Strategy Going Forward Regarding the Presidency and the National Government

      The U.S. Capitol building has finally been breached by civilians. This comes after very disappointing showings for minor parties in the 2020 elections, as compared to previous elections.

     And after two consecutive presidential elections in which the two nominees of the major political parties could be described as the two most hated people in politics, maybe even in the entire country. And that all came after decades upon decades of abuse of the Constitution and the people, by the two major parties, and the president, and the Congress, while the Supreme Court lets it all fly.

     How did things get so bad? And where do we go from here? Perhaps most importantly, why aren't  more people calling for the abolition of the presidency, the two major parties, and/or the national government altogether?

     Think about Switzerland for a moment. Switzerland is currently headed by a Federal Council of seven members, one of whom has the title of President of Switzerland or President of the Swiss Confederation. However, that position is regarded as "first among equals", and has no powers over the other six members of the Federal Council.

     So why can't a country with such a strong anti-monarchy history as ours, and similar values to that of Switzerland (namely, limited government, and, before World War I, neutrality) manage to do something about the unlimited power of the unitary executive?

     One way is to elect a Congress that will stop handing over its authorities - and handing over the people's freedoms and property - to the executive branch, without cause. But this article will focus on another way; directly amending the constitutional processes regarding the way the president is elected, and the way the Congress is composed (that is, constituted).

     If there's any chance at getting a reasonable president – one who's not a tool of either of the major parties, and one who's neither a child molester nor a racist, nor someone who gasses protesters and immigrants – then that person will have to either be an independent, or else represent minor parties.

     Or, if not that, then they must appear to do both. [Note: As an example, Jesse Ventura was nominated by the Green Party of Alaska, while remaining more or less an independent, by refraining from actively campaigning.]

     Howie Hawkins controversially gained the Green Party's nomination after receiving the nomination of the Socialist Workers' Party. This was a problem for many Green Party supporters, especially supporters of Dario Hunter, because the Green Party's nomination of Howie Hawkins actually violated the Green Party's bylaws, because a person who has already been nominated by another party cannot run as a Green.

     This is why it is important to not only find a viable candidate, not representing either of the two major parties, to become president; but also to find a way for that person to be nominated by two or more minor parties. That can only be achieved through minor parties working together as much as the law will allow them to, and through working together to eliminate and reduce the barriers to ballot access.

     I believe that that is one of the few ways a minor party candidate could get enough public attention to win the White House.

     There are probably very few ways left, for a reasonable, stable, or even somewhat limited government – with limited powers of the executive branch – to replace the current state of tyranny. That is why I want to encourage minor parties (commonly referred to as “third parties”) to talk to each other, and to have an exchange of ideas.

     I believe that the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, for example, have a lot more in common than most of us have been led to believe. They both support non-violence and decentralization, and responsibility, and they both oppose unfunded wars.

     [Note: I have commented before, in greater detail, regarding what the Greens and Libertarians have in common. That information can be viewed in the infographic which I published in October 2020, which is available at the following link: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-do-green-party-and-libertarian.html]

     That is a huge start right there, in addition to their mutual support of changes to election laws which would be helpful to parties which are struggling to grow.

     One electoral strategy in third party politics which may prove helpful, would be to urge members of one small party to visit the meetings of another, or maybe even multiple other parties (if there are that many parties active in your county, that is). Once small parties' members are visiting each other's meetings, they will begin to notice what they have in common.

     The most easily noticeable factors will, of course, be their mutual disdain of the Democratic and Republican parties, and of the laws which they have set up- especially the election laws – and the history of their attempts to exclude third parties from the ballot with or without just cause.

     Minor parties should work together as much as they legally can. This varies state by state, so each small party's state chapters should do whatever they can to make sure that their members know whether they will encounter legal barriers to collecting signatures for candidates running for the nominations of more than just a single party. Small parties should also continue to work with each other to file lawsuits challenging mutual obstacles to their ballot access.

     Another strategy which might be effective, would unfortunately require all but one small parties to be humble. This strategy consists of having each party in a coalition, change its bylaws to not only allow the nomination of a presidential candidate whom has already been nominated by another party in the same election, but to go further, and all nominate the same candidate. For example, the Green Party, the various socialist parties, and the other minor parties, would nominate Jo Jorgensen, the nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2020.

     If that were legal, and it happened, then most or all supporters of third parties, would vote for the third party presidential nominee who is either: 1) the most popular by sheer number of supporters; 2) the candidate capable of receiving the nomination from the highest number of minor parties; and/or 3) the third party presidential nominee who seems most determined to improve conditions for minor parties, their members, and independent and disenfranchised voters.

     This suggestion may seem unfair to all small parties except the most successful in a given election, but I will stress again that this should only be done after the parties' bylaws are changed via the properly prescribed processes. Additionally, I am only advocating that this coordination be done for the presidential and vice-presidential ticket. I would not expect state chapters of minor parties to nominate slates of candidates for state-level positions, only to urge their members to vote for the nominees of another party.

     What I am saying is that the minor parties should combine their efforts on the national level – and behave more like a single party, only on the national level – for the sake of efficiency. But at the same time, they should continue competing, as much as they please, for control over their respective states. I say this, in part, because the Constitution (i.e., the 10^th Amendment) is designed to allow states to be somewhat different from one another, while the national government is more likely to settle near the political middle. So it would not take too much fundamental change to the law for this strategy to work.

     I think of the Green Party as “radical progressives”; ones whom are less likely to disappoint us than factions of the corrupt Democratic Party, such as the Progressive Caucus, the Justice Democrats, and the Democratic Socialists of America (D.S.A.). That's why what the Greens and Libertarians have in common, should serve as a solid foundation, going forward, to build the “Progressive-Libertarian Alliance”, for which I and others have been calling for going on 14 years now.

     [Note: I have written about the Progressive-Libertarian Alliance previously; for example, in the following articles on social libertarianism, health insurance policy and free markets:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-social-libertarianism.html

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/08/crafting-health-insurance-law.html

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/11/critique-of-idea-that-we-have-free.html]

     I believe that building this alliance, and increasing communication and collaboration between small parties, will do wonders to help achieve the type of alliance against fascism and endless unfunded war, which the people of the United States (whether on the left or on the right) so sorely need.

     Coordinated minor party strategy, going forward, should include information-sharing regarding which states will allow protest votes in the Electoral College in the next presidential election. This will help officials and delegates of the state chapters of minor parties be prepared to tell voters in the state that their electors are either bound or unbound. Few people seemed to notice that six electoral college votes were cast in 2016 for candidates other than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The fact that nearly half the states do not punish protest votes, could be a strategy to win the presidency. It would require an enormous level of coordination, however, and it would also face a lot of criticism by Democrats and other people supporting the principle of “one man, one vote”.

     Minor party strategy should also include additional proposals to make elections fairer and more inclusive while making it easier for a third party presidential nominee to win the Electoral College. Additionally, strategy should include changes to the national government; especially those which could affect or change the way presidential elections are run, in a way that benefits parties which have historically been excluded from the process.

     While Maine and Nebraska remain the only states which use proportional allocation of their electors, more than a dozen states still allow protest votes. Also, many majority-Democratic states have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, joining which obligates a state legislature to pledge all of its electors to whomever won the popular vote for president in that state. So in a way, the states are drifting apart when it comes to whether the popular vote is what matters most in a presidential election.

     Fortunately, however, there is a way to resolve this: Add more states. In 2020, Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang published an infographic to his website which stated that his position on states' rights is to add more states. The reason why adding more states could help, is because it could reduce conflict between states who allocate their electors differently. If the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico became states, for example, then there would be four new U.S. Senators, most of them probably from the Democratic Party. But the addition of those states could potentially stand to benefit Republicans and right-wingers in a way, too; because more states would mean more state governors, and (potentially) more state sovereignty over issues not explicitly delegated to the national government.

     And, of course, any and all new states would be free to join, or not join, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So the addition of more states, in principle, would not necessarily benefit one party or another (even though, as the facts of history stand right now, it would benefit the Democratic Party more than the Republicans, at least in the short term).

     Considering that the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all have populations of more than 60,000 inhabitants, these commonwealths and territories should all remain free to hold referenda regarding whether they would like to become the 51^st, 52^nd states, etc..

     As per the Constitution's provisions, until the 2020 Census shows us whether American Samoa and/or the Northern Mariana Islands have surpassed 60,000 inhabitants, those aforementioned four territories are all free to join the Union, while the other territories with smaller populations are not. But even if those four places became states, that would still leave about a million Americans without representation in either the House, the Senate, or the Electoral College (although several territories do have primaries).

     This is why I believe that a constitutional amendment should be passed, which would allow special accommodations to be made in the Constitution, which will allow all Americans not represented by a state, to band together as a single state, for the purposes of representation in the Senate and House. Perhaps the “state” could be called “Outlying Territories” and abbreviated “O.L.”, and have its own star on the flag. Perhaps not.

     In all likelihood, creating five new states and achieving representation for the outlying territories, would most likely result in the two senators and one or two representatives from that jurisdiction, being ethnically Samoan or from the Northern Mariana Islands. It's also likely that, from time to time, one would be white, while the other are Micronesian.

     If you're asking “Who cares about American Samoa?”, then instead, you should be asking “Why do people in American Samoa pay taxes, but don't get represented in Congress? Isn't that taxation without representation? Didn't the Founders fight the American Revolution to get rid of taxation without representation?”

     This is not just about Samoa. This is about all Americans living outside the protection of states, of whom there are nearly five million. Americans living in all jurisdictions deserve congressional representation if they want it.

     And we should keep in mind that most proposed changes to the number of senators and representatives, would affect the size of the Electoral College. That is why reforms to the Congress and the presidential election process should be considered in tandem with one another.

     As I explained above, minor parties should talk to each other, and see what they have in common. Then, they should draft platforms together, based on what they agree upon.

     As many third parties as are willing, should draft a joint declaration – delivered to the media and to the various state and national Secretary of State's offices - saying that they intend to support reforms to the Congress, and to the presidential election process. Additionally, that they will support more ranked-choice voting; in local, state, and national races alike, and in primaries as well as general elections.

     Additionally, if enough parties can be convinced to support parliamentarism, they should declare that they intend to support changes to the government which will make it resemble a parliamentary system, featuring coalition-building and party-list systems. This would not necessarily require the abolition of the Senate, however; but the abolition of the Senate should remain on the table for consideration.

     If most minor parties agree that curtailing the representation of states to the national government, by abolishing the Senate, is what is necessary to increase the power of the people (as represented by their legislators in the House of Representatives), then they should pursue making the whole Congress into a single people's house, and announce their intention to do so, through legislation or lawsuits or whatever means.

     This is not to say, however, that one and two are the only acceptable numbers of chambers of the national legislature. Americans should consider adding a body of legislators, just as they consider removing the Senate.

     Adding a third house of legislators to the Congress, becomes an especially interesting prospect, when we consider that dual power and bioregionalism could be useful tools in dismantling the violence of the authoritarian and imperialist state.

     Dual power is the use of trustworthy alternative institutions of political representation, to challenge existing political structures while existing alongside them, and to inject competition for legitimacy into politics and law.

     The most famous example is the use of dual power by the Soviets, the workers' councils in the U.S.S.R.. Between February and October 1917, the soviets competed for legitimacy against the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament. The Duma, itself, was put together as a sort of dual power organization to try to challenge the absolute sovereignty of the Tsar. Of course, the Duma had little power, and was created with the Tsar's permission (under some pressure from advisors) and while recognizing his absolute power. But the fact that the Duma had little power was why it became necessary to create yet another organ of political representation, in the Soviets. These were councils primarily composed of workers, peasants, and veterans. After Lenin arrived in Russia from Switzerland, he yelled “All power to the Soviets”, and the workers' soviets' competition for legitimacy against the Duma grew ever fiercer. Eventually, the provisional government of Aleksandr Kerensky was overthrown, the Tsar and his family were executed, and and the soviet system took hold.

     Knowing this, it does not take much imagination to think about how a new body of legislators could be added to the national government. One would simply have to be added, without any other body losing its power or being replaced (as the Duma lost its power).

     So imagine, if you will, that both the House and Senate were to continue to exist, while a new chamber of lawmakers – a Chamber of Environmental Legislators - became the third body. I developed this idea after speaking to a farmer named Johnny whom I met in Oregon. Johnny told me that he believed that populations of people are overrepresented in Congress, in comparison to how much the land is being represented (which is not at all). The U.S. senators kind of represent the land, but really they represent the interests of the state's people, since they're popularly elected. Before the 17^th Amendment, senators more or less represented state legislatures more than they represented the states' people. But the point is, the land is unrepresented in Congress, either by the House or by the Senate.

     You might be thinking, “The land isn't represented in Congress because it isn't human.” That's true. But the land is alive. There are entire sections of land area covered by giant mushrooms. Every square inch of soil is covered in living organisms, which could not survive without the soil. Living things and their environments are not separable.

     So why shouldn't the Congress make sure that a body of environmental lawyers have some say in what laws are passed? In my opinion, a body of environmental lawyers - primarily concerned with our ability to live in harmony with nature and survive in good health, and giving less regard to the needs of consumers and industrial producers - should have the ability to vote against, and maybe even veto, any legislation proposed by Congress which could negatively affect our health or the health of the ecology (or both).

     That is why I support the use of dual power and bioregionalism in tandem with one another.

     Bioregionalism would involve the erasure of old borders, and the establishment of new political boundaries where mountain ranges already exist. This turns watersheds and river valleys – the largest natural geographical unit of human civilization – into the new “states”. This arrangement would give each river valley or watershed the ability to fine-tune its legal needs, and its environmental legislation needs, to the scientific facts of the ecology in the area which is unique to that area alone.

     To reject bioregionalism is to say that a central government should be free to trample upon locality's environmental laws without any special or expert knowledge about the physical needs of the people and land which are trying to thrive in that locality. Bioregionalism would give localities – but not the existing states, which are often tyrannical and support pollution – the power to protect the people and the environment, when the central government and the E.P.A. refuse to do so.

     Moreover, bioregionalism and dual power could be pursued at the same time, by saying that the states should be replaced by bioregional governments. Also, by saying that, as a consequence of bioregionalism, U.S. Senators should either be replaced by a body of environmental legislators, representing those bioregionalist “states”; or else that body should be created as a third chamber, while the Senate continues to represent the people who elected them.

     Either way, instituting bioregionalism would almost certainly have to entail fundamental change of the Senate. If each senator represented a new bioregion, for example, we would have to figure out whether it is fair that each watershed – which are different sizes, and have different populations – would have two U.S. Senators. Essentially, without major reform of the Senate, we would have the same electoral problems in the Congress and Electoral College as we do now, but with an extra body. That would make things more complicated, but it would also present an opportunity to sort things out and streamline government to make it simpler.

     [Note: Please click on the following links to learn more about my opinions on, and proposals for, bioregionalism:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/cascadia-proposal.html

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/09/ten-reasons-to-consider-bioregionalism.html]

     Almost needless to say, eliminating unnecessary houses should never be taken off the table.

     But additionally, to compensate for problems that this might cause, a new body of legislators would probably require the reduction of the number of people currently serving as national legislators (535). Unless, of course, you're in the camp that believes that the constitutional provision that each representative have no more than 30,000 constituents, should never have been repealed.

     But that would only be affordable if legislators would agree to be paid a pittance; not just compared to how much congressmen are paid today, but also compared to the average worker. Since it is not likely that lawmakers would accept such a small amount of compensation, perhaps it is best that we (through the Congress) reduce congressional pay to zero, so that the only people left making the law, are the people who genuinely want to engage in public service and do not want to receive anything in return.

     Some argue that paying congressmen nothing could result in more demand for bribes, but that way of thinking just rationalizes and excuses corruption. Congressmen should be compensated based on how well they did; they should be paid according to performance. If they are paid at the beginning of their term, then there is no incentive for them to be on their best behavior, and no punishment for being derelict in their duties.

     The role of “representative” must also be reformed into the role of a delegate; one who votes the way the constituents order him to, as opposed to the way he personally thinks he should vote. In The State and Revolution, Vladimir Lenin promoted the delegate system, saying that all delegates should be subject to recall elections whenever the people demand it. I agree with Lenin on that point.

     Maybe there's a place for both! The House could be composed of delegates, while the Senate would be composed of people voting on their principles; or the other way around. But the crucial thing is that the House and Senate operate differently from one another, and operate independently (as they are now; they are allowed to make their own rules regarding how they will run and conduct their business).

     It is important that they are different, because without this difference, competition for legitimacy might exist, but the contrast between the competitors is not as stark. Where there is no real difference between the legislative bodies which are competing for legitimacy, real dual power is not being used or pursued.

     If the House is composed of delegates, and the Senate is not, then the people should be able to figure out pretty quickly which chamber is doing the right thing more often than the other. And that discernment will allow us to develop the organs of political control until society becomes more organized with minimal inconvenience to the freedom enjoyed by the people.

     If bioregionalism proves an ineffective strategy for achieving dual power – and competition against the existing legislature – then communal autonomy, or a confederation of communities, should be attempted as another dual power strategy.

     If you look at a county map of Virginia, you will see that most cities in the state are not part of the counties which surround them; the cities' metropolitan areas have their own counties. I would like to see more states allow and encourage urban and rural areas to separate, and allow the creation and splitting of counties. This, and increased county home rule status, will help increase the degree of autonomy over legislative affairs which is currently experienced by counties, cities, and towns. The more autonomous each locality is, the more the country begins to resemble a loosely confederated network of city-states (as it was in ancient Greece).

     If communities were to regain their autonomy, and band together, then they could do several interesting things.

     The communities could demand that a third house of Congress be created, with cities, towns, and/or counties being what's represented, as opposed to people (or land). This would create a political situation which is called “triple federalism”, in which the national government, the state governments, and the local governments, coordinate their efforts to some degree, but also have duly-delegated exclusive spheres of influence, in which the more and less central levels of government may not meddle.

     Another thing the cities and towns could do, would be to combine by territory, and secede from their existing states. Yet another would be to declare that only local governments are legitimately constituted, and that the states and the national government are not. If successful, this would allow the cities and towns to create entirely new states, or bioregions, in place of the old ones, whose legitimacy they would have invalidated.

     Bioregionalism could be a path to dual power, but it could also be a path to Land Value Taxation. The promotion of the creation of bioregions, should always be done alongside the study of Henry George's Single Tax on the non-improvement of land, as a way to achieve a greater focus on ecological affairs, and on the needs of the land and the people for each other.

     Before a reform as radical as bioregionalism can happen, however, it seems appropriate that we take a few “last shots” at reclaiming our republic.

     For one, the people should attempt to convene an Article V constitutional convention, as long as doing so will not risk the disappearance of any one, or all, of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

     Additionally, if the people want national legislation on environment, energy, retirement, welfare, or health, then they should pursue constitutional amendments, to achieve these reforms as permanent changes that cannot easily be dismantled by presidents and governors, as opposed to their remaining more temporary programs.

     Also, I have proposed a seventeen-step set of instructions as to how I think it would be most appropriate, and constitutionally legitimate, to pursue the formal, legal abolition of the national government. That article can be read at the following link:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/10/abolishing-federal-government-and.html

     Independents, disaffected people, and minor party supporters, should increase their communication and collaboration, study Georgism and Mutualism and post-scarcity economics, and promote bioregionalism and dual power alongside (or as) reforms to the presidential election process and the Congress. These are the areas of study, in which it will be necessary for minor party supporters and political independents to engage (and develop, and find areas of agreement), if policies palatable to all anti-authoritarian people and groups are to succeed, and the imperialist state is to be defeated.

     Once that occurs, and a voluntary society is achieved, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left must be built – to build a path from a libertarian society to an anarchist one – and fraternity and peace should be promoted among all people wishing to live without violence, hierarchy, and arbitrary authority.

     In my opinion, the only viable alternative to a free society, in a world running out of time and clean air and bees and fish, is sweeping, radical, transformative change; but one which occurs formally, in the context of the rule of law, and which keeps within the strictures outlined in the Constitution. If the Constitution cannot accommodate such swift changes (which, I believe, have not been tried hard enough), then it is only appropriate that the Constitution itself be repealed, or at least that the ban on ex-post facto laws be amended or repealed.

     But I do not believe that we are so far gone already, to the point that those are our only options. Amending the Constitution is still not being tried. Greater coordination and cooperation between minor parties can still be attempted. And it should. Or else our country might not be able to survive retaining its current form and style of government for much longer.

Based on a post published on December 27^th, 2020

Edited and expanded on January 8^th  and 17th, 2021

Originally published on January 8^th, 2021

Socialism and Capitalism Are Compatible Because They Are Economic Systems, Not Political Systems

     Socialism - just like capitalism - is an economic system, not a political system.

     Sure, there's a popular perception out there, that socialism and capitalism each imply a certain political system to go along with them. Most people believe that socialism requires a centrally planned economy, while capitalism requires a "minimal government" to regulate fraud in the market and protect people's property. But that is not necessarily so.
     In this essay, I will explain why socialism does not require centralism, nor strict controls, and why it can be achieved without political action; and I will also explain why the fact that socialism and capitalism are economic systems - rather than political systems - means that they are incompatible. I will also explain under what conditions they are compatible, and the ramifications of synthesizing them both with and without the guidance of the state.

     Nearly every economic system which has been proposed - socialism, capitalism, and others - have both anarchist and statist variations. For example, some socialist and communist turn out totalitarian and quasi-fascistic (usually because they adopt central economic planning, and then resort to political repression, privacy invasion, and social controls to enforce the laws which that economic planning requires).

     But when governments operate in the favor of capitalists - that is, the owners of land, loans, capital, and enterprises - capitalism resorts to political repression, privacy invasion, and social controls, every bit as often as corrupt socialist governments do. Oligarchy is the statist variant of capitalism, while anarcho-capitalism, Agorism, and market-anarchism are some of the anarchist variants of capitalism.

     While some socialist regimes do end up "totalitarian communist", socialism has anarchist variants just like capitalists do. These include anarcho-syndicalism - including its "autonomist" tendency - as well as anarcho-communism, libertarian Marxism, libertarian socialism, and others. Those schools of socialist thought value maximizing local autonomy and worker autonomy; and promoting mass individual and collective ownership of the tools and machines which masses of propertyless people depend on in order to survive.

     Libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, therefore, support not central planning (which free-marketers despise), but decentralized, polycentric planning. This should be enough to satisfy free-marketers' economic and financial concerns about socialism, because polycentric economic planning of society is much less economically risky than centralized economic planning is. Decentralized planning of the economy helps the people organize production (including its ecological impacts) in a manner which is suitable for the area and environment which they live in, know well, and depend on directly for survival.

     Decentralized planning would require much less political repression in order to enforce, because it would adopt the original principle behind the federalist form of government, which valued deferring as many matters as possible to the most local level of government competent enough to handle them. This principle expresses itself in the form of several political ideas; namely localism, subsidiarism, dual federalism and triple federalism, "polyarchy", and others.

    Lenin explained that his goal was to have social planning of economic production; any "government" which would exist after the abolition of the current state should be created by and subject to the will of the regional governments, just like the original idea behind the American system. Additionally, such a government would not primarily be for social control, but for the planning of economic production by the whole of society in communication with one another. Lenin wanted for the Soviet Union the same sort of delineation between central and regional duties which the Americans originally had; he just had different ideas about which issues which level of government ought to regulate.

     Communism is the political system which most socialists - especially Marxists - believe that socialism implies. Many capitalists are aware of this fact too. But what most capitalists, and some socialists, don't know, is that socialism doesn't always lead to communism, socialism does not always lead to a totalitarian regime, and communism is not totalitarian.

   Socialism doesn't always lead to communism; sometimes it leads to fascism. I would warn capitalist critics of socialism that they cannot claim "socialism always leads to communism" without accidentally admitting that socialism doesn't lead to fascism. And the idea that socialism leads to fascism tends to be an important part of the capitalist critique of socialism.

     Moreover, communism is not totalitarian, because Marx originally envisioned the end goal of socialism and communism to be "pure communism" or "free communism". Thus, communism is not only compatible with freedom; it has freedom - and the full abolition of the state - as its main goals. Pure communism, or free communism, aims for the eventual full abolition of the state, and along with it, the borders which the states establishes and protects, and the money which the state creates and issues. Additionally, the abolition of the class repression and social hierarchy,  which are created by the citizen/"illegal" distinction and the rich/poor distinction which those border and monetary systems create.
     The goal of free communism is to create a stateless, borderless, moneyless society, which would have no need for the state, nor its borders, nor its currency, nor anything else it creates and establishes.

     That is not very far-off from the goals of radical libertarians, market-anarchists, and "anarcho-capitalists", who support abolishing the state and its monopoly on the issuance of currency. That's why anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are compatible. But only if the state and its economic interventions are fully abolished, and permanently; and "ancoms" and "ancaps" can compete for resources and legitimacy in a truly free, stateless, "free market" for alternative proposals to reorganize the economy.

     Communist and capitalist compromise is not without barriers and stumbling blocks, though; free communism would feature no government protection of private property whatsoever, and the only way a capitalist can get on board with that idea is if he is an anarcho-capitalist. This is to say that he must oppose not only state action to help protect property, but also the use of violence by anyone in order to protect property. In a free society, we would change each other's behavior through peaceful conversation and instruction, not through violent repression.

     Socialists and communists of all kinds, just as well as most supporters of free enterprise, oppose fascism and Nazism. That matters because fascism is intrinsically much more likely than socialism and capitalism to require statist intervention, violent enforcement, and central economic planning, in order to exist. It's not that "anarcho-fascist" systems haven't been proposed, however; "National-Anarchism" advocates non-violent "voluntary segregation" in order to avoid the need for statism, imperialism, and centralism, which they staunchly oppose.

     But the vast majority of people with racial supremacist and fascist ideologies, do support the state, do appeal to the state for legitimacy, and do resort to enlisting the help of violent government enforcement arms to protect their often dubious property claims. On the other hand, that is not to say that they won't resort to violence, or even violent revolution, in order to get what they want; the Spanish fascists' overthrowing of the legitimately elected social-anarchist government in the 1930s proves that.

     Fascism requires a strict hierarchy and high centralization of power in order to enforce its economic policy. The fascist economic policy is "dirigism", which etymologically refers to the government's direction of the economy. Under Nazism, for example, just like social and political issues, economic issues were subverted to the Fuhrerprinzip; the idea that the whole society should be organized so as to prioritize the needs of the Fuhrer (that is, the leader or "father" of the country). The need for military hierarchy under Hitler was used to justify the government's economic needs, and social repression was used to make it easier to enforce them.

     At the turn of the twentieth century, socialists such as Charles Maurras and Georges Sorel - as well as "war socialists" in the Russian Duma who supported World War I but rejected wholly dissolving the monarchy's power - began to articulate visions of socialism which required such strict enforcement of "labor discipline" (essentially, strict controls on workers and their production) that it bordered on fascism. This was typically justified by the supposed need for more strictly enforced and organized production during a wartime economy, in which resources must be prioritized so as to support the military's capability of defending itself. Not the "Fuhrer", mind you, but the country's defense capabilities. That tends to be what causes honest, reform-minded, progressive socialism to veer off-course and turn fascistic.

     The point being - to reiterate - socialism doesn't always lead to communism, because socialism sometimes leads to fascism. It doesn't always, but socialism - and fascist regimes parading as socialists - can turn fascist. Hitler was a fascist parading as a socialist. Mussolini was socialist as a youth, but became a fascist later in life. With the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, Stalin made himself look like a fascist by tricking Hitler into thinking he was going to give him everything he wanted. Franklin D. Roosevelt worked with Stalin, and imprisoned over a hundred thousand Japanese-American citizens who did nothing wrong, and at the end of his presidency wrote a letter decrying the selling out of the American people to foreign banking and business interests (which he helped facilitate).
     Socialism and fascism do go together sometimes. But that means that socialism doesn't always lead to communism. Because socialism can lead to fascism too.

     To be perfectly honest, in my opinion, it's entirely possible that the American presidential office could come to be occupied by a socialist or socialist-influenced candidate, and it could go off-course and end up fascist.
     I think that because I know that Bernie Sanders has voted for numerous military involvements in Africa and the Middle East - in at least nine countries - over his last 25 years in office. I am reluctant to support him for president - as "less bad" than Trump as that would be - because of those votes, and because I'm worried that he would dismantle American imperialism much more slowly than it needs to be dismantled.
     Based on what I've observed, instead of justifying the need for socialism on the need for military spending (as the "war socialists" did), "democratic socialists" like Sanders tend to excuse "a little" violent imperialist conquest, in order to placate the military-industrial complex lobbyists. I suspect that some self-described progressives and democratic socialists view this as necessary because they know that those lobbyists influence politicians so much, that the people can't strike a deal for a decent social safety net, unless the military and countless businesses are subsidized and supported (and rescued from bankruptcy time and time again) by taxpayers; such that there's a "balance" between warfare and welfare.

     The idea that these people are "democratic socialists" should bring shame to real socialists who value peace, and it does. Real socialists, who value freedom, support peace in all cases; they only support war against fascists and ultra-nationalists. Real "free communists" would never justify social control - nor political repression, nor the use of violence (except in self-defense) - in order to achieve either socialist economic goals or sufficient support of the need for collective defense. Thus, a self-described "communist" who supports any form of military spending, aggression, money, borders, or class distinctions, is an "impure" communist by the standards of Orthodox Marxists.

     The people of the Paris Commune took up arms, and bore them in public. Modern Libertarians and Marxists alike criticize Ronald Reagan for repressing the Black Panthers for insisting on being armed in public. The divide between libertarians and the far-left thus seems to be shrinking.
     Many radical Marxists now realize that the right to be armed in public is valuable, because they know that it is necessary for the most vulnerable people in our society to defend themselves, when the tools of social and racial oppression against them are deadly. There were even murmurs of "Tenth Amendment solutions" - that is, states' rights, Jeffersonian nullification, and "devolving" federal duties to the states - in some Democratic circles in early 2017. Andrew Yang is running for president as a Democrat, yet has a noticeable libertarian following.

     Some communists and socialists are coming around to libertarian ideas; while others are not. The opposite is true as well; many American libertarians are realizing that capitalism isn't working, and are turning to ideas like "free market anti-capitalism" and "markets, not capitalism" for answers and solutions. Once convinced that totally free markets imply statelessness while capitalism too often relies on subsidies from the state, many of these libertarians turn to quasi-socialist economic theories like Georgism and Mutualism for additional answers. From there, it's a short leap to stateless forms of socialism and communism.
     The reason why I am one of these libertarians - that is, one whom is interested in socialism, and not afraid of communism - is because I know socialism and capitalism do not always have to result in some certain political system, with certain modes of oppression. They are economic systems, which can be mixed, especially in an environment which is free of the state, and free of its repressive social and economic agenda (which further its aims of control and centralization of power).
     Additionally, I know that classical liberals were grouped together with leftists in the late 19th century French parliament, and that the original "libertarians" were the late 19th century and early 20th century European social anarchists.
     Democrats, socialists, and communists do not need to be rejected and maligned by libertarians, nor threatened to be thrown out of a helicopter. Democracy is not harmful if it is consensus-based, and has a concern for the minorities' rights and the right to opt-out and dissent. Any and all democrats, socialists, and communists who care about these things, and local needs - as well as individual human rights; such as our needs for social freedom and to defend ourselves, and our needs as workers to own the machines on which we depend on for survival -  should be considered potential friends of libertarians.
     That's because those leftists value what libertarians care about most: diminishing the ability of the centralized state to use violent enforcement to control our society and our economy without the consultation of the local population. They might have slightly different reasons for doing that at times, but Agorist Wally Conger explains in his book Agorist Class Theory that radical libertarians basically want to achieve the same goals as Marx did, but through different means and methods.
     This might help explain why Ron Paul was called a "communist" by some Republicans (mostly for his non-interventionist foreign policy); it's because libertarians and socialists are that strongly opposed to fascism, that to a Republican, they are difficult to distinguish (especially on issues related to the use of the state and military, and their violence, to give preferential treatment to one economic system or another, especially when that system is fascism).
     For all these reasons, and more, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists should not be at each other's throats, claiming that each other's economic system always leads to fascism, while denying what they themselves did to allow that to happen by setting a bad example. To the contrary; ancoms and ancaps should be working together to build a new and better economy, based on the freedom-minded ideals which they determine, through negotiation, that they have in common.

     There is a way to reconcile capitalism and socialism, after all, without it leading to fascism. The way to do that is to refuse to rely on the state to moderate, arbitrate, or supervise such negotiations.

     The time for more communication across economic schools of thought is now. I encourage my readers to read about, and study, alternative economic proposals and systems, especially the anarchist and libertarian varieties. Especially - for the purposes of this essay - Mutualism, market socialism, Georgism, Geo-Libertarianism, panarchy, and anarchism of the "autonomist" and "platformist" varieties. Additionally, economic theories which reject the need for left-vs.-right systemization, such as gift economies, "post-scarcity economics" and "post-scarcity economics" and related topics.
     The dispute between minarchists (advocates of minimum government) and anarchists, is unnecessary; the minimum amount of government is zero. Just think about how much taxpayer money the government would save, if it did nothing at all.

Written on August 28th, 2019

Originally published on August 28th, 2019
under the title "Socialism is Compatible with Capitalism
Because They Are Economic Systems, Not Political Systems"

Why Some Believe Anastasia Survived, and Other Strange Facts About the Romanovs and Rasputin

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Historical Inaccuracies in the Animated Film and Musical
III. Strange Facts About Rasputin and the Romanovs
IV. Tracking-Down Anastasia's Remains
V. Conclusion
VI. Sources

Content

I. Introduction

     On Saturday, August 3rd, 2019, I visited the Overture Center in Madison, Wisconsin, to see the musical Anastasia. The musical tells a fictionalized account of the life of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanov of Russia (1901-1918), and takes place mostly after the princess's death (i.e., the late 1920s).

     More details about the musical can be accessed at the following websites:

     http://anastasiathemusical.com/broadway/

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_(musical)

     Just like the 1997 animated film from Fox Studios on which it was based (also called Anastasia), the musical blends Anastasia's real-life story with the accounts of alleged "impostors" who claimed to be Anastasia, and claimed that she survived the assassination of Tsar Nicholas II's family on July 17th, 1918. The most notable of such "impostors" was Anna Anderson (1896-1984), who was evidently an escaped Polish mental patient, real name Franziska Schanzkowska.

     Unfortunately, the musical Anastasia - just like the Fox cartoon which inspired it and its new songs - omits the character Rasputin completely. Gone from the musical are the real-life "mad monk" Grigori Rasputin (1869-1916); his fictional bat sidekick Bartok (voiced by Hank Azaria in the 1997 film); the terror-inducing magick spells they cast together; and the Rasputin character's haunting song "In the Dark of the Night". No Rasputin, no Bartok, and no mention of occult spirituality whatsoever.
     Of course, the audience should have no reason to expect that this Anastasia musical - which is geared mostly towards children and their parents - would continue to include Rasputin, with his terrifying image and piercing stare. It would give children nightmares.
     Although the audience should appreciate that the new musical prominently includes mention of the Soviet Communist regime which took over Russia after the Tsar was forced to abdicate, something was certainly lost from the story, in replacing Rasputin as the main villain, with a Soviet officer named Gleb. What was lost, in leaving Rasputin out, was some of the historical accuracy of the story.
     But once again, the audience should have no reason to expect that this musical be perfectly historically accurate, based (as it were) on an admittedly fictionalized account of Anastasia's life, blended with the life stories of impostors. However, the fact that the Anastasia story, as represented in popular culture, is getting less and less historically accurate as the years go on, presents us with an opportunity to set the records straight about Rasputin, Anastasia, her father the Tsar, and the circumstances surrounding their deaths.
     In this article, I will explain why some people still believe that Anastasia could have survived the assassination attempt of July 1918, by examining the facts surrounding the whereabouts of the remains of Anastasia and her sisters. I will also explain which historical facts the 1997 Anastasia animated film got wrong; and I will additionally note several facts about Rasputin and the Romanovs which most accounts - historical and fictional alike - omit from the story.


II. Historical Inaccuracies in the Animated Film and Musical

     It should go without saying that Rasputin didn't have a bat sidekick, as he did in the 1997 Fox animated film Anastasia. But more importantly, the first several minutes of the 1997 film contain several inaccuracies which conflict with the historical facts surrounding how and when the Romanov dynasty came to be replaced by the Soviet Communist regime of Vladimir Lenin (Ulyanov).
     The film begins in 1916 at a grand ball, wherein the Romanov dynasty is celebrating 300 years on the throne. However, the Romanov dynasty actually celebrated its 300-year anniversary, not in 1916, but in February 1913, three years earlier. The 1997 film placed that ball in 1916 in order to get the event closer to the death of Rasputin, and closer to the date when the Tsar was forced to abdicate the throne (March 15th, 1917). This was likely done in order to condense the plot, and to prevent the film from being too long.
     The 1997 film also shows the entire Romanov family being chased out of the imperial palace (called Tsarskoye Selo) after Rasputin curses Nicholas's family in an act of revenge for banishing him from the palace. Rasputin is shown placing a curse on the Romanov line, and hordes of Russian civilians are shown storming the palace. Next, the whole family - Anastasia, her grandmother, and the rest - are forced to flee Tsarskoye Selo, with Anastasia's paternal grandmother (the Empress Dowager Marie Feodorovna) telling Anastasia that they will meet again in Paris.
     Nothing about the preceding paragraph could be further from the truth; because: 1) Rasputin did not curse the family; 2) Romanov rule was not replaced by Communist rule anywhere near as quickly, nor directly, as portrayed in the film; and 3) Russians never stormed the royal family's palace.

     First of all, Rasputin did not place a "curse" on Tsar Nicholas II and his family and line. The idea that Rasputin placed a curse on the family, comes from the fact that Rasputin wrote a letter to Tsarina Alix (Alexandra, the Tsar's wife) in which Rasputin predicted that he would be murdered. That letter read in part, "if it was your relations who have wrought my death, then none of your children will remain alive for more than two years". An alternate translation of the letter reads, "If I am killed by common men, you and your children will rule Russia for centuries to come; if I am killed by one of your stock, you and your family will be killed by the Russian people!" While this could be interpreted as a warning to the family that they urge each other not to kill him, there is no historical evidence which suggests Rasputin intended this as a curse rather than merely a prediction. Additionally, Rasputin was correct; his assassin was a Romanov prince (Felix Youssoupov, also spelled Yusupov), and the Romanovs were assassinated on July 17th, 1918, just over a year and a half after the death of Rasputin (on December 30th, 1916).

     Second, the Romanovs were not kicked out of the palace by Russian civilians. As explained above, Tsar Nicholas (1868-1918) was forced to abdicate on March 15th, 1917; while Lenin did not take power until the day after the October Revolution (on November 7th, 1917, in the New Style Gregorian calendar), several months later. After the Tsar's abdication, and before Lenin took power on November 8th (as Chairman of the Councils of People's Commissars of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic), Alexander Kerensky held the reins of power. From July to October 1917, Kerensky (1881-1970) served as Minister-Chairman of the Russian Provisional Government, which took over in the Tsar's stead, following the February Revolution of 1917 which resulted in the Tsar's abdication.
     Third, the October Revolution took place with little bloodshed - and no rushing of the palace by Russian civilians - occuring overnight, through a series of discreet murders of palace guards, and replacement of those guards by Bolshevik sympathizers. Thus, the idea that Lenin and the Bolsheviks directly and immediately replaced the Romanovs as rulers of Russia, is completely false, because it ignores that transition period between February/March and October/November 1917, and omits Kerensky, the Duma, and the Provisional Government from the narrative.
     Additionally, and problematically, the plot of the 1997 film Anastasia (as well as the new musical which is based on it) seems to imply that the Romanovs were chased out of the palace by Bolsheviks, and that most of the Romanovs (except Anastasia and her grandmother) were murdered instantly. That did not happen. Tsar Nicholas abdicated on behalf of himself and his son Alexei, the family was non-violently ordered to leave the palace, and they were sent into exile, eventually ending up in the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg.The Ipatiev House was known as the "House of Special Purpose"; the Romanovs spent their last 78 days alive there, where they were eventually murdered nearly a year and a half after Nicholas's abdication.

     The plots of the film and musical also seem to imply that the Romanovs were driven out of the palace with Rasputin chasing after them. This did not happen, could not have happened (given the timelines), and is nothing more than a flight of fictional fancy and poetic license. In the opening scene of the 1997 film, the Tsar tells Rasputin "You are a traitor, get out!" when Rasputin returns to the palace after being banished. But there is little evidence to suggest that the Tsar had anywhere near that much antipathy for Rasputin. Both the Tsar and his wife Alix referred to Rasputin as "our friend", and considered him a trusted spiritual advisor and confidant. Hoping to cool-down tensions regarding Rasputin, the Tsar temporarily exiled him in 1911-12 (sending him on a pilgrimage to Ukraine, Istanbul, and the Holy Land), but the Tsar only sent Rasputin into permanent exile after being pressured to do so by members of his family and the royal court. Those people felt that Rasputin's presence was disruptive,, and threatened to weaken the already rapidly decreasing stability of Romanov rule.
     In fact, the Tsar was so skeptical about the idea that Rasputin's influence was negative, that when other members of the Romanov family sent Nicholas a letter demanding that he break ties with Rasputin, the Tsar forwarded the letter to his wife instead of responding to it, warning her that members of their family were conspiring against the couple and their friend. Additionally, in 1911, an Russian Orthodox priest, Iliodor, was even defrocked for conspiring against Rasputin. Even after Rasputin became suspected of having an affair with the Tsarina (while the Tsar was away running Russia's involvement in World War I) - and even after the Tsarina appointed several incompetent ministers recommended by the anti-war Rasputin, overriding the Tsar's vehement objections - the Tsar and Tsarina still waited as long as possible to distance themselves from Rasputin. Information regarding when this falling-out actually occurred - and, indeed, whether it occurred at all - however, is hard to come by; as it appears from Rasputin's 1916 letter to Tsarina Alix that they were still on good terms with one another.



III. Strange Facts About Rasputin and the Romanovs


     There are many strange facts about Rasputin and the Romanov family which have been under-reported. Let us first turn to several facts, to which I have alluded above; concerning: 1) the occult; 2) Rasputin's influence on, and alleged affair with, Tsarina Alix of Hesse; and 3) the murder of Rasputin and the possible dismemberment of his corpse.


     1) Occult, spiritual, and religious elements:
     As explained above, the new musical Anastasia was almost completely devoid of spiritual elements, and was totally devoid of references to the occult. The 1997 film Anastasia included Rasputin casting spells and curses, but avoided referencing the Russian Orthodox Church, which played an important part in the stories of both Rasputin and the Romanovs.
     For one, the "Crow Sisters" (Princesses Milica and Anastasia of Montenegro, also jointly nicknamed "The Black Peril") were interested in the occult, and introduced the Romanovs to Rasputin. Before that, the Crow Sisters also introduced the Tsarina to the family's previous faith-healer before Rasputin, a Martinist priest named Maitre Philippe de Lyon (full name Anthelme Nizier Philippe).
     Additionally, the Tsarina (Empress Alix of Hesse, 1864-1918) was obsessed with magic trinkets, charms, and symbols; from lockets bearing pictures of Rasputin, to the swastika (a Hindu symbol signifying good luck and long life, distinct from the Nazi hakenkreutz, which means "crooked cross" and is an inverted swastika).


     2) The possible affair between Rasputin and Alix:
     Rasputin was rumored to be having an affair with the Tsar's wife. Rasputin's predilection for sex and womanizing was well-known; he gave hugs and wet kisses to ladies of the court, and was even charged with raping nuns when he was young. The Empress wrote a letter to Rasputin which read in part, "Only then is my soul at rest when you, my teacher, is sitting beside me and I am kissing your hands and leaning on your savory shoulders." This letter was mimeographed and appeared in newspapers in late 1911, and allegedly Rasputin supplied fodder for this rumor by boasting about it in public, reading her letter, and claiming that the affair was real. Scandalous cartoons appeared in Russian newspapers, depicting Rasputin holding the Tsar and Tsarina like marionettes, and depicting Rasputin in amorous caress with the Empress. However, there is no solid evidence that Rasputin and Alix had such an affair. Alix of Hesse was the prim and proper granddaughter of Queen Victoria, and she was deeply in love with the Tsar, with whom she had five children. Alix would have had little reason or time to have such an affair, because she was preoccupied with spiritual matters, the sickness of her son Alexei, her own sickness, improving her reputation at court, and (later) making decisions in the Tsar's absence.
     Of course, the Tsar's absence (running the Russian army during World War I) certainly gave Alix space to have an affair, if she wanted to. However, many Russians, - including people of the court - were concerned that Alix and Rasputin were German spies, given rumors about Rasputin, and given the fact of Alix's German heritage and her difficulty learning Russian. So even if a brief affair did occur, it still would have been very difficult - as well as risky - for Rasputin and Alix to continue such an affair for any significant stretch of time, without anyone finding out.
     Some sources claim that Rasputin's influence on the royal family was limited to helping to soothe and cure Alexei's ill (hemophilia), while others claim that his influence was much greater. As explained above, Rasputin suggested several ministers for appointment, and Alix pushed those suggestions through and approved them, despite the objections of her husband and other advisors who felt that those ministers were incompetent. By most accounts, Rasputin's influence on the Tsarina (at least) was very significant; some say his stare (and his ability to dilate his pupils at will) had the power to put people in trances. If Rasputin really did have as much influence on Russian politics as he is said to have had, then it seems likely that Rasputin's influence weakened the royal family's grip on power, and therefore made Russia susceptible to revolution.


     3) The dismemberment of Rasputin's corpse:
     As explained above, the priest Iliodor (real name Sergei Michailovich Trufanov, 1880-1952) was dispossessed of his power, after the royal family discovered that he and other priests were conspiring to kill Rasputin. Supposedly at one point, Iliodor even beat Rasputin with a large cross. According to Douglas Smith's 1996 book Rasputin: Faith, Power, and the Twilight of the Romanovs, a midget priest named Blessed Mitya tried to grab Rasputin's penis. It has been alleged that Mitya did this in order to try to rip Rasputin's penis off of his body. Iliodor allegedly grabbed Rasputin's penis too, telling him to stop thinking with his penis and to instead start thinking with his brain. Whether these accounts are fictional or not, Iliodor and Mitya were certainly angry about Rasputin's debauched ways, and the possible damage which his behavior could cause to the church and the royal family, so they would have had plenty of reason to confront Rasputin. Although Iliodor might have had nothing to do with the 1914 attempt on Rasputin's life by Khioniya Guseva (a follower of Iliodor), Iliodor hatched his own plan to kill Rasputin in 1916, with the help of a politician named Alexei Khvostov. Thus, Iliodor's antipathy for Rasputin was well-known, and he certainly had murderous intent at at least one point, so it's entirely possible that the accounts about the cross beating and Blessed Mitya have some truth to them.
     After Rasputin's murder, there were rumors that his penis was cut off; either by the assassins themselves, or else by angry crowds who gained possession of his corpse. However, St. Petersburg senior autopsy surgeon Dr. Dmitry Kosorotov reported finding Rasputin's penis intact. Despite Dr. Kosorotov's report, St. Petersburg's Museum of Erotica claims to be in possession of the preserved penis today. However, some say the preserved penis at that museum is actually some sort of pickled vegetable, and that it is not really Rasputin's penis. On the other hand, according to Rasputin's daughter Matryona Rasputina (1989-1977), Rasputin's penis was 12 or 13 inches long, so given the immense size of the preserved "penis", it's possible that it's real. We may never know.
     Rasputin's daughter, by the way, led a life almost as strange as her father's. She worked as a cabaret dancer, and as a lion tamer with the Hagenbeck-Wallace Circus. She allegedly found a group of women in Paris who were in possession of her father's penis, venerating it as if it were a holy charm that could give fertility, and giving pieces of it away to people. If there is any truth to the idea that parts of Rasputin's penis were cut off in the 1920s, then the preserved penis on display in St. Petersburg could not possibly be his real penis, because it appears to be fully intact.


     Next, we shall turn our attention to several facts to which I have not yet alluded in this article; namely: 4) Rasputin's relationship with Tsar Nicholas; 5) Rasputin's relationship with Tsarevitch (tsar-evident; crown prince) Alexei; 6) other miscellaneous facts about Rasputin and his assassin; 7) the role of the Germans and Kaiser Wilhelm II in the destabilization and collapse of Romanov rule; and 8) the Romanovs' status in the Russian Orthodox Church.


     4) Rasputin's relationship with the Tsar:
     Towards the end of Tsar Nicholas II's life and reign, he became addicted to several drugs, including cocaine, opium, and morphine. The Tsar would take cocaine to treat his colds, and opium and morphine to reduce stomach pain. Rasputin's participation in orgies, some of which may have been fueled by drugs, have led researchers to suggest that Rasputin may have been supplying these drugs to the Tsar, even prescribing them for his maladies. If Rasputin did supply those drugs, then the dependency which that relationship would have caused, should help explain why the Tsar was so reticent to dismiss Rasputin from his service. The Tsar's use of opium and morphine to soothe his stomach troubles, and the acceptability of the use of raw forms of opioids in medicine at the time, could also help explain why Tsarevitch Alexei's doctors had no reservations about prescribing him Aspirin, a pain reliever and anti-inflammatory medication which was considered a new "miracle drug" at the time.


     5) Rasputin's relationship with Alexei:
     Tsarevitch Alexei (1904-1918) was born with hemophilia, a disorder in which the blood does not clot normally, leading to prolonged bleeding. Alexei inherited this disorder from his mother Alix (females are carriers of hemophilia), and in turn, Alix inherited the disorder from her mother Princess Alice, who got it from her mother Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria's encouragement of incest among her progeny resulted in the birth of heirs who were inbred, and thus predisposed to inheriting recessive disorders (of which hemophilia is one).
     Rasputin is often portrayed as having used "faith healing" to reduce Alexei's bleeding. Rasputin was known for slowly waving his hands in front of his patients' eyes, and had a unique ability to soothe people's worries and discomfort using this method. Alix believed Rasputin to be the only person capable of helping Alexei. Why this was so, was considered a mystery. Some believed that Rasputin's holiness (he claimed to have seen apparitions of the Virgin Mary) was the only possible explanation.
     However, there is a purely scientific and medical explanation for Rasputin's effect on the boy. As explained above, Alexei's doctors had been giving him Aspirin, to treat the discomfort and pain which he was experiencing (alongside prolonged bleeding) as results of his injuries. So severe was Alexei's hemophilia, that the slightest scraping of the knee could cause him to bleed profusely for days at a time.
     Although it makes sense that his doctors would prescribe Aspirin to relieve pain, the Aspirin actually had a negative effect on Alexei's hemophilia overall. Aspirin thins the blood, and slows-down the process of blood clotting. This caused the prince to heal from injuries more slowly, delaying the clotting and scabbing which Alexei needed. This explains Rasputin's 1912 letter to the Tsarina, which read in part, "Do not allow the doctors to bother him [Alexei] too much."
     Without Rasputin's interventions, Alexei's doctors would have continued prescribing him Aspirin, which, despite soothing his pain, was only making his condition worse. Thus, Rasputin's influence on Alexei and his family was as far as one could imagine from sinister, manipulative, and scientifically baseless.


     6) other facts about Rasputin, Anastasia, and Rasputin's assassin:

     First off, most people pronounce "Rasputin" incorrectly. In the 1997 film Anastasia, and in the musical - and in the non-Russian-speaking world in general - Rasputin is pronounced "rass-PYOO-tin", with the stress on the middle syllable. However, the actual pronunciation - given correctly in the 1970s disco song "Rasputin" by Boney M - is "RAHS-poo-tyeen", with the stress on the first syllable.
     While we're at it, Anastasia is not pronounced like "Anna STAY-zha", nor like "honest Asia". It's pronounced "ah-nah-stahy-SEE-yah", with the stress on the second to last syllable. Anastasia is spelled "Anastasija" in Romanized Russian.
     One more fact about Anastasia: Anastasia took some of the first teen "selfies" (self-portraits), seen below. The children had Kodak Brownie cameras, and took them nearly everywhere they went. This helped them become perhaps the most photographed children in the world at the time.

 

     Another interesting fact about Rasputin is the possibility that he is an ancestor or relative of Vladimir Putin, the current president of Russia. Putin's ancestors were named Putyatin, coming from the Tver region of Russia. However, the Tver region is over 2,000 miles from Pokrovskoye, the Siberian town in which Rasputin was born, and Putin's lineage is difficult to trace, so it's unknown whether the Putyatin family had ties to the region in which Rasputin grew up. Vladimir Putin's paternal grandfather was named Spiridon Ivanovich Putin, died in 1965, and was born in 1879 (ten years after Rasputin was born, making them contemporaries).
     On the other hand, the Putyatin family is a family of Russian nobles, which makes Putin distantly related to all members of the Russian royal family. Additionally, Rasputin was photographed with a member of the Putyatin family in 1911. There is also a striking similarity in resemblance between Vladimir Putin and Tsarina Alix.

From left to right:

Prince Mikhail Sergeyevich Putyatin,

Grigori Efimovich Rasputin,

and Colonel D. Loman.

A young Vladimir Putin (left), and a young Alix of Hesse (right)

     While none of these facts, by any means, conclusively proves a direct lineage from Rasputin to Putin, the aforementioned facts should still prompt us to wonder the following: 1) whether Rasputin and Putyatin discussed and acknowledged their family ties when they were photographed together; 2) whether they discussed Vladimir Putin's grandfather Spiridon, who would have been 31 or 32 at the time; 3) whether Rasputin could have impregnated one of Putyatin's female relatives, resulting in a child of noble birth, claiming Rasputin as father; and 4) whether one of Vladimir Putin's ancestors could have been the result of an affair between Rasputin and the Empress (if such an affair did occur, which is dubious).

     Rasputin may have learned how to soothe human patients through whispers, from having been a "horse-whisperer" when he was younger. He was also a horse-thief as a youth. On one occasion - in 1883, when Rasputin was 14 years old - he helped catch a horse thief and helped return the horse to its owner. Some people present for that event believe Rasputin did so with the help of God. This was the first story about Rasputin's exploits which led to rumors that he had holy powers. Later in his life, however, many people grew to suspect that his power came not from God, but rather from the Devil.

     One interesting piece of information about Rasputin is the possibility that he was involved in a sex cult called the khlysts / khlysti. The khlysti were a radical Christian sect, which was known for engaging in ecstatic rituals, including orgies.
     Many sources on Rasputin claimed that he belonged to the khlysti; however, there is no evidence that supports this. However, Rasputin did know about - and meet - the khlysti, from his time as a wandering strannik. After marrying and having children, Rasputin began throwing orgies in his basement - orgies which allegedly included very young women - much to the dismay of his wife.

     Finally, Rasputin's lead assassin, Prince Felix Yusupov, was a bisexual and a cross-dresser / transvestite. While attending Oxford as a youth, he was into the occult, attended seances, and claimed to have had premonitions. Yusupov's family claimed descent from the prophet Muhammad, as well as from the rulers of ancient Egypt.


     7) The Germans' role in the destabilization of Romanov rule:
     As explained above, both Rasputin and Tsarina Alix were suspected of being German spies. On the other hand, Rasputin has also been alleged to have been working on the behalf of Jewish Communists (which is dubious because Rasputin was not Jewish, but which is nonetheless possible because of Rasputin's opposition to Russian involvement in World War I, and because of the possibility that Rasputin intended his actions to destabilize Romanov rule).
     Whatever the cases, the German threat against Russia was real. In World War I, Tsar Nicholas found himself at war with his own cousin, German Emperor and Kaiser Wilhelm II. Assisting Russia in that war was the United Kingdom, headed by King George V. George's mother was Alexandra of Denmark, whose sister Maria Feodorovna (known as Dagmar) was the mother of Tsar Nicholas II.

     That's right; Kaiser Wilhelm found himself at war with his first cousin Tsar Nicholas II, who was married to Tsar Nicholas's own third cousin Alexandra, whom herself was another first cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
     To put it another way, Wilhelm went to war with his own two first cousins - Nicky and Alix - whom were third cousins who had married each other. And at the same time when he was at war with George V, who was the first cousin of both Nicholas and Wilhelm. That's because Wilhelm's father was Frederick VIII of Denmark, whose sister Alexandra of Denmark was the mother of George V.

     You can learn more about the relationship between George and Nicholas, and more about the many relatives of Queen Victoria, by reading the following two articles, which I wrote:
     - My April 2019 article "Regarding the Surviving Royal Families of Europe", at the following address: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/04/regarding-remaining-european-royal.html
     - My April 2021 article "Prince Philip's Death Prompts Realization That He and Elizabeth Were Incestuous Imperialists", at the following address: http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/04/prince-philips-death-prompts.html]

     Not only that; Wilhelm's actions arguably directly caused the assassination of his first cousins Nicholas and Alexandra, and of their children (Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei). The children were Kaiser Wilhelm's first cousins once removed - i.e., the children of his cousins - but they were even more closely related to him than that, because they were his first cousins once removed through both of his first cousins Nicholas and Alix.
     While Vladimir Lenin was in exile in Switzerland, the Kaiser funded the publication of Bolshevik propaganda, and supplied the funds (in gold) which Lenin needed to get to Russia. Once in Russia (thanks to the Kaiser's help), Lenin was able to reconnect with the Russian Bolsheviks, and spread his influence and gain power, eventually ending up as Chairman of the S.F.S.R..
     While there is no concrete evidence proving definitively that Lenin directly ordered the murder of the Tsar's children, it's possible that he at least ordered the murder of the Tsar, who was nearly universally hated throughout the country, and whom even the reformist Kerensky advocated assassinating. Some researchers believe that Lenin, Yakov Sverdlov, and Felix Dzerzhinsky gave instructions on how to kill the Romanovs; while ither researchers believe that Lenin was vehemently opposed to murdering the Tsar's family (possibly owing to the remoteness of the possibility that his daughters could come to pose any real threat to Bolshevik power, and also to the fact that Nicholas abdicated in favor of both himself and his son and primary heir, thus nearly neutralizing the threat from Alexei). If Lenin truly didn't issue any such order - that is, if he didn't issue orders to assassinate any member of the Romanov family - then the order to carry out the assassinations must have come from the Ural Regional Soviet. It's also possible that the Ural Soviet sent-out an order to kill the Tsar, but not the rest of the family, and that the Bolshevik assassins (led by Yakov Yurovsky, a Jew from Siberia, and Yekaterinburg native Peter Ermakov) took it upon themselves to kill all of them. Some of the executioners recalled that, on the eve of the murders, they received a telegram from Moscow ordering them to kill the Tsar but not the rest of his family, while the issue of what to do with the family was left up to the local Soviet government (the Ural Soviet). Greg King and Penny Wilson, authors of The Fate of the Romanovs, believe that the orders to murder the family came from the Ural Soviet.
     While Rasputin, Kerensky and company, and Lenin, are among those usually chiefly blamed for the abdication and assassination of the Romanovs, the role of the Germans (and especially of Nicholas's own first cousin Kaiser Wilhelm) should not be downplayed, given the Kaiser's assistance of Lenin, and the wearing-down of the Russian army by the German army during the first few years of World War I.


     8) the Romanovs' status in the Russian Orthodox Church:
     On November 1st, 1981, the Romanov family - Tsar Nicholas, Empress Alix, and their five children - were declared to be "new martyrs" by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. According to a Time Magazine article from 2018, "the Patriarchate in Moscow initially resisted recognition of the Romanovs as Saints, but finally followed suit in 2000".
     Thus, the Romanovs were recognized as saint-martyrs, and passion-bearers - that is, they were canonized as saints - because they are considered to have died as martyrs, assassinated as punishment for their faith in Christianity. The idea that the Romanovs' assassination was an act of Christian persecution, is supported by the fact that many early Bolsheviks were atheists, who rejected religion,  rejected the influence of church and state upon one another, and rejected the Tsar's claim that his authority was given to him by God.
     There were also many Jewish Bolsheviks - and especially "Jewish atheist Bolsheviks" (that is, secular Bolsheviks raised by Jewish families) - whom shared many of those views on religion, and whom were involved with the party in those early days. But I do not intend to focus on the degree of Jewish involvement in either the Romanov killings, nor the Bolshevik revolution, in this article; that information can be found elsewhere.




IV. Tracking-Down Anastasia's Remains

     The key pieces of evidence that suggest Anastasia could have survived, are the facts surrounding the botched disposal of the Romanovs' bodies, the confusion of Anastasia's body with those of two of her sisters at several points, and the fact that there is still one Romanov daughter's body missing from the Russian Archives.
     After their execution by firing squad in the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg on July 17th, 1918, nine bodies were loaded onto a truck. These were nine people, out of the eleven people whom were intended to be killed; seven Romanovs, plus their four attendants. The nine bodies were taken to the Kopyatki Forest, where they were stripped, mutilated, and doused with sulfuric acid. They were then dumped into an abandoned mine shaft, and moved the next day in order to relocate them to a more discreet place where they could not be found.
     Yakov Yurovsky had decided to personally oversee the disposal of the bodies, due to Peter Ermakov's drunkenness, and some of the assassins' attempts to grope the genitals of the former Empress's corpse, and to seize some of the diamonds concealed in the children's clothes. Interestingly, the nearly three pounds of diamonds in their clothes, provided them some level of protection against their assassins' bullets.
     In 1919, after failing to find the Romanovs' bodies, investigators with the White Army concluded that their remains had been cremated at an abandoned mineshaft called Ganina Yama, where they had found evidence of a fire. Scholars believe that, after dumping the bodies into the mineshaft, the Bolsheviks tried to make it collapse by throwing grenades into it. This failed. At some point, the bodies were crushed. The name of the field in which the nine bodies were found, is "Porosenkov Log", or, in English, "Pig's Meadow".
     Scholars say the Bolsheviks failed to cause the mineshaft to collapse, and therefore decided to move the bodies to a new location to prevent them from being found. While in transit to the new burial site, the truck got stuck in mud, leading the assassins to take two bodies off of the truck, and dispose of them in the forest nearby. Many people believe that those two bodies were those of Alexei and Maria. Those bodies are now buried at the Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg.
     Nine bodies were buried together; those of five of the Romanovs, and four of their servants and attendants. Those five Romanov bodies were found by "amateur researchers". Only five of the seven Romanovs lie in the St. Petersburg Cathedral today; Nicholas, Alexandra, and three of their five children, all daughters. Again, two bodies were missing, those of Alexei and one of his sisters; but which sister that was, remains a disputed matter.
     Some sources provide the date of the discovery of those bodies as 1976, while other sources say 1977 or 1979. In 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, tests were ordered to verify the authenticity of the bones. The location of the bodies, which had previously been kept a secret, was revealed. Aside from the conflicting reports about the date, there are also conflicting reports about whether the bodies found in 1979 were found in an abandoned pit, or "near a cart track", or "under railroad ties on a county road" (probably a reference to Koptiaki Road).
     An investigation surrounding the bones of those five bodies began in 1993, and closed in 1998, after the five bodies were tested. DNA tests confirmed that they were Romanovs, and the bodies were buried in the St. Petersburg Cathedral. There was just one problem: two bodies were still unaccounted for; those of Alexei and one of his sisters. Which means that, while those DNA tests did prove that the recovered bodies were Romanovs, those DNA tests did not confirm the identity of the missing bodies (which would have been impossible to do, because they were still missing, and not available to be tested).
     There seems to be no dispute that the remains of the former tsar and tsarina, and their daughter Olga, now lie in the St. Petersburg Cathedral. In fact, new tests in 2015, ordered by the Russian Orthodox Church, confirmed again that the tsar and tsarina's remains were among those recovered. However, the Russian Orthodox Church refused to accept that two bodies found in 2007 were Romanovs. Those bodies were allegedly the remains of Alexei and the missing Romanov daughter, and since the church has not accepted them, they remain unburied. The reason why the Russian Orthodox Church is taking this so seriously, is because - since the Romanovs are now considered saint-martyrs - any acceptance of a Romanov body will mean the acceptance of a holy relic into the church's possession.
     On August 23rd, 2007, archeologists confirmed that they had discovered the remains of a male and female. According to the next day's issue of The Guardian, a 46-year-old man named Sergei Plotnikov claimed to have found the bodies, and his friend Leonid helped him dig them up. They were found in a "wooded site" about 6 miles north of Yekaterinburg, not far from where the other nine bodies were buried. Researchers believe the murderers doused these two bodies in acid and then tried to bury them, before realizing it wasn't working, and deciding to bury the nine other bodies in some other location.
     To repeat, a male and female were found at that location in Siberia. At the time of his death, Alexei was 13, and about to turn 14 the next month; while Anastasia was 17 years old in July 1918; Maria was 19, Tatiana was 21, and Olga was 22. The male corpse found in 2007 was reportedly between the ages of 10 and 13 at death, while the female was between 18 and 23. This means that Alexei was probably too old to be the male corpse, while Anastasia was probably too young to be the female corpse.
     However, there have been conflicting reports surrounding the age ranges of those corpses. Another report put the male corpse between 12 and 15, and the female between 15 and 19. And if those age ranges are correct, then it's entirely possible that the bodies belonged to Alexei and Anastasia.
     However, nobody ever claimed that the female corpse was Anastasia's. The bodies found in 2007 were reported to be the bodies of Alexei and Maria. Which is feasible, because Maria was slightly older than Anastasia, and thus within that 18 to 23 age range (and so were Tatiana and Olga). So if Maria's body was found in 2007, then why did people suspect that it was Alexei and Anastasia who were missing? If Anastasia was so certainly dead in 1918, then why did anyone even listen to Anna Anderson when she claimed to be Anastasia in 1922?
     Since that discovery in Siberia in 2007, an American scientist, looking at dental and vertebral evidence, has concluded that Anastasia and Alexei were the two missing bodies. However, a Russian scientist, looking at photographic superimpositions, has concluded that Maria and Alexei were the two missing bodies. Bone fragment evidence suggests that it was Anastasia's skeleton which was found and examined, but the photographic superimpositions suggest that Maria was the youngest female corpse among those remains found in the 1970s. It's entirely possible that the researchers were just mistaken, and they examined the skeleton of Maria, and accidentally identified it as Anastasia's. The DNA evidence showed that the youngest daughter's corpse is that of a Romanov, but it didn't prove which one it was.
     What this means is that even if Anastasia's body has still never been positively identified. That's because, for one, the bodies found in 2007 might not even be Romanovs' at all. Second, even if they are Romanovs, and the male is definitely Alexei, then it's still unconfirmed whether that female corpse is that of Anastasia or Maria. Also, it's still unconfirmed whether the youngest female corpse in the St. Petersburg Cathedral - that is, the youngest female corpse among the five Romanovs found with the bodies of their four servants - is that of Anastasia or Maria.
     The following page, from an unknown book, says it all. [Note: Plenty of information regarding skull, bone, and DNA evidence, can be found by simply typing "Anastasia Maria Romanovs bones" into the image search feature of an internet search engine.]

     According to The Fate of the Romanovs by Greg King and Penny Wilson, Maria was shot through the thigh. If true, this can only mean that Maria is body #5 in the image above, and that Anastasia was the female Romanov corpse missing from the other nine bodies.
      DNA tests have, however, proven that the female corpse found in 2007 is almost definitely a sibling of the male corpse found in 2007, which has been identified as Alexei.

     But these facts do not necessarily prove that Anastasia's was the female corpse discovered in 2007, since: 1) no DNA test has yet confirmed that it is indeed Anastasia; and 2) the Russian Orthodox Church has still not yet accepted that the two bodies found in 2007 are Romanovs. 

     According to the Time article published on the hundredth anniversary of the Romanovs' assassination, in 2015, the Russian Orthodox Church "insisted that the Romanov bodies be exhumed so that additional samples might be taken for further tests to be conducted by its own, exclusively Russian scientists". That article in Time also stated that "so far no announcement of the church's findings has been forthcoming", and went on to explain that the American F.B.I. (Federal Bureau of Investigators) has used its own DNA samples to conduct research independently of Russian scientists.
     The F.B.I. did this with the help of former U.S. Navy captain Peter Sarandinaki, the president of the SEARCH Foundation (the Scientific Expedition to Account for the Romanov CHildren). The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has named Sarandinaki the Official Representative of the church to the Commission for the Study of the Remains of the Imperial Family.
     Sarandinaki and his team have concluded that all eleven of those targeted for murder on July 17th, 1918 - and found in two different locations at Pig's Meadow - were murdered, and have been accounted for, including Maria, Alexei, and Anastasia. Sarandinaki's team believes that Body #6 is Anastasia's, not Maria's.
     But who asked the F.B.I.? How can the American Federal Bureau of Investigators even have jurisdiction over a murder that happened over a hundred years ago on the other side of the world? When will Russian scientists take those "additional samples" they need to conduct "further tests"? Will the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad accept the results of the Russian scientists, or its representative Peter Sarandinaki and his organization SEARCH?  What if the Russian scientists reach the same conclusion as Sarandinaki; will the church accept both or neither? Be wary of possible upcoming news about those possibilities - in Russian, British, and American news sources - over the next few months and years.
     We might just have to wait this one out. It might seem like a long wait, but it's been over a hundred years since the Romanovs' murders, so that makes a couple years seems like a short amount of time. Thankfully, we have all these articles, books, television shows, films, and musicals about them to read and watch in the meantime!



     V. Conclusions

     The difference between the real-life stories of the Romanovs and Rasputin, and the way they are portrayed in fiction, is full of paradoxes.
     On one hand, a depiction of the fall of the Romanovs is incomplete without an inclusion of the Bolshevik Revolution which precipitated and completed it. But on the other hand, a depiction of the Romanov dynasty's decline which focuses too much on the Bolsheviks, risks downplaying the importance of the Duma, the forced abolition of Nicholas II, and the Provisional Government, in the transition period between Romanov rule and Communist rule under Lenin.
     On one hand, a narrative which depicts Rasputin as a "mad monk" possessed by the Devil, issuing curses (like the narrative of the 1997 film Anastasia), risks downplaying the good Rasputin did for Alexei in the way of treating his hemophilia. But on the other hand, a narrative which depicts Rasputin as too helpful, risks downplaying the degree of his influence on Alix; and, in turn, his influence on the affairs of the Russian state, and on the weakening of its competence, credibility, stability, and power.
     On one hand, Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanov would be 118 years old today, and thus is almost certainly no longer with us. But on the other hand, Anastasia's remains have still never been positively identified in a manner which has been accepted by all relevant actors, so it's not really fair to say she's dead either. Moreover, the Russian Orthodox Church has made Anastasia - and her brother, sisters, and parents - saint-martyrs and passion-bearers. So to claim that Anastasia is dead, when her spirit lives forever, is patently absurd. What is dead may never die.
     Just like the loved ones you've lost, she and her family are alive as long as we remember them. Here's to a group of unforgettable, mysterious, fascinating people.



     VI. Sources

     You can learn more about Rasputin and the Romanovs by visiting the following links:

Biography of Rasputin

http://www.biography.com/political-figure/rasputin

Rasputin: Khlysts, and German and Jewish spying (many claims in this article are dubious, and may be mere speculation)

http://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/articles/autumnwinter2017/teffi-rasputin-and-revolution

Map of Rasputin's journeys

http://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=1ed23784424440c58fa8cf6d258b9e5b

Rasputin's murder

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38469903

Rasputin's penis

http://www.cultofweird.com/curiosities/rasputin-penis/

The Tsar on drugs
http://encyclopaediaoftrivia.blogspot.com/2016/09/nicholas-ii-of-russia.html

Pronunciation of Anastasia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_4K3MggE3c

Alexei's illness
http://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/8fcdqz/rasputin_and_hemophilia/

The Kaiser funded the Bolsheviks
https://louisproyect.org/2017/06/17/did-the-kaiser-fund-the-bolsheviks/

Rasputin's exile and murder
http://www.headstuff.org/culture/history/grigori-rasputin-russian-mystic/
http://www.rbth.com/arts/history/2016/12/30/holy-devil-remembering-rasputin-on-the-100th-anniversary-of-his-death_670526

The ordering of the murders
http://www.myfavoritemurder.com/130-mike-is-right/

Deaths of the Romanovs
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2018/07-08/romanov-dynasty-assassination-russia-history/

Discovery of the Romanovs' bodies
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/the-romanovs-may-finally-be-buried-together-after-98-years/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/25/russia.lukeharding

Examination of the bodies
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11887138/Russia-exhumes-remains-of-last-emperor-Nicholas-II-and-empress-Alexandra.html
http://www.livadia.org/missing/remains6.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dna-confirms-remains-of-czars-children/
http://romanovconfessions.tumblr.com/page/32 

Documentary about DNA tests conducted on the bodies found in 2007

     (claims that all Romanov children's bodies are accounted for)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRWSIUQfahI

Canonization of the Romanovs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_the_Romanovs

Time article on DNA tests ordered on bodies found in 2007
http://time.com/5340985/romanov-century-dna-myths/

Captain Peter Sarandinaki's SEARCH Foundation
http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

2012 Wall Street Journal article

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303962304577508570717420772

[Note:

     This article previously contained some inaccurate information regarding the family relationships between Nicholas II, Wilhelm II, George V, Alexandra of Hesse, Queen Victoria, and Christian IX. The author regrets the errors. These errors were corrected on April 16th and 28th, 2021.
     Additionally, this article previously stated that Alexei would have been "too young" to be the corpse, aged 10-13, which was found in 2007, but that has been corrected to read "too old" due to his age of nearly 14 at the time. Error corrected on January 1st, 2022.]

Written on August 15th and 16th, 2019

Based on notes taken between May 2019 and August 3rd and 8th, 2019

Originally published on August 16th, 2019

Edited on August 17th, 19th, and 21st, 2019;
edited, and source Added (re: "Anastasia" Pronunciation) on July 16th, 2020;

and edited on January 26th, 2021, and April 16th and 28th, 2021,
and on January 1st, 2022