 28 more. Yes,
commissars do multiply quickly at first and many more are in the works, until
the American parliament (congress) and the oblasts (states) assemblies (state
senates) are powerless show pieces and all power centers (commissars) flow only
to the dictator.
So while the Anglo owned talking mental traps compare the American commissars to
Russian holy emperors (Tsars) answerable to God, the Church, holy and societal
tradition, the nobility and popular uprisings (we had plenty).
The Commissars (Czars) of Emperor Obama, answerable to none but the Emperor,
consolidate power on a level realizable only in the Marxist, Godless society of
absolutes, not in a traditional Orthodox Christian monarchy.
So Americans can call them what they want, but we Russians and the US emperor
know their true name: Commissar.
Stanislav Mishin
The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and
originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina