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.
User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Re: RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY AND ENGLISH MONARCHY by Vladimir Moss

Post by Jean-Serge »

m. Evfrosinia wrote:

Barbara, it is indeed true that Gytha traveled to Kiev, and married Vladimir Monomakh. Their first son was named Mstislav-Harold, in memory of his grandfather. Not at all a fairy-tale; it's historical fact.

Yes indeed, their son is Saint Mstislav but who was baptized as Theodore...

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

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 »

Oh ! Thank you for the correction, Matushka Evfrosinia. OK.
And Jean-Serge too for adding that bit of information, which I did not know, either !
Live and learn !

As far as the refusal to accept "Cousin Nicky", I still think it was simply low of Georgie to do !
Why on earth, even with recent rebellions, would the English people be infuriated at the acceptance of a fellow monarch to live in
quiet exile ? He may not have remained in England anyway. Probably would have gone somewhere else.
He just needed a foothold abroad, which would give him international legitimacy, as well.

If communists were THAT strong in England, one can hardly imagine the monarchy would have remained at all.
I know they were certainly active. But the masses of the population were pro-royalty, as it was still that era, albeit the end of it.

I remember that a British destroyer WAS sent for Minnie [Empress Marie Feodorovna] and Grand Duke Alexander, his wife, the Tsar's sister
Xenia and others.
She, Xenia, lived her life in unbelievable poverty on a broken-down estate near either Windsor or one of the famous guest houses.

Yes, I am aware about that hasty name change of the dynasty to Windsor, and for example, Mountbatten's change from Battenberg!
He is another case, nauseating if you read recent revelations about his and especially his wife Edwina's life. That is a total aside. Just had to put it in !

Compare this same treatment which was meted by a frightened US State Dept of its INCREDIBLY LOYAL ALLY, the Shah of Iran.
Despicable ! He was refused except for treatment, then quickly sent away like a scurvy dog to roam from Panama, Bahamas, and finally
Egypt. I did not care for Sadat. But at least he was a friend to the Shah when no one else was and invited him to Cairo, where the former
Iranian Imperial Family was treated with honors and respect befitting their station.

But for the tragic Tsar Nicholas, there was no sincere ally. Really TERRIBLE the more you think about it !
This British cold shoulder to the Tsar has ALWAYS annoyed me from my earliest readings of history as a great injustice.

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 »

"And so the English constitutional monarchy is not monarchical in its origins at all, but actually arises from the first successful European revolution against the monarchy..."

And yet, how curious that the British Royal family is the last monarchy still standing. Surely, this did not just happen by accident or chance? Long ago, the British Royal family made a deal with the devil—by joining in league with the Jews. The evil fruit of this union became manifest with the Balfour Declaration, which led to the establishment of the Antichrist Zionist kingdom in Palestine. The Jews wielded their influence over America, bringing her into the war, bailing out the British, in exchange for their long-sought-after homeland. Make no mistake, the re-establishment of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine is not purely a political aim, as some would believe, but in fact is religious (more properly: irreligious) in motivation.

The Russian tsars would not betray the Faith like the Royal House of Great Britain in fact did, and so the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II was abandoned by his earthly kin, and was taken out of the way. "Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it."

The Royal House of Great Britain has long been thoroughly and completely corrupted, is wholly given over in league with the Jews and Papists, and is at the forefront of establishing the final kingdom of Antichrist on earth. All the key players are members of secret societies.

The notion put forth to the public that the British monarchy is completely powerless, and impotent, is a deliberate facade. The British monarchy controls everything behind the scenes. The members of Parliament and the Prime Minister are mere puppets, they do not tell the Queen what to do, it's the other way around. Since the British monarchy is a prime instigator behind the worldwide revolution, and toppling of monarchies, to usher in anarchy, and the final reign of Antichrist, they can't very well appear to be autocratic in their rule, now can they? After all, what's good for the goose (is good for the gander). The masses that foment revolution around the world would eventually direct their brunt right back at the autocratic regime in Britain. So it is in her best interest to appear impotent, while operating in the shadows, to avoid bringing upon themselves the same fate that they are instigating for others.

We would do well to recognize that subversive power does not always dare to wield itself openly, but lurks behind the scenes, to deflect attention. Bill Gates is not the richest person in the world, not even close. That is laughable. The actual richest people in the world do not even get put on lists, for if the public knew how much money these banking houses really controlled, they would be shocked, angry, and revolt, calling for their heads.

Obama does not hold any real power, it is just an illusion. He is a puppet, and does what his masters ask of him. If he tried to resist or rebel against their wishes in any way, he knows he would be taken out very quickly, and easily replaced.

Everything the media spews forth is lies, designed to mislead and deceive. All the Democrats and Republicans are on the same team, and the seeming differences (what little there are) and squabbling are merely a facade and contrived. They are all actors. If anyone is naive enough to believe that they have any real convictions, they are totally deluded.

As for Berezovsky and his notions of returning a monarchy in Russia?

Berezovsky Proposes Prince Harry [Potter] Be Made Russian Monarch
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 56796.html

London exile Boris Berezovsky announced Sunday that under his new Resurrection Movement political party, he would instate a constitutional monarchy in Russia and named Britain's Prince Harry as a candidate for king.

"He has more Russian blood than the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II."

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 »

Sounds like you've been reading Lyndon LaRouche! Anyway I just wanted to quibble over what you said about the British monarchy being the last one standing. This is not true. Other hereditary monarchies include: Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Lesotho, Swaziland, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Brunei, Japan, and Tonga. The Vatican and Andorra are also considered monarchies, though their monarchs do not inherit their positions.

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 »

The British Monarchy is the only one of any real significance still standing in Europe. Most of those others, aside from the Vatican, are insignificant on the world stage. I know of Lyndon LaRouche, but I do not follow him or read his materials.

My views about the plots of the Masons and their preparations to bring forth the Antichrist rather, are culled from the Fathers. A hundred years ago, St. Andronik said France was completely in the hands of the Masons. Vladimir Moss, in the article above, states:
"For it was a band of constitutionalist Masons headed by Guchkov, and supported by the Grand Orient of France and the Great Lodge of England, that plotted the overthrow of the Tsar in the safe haven of the English embassy in St. Petersburg."

Does anyone believe that a full hundred years later, America is not completely in the grip of the Masons?

St. John of Shanghai, in his sermon on the Last Judgment, states: "Those forces that are preparing the appearance of Antichrist will have a leading significance in public life." and, "Before the advent of Antichrist, his appearance is already being prepared in the world. "The mystery is already at work," and the forces preparing his appearance struggle above all against lawful royal authority."

Is there any doubt as to whom this refers to? Does it not refer to the various branches of secret societies under the banner of Freemasonry/Illuminati?

The novels, popular songs, films, television and news programs, and other political, cultural and religious events which play "a leading significance in public life" in recent generations are wholly in the hands of the Masons. I have written about it exhaustively the last couple of years.

Hieromartyr Andronik of Perm (+1918):

"It is not a question of the struggle between two administrative regimes, but of a struggle between faith and unbelief, between Christianity and antichristianity. The ancient antichristian plot, which was begun by those who shouted furiously to Pilate about Jesus Christ: 'Crucify Him, crucify Him: His blood be on us and on our children' - continued in various branches and secret societies. In the 16th century it poured into the special secret antichristian order of the Templars, and in the 18th century it became more definite in the Illuminati, the Rosencrucians and, finally, in Freemasonry it merged into a universal Jewish organization. And now, having gathered strength to the point where France is completely in the hands of the Masons, it - Masonry - already openly persecutes Christianity out of life there. In the end Masonry will be poured out into one man of iniquity, the son of destruction - the Antichrist (II Thessalonians 2). In this resides the solution of the riddle of our most recent freedoms: their aim is the destruction of Christianity in Rus'. That is why what used to be the French word 'liberal', which meant among the Masons a 'generous' contributor to the Masonic aims, and then received the meaning of 'freedom-loving' with regard to questions of faith, has now already passed openly over to antichristianity. In this resides the solution of the riddle of that stubborn battle for control of the school, which is being waged in the zemstvo and the State Duma: if the liberal tendency gains control of the school, the success of antichristianity is guaranteed. In this resides the solution of the riddle of the sympathy of liberals for all kinds of sects in Christianity and non-Christian religions. And the sectarians have not been slumbering - they have now set about attacking the little children... And when your children grow up and enter university - there Milyukov and co. will juggle with the facts and deceive them, teaching them that science has proved man's origin from the apes. And they will really make our children into beasts, with just this difference, that the ape is a humble and obedient animal whereas these men-beasts will be proud, bold, cruel and unclean."

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 »

The Freemasons may have been very influential a century ago, but I don't see evidence of a significant Masonic presence in power today. I had a friend who was a Mason and he told me Masons, in America at least, were generally pretty conservative these days. The people in power have moved beyond Masonry. There is definitely a global elite of politicians and businessmen, but they aren't defined by membership of particular organizations, rather by shared wealth and particular attitudes, mainly social and economic liberalism. That's my opinion, anyway.

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 »

jgress wrote:

The Freemasons may have been very influential a century ago, but I don't see evidence of a significant Masonic presence in power today.

I see evidence of it everywhere, and as I said, I have documented it extensively in my writings the last couple of years. St. Andronik says: "In the end Masonry will be poured out into one man of iniquity, the son of destruction - the Antichrist." We are living in the era of Antichrist, so how can the Masons not be in power, unless you do not accept the teaching of this hieromartyr?

I had a friend who was a Mason and he told me Masons, in America at least, were generally pretty conservative these days.

I wouldn't consider your friend's opinion authoritative. How involved in masonry was he? Was he a high ranking member or did he just march around in his lambskin apron and do some charitable work? Is he a Christian now? Does he believe that he was a Christian at the same time he was a Mason or does he realize now that one cannot serve two masters?

How one chooses to understand "conservative" can vary greatly in our day. Meanings change over time. The media pundits throw this word around in a false context all the time. Many people who they mislabel as "conservative" are anything but.

The people in power have moved beyond Masonry.

Is this your opinion or your friend's? How do either of you know where they have moved on?

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Masons wear sheep's clothing—lambskin aprons—announcing to the world that they are in fact false prophets and ravening wolves. The false prophet "causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast." [Antichrist]

To fail to recognize the grip which Masonry holds over world events in our day is to fail to recognize the signs of the times.

Post Reply