However, the conclusions of my lifelong study and research are in total agreement with both titles.
In 1968 Soviet EYE science was far more advanced than in the West. After 47 years (13 in France and 25 in Britain) of VAIN waiting for Western health care ("treatment") to sort out my eye problems, they say they are still unable to do so and ignored all my past medical record, and I was assaulted in August 2016 by the UK Police for objecting!
THEY prefer treating their ISIS casualties in Israel (Occupied Palestine) than their own 'impoverished' citizens at home - thanks to their corrupt Sewage System of MEDICINE, LAW & JUSTICE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUmfYmLW85M&t=55s
ILLUMINATI VOLUME 3 - MURDERED BY THE MONARCHY
by Christopher Everard
ILLUMINATI VOLUME 3 - MURDERED BY THE MONARCHY
by Christopher Everard
Everything You Know About The Last Russian Tsar Is a Massive Lie. Here’s The Truth
"These
members of the upper classes (and not all were traitors) were sponsored
from the beginning by the West. The West considered that once its
values of parliamentary democracy, republicanism or constitutional
monarchy were introduced into Russia, it would become just another
bourgeois Western country."
Originally appeared at Orthodox England
Father Andrew Phillips, is a long-serving priest in the ROCOR Orthodox church in Essex, UK. Biography. He is a prolific writer, particularly on Russian history and current events, from an Orthodox Christian perspective.
In
this January 2013 article, he answers readers’ questions about the last
Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, debunking decades of deliberate, slanderous
lies coming from the media, academia, and governments of the UK,
Germany, and America, but mostly from the UK.
For another excellent article debunking this anti-Russian propaganda which is so ingrained in the West, see his fascinating article about Rasputin, whom he sees as a hero, also maliciously slandered by Russia's enemies.
Q: Why are most academics so negative about Tsar Nicholas II?
A:
Western academics, like Soviet academics, are negative about him
because they are secularists. For example, I recently read the book
‘Crimea’ by the British historian of Russia, Orlando Figes. This is an
interesting book on the Crimean War, with many well-researched details
and facts, written as senior academics should write.
However,
the author starts out from unspoken, purely Western secularist
criteria, that since the Tsar of the age, Nicholas I, was not a Western
secularist, he must have been a religious fanatic, and that his
intention was to conquer the Ottoman Empire. Through his love of detail,
Figes overlooks the main point – what the Crimean War was actually
about from the Russian side. All he can see is Western-style imperialist
aims, which he then attributes to Russia. This attribution is a
projection of his Western self.
What Figes
misunderstands is that the parts of the Ottoman Empire which Nicholas I
was interested in were those where an Orthodox Christian population had
for centuries suffered under the Muslim Yoke. The Crimean War was not a
colonial, imperialist Russian war to expand into the Ottoman Empire and
exploit it, like those conducted by Western Powers to expand into Africa
and Asia and exploit them. It was a struggle to liberate from
oppression – in fact an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist war. The aim was
to free Orthodox lands and peoples from oppression, not to conquer
someone else’s empire.
As for Nicholas I
being a religious fanatic, in the eyes of secularists all sincere
Christians must be ‘religious fanatics’. This is because secularists do
not have a spiritual dimension. They are always one-dimensional, unable
to see beyond their own secular cultural conditioning, to think ‘outside
the box’.
Russian Imperial Family 1911.
Q: Is this secular outlook why Western historians charge Tsar Nicholas II with being weak and unfitted?
A:
Yes. This is Western political propaganda, invented at the time and
still parroted today. Western historians are educated and paid by
Western Establishments and cannot see outside that box.
Serious
post-Soviet historians have disproved these charges, invented by the
Western and the Westernised, gladly repeated by Soviet Communists, as
their justification for the dismantlement of the Tsar’s Empire.
The
only justification for the charge that the Tsarevich was ‘unfitted’ is
the fact that he was at first unprepared to be Tsar because his father,
Alexander III, died suddenly and at a young age. But he soon learned and
became ‘fitted’.
Another favourite false
accusation is that the Tsar started wars, namely the Japano-Russian War,
called the Russo-Japanese War, and the Kaiser’s War, called the First
World War. This is untrue. He was the only world leader who wanted to
disarm, he was anti-militaristic. As regards the war against Japanese
aggression, the Japanese, financed, armed and encouraged by the USA and
Britain, started the Japano-Russian War. It attacked the Russian Fleet
without warning in Port Arthur – a name that almost rhymes with Pearl
Harbour. And, as we know, it was the Austro-Hungarians, urged on by the
Kaiser who was desperate for any excuse to start a War, who triggered
the First World War.
Let us recall that it was
Tsar Nicholas who for the first time in world history had urged
disarmament at The Hague in 1899, because he could see that Western
Europe was a powder keg, waiting to explode. He was a moral and
spiritual leader, the only world leader then who did not have narrow,
national interests at heart and was not re-arming at huge cost.
Instead,
as the Anointed of God, he had at heart the universal interests of all
Orthodox Christendom, to bring to Christ all God-created mankind. Why
else make sacrifices for Serbia? To have survived, he must have been
incredibly strong-willed, as, among others, the French President Émile Loubet remarked.
All
the powers of hell unleashed against the Tsar would never have been
unleashed to remove him if he had been weak. Only the strong have to be
destroyed, as is confirmed by those who knew him at the time.
Q: You say that he was profoundly Orthodox, but it is true that he had very little Russian blood, isn’t it?
A:
Forgive me, but that statement contains a racist presumption, that you
have to have ‘Russian blood’ to be Orthodox, a universal Christian. The
Tsar was, I believe, one 128th Russian by blood. And so what? The Tsar’s
sister answered this very challenge very adequately over fifty years
ago. Interviewed by the Greek journalist, Ian Vorres, in 1960, his
sister, the Grand Duchess Olga explained: ‘Did the British call George
VI a German? He had not a drop of English blood in him…Blood is not
everything. It is the soil you spring from, the faith you are brought up
in, the language you speak and think in’.
Q: There are some Russians today who describe Tsar Nicholas as a ‘Redeemer’. Do you believe that?
A:
Certainly not! There is only one Redeemer, the Saviour Jesus Christ.
What can however be argued is that his sacrifice, and therefore that of
his Family, of his servants and of the tens of millions of others who
were murdered by the Soviet and Fascist regimes that followed, was
redemptive. Rus was crucified for the sins of the world. Indeed, the
sufferings of Russian Orthodox have been redemptive in their blood and
in their tears. However, it is true that all Christians are called on to
redeem themselves through living in Christ THE Redeemer. Interestingly,
the pious but not well-educated Russians who call the Tsar a ‘Redeemer’
also call Rasputin a saint.
Rasputin
Q: Speaking of this, what should we think of Rasputin?
A:
Hundreds of books have been written about Rasputin – nearly all of them
by people who never knew him. I would only repeat the words of the Tsar
himself, ‘He is a simple, good, religious Russian’, and the words of
the Tsar’s sister, Grand Duchess Olga, ‘He was neither saint nor
devil…he was a peasant with a profound faith in God and a gift of
healing’. The fact that Rasputin was later atrociously slandered, and
finally in December 1916 tortured by Russian aristocrats – a sign of
just how sick the upper class was – and assassinated by British spies,
only helps him in eternity.
Q: But what about all the charges that he was a drunkard, a thief and a debauchee?
A:
Soviet and Hollywood fiction writers, like the Soviet novelist
Radzinsky, love this image of Rasputin. Contemporary historians inside
deSovietising Russia have proved that virtually all, perhaps all, of
these charges were slanders, fiction. Moreover, they were made up not to
discredit Rasputin – he was only a pawn in the hands of the slanderers –
but to discredit the Imperial Family.
Their
logic was that if the Friend of the ruling family could be presented as
a thief, drunkard and debauchee, therefore the Family must also be like
that, and that therefore they were unworthy, and that they the
slanderers should have power. Such slander was very simple and very
primitive. People, decadent and without any spiritual depth, believed in
it because they wanted to believe in it, because such always prefer
slander, scandal and gossip to the Truth of Christ.
Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarevich Alexis of Russia in 1914.
Q: If we can come back to our main
point, what is the relevance of Tsar Nicholas II today? Orthodox
Christians are a small minority among all Christians. Even if he were
important to all Orthodox, he would still be a minority interest among
Christians.
A: Of
course, we Christians are a minority. According to the statistics, of
seven billion human beings on the planet, Christians number 2.2 billion –
32%. And Orthodox Christians are only 10% of all Christians, so only
3.2% of the world population, about one in thirty-three.
However,
if we look at these statistics theologically, what do we see? For
Orthodox Christians, all Non-Orthodox are lapsed Orthodox, who were
brought involuntarily by their leaders, for all sorts of political
reasons, worldly reasons of convenience, to become Non-Orthodox. For us,
Catholics can be defined as Catholicised Orthodox and Protestants as
Protestantised Catholics. We unworthy Orthodox are the leaven that
leavens the lump.
Without the Church, there
is no light and warmth of the Holy Spirit to radiate out into the rest
of the world. Just as, even though you are outside the Sun, you can
still feel the Sun’s light and warmth, so too the 90% of Christians who
are outside the Church are still aware of the effects of the Church. For
example, most of them confess the Holy Trinity and Christ as the Son of
God. Why? Because of the Church which established such teachings long
ago. Such is the grace of the Church that shines out of Her. Now, if we
understand this, we will begin to understand the importance of the
leader of Orthodox Christianity, the last successor of the Emperor
Constantine, Tsar Nicholas II. His deposition changed the whole history
of the Church, as also his Golgotha and his glorification today.
Q: If this is the case, why then was the Tsar deposed and then murdered?
A: Christians are always persecuted in the world, as our Lord told His disciples.
Pre-Revolutionary
Russia ran on the Orthodox Faith. This was the oil that made the whole
engine run. However, that Faith was rejected by the mass of the
Westernised ruling elite, the aristocracy, and many others in the
growing middle class. The Revolution was caused by a simple loss of
faith, the engine ground to a halt and exploded for lack of oil.
Most
of the Russian upper classes wanted power for themselves, in the same
way that wealthy merchants and middle classes wanted power for
themselves and so caused the French Revolution. Having obtained wealth,
they wanted to mount the next rung in the hierarchy of values – the rung
of power. In the Russian context this lust for power, which had come
from the West, was therefore based by definition on a blind admiration
of the West and a hatred of Russia. This we can see from the very
beginning with figures like Kurbsky, Peter I, Catherine II and
Westernisers like Chaadayev.
This lack of
faith was also what poisoned the White Movement, which was disunited by
its lack of a common and binding faith in Orthodox Tsardom. In general,
Orthodox self-consciousness was absent in the Russian governing élite,
which substituted various surrogates for it, whimsical mixtures of
mysticism, occultism, freemasonry, socialism and a search for ‘truth’ in
esoteric religions. Incidentally, these surrogates lived on in the
Paris emigration, where various figures distinguished themselves in
theosophy, anthroposophy, sophianism, name-worship and other very
eccentric, but also spiritually dangerous fantasies.
These
had so little love for Russia that they actually went into schism,
breaking away from the Russian Church and justifying themselves for so
doing! The poet Bekhteev wrote very sharply of this in his 1922 poem,
‘Come to your senses, upper classes!’, comparing the privileged
situation in Paris to that of the people of crucified Rus in the
homeland:
And once more their hearts are full of intrigue,
And once more treachery and lies are on their lips,
And life writes into the chapter of the last book
The vile treason of the grandees who knew it all.
These
members of the upper classes (and not all were traitors) were sponsored
from the beginning by the West. The West considered that once its
values of parliamentary democracy, republicanism or constitutional
monarchy were introduced into Russia, it would become just another
bourgeois Western country. For the same reason, the Russian Church had
to be Protestantised, that is spiritually neutralised, or rather
neutered, as the West has tried to do with the Patriarchate of
Constantinople and other Local Churches fallen under its power since
1917, as soon as Russian patronage was removed.
These
attitudes were caused by the arrogant presumption that somehow the
Western model could be universal. Incidentally, this is the arrogant
presumption of the Western elites to this day, as they try to impose
their model worldwide, presenting it as the ‘New World Order’.
The
Tsar, the Lord’s Anointed representing the last bulwark of Church
Christianity in the world, had to be removed, as he was blocking the
power grab of the Western and Westernised world. However, in their
incompetence, the aristocratic revolutionaries of February 1917 soon
lost control of the situation and within a few months power had
descended from them to the lowest of the low, to the criminal
Bolsheviks. These set out on a course of massacre and genocide, of ‘red
terror’ – just as in France five generations before, only now with far
more murderous, twentieth-century, technology.
It
was in this way that the motto of the Orthodox Empire was deformed. I
remind you that it was ‘Orthodoxy, Sovereignty and People’. This was
deformed by Westernised Russians and Western secularists, both then and
now, into: ‘Obscurantism, Tyranny and Nationalism’.
Atheist
Communists deformed it even further into ‘Centralised Communism,
Totalitarian Dictatorship and National Bolshevism’. What did this motto
in fact mean? It simply meant: ‘(Full-bodied, incarnate) Authentic
Christianity, Spiritual Independence (from the powers of this world) and
Love for God’s People. As I have said above, this motto is the
spiritual, moral, political, economic and social programme of Orthodoxy.
Q: A
social programme? But surely the Revolution came about because there
were so many poor people and so much exploitation of the poor by the
super-rich aristocrats, and the Tsar was at the head of that
aristocracy?
A:
No, it was precisely the aristocracy that was opposed to the Tsar and
the people. The Tsar gave away much of his personal wealth and taxed the
rich to the hilt under his brilliant Prime Minister Stolypin, who did
so much for land reform. Sadly, the Tsar’s programme of social justice
was one of the reasons why many aristocrats hated the Tsar. The Tsar and
the people were one. They were both betrayed by the Westernised elite.
This is clear from the assassination of Rasputin, which was the
preparation for the Revolution. In it the peasants rightly saw the
betrayal of the people by the upper classes.
Nicholas II of Russia reading the St. Petersburg News.
Q: What was the role of the Jews in this?
A:
There is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that only Jews were – and
are – responsible for everything bad in Russia (and everywhere else).
This contradicts the words of Christ. First of all, the Jews who were
involved in the Russian Revolution – and it is true that most of the
Bolsheviks were Jews – were apostates, atheists, like Marx, and not
real, practising Jews. However, those Jews who were involved worked hand
in hand with Non-Jewish atheists, like the American banker Morgan, or
with Russians and many others and depended on them.
Thus,
we know full well that Britain organised the Revolution of February
1917, applauded by France and financed by the USA, that Lenin was
transported to Russia by the Kaiser and financed by him, and that the
masses who fought in the Red Army were Russian. None of these were Jews.
Some people, captives of racist myths, simply refuse to see the truth –
that the Revolution was Satanic and that Satan can use any nationality,
any of us, for his poisonous works, Jews, Russians and Non-Russians.
Satan favours no nationality, but makes use of any who surrender their
free will to him for his ‘New World Order’, in which he will be the
Universal Ruler of the fallen world.
Q: There are Russophobes who say that there continuity between the Tsar’s Russia and Communist Soviet Union. Is that so?
A:
There is certainly continuity of Western Russophobia! Read copies of
The Times newspaper from 1862 and 2012 for example. You will see 150
years of xenophobia. Yes, it is true that many in the West were
Russophobic long before the Soviet Union came into being. There are the
narrow-minded among all peoples who are simply racist. Any nationality
other than their own must be demonised, whatever their particular
political system and however that system may change. We saw that in the
recent Iraq War. We can see it now in the tabloid reports on Syria, Iran
or North Korea, which try to demonise the peoples of those countries.
We do not take those narrow minds seriously.
Now,
let us turn to the question of continuity. Following the generation of
obscenities after 1917, continuity did re-emerge. This was after Germany
had again invaded Russia on the Feast of All the Saints who have shone
forth in the Russian Lands in June 1941. Stalin realised that he could
only win the war with the blessing of the Church, by recalling the
victories of Orthodox Russians in the past, like those of St Alexander
Nevsky and Dmitry Donskoy, that any victory would have to be the victory
of his ‘brothers and sisters’, the people, not of his ‘comrades’ and
his idiotic Communist ideology. Geography does not change, so there is
continuity in Russian history.
It is just
that the Soviet period was an aberration from that history, a falling
away from national destiny, especially in its violent first generation.
What is important is the way that the Soviet Union acted that was so
perverse, not necessarily what it did, but how it did it. I was struck
by the words of the Tsar’s sister, the Grand Duchess Olga, who in her
1960 biography stated: ‘I have always followed Soviet foreign policy
with great interest. Hardly anything in it is different from the course
adopted by my father and by Nicky’ (by Alexander III and Nicholas II).
The difference is that Soviet policy worked through violence and lies,
the Tsar’s policies worked through peace and sincerity.
Q: Can you give an example of this?
A:
What would have happened if the Revolution had not taken place? We know
(and Churchill expressed it very well in his book, ‘The World Crisis
1916-1918’) that Russia was on the verge of victory in 1917. This is why
the revolutionaries took action then. They had a very narrow window in
which to operate before the great spring offensive of 1917 began.
Had
there been no Revolution, Russia would have defeated the
Austro-Hungarians, whose multinational and mainly Slav army was on the
point of mutiny and collapse anyway. Then Russia would have pushed back
the Germans, or rather their Prussian warlords, to Berlin. In other
words, the situation would quite possibly have been similar to that in
1945 – with one vital exception. That is that the Armies of the Tsar
would have liberated Central and Eastern Europe in 1917-18, not invading
it, as in 1944-45. And so they would have liberated Berlin as they
liberated Paris in 1814, peacefully and respectfully, without the errors
and drunkenness committed by the Red Army.
Q: What could have happened then?
A:
The liberation of Berlin, and so of Germany, from Prussian militarism
would surely have led to the demilitarisation and regionalisation of
Germany, restoring something of pre-1871 Germany, the Germany of
culture, music, poetry and tradition. This would have been the end of
the Second Reich of Bismarck, which itself was a revival of the First
Reich of the militaristic heretic Charlemagne and which led directly in
its turn to the Third Reich of Hitler.
If
Russia had been victorious, there would have been a humiliation of the
German / Prussian government, the Kaiser being sent perhaps into exile
to some remote island as was Napoleon. But there would have been no
humiliation of the German peoples, the result of the terrible Treaty of
Versailles, which led directly to the horrors of Fascism and the Second
World War. And that, by the way, has led directly to the Fourth Reich of
today’s European Union.
Q: Would France, Britain and the USA not have objected to victorious Russia’s dealings with Berlin?
A:
France and Britain, bogged down in their blood-soaked trenches or
perhaps by then having reached the French and Belgian borders with
Germany, could not have objected to this, because the victory over the
Kaiser’s Germany would above all have been a Russian victory. As for the
USA, it would never have entered the War, if Russia had not first been
knocked out of it – partly by the US financing of revolutionaries, it
must be said. And that in itself is why the Allies did their best to
eliminate Russia from the War, because they did not want a Russian
victory. All they wanted from Russia was cannon fodder to exhaust
Germany, in order to prepare it for defeat by the Allies, so that they
could finish Germany off and take it over.
Q: Would the Russian Armies have retreated from Berlin and Eastern Europe soon after 1918?
A:
Yes, of course. Here is another difference with Stalin, for whom
‘Sovereignty’, the second element in the motto of the Orthodox Empire,
had been deformed into Totalitarianism and that meant occupation,
oppression and exploitation by terror. After the fall of the German and
Austro-Hungarian Empires, there would have been freedom for Eastern
Europe with population transfers in border areas and the establishment
of new countries without minorities, like a newly-reunited Poland and
Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Carpatho-Russia, Romania, Hungary
and so on. This would have created a demilitarised zone throughout
Eastern and Central Europe.
This would have
been an Eastern Europe with rational and protected frontiers, so
avoiding the errors of conglomerate States like the future, and now
past, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. As regards Yugoslavia, in 1912 Tsar
Nicholas had already set up a Balkan Union in order to avoid further
Balkan Wars. True, this failed because of the intrigues of the German
princeling Ferdinand in Bulgaria and nationalist intrigues in Serbia and
Montenegro. We can imagine that after a First World War in which Russia
had been victorious, such a Customs Union, established with fair
borders, could have become permanent. Involving Greece and Romania, it
could at last have established peace in the Balkans, its freedom
guaranteed as a Russian protectorate.
Q: What would have been the fate of the Ottoman Empire?
A:
The Allies had already agreed in 1916 that Russia would be allowed to
free Constantinople and control the Black Sea. This was only what Russia
could have attained sixty years before, preventing Turkish massacres in
Bulgaria and Asia Minor, had it not been for the Crimean invasion of
Russia by France and Great Britain. (We recall how Tsar Nicholas I was
buried then with a silver cross depicting Aghia Sophia, the Church of
the Wisdom of God, ‘so that in heaven he would not forget to pray for
his brothers in the East’). Christian Europe would at last have been
freed of Ottoman oppression.
The Armenians
and the Greeks of Asia Minor would also have been protected and the
Kurds would have had their own State. But more than that, Orthodox
Palestine and much of the future Syria and the Jordan would have come
under Russian protection. There would have been none of the permanent
war that we see in the Middle East today. Perhaps the situations of
today’s Iraq and Iran could have been avoided. The implications of this
are huge. Can we imagine a Russian-controlled Jerusalem? Even Napoleon
recognised that, ‘he who controls Palestine, controls the whole world’.
This is known today to Israel and the USA.
Q: What would the implications have been in Asia?
A:
Peter I opened a window on Europe. It was the destiny of Nicholas II to
open a window on Asia. Despite his generous Church-building in Western
Europe and the Americas, he had only a limited interest in the
Catholic/Protestant West and its extensions in the Americas and
Australia, because it had and has only a limited interest in the Church.
In the West, there was and is relatively little potential growth for
Orthodox Christianity. Indeed, today, only a small proportion of the
world population lives in the Western world, even though it covers a
huge territory.
Tsar Nicholas’ aim to serve
Christ was therefore more concerned with Asia, especially with Buddhist
Asia. He had former Buddhist citizens in the Russian Empire who had
converted to Christ, and he knew that Buddhism, like Confucianism, is
not a religion, but a philosophy. The Buddhists called him ‘The White
Tara’ (King’). So he worked with Tibet, where he was called
‘Chakravartin’ (The King of Peace’), Mongolia, China, Manchuria, Korea
and Japan, countries of potential. He was also concerned with
Afghanistan, India and Siam (Thailand). The King of Siam, Rama V,
visited Russia in 1897 and the Tsar prevented Siam from becoming a
French colony. This was an influence that would have spread to Laos,
Vietnam and Indonesia. In population terms these countries have nearly
half of today’s world.
In Africa, with a
seventh of today’s world population, the Tsar had diplomatic relations
with Ethiopia and successfully protected it from Italian colonialism,
also intervening on behalf of Morocco and also the Boers in South
Africa. His detestation of what the British did to the Boers, killing
them in concentration camps, is well known. We can think that he must
have thought the same about French and Belgian colonialism in Africa. He
was also respected by the Muslims, who called him ‘Al-Padishah’, ‘The
Great King’. In general, sacral, Eastern civilisations had far more
respect for ‘the White Tsar’ than the bourgeois West.
It
is significant that later the Soviet Union also opposed the cruelties
of Western colonialism in Africa. Here there is also continuity. Today
there are Russian Orthodox missions in Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, India
and Pakistan, as well as churches in Africa. I think that the
contemporary BRICS group, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa,
is also very representative of what Russia could have achieved 90 years
ago, as a member of a group of independent countries. Indeed, the last
Maharaja of the Sikh Empire, Duleep (Dalip) Singh (+ 1893), had asked
Tsar Alexander III to free India from British exploitation and
oppression.
Q: So Asia could have been colonised by Russia?
A:
No, definitely not colonised. Imperial Russia was anti-colonial,
anti-imperialist. We only have to compare Russian expansion into
Siberia, which was basically peaceful, with European expansion into the
Americas, which was basically genocidal. The same people –native
Americans are basically Siberians – were treated in totally different
ways. Of course, there were in Siberia and in Russian America (Alaska)
exploitative Russian merchants and drunkard fur trappers who behaved
like cowboys towards the local population. This we know from the life of
St Herman of Alaska and missionaries in eastern Russia and Siberia,
like St Stephen of Perm and St Macarius of the Altai, but this was not
the rule and there was no genocide.
Q: All of this is very well, but it is not very relevant to talk about what might have been. It is all hypothetical.
A:
Yes, it is hypothetical, but hypotheses can give us a vision for the
future. We could view the whole of the last 95 years of world history as
a hiatus, a catastrophic aberration of tragic magnitude that has killed
hundreds of millions. This is because the world became unbalanced after
the fall of the bulwark of Christian Russia, whose fall was implemented
by transnational capital in order to create a ‘unipolar world’. And
that is simply code for the New World Order of a One World Government,
that is, a Universal, anti-Christian Tyranny.
Only
if we understand this, can we have a vision for the future. This vision
is to suppose that after July 2018, we may still be able to resume
where we left off in July 1918, and gather the fragments and oases of
Orthodox civilisation worldwide together, before the end. However
terrible the present situation is, there is always the hope that is born
of repentance. Repentance means going back, and that is what we have
been talking about, resuming from where the world left off on that
terrible, world-changing night in Ekaterinburg in July 1918.
Q: What would the fruit of such repentance be?
A:
A new Orthodox Empire, centred in Russia, with Ekaterinburg, the centre
of repentance, as its spiritual capital, and so the chance to rebalance
this whole tragic, unbalanced world.
Q: You could be accused of being far too optimistic?
A:
Yes, this is very optimistic. But look at what has happened over the
last generation, since the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism
of Rus in 1988. The situation of the world has been transformed, or
rather transfigured, by repentance among enough of the people of the old
Soviet Union for the whole world to change. The last 25 years have seen
a revolution, the only true revolution, a spiritual revolution, the
return to the Church.
Suppose the next
generation continues in that revolutionary repentance? Given the
historic miracle that we have already seen, which seemed like a
ridiculous dream for us who were born during the nuclear fears of the
Cold War and can remember the spiritually grim 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s,
why should we not envisage at least some of the possibilities outlined
above?
In 1914 the world entered a tunnel.
During the Cold War we lived in that tunnel and we could see neither
light behind us, nor in front of us. Today we are still in the tunnel,
but we can now actually see a glimmer of light on the road ahead. Surely
this is the light at the end of the tunnel? Let us recall the words of
the Gospel: ‘With God all things are possible’.
Yes,
humanly, all the above is highly optimistic and there is no guarantee
of anything. However, the alternative to the above is not just
pessimistic, it is apocalyptic. That time is short is our chief anxiety.
We hurry in a battle against time. And that must be a warning and a call to us all.
Rasputin Was A Great And Good Man, Cruelly Murdered and Slandered by Evil British Spies
Everything you thought you knew about Rasputin is a whopping lie. He was one of the greatest Russian heroes ever
Originally appeared at Orthodox England
This
article gives an excellent account of the revisionist view of the story
of Rasputin, which is now widely accepted in Russia. It is 180 degrees
different from what is generally known about him in the west.
Instead of being a "mad monk", evil, and debauched, he is thought to have been a good, holy man, a Russian hero who was practically single-handedly saving the country and the monarchy, and causing the evil British government to assassinate him, with disastrous results for Russia.
An excellent Russian 7 hour TV series with this interpretation was released in 2014 and was wildly popular in Russia. It features Russian superstar actors Vladimir Mashkov and Andrei Smolyakov, who both give fantastic performances.
You can watch it here on Youtube, unfortunately only in Russian. If someone were to subtitle this TV series, it would find a very large international audience, because it is simply superbly made.
Here is the trailer to series (worth glancing at even if you don't speak Russian because the excellent quality of many historical dramas now being made in Russia, both for TV and films, is clear.) :
The original title of this article was: "The Real Gregory Rasputin"
My interest in Gregory Rasputin was first sparked by a television programme fifty years ago on the fiftieth anniversary of his assassination. Although, as a child, I could not investigate the claims made, I knew instinctively that there was something wrong with what was being said. I sensed a manipulation.
Forty-two years ago I went to study at Oxford at the oldest college in Oxford, where Prince Felix Yusupov, the supposed murderer of Gregory Rasputin had studied and visited the ‘Yusupov room’ where the prince had lived. I still could not understand the story since, with the Soviet Union and the Cold War still in full swing, I could not access the necessary archives on either side.
Others have since done that and their results, given below, provide long-awaited justice.
Introduction
‘Rasputin? A horse thief, a mad monk, a fraud with hypnotic powers, a priest-charlatan who manipulated stupid, hysterical women, a flagellant sectarian and pervert, a criminal who ruled the Russian Empire, dictating all policies and making all political appointments through bribery, a debauchee who organized orgies, a drunkard (like all Russians), a primitive barbarian, a Satanist, a German spy, the reason for the downfall of Russia, even his name means ‘depraved’.
I know, I have read the book and seen the film’. So goes the view of the average ‘educated’ Western person, as also largely that of the average Soviet citizen. However, they are all the brainwashed victims of the same slanderer and we recall that the Greek for ‘slanderer’ is ‘o diavolos’, ‘the devil’.
In reality, not one bit of the above has been proved true, including that he was a debauchee and a drunkard, and most of it is patently untrue. It is all classic self-justifying Russophobia which says ‘Russians are primitive, we are superior, therefore we can do anything we like’. He was certainly not mad, never a priest, monk, thief or spy, never a flagellant sectarian or a Satanist, and had very little if any political influence. He was a pious Christian peasant, married with three children, who gave generous alms, understood the Holy Scriptures better than professors of the Bible, and was so pious that God gave him miraculous powers of healing. As for his surname, a nickname, it was common in Siberia and denotes someone who lives where roads meet, a crossroads.
On the other hand, what we do know, and this ever since the publication of the memoirs of Prince Nikolay Zhevakhov in the 1920s, is that he was murdered by British spies, with the co-operation of rich, decadent, jealous and apostate Russian aristocrats, one a transvestite prince who dabbled in the occult and savagely and ritually battered Gregory Rasputin’s corpse, as the sadistic freemason and decadent Prince Yusupov himself boasted of doing, one a more or less Fascist politician, another a Romanov prince of notoriously loose morals who betrayed his relative the Tsar. All of them through their murderous betrayal, indirectly, handed Russia over to the genocidal Bolsheviks and their imported alien ideology for three generations, 75 years of hellish torment.
What we also know is that he was much respected as a holy elder
(‘starets’) and wonderworking healer by innumerable clergy and laity and
that the incredible slanders against him were invented by corrupt
sources, both just before the Revolution and immediately afterwards,
when his body was dug up and incinerated by fanatics, frightened that
veneration for him would grow. All these slanders and the mindless
gossip that spread them have to this day been repeated by the
sensationalist mammons of Hollywood, by Western and Soviet hack writers
and by embittered émigrés who could not accept their responsibility for
their self-punishment of exile. They only furthered their
self-justifying lies and scandals, which they knew they could make money
out of.
The Sources of the Slander
Recent research since the downfall of the Bolshevik regime a generation ago in 1991 has led to several new studies of Gregory Rasputin by professional historians and even veneration of ‘the Martyr Gregory’ by some, including by the Elder Nikolai Guryanov, with an akathist composed and icons painted. So far unchallenged and also untranslated, because Western publishers only translate scurrilous works like those of the Soviet novelist Edvard Radzinsky, and not professionally-written works or the unsensational lives of the pious, these new Russian studies of professional historians like the seven volumes by Sergey Fomin and the books by Alexander Bokhanov, Yury Rassulin, Igor Evsin, Tatiana Mironova and Oleg Platonov lead us to take a very different view.
All the myths about Gregory Rasputin were invented from 1910 on by those jealous of the Tsar – without much need for imagination, because they attributed to him what they themselves did, that is, they were talking about themselves and their own deeply-held and practised vices. They were jealous because they wanted the power of the Tsar and therefore wanted to discredit the legitimate holders of that power, the Tsar and his family, including his ill heir and his healer, and the Orthodox Christian society that he ruled over, which they so hated. And so these rich hedonists and decadents spread their lies and gossip in the worldly salons of Saint Petersburg, among the futile wealthy and aristocratic debauchees, and in the gutter press of the time.
These sources included the cunning Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich
who, rather like the French and British generals on the Western Front,
had led his troops to massacre and defeat, trusting in infantry and
cavalry against machine guns, and had had to be replaced, the freemasons
Maklakov, Dzhunkovsky and the hack journalist Amfiteatrov, the
defrocked apostate Sergey (Iliodor) Trufanov, the conscienceless
politician Guchkov, the atheists Milyukov and Gorky, the liar Rodzianko,
the pervert and occultist Yusupov and the stupid Purishkevich. They
were all traitors who wanted to impose their pagan Russia on Christian
Russia. These were the very ones who accused Gregory Rasputin of their
own sins, which is why their descriptions were so eloquent.
They accused him of lying, of debauchery and of interfering in the affairs of State – everything that they themselves either did or yearned to do. Belonging to the elite, they were in such a state of demonic delusion that they even convinced themselves that they were doing Russia a service by pandering to their own vanity and plotting against the Tsar and those faithful to him, including the healer of the Heir, and so seizing power. They believed their own slander and forgeries, when in fact they were talking about their own sins. Gregory Rasputin was the useful scapegoat invented by ‘princes and sons of men’ to justify their ruthless ambition. If they had not chosen him, they would have chosen another – peasant Russia was there only to be exploited by them.
Views of Those Who Knew Gregory Rasputin
If we look at those who actually knew him, we obtain a different view. Thus, Bishops Barnabas (Nakropin) and Isidore (Kolokolov) were close friends of Gregory Rasputin till the end of his life, trusted him completely and Bishop Isidore celebrated his funeral service, for which he in turn was much slandered. In his memoirs another, General Kurlov, wrote that he had been ‘struck by Rasputin’s profound knowledge of Holy Scripture and theological questions’ and characterized him as a good man who ‘constantly expressed the sense of Christian forgiveness for our enemies’. Such affirmations are confirmed by other devout and well-educated clergy and laity, impressed by Gregory Rasputin’s piety, and they naturally revered him as an elder.
In his memoirs the head of the Police Department, A. T. Vasiliev, wrote that the results of his many investigations confirmed his initial supposition that there was no compromising correspondence with Rasputin, no letters from the Tsarina. Indeed, why should there have been? Rasputin was only semi-literate, he would have had difficulty reading anything. Vasiliev wrote: ‘I also investigated to find out if Rasputin kept any documents, money or valuables in a bank. My investigations were fruitless, another proof of my conviction of the absurdity of the scandalous rumours about Rasputin’. But these witnesses are only the beginning. There are many others of integrity and indeed holiness who say the same, confirming the absurdity of the slanders.
Among these are of course the future saints Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra, their five pious children, Archpriest Alexander Vasiliev, the spiritual father of the Imperial Family, the pious virgin Anna Vyrubova (later Mother Maria of Helsinki, who is venerated as a saint today), Prince N. D. Zhevakhov, Julia Dehn, other bishop admirers of Gregory Rasputin like the future St Macarius of the Altai, Metropolitan of Moscow, the pious Metr Pitirim of Saint Petersburg, and a great many other righteous, chaste, sober and honest men and women who loved Holy Rus. None of these believed in the Rasputin myth and this for a very simple reason – they knew him personally, had seen him working miracles of healing and prophecy and knew the motivations of the jealous slanderers.
Of course, there were others. There is the case of the young and naïve Bishop Theophan (Bystrov), who first enthusiastically introduced Gregory Rasputin to the Imperial Family. He only changed his mind because he believed slanders told him in confession. Later he was horrified when he discovered that he had been lied to. Then there was the case of the Grand Duchess, Abbess Elizabeth in Moscow. She too believed the slanders, although at the end her sister the Tsarina seems to have persuaded here that, since she lived in Moscow and had been fed slanders, she had been greatly misled. None of those who believed the slanders had met Gregory in person, they had no first-hand experience, they had simply taken part in a slanderous game of Chinese whispers.
Why the Slanders Have Been Repeated To This Day
Why are these slanders still repeated and believed today? First of all, because scandalous sex stories make many people rich and they are what the mob wants. Secondly, because those who believe and repeat them want to believe and repeat them because they are motivated by self-justification. The alternative would be to repent and most do not want to repent. The murder of the Russian Orthodox peasant Gregory Rasputin in fact began the Revolution, not a Bolsehevik Revolution but a Revolution long desired, since at least December 1825, by a jealous aristocracy and a growing middle-class, all apostates from the Russian Orthodox Church. The descendants of all those who thought they would benefit from the Revolution do not want to repent.
These include not just brainwashed former Soviet citizens, not only the descendants of émigré aristocrats in Paris and elsewhere, but also all the other Western victims of Russophobic propaganda who want to believe that the so-called ‘Tsarist regime’ (that is to say, the legitimate Christian Empire, founded by St Constantine) was corrupt, primitive, barbarian, depraved, drunken and plainly evil. Therefore, it was demonized and so could be overthrown by the ‘pure’ West and all was justified. Such Russophobia is in the direct line of the self-justifying propaganda of the secularism of Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But what if Gregory Rasputin was the victim, the more or less innocent scapegoat of the machinations of traitors?
If Gregory was innocent, then they, the ideologues of the anti-Christian Western world, therefore most of the Russian aristocracy and the State Duma, most of the generals and even some clergy, most of the journalists and most of the people, as well as the Western-founded Soviet State, are guilty of slandering him, murdering him and are also guilty of the murder of the canonized Imperial Family. Guilty too are all who believed in the lies without question and all who continue to believe in these money-making (money is always a motive for evil) lies and myths and even spread them. After all, these are the people who three months after the murder, on Kerensky’s Masonic orders, dug up Gregory Rasputin’s corpse and on 11 March 1917 incinerated it.
Was this the act the act of Orthodox Christians or any other Christians? Was this the act of Christian patriots who loved the Tsar, the Little Father? Who could have carried out such a blasphemous act, but apostates, occultists and anti-Christian secularists? Even if all or just part of what they claimed had been true, would that have justified such profound hatred for a corpse? Nobody has done this or even proposed to do this with the corpse of the Bolshevik mass murderer and blasphemer Lenin, which, amazingly, still lies in its chemical soup in Moscow. Surely the only people who could have carried out this act were atheists and Satanists? However, in some sense, all who continue to spread these slanders are indirectly taking part in this same blasphemy.
Conclusion
Gregory Rasputin was a symbol of peasant Orthodox Russia, a useful scapegoat for those who wanted to seize power and whose slogan was ‘Demonize your enemies and then anything you do is justified’. His murderers symbolized all that was wrong with Russia – ‘treason, cowardice and deceit’, in the words of the martyred Emperor Nicholas II. Treason came from the elite class and intelligentsia which betrayed the Imperial Family and the Church to the Germans and the Western-financed Bolsheviks, cowardice came from those who were too weak to resist the elite and instead swam with the tide, and deceit came from the supposed Allies who also plotted against the Tsar. All of them slandered the Imperial Family and therefore also Gregory Rasputin.
Through Gregory Rasputin we see exactly who were the enemies of Russia and of the ideals of Holy Rus: all those who believed in and spread the slanders about him and the Imperial Family. The fact that many of these were treacherous and jealous members of the Romanov Family and other millionaire aristocrats makes no difference. Nor does the fact that among these were most of the generals and also senior members of the clergy like Protopresbyter George Shavelsky. The fact that, as Prince N. D. Zhevakhov, the deputy lay head of the Holy Synod, revealed over 90 years ago, Gregory Rasputin was murdered by British spies makes no difference. They could not have operated without the widespread and even popular support for such Russian traitors.
It is no secret that Gregory Rasputin had a gift of healing that medical science could only jealously acknowledge without understanding – it is a fact of history. That he had the ability to heal the Tsarevich Alexei, who could have become the greatest, most merciful and wisest of all Russian Tsars, is a fact of history. That he was a devout man of prayer and pilgrim to Jerusalem and the holy places of Russia who very well knew the Holy Scriptures, the Lives of the Saints and Orthodox services is a fact of history. That he made several prophecies about the future of Russia, the Tsardom, his own murder and the future of the world, all of which came true in detail, is a fact of history. For Gregory Rasputin knew the price of suffering, both moral and physical.
If he was innocent, then the untold suffering after December 1916 makes sense. The foreign Bolshevik yoke and its millions of victims, the murder of the Anointed of God, the second German invasion that began on the forgotten feast of All the Saints of the Russian Lands in June 1941, the taking of Vienna and Berlin on St George’s Day in 1945, which could have happened, without any such comparable sacrifices, in 1917 under the leadership of Tsar Nicholas II, the plagues of alcoholism, abortion, corruption and divorce after 1945, the collapse of what was effectively the Russian Empire in 1991 and today’s torment in the Ukraine are all part of the long and slow path of repentance still ongoing 100 years after 1916. The end to our suffering has not yet come.
Instead of being a "mad monk", evil, and debauched, he is thought to have been a good, holy man, a Russian hero who was practically single-handedly saving the country and the monarchy, and causing the evil British government to assassinate him, with disastrous results for Russia.
An excellent Russian 7 hour TV series with this interpretation was released in 2014 and was wildly popular in Russia. It features Russian superstar actors Vladimir Mashkov and Andrei Smolyakov, who both give fantastic performances.
You can watch it here on Youtube, unfortunately only in Russian. If someone were to subtitle this TV series, it would find a very large international audience, because it is simply superbly made.
Here is the trailer to series (worth glancing at even if you don't speak Russian because the excellent quality of many historical dramas now being made in Russia, both for TV and films, is clear.) :
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, in whom there is no hope.Foreword
Psalm 145, 3
As the Truth of God begins to be revealed, so everything in Russia will change.
Elder Nikolai (Guryanov)
My interest in Gregory Rasputin was first sparked by a television programme fifty years ago on the fiftieth anniversary of his assassination. Although, as a child, I could not investigate the claims made, I knew instinctively that there was something wrong with what was being said. I sensed a manipulation.
Forty-two years ago I went to study at Oxford at the oldest college in Oxford, where Prince Felix Yusupov, the supposed murderer of Gregory Rasputin had studied and visited the ‘Yusupov room’ where the prince had lived. I still could not understand the story since, with the Soviet Union and the Cold War still in full swing, I could not access the necessary archives on either side.
Others have since done that and their results, given below, provide long-awaited justice.
‘Rasputin? A horse thief, a mad monk, a fraud with hypnotic powers, a priest-charlatan who manipulated stupid, hysterical women, a flagellant sectarian and pervert, a criminal who ruled the Russian Empire, dictating all policies and making all political appointments through bribery, a debauchee who organized orgies, a drunkard (like all Russians), a primitive barbarian, a Satanist, a German spy, the reason for the downfall of Russia, even his name means ‘depraved’.
I know, I have read the book and seen the film’. So goes the view of the average ‘educated’ Western person, as also largely that of the average Soviet citizen. However, they are all the brainwashed victims of the same slanderer and we recall that the Greek for ‘slanderer’ is ‘o diavolos’, ‘the devil’.
In reality, not one bit of the above has been proved true, including that he was a debauchee and a drunkard, and most of it is patently untrue. It is all classic self-justifying Russophobia which says ‘Russians are primitive, we are superior, therefore we can do anything we like’. He was certainly not mad, never a priest, monk, thief or spy, never a flagellant sectarian or a Satanist, and had very little if any political influence. He was a pious Christian peasant, married with three children, who gave generous alms, understood the Holy Scriptures better than professors of the Bible, and was so pious that God gave him miraculous powers of healing. As for his surname, a nickname, it was common in Siberia and denotes someone who lives where roads meet, a crossroads.
On the other hand, what we do know, and this ever since the publication of the memoirs of Prince Nikolay Zhevakhov in the 1920s, is that he was murdered by British spies, with the co-operation of rich, decadent, jealous and apostate Russian aristocrats, one a transvestite prince who dabbled in the occult and savagely and ritually battered Gregory Rasputin’s corpse, as the sadistic freemason and decadent Prince Yusupov himself boasted of doing, one a more or less Fascist politician, another a Romanov prince of notoriously loose morals who betrayed his relative the Tsar. All of them through their murderous betrayal, indirectly, handed Russia over to the genocidal Bolsheviks and their imported alien ideology for three generations, 75 years of hellish torment.
The Sources of the Slander
Recent research since the downfall of the Bolshevik regime a generation ago in 1991 has led to several new studies of Gregory Rasputin by professional historians and even veneration of ‘the Martyr Gregory’ by some, including by the Elder Nikolai Guryanov, with an akathist composed and icons painted. So far unchallenged and also untranslated, because Western publishers only translate scurrilous works like those of the Soviet novelist Edvard Radzinsky, and not professionally-written works or the unsensational lives of the pious, these new Russian studies of professional historians like the seven volumes by Sergey Fomin and the books by Alexander Bokhanov, Yury Rassulin, Igor Evsin, Tatiana Mironova and Oleg Platonov lead us to take a very different view.
All the myths about Gregory Rasputin were invented from 1910 on by those jealous of the Tsar – without much need for imagination, because they attributed to him what they themselves did, that is, they were talking about themselves and their own deeply-held and practised vices. They were jealous because they wanted the power of the Tsar and therefore wanted to discredit the legitimate holders of that power, the Tsar and his family, including his ill heir and his healer, and the Orthodox Christian society that he ruled over, which they so hated. And so these rich hedonists and decadents spread their lies and gossip in the worldly salons of Saint Petersburg, among the futile wealthy and aristocratic debauchees, and in the gutter press of the time.
They accused him of lying, of debauchery and of interfering in the affairs of State – everything that they themselves either did or yearned to do. Belonging to the elite, they were in such a state of demonic delusion that they even convinced themselves that they were doing Russia a service by pandering to their own vanity and plotting against the Tsar and those faithful to him, including the healer of the Heir, and so seizing power. They believed their own slander and forgeries, when in fact they were talking about their own sins. Gregory Rasputin was the useful scapegoat invented by ‘princes and sons of men’ to justify their ruthless ambition. If they had not chosen him, they would have chosen another – peasant Russia was there only to be exploited by them.
 |
| Add caption |
Views of Those Who Knew Gregory Rasputin
If we look at those who actually knew him, we obtain a different view. Thus, Bishops Barnabas (Nakropin) and Isidore (Kolokolov) were close friends of Gregory Rasputin till the end of his life, trusted him completely and Bishop Isidore celebrated his funeral service, for which he in turn was much slandered. In his memoirs another, General Kurlov, wrote that he had been ‘struck by Rasputin’s profound knowledge of Holy Scripture and theological questions’ and characterized him as a good man who ‘constantly expressed the sense of Christian forgiveness for our enemies’. Such affirmations are confirmed by other devout and well-educated clergy and laity, impressed by Gregory Rasputin’s piety, and they naturally revered him as an elder.
In his memoirs the head of the Police Department, A. T. Vasiliev, wrote that the results of his many investigations confirmed his initial supposition that there was no compromising correspondence with Rasputin, no letters from the Tsarina. Indeed, why should there have been? Rasputin was only semi-literate, he would have had difficulty reading anything. Vasiliev wrote: ‘I also investigated to find out if Rasputin kept any documents, money or valuables in a bank. My investigations were fruitless, another proof of my conviction of the absurdity of the scandalous rumours about Rasputin’. But these witnesses are only the beginning. There are many others of integrity and indeed holiness who say the same, confirming the absurdity of the slanders.
Among these are of course the future saints Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra, their five pious children, Archpriest Alexander Vasiliev, the spiritual father of the Imperial Family, the pious virgin Anna Vyrubova (later Mother Maria of Helsinki, who is venerated as a saint today), Prince N. D. Zhevakhov, Julia Dehn, other bishop admirers of Gregory Rasputin like the future St Macarius of the Altai, Metropolitan of Moscow, the pious Metr Pitirim of Saint Petersburg, and a great many other righteous, chaste, sober and honest men and women who loved Holy Rus. None of these believed in the Rasputin myth and this for a very simple reason – they knew him personally, had seen him working miracles of healing and prophecy and knew the motivations of the jealous slanderers.
Of course, there were others. There is the case of the young and naïve Bishop Theophan (Bystrov), who first enthusiastically introduced Gregory Rasputin to the Imperial Family. He only changed his mind because he believed slanders told him in confession. Later he was horrified when he discovered that he had been lied to. Then there was the case of the Grand Duchess, Abbess Elizabeth in Moscow. She too believed the slanders, although at the end her sister the Tsarina seems to have persuaded here that, since she lived in Moscow and had been fed slanders, she had been greatly misled. None of those who believed the slanders had met Gregory in person, they had no first-hand experience, they had simply taken part in a slanderous game of Chinese whispers.
Why the Slanders Have Been Repeated To This Day
Why are these slanders still repeated and believed today? First of all, because scandalous sex stories make many people rich and they are what the mob wants. Secondly, because those who believe and repeat them want to believe and repeat them because they are motivated by self-justification. The alternative would be to repent and most do not want to repent. The murder of the Russian Orthodox peasant Gregory Rasputin in fact began the Revolution, not a Bolsehevik Revolution but a Revolution long desired, since at least December 1825, by a jealous aristocracy and a growing middle-class, all apostates from the Russian Orthodox Church. The descendants of all those who thought they would benefit from the Revolution do not want to repent.
These include not just brainwashed former Soviet citizens, not only the descendants of émigré aristocrats in Paris and elsewhere, but also all the other Western victims of Russophobic propaganda who want to believe that the so-called ‘Tsarist regime’ (that is to say, the legitimate Christian Empire, founded by St Constantine) was corrupt, primitive, barbarian, depraved, drunken and plainly evil. Therefore, it was demonized and so could be overthrown by the ‘pure’ West and all was justified. Such Russophobia is in the direct line of the self-justifying propaganda of the secularism of Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But what if Gregory Rasputin was the victim, the more or less innocent scapegoat of the machinations of traitors?
If Gregory was innocent, then they, the ideologues of the anti-Christian Western world, therefore most of the Russian aristocracy and the State Duma, most of the generals and even some clergy, most of the journalists and most of the people, as well as the Western-founded Soviet State, are guilty of slandering him, murdering him and are also guilty of the murder of the canonized Imperial Family. Guilty too are all who believed in the lies without question and all who continue to believe in these money-making (money is always a motive for evil) lies and myths and even spread them. After all, these are the people who three months after the murder, on Kerensky’s Masonic orders, dug up Gregory Rasputin’s corpse and on 11 March 1917 incinerated it.
Was this the act the act of Orthodox Christians or any other Christians? Was this the act of Christian patriots who loved the Tsar, the Little Father? Who could have carried out such a blasphemous act, but apostates, occultists and anti-Christian secularists? Even if all or just part of what they claimed had been true, would that have justified such profound hatred for a corpse? Nobody has done this or even proposed to do this with the corpse of the Bolshevik mass murderer and blasphemer Lenin, which, amazingly, still lies in its chemical soup in Moscow. Surely the only people who could have carried out this act were atheists and Satanists? However, in some sense, all who continue to spread these slanders are indirectly taking part in this same blasphemy.
Conclusion
Gregory Rasputin was a symbol of peasant Orthodox Russia, a useful scapegoat for those who wanted to seize power and whose slogan was ‘Demonize your enemies and then anything you do is justified’. His murderers symbolized all that was wrong with Russia – ‘treason, cowardice and deceit’, in the words of the martyred Emperor Nicholas II. Treason came from the elite class and intelligentsia which betrayed the Imperial Family and the Church to the Germans and the Western-financed Bolsheviks, cowardice came from those who were too weak to resist the elite and instead swam with the tide, and deceit came from the supposed Allies who also plotted against the Tsar. All of them slandered the Imperial Family and therefore also Gregory Rasputin.
Through Gregory Rasputin we see exactly who were the enemies of Russia and of the ideals of Holy Rus: all those who believed in and spread the slanders about him and the Imperial Family. The fact that many of these were treacherous and jealous members of the Romanov Family and other millionaire aristocrats makes no difference. Nor does the fact that among these were most of the generals and also senior members of the clergy like Protopresbyter George Shavelsky. The fact that, as Prince N. D. Zhevakhov, the deputy lay head of the Holy Synod, revealed over 90 years ago, Gregory Rasputin was murdered by British spies makes no difference. They could not have operated without the widespread and even popular support for such Russian traitors.
It is no secret that Gregory Rasputin had a gift of healing that medical science could only jealously acknowledge without understanding – it is a fact of history. That he had the ability to heal the Tsarevich Alexei, who could have become the greatest, most merciful and wisest of all Russian Tsars, is a fact of history. That he was a devout man of prayer and pilgrim to Jerusalem and the holy places of Russia who very well knew the Holy Scriptures, the Lives of the Saints and Orthodox services is a fact of history. That he made several prophecies about the future of Russia, the Tsardom, his own murder and the future of the world, all of which came true in detail, is a fact of history. For Gregory Rasputin knew the price of suffering, both moral and physical.
If he was innocent, then the untold suffering after December 1916 makes sense. The foreign Bolshevik yoke and its millions of victims, the murder of the Anointed of God, the second German invasion that began on the forgotten feast of All the Saints of the Russian Lands in June 1941, the taking of Vienna and Berlin on St George’s Day in 1945, which could have happened, without any such comparable sacrifices, in 1917 under the leadership of Tsar Nicholas II, the plagues of alcoholism, abortion, corruption and divorce after 1945, the collapse of what was effectively the Russian Empire in 1991 and today’s torment in the Ukraine are all part of the long and slow path of repentance still ongoing 100 years after 1916. The end to our suffering has not yet come.
No comments:
Post a Comment