Forever dumb as a box of old rocks, Blogging Tory “dr. roy” blubbers over the “atrocity” at Ekaterinburg in 1918.
This article describes the horrible martyrdom of the Holy Royal Martyrs. The Soviet communist regime wasfoundedd [sic] on the murder of men, woman and children. No wonder the evil just continued. The people of Russia are beginning to understand the atrocity that was done in their name.
Ah yes, Russian Emperor Nicholas II, the deeply incompetent, feeble-minded autocrat directly responsible for the murderous events in Kishinev in 1903 (45 dead, hundreds wounded), Odessa in 1905 (more than 300 dead, thousands injured), and almost seven hundred state-sponsored pograms between October 11-29, 1905 that murdered hundreds of Jews and wounded thousands more. The bungling “holy royal martyr” that led his hopelessly ill-prepared and woefully mismanaged nation into WWI, a calamity of epic scale resulting in 3.3 million military and civilian deaths and the wounding of almost 5 million soldiers.
Thank goodness that “conservatives” don’t suffer from the scourge of moral relativism that’s said to afflict liberals!
20 Comments
July 18, 2008 at 4:43 am
Dr Roy is a retard and ignorant of history. And, in typical Conservative duality of thinking fashion, believes that if one side is bad, the other side must be good.
It would never have occurred to this moron that both might be evil.
July 18, 2008 at 4:46 am
How can some one so stupid get a medical degree…no wonder our system is in such trouble.
July 18, 2008 at 6:02 am
Dr. Roy is strange to say the least….does he work anymore? He has so much time to blog, go to CPC events, read Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller, etc.
He is also constantly on a mission to trash feminists…..he’s not married, has no children….something not quite right about this dude.
July 18, 2008 at 6:39 am
Mike – unusually this time – has it right: the rotten Tsarist regime and the Bolsheviks both undertook inhumane and ill-considered actions. The difference of course, is that Russia’s participation in the Great War was coloured by incompetence, and that of the Communists were based on a considered ruthlessness and bloodthirst.
Again, if you were a Russian at the time what would you prefer? The Tsarist system or Communism?
I, personally, might take my chances with the Romanovs and gradual reform – which had begun in the years prior to 1914.
Killing kings never brings peace and prosperity.
July 18, 2008 at 6:42 am
If we want we could leave the War Dead from and 1914-18 and 1941-45 out of the argument and consider which system cost Russia more blood & treasure.
Do the radicals here really want to lose that argument so quickly though?
July 18, 2008 at 6:43 am
just sayin’ …
July 18, 2008 at 6:57 am
Do the radicals here really want to lose that argument so quickly though?
What radicals and what argument are they making?
Oh, you mean arguing the case against monarchy.
Would you like me to make it just to bug you?
July 18, 2008 at 7:25 am
ATY — It’s quite possible in this case to denounce both the Tsarist regime and its Bolshevik successor as being “evil” in their own particular ways.
July 18, 2008 at 7:39 am
By the way, I think even you’d have to admit how laughable it is to presume to some kind of moral superiority for the Russian monarchy based on the contention that the “communist regime wasfoundedd [sic] on the murder of men, woman and children.” Ivan the Terrible, the founder of the Romanov dynasty, was responsible for the Massacre of Novgorod that wiped out 1,500 of the city’s nobility and numerous other less significant people, estimated in a range from 2,500 up to 12,000.
July 18, 2008 at 8:12 am
We should all read Margaret McMillan’s Uses And Abuses Of History. I’m starting to despair over the common tendency to history much like biblical literalists interpret the Bible: as a repository of eternal, unassailable truths that tell us all we need to know about the present.
I’m also despairing that abuse of power, the corruption of checks against it and the predictable revolutions that occur to restore balance all the while committing the excesses that guarantee the same outcome at a later point is the ineluctable fate of civilisation.
The compelling argument for constitutional monarchy is the principle that democracy itself requires a check against it. That realisation in the last few years is what has caused me to be more opposed to an elected Senate than I ever was before.
The failure of republican government is precisely the infusion of, quite frankly, too much voting that results in the whole system being slathered with a veneer of democratic legitimacy when nothing could be further from the truth.
When the electorate no longer understands the system, when it is propangandised by powerful interests to the extent that whatever it manages to understand about the system is largely irrational and when it, in large numbers, refuses to even engage in the most minimal of actions (voting) to demonstrate participation in that system, then it quite clear that democracy has failed.
July 18, 2008 at 8:13 am
“tendency to history” sb “tendency to view history.”
July 18, 2008 at 9:26 am
Ti-Guy:
I cannot see a problem with your last argument – as I see it the same way.
Red:
Russia ain’t England, and we both know it. I am all about balance, which is why I have steadfastly supported the mixed constitution all these years. We should seek to avoid BOTH Reaction and Revolution. The unintended genius of the English System is that it achieved this balance. My worry is that in the rush to become North Americans, we are throwing the “baby out with the bathwater.”
I’ll take King, Lords, and Commons over Plutocrats, Petit-bourgeoisie and Proletarians any day, the latter of which being what the USA has become. And we want that?
July 18, 2008 at 9:39 am
Oh, sure, Nicholas was a mass murderer. But he didn’t take stuff away from the nobility.
July 18, 2008 at 9:43 am
I cannot see a problem with your last argument – as I see it the same way.
I understand that. I only take exception to supporters of particular paradigms of governance who too often fail to argue compellingly about why it is we institute governments in the first place; to protect ourselves from abuses of power. Any number of forms of democratic social order can work reasonably well provided those abuses are kept in check.
I’m starting to think that’s impossible, though.
July 18, 2008 at 9:47 am
TG:
Which is why I support the only one I can see that has worked reasonably well …
July 18, 2008 at 2:29 pm
roy’s not alone in his ignorance of histyory.
KEvron
July 18, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The free market has not been kind to Russian education.
July 18, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I’ll take King, Lords, and Commons over Plutocrats, Petit-bourgeoisie and Proletarians any day, the latter of which being what the USA has become. And we want that?
Some have argued that the USA does have it’s system of King and Lords – the names of Kennedy and Bush come to mind…
July 18, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“When the electorate no longer understands the system, when it is propangandised by powerful interests to the extent that whatever it manages to understand about the system is largely irrational and when it, in large numbers, refuses to even engage in the most minimal of actions (voting) to demonstrate participation in that system, then it quite clear that democracy has failed.”
Ti-Guy is right, in my opinion.
It’s the failure of ordinary Joes to get involved in their own government that almost guarantees any government won’t work.
RT, just have to say — I’m a huge fan of great prose, no matter the point it affirms or denies — and that’s reason No. 985 why I think you’re aces
“Forever dumb as a box of old rocks, Blogging Tory “dr. roy” blubbers over the “atrocity” at Ekaterinburg in 1918.”
Just awesome
July 21, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I dunno… the Czar ‘punished’ Lenin by putting him in a log cabin in Siberia with all the supplies he needed, a respite to collect his thoughts.
And THAT is how the Bolsheviks paid him back?
Lenin probably convicted him for incompetence in running a gulag!