The Crimea: Luciferian Conspiracy Against Orthodox Christians

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it!!!

“Perhaps we were on the wrong side way back when we and the French sided with the Turks. Perhaps Istanbul would be Constantinople and the Christians of the Middle East would not be dying in their thousands.”

• Anglican England and Roman Catholic France were aligned with Islam’s sultan-caliph against the Orthodox Christians of Russia
• The Rothschild Family finances the British-French war effort against the Czar
• The Crimean War claimed 800,000 lives
• The results of the Crimean War foreshadow future world events. It is the first direct assault on Russia by the forces of The New World Order
• March 1854: Britain and France formally join Turkey’s war against Russia
• March 2014: Turkey grants US warship permission to enter Black Sea
• The New World Order’s secret war against Christian Leaders and Monarchs worldwide
• Genocide on Orthodox Christians
• 1918: Mysterious “Spanish Flu” kills 50-70 million people worldwide
• Tafari Makonnen (the future Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia) was one of the first Ethiopians who contracted influenza but survived – 5,000 to 10,000 Ethiopians died in Addis Abeba alone
• A number of oddities suggest that the epidemic is in fact the world’s first bioweapon. Was it intended to be used against the Ethiopian nation which just experience triumph in The Battle of Adowaover the invading forces of Illuminati Italy, but somehow backfired and infected the entire world as well?

The Crimea, today described as the “flashpoint” of the Ukraine crisis, was a “flashpoint” in the 19th century that claimed 800,000 lives.

One should not forget. Ottoman Turks and Crimean Tatars were notorious raiders and slave traders. Their atrocious cruelty against the Christian nations of the Crimea & Eastern Europe should never been forgotten. It bewilders me that the Tatars are still allowed to live alongside the Slavic nations of Russia and the Ukraine after the repetitive crimes they’ve committed against them.

One should not forget. The “flashpoints” created by imperial ambitions which erupted so spectacularly during the First World War have not gone away. The beautiful, temperate Crimean peninsula is still strategic territory, giving Russia access to the Black Sea. This is the only way Russia can gain access to Europe by sea, excluding the Baltic, which can easily be blocked by northern powers.

It’s difficult to understand today’s crisis in Crimea without understanding her past, which is why we’ve got to teach history and we’ve got to learn it. Crimea is a holy land for Russians. When you place Crimea in her historic context, it is not at all surprising that she is loyal to Russia and Russia is loyal to her. As historian, Orlando Figes explains, it was in Kheronesos, the ancient Greek city on the south-western coast of Crimea, where Vladimir, Grand Prince of Kiev, was baptized in 988, bringing Christianity to Russia. Clearly this was a strategic decision in itself, because the Crimea sits on the fault line between Christianity and the Islam, the force which Russia set out to defeat.

Constantinople had fallen to the Turks in 1453 and it was the founding myth of the Tsarist state that Moscow was the last remaining capital of Orthodoxy, the “Third Rome.” According to this ideology, which imbued every Tsar until the last one was shot in 1917, it was Russia’s divine mission to liberate Orthodox Christians from the Islamic empire of the Ottomans and restore Constantinople as the seat of Eastern Christianity.

The Economist wrote back in 2010 that the fighting (1853-56) in the then Russian territory of the Crimea was also a “holy war” for each belligerent power. Leaders used religious rhetoric and ordinary soldiers and sailors said their prayers as they tried to make sense of what they were doing. A war in which two Christian countries fighting a third claimed Islam as their ally

That, presumably, is the point Orlando Figes, a historian at Birkbeck College in London, is making with his British subtitle, “The Last Crusade”. His book reveals the strange mixture of meanings the war had for its combatants. He puts the conflict into its broader context: the determination of Britain (and with some reservations, France) to stem Russian expansion and to bolster Islam in its fight with eastern Christianity.

No, that last point is not a mistake. The great historical paradox of the Crimean war—and of the longer-term Russo-Turkish conflict of which it was one episode—is that Anglican England and Roman Catholic France were aligned with Islam’s sultan-caliph against the tsars who saw themselves as the world’s last truly Christian emperors. Above all, the western Christian powers were determined to avoid any reversal of the Muslim conquest of Istanbul: “The Russians shall not have Constantinople” chorused an English music-hall song. (pretty much the same in 2014)

How did the various players in this strange religious game explain themselves to their own pious subjects? For the theocracies of Russia and Turkey, and their God-fearing soldiers, things were fairly straightforward: they were fighting, respectively, for Christianity and Islam.

It was harder, you might think, for the Church of England and the Catholic establishment in France to explain their support of the caliphate. In fact, they found it easy enough to construct the necessary arguments. First, British and French clerics demonized Russian Orthodoxy as a semi-pagan creed. Second, they maintained that in some peculiar way the Ottoman empire was more friendly to its Christian subjects than the tsar was. (The Ottomans tolerated Protestant missionaries, so long as the evangelisers limited their search for souls to Orthodox Christians.)

In the spring of 1854, as the Crimean fighting began in earnest, an Anglican cleric declared that Russian Orthodoxy was as “impure, demoralising, and intolerant as popery itself”. What could be more natural, then, than to team up with Islam and popery to cleanse that terrible impurity? A French newspaper, meanwhile, gave warning that the Russians represented a special menace to all Catholics because “they hope to convert us to their heresy”.

As Mr Figes recalls, the tactical friendship between Western Christians and Ottoman Muslims had its limits. To be sure, British envoys to the Holy Land probably found more in common with lordly Ottoman administrators than with the exuberant faith of Orthodox Christian peasant-pilgrims. But not all Muslim Turks were overjoyed at being embraced, and hailed as Christian-friendly, by Western powers. When in 1856 the sultan yielded to Western pressure and granted Christians some equality, there was a backlash from the Islamic establishment across the empire.

Additional readings:

• Crimea – a Battle of Principalities and Powers

• The Fate of the Caliphate – The Crimean War and Its Aftermath

• The Crimea: NWO Conspiracy Against Orthodox Christians  (1825 – 1918)

__