Author Archives: Father Andrew

Towards a Council of the Orthodox Churches

Introduction

In 2006 I took part in a Local Church Council of the Russian Diaspora. A very divided part of the Russian Church debated its future, whether to enter back into canonical communion with the rest of the Russian Church or not. Suddenly, the division more or less disappeared. We visibly felt the wafting of the Holy Spirit over us. Such is the vital importance of all Church Councils, Universal, Regional or Local. This wafting is the spirit of catholicity, of conciliarity, this is the Holy Spirit, Who alone heals divisions by revealing the clear Will of God.

Universal Church Councils

Who has the authority to call a Council of all the Orthodox Churches? Purists will respond ‘the Emperor of Constantinople’. There is not one, so that is absurd. Greek nationalists will respond ‘the Patriarch of Constantinople’. This is at once divisive and also untrue. And then does a Council have to include all the Local Orthodox Churches in order to have universal authority? Clearly not, for there have been many purely Local Councils, which have with time gained universal authority, for example the ‘Palamite’ Councils of the thirteenth century.

Consultations

In any case, nobody can call a ‘Council’ of the whole Church as such. Any Consultation of bishops can only be called a Council after the event, for the decisions of a Consultation have to be ‘received’, that is, recognised by the clergy and people. Until ‘reception’ has taken place, there can only be a Consultation. This we saw quite clearly with the Consultation of some 150 Orthodox bishops from several of the Orthodox Churches in Crete in 2016, which was, absurdly, called a ‘Pan-Orthodox Council’ before it had even begun! Of course, it failed.

The Need for a Consultation

So let us therefore be realistic. Any head of any Local Church can issue invitations to a Consultation, inviting the heads and episcopal delegations of any number of other Local Churches who wish to attend. Such a Consultation is necessary because at present two of the sixteen Local Churches, Constantinople and Moscow, are in schism with one another and refuse to talk to each other, let alone concelebrate. As a result, the whole Church suffers and is even to some extent in a state of paralysis. The Church needs to hold a Consultation.

Who Could Call a Consultation?

Thus, the head of any Local Church can call a Consultation. Several enjoy prestige. For example, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who is at is the centre of the Church. Or the Patriarch of Bucharest, as his Church is the largest outside Moscow. But others enjoy respect and prestige, for instance, the Patriarchs of Sofia or Belgrade or the Archbishop of Albania. But really any of them. But what would an invitation to a Consultation mention? It should certainly not be restrictive, as that was the error of the agenda-imposed 2016 meeting in Crete.

Two Initial Stages of Consultation

Let us suppose that the head of any one of the fourteen Local Churches sent out a circular letter to the other thirteen heads and invited them, perhaps each with two other bishops, to discuss initially the intra-Church crisis. This would be Stage One of a Conciliar process composed of 42 bishops. If they met, they could talk and, if they agreed, they could go to a Second Stage, which would be for a Consultation of the nearly 500 bishops, who do not belong to the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow, which have over another 500 bishops.

The Third Stage

Observers from Constantinople and Moscow would naturally be invited to the First and Second Stages. A Third Stage would be for all Orthodox bishops, though that would mean Constantinople and Moscow ending their schism. That, at present, is not realistic, as the nature of their schism is political. And as long as both Patriarchates are engaged in politics with States, there is no hope of that. A Consultation, let alone a Council, can only be held among the politically free, which is why no Consultation ever took place during the Soviet period.

An Agenda

So a Consultation is necessary, but why? What would its non-restrictive agenda be? At present, the Church faces two sets of challenges. Firstly, there must be a dogmatic response to the doubts and denials of the contemporary world by affirming the Creed of the Seven Universal Councils. Secondly, there must be a pastoral and administrative witness to the same contemporary world. The first response affirms the Revealed Truth of God, the second affirms Love, that the teaching and witness of the Church is not political and nationalistic.

The Dogmatic Agenda

By affirming the Creed a Consultation would affirm that God is the Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible, rejecting Secularism, which proclaims that the universe is self-made through an inexplicable process of ‘evolution’. It would affirm the uniqueness of Christ, the Son of God and His Salvation, Resurrection and Return and the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, Who spoke through the Old Testament, and in the uniqueness of the Church and Her Baptism. All these are challenged by the contemporary world.

The Pastoral Agenda

Of a world population of over eight billion, only 200 million, two and a half per cent, are Orthodox Christians. There is little doubt that the mission of the Church has been severely limited by politics and nationalism, not least Greek and Russian. There is a need for new Local Churches to be founded, immediately in the Ukraine, where the lack of a Local Church has caused division and distress, secondly in areas where millions of Orthodox live, in Western Europe, the Americas and Oceania, and thirdly in most of Non-Christian Asia and Africa.

Conclusion: The Alternative

Without a Church Council divisions will continue. This happens when one or both sides refuse to move. For example, ever since 1014, when the elite of the then small part of the Orthodox Church in Western Europe ended its communion with the Church by altering the Creed, it has refused to return to the Creed. Indeed, it has actually justified its change and so remained out of communion with the Church. Thank God, the present conflict between Constantinople and Moscow does not concern the Creed, but it does concern communion. And that is vital.

 

 

 

The Collapse of Unions

Ex-President Zelensky (his term ended last May) is now in the USA, proposing a ‘Victory Plan’. In fact, as the bankrupt Ukraine is being defeated, if not routed, this is a Plan for World War III. This is because it demands that the Ukraine join NATO, meaning that NATO troops would then die fighting nuclear-armed Russia in the Ukraine. Well over half the already bankrupt countries in NATO are totally against this. In any case, NATO has very few weapons and munitions left in terms of tanks, artillery, drones and shells, it has and prints only inflationary dollar bills. The fact is that there is no ‘Victory Plan’, except in the deluded fantasies of CIA-controlled US and UK PR advisors, whose scripts are read by the handpicked actor Zelensky.

With 800,000 Ukrainian dead and wounded, 400,000 of them since 1 January 2024, (and 70,000 Russian dead) so far, it is long since time for the conflict in the Ukraine to end. Those who want it to continue want to continue Slav fratricide. It will not end in stalemate or a frozen conflict, it can only end in the capitulation of Kiev through the overthrow of the Neo-Nazi puppet regime in Kiev by those many Ukrainians, who hate it and resist it. Nobody wants to fight for them any more, for they are not following a Ukrainian agenda, but an American agenda. There will follow the formation of a New Ukraine inside realistic and natural borders. And it will be NATO and EU free, for neither NATO, nor the EU has any future anyway.

The tragic events in the Ukraine, like the waves of Israeli terrorism against Palestine and the Lebanon, blinding and maiming civilians through exploding electronic devices, are ushering in a New World Order. This New Order is the result of the 1991 collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union and now the collapse and dissolution of the American Union, which is 33 years overdue. The American Union means not just the USA (a corporate Union formed after a bloody, four-year long civil war in the USA), but all its associated, largely US-run organisations, the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the G7, the OECD, NATO, the EU, the Anglosphere, AUKUS, the Five Eyes, the Olympic Games, the ICC, the ICJ, the Nobel Prizes etc.

The time of Unions is over. The Soviet Union, formed as a result of the First World War, and the American Union, formed as a result of the Second World War, are finished. The Soviet Union is being replaced by a Confederation of the three East Slav peoples, Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian, returning to the pre-Imperial Russia (which was also Unionist) of over 300 years ago. However, the American Union has not yet been replaced. Its dissolution, concerning the whole Western world which is vassal to it, is far more dramatic, for it is based on a Western Union which is a millennium old. Its ideology of Globalism, that is, US-controlled Domination, is to be replaced by the mutually beneficial co-operation of Sovereign Nations.

How ROCOR Double-Crossed the Moscow Patriarchate

Some years ago a Russian Metropolitan and personal friend told me that Patriarch Kyrill had always considered that the interest of the 2007 reconciliation between the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the New York-based Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) was political, rather than spiritual. In order to assert that the MP is the Mother Church, émigré churches had to be reconciled, proving that the MP was no longer a Soviet organisation, thus reconciling the divide between ‘Red and White’. This was the historic, political importance of the event for the MP, which even then was a hundred times larger than ROCOR.

For us, then in the old European ROCOR, the reconciliation was also vital, not for political, but for spiritual reasons. In order to ensure that the sectarian tendencies which had been developing in American ROCOR since the 1960s and had already resulted in the schism in 1986 would not take over, ROCOR would be brought back, even in the USA, and anchored in the Russian Orthodox mainstream. If the reconciliation had not occurred, we, like many others, would at once have left for the MP, deserting ROCOR as a sect behind us. Indeed, it was the pressure from us that helped the bishops to make the right decision in 2007 and become part of the MP.

I can still remember how after the historic concelebration and reconciliation between Patriarch Alexis and Metropolitan Laurus in the Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow in May 2007, a very senior and well-known mitred Russian archpriest from ROCOR said to me: ‘We’ve done it!’ And that is how we all felt – relief and joy. The sectarians had lost. Moscow had given victory to the Orthodox majority in ROCOR and now we could look forward to building a united Diaspora together with Russian and other Orthodox, the sectarian elements leaving for various tiny old calendarist groups, each even stranger than the other. Sadly, this was not to be.

Within ten years of that triumph, the sectarians started coming to the fore into ROCOR again, effectively double-crossing Moscow. A turning-point came in 2017 when ROCOR bishops refused the Patriarch’s request to establish three regional Metropolias within ROCOR. This would have led to metropolitanisation or decentralisation, mirroring the same processes inside the Russian Federation, as implemented by Patriarch Kyrill. After this came the americanisation of European ROCOR, persecuting and spiritually destroying, a situation reflected also in Australian ROCOR. In other words, ROCOR had fallen into centralisation and uncanonical extremism.

This refusal meant the outright rejection of our helping towards the creation of new regional Local Churches, contributing ROCOR’s legacy to them. However, the situation grew even worse. At the very end of 2020 a young and untutored American ROCOR bishop created a schism with another part of the MP on account of the canonical reception of Non-Orthodox, rejecting the age-old Russian Orthodox and European ROCOR conciliar way. In so doing he lost half his diocese, but. amazingly, received the backing of his fellow-bishops amid silence from the MP. The slippery slope was there and soon ROCOR bishops began rebaptising Orthodox.

The MP was quiet, obsessed by the politics of the 2007 ROCOR reconciliation and not by the dogmatics of baptism and pastoral practice. Then all its attention was distracted by the conflict in the Ukraine, with the resulting chaos in all its dioceses outside the Russian Federation and Belarus, not least in the Ukraine, the Baltics, Moldova and Western Europe. Essentially, this heresy of the new ROCOR is Neo-Donatist Anabaptism (the Donatists were the first rebaptisers), that is to say, repeating baptism, contrary to the Creed of the Church, ‘I believe in one baptism…’.  We can see how the new ROCOR is founded on American Protestant sectarianism.

As one American friend said to me: ‘The new ROCOR are really Orthodox Amish’. For the Amish like other sects are of course issued from Donatist Anabaptism. After 50 years inside the Russian Church and despite constantly being so often treated as third-class citizens, we are all very sad to see what ROCOR has become and how it has fallen away from the Orthodox Church. What saddens us the most is that though the old European ROCOR had nothing in common with the new ROCOR, it has now been taken over by it. The legacy of St John of Shanghai and Western Europe is being persecuted again, just as he was persecuted by US ROCOR in 1963.

The fragments of the old European ROCOR are being americanised, all who resist after lifetimes of service are expelled. And all this is encouraged in New York! Will Moscow wake up to what it has brought into the world? It thought it had gained canonical Russian Orthodox representatives in the Western world, but in fact it has been double-crossed and is represented by a sect of extremists and bullying pharisees and hypocrites, not by the Church. The new ROCOR ideology is playing no role in witness to the authentic Orthodox Faith, rather it is discouraging and delaying it.  Here is the tragedy that distracted Moscow will one day have to address.

 

 

 

The BRICS Alliance and the Holy Trinity

‘Between Holy Trinity and hell there is a deep abyss’

‘The Orthodox Church’ by Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov

Western leaders have for years been weaponising the adolescent hatred for Russia that is widespread in the Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, and other Eastern European countries. It is adolescent because ever since achieving independence between 1989 and 1991 after over four long decades of Soviet captivity, these countries have behaved like disruptive teenagers and have still not grown up even after 35 years. They are opposed to those who for them still represent their oppressive Soviet parents, but in fact are not, for Soviet Imperialism is, like the Soviet Union, long since dead. The present conflict in the Ukraine is the most tragic example of this adolescent revolt.

Interestingly, Western leaders have failed to achieve this weaponisation in Georgia. This is because since its failed attack on Russian-protected territory at US bidding in 2008, Georgia has grown up and is no more a teenager. It has understood that the Russian Federation is not a Soviet organisation, but a different country. In the Russian Federation only a few old people and obscurantists nostalgic for Stalin hanker after the Soviet period. Georgians want to apologise for their 2008 war and understand that today’s Russian Federation does not want an Empire again. The USSR died in 1991 and the Russian Federation has seen the negative results of past imperialism.

In this, Russia is unlike the Western Establishment, which continues to want to impose its imperialist rule, either by organised military violence or else by economic stealth on the rest of the world. This is because the ‘Western Union’ did not die in 1991. Indeed, it proclaims that since ‘the West is Best’, therefore ‘the Rest’ must submit themselves to the Western Establishment. The reality is that it has psychologically projected its own aggressive imperialism onto the Russian Federation, treating it as the Soviet Union, and so accusing it of being aggressive! This is their narrative. In fact, when talking of Russian aggression, it is talking about itself. This is psychological projection.

The Western Establishment is stuck in the past, in 1991. What has replaced the rejected Soviet Imperialism of the past and, potentially, what will replace the still unrejected Western imperialism of the present? Since imperialism does not work, the answer is some kind of mutual benefit organisation. And today this is represented by the BRICS Alliance, which is the coming together of various countries and civilisations: Orthodox Christian (Russia), Buddhist-Confucian (China), Hindu (India), Muslim (Iran and the UAE), South American Catholic (Brazil), African (South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia), but dominated by none, quite unlike the US-controlled UN in New York.

The BRICS Alliance has yet to be permanently headquartered in a centre (in Kazan, or in Ekaterinburg or elsewhere in Eurasia?) and have its own Parliament, infrastructure, secretariat and spokesmen. This will come, as mutual economic benefits become ever clearer. With time these economic benefits can become more and more social and diplomatic and create friendships between different peoples. Unlike the G7, membership of BRICS is not restricted to the USA and its political vassals. The BRICS New Development Bank is called on to replace US-run organisations like the World Bank and the IMF. BRICS members are not at all obliged to sign up to the LGBT ideology.

Thus, this Alliance of Sovereign Nations could become a genuine and literal ‘United Nations’, independent of US control and its Security Council, dominated by the elites of three Western nations, representing fewer than 7% of the world. Structurally, we see that BRICS has the Trinitarian concept of Unity in Diversity. Yet, it is a multipolar organism, not a one-size-fits-all unipolar organisation, imposed from above by one power on all others. It is this Unity in Diversity, typical of a Confederation or Family of Nations which is at the heart of the BRICS Alliance, and not the abyss of a Unitarian, Unionist and unipolar imposition such as: ‘Agree with us or else we will sanction you’. BRICS is the future and its sixteenth summit will be taking place in Kazan in exactly a month’s time.

 

 

The Struggle for Catholicity Against Papist Centralisation and for Unity Against the New American Heresy of ‘Corrective Baptism.’

Introduction: Centralisation and Decentralisation: Unity in Diversity

The Church is an image of the Holy Trinity, a Unity of Three Persons in One Essence, of Diversity and Unity, a subtle balance between centralising and decentralising forces. If centralising forces take over, legitimate diversity in Church life can be threatened, as we see outside the Church, in Roman Catholicism. This results in the boycott of the Church, which is no longer seen as being ‘our Church’, but the ‘Church’ of an irrelevant, distant, alien and foreign clerical elite. If decentralising forces take over, Church unity can be threatened by divisions and sects, as we see in Protestantism. This results in the dissolution of the Church into secular fragments, which are irrelevant to spiritual resistance and incapable of ascetic struggle for the Truth of Christ.

The Two Struggles of My Life

Personally, my life can be divided into two halves. The first half was spent in apprehending and comprehending God’s presence in the world, in learning and in serving in the Church in Europe. The struggle then was for the teachings of the Church against ideological compromises, being forced onto the Church by the anti-Christian Western world. That US-led world was trying to impose on all others its One World Government under the name of ‘Globalism’. This meant trying to deform the integrity of the Orthodox Church by imposing syncretistic modernism and ecumenism and corrupting its clerical elite, as Globalism had already done with Protestantism and Roman Catholicism and was then trying to do with Orthodoxy too. This was an attack on the integrity of the Church.

The second half of my life is being spent in England, building towards the inevitable Local Church of Western Europe. This ongoing struggle now takes place from within the largest part of the Orthodox Church here, the millions of the Romanian Metropolias of Western and Southern, Central and Northern Europe. This struggle is for the Catholicity of the Church through the concord of fourteen of the sixteen Local Orthodox Churches. This is because the two remaining Local Churches, Moscow and Constantinople, have tragically fallen into schism with one another because of their rival nationalist centralisations. Through their Papist-style centralisation of finance, power and control they are trying and failing to divide and share out the Orthodox world between them.

The Struggle for Catholicity Against the Papism of Constantinople and Moscow

Thus, the fourteen other Churches, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, the Churches of Georgia, Cyprus, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, America, Albania and Macedonia, are fixed between the two extremes of Constantinople and Moscow. True, some are much closer to one or the other, but still they say to Constantinople: Yes, you were once the Patriarchate of the Imperial City, but that was nearly 600 years ago and even then you had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of others. And to Moscow they say: Yes, you are by far the largest in number, but you are still only one among sixteen, so do not try and tell us how we must live and think. The Soviet age is over, so stop denying the diversity and Catholicity of the Church.

The friction can most clearly be seen in the Ukraine. Thus, most, if not all, of the fourteen Local Churches know that what Constantinople did there in setting up a fake Church outside its own territory was wrong, against the canons of the Church. This is very clear, especially through the statements of the heads of the Churches of Albania, Poland and Bulgaria. As for Muscovite centralisation, so reminiscent of the Soviets, it is rejected not only by all others (though in the case of Constantinople, the rejection is clearly politically dictated by the US and so has no spiritual authority), but also in the Moscow Patriarchate, in the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Metr Onufry and wherever decentralisation and new autocephalous Churches are for pastoral reasons urgently required.

We can see all this visibly, if we simply compare photographs of bishops. The photo of the average Constantinople Metropolitan appears to show a bureaucrat with a thin black veil and a carefully trimmed beard, like that of a married priest whose wife dislikes beards. Only the metropolitans are not married, supposedly monks. The photo of the average Moscow Metropolitan appears to show a richly-decorated and rigidly-uniformed military man, at the service of a State army, not of the Word of God. Both show careerists, ‘Princes of the Church’, to use the Roman Catholic term for cardinals. My favourite photo of a metropolitan from one of the fourteen Churches shows a man in a dusty old cassock hauling a bag of cement in a wheelbarrow to build a new monastery.

The Novel and Aggressive American Heresy of Rebaptism

Orthodox Unity is now being challenged by the novel and highly aggressive American heresy of rebaptism. This sectarian heresy of rebaptising Orthodox is known as ‘corrective baptism’, a term quite unknown to the Fathers of the Church and the Saints, because it has been brought into the Church from the sectarian Lutheran world outside. Contradicting the Creed of the Church ‘I believe in one baptism…’, it means rebaptising those who have been canonically received into the Church by the established authority of its thousand canonical bishops. Although the Orthodox in question may have been receiving the sacraments of the Church for years, the schismatics are rebaptising them. This revolt against Church practice is uncanonical, heretical and sectarian.

The practice was condemned by all as long ago as 1976, when the Syshchenko scandal in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) broke in London. Then this same practice, implemented by an uncanonically ordained and very poorly-trained Ukrainian priest, was thoroughly rejected by the ever-memorable Metropolitan Philaret and the then still Orthodox ROCOR Synod as the heresy of Donatism. Sadly, this view is no longer held by some of today’s ROCOR bishops who do not know the Church Tradition. Thus, apart from ‘bishops’ in old calendarist sects, there are now those in ROCOR who have also turned aggressively schismatic, imposing their pseudo-Russian, American old calendarism, which is in fact nothing more than a sectarian Protestant revolt, a new outburst of Anabaptism, the bullying and hypocritical pharisaic rebaptism for ‘the pure’.

This is the first heresy of converts, neophytes who want to be ‘more Orthodox than the Orthodox’. Such converts do not remain Orthodox because they have not yet cleansed themselves of the post-Schism Western mentality, they still do not know the Pre-Schism Western mentality. For them Orthodoxy is not existential, it is just a decoration added on top of what they do not want to renounce, a cherry on top of the Western cake. Their mentality therefore remains fundamentally anti-Orthodox. And they can go to one extreme or the other. Being anti-Orthodox is not only being pro-ecumenist, pro-modernist, pro-reformist, it is also to be filled with hatred for Roman Catholics and Protestants. Both extremes are equally anti-Orthodox, equally opposed to Truth and Love.

Conclusion: The Dangers of Centralisation and Sectarianism

With their natural Russian flock dying out or leaving them, these bishops are desperate to make up falling numbers by recruiting disgruntled ex-Protestants. These often psychologically unstable extremists have no spiritual roots in the Church. To my knowledge, so far two American ROCOR bishops in different continents are publicly boasting of rebaptising other Orthodox, though others may be involved. Once this news reaches the for now politically unfree Moscow and it has the time to act, there will be trouble for the ROCOR schismatics. So continues our struggle for the Catholicity of the Church against anti-missionary and secular-inspired centralisation, and for the Unity of the Church against sectarian attacks, always towards the new Local Church of Western Europe to be established through a Council.

Russophobia and the Ukraine: Self-Liberation or Self-Destruction for Western Europe?

PART ONE: Russophobia and the Ukraine

Introduction: Western Russophobia

Western Russophobia has always been based on a large number of artificial and utterly hypocritical oppositions: Superior-inferior; West-East; European-Asiatic; Christian-barbarian; Civilised-primitive; Modern-backward; Strong-weak; Liberal-autocratic; Democratic-authoritarian; Good-evil; White-black. In other words, the West is always right. In fact it has always based its ‘rightness’ on lies, PR propaganda, Hitlerian racist enmity and a series of hypocritical prejudices. Let us look at this Russophobia in one specific case, the classic British case.

British Russophobia

After the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, a defeat largely owed to the German Prussians rather than to Wellington, Great Britain no longer had an enemy. It soon found one: Russia. Russia had directly defeated Napoleon and his Combined Western Army of twelve nationalities of some 600,000 in 1812, and had then liberated Paris in 1814. Therefore, it was a potential rival and therefore the enemy. By the 1830s this feeling of hostility towards Russia had been developed under the pro-Ottoman Urquhart and British imperialists invented the paranoid, anti-Russian, delusional narrative of ‘the Great Game’.

So came the full-scale, unprovoked invasion of Russia in the so-called ‘Crimean War’ of 1853-1856. Then Britain’s propaganda machine suddenly switched from being anti-French to anti-Russian and from anti-Ottoman to pro-Ottoman, allying itself with the vengeful Napoleon III, the nephew of the previous evil enemy, and with the Muslim Ottomans. At the end of the nineteenth century the British were to exploit the anti-Jewish pogroms, conducted almost wholly by Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian Galician peasants, and none of which took place on Russian territory, as yet another anti-Russian tool.

Free England Condemns the Hypocrisy of the British Ruling Class

In the 1830s the English liberal Richard Cobden (1804-1865) called for an end to this Russophobia.  He was already arguing that just as ‘in the slave trade we (the British) had surpassed in guilt the world, so in foreign wars we have the most aggressive, quarrelsome, warlike and bloody nation under the sun’. In October 1850 he wrote a letter claiming that in the last 25 years ‘you will find that we have been incomparably the most sanguinary nation on earth… in China, in Burma, in India, New Zealand, the Cape, Syria, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc, there is hardly a country, however remote, in which we have not been waging war or dictating our terms at the point of a bayonet’. Cobden stated that the British, ‘the greatest blood-shedders of all’, had been then involved in more wars than the rest of Europe put together. This was factually correct.

For this, Cobden blamed the British Establishment aristocracy, which he stated had ‘converted the combativeness of the English race to its own ends’. On the British invasion of Burma in 1852, Cobden wrote: ‘I blush for my country, and the very blood in my veins tingled with indignation at the wanton disregard of all justice and decency without our proceedings towards that country exhibited. The violence and wrongs perpetrated by Pizarro or Cortez were scarcely veiled in a more transparent pretence of right than our own’. The Burmese, Cobden continued, had ‘no more chance against our 64-pound red-hot shot and other infernal improvement in the art of war than they would in running a race on their roads against our railways…the day on which we commenced the war with a bombardment of shot, shell and rockets…that the natives must have thought it an onslaught of devils, was Easter Sunday!’

Western Fascism

In the end, Great Britain ‘won’ its Great Game by overthrowing the Tsar through its regime-change operation which culminated in 1917. But that was a Pyrrhic victory. It all went wrong, for it was in this way that Britain was largely responsible for creating the anti-Western Communist Soviet Union, which replaced the highly Westernised Christian Russian Empire. When the next Combined West invaded Russia in June 1941 under Hitler, the second Napoleon, this multinational invasion from the West was welcomed by the Russophobic British. However, it ended unexpectedly with Russian troops liberating Vienna and Berlin from Western Fascism in 1945.

This was exactly as the Russian Empire had been about to do in 1917 before the British sabotage of Russia in the so-called ‘Revolution’. In reality, despite British anti-Russian propaganda about pogroms, the pogroms in Germany and Austria were far worse than any in the Non-Russian territories in the west of the old Russian Empire. And it was precisely such Western pogroms which later gave rise to the appalling and purely Western phenomenon of Fascism and Nazism, most of whose death-camps were, like Auschwitz, liberated by Russian-led Soviet troops.

Occupying the Ukraine

Now we leave to history the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union and move forward to our own times. Once Russia had thrown off the purely Western atheist Communist yoke in 1991 (yes, Communism is like Fascism a Western ideology and has nothing Russian about it), there was a period in which the US-led Western world invented a new enemy, Islam. However, given its ensuing defeats in the Muslim world in the 2010s, its attention turned back to Russia as its enemy once more. On the hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of World War One, the Combined West, now called NATO, meaning Washington and its mainly Western European vassals, invaded the Russian Lands again: Paris, Berlin, Washington. Napoleon, Hitler, Biden.

This meant the CIA violently toppling the democratically-elected Ukrainian government in Kiev in 2014, applauded by EU Commissars. After eight years of pleading for peace since 2014, in 2022 Russia was obliged to pre-empt the planned Kiev invasion and genocide of the Russian Lands in the south and east by NATO-trained and NATO-supplied Kiev regime forces. The US intention was to use the Kiev regime and its troops as pawns, suicidal proxies to weaken and destroy Russia. Russia pre-empted the invasion by sending token forces into the Ukraine. Thus began the liberation of the Russian south and east of the Soviet-invented ‘Ukraine’, so dismantling this purely artificial country, invented by Western-created Communist monsters from 1922 on, into its constituent parts. This means essentially into Russia, Ukraine, Poland. Hungary and Romania.

Liberating the Ukraine

Russia does not want to ‘conquer’ the Ukraine, whatever ‘conquer’ means. By far the biggest country in the world has no need of more territory. Its hope is that the powerful anti-Nazi Ukrainian Resistance Movement can overthrow the CIA-imposed and financed Fascist regime in Kiev with the angry, disillusioned and betrayed peoples of the Ukraine. The hope is that with help Ukrainians will set up their own Free, Non-Nazi, Non-CIA, Ukrainian government there, which will unite the Ukrainian Ukraine into a sovereign country.

Its protection from Western/NATO imperialists will be guaranteed by the Russian Federation. The drama has always been that, greedy to control and exploit their natural resources and geopolitical significance, the West has never allowed the peoples of the Ukraine self-determination. Hence 40% of Ukrainian territory now belongs to the US Blackrock Corporation, sold off by corrupt and feudal Kiev politicians behind the backs of their peoples.

World War III or World War I, Part III?

This lack of self-determination, or lack of freedom, for Ukrainians has resulted in the largely MI6-planned terrorist attacks on Russian civilians, repeating the typically British terrorist attacks on German civilians and others in World War II, which were just as futile. This has resulted in the recent, NATO-planned Ukrainian incursion into the unpopulated and forested southern tip of the Kursk province of Russia. World War II German Panther and Tiger tanks, driven by SS Ukrainians, have been replaced by German Leopard tanks today.

Nothing has changed. Little wonder that some consider that there has only ever been one World War, but in three parts. Perhaps it is World War One, Part III that is now ending in the Ukraine? The US at last understands that it has lost its proxy war in the Ukraine; all it wants to do now is to hold on until the US elections, when they can forget it. Although this liberation is well-advanced, what can be said of the future liberation of the Western Peninsula half of Europe, which begins after the Polish border?

PART TWO: Self-Liberation or Self-Destruction for Western Europe?

The New Poverty of Western Europe

The centre of Western Europe’s economy and industry had for at least five generations been Germany, despite two Great Wars. No longer today. Having been forced by its US-run elite to cut itself off from cheap Russian gas, oil and other natural resources and accept the US destruction of the Nordstream pipeline, exactly as the US had publicly promised to do, its industry is closing down. The social effects in a country which is already full of refugees from the failed US-led wars in Muslim North Africa, West Asia and the Ukraine, are catastrophic. Germany, like the rest of Western Europe, is already no longer an economic rival to the US, for like most EU countries it threw away control of its own currency. Widespread poverty is now visible. The US has won, defeating not victorious Russia, but destroyed Western Europe.

The centre of Western Europe’s ideology and diplomacy had for generations been France, which even provided it with the French language for diplomacy. With its UN seat, it promoted an independent, pro-Gaullist European line, opposing, for example, the second US war against Iraq in 2003, for which Americans called the French ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’. No longer today. Since the corrupt President Sarkozy, who forced France to join the US-run NATO in 2009, France has been ruled by US-placed Presidents. Today, France is paralysed, as its Rothschild bank-clerk president, Macron, surrounded by other perverts, has refused to implement the results of the last French Parliamentary election, which he disastrously lost. The country is ungovernable and he is left as a detested dictator.

Europe Governed by the American Empire

The two other major EU countries, Italy and Spain, are silent, besieged and impoverished like all the other smaller ones from Ireland to Portugal, Romania to the Netherlands, Greece to Croatia, by masses of illegal immigrants, whom national governments are not allowed to reject, as the elites passed control from the nation state to the Globalists. The only Western European countries whose voices are heard are those who scurry to repeat and exaggerate US policies, being ‘more royalist than the king’, to try and show that their completely unimportant countries are somehow important. Indeed, the US has to restrain these fanatics.

They are delusional. In fact, the leaders of these countries are talking to themselves. The countries are the Northern European UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland and the three tiny Baltic statelets. The combined population of these latter three is only one tenth of France’s, which has a UN seat, and yet their voices are heeded far more than France’s. All these eight countries amount to no more than three or four of the fifty US States. However, all over Europe a revolt has begun against the oppressive US-run elites in the breaking down UK and among the European Union Commissars who are the new Pilates, the New Roman governors.

Western European Resistance

However, so far only 25% of Europeans of left or right are revolting against US oppression. The Globalist Uniparty, whatever it may call itself, Labour, Conservative, Social, Democratic, holds sway. Most Europeans have been brainwashed by the US-run and, in the case of the BBC, pedophile media into believing that the only alternative to being slaves of the American Empire is to be subject to the bogeymen of Russia and China. These, apparently, are ‘authoritarian’, ‘autocratic’ and ‘Fascist’.

And most citizens are so zombified that they actually believe such lies. With their ‘leaders’ in bondage to the US, the majority of Western Europeans are brainwashed by bread and circuses and left ignorant. Europe has made itself irrelevant on the world stage, ideologically, politically, diplomatically, economically, socially, culturally and, most significantly, spiritually and morally. It is a sad time in European history. Western Europe is dying – through its own choice.

Free Europe: De-Americanisation

Since the 1940s Western Europe, like Japan, has been occupied by US troops. As a result, over the last eighty years, Western Europe has been thoroughly americanised, colonised and vassalised, coca-cola-ised, macdonald-ised, netflix-ised, singing in American, and reclothed in the unisex American uniform of jeans, T-shirts and trainers. There is the attempt to create a highly centralised United States of Europe, at present called the EU and run by the US-trained elite of unelected Eurocommissars.

The US aim is to destroy the strength of industry in Western Europe through its illegal sanctions ‘against Russia’, in reality against Western Europe, destroying its economies, as it destroyed the Nordstream pipeline. The only hope for Western Europe is, probably nation by nation, to be abandoned by the US, just as Soviet-controlled Europe was abandoned by the USSR, like a row of dominos between 1989 and 1991. Western Europe will then have to de-americanise itself, by turning to the multipolar BRICS Alliance, ejecting its US imperialist masters

The Alliance

This Alliance, with a BRICS Security Council of Five and soon perhaps fifty associate members, is becoming a new and at last real and independent United Nations. Only in BRICS will nations be allowed to keep their own identities, but also to reintegrate Eurasia and benefit from Russian natural resources and Chinese investment. Let it be made clear, Russia will not liberate Western Europe; its interests stop at the Polish border, where East Slavdom ends. Russia has turned its back on aggressive and now unimportant Western Europe.

Western Europe must help itself, liberating itself. Russians are tired of going to liberate Paris and Berlin and seeing its soldiers die there. No more. However, de-americanisation is only the first of the two stages in the process of the self-liberation of Western Europe. Before the US intervened in Western Europe in 1917, having in 1916 ordered Great Britain to overthrow the Tsar’s Russia before its long-prepared entry into the War, it was already and again at war with itself. It has constantly made war with itself and with others. Only Western Europe can liberate itself from this.

Free Europe: De-Frankisation

After all, the USA is itself a Western European invention, resulting from the aggressive Western European invasion and occupation of the lands of the original Asian settlers there. Ther huge territories had belonged to them for thousands of years before Western Europeans settled them. The fundamental process, which must probably happen before Western European nations join BRICS, is ‘de-frankisation’, which I will explain below. This is indicated in the above quotation from Cobden, that ‘the British, the greatest blood-shedders of all, had been then involved in more wars than the rest of Europe put together’.

For this he blamed the ever-aggressive British aristocracy, which he declared had ‘converted the combativeness of the English race to its own ends’. Now the British aristocracy are of Viking origin, the Vikings, called in history Northmen or Normans, used as shock-troops for the spread of the imperialism of the Frankish ruling class of Continental Western Europe. It is this same Frankish and, in the British Isles and Ireland, its local Norman variant, that controls politics, the media and the arms trade throughout Western Europe. Until it is removed from power, which is possibly peacefully, its wars of aggression will continue.

Conclusion: Towards a Great England and a Great Europe

Those who are anti-imperialist in England are often accused of being ‘Little Englanders’, rather than ‘Great Britainists’. Our values are in fact neither Great British Imperialism, essentially Fascist, nor Little England bigotry, essentially Ignorance. Rather, because we are actual Christians, we believe in a ‘Great England’, an England made Great because it prizes above all Love and Truth, that is, Patriotism and Peace, and not the Anti-Patriotism of Globalism and its forever wars. And these words apply to each and every other people of Western Europe.

 

On the Tragedy of Metr Hilarion (Alfeyev)

The Budapest scandal which broke on 5 July 2024, revealed by a half-Russian, half-Japanese teenager, led to the downfall of Metr Hilarion (Alfeyev). Regardless of whether the Metropolitan himself was set up or is wholly guilty, it is clear that the young man involved in this blackmail case and the woman behind him are thieves and criminals. However, it is equally clear that the Metropolitan led a hypocritical life quite unworthy of a supposed monk, regardless of the details. None of this came as a surprise to us. Plenty of other careerists of his rank, and not only in Moscow, are guilty of the same, but they have not been entrapped or caught out. Their turn will come.

The case is now being tried in Moscow by three very young Metropolitans and one equally young Archbishop (my sister-in-law literally used to change his nappies when he was in summer camp). All of them are younger even than Metr Hilarion. One of them, the very young Metr Antony (Sevryuk), was sent to Japan this spring in order to investigate the family of the criminal involved in the case. Some have suggested that this proves that the whole case was a set-up. That is only a speculation. There is no proof. Whatever the case, it seems highly likely  that Metr Hilarion will be defrocked. There is however one way out for him, the way taken by so many others in Moscow, who also opposed the conflict in the Ukraine.

This would be for him to join the Patriarchate of Constantinople. On the one hand, this seems highly unlikely, as Metr Hilarion has time and again condemned that Patriarchate for its ignoble and uncanonical actions in the Ukraine. Surely Constantinople would not want him and he would definitely not want Constantinople? It would all seem like a betrayal. However, if the USA intervened on his behalf…’Metr Hilarion of the Slavic Exarchate of Western Europe of the Oecumenical Patriarchate’. It does have a ring to it…. Constantinople is desperate to control the Diaspora and Metr Hilarion is pro-Catholic. And for the Americans there is the question of the successor to the increasingly frail Patriarch Kyrill (and Patriarch Bartholomew). Here the CIA is deeply involved, as usual… However unlikely, nothing is impossible with the possibility of repentance.

The Russian-Founded New World Order and Moving to Russia

Introduction: Why I Have Not Moved to Russia

As a fluent Russian-speaker, I wanted to move to Russia when I was actually 20, when I was invited to study at the Moscow Theological Academy in 1977, but the Cold War prevented that. I would long ago have moved there, if I were 20 years old. In the last twelve months I have been invited to move there, where the futile slanders of me by one here are mocked, to serve as a priest by two Patriarchal bishops, whom I know and who know the real situation.

However, my family lives here and my Russian and other parishioners need me here. I will not be going to Russia, unless my whole family, all 27 of us, wishes to go. I prefer to stay and continue the fight against the ecumenists, against the covidists, and against the pseudo-Russian schismatics. I was, by God’s will, born here. God put me here to do something here. When I was 18 and the late Metropolitan Kallistos told me that, I did not know what that something was.

Gradually, the twofold sense of my life was revealed to me. It was to witness to Western European Orthodoxy, to St Felix, St Edmund and the ten thousand other Western Saints, whom St John also venerated, and so to restore the Non-Establishment West, and, secondly, in the words of the ever-memorable Slovak Metropolitan Laurus, ‘to keep the purity of Holy Orthodoxy’. This meant to act against the rogues of left and right, against both the scribes and against the pharisees.

This meant fighting against both the spiritually empty intellectuals, ecumenists and modernists, and the equally spiritually empty ‘princes of the Church’, whose only interests are their preening narcissism and love of power and money. Both sides, acting together against the mainstream, that is, against the mighty river, of the Church of God, are too cowardly and unprincipled to stand up to such corrupt bullies, anti-family perverts and psychopaths, and they repeat their slanders against us. But we are not cowards and unprincipled. God is the Judge of those who repeat slanders against us.

Russian Military, Political and Diplomatic Victories

In the wide world, today the government of President Putin is liberating the bankrupt Ukraine and its patriotic and persecuted faithful from NATO Nazism, as promoted by the local Fascist rogues in Kiev. Clearly, this conflict will end with the Kiev regime’s capitulation. Russia hopes that this capitulation will take place through a popular Ukrainian insurrection against the Kiev regime. That is possible. The US-created Ukraine is the biggest loser of this war, but not far behind it is the now isolated and impoverished Western Europe. This has lost greatly, as it has committed economic suicide by boycotting cheap Russian gas, oil, fertiliser and other resources and has also taken in eight million very expensive Ukrainians, who became very unpopular there through their demands and sense of entitlement. As for the third loser, the ungoverned USA, it has already abandoned the Ukraine, just as it abandoned Afghanistan and Iraq before it.

Internationally, the same Russian government has created a defensive Alliance with China, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Mongolia. Thus, Russia’s borders, east and west are now secured and protected, much as they were in January 1904, before the West attacked Russia indirectly (through Japan, which later wanted to destroy Korea, China and Mongolia), and then in January 1914, before the West attacked Russia directly. South Asia, India, is already with Russia and we will soon see the consolidation of the Eurasian heartland, as Central Asia joins this defensive Alliance of Eurasia.

As for the Russian-sponsored BRICS Economic Alliance, even now 45% of the world population, it was founded in 2009 in Ekaterinburg, the City of the Martyrdom of Tsar Nicholas II and his Family, a martyrdom ordered from New York. BRICS, now with nine countries, includes other countries from Asia (the UAE), Africa (Ethiopia and South Africa) and Latin America (Brazil). In Kazan, in seven weeks’ time, new members will ask to join the BRICS Alliance, some say thirty countries, some say more, though most of them may not actually be joining as early as this year. Among the candidates are countries as diverse as Azerbaijan, Cuba, Bolivia, Gabon, Venezuela, Belarus, Turkiye, Algeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, Serbia, Malaysia, Kazakhstan and even, one day, for the moment EU Hungary, Slovakia and Italy.

Russian victory was imminent at the end of 1916, liberating Vienna in summer 1917 and Berlin in autumn 1917, just before the Western prevented that victory by overthrowing the Tsar with its agents and replacing him with the Western agents, Lenin and Trotsky, the former of whom created the Ukraine, the second of whom was born in what is now the Ukraine. Russia is back. This Russian victory may be imminent again, in 2024 – unless the West can overthrow the present Tsar. Over a century of thwarted Russian victory may be over at last, despite the spies, traitors, perverts and schismatics who have infiltrated the Russian Orthodox Church.

Russian-United Eurasia and European Collapse

Three of the four world’s superpowers and largest economies are in Asia: China, India and Russia.  China and India were once far more prosperous and far more advanced than Europe, before Western Europeans colonised, exploited and destroyed them. That process has now gone into reverse: Asia now dominates Western Europe. Moreover, Eurasian Russia is getting Asia to unite. East Asia (China etc), West Asia (the old ‘Middle East’), South Asia (India etc) and North Asia (Russia) are uniting. Apart from the still hesitant five ‘stans’ of Central Asia, what is missing is US-occupied North-West Asia (what is still called ‘Western Europe’, 5% of the world population) and US-occupied North-East Asia (the ever-shrinking Japan and South Korea).

The hope is that both the latter, the North-West Asian Peninsula (the Western half of Europe, which has so disastrously tried to expand into the Eastern half, in the Ukraine) and the North-East Asian Archipelago (Japan and South Korea), will liberate themselves from Americanisation (camouflaged beneath the word ‘Globalism’) and enter into this Grand Alliance of the Global Majority of BRICS. For this to happen patriotic left and patriotic right have to unite against the anti-patriotic, NATO-Nazi Globalists of the US-created Uniparty, who are the real extremists. Liberation from the 20% of the pro-US, pro-EU, pro-NATO, pro-Kiev and pro-Woke Globalist Establishment is what the 80%, the peoples of Western Europe, seek. For the Globalists always put anti-national interests first, to the detriment of their own electorates.

Such liberation from the Establishment, the System, as it is called in Germany (‘the Deep State’ in the USA), is now the electoral path in the UK, France, Germany and almost every other country in Western Europe, against the highly unpopular ruling class elite. We the people want our sovereignty and our national identity, which we believe is in our saints, back. In the meantime, we have to face the contemporary Western reality. This is summed up by both the opening and closing ceremonies of the Pagan Games in Paris, which show exactly what its nature is. The Serbian Orthodox tennis player Novak Djokovich and some African athletes resisted the persecution and blasphemies against Christianity there, but few others did.

LGBT ideology and transgenderism dominate the Western Establishment (for example, the millionaire pedophiles employed by the BBC) more and more. It is shocking. The West has become the collapsing Soviet Union. It is 1989 in the West. As a result, President Putin has issued an executive order to take in spiritual refugees from the West, on condition that they share in the traditional religious values of the Russian Federation and that they are under persecution. Should people move there?

Moving to Russia

So far only one Russian family from our parish has moved to Russia, though not because they were under persecution. That was eighteen months ago.  It was a great success financially. They both have jobs which they like and they are already able to buy their own home. One other parishioner is thinking about following their example, but most of my many Russian parishioners are not even contemplating it. Let alone our Ukrainians, Balts, Romanians, Moldovans, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and the other twenty-one nationalities among our 600 regular parishioners.

Here some should take care, not returning Russians who know the situation perfectly well, but naïve and idealistic Non-Russian converts to Orthodoxy. They should ask themselves many questions first: Why do most Russians stay here and new Russians even want to come here? Why do they not return and others still want to leave Russia? The fact is that in today’s Russia, most live in high-rise tower blocks, abortion is twice even the appalling level of Western countries, divorce is just as high as in the West, and most baptised Orthodox are still cremated when they die. Beware of ‘the grass is always greener on the other side’ syndrome.

Then there is the bureaucracy (just as bad as in France) and corruption, which is especially noticeable when it comes to health care with its universal envelopes under the table. As for the Church, only 2-3% go to church, partly because of the problems of corrupt and oligarchic homosexual bishops and money-grubbing priests (those two problems helped cause the post-1917 persecution of the Church). What many in the West do not understand is that Russia is dominated by a cultural Orthodoxy, rather than a zealous, practising Orthodoxy, just like every other country in the Orthodox world.

Then there are purely practical questions. Do you speak Russian? You will have to learn. What money will you live off, if you live in Russia? What job will you find? How will your children adapt to a very different and much tougher school system? Will you attend church in Slavonic and on the old calendar? (If you do not do so here, how will you cope there?). Just a little dose of reality.

Conclusion: Avoiding Escapism

For most it is too early to contemplate moving to Russia. Let us wait and see. As long as we can still be saved here, as long as we can still fight and resist here, despite the persecution of us here, not by LGBT fanatics, but by certain so-called ‘Orthodox’ bishops, let us stay here. To leave now seems like running away. We still have the chance to win here.

 

The Art of Schism or How to Make Part of the Orthodox Church into Your Personal Sect

  1. First find a small part of the Church with naïve and uneducated people in charge, who will not want to obstruct your highly-developed personal ambitions, as they think that you can be useful to them and they are desperate to recruit.
  2. Tell them that you are highly educated and hoodwink, charm and impress them, exaggerating and lying about your credentials and titles, relying on their ignorance. They will not care to know the difference, as they only look at external appearances.
  3. Engage in a full-scale PR operation among others, which with your natural acting talents, smile, gift with words, command of the internet, support from the sponsors and minders behind you and your overriding ambition, you should find very easy.
  4. Proceed to isolate your little part of the Church by expressing contempt and hatred for every other part of the Church, calling all others ‘satanic’, ‘heretical’, ‘schismatic’ or ‘uncanonical’ and presenting yourself as ‘spiritual’, ‘holy’, ‘pure’, ‘canonical’, with exclusive and superior truths and call all others in some way ‘tainted’. (You will find something).
  5. In order to present yourself as the infallible Pope of your domain, a Prince of the Church and Prince of the Pharisees, cultivate your appearance. Your natural preening narcissism will help you in this.
  6. Ensure that you have total and totalitarian control over everything that the naïve entrust you with, sending out your personal network of spies and agents to find out exactly what your victims are doing and saying and to police them.
  7. In order to implement full control, make certain that all who are much older and far more experienced than you, contradict you or challenge you, know the truth about you and know better than you because they are actually educated and saw through you from the start, abandon you by witch-hunting them and demanding their property and money. Then you can obtain your desired absolute power over the select few of the ignorant and hoodwinked who remain.
  8. Make any who resist you feel guilty by using the techniques of exceeding your authority, falsely claiming that they owe you absolute obedience, belittling, intimidating and humiliating them, further developing your personality cult.
  9. Eliminate and blacken any who resist you by slandering them and insulting them in front of everyone.
  10. Claim that only your group has like the pharisees the exclusive possession of the truth and that all others are somehow inferior and defective. All members of your sect are to be exploited by you as they are naive. You will of course practise ‘corrective baptism’, that is, the rebaptism of Orthodox, which is expressly forbidden by the Creed.
  11. Brainwash any who are young and naïve so that you can control their minds. You will find podcasts and zooms very useful here. Remember the manipulative practices (and the riches) of tele-evangelists.
  12. Ensure that you enslave any whom you give presents to and retain well-deserved presents from them. Hang the presents over them like carrots hang over donkeys. They must feel that they are in debt to you and be dependent on you for ever.
  13. Check the social media of all and censor and correct any opinions that are not perfectly in line with your own. Use your network of admiring slaves to malign and try and discredit those who have different views to you. This is your cult.
  14. Prey on the single, lonely and woman-disliking, like yourself. Find psychologically and pathologically vulnerable, naïve, weak and ignorant young men through your powers of manipulation and make them feel indebted to you.
  15. Recruit those who have money, especially naïve and conservative-minded women who have never met any other Orthodox. They will be very useful to you in your quest to obtain property and income to finance your superior lifestyle.
  16. Always lie whenever you have to justify yourself.
  17. Micro-manage all situations. Your control and power must be absolute in all circumstances.
  18. Always remember the five-word golden rule: Bully, Intimidate, Manipulate, Betray, Orchestrate (BIMBO).
  19. If you are found out through your psychological, spiritual and other abuses, have your Plan B ready.
  20. When you need to implement Plan B, take as much money with you to feather your nest in the next country you flee to. Remember the example of your predecessor Antony Grabbe, the six-million dollar man.

 

 

After the End-Game in the Ukraine

Introduction: After the Conflict

After two and a half years of conflict in the Ukraine, we have at last arrived at the end-game. There may even be less than six months to go, as the conflict could even end on about its 1,000th day, in mid-November. What will happen once the end-game is over, whether that is in 2024 or in 2025? Once the war is won, how will the peace be won? What will post-conflict Ukraine look like? What are the differences in intentions between the ‘moderates’ and the ‘hardliners’ in Moscow?

Provinces Returned to the Russian Federation?

At first, in 2014, the profoundly Russian Crimea and Sevastopol (which also counts as  a province) returned to Russia by overwhelming popular consent after sixty years of Communist-enforced separation. This was extremely popular. Then, because of Kiev’s genocidal aggression there, in February 2022 the two provinces of the Russian Donbass also returned to Russia by overwhelming popular consent. Next, because of Kiev’s threats to the Crimea, in late 2022, Russian Zaporozhie and Kherson also returned to Russia, again by overwhelming popular vote in referenda. Both the moderates and the hardliners in Moscow agree about the return of these six Russian provinces with their pre-war population of twelve million, as also about the neutrality of the Ukraine, that it will never become part of NATO.

Unlike the moderates in Moscow, however, the hardliners want Russia to take back the rest of Novorossija, another four provinces, namely, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Nikolaev and Odessa, though also by referenda, which are still to be held. Moreover, the fate of the three provinces of Sumy, Chernigov and Poltava, which are also on the west bank of the Dnieper, hangs in the balance as well -the hardliners want them too. If they transfer to Russia, then much of the territory conquered by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, his son, Tsar Peter the Great and Tsarina Catherine the Great some 300 years ago, will be restored to Russia. If these seven provinces returned to Russia, this would reduce the New Ukraine to fourteen provinces out of the original twenty-seven.

A Province Returned to Romania?

As a result of Kiev’s invasion of Russia’s Kursk province, continual drone attacks on and terrorist threats to civilians and installations far inside Russia, most of the remainder of the Ukraine is probably going to end up as a third Union State, independent in local affairs, but otherwise more or less under Russian control, in effect a client state similar to Belarus. However, from this remainder of the Ukraine, the very small province of Chernivtsy (North Bukovina), or most of it, may, if it chooses to do so by referendum, return to Romania, from where it was taken in 1945. This transfer could perhaps take place in exchange for Transdnestria and Gagauzia, which overwhelmingly want to leave Romanian-speaking Moldova and join Russia. However, that will depend on Moldova, not on Romania.

If the rest of Moldova then chooses to rejoin Romania by referendum, perhaps on the Russian condition that all NATO bases are closed in Romania, that will be their choice. However, we think it much more likely that Moldovans will choose to remain independent of EU Romania and so free to receive cheap Russian energy. In that case, in an independent Moldova, the Moldovan Orthodox Church must receive joint autocephaly from the Russian and the Romanian Orthodox Churches, with all so-called ‘defrocked’ clergy (defrocked for purely political and non-canonical reasons) ‘refrocked’, as is always done in the case of political defrockings. Church unity can then be achieved there.

Provinces Returned to Hungary, Slovakia and Poland?

As for Hungary, it should also take back the tiny slice of Hungarian territory on the edge of the Ukrainian border. This would be taken from the strangely-named province of Zakarpattia, which could get back its old name of Podkarpatska Rus (Subcarpathian Rus) and also possibly return to Hungary or else to Slovakia.

Then there comes the situation of the Western provinces of Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk, and possible the next three other far western, formerly Polish provinces of Volyn, Rovno and Ternopol. Should they be separated from the future New Ukraine and return to Poland, as the moderates recommend? True, the CIA and MI6 financed and supplied anti-Russian, Neo-Nazi terrorism in far western Ukraine from 1948 until at least 1958 and many Russian patriots died there.

For this reason, the moderates do not want to touch this territory. However, now that most of the Neo-Nazis have been killed in the conflict or have fled to the West, there would be much less opposition there to remaining in a New Ukraine, which would have a measure of independence. Surely Russia is obliged to secure its borders by controlling this territory, rather than giving it back to Poland? The danger is after all that any unliberated territory, or territory handed over to Poland, will be turned into use as a NATO terrorist base against you. So argue the hardliners, who would thus reduce the New Ukraine to seven provinces.

Conclusion: The New Ukraine

This New Ukraine or Malorossija would be left perhaps with a minimum of seven provinces and a maximum of twenty-one, counting the City of Kiev and the Kiev province separately. It would have a population of between about nine and twenty-five million, providing that all ten million or so who left to work in the West in the last ten years return, which is highly unlikely. Essentially, it will be a landlocked, southern and large Belarus. Although it will be bankrupted, it will never pay the debts of the old regime back to the West, especially to the City of London, and will be rebuilt by Russia and China. Surely, however, its canonical Church would have to receive autocephaly from Moscow and become a centre of national unity and identity, just as in the future Moldova.