Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #16 

My dear friend ... Will you let me call you that? I see your interests and your awareness in the history of my homeland, I see our common views, so I want to call you my friend. Since English is not my native language for me, I will write a few answer points. The theme of the Russian revolution, which we are discussing, is a gigantic theme, and it will require many answers ...

I looked in your profile and saw that you live in the Republic of South Africa. So I guess the book you're talking about is called "The Dispute of Zion: Two Thousand Years of the Jewish Question." Right? It was written by a US journalist, Mr. Douglas Reed, and published in the South African Republic in the 1970s. I read this book, it was republished in Russia in the early 1990s. It was published by the "Memory" Society (monarchical fundamentalists and anti-Semites). We know this book well, but I never thought that my interlocutor would be familiar with its author, Mr. Reed, like you.

Mr. Douglas Reed identified many problems correctly, but many more problems he did not know, or ignored, or did not take into account. I want to say about this. If the blame for the destruction of the Russian Empire is blamed on the Masons and the Jews, then this will be a simplification and a wrong analyst. Everything is much more complicated ...

I begin by saying that in 1917 there were not one, but two revolutions in Russia. The first revolution happened on March 2, 1917, when deputies of the Parliament Guchkov and Shulgin asked the Tsar for abdication. They did not threaten him with reprisals against the family and children, this is not true. Moreover: the deputy of the parliament (Duma) Shulgin himself was a monarchist (!). They wanted to save the Monarchy by personally changing the Tsar. Nicholas II was at that time unpopular, they wanted to replace Tsar Nikolai with Duke Michael, in order to save the monarchical order. But Duke Michael, the younger brother of Tsar Nicholas, also repudiated the benefit of the Constituent Assembly, "... which must decide whether Russia will be a Monarchy or a republic."

Yes, in March 1917, the great role of British and French Freemasons, but not only. Russian oligarchs, Russian aristocrats, and even members of the Imperial House acted all together against the Tsar. So, the Tsar's native uncle, Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, wrote to the Tsar in a letter: "I kneel before you, and ask you to renounce the Throne."

When our Emperor Nicholas renounced the Throne, the Monarchy fell, and the Provisional Government, which was headed by Alexander Kerensky, a Socialist and a Mason, took power. The worst thing was that none of the tsarist generals, when he received by telegraph the text of the Tsar's abdication, did not defend him: all the generals "celebrated the republic." Only two generals disobeyed: Khan Nakhichevan from the North Caucasus and Sultan Girey-Klych from the Crimea. They answered the King: "We do not recognize the Republic, we do not recognize renunciation, if the Tsar orders, we will lead our troops to the capital and kill all the enemies of the Tsar!" But Nicholas II did not want to drown the revolution in the blood ...

The younger generals of Germanic origin, Count Keller, Baron Ungern-Sternberg, others spoke for the Tsar. Then Baron Ungern-Sternberg sadly said: "In Russia, only real Muslims from the Caucasus Mountains were real Russians that day, but we Germans from the Baltics ... ".


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #17 

Britain and France were interested in destroying the monarchy in Russia, it's true. There were many reasons for this. The Russian Empire had a very active industrial development, and turned into a competitor in Europe and the world. In the Russian Empire there were the lowest taxes for production. Here were the cheapest workers. Therefore, companies such as Siemens (telephones), Underwood (typewriters and office equipment), Singer (sewing machines and equipment for light industry) began to transfer their production to Russia. In the early twentieth century typewriters and telephones were the same as today is a computer; Russia became the world supplier of office equipment.

In addition, the Russian Empire built a railway from Vladivostok to Europe throughout its territory. It was a blow to the UK economy. Previously, Great Britain controlled all the sea trade with the Far East, controlled the Singapore Strait, the Suez Canal, Gibraltar, Cape Town. After the construction of the Russian railway "Transsib" all goods from China, Japan, Korea, French Indochina, Borneo could be delivered to Europe by land. It was cheaper and safer. The British merchant fleet was losing money, British insurance companies were losing money, Britain was losing money ...

In addition, after the WWI, the Russian Empire, under the terms of the treaty with the allies, should receive for itself the "Turkish trophy" - Constantinople (Istanbul), the Marmara Sea, the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Thus, the Russian Empire emerged into the Mediterranean, and became a rival to the British Empire. "Lady of the Seas" did not want to admit this.

For Britain it was necessary to make Russia, on the one hand, continue the war against Austria and Germany on the eastern front, and on the other hand, it was very weak after the victory over the Central Powers, and could not make claims on the "Turkish trophy". Britain was beneficial that after the end of WWI Russia was too weak, the economy was destroyed: it allowed to eliminate the competitor.

For this purpose, the Revolution was organized on March 2, 1917. The Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky continued to fight with Germany, and were pro-English. But the Russian front began to fall apart. On the one hand, the soldiers did not understand the republic and the provisional government; They swore allegiance to the Tsar and fought "For God, the Tsar and the Fatherland!". When the Tsar died, the soldiers did not understand who they were fighting for now, and began to desert. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks were agitators in the troops, who received money from Germany: they agitated the soldiers not to fight. The front collapsed.

The revolution of March 2, 1917 was in the interests of Great Britain and France. Six months later, on October 25, 1917, there was a second revolution, which the Bolsheviks were doing. This revolution was in the interests of Germany. The Bolsheviks overthrew the Provisional Government of Kerensky, and immediately concluded a separate peace with Germany in the city of Brest. This peace treaty is called as the "Shameful World." Russia, which fought against Germany since 1914, in 1917 became an ally of Germany. Thus, Russia did not end up as a victorious power, but as a losing power. This is a great tragedy.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #18 

But all this is only foreign policy and the external side of the issue. The most terrible truth is that Russia could not avoid a revolution. The reason was this: the Russian economy developed very strongly, the children and grandchildren of the former peasants became big millionaires ... but the political life remained very conservative. We needed freedoms within the framework of a parliamentary monarchy, but Emperor Nicholas did not dare to give such freedoms. Finally, in 1905, after a very large strike and attempted revolution, Emperor Nicholas signed the Manifesto of October 17, in which he established the Parliament (the State Duma). But it was one step late ...

Emperor Nicholas II and his government found themselves in a situation where both paths led to a political crisis. The public demanded democratization, the bourgeoisie demanded democratization, the intelligentsia demanded democratization. If you do not do democratization, then the public is indignant, cares begin; if to do democratization, then the public, the intelligentsia and the bourgeoisie demand freedom even more ... How to act?

There were other reasons. The Polish Kingdom wanted to have independence, the Duchy of Finland wanted to have independence. Ukraine wanted to have internal autonomy. Jews wanted equality. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia wanted autonomy, they opposed russification. All these peoples had their own parties: they were nationalist parties with the Social-Democratic program.

With Jews it turned out very ugly. There were such obsolete laws that did not give Jews equality. Firstly, Jews could not live freely in the territory of the entire Russian Empire - only in the Kingdom of Poland, in Lithuania and in Ukraine. This was called the Pale of Settlement. Secondly, Jews could not visit St. Petersburg and Moscow. Jews were not admitted to universities, they were not accepted for public service. To move to the entire territory of the Empire, Jews must either be very rich, or abandon Judaism and become Christians. These archaic laws, of course, evoked dislike among Jews: it turned out that the state itself made Jews out of enemies. Surprisingly, after this, that a lot of Jews after that fought in the Red Army and supported the Bolsheviks? ... Emperor Nicholas II several times wanted to abolish these archaic laws, but he was not allowed to do so by Russian millionaires who did not want Jews as competitors. Ironically, they were precisely those Russian millionaires who then made and supported the first revolution in March 1917 - the Ryabushinsky, Morozoff, Tereshchenko, others ... Finally, in 1915 Emperor Nicholas II abolished archaic laws against the Jews, but it was too late : most Jews treated the imperial empire very badly.

For fairness I will say that during the Civil War of 1918-1921 many Jews fought against the Bolsheviks in the White Army. In 1920-40 years in Paris there was even the "Jewish Monarchist Committee", in which there were Jewish emigres from Russia (Hitler destroyed them). Even now in Russia there are some Jewish rabbis who sympathize with the monarchy and Emperor Nicholas II ... But I will not be distracted.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #19 

There is another sad reason for the revolution of 1917: it is corruption. You mentioned the secret political police "Okhranka" (correct name: "Security Department"). Unfortunately, this royal secret police did more harm than good. In this secret police there were a lot of officers, and each of them dreamed of receiving a high rank, an order and other awards. I will say this: all the officers of the Security Department simply lacked the number of revolutionaries and terrorists. And so some officers of the Security Department began through their agents to create revolutionary terrorist organizations in order to win them. This is very scary: in order to get a new high rank, the secret police officers created revolutionary groups!

The loudest story happened in 1911 in Kiev: revolutionary Dmitry Bogroff killed in the theater of the Prime Minister of the Russian Empire Count Peter Stolypin. This Dmitry Bogroff was both an informer of the secret police and a member of a secret revolutionary organization ... The theater in which the murder was kept was guarded, but the secret police officers themselves brought in this terrorist Bogoroff, and even weapons! Everything - for the sake of a career, for the sake of a high office! The murder of the Prime Minister and the author of the agrarian reform! This is scary...

I have already told you that no general in March 1917 wanted to protect Emperor Nicholas. Only Khan Nakhichevan, Sultan Girey, Earl Keller, Baron Ungern ... All the others thought not about the oath, but about personal gain. Already after the revolution, in 1918, the Emperor, arrested by the Bolsheviks, wrote in his notebook sad words: "Around betrayal, and cowardice, and deception."

Even the church bishops after the revolution in March 1917 ran to swear allegiance to the Provisional Government. They served the prayer: "Divine Provisional Government! ... At last the Church gets freedom! ..." What it ended for the Church, you know.

It is also necessary to say that ordinary people - in the first turn, peasants - just cried when they learned about the abdication of the Tsar. They first cried, and then ran to rob a nobleman landowner ... In the estate of the poet Alexander Blok, these peasants threw out a piano from the window ... The writer Ivan Bunin was burnt down by the estate and wanted to throw it into the fire ... When the White Army fought against the Bolsheviks , the peasants refused to give food and fodder for the horses ... How should this be treated? ...

All in Russia betrayed their Tsar. If people here were honest, then no Masons, no foreign intelligence would ever be able to make a revolution. But the whole population of Russia thought: "It does not concern me, I'll sit quietly at home." And as a result, the Bolsheviks defeated, and organized Hell for the whole of Russia.

So who is to blame? Masons? Great Britain, France? Germany? ... America? ... Rothschilds? ... I'm sure: the Russians themselves are most guilty: the aristocracy, the clergy, the bourgeoisie, the army, the peasants - everything! If the body is healthy, then it is not afraid of viruses; But if the body is sick, even a cold will kill it.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #20 
I really hope that I did not tire you, my dear friend. If my answer turned out to be very big, then please forgive me. But I hope that it will be interesting for you. I remain with respect and kindest wishes for you.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,808
Reply with quote  #21 

I have no wish to join in this debate, but would like to correct a few inaccurate statements made during it. First, the ‘Lithuanian peasant woman’, aka the Empress Catherine I. She was certainly a woman and if not a peasant was born with little more than that status, Lithuanian however is questionable.

Her precise ethnicity in fact is something of a mystery. Her father had a Polish name and is believed to have come from Minsk, then within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Her mother’s name was German, and her parents’ marriage took place in Latvia, so presumably the later Empress was maternally Baltic German, perhaps with some native Latvian admixture, though we really have no idea. At any rate it was in Latvia that she was raised, as a servant in the household of a Lutheran minister, the unpromising beginning of her unlikely ascent to an Imperial throne.

In contradiction to post #12, the blood of this woman, peasant, Lithuanian or otherwise, flowed in the veins of all Russian monarchs from the remarkable Elisabeth onwards, with the sole and obvious exception of Catherine II. The Emperor Peter III was the nominated successor of Elisabeth, she having no children of her own to inherit, but was chosen because he was her nephew, son of her full sister Anna and therefore a grandson of Catherine I and Peter the Great. So he was not just a random German prince but Elisabeth’s nearest and in fact only heir by blood.

Sir Roman is quite right in that post though to say that Catherine I’s ancestry and social status had no effect on the eligibility of her descendants for the succession. The laws which would have ruled her out as an Emperor’s bride were made by her great-grandson Paul, long after her death and those of her two descendants that had already succeeded, and have no bearing on the matter at all.

In post #13 Dom makes an untrue assertion that I have already corrected once in this thread. The two marriages to Lutherans he sees as disqualifying were not at all considered so at the time, and were in accordance with normal and accepted practice. The only reason they have been questioned retrospectively is that people wished to undermine the claim of Grand Duke Kyril and his descendants, and lacking valid grounds to do so turned to spurious ones.

As for the late Princess Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky, the royal house to which she belonged ceased to reign in 1800. The numerous European  mediatised families, all fully acceptable as equal marriage partners, ceased to reign in 1806. A difference of six years is not of the slightest significance in this context, and I submit that it was entirely reasonable for Grand Duke Vladimir to have ruled (well prior to his own marriage, and for reasons unconnected with it) that a Bagration was as acceptable as say a Wied, Leiningen or Hohenlohe for equal marriage purposes.

Post #15 is filled with Dom’s typical lunatic and anti-Semitic ravings about a world conspiracy of Jews and Freemasons being responsible for all the ills of said world. We’ve read it all before, far too many times. Actually, once would already have been too many, and I’m sure Dom will be well into double digits by now.

Finally, post #18. While I’m sure Russian anti-Semitism well predated Nicholas I, it was him so far as I know who first put in place extensive discriminatory laws against Jews. Alexander II removed them all, but Alexander III put them back and intensified them. So the laws may have been archaic but were not all that old, dating in fact only to the previous reign. And it is my understanding that so far from several times attempting to remove the laws and being prevented Nicholas II, who was personally quite viciously anti-Semitic, was several times counselled to remove them but adamantly refused.

Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

My dear friend ... Will you let me call you that? I see your interests and your awareness in the history of my homeland, I see our common views, so I want to call you my friend. Since English is not my native language for me, I will write a few answer points. The theme of the Russian revolution, which we are discussing, is a gigantic theme, and it will require many answers ...

I looked in your profile and saw that you live in the Republic of South Africa. So I guess the book you're talking about is called "The Dispute of Zion: Two Thousand Years of the Jewish Question." Right? It was written by a US journalist, Mr. Douglas Reed, and published in the South African Republic in the 1970s. I read this book, it was republished in Russia in the early 1990s. It was published by the "Memory" Society (monarchical fundamentalists and anti-Semites). We know this book well, but I never thought that my interlocutor would be familiar with its author, Mr. Reed, like you.

Mr. Douglas Reed identified many problems correctly, but many more problems he did not know, or ignored, or did not take into account. I want to say about this. If the blame for the destruction of the Russian Empire is blamed on the Masons and the Jews, then this will be a simplification and a wrong analyst. Everything is much more complicated ...

I begin by saying that in 1917 there were not one, but two revolutions in Russia. The first revolution happened on March 2, 1917, when deputies of the Parliament Guchkov and Shulgin asked the Tsar for abdication. They did not threaten him with reprisals against the family and children, this is not true. Moreover: the deputy of the parliament (Duma) Shulgin himself was a monarchist (!). They wanted to save the Monarchy by personally changing the Tsar. Nicholas II was at that time unpopular, they wanted to replace Tsar Nikolai with Duke Michael, in order to save the monarchical order. But Duke Michael, the younger brother of Tsar Nicholas, also repudiated the benefit of the Constituent Assembly, "... which must decide whether Russia will be a Monarchy or a republic."

Yes, in March 1917, the great role of British and French Freemasons, but not only. Russian oligarchs, Russian aristocrats, and even members of the Imperial House acted all together against the Tsar. So, the Tsar's native uncle, Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, wrote to the Tsar in a letter: "I kneel before you, and ask you to renounce the Throne."

When our Emperor Nicholas renounced the Throne, the Monarchy fell, and the Provisional Government, which was headed by Alexander Kerensky, a Socialist and a Mason, took power. The worst thing was that none of the tsarist generals, when he received by telegraph the text of the Tsar's abdication, did not defend him: all the generals "celebrated the republic." Only two generals disobeyed: Khan Nakhichevan from the North Caucasus and Sultan Girey-Klych from the Crimea. They answered the King: "We do not recognize the Republic, we do not recognize renunciation, if the Tsar orders, we will lead our troops to the capital and kill all the enemies of the Tsar!" But Nicholas II did not want to drown the revolution in the blood ...

The younger generals of Germanic origin, Count Keller, Baron Ungern-Sternberg, others spoke for the Tsar. Then Baron Ungern-Sternberg sadly said: "In Russia, only real Muslims from the Caucasus Mountains were real Russians that day, but we Germans from the Baltics ... ".

My friend, I would like to address the points you raise in your previous post: (1). The Czar "was not threatened". Anna Vyrubova, Lady-In Waiting to Empress Alexandra, who was herself imprisoned and narrowly escaped  execution, recounted in her "Memories of the Russian Court" dated 1923, a conversation she had with Nicholas about a month after the abdication. She confronted him  during this conversation suggesting that the former Emperor should have stood his ground. He replied "I heard threats against my family- and I was not prepared to allow any harm to come  to them". 
(2) The Duma leaders wanted to save the monarchy by replacing Nicholas. This is not true. Kerensky made the following speech days before the Feb Revolution:  “The historical task of the Russian people now is the immediate destruction of the medieval regime…There is only one way of fighting those who break the law, and that’s their physical destruction.” The whole purpose of the war against Germany was to bring down the Russian monarchy and replace it with a Masonic regime. Britain was complicit in this scheme. Nicholas II received TWO letters from loyal government officials in August 1914, one from the head of the Okhrana, one from a former Interior Minister, warning the Emperor that war with Germany would be used by his enemies as a catalyst to topple the Monarchy. In his telegrams to kaiser Wilhelm, Nicholas made it clear that he did not want war with Germany. He actually demobilized his army, but was forced to remobilize after the German government declared war on the Russian Empire. There was no plan to to replace Nicholas with any of his relatives. The plan was to replace the monarchy with a Masonic republic. This was the plan from the beginning.
(3) Masonic leaders: Kerensky, Milyukov, Guchkov, among others in the Duma, Generals Alexeyev, Danilov, Ivanov, Gruzsky, Brusilov, among others in the Imperial High Command,
(4) Jewish role. All the leaders of the Bolshevik Party were Jews. Lenin was part Jewish. Free Masonry has it's origins in the Temple at Jerusalem. Kerensky was also a Jew by birth (Aaron Kirbus). He was adopted by his Orthodox stepfather. 

The goal was ALWAYS to topple the Monarchy, there was no plan to replace Nicholas with his son, brother, or cousin, which is why Kerensky et al did not allow Mikhail to acsend the Throne. Nicholas' abdications in favour of both Alexei and Mikhail violated the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire. All the monarchies which fell in WW1 were replaced by Masonic regimes. This was always the plan. Count Czernin, the Austrian Imperial Foreign Minister, recounted in his memoirs "Im Weltkriege" that the Austrian crown prince Franz Ferdinand confided in him in 1913 that he had been sentenced to death by Free Masons at a meeting held for that purpose. The following year, he was assassinated, an event which led to WW1. People don't want to believe the Truth because they CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH. There is no democracy in Europe or America. The Masons hold power with the Rothschilds, and the Rockefellers. This is the truth whether people want to believe it or not. The Romanovs were sacrificed along with millions of  other God-fearing Christian families . so that Masonic power could be firmly established on our unfortunate planet. If you know what my father knew, you don't want to bring children into this World. This planet belongs to Lucifer, Christians are a persecuted minority. I don't care if people do not agree, they know nothing. There are journalists who have spent their whole lifetimes studying these organizations and events. Why would they lie about what they discovered??  
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domhangairt
My friend, I would like to address the points you raise in your previous post: (1). The Czar "was not threatened". Anna Vyrubova, Lady-In Waiting to Empress Alexandra, who was herself imprisoned and narrowly escaped  execution, recounted in her "Memories of the Russian Court" dated 1923, a conversation she had with Nicholas about a month after the abdication. She confronted him  during this conversation suggesting that the former Emperor should have stood his ground. He replied "I heard threats against my family- and I was not prepared to allow any harm to come  to them". 
(2) The Duma leaders wanted to save the monarchy by replacing Nicholas. This is not true. Kerensky made the following speech days before the Feb Revolution:  “The historical task of the Russian people now is the immediate destruction of the medieval regime…There is only one way of fighting those who break the law, and that’s their physical destruction.” The whole purpose of the war against Germany was to bring down the Russian monarchy and replace it with a Masonic regime. Britain was complicit in this scheme. Nicholas II received TWO letters from loyal government officials in August 1914, one from the head of the Okhrana, one from a former Interior Minister, warning the Emperor that war with Germany would be used by his enemies as a catalyst to topple the Monarchy. In his telegrams to kaiser Wilhelm, Nicholas made it clear that he did not want war with Germany. He actually demobilized his army, but was forced to remobilize after the German government declared war on the Russian Empire. There was no plan to to replace Nicholas with any of his relatives. The plan was to replace the monarchy with a Masonic republic. This was the plan from the beginning.
(3) Masonic leaders: Kerensky, Milyukov, Guchkov, among others in the Duma, Generals Alexeyev, Danilov, Ivanov, Gruzsky, Brusilov, among others in the Imperial High Command,
(4) Jewish role. All the leaders of the Bolshevik Party were Jews. Lenin was part Jewish. Free Masonry has it's origins in the Temple at Jerusalem. Kerensky was also a Jew by birth (Aaron Kirbus). He was adopted by his Orthodox stepfather. 

The goal was ALWAYS to topple the Monarchy, there was no plan to replace Nicholas with his son, brother, or cousin, which is why Kerensky et al did not allow Mikhail to acsend the Throne. Nicholas' abdications in favour of both Alexei and Mikhail violated the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire. All the monarchies which fell in WW1 were replaced by Masonic regimes. This was always the plan. Count Czernin, the Austrian Imperial Foreign Minister, recounted in his memoirs "Im Weltkriege" that the Austrian crown prince Franz Ferdinand confided in him in 1913 that he had been sentenced to death by Free Masons at a meeting held for that purpose. The following year, he was assassinated, an event which led to WW1. People don't want to believe the Truth because they CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH. There is no democracy in Europe or America. The Masons hold power with the Rothschilds, and the Rockefellers. This is the truth whether people want to believe it or not. The Romanovs were sacrificed along with millions of  other God-fearing Christian families . so that Masonic power could be firmly established on our unfortunate planet. If you know what my father knew, you don't want to bring children into this World. This planet belongs to Lucifer, Christians are a persecuted minority. I don't care if people do not agree, they know nothing. There are journalists who have spent their whole lifetimes studying these organizations and events. Why would they lie about what they discovered??  
For reference, you can consult the works of the following people: Theodore Gunderson, late Regional Director of the F.B.I. in Southern California; Gary Allen, late journalist; Jiri Lena, Estonian journalist; late Professor Anthony Sutton, Hoover institute; Nikolai Starikov, Russian author. Regards 
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #24 

Dear Moderator mentioned a very interesting topic, which I want to reveal a little more. This is the theme of the so-called "royal anti-Semitism." The fact is that anti-Semitism is very harmful to the immigration of the monarchical movement, in particular, in Russia. So I'll allow myself a little historical excursion.

The fact is that the Jews (Ashkenazi) turned out to be subjects of the Russian Tsar only after the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Before that time, there were almost no Jews in the Russian Empire at all. More precisely, they were single people. Thus, Chancellor Shafirov, a member of the Privy Council and an approximate Emperor Peter I. is known. Chancellor Shafirov was like a count of the Russian Empire, it was he who dealt with the corruption of Prince Menshikov and Prince Gagarin (the Siberian governor). This example shows that in the XVIII century in the Russian Empire there was no such thing as anti-Semitism, that the Jew became a count, chancellor and confidant of the Emperor.

After the abolition of Rzecz Pospolita and the entry of the Kingdom of Poland into the Russian Empire, thousands of Polish Jews at one point turned out to be subjects of the Russian Tsar. In the beginning, there were no conflicts at all. Thus, at the request of the Jews, the Empress Catherine II wrote a special decree, in which they were forbidden to be called "zhid" (since it was humiliating for them), and it was always necessary to call them "jews" (in memory of the Bible time). This was done at the request of the Jews, who became Russian subjects.

At the time of Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of the territory of the Russian Empire, Russian Jews rendered a great help to the Russian troops in the war against the French troops. The Jews, on their own initiative, carried out reconnaissance: they came to the location of the French garrisons as free traders, and then transferred the reconnaissance to the Russian army.

After the end of the military campaign, after the accession to the throne of Emperor Nicholas I there was this. In their settlements ("place" or "shtetl") Jews lived very poorly. The imperial government decided to make them happy. For this, the Jews were moved to fertile lands, and they were given livestock - a cow and a horse. The imperial government simply did not understand who Jews were; The imperial government thought that a Jew was also a peasant, that he needed to give fertile land and pets, and then he would be rich. But a Jew is not a peasant, a Jew is a craftsman and a trader; He does not need a fertile land, he will not plow. The Imperial Government did not know this. Jews who received this land and these domestic animals began to lease land to Russian and Ukrainian peasants, sold them pets, and themselves went to trade and engage in craft. This aroused the indignation of the Imperial Government: "We wanted to make them happy, we gave them the best land, and they became ungrateful! ..."

The big trouble is that the two sides - the Tsar and the Jews - simply did not understand each other. I have already said that earlier the Jews did not live in the Russian Empire, and the Tsarist government did not know what kind of people it was. Did not know its national peculiarity. Did not know that a Jew is not a peasant, but a merchant and artisan. They wanted to help the Jew, but they thought of making him a peasant ... Alas.

A very black page of history is "cantonists". These are Jewish children who were kidnapped from their parents and given up in the army. Here there is again: "they wanted to do better, but made worse." The imperial government has seen that Jewish families have many children, that they live poorly. And so the decision was made: at the expense of the state to educate these children, as cadets and cadets for the army. Of course, the Jews did not want to give their children. Then these children were simply taken away by force. Unfortunately, it must be said that there were such scoundrels among the Jews: they organized a gangster band "khapuns", stole children from their neighbors and gave them up for money. This was also, alas ... Then the Russian military administration did a "deceptive baptism": the Jewish boys went swimming in the river, immediately over the water the priest performed a general baptismal ceremony. The Russian authorities thought it was good for these children that they "save the pagans" - and for Jewish children it was a tragedy ...

Laws that forbade Jews to leave (this "Pale of Settlement", about which I spoke above) appeared just then. This law appeared for the fact that the Imperial Government hoped still to make the Jews as peasants. I do not want to justify anyone, but I must say this: there was no malicious anti-Semitism in this policy; on the contrary, the Imperial government sincerely believed that it was helping Jews so much. But this "help" broke the whole way of life of the Jews (Ashkenazi), and they, of course, resisted. And the Imperial government, which faced resistance, considered the Jews "ungrateful" ... The two sides did not understand each other, and this became a great tragedy of the XIX century.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #25 

My dear friend Domhangairt, everything is much, much more difficult ... If everything was as simple as you say ... You can not treat questions so primitively. Even that small group of people who prepared the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, was very heterogeneous, in it everyone pursued his goals. These goals were all different.

Yes, the cause of the March 1917 revolution was a "bread riot". Yes, it was a special conspiracy: white (!) Bread was not brought to St. Petersburg (there was no simple bread in the city, there was no famine). It's true. It is also true that secret negotiations were held between the Russian Empire and the German Empire on a separate peace and on Russia's withdrawal from the war. In late 1916 and early 1917 in St. Petersburg with a secret mission was the brother of the Empress Alexandra, the German prince Ernst Ludwig Hessen, the secret envoy of Kaiser Wilhelm. This is true, such negotiations were conducted. Question: How did our British allies react to this information? Of course, they were very unhappy, and British intelligence used all efforts to ensure that Russia did not leave the war. Up to the overthrow of the Monarchy and the establishment of the republican system.

As a monarchist, all this to me, of course, is sad and unpleasant; but looking at the situation objectively in 100 years, I understand the logic of the UK.

Let's go further. "The Provisional Committee of the State Duma" are those people who appointed themselves as the Supreme Power in Russia in March 1917. Emperor Nicholas at this time is not in St. Petersburg, he is on the Western Front. There is no Tsar in the capital, but there are unrest in the capital. People took to the streets, and they demand the "responsible ministry". Demand that the parliament (Duma) form a new government. The "Provisional Committee of the State Duma" consists of representatives of different parties: Kerensky is a socialist and a Republican; Guchkov is a constitutional democrat (the largest party, a conservative one) and a monarchist; Shulgin is a nationalist and monarchist, and others. These people decide for a long time what to do next - and in the meantime there are unrest in the streets; there are no combat-ready troops in St. Petersburg. Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich withdraws from the barracks his Guards naval regiment and is sent to the State Duma. The Grand Duke offers his services for the elimination of disorder, but Rodzianko, the speaker, tells him: "This will damage the prestige of the Imperial Dynasty." The Grand Duke returns his Guards naval regiment to the barracks (later, about Cyril will write that he "went out with a red bow", but this is a lie).

Meanwhile, the "Provisional Committee of the State Duma" makes the following decision: all the problems in the city are connected with the riots by the emperor Nicholas, which means that the Emperor is not popular, and he must transfer power to his younger brother Mikhail. This must be done to save the Monarchy. Two deputies of the "Provisional Committee of the State Duma" go to the headquarters of the Supreme Command in the city of Bottom - it's Shulgin and Guchkov (both of them are monarchists!). There they meet with the Emperor, speak for a very long time with him ... finally, Emperor Nicholas signs a renunciation for himself and his son in favor of Grand Duke Michael.

Grand Duke Michael is in St. Petersburg. He was never going to be the Emperor; he is very young, he is frightened by mass riots in the streets. The decision of Emperor Nicholas to give him the Crown for Michael is a shock! Therefore, Kerensky (a socialist and a Republican) easily convinces Michael to abdicate, to transfer the question of power to the Constituent Assembly.

From that moment Russia ceased to be a monarchical state, but it has not become a republic yet. All power was in the hands of a collective organization - the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, which becomes like the Provisional Government.

The Provisional Government begins preparations for the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, which must determine what Russia will be next - the Monarchy or the republic. However, Kerensky, without waiting for the decision of the Constituent Assembly, usurps power and declares the republican system. Kerensky fully acts in the interests of Great Britain and France, continues the war of Russia on the eastern front. Meanwhile, German intelligence is working against Kerensky, and her agents are Bolsheviks:

73569_600.jpg 

 



__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #26 

The Bolsheviks receive huge sums of money from Kaiser Wilhelm, purchase weapons, agitate lumpens, and make terrorism. The Bolshevik Bolshevik, along with his supporters, comes from Germany in a sealed car to the Finland Railway Station in St. Petersburg, delivers a speech from the roof of a military vehicle, and begins agitation. The Bolsheviks organize demonstrations of lumpens, and on October 25, 1917, such a demonstration frightened Kerensky and members of his Provisional Government, and they fled. The power in St. Petersburg went to the Bolsheviks.

Leon Trotsky is at this time in the United States of America. There are a large number of emigrants from Russia, many of whom are Jews. This is not anti-Semitism, it is a historical fact. Leon Trotsky receives money from American bankers, he recruits emigrants to go to Russia and participate in the revolution. Many go along with Leon Trotsky and participate in the revolution.

However, talking about the "Jewish conspiracy" is stupid. Yes, many Jews did not like Imperial Russia, but this is the topic for a separate conversation (I spoke about this a little in comment No. 24). Yes, the truth is that among the leaders of Bolshevism there were many Jews. But were there only Jews? The terrible Felix Dzerzhinsky, who organized the "Cheka", was a Pole and a nobleman. Minister of Finance Krasin, Bonch-Bruevich, Kryzhanovsky, Prince Andronnikov, Pillar-Pilhau - they were not Jews, they were Russian, German and Polish noblemen. Stalin and Orzhonikidze were Georgians. And many more ...

Lenin himself has an incomprehensible origin. His father was half Kalmyk, his grandfather was very Kalmyk (the Kalmyks are the Mongolian people who live near the Caspian Sea, the Kalmyks are Buddhists). Lenin's mother had a girl's name Blank. Her ancestors lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There is an opinion that these were Jews, but this is a controversial opinion. It is precisely known that in his childhood Lenin, his brothers and sisters spoke at home with his mother in German. In German, not in Yiddish. Lenin's father was a convinced monarchist; he was a nobleman in the first generation; when Alexander's elder brother, Alexander, took part in the attempt on Emperor Alexander III, his father cursed him and refused this son. That his children became revolutionaries, for their father was a great grief, a tragedy. Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, Lenin's father, did not bear such a shame, and died inside a heart attack.

About the mother of Lenin, too, there is different information. There is such information that for some time before marriage and a little after marriage she was like a court lady near Empress Maria Feodorovna. In the USSR, such information was closed, and requires verification.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #27 

I return to this "sore point", I'm talking about the participation of Jews in the revolutions of 1917 and in the Russian Civil War. Let us tell the truth: the number of Jews who were for the Bolsheviks is not more than 1 or 2 percent of the number of all Russian Jews. Moreover: they are not the best and not the most successful Jews. In 1918, when there was a civil war, a large congress of the Jewish bourgeoisie took place in the city of Omsk (in Siberia). The purpose of this congress was to help the White Army of Admiral Kolchak, give money for this - do you know about this? This congress wrote a Resolution and a Letter for Admiral Kolchak, in which the following is also written:

"... such Jews who serve the Bolsheviks are the scum of the Jewish people (I single out - R.), and we do not consider them as Jews." Briefly and clearly.

I'm still talking about what I'm going to say. In the White Cossack Army of Ataman Semyonov, about 30% of the Cossacks were recorded as "a Cossack of the Jewish faith," that is, a Jew. This is explained as follows: for Jewish youth in the late XIX and early XX century, Siberia was like the American Wild West, and the Cossacks as an American or Australian cowboy. This Jewish youth traveled to Siberia and the Trans-Baikal region from the "Pale of Settlement", recorded in Cossacks, while they did not reject Judaism and did not become Christians. They became a Jewish Cossack, and they liked it. And during the Russian Civil War, these Jewish Cossacks fought bravely against the Bolsheviks. I write about it because I live here in Siberia, and I know it.

I also want to recall a man who is Vladimir Zhabotinsky, the founder of the movement of Zionism. You will be surprised, probably, but Vladimir Zhabotinsky was a Jewish Zionist and a Russian monarchist at a time. Before the revolution of 1917, he wanted the Jewish settlements in Palestine to be under the protectorate of the Russian Tsar; he even wanted the Jewish state in Palestine to have its King from the Romanov dynasty. Vladimir Zhabotinsky was very bad about the fact that the Monarchy in Russia was abolished: he spoke to the State Duma, and said that it is very bad that the Russians will greatly regret and repent for the revolution that the Tsar is needed...

In general, speculation on the "Jewish theme" in the Russian revolution is stupid, bad and wrong. Silly - because everything is much more complicated; bad - because it spoils the monarchists' immigration; incorrectly - because among the Jews there are many supporters of the Monarchy both then and today. Why should we alienate our supporter if he joins the Jewish people? After all, we are not Nazis.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #28 

Some words I want to talk about the Masonic lodges. Freemasonry is a technical structure, a machine that can be filled with any content. Even monarchical. Freemasonry was created as a "horizontal link": in those years when Freemasonry arose, it was not customary for people of noble birth to have any business with commoners, even if the commoner is very rich. It was also not accepted for persons of noble birth to maintain contact with another, if he belongs to another Church, or if he is a Jew. But such a connection was needed to solve joint important issues. This is how the Masonic lodges appeared, and from the principle: "When you come here, along with the cloak hang your title, your crown, here all are brothers."

This scheme was very convenient, and it was used in Europe, and then in the whole world. Very important questions of current politics and business were always solved in the Masonic lodges, so no one was interested in disclosing the information. For this, terrible oaths and rituals were invented. And mystical rituals were also needed for distraction, for disguise. The Masons thought: "Let everyone think, as if we are causing the devil, then they will get scared, and they will not come near us, and they will not stop us from engaging in politics and business." This is the kind of Masonic "secret" that everyone knows.

Yes, Masonic lodges are one of the instruments of the world political and financial elite, but nothing more. This does not mean that "the world is ruled by masons" - it means only that the world is ruled by the world financial and political elites. In particular, they use Freemasonry as one of the mechanisms - together with the press, the banking and credit system, together with political parties, armies, trade unions, international organizations, and so on.

The world financial and political elite is the enemy of national states exactly as long as the national state hinders them. No further. And I do not think that there will ever be a single "World Government". Do you know why? Because even among the world's political and financial elite too, all are people, with their own interests ; Rothschild will never obey Rockefeller, Rockefeller will never obey Rothschild, and so on. And even now this elite is not all-powerful: if it was not so, they would long ago have abolished the new "Empire of Evil" - North Korea, which threatens the world with a nuclear bomb.

What is happening in the modern world is very, very sad. The general fall of morality, the crisis of the family, the loss of Christian values, the influx of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East to Europe ... Yes, it's very sad. But all this has economic reasons, and therefore can not continue indefinitely. Very soon the "pendulum will swing to the other side": a new Christian Europe already begins in Poland and Hungary. This process will go further.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #29 
And - the last for today: the Russian journalist Nikolai Starikokoff, whom you mention, is one of the main ideologists of neo-Stalinism, which Mr. Putin is pursuing. This "researcher" is on the maintenance of the Kremlin and the Russian special services. This is a very odious and unpleasant person. Unfortunately, I had to talk to him personally ... after talking with Nikolai Starikov, I really wanted to wash my hands with soap and, better still, take a shower, or go to a Russian bath. Very dirty and unpleasant person.
__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,495
Reply with quote  #30 
Sir Roman D,

I've enjoyed reading your posts.   Do many people in Siberia have sympathy for the Romanovs and that era in which they ruled?   I would like to see a strong reactionary Russia.

Best regards.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.