RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Chapter discussions and book or film reviews of Orthodox Christian and secular books that you have read and found helpful. All Forum Rules apply.
jgress
Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu 4 March 2010 1:06 pm
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA

Re: RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Post by jgress »

I think the evidence you have brought to "prove" the power of Masonry is laughably bad. You seem to think that being a liberal or an atheist requires being a Mason. Believe me, it does not, and Masonry isn't necessary to explain how our elites behave.

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Post by Barbara »

WELCOME BACK, Cyprian !
I had almost given you up ! I was thinking not long back how this Forum REALLY needs your input.
I was always saying the same type of things like you have. After unsympathetic reaction here, I finally gave up.
However, reading your posts, I feel a new lease on EuphrosynosCafe life !

Glad to hear someone standing up for the real truth ! I would dispute only the most minor point you made. I rather believe that the British royal family is in league with Anglicans, not with followers of the Pope or the Vatican ! That is a common error made by observers.

Absolutely wild as it sounds, I once saw a pic of Queen Elizabeth II by a crazy conspiracy theorist who nonetheless made a surprising point of how matched up with a - what did he call it ? A green lizard, or something bizarre sounding -
her features actually DID bear a shocking resemblance to that creature.
Ok, so that is going too far.

But again, let's go back to why King George V wouldn't let in his own cousin who was in OBVIOUS peril. The book "The Last Days of the Romanovs" goes into this in some detail. I still have yet to see a completely satisfying explanation of that failure. The author does contend that the English King, upon hearing the dreadful news of the killing of the Tsar, was very shocked and secretly carried a burden of guilt for years afterward. Especially when news later arrived that the entire family had also been killed at the same time. What was REALLY behind this refusal, though ? Were political strings pulled by the international Masonic fraternities ??

I would say that by the time of Edward VII, the British Monarchy had spent itself. Even Queen Victoria, imagined to be so powerful in politics, was at the mercy of various Prime Ministers, some of whom did not have Britain's best interests at heart. She really could not do much in the formation of policies. So what about subsequent monarchs ? They greatly degenerated over time til we get to the current crop [roll of the eyes !]. What about weakling, almost effiminate Edward VIII who gave up his throne for - an American divorcee. The fairytale romance element was spoiled by her stolid name, Wallis Simpson ! Her maiden name was Warfield, which probably sums up her role in life : causing division and disaster wherever she went.

Last edited by Barbara on Sat 28 February 2015 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jgress
Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu 4 March 2010 1:06 pm
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA

Re: RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Post by jgress »

Well the Queen is technically the head of the Church of England, so it stands to reason that she's "in league with" the Anglicans. ;)

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Post by Barbara »

Yes, you are right : what I meant was that QE II as an Anglican would never be remotely pro-Roman Catholic, let alone forge an alliance with the Vatican. Hostility still simmers nearly 500 years after the murder of the great Chancellor, Thomas More. To this day, Anglicans look down on Catholics and Catholics remember painfully all the barbaric persections by the followers of "the new religion" of England of the "old religion".

jgress
Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu 4 March 2010 1:06 pm
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA

Re: RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Post by jgress »

Barbara wrote:

Yes, you are right : what I meant was that QE II as an Anglican would never be remotely pro-Roman Catholic, let alone forge an alliance with the Vatican. Hostility still simmers nearly 500 years after the murder of the great Chancellor, Thomas More. To this day, Anglicans look down on Catholics and Catholics remember painfully all the barbaric persections by the followers of "the new religion" of England of the "old religion".

I do remember some lingering anti-Catholic prejudice in the UK, but honestly I think you'd find more prejudice of that kind among secular, unchurched types than among committed Anglicans. Ecumenism is very popular over there; just look at Prince Charles.

User avatar
Cyprian
Sr Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat 12 November 2005 6:40 am
Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: near Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Post by Cyprian »

Greetings Barbara!

Nice to know that I was missed.

You are perfectly free to quibble with my analysis. I don't mind. Everyone has the freedom to make up their own mind as to what they choose to believe.

But I must be honest, I am unyielding, because my eyes have been opened, and I know better. Of course, there was a time not that many years ago when these things were unknown to me, so I have been there myself and understand why some have a hard time accepting the things I say. But it would be senseless for me to deny what I have come to understand over the last few years.

The queen does not care one whit about Anglicanism, and the Pope does not care one whit about Catholicism.

These types of enmities and antagonisms between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are old world notions, of days gone by, and do not apply to our times any longer.

The Pope is not a Christian, and does not even think of himself as one. He is an unabashed satanist, as is the queen. The Pope is a wolf, in sheep's clothing, and his purpose is to devour the Roman Catholic flock. He is not acting in the interests of Roman Catholics worldwide. He is merely an actor, like all the major role players on the current world stage. He dresses up in costume, and plays the Pope, for the purposes of deceiving his own followers. His purpose is to deliberately undermine the Roman Catholic Church and steer the flock towards the acceptance of Antichrist. He does this knowingly and deliberately.

Same thing for the Queen of England. She doesn't care one whit for Anglicanism. She must, however keep appearances up, just as the Pope has to appear to be Catholic. The British Royal family all style themselves as Jews. This is why Edward Blake's heretical Jerusalem is the unofficial national anthem.

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England's pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

Of course, the film Chariots of Fire (1981) is all about the Antichrist, as was the XXX Olympiad in London. X is the 24th letter of the alphabet, and so XXX or 24 24 24 (2+4) (2+4) (2+4) totals 666.

The Opening Ceremonies of the London Games began with the London Symphony Orchestra playing Nimrod, because Nimrod was a "mighty hunter against the Lord," as well as the king and founder of Babel (Babylon).

Then William Blake's "Jerusalem" was sung, for Jerusalem is Babylon the Great, which then transitioned into "Danny Boy". Danny Boy is a reference to the Antichrist, who is to come from the tribe of Dan.

Another piece of evidence showing that the entire London Olympic ceremonies were dedicated to "Danny Boy" the Antichrist, is that the writer and artistic director of the opening ceremonies was Danny Boyle. "Danny Boy"—"Danny Boy-le". Another Dan, actor Daniel Craig, who plays James Bond, escorted the Queen to the Opening Ceremony. The character James Bond is a type of the Antichrist. There was a lot more that happened in between, like a giant 40 foot tall demonic Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter (who is also named Dan) and the Chariots of Fire bit, because these are both about the Antichrist, but I can only cover so much in one post. The opening ceremonies concluded with former Beatle Paul McCartney singing what tune? "Hey Jude". Of all the songs in the Beatles catalog, they chose this one, because Jude means Jew. The Antichrist is a Jew, so Sir Paul and the entire stadium were serenading the Antichrist, singing "Hey Jew" (i.e. "Hey Jude").

The power and reach of the Illuminati has reached such an extent in recent decades, that no one entity is powerful enough to resist. So the Queen or the Pope are not permitted to act independently of their masters.

Think of the Illuminati as S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in the James Bond novels and films. (The next Bond film will in fact be called Spectre). Think of it as a global cabal, an international mafia.

Think of how a mafia works, or a vicious street gang operates in a neighborhood, but simply on a global scale. This global cabal has unlimited amounts of gold and other resources and the power of the press is in their hands. Their actions have proven that they have no qualms about killing kings, tsars, presidents, and millions of Christians and adherents to other religions. They possess so much power, that no one entity can any longer stand up to them. That is the reality of the situation. So, some, like the earthly kin of the Tsar, take the tact: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and seek to save their life in this world, forfeiting eternal life in the everlasting age to come.

As to the exact time and nature of when the Roman Papacy sold out, or the British Royal Family, or what have you, I am open to hearing others' learned opinions. But I for one, simply cannot accept the notion that the Queen or the Pope or Obama or Putin or the leader of Iran or North Korea has the freedom to act independently. They are all slaves to the Sanhedrin. They either demonstrate their willingness to submit or they will never be raised to positions of prominence in the first place, and if by some strange reason they would be foolish enough to attempt to resist in any way, they will be taken out.

The upper ranks cannot be infiltrated. Before one can be Pope or President or Prime Minister, one must be willing to engage in an ever-increasing selling of one's soul, and demonstrate one's loyalty to the club, otherwise they will not be advanced. Think of the hazing rituals that are associated with joining a fraternity. It's the same thing, only joining the Illuminati involves shameful and unnatural sexual acts including with children, and ritual murder. It's the same for Hollywood superstars. They must be willing to submit to satanic rituals if they want to rise to the top. Hollywood is filled with murderers and satanists, homosexuals and pedophiles. Every major Hollywood film has ritual plans for murder hidden in it. I've documented it hundreds of times.

Others are free to disagree, and see it differently.

tradbulwark
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun 1 February 2015 8:39 pm

Re: RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Post by tradbulwark »

Do not mistake the dead for the living.

Christ is victorious.

Post Reply