Tuesday, 17 July 2018

Romanov Execution Centenary

A hundred years ago today, in the early hours of the morning, the presence of the Habsburg Illuminati bloodline in Russia came to an end. Nicholas Romanov, the former Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, was executed along with his entire family. It was a grisly scene in the cellar of Ipatiev House in Russia, where the Church of the Blood in Yekaterinburg now stands. It is dedicated to Nicholas and his family who are Russian Orthodox saints. Nicholas, his wife Alexandra and their five children, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia and Alexei; also a handful of their private staff, were all shot and killed. The youngest girl, Anastasia, survived the shooting because she had the Romanov family jewels sewn into her clothing and this acted as body armour. So she was beaten to death with a stick. The youngest victim, former Prince Alexei, was only thirteen.
Tsar Nicholas II was the last emperor of the Romanov dynasty which had ruled the Russian Empire for over three hundred years. He was forced to abdicate in March 1917 following the Russian Revolution. At first he and his family were kept under house arrest in one of their palaces which were, of course, very comfortable. The "dual power" system at the time, consisting of the union of the soviets and Alexander Kerensky's provisional government, treated the royal prisoners very well; but after the Bolshevik Revolution in October everything changed. The Russian Civil War broke out and so the Tsar's family were moved several times to keep them out of enemy hands. Eventually they were incarcerated in Ipatiev House which was known as "the place of special purpose". In July 1918 the White Army was advancing on Yekaterinburg and this could have resulted in the Romanovs being liberated, which would have been a huge morale boost to the enemy; so Lenin ordered that the Romanovs be executed. After the family were all dead they were taken out of the city and an attempt was made to destroy their bodies; the Bolsheviks wanted the Whites to find absolutely no trace at all of the royal prisoners. The corpses were dismembered, soaked in acid and burned. The remains were then thrown down a flooded mine shaft. The skeletons of the couple and their three oldest children were found in 1979 and they were eventually buried in 1998. The remains of Anastasia and Alexei were found in 2007. The whole family now lies in a crypt at the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg. To certify the identification of Alexei it was necessary to compare his DNA to that of his closest living relative, Prince Philip.

The cold-blooded and pragmatic disposal of the Romanov family still haunts the Russian people today a century after it was done; in fact the full exhumation of the bodies was only politically correct after Mikhail Gorbachev took over as Soviet leader and initiated his Glasnost and Perestroika reforms. Before that the authorities, after the first discovery in 1979, had ordered the evidence thrown back into the mine shaft where they'd been recovered. The full story is told best by Frankin Schaffner's film Nicholas and Alexandra, which includes a brilliant performance by the Doctor Who actor Tom Baker as Rasputin. see: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067483/. The answer you will give to the question of why the Romanovs were killed will depend on your point of view. If you are a Marxist you will say that it was necessary as a tactic in the war, and that the Romanovs were brutal tyrants and so deserved it anyway. If you are an American right-winger you'll probably say that it was an evil thing done by communists because communists are naturally evil per se. What sense does it make to me, a conspiracy theorist? The Romanovs were part of the Illuminati, in fact at the time they were one of the most powerful families in the world, at least among those in the public arena. It also is indisputable that the Russian Revolution was intended and in line with those behind the New World Order; as has been discovered by people like Anthony Sutton and G Edward Griffin, see the background links above and below. The answer lies in the nature of the Illuminati itself. Despite the enormous privilege of being a part of the elite global bloodlines in terms of material wealth, status and political power, the benefits do not necessarily include loyalty. If your own death is required for the wellbeing or advancement of the "Great Work of Ages" then you will be discarded without a qualm. In his book They Cast no Shadows Brian Desborough describes a disturbing scene at a Satanic ritual in which a long term operative within the Satanic network who had carried out numerous ceremonies for the elite was himself seized, bound and placed on the altar by his fellow black magicians. They then killed him with the same fervour that they did their usual innocent victims, see: https://www.amazon.co.uk/They-Cast-Shadows-revisionist-technologies/dp/0595219578. Joining the Illuminati is something of a Faustian bargain. To adapt slightly a quote from the Gospels: "You will gain the world but lose your soul". The Illuminati will give you riches beyond your wildest dreams and everything that goes with it. You will eat every day from golden plates and never again drive anything cheaper than a Rolls Royce. However, in return... you never say "no". Whatever order you are given by your superior within the network, you will carry out immediately and to the letter; regardless of what it is. Another good illustration of this dilemma is the film The Brotherhood of the Bell, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIyndyIX5EQ. As the example of the Romanovs has shown, if it is required of you, you will give up your life. Tsar Nicholas II was a part of the global elite, but he and his loved ones were thrown to the wolves without a moment of hesitation or regret because the necessity of the cause required it. Those who are tempted by a lust for money, success, status and power, and approach the Illuminati in the hope that it will deliver it to them, should consider this carefully before their initiation.

9 comments:

  1. Hi Ben, not sure if I follow. So the Illuminati behind the NWO decided to exterminate the Romanovs who were also Illuminati because it was deemed that world communism was to be the way forward (for whatever reason!). If communism was to become the NWO why did it never become world communism and why did it virtually expire around 1990? Did the Illuminati suddenly decide "oh wait let's try neoliberal global capitalism instead".
    You can see the problem can't you? Once the omnipotent Illuminati decide something it materialises so why couldn't they make world communism happen? Did the Illuminati also invent Karl Marx or was Marx also an Illuminati member?
    Cheers, Tom.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said, Tom.

    Laurence, O.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tom, the answers to your questions are very simple. In order: Yes. Yes. Marx was not an Illuminati member but was used by them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi mate, many thanks for the reply, appreciated. I would have liked something a bit more expansive however. So if you say the illuminati wanted world communism even killing their own (the Romanovs) to achieve it, why couldn't they make that happen? Why would they want world communism, as really its just the same? We're slaves under communism and capitalism so all the same to the Illuminati. However, Global capitalism prevailed which suggests the Illuminati arnt omnipotent does it not, so how are they shaping world events? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Also how come you know all this? Cheers now. Tom

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tom, the more expansive answer is in the background links.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Ben, thanks but those links don't answer my questions. A bespoke answer please. Thanks. T

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tom. I don't understand why those links don't answer your question. Any bespoken answer would be me repeating that info, so you're no more likely to understand that either. So we'll have to leave it there. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ben, where in those links does it explain why the NWO wanted world communism and then changed their mind to global neoliberalism? Those links do not answer this. You can give me a few sentences but really old boy I think it's a tad rude your replying in this manner. Reminds me of going into a bank and asking about something and then they hand me a pile of leaflets! I really thought you went in for the person centred approach which is anti NWO in terms of being impersonal and dehumanising. Perhaps I was wrong old boy. Regards. Tom

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Tom. I'm afraid I don't know the answer. It's a study in progress.

    ReplyDelete