should the tsar and his family have been venerated as saints? personally I see nothing wrong with it but the decision spawned quite a bit of controversy with the russian church. do you see them as saints or at least passion-bearers?
Боже Царя крани
They already are martyrs and canonized
I dont approve of it but Im not in a position to make such determinations
Yes just to piss off the commies
For similar reasons why people aren't clamoring for Louis XVI to be saint. He did not die on account of his faith and made decisions that were disastrous for those who depended on him the most. Of course though I admit I am unaware of the miracles attributed to him and his family
From the remaining Communists maybe but really there's no reason for them to not be venerated as Saints coming from the EOC's perspective as a whole, they were a very faithful and practicing family that got martyred by the Godless and there are several miracles ascribed to them after the family's death.
Only thing he is notorious for in this regard is being shot by Bolsheviks
No Russian m*narch from Peter I deserves to be venerated at all
Orthodox can do what they want, so I have no business commenting. I partly sympathize with the Tsar and his family and prefer his Russia to the later one, but WW1 was full retard and he was partly involved. Even Rasputin the freak knew better.
Sounds like Bolshevik propaganda to me. The Tsar was a devout man and as monarch his position was technically in the church, not the state. He is annointed by a bishop not a public minister. He is accountable to God not to the public.
I’ve heard this argument before but it relies on the assumption that hereditary succession has to be maintained for a monarch to be legitimate. This is not how it worked in Byzantium or even Serbia, where a pig farmer with no noble line was made monarch and his family today is the Serbian royal family. Nicholas was a good man and that’s what makes him a legitimate monarch, regardless of what previous monarchs had done. I agree with you though that Peter I discredited the monarchy.
As for WW1, you’ll find that many lies have been propagated by Bolsheviks just like in the French Revolution. Marie Antoinette did not say “let them eat cake” that was actually propaganda. The Tsar was writing to his cousin Kaiser of Germany attempting to avoid the war, but much power was in the hands of ministers in the Russian empire and it was a difficult situation. Also think about it. You’re president and you are told that war has broken out between major powers in Europe, some of which are your allies. All your advisors are telling you this should be a quick war. There is no 2020 hindsight. Also you’ve got revolutionaries calling for your head if you make a mistake. The press was hostile and Jewish. Put yourself in the mans shoes.
The Tsar actually went to the frontlines and tried to help. Also scholars in Russia now think his abdication is a forgery.
Not every Saint is a monk. There are Orthodox emperors who are sainted. God gives us all different abilities.
this, so much this. Although the case of Byzantium is special, there were a lot of coups and revolutions that happened, but none of them lasted long. In fact the "golden age" of the empire came during the Macedonian dynasty, the longest one. Basil II was a kid when he inherited the throne, and managed to thwart 3 revolutions during his first years as ruler. He then went on to raise the Empire to unprecedented levels of power and prestige (perhaps only second to the times of Constantine).
But yeah, Orthodox tsars are God-anointed, that's why regicide is the worst crime. On the other hand, Nicholas II performed his duties up to the very end, refusing to leave the country when given many opportunities to do so.
Anyone who claims his sainthood is not deserved is probably a commie, jew, or protestant (inb4 what's the difference)
No doubts, winnie the pooh commies
Monarchy is the only form of government compatible with Christianity
>there are several miracles ascribed to them after the family's death.
Monarchy literally ruined my country and plunged it into a centuries of ottoman domination because the retards disputed over succession and divided the country into three kingdoms.
Fudge off with your pseudo-traditionalism. God in 1Samuel disagrees with monarchy, oldest Republic was founded by a literal Saint, Byzantium and Rome were at least de-jure republican where concept of monarchy was an anathema for their worldview (hence why co-emperor was invented, so that imperial title wouldnt be considered to be vacant), Rzeczpostpolitia was a republic, entire Italian peninsula was dotted by republics. Novgorod was a republic until disgusting Muscovites sacked it.
Most of those republics you listed had monarchs anon
>this somehow being equivalent to a republic
You really want to use oligarchic republics as your shining example of democracy working?
1 Samuel is about the Israelites wanting a pagan monarchy exchanging pagan idols. Remember anon Christ is the king of kings explicitly.
Also what are you saying about a saint founding a republic?
Here are some shining republics in history:
Present day America.
Need I go on?
It was. Julius Caesar who wanted to be Rex got stabbed to death. Augustus and his successors were smart enough to not anger public opinion, hence how concept of "princeps" arose and it continued until fall of Constantinople. Hereditarity was NEVER legislated in Roman Empire until its fall 1453 and at least De Jure, Senate still possessed power and approved the election of the Emperor
>this somehow being equivalent to a republic
Learn to read, you moron. Co-Emperor position was invented BECAUSE Hereditary Monarchy could NEVER be established in Byzantium and it was a sneaky way for the Emperors to bypass technicality.
>You really want to use oligarchic republics as your shining example of democracy working?
Who is even talking about democracy? Do you even know how to differentiate between regimes and government forms? Or did you skip that part in school.
>1 Samuel is about the Israelites wanting a pagan monarchy exchanging pagan idols
Nice interpretation of yours. It doesnt mention "pagan" at all, it is clearly talking about monarchy in general and Samuel talked about the obligations to future monarchs without mentioning faganism.
Also, Christ is "king of kings" because there was no familiar word for "President" or similar type of republican rulers by that time. Your literalism is at the verge of protestant autism now.
>Also what are you saying about a saint founding a republic?
San Marino. Google it.
>Here are some shining republics in history:
Here are some shining Monarchies too:
Modern day Spain and Netherlands
Need I go on?
Seriously, the quality of this board has decayed beyond pathetic compared to 2 years ago.
<Seriously, the quality of this board has decayed beyond pathetic compared to 2 years ago.
>butthurt name calling post
>complaining about decline of quality
>monarchy is only hereditary
>republic is different from democracy
>constitutional monarchy is not a republic
>UK monarch has had any power in the last centuries
>modern day Spain is a monarchy
>post-Revolutionary France is a monarchy
>post-WW2 Japan is a monarchy
>Sweden is a present day monarchy
>wants me to do apologetics for Muslim monarchies when topic is about Christian monarchy
>crying about Russia being a meanie
>ignores US conquest of an entire continent
Definitely dealing with a burger here.
>Do you even know how to differentiate between regimes and government forms?
What would your ideal regime be?
>>wants me to do apologetics for Muslim monarchies when topic is about Christian monarchy
Not to mention that even for Muslims republicanism has been a colossal shitshow.
A)I am not an American
B)since you seem to lack basic understanding in political sciences, here are basic division of concepts:
1) Government Forms: Monarchy Vs Republic
2) Regimes: Autocracy-Aristocracy/Oligarchy-Democracy
3I meant France as a whole and yes, this includes the disgusting era of middle ages when french monarchs allied with ottosharts and protestants against Habsburgs
4) I didn't mention Russia in that case at all (although they are trying to wipe out my country out of existence for some time now and held 1/5 of our lands occupied). I specifically referred to monarchs since Peter I who basically held Russian Church in custody after abolishment of Patriarchate and appointing oberprocuror as it's governor.
Maybe you would start working on your reading comprehension and stop showing words down people's throats.
*that disgusting era in middle ages
>Sounds like Bolshevik propaganda to me
Its propaganda to say he was a poor leader? Are you not familiar with his conduct in the Russo Japanese War and the July Crisis? He nor his family did not deserve the fate of falling into the hands of Bolsheviks and were let down by others but I dont see that excusing his consistently poor political decisions.
>The Tsar was a devout man and as monarch his position was technically in the church.
So does being killed for being a tzar in your mind automatically count as a martyrdom?
My ideal regime would be elective dictatorship with three chamber parliament of majoritarian, proportional chambers with third chamber being a holy synod. With weighted voting based on education and contribution to the society, they're employment and so on. Woh Non Christians and ones who won't serve in army being stripped off their voting rights.
With dictator being elected by the parliament I forgot that detail
Also this. WWI issue is one thing that should not be forgotten. It paved the way for the bolshevik revolution too, unfortunately.
Kinda like Papal Conclaves?
More like a hybrid between Roman Republic and stabilized version of Roman Empire during principate without constant coups by Praetorian Guard.
>this includes the disgusting era of middle ages when french monarchs allied with ottosharts and protestants against Habsburgs
When did middle ages become another word for modern era?
Doesn't sound too different from an elective monarchy, to be honest. Your main problem with monarchies is heredity?
>He nor his family did not deserve the fate of falling into the hands of Bolsheviks
That should be He nor his family deserved the fate.
…ok, that part was my idiotic mistake. I should've typed early modern period
And the part where you cannot impeach the ruler if he turns out to be a retard (although with proper voting system, filters and age census for candidates this problem could be minimised).
Though there's also a problem of potential idolisation of a ruler.
>Jesus was a president
No, a president is selected by the masses. A monarch is annointed with holy oil by a bishop. Christ is king. You cannot hold that the Old Testament forbids monarchy and that Christ is described as a king, not a consul or whatever terms there were at the time. Christ spoke Latin and he would be aware of democratic terms but he did not chose them. My kingdom is not of this world He said to Pilate. If Christ is a president who elects Him? Who elects God? That’s blasphemy.
I think you mean the Renaissance.
Another monarchy. Hmmm.
>didnt mention Russia
Yes you did. >>796117
There have been bad monarchs. There have been bad presidents. That’s literally not saying anything.
A government form did not occupy or invade your country.
>respect muh poli sci degree authoritayyyy
>everyone who disagrees with me is uneducated
That's an art epoch
Name one instance when this system actually worked in reality. Besides obscure city states.
Not necessarily. It also refers to political and economic development.
*a monarch is annointed with holy oil*
Pardon I’m phoneposting.
I would repeat what I have wrote about reading comprehension and your childish replies but did you unironically think that Muscovy is same as Russia? And yes,later Russia wasn't paragon of virtue either, bit Grand Duchy of Muscovy by that time was an utter abomination that only grew thanks to deceit and help by Tatars to whom Grand Princes acted like sycophants.
Grow up and start replying without acting like a manchild. Before that I don't see a reason why should I reply to you anymore.
Well, I'm not a great fan of voting because it usually involves exchange of favors, political intrigue and general corruption. I think the risk of getting a feeble-minded monarch such as Charles II is generally overblown, and can be much diminished with modern understanding about how genetics work. There has also been lots of monarchs who abdicated due to being unfit for the job.
In a dictatorship you certainly won't get a retard whatsoever, but there's an increased risk of getting power-hungry psycopaths in office. Impeachment is also generally a political intrigue thing, and I don't think dictatorships handle the matter well.
Hereditary succession is also full of that with murders involved. So no political system is really guaranteed to succeed in eliminating it fully. Humans are fallen and sinful, hence such practices are virtually unavoidable. Nevertheless, that's why I have mentioned census for age as one of the solutions, as with ages, certain urges and attractions to vanity more or less gets diminished. Also weighted working would favour those who actually understand what's good for the country and not vote candidates of the parliament for general promises of solving short term or illusionary problems.
Also, this is why I also included synod as the third chamber. So it could act as a preventive force to such persons to get elected.
You sound super LARPy with your strange enlightenment despotic system and general sperginess / unwillingness to enter in charitable debate.
This is what happens when one studies the new “political science” instead of the classical discipline of history. You’ve spent hours of our time trying to convince us you know history when you haven’t answered any of your errors I rebuked here.>>796150 I understand you must be angry though with your poly sci degree being intellectually and economically useless.
Uttering noises and typing "lel" and "cry most" is neither close charitable nor actual valid rebuking. And nor do I have degree at political sciences and again, your reading comprehension is showing. I mentioned it due to fact that said terminology was part of that sphere, though these are not even thought at universities but at schools. The only "rebuke" that is worth to be replied somewhat is the part of anointment, considering that elected leaders also got that. So operated Byzantium, so operated Poland and every dynasty who's founders were elected and invited to rule (like, let's say, Romanovs about whom this thread actually about). Here's your last (you) for me and see you until you get off from your prelest ride.
Elective monarchy is monarchy. Monarchy doesn’t have to be hereditary. Get. This. Through. Your. Head.
Definitely not. Their "canonization" had nothing to do with the Orthodox notion of sainthood but mostly with Russian's vain imperial dreams. Let alone that pic related was literally the family's "priest". Imagine if every Orthodox (or Catholic) nation start to canonize their politicians and proclaiming them saints. We'll have saint Putin, saint Vucic, saint Trump, saint Merkel etc. And i don't believe that Russians actually venerate the Romanovs to begin with, they must be more popular in the American neo-orthodox community than Russia.
Wasn't Rasputin more like a "doctor" for Alexei's haemophilia than a priest?
He supposedly had magical healing powers and had become like a member of the family. Russian aristocrats believed in all kinds of occult, theosophical bullshit. To proclaim such people as saints is dubious at least.
>they must be more popular in the American neo-orthodox community than Russia
if only you knew…
Hurr durr politicians can’t be saints.
St. Vladimir Christianized a sea of pagans. Tsar Nicholas, like all other Tsars before him from Peter the Great onwards, opened the road to communism. And no, it was not the jews, Russians had already turned away from Christianity exactly because of the way Tsars and the Rusian Church acted. You can say that Tsars from 1700 onwards were responsible for the de-christianization of the Rus, the exact opposite of what Vladimir the Great did.
I knew this would become a mudflinging contest about the Russian monarchy and Peter I. I would just urge you to refer to >>795867 for my answer to that.
St. Vladimir was a pagan before becoming Christian who did some questionable things in his life too. Justinian fought many wars.
If you’re going to believe Bolshevik fake news stories and mythologies, I can’t help you. Dostoevsky literally predicted the revolution not coming from of the behaviour of the tsars but from the wickedness of men and of flawed ideologies like socialism built without God. We are blaming everyone but the Bolsheviks themselves.
The fact that communists found support to the majority of the local population should tell you everything you need to know about the politics of the Tsars. Maybe he was a good man idk, but he was definitely not a Saint. Also the way he was canonized was wrong and not an actual demand of the people (the Church) but of politicians. Tom Hanks is also a good man and Orthodox, should we canonize him too? He can be the patron Saint of actors.
His proposal reminds me of a Christian version of IR Iran and the Supreme Leader. Or alternatively, a USSR-like system with a Synod of Bishops instead of a Politburo.
Justinian gave up a lot of territory to the muslims and put many christians under muslim rule while conquering already christian areas in and around Rome. What's your point about good politicians = saints?
…that happened during Heraclius, century after Justinian. And the major factor for weakening of the Empire was a plague and eruption of a supervolcano in Indonesia (I think) that caused minor climate change and damaged agriculture of the Roman Empire.
There are several instances for what you can criticize Justinian (anecdota by Procopius of Caesarea provides a lot for this, though it's really, really biased and unjust towards Justinian mostly due to personal grudges), but giving up territories isn't one of those.
**local urban population. Peasants liked the tsar
Heraclius actually went and destroyed the sassanids. But he went because Justinian gave up land (although my mistake, not to the muslims but to Zoroastrians). Heraclius was forced to combat the empire and he destroyed it, which weakened the empire enough to give rise to the Muslim invaders from the arabian peninsula. but my point still stands.
it's always the freemason cosmopolitans that winnie the pooh shit up
…Heraclius wasn't after Justinian. And he never have up any territories at all. Territories started to decade during his son Justin II but not to mazdans by to the Lombards. And again, that's mainly because of the plague that devastated the population and depleted the empire's manpower
Tom Hanks wasn’t put to death by Bolsheviks and he didn’t have one inkling of the burden Nicholas had.
The Bolsheviks were total rabble rousers who exploited a wartime situation to spread fake news. Popular yet deceiving demagogues have always existed since before Barrabas and the Pharisees.
Could the revolution have been caused by Jacob Schiff and other American Jews who sent billions to the Bolsheviks to agitate? This was the black lives matter demagogue (Soros funded) movement of their day.
Most Russian Orthodox honour St Nicholas II.
I’m just saying look at other emperors / political leaders who are Orthoo saints.
Dude, Heraclius ruled in 600's Justinian in 500's..
Martyrs are people who were killed because of their Christian faith and those are who we venerate as Saints, Romanovs aren't martyrs. Also the bolsheviks restored the Russian patriarchate which Tsar Nicholas and his predecessors had abolished so they can act as the head of the church themselves. In a way, bolsheviks did more for the Russian church than the Tsars ever did.
And for Christ's sake how can we have a Saint that was associated with Rasputin in any way? What kind of a saint can't tell the difference between a priest and an occultist? If Orthodox Saints can consult magicians, then how will you tell the laymen not to?
Ever heard of St Boniface? I never saw a saint lie drunk in the streets on a regular basis.
>The republic sperg is back
>He's now claiming King of Kings was a crypto-republican title because muh linguistic limits, even though the Judeans were aware of republicanism as early as the Maccabean period
>He also appears to be a Ukrainian
>Muh Tsars are at fault for communism, even though the ideology only exists due to Enlightenment philosophers and their obsession with Injuns
This is somehow worse than the 'No King but Christ' goofs in Anarchist circles.
Another point of note is the final Byzantine-Sassanid war, which IIRC, was instigated by Jews. It had to do with the merchants 'acquiring' the True Cross. Or at least that's how I remember it.
Justinian should have stopped after Africa. The conquest of Italy was a mess and a waste of resources.
Even then, I recall the Bolsheviks struggling enough with gaining support that they instituted forced labour and banned strikes (thus, in a grand irony, depriving the proletariat of rights they'd enjoyed under the Tsar) to keep the show running during the Civil War.
Off-topic, but I feel obliged to remind everyone that the claim of the Sovok turning Russia from 'backwards and feudal' to an industrial superpower is a lie and a cheap justification for atrocities. Modern analysis affirms this.
>Bolsheviks restored the Patriarchate
Tikhon was enthroned with no involvement from the Reds whatsoever (the council that oversaw his enthronement was convened in August 1917, and had initially been planned for 1906). This is flagrant historical revisionism.
Dude, you are comparing people who lived in an extremely dangerous pagan enviroment with the supposedly head of the Russian Church? Nicholas was a Tsar, he lived in luxury and was born and raised Christian, St. Boniface lived among saxon cannibals in the 7th century.
Tikhon found an opportunity to be elected for a short time period exactly because the Tsar had lost his power, but commies took over right after that and abolished the Patriarchy again. Then Stalin restored it back at 1941. But the Tsars never restored the Patriarchy nonetheless.
i'm not comparing their characters, i'm refuting your claim that the sins of the past discredit sainthood.
Also the commies didn't take over right after the tsar abdicated, and tikhon wasn't installed by commies. Tikhon was elected 3 days *after* the commies took over in *Petrograd*. Stalin restored it because there was no way russia would survive without them believing in God.
But you have to also keep in mind the era they lived in and their enviroment. Constantine was a born and raised pagan, ruler of an almighty, anri-Christian, empire who converted to Christianity and stopped the persecutions. You can't compare him to Tsar Nicholas who was born and raised Christian and already the head of the Church in a Christian nation.
>head of the church in a Christian nation
he wasn't the pope yknow. Also, why are we talking about Constantine?
Don't you know that Tsars, starting by Peter the Great, were the head of the Russian Church and there was no Patriarch? Nicholas was too.
I gave an example of a Christian emperor that can actually be called Saint.
if you can show me where it's written that they were the head of the church I would appreciate that. I know that the synod was the highest authority and under the civil jurisdiction of the tsars, but they weren't the official head of the church like the (technically not even the patriarch) is.
When you abolish the Patriarchy and create a synod of buraeucrats and bishops whom you appoind to rule the church, you're the de facto head of the church. I've read that the Tsars were also head of the Church, Anglican style, but i can't find a source now.
Russian Orthodox Church canonised basically every Christian martyr of Bolshevik persecution as a saint. The Tsar did not get special treatment if that’s what you’re implying. They were canonised as one big bunch and rightfully so.
Stalin set up a puppet church which was largely ignored as it was compromised with informers, but the early Bolsheviks were even more horrible, smashing icons, raping nuns, putting Christians to death left and right. Even in the late Soviet Union they would put patrols on the street to make sure no one young was allowed to go to church only the old. Also they would prohibit Christian burial services. It was not a good time for the church but there was an underground church.
This is the kind of yellow journalism the Jews did in Russia. Rasputin was this, he was that, he was an occultist. It’s like the yellow journalism that goes on today about Dugins supposed influence on Putin. Rasputins influence was minor, and those making allegations about him can never provide specifics.
Also the Tsar’s abdication was probably forged to demoralize the Russian army still fighting. It wasn’t done on the official imperial standard and Nicholas was a stickler for protocol.
If Trump can end the persecution of Christians in America, and convert to Christianity, he can be a saint.
As for the Tsar, he was martyred by commies.
Martyr in the ecclesiological language is someone who is killed because he refused to deny Christ. It comes from the Greek word Martys, meaning witness. Seculars also use the term to describe those who died for their political ideology or cause. Tsar Nicholas was a martyr in the secular sense. His canonization was also for secular reasons.
Rasputin is yellow journalism? They literally killed his because of the influence he had in the Romanov family.
No we won't. There're already a bunch of celebrities that have converted to Orthodoxy and some are even doing some serious charity work. We won't canonize any of them because sainthood doen't work like that in Orthodoxy. Also the Tsar wasn't martyred.
>Hereditary succession is also full of that with murders involved.
Not really, no. Almost all regicides in the last 500 years, especially in Christian monarchies, were perpetrated by revolutionaries or other political radicals, not by someone in the royal court. Take a look at the "List of Regicides" section of the Wikipedia article if you wish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regicide).
That risk is way too overblown because it is a recurring trope in fiction, from the works of Shakespeare to normie stuff like Game of Thrones.
It's not about solely kings, but potential heirs also.
Passion-bearers yes, saints no.
Once again… almost all those martyred by the Bolsheviks were canonised saints. Russian Church outside Russia canonised them as not just passion bearers but martyrs. Moscow Patriarchate canonised them too in 2000 as just passion bearers.
Also Nicholas wasn’t asked to deny Christ because the revolutionaries just wanted him dead so that isn’t really a fair critique. Monarchs are anointed with holy oil because they are protectors of the church, their position is in the church.
To be consistent if you deny Nicholas IIs sainthood you must also deny most of the other new martyrs. And Nicholas II suffered equally to them through this Bolshevik barbarism.
I don't know if someone made a specific research on heirs, but I'd wager it's a similar picture.
>Also Nicholas wasn’t asked to deny Christ because the revolutionaries just wanted him dead so that isn’t really a fair critique
But that's what a martyr litarally means. If anything, is the man who was killed because of his faith. I repeat, this is the meaning of the word in the Orthodox church, seculars give it another meaning and Russia gave the title of martyr to Tsar Nicholas in the secular sense because he was canonized for secular reasons.
>To be consistent if you deny Nicholas IIs sainthood you must also deny most of the other new martyrs
No if they are martyrs. In the ecclesiological sense of course not the secular one.
>he doesn't know that passion-bearers is not a separate "order" of sainthood like the catholics have
How come Tzar Alexander isnt a Saint considering his assassination?
The Duma provisional government (sworn enemies of the Tsar) set up a commission in which they established from the evidence availiable that Rasputin was completely above the board. He was not a sex crazed lunatic or occultist. Kerensky and the high commission admitted there was no substance to anything being said in the press about him. The enemies of the Tsar needed a character to create to discredit the popular Nicholas since the cowards could not attack him directly. Rasputin wanted to go home and didn’t care for palace life, all he did was give some peasant alternative medicines to the Empress. The royalist press was outlawed by liberal administrators at that time so this yellow journalism was allowed to spread like wildfire. It was basically the “Russia hacked the election” of its day.
>Set up a commission in which they established from the evidence availiable that Rasputin was completely above the board
Source on this?
So you're saying that Rasputin was a perfectly fine Russian monk that was discredited by the press? Because i'm reading that the holy synod frequently accused him for his practises but through his connections to the royal family he could move and deflock the bishops who opposed him according to his will. And eventually, he was killed by royalists because of the influence he had to the Romanovs, not enemies of the Tsar. Probably many of the stories about him are exaggerations indeed but he was definitely not an Orthodox and not a real priest.
Not that Rasputin is the only reason i'm opposed to the canonization of Tsar Nicholas but the reason and the way he was canonized is not Orthodox. The practise to canonize your public figures comes from the Catholic influence to the Russian church ever since the reforms of Peter the Great.
Public or private, Tsar Nicholas was canonised with a large group of new martyrs, common and noble born alike. It had nothing to do with him being a public or popular figure.
The Provisional Government's “Emergency Investigation Committee for Misuses of Former Ministers and other Chief Executives” (EIC) was convened to discover all the evils of the royalist regime and they admittedly found absolutely nothing. One of the people they totally exonerated from any wrongdoing was Rasputin. They actually interviewed people around the Romanovs and couldn’t find anything that he had done wrong. This was all affirmed by the attorney general under oath. They found the Tsarist government had applied the highest ethical standards in their governance. Remember this is from the Kerensky, a known Freemason, government. Sworn enemies of the Tsar.
This + he was killed by a known gay person, knyaz Yusupov at his house. Not saying that Rasputin was a holy person, or someone special, and did not exert too much influence on the tsar, but what >>797157 said + the fact that he was killed by a gay freemason must say something about him.
Faggots and Malevolent people killing eachother is not something new.
The Tsar told his supporters not to avenge him as two wrongs don’t make a right.
What does it have to do with the Tsar.
I'm speaking of "faggots and Malevolent people" as one category. a faggot killing a faggot doesn't make he latter not faggot
The idea that the Tsar was malevolent is Bolshevik propaganda. There’s nothing to support it. I could provide piles of evidence… but modern brainwashing is just too strong.
Rasputin was literally a nobody. He just wanted to go home to Siberia. He had no political agenda as the EIC established, the only attempt to actually get into the facts of what happened rather than just yellow journalism and gossip. He received no bribes or rewards of note. He was a healer who helped the tsars son and wife with peasant medicine, that is all.
Apparently facts and evidence are too hard for some people on here. They just want to gobble up uncritically anything they are told fifth hand.
Can't you bloody read? I. Am. Not. Talking. About. Nicolas. Here. I was talking in regards of Rasputin.