On the Possible Restoration of the Orthodox Monarchy
Introduction: The Fall of a Monarchy
In recent years many Russian and other Orthodox have expressed hopes for the restoration of an Orthodox Monarchy - not any monarchy, but specifically an Orthodox Monarchy - in Russia. Indeed, a Monarchist Party has only recently been founded there.
However, in order to examine if there is any realistic hope of the restoration of the Orthodox Monarchy, in order to see a possible future, we must first look at the past and see what happened to the last Orthodox Monarchy in Russia. In particular, we should examine the absurd myths regarding the last Romanovs. These, as we shall see, are no more than carefully cultivated anti-Russian and self-justifying Western propaganda.
Myth One: Tsar Nicholas
‘Nicholas was weak and indecisive, stupid and stubborn and a blood-soaked tyrant’.
In reality, in order to resist the pressures of spiritually renegade States, like the constitutional monarchies and republics of Western Europe, as well as the jealous opposition and vicious slanders of the Westernised, Russian moneyed classes, Tsar Nicholas required huge strength of character. He cannot be seen as ‘weak and indecisive’, only humble and diplomatic, values despised by the belligerent West. And, in case anyone has forgotten, it was the tribal rivalries of the belligerent West, not Russia, which triggered the First World War. Far from stupid, Tsar Nicholas was a highly cultivated and well-travelled man, who spoke four languages fluently and was a master of his nation’s culture and history. Only the spiritually rebellious West could see his loyalty and faithfulness to Christian ideals in the decadent and barbaric twentieth century as ‘stubbornness’ and ‘tyranny’. Unlike those who opposed him, Tsar Nicholas was far-sighted enough to see the catastrophically tyrannical and blood-soaked alternative which would appear if ever Russia lost its monarchy, the only glue which could hold it together in peace.
Blood-soaked? This is an extraordinary accusation coming from the West, which slaughtered some ten million in the First World War, sent Communism to Russia in a sealed train to slaughter tens of millions there, including Tsar Nicholas and his family, and then slaughtered another fifty million in the Second World War. Firstly, Tsar Nicholas cannot be accused of the hundreds of tragic deaths at the stampede at Khodynka Field at his Coronation. These were the result of the lack of foresight, planning and consequent inability of the authorities to control a crowd of half a million people, which was unexpected and unprecedented. Neither can the Tsar be held responsible for the anti-Russian Japanese War, which was started by a well-armed, militaristic Japan in an act of unexpected and unprovoked Japanese nationalist aggression, very similar to the later attack at Pearl Harbour, against an unprepared Russia.
The hundreds of tragic deaths on Bloody Sunday were not the Tsar’s fault either. He was not in St Petersburg at the time and had no knowledge of the disastrous events which occurred there, when badly-led troops panicked at civil unrest. This was all part of the Western-sponsored 1905 Revolution. As for the pogroms, spontaneous acts of popular xenophobic rioting, and on a far smaller scale than many seem to think, also occurred during Tsar Nicholas’ reign. These took place on the largely Catholic fringes of the Russian Empire, in what is today Poland, the western Ukraine and Moldova. They were condemned by State and the Orthodox Church alike. It is often forgotten by Western-prejudiced historians that the Jews had settled in Eastern Europe because of the massacres which they had faced in Roman Catholic Western Europe and which had driven them to take refuge in safe Eastern Europe. And in no way can the ‘pogroms’ be likened to the systematic massacre of Jews, which the Jews faced forty years later from Nazi Western Europe.
Finally, as for the First World War, the provocations for which Russia had resisted for years, this was a planned act of unbridled German and Austrian aggression. Russia was forced to defend herself, though woefully ill-equipped in terms of infrastructure, logistics and trained armed forces. Russia was a peace-loving and so ill-prepared country, which stood little chance against the well-practised militarism of Germany and Austro-Hungary, and had no intention of starting a War.
Myth Two: Tsarina Alexandra
‘Alexandra was hysterical, mystical, superstitious, neurotic and pro-German’.
In reality, Tsarina Alexandra was a normal Christian mother of her time, though in addition afflicted with the knowledge of her only son’s illness, haemophilia. That this made her nervous and emotional, though not hysterical or neurotic, is hardly surprising, especially given the violent prejudices and slanders against her of jealous and xenophobic atheistic courtiers.
It is true that the atheists from the incredibly decadent and worldly Westernised upper class in St Petersburg found her abnormal (‘mystical’ and ‘superstitious’) in her devout Christian faith and practice. However, in reality, it was the members of the worldly upper class, with their orgies, occult interests, gnostic spiritualism, freemasonry, cocaine addictions, suicide cults and use of hypnosis (later carried on into the emigration) who were abnormal.
It was the courtiers who were anti-Orthodox, lacking in any conscience, not the Tsarina. It must be said that most of the Romanov family, many of whom were practising homosexuals or adulterers (‘selfish’, in the words of Tsar Nicholas) were hardly examples of moral probity either. Tsar Nicholas himself was, on the other hand, a model of probity and by far the best of the whole Romanov family. The fact that he and the Empress Alexandra both smoked is not of significance – it was a perfectly normal custom at that time, whatever we may think of it today.
Tsarina Alexandra had never been ‘pro-German’. In reality, the previously independent House of Hesse, into which she had been born, had been destroyed by tyrannical Prussian militarism, which had by force ‘united’ (in fact, created) Germany. She had always strongly disliked the new Prussianised Germany and especially her cousin, the Emperor Wilhelm.
Myth Three: ‘Rasputin’
‘The starets Gregory Rasputin was a mad and unkillable monk’.
In reality, Gregory Novy - Rasputin was a slanderous nickname - was never a monk, priest or elder (starets). He was merely a married layman, had three children, spent little time outside his Siberian home and was very devout. It is true that at the very end of his life, as the result of money given to this poor peasant by irresponsible aristocrats who toyed with his simplicity, his head was turned and he became increasingly prone to drinking bouts. He had undoubtedly possessed a healing gift, which he seems to have lost at the end of his life. This loss was probably a result of that drinking, which became more and more uncontrolled at the end.
Novy was certainly not mad, but rather a simple peasant, in the end a victim of corrupting money, not a maker of victims. Although nobody would seriously think of Novy as a saint – he had too many faults for that - there is no evidence at all that he was satanic or debauched. These were slanders, still repeated by Western writers, too lazy or unable to read the Russian sources. He was simply a devout Russian peasant with an unusual gift which he used for good, but lost as a result of the fame he acquired and the money showered on him by the irresponsible.
Novy was assassinated by anti-Tsarist aristocrats, prepared and armed by the British Secret Service. It was they who had armed the homosexual aristocrat Yusupov, an Oxford graduate. The British government had always wished to destroy Imperial Russia, which it saw in its paranoia as a threat to the ruthless world domination of British imperialism. During the First World War, it was frightened of Novy’s desire for peace with Germany and the survival of Christian Russia. Romanced stories that Novy had unusual strength and was virtually immortal have two origins. First of all, his killers had laced cakes with cyanide. However, they were so incompetent that they gave him the wrong – untainted – cakes. This is why Novy resisted poison – he never consumed it. Secondly, his aristocratic assassins were so incompetent that the shots they aimed at him went wide and only grazed him. This is why he appeared to them to be able to resist bullets. In fact, he could not, he was just an ordinary man, mortal like anyone else, but immortal like anyone else in the face of badly-aimed bullets.
Essentially, Novy was the victim of the vicious slander (the press in Russia was uncensored and uncontrolled, unlike in the West) of the Westernised aristocrats and growing middle-classes, and the West which supported them against the Tsar. The Russian Revolution of February 1917 had in fact the same origins as the French Revolution – in the moneyed classes which wanted to seize power for themselves. Such, however, was their incompetence that eight months later they lost control of the government in a coup d’etat carried out by a group of Marxist bandits. The moneyed classes responsible for the actual February Revolution were then punished with death and exile by the selfsame Marxists. As for the Western Powers, they too were punished - by the loss of their empires and a second bout of European suicide in Hitler’s War, which would lead to the world domination of the USA.
Conclusion: The Restoration of a Monarchy
The Tsar’s son Alexis suffered from the ‘English disease’, the bleeding of haemophilia, which symbolised the constant drain of support for the Orthodox Monarchy in Russia. If ever the Monarchy is to be restored in Russia, it must have support. Two conditions must be met. These are:
1. An Orthodox Monarchy can only be restored in Russia on popular demand – otherwise a new Tsar will be rejected and led to the slaughter by cowards and traitors, like the last Tsar. The peoples of today’s Russian Federation, and no doubt of other parts of the former Russian Empire, must be worthy of the privilege of an Orthodox Monarchy. Until they understand and accept this, no restoration of the Orthodox Monarchy can take place
2. An Orthodox Monarchy can only be restored in Russia only when there is a suitable candidate to be Tsar. At present, no such candidate is known or visible.
There are several conditional prophecies of saints and elders which relate that Russia may be saved ‘from the East’ and that the Orthodox Monarchy may be restored there, albeit very briefly, just before the end. Nevertheless, it is clear that this is not for now and that until the above two conditions are met, no restoration of the Orthodox Monarchy in Russia is possible.