Crazed leftist Bolsheviks slaughtered these people, "until the floor ran slick with blood." Think about it, there you are, a Red Commie, and what do you see? A woman, her daughters and a man in a basement. You HATE them and stab and hack them to death. This is working class retribution. No, it is satanic hell.
The same devil-possessed persons tore with their nails at the icons and iconostases of Russian churches, like enraged beasts. They hated Christ and his image. They hate him today. They will do all in their power to abolish and destroy his body, the Church, the Mystici Corporis, from the face of the earth.
That in mind, how can Christians in good conscience count themselves as Marxists or Progressives or whatever the hell they're currently passing themselves off as. Cut it out.
Instead, believe in the revealed Word of God and the Faith once delivered by Christ to the Apostles and find life instead of death.
ENDEX,
LSP
12 comments:
And then there are the tens of millions of martyrs made here in the USA under the name of...Abortion.
And the Christian Martrys that Holy Mother Church refuses to acknowledge that die in China, the Middle East and Africa, who are killed for their beliefs.
The Romanovs? Yeah, killed for their beliefs. But they were also awful human being, the parents at least. Along with a lot of the Russian aristocracy. Little to no value over human life. Killed and replaced by a socialist regime that was full of awful human beings with little to no value over human life.
I do feel for the children, stabbed and shot and left for dead, only to be found alive and killed again, and the few good aristocrats. And the 'white' Russians who fled after doing nothing wrong other than not wanting the Reds win, much like the Cubans who fled to mainly Miami during and after the commie revolution there.
Just because someone is nominally a Christian doesn't make their death by non-Christians a martyrdom.
Ah yes, that dichotomy... Funny how many 'think' they are fine with those...
It seems kinda schizo, NFO. OK, maybe worse, apostasy. But what am I saying.
It's devil-driven schizo apostasy.
Very good abortion point, Beans, what a vast sacrifice to Moloch.
The Romanovs?
I feel, with the Russian Church, that they were martyrs, albeit in the same kind of way that HRH Charles I was a martyr. Respect, in passing, to Henrietta Maria.
Now, can we count the Roundhead Puritans et al as proto Bolsheviks? I don't know, but there's an argument to made. And if so, what does that mean for our revolution? Some say, and with some justice, that 1776 is a continuation of the first Civil War, taken overseas. CW 2.0, if you like. Would that make our Civil War CW 3.0?
Hmmm. Again, the argument can be made, but surely Washington and the Founders were represented by the Confederacy, who were notoriously cavaliers. Which muddies the waters. Mind you, the North had that Evangelical puritan thing going on. So.
I won't bang on but please, let's see Christians wake up and stop being shill dupes for the same bolshevism which hates them.
You ever notice that the enemies/victims of the … Bolsheviks are always the worst sort of monsters in human skinsuits? Always. Funny coincidence, that.
Bolsheviks: “the most moral revolutionaries in the world.” Just ask them. They’ll tell you themselves. Also, “we investigated ourselves and found absolutely no wrong doing.”
They are the vomit of society.
Have no problem with listing real martyrs to the cause made martyrs by various dictators and versions of socialism. Not at all. How many religious Poles and Ukrainians were killed because they were Christian? True martyrs. Priests, nuns, regular people. And the middle class, farmers, regular people who were ground to death under the 'progressive' boot.
Did the Romanovs ever acknowledge their openly evil acts against normal Russians? Did they ever truly try to atone for their sins? To acknowledge their sins before God? Yes, very sad, the deaths of the Czar and his family, so sad. Anyways...
Well, Mike, it's all very DOJ conducts an impartial inquiry, eh?
Strong words, Anon! BUt I fear you're being polite.
Beans, as a fellow historian, I was hoping you'd engage the Civil War 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 theory. Hmmmm, I'll post on it another time when I've got the salient facts down and perhaps we can discuss.
The Romanovs? Dam fools, imo, and look where it got 'em.
Bolsheviks? What utter satans.
Bolsheviks were/are Satan's hands on this earth. Along with other collectivist jackanapes and ruffians.
Thing is, the Romanovs wished they had as much power and riches as the elite behind the Dems are. Complete ownership of state security, ability to kill and destroy and force people to commit suicide and the ability to control the minds of some 60 million people directly? That's a wet dream for a Romanov.
The Civil War I'm seeing comparisons of are more of the Spanish variety. The National Socialists of America, like Spain's, are located in the cities. The country folk, unlike Spain's, are very much not any form of socialist. But the differences are the same. Country folk vs City folk.
Our national socialists have control over a lot of businesses and lives all located in, duh, cities. They even go so far as to dress their troops, like 'Antifa,' 'BLM' and 'Proud Boys (Fedboi Division) in similar uniforms while the party elite are dressed in clothes more expensive than Hugo Boss (the guy that designed a lot of actual NAZI uniforms, dontcha know.)
The country folk, on the other hand, dress as they see fit or as they can afford, so, again, like the country folk of Spain. That is, if the country folk were well educated hard working people who just wanted to be left alone while also firmly believing in their rights over the rights of government.
We Americans have already thrown away a lot of what our Founding Fathers wrested from England, which was fought over such things as taxes and tarriffs put on finished goods that were only allowed to be made in England as England saw us as a source of raw materials only, to be shipped to England and sold by England to other countries, thus giving England a huge cut of the traffic.
You know, like a lot of the Casus Belli of the American Civil War of Northern Aggression to free the Slaves and Southern Independence. Because the North saw the South as a source of tax revenue and a source of raw materials only, to be sold to Northern factors to be sold by the North to other countries, thus controlling a huge cut of the profit. And the desire of the North to be the exclusive supplier of finished goods to the South. (Yeah, not getting into the whole slavery thing because the North was extremely complicit in that nasty trade, from supplying the goods to buy slaves, the hulls to ship slaves, the slave hunters to catch wayward slaves in the North yada yada yada. And the Abolitionists who wanted to stop slavery but didn't want ex-slaves to be allowed to stay here in these United States but to ship them 'home' and toss them ashore wherever the captains wanted to, whether there was land under the ex-slaves' feet or not. As not all Abolitionists were pure at heart.)
I'm also looking at the mini-civil war that Woodrow Wilson waged as President against minorities and 'enemies of the state' (many who were just asking questions about what was going on or just wanted to be left alone, you know, much like now....) Said mini-civil war that FDR picked up and reignited against Jews and Republicans and conservatives overall (that particular piece of polio-ridden dogsqueeze never met a 'socialist' (read: leftist oppressive dictatorship) government he didn't want to fellate, or at least give a good hand job to.)
So which Civil War 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, N.0 are you referring to?
God, how much cleaner would American Politics be if dems and leftists would just stop shooting their opponents?
And now that I see you listing RevWar as English Civil War 1.1 - continuing the ECW 1.0. But, no, not really. More a response to the French and Indian War, and an extension of the continued war between England on one side and France and Spain on the other. England saw the Colonies as a vast supplier of raw materials and taxes. France and Spain saw that helping the Colonies would stick it to England, and open the Colonial market to said France and Spain.
Now, the Southern Colonies were often dumping grounds of criminals and political prisoners for the end result of ECW 1.0, and then the dumping ground for criminals and political prisoners for the end result of the Restoration. And that did give some of the southern colonials additional reasons to be peeved with Jolly Olde England.
Part of the ACW-WoNAtFtS-SI was, of course, a response to the schisms that existed during the RevWar between the more, ah, er, puritanical and quakerish Yankees that were oftentimes descendants of the Parliamentarians from the actual ECW 1.0 and the more Church of England/Church of Rome that were oftentimes descendants of the Royalists and Catholics who got kicked by both sides.
And, of course, the use of 'No Slavery' in regards to the ACW-blahblahblah was something that, quite frankly, economically was disappearing in the South and was being perpetuated partly because of the very same economic controls put in place regarding finished goods being sold to or manufactured in the South. Like, oh, say, cotton picking machines which were just coming on-line about the time of... the ACW. If only the North had allowed the South to make their own stuff, or not make the South pay out the nose for stuff produced by the North, well, gee, that would have taken most of the anger and frustration out of the Southerners' snorts and we wouldn't have had the ACWblah.
Post a Comment