Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Czar? You mean Commissar

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.


jerrymp said...

Thank you for that great, concise explanation. I tried to find an article to help me explain exactly what you wrote to my friends, with little success. sites like wikipedia are all wrong. Great point brining up the power of titles, self given titles.

islam o' phobe said...

Great post but "Julious Ceasar" s/b correctly spelled as "Julius Caesar".

Gildas said...

You are corrct in your commissar comparison, but I would beg to differ with respect to "emperor" Obama; he is more like the latter-day pope, a figurehead ruled by a hydra-headed cabal.

taken said...

I think you may enjoy this article from slate magazine about the same topic:

Basically, the article argues that Czar was an insult in the english speaking world, Democrats once jeered a speaker of congress as : "Czar! Despot! Tyrant!"

Then, after the revolution of 1917, the Americans decided htey liked the Czar after all.Nixon named the first US government Czar.

vonbach said...

A nice explanation. Wait till the Commissar's come to a more grassroots level. Obama's already spoken about making his own youth corps. The young leftists will fall into this role with open arms. Go to a university in the usa they are marxist organizations already. Try to offer a different opinion there and see what happens.


It's an interesting and useful history of Russian hierarchy and authority. I don't believe the comparison to the US political system holds up.

You neglect one small detail in your analysis; namely the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial.

Congress has the power to summon, question, and investigate. It also has to power to propose and pass new laws.

Obama can't just dictate how things will be like an Emperor. Particularly if he doesn't have a rubber-stamp majority in the House & Senate.

Arius said...

Bit by bit, Obama sets up a dictatorship.

Rob said...

Mr Mishin. An other excellant explaination. thank you for your well thought out discussion. Your view from outside offers insight on the shape of the forest for those of us stuck amongst the trees. The increasing use of commissars is destroying the Federal/State division of power that is a key part of our constitutional system.

To Liam Yes our brillant founders designed an excellant system of divided and balanced powers, but like all human endevours, it requires constant vigillance by those who would keep it. After decades of manipulation, the same handful of power brokers supply the money that controls who sits in the White House and in Congress, and it doesn't really matter which party it is. The outrageous Bank Bailout schemes by both parties (House Of Rep GOP notwithstanding) shows how deep this corruption goes. The media refuses to do any serious investigating on this theft from the taxpayers. Either from fear, or in too many cases, complicity.

Only the Judicial is left outside of their direct influence, and even that is at risk now with both the Executive and Legislative branches under common control. The rubber stamp is out and in full use. The only thing resembling a check on power is the infighting over who gets to use it the most.

Cobra said...

Very true.
Hussein is trowing the constitution to the socialist garbage can.
We are in deep doo-doo and we need to take our country back.

Stanislav said...


The politburo and the reichstag had those powers too...and since they knew what was good for them, they used them to always agree with the dictator.

timelagged said...

Several thoughts:

1)Your first statement about a "new silliness" is wrong, this czar designation has been in the US for nearly half a century. There's nothing new about it. Bush appointed Czars, so did Nixon.

2) No one takes it literally. We also don't think that Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson were "Kings" in the literal sense. It's figurative. Duke Ellington wasn't a real Duke either.

3) In fact, the "Energy Czar" is used to imply that the person is the highest position possible overseeing energy issues, thus figuratively it makes more sense than calling the person a commissar. We have "Commissioners" in English also, for one thing, so it would be confusing to call it that.

4) This is how language works, including in Russian. Czar came from the Latin Caesar, Caessar came from "to cut" in Latin (scholars haven't agreed exactly why this became the family name of Julius's family). The literal meaning isn't kept when language is borrowed, quite often.

5) You spelled "Caesar" incorrectly.

tom said...

It's as though you think words have some sort of fixed eternal significance. They do not.

Cobra said...

You are getting traction, and ripped off at the same time.
Somebody posted on the American Thinker an article named..."Not Obama's Czars but his Comissars"

I gave them the stink for this but you should ask why they did not credit you for this article.

Sophia said...

“Terrible” is not a mistranslation, it’s just that over time the way the English use “terrible” has changed. It’s really more of an archaism than a mistranslation. It’s like if I call someone “pathetic” meaning that they arouse pathos in me and not that I find them disgustingly weak, then I am using the word in a way it is no longer generally used and people get confused as to my meaning.

The word “terrible” means “one that evokes fear”. It actually still means that even though it also has a primary meaning of simply "very bad".

Terrible c.1430, “causing terror, frightful,” from O.Fr. terrible (12c.), from L. terribilis “frightful,” from terrere “fill with fear,” from PIE base *tres- “to tremble”

Stanislav said...


Thank you for the ping. I do appreciate it. I must also give credit to the other article that it had a few points in it that I was not aware of: such as the title commissar was also used by Hitler.

Anonymous said...

Stanislav: I would like to apologize deeply for what our government did to Russia. If the American people had known what was going on I believe there would have been great upheaval and a cleanout of Wash. DC (District of Corruption). In those days our minds weren't 'fluoridated'as they are now. I appreciate your website!