In Part 1 of this series, we asked the question rather directly what Rasputin was up to, and then we discovered that the answer was "a whole lotta disturbing stuff". Quite a bit of the activity Rasputin was involved in is accounted for by the fact that his religious conversion experience was in Roman Catholicism as per a vision of the virgin. The fact that the virgin did not, evidently, promote virginal thoughts in Rasputin is evident by the historical documentation of his exploits with women. Yet, something of a virginal nature was present because we also discovered that Rasputin would go and perform penitence after these encounters having defined sin and forgiveness in relation to one another. This dualistic belief, however, is a false one and we know it to be so since the admonishment to "go forth and sin no more" can be found in the Bible with a bit of searching.
Why was Rasputin holding this belief? We know that the Whore of Babylon has a certain way that it tends to mock the belief of those who are genuine. Nicholas was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church which uses the Apostle Andrew as its founder. Andrew, it is said, was crucified on a cross but not bound. Some people believe that cross to be like the one YHSVH was crucified upon, while others maintain that it was an X shaped cross. The X shaped idea comes much later in time. Both of these stories contain the idea that Andrew was BOUND and not nailed to the cross. Andrew, also, it will be noted, is a Greek name--not Hebrew.1
Though Nicholas the II was not part of the traditional Roman empire, he was part of the Roman Network of Churches that the Russian Orthodox church also was with--the head of the network in Constantinople (not Rome) as placed by Constantine. There were schisms concerning the Eastern and Western Roman Churches which created gaps and divisions. Indeed, the title Tsar meant "Cesar" and so the Roman influence could be felt.2
So, Rasputin has a vision of the Virgin of Rome, and Nicholas has the title of Tsar which means Cesar which is inherently Roman. Somewhere in the interaction between the Tsar and his family and Rasputin, we find Rasputin to be "whoring himself out" where he is literally having sex with pretty much every woman he can find. Yet, at the same time, it appears that Rasputin has "healing abilities" or else "hypnotic abilities" which may be one and the same. The problem, of course, is that Rasputin is using these abilities mostly for his self-aggrandizement. Nonetheless, I conjecture that Rasputin was holding whether willingly or unwillingly the sins of those he came into contact with--behaviors that others may have been either doing or ignoring his ego became a mirror for. Indeed, there are precedents for this sort of belief that may have been what Rasputin was doing:
Rasputin is summoned to the Tsar's palace and brought before Alexei. Rasputin startles Nicholas and Alexandra by asking Alexei about his leg, despite neither of them having told him of Alexei's affliction. Rasputin soothes Alexei with images of sailing whilst he places his hand on the boy's leg. Rasputin limps away, causing Alexandra to believe he has absorbed Alexei's pain into his own body. Nicholas asks Rasputin how he knew about Alexei's leg, and Rasputin responds that the Virgin Mary told him and sent him to heal Alexei; Nicholas remains skeptical.
The next morning, Alexei awakens in perfect health and proclaims that Rasputin has healed him with magic. Dr. Botkin insists that it was a treatment he started using on Alexei the week before. Alexandra visits Rasputin to thank him. Rasputin questions Alexandra's faith in God, placing the blame for Alexei's disease on her weak prayers. Alexandra asks that Rasputin move in with the family and gives him his own chamber in the palace.3
How much that particular account is fictionalized or is not is, interestingly, not relevant at the mystical level. It simply establishes that someone else also thought of the mechanism which is all we need to establish here. The doctrine then, that Rasputin was holding at least somewhat was a Nicolaitan sort of doctrine--that a continual forgiveness must be accrued and penitence must continually be done for each new sin instead of "sinning no more". This, of course, is also recognized as the foundation for confession. So, one could conclude that in an extreme version Rasputin was holding the sins of the Roman Catholic Church's roots where the "whoring out" of the forgiving of sins was involved and he was doing it pretty hard:
The Russian State archives revealed the Okhrana (Tsarist Secret Police) surveillance activity on Rasputin from Jan. 1, 1915, up to Feb. 10, 1916. It shows a pattern of drinking, parties and orgies with men and women (aka social leaders) into all hours of the night. Bringing “a guitar player” to these events is a nice touch.4
This, in turn, created a dialog where Nicholas the II was skeptical and also unsupportive of Rasputin's "whoring lifestyle" and so created a judgment. Since that judgment was a direct reflection of his own environment, it created a problem which spread out through the kingship into Russia itself. No one was penitent. Not Rasputin, although he was pointing the way toward it, not Nicholas in the sense of challenging his perceptions, not his wife in the sense that she desired that her own children would survive, even if the means to that end came through a vessel as odd as Rasputin. Could she even trust that Rasputin would not do something sexually strange with the kids if he was already doing questionable things? Of course, the fact she overlooked and trusted he would not, or we assume she did, is probably to her credit since she did not judge him on that particular point. Spiritual judgment always falls harshly on those who claim they are sorry but then act contrary to that sorry: relevant pop culture. Eventually, one betrays the nature of the apology.
World War I eventually breaks out in this sequence of events. The microcosm of the interaction between Rasputin and Nicholas II spreads into the world. Rasputin attempts to make peace with Russia and Germany in the conflict. In this, he backs the "wrong horse":
Some writers – including Oleg Shishkin, Andrew Cook,Richard Cullen, and Michael Smith – have suggested that agents of the British Secret Intelligence Service (BSIS) were involved in Rasputin's assassination. According to this theory, British agents were concerned that Rasputin was urging the tsar to make a separate peace with Germany, which would allow Germany to concentrate its military efforts on the Western Front.The theory suggests, in other words, that British agents played an active role in Rasputin's assassination in order to keep Russia in the war and force Germany to keep defending the Eastern Front. While there are several variants of this theory, in general they suggest that British intelligence agents under the command of Samuel Hoare, and in particular Oswald Rayner – who had attended Oxford University with Yusopov – were directly involved in planning and carrying out the assassination, or that Rayner had personally shot Rasputin.5
Why is he backing the "wrong horse"? For one thing, the Saxons, which were Germany, were the seat of many of the aforementioned masonic and otherwise recondite esoteric institutions who may well have "leaned" on the black hand to start the war. On the other hand, though, Rasputin had already foreseen his death and made predictions concerning the future of Russia on the basis of those occurrences. Why did not Rasputin figure out another way that did not involve his death? Perhaps he believed it to be fate or perhaps he saw himself as a judgment tool. We will have to examine the implications of that more in Part 3.