Category Archives: Orthodox Restoration

The Orthodox World: The Third Way Holds the Centre Ground

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

 

Introduction: Secularist Greeks Versus Secularist Russians

So wrote the Irish poet Yeats in 1919 after the first catastrophic tribal European War of 1914-1918 was over. Since that time over a hundred years of ‘mere anarchy’ and ‘the blood-dimmed tide’ have been loosed. Still today some wonder how much longer ‘the rough beast’ will take to ‘slouch to Bethlehem to be born’, as Yeats wrote further in his same poem The Second Coming. In the affairs of the Non-Orthodox world, Protestantism seems to have lost all its faith and is now closing down, selling off its churches, as it is ‘lacking all conviction’. As for Papalism, it is led by an old and sick man who faces scandal after scandal and all is ‘falling apart’. What about the situation of the Orthodox Church?

Secularists, who only look at externals and fail to know the inner life of the Church, see Orthodoxy as divided between Russians and Greeks. They always have done so and always will ignore the vast majority of the Local Orthodox Churches. However, inside the Church we have a far different understanding from them, reaching much beyond the superficial nationalist politics of Greek and Russian elites. What amateur CIA writers call ‘The Clash of Patriarchs’ (1) is nonsense. The Church is not about personalities, politics or ethnicities, it is far deeper and broader than mere skin-deep secular racial identities, Russian, Greek or any other, for in Christ there is ‘neither Jew nor Greek’. Outside the Church there is only that.

The Centre Ground

Our place is in the centre ground of the other fourteen Local Orthodox Churches, which is also the ground held by churched Russians and Greeks, though not by Russian and Greek nationalists, who are merely ‘cultural Orthodox’, nostalgic and delusional for long since disappeared empires. The Centre is opposed to the divisive nationalism of unchurched Greeks and Russians. That nationalism is rejected by Non-Greeks and Russians, that is, by the majorities of the other fourteen Local Churches, which form ‘Carpathian Orthodoxy’, covering Austria, Hungary, Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Serbia, Romania and Moldova, with Macedonia, Albania and Bulgaria standing ready nearby.

The Hellenism of the Greek world, which ended in 1453, is rejected by Non-Greeks. In the second largest Local Church, the Romanian, we ignore both Greeks and Russians. In Western Europe we are far larger, soon with twelve bishops, nearly a thousand parishes and five million faithful. At present the Romanian Church is also reclaiming Romanian Orthodox in the southern Ukraine, Moldova and Western Europe from both Greeks and Russians. Serbs, Macedonians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, Romanians, Moldovans, Bulgarians, Syrians, Poles and Albanians also reject Greek interference. And Russian nationalism is becoming irrelevant even in the former USSR as Orthodox assimilate, as we can see below.

The Tragedy of Russian Politicisation

It seems strange that Orthodox in countries as diverse as the Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia and Kazakhstan are still formally under the Russian Church. Already in Estonia for thirty years and for a few months in Lithuania, the Russian Church has had no monopoly of jurisdiction. As for the Ukraine, the Church jurisdictional situation there is chaotic, with Moscow losing everything. though not yet as chaotic as among Orthodox in Western Europe, the Americas and Australia, where many Local Churches are represented and people are free to choose their church. And governments there are also free to allow any Local Church to operate on its territory – or not, with the Russian Church already banned in Latvia.

The sad fact is that Russian Church life has been highly politicised; much is ideology, rigidity, negativity and coldness. The old Russian emigration anecdote goes that once a Russian was discovered by a ship living on a desert island, where he had built three churches. When asked by the captain of the ship that rescued him why he had built three churches, he replied: ‘So that there are two where I must not go’. The fact is that the Russian emigration has been marked by hatred, not love, by bishops who hate their clergy and people, ‘drowning the ceremony of innocence’, who try to steal the people’s churches, sadistically punish and generally have no idea of how to be pastors and love their clergy and people (2).

The Ukraine

What of the Ukraine? What will happen there after the forthcoming Russian victory? Probably, this will at long last create a real Ukraine, divested of its very large minorities, almost a majority, over half of the old Soviet-created Ukraine. The far south-west corner, former Habsburg territory, will surely return to Hungary after its theft in 1945. In the south, North Bukovina, which was also stolen by Stalin, will return to Romania. And surely at least two of the mainly Uniat provinces in the far west may return to Poland. The rest, the real Ukraine, minus the huge Novorossija in the south and east which is largely Russian, will remain as the real Ukraine, with its centre in historic Kiev and be Ukrainian-speaking.

Clearly, the time will then be up for the so-called ‘OCU’, Constantinople’s fake Church, that absurd State-run jurisdiction of gangsters and homosexuals with 1,500 now empty churches, stolen by State-aided violence from the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, led by the heroic Metr Onufry of Kiev. On the other hand, after military victory, Moscow, which is now at the head of a Russian National Church, will have to win the peace. It will be obliged to decentralise and at last grant the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephaly (33 years late…). No Ukrainian wants to attend ‘alien’, Russian-controlled, churches. Ukrainians want their own Church. This will be the seventeenth Local Orthodox Church.

Moldova

Then there is Moldova. The main Church there, which depends on Metropolitan Vladimir who is under Moscow for the moment, will soon have twelve bishops. It works in competition with the smaller Metropolia of Bessarabia, which also claims historic jurisdiction in Moldova and is part of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Vladimir has recently made a tour of the very large Moldovan Diaspora. It is possible that with so many bishops he may after the fall of the US-run Ukraine want to declare autocephaly (independence) from Moscow, with the full backing of the Moldovan government and the US ambassador (which is much the same thing). However, such a move will have complex implications.

For Moscow would not recognise such a self-declared autocephaly. At that point Metropolitan Vladimir of Moldova should logically, if he wished, negotiate with the Romanian Church to have his autocephaly confirmed by it. This would be on condition that he create unity with the Bessarabian Metropolia and withdrew all the absurd ‘defrockings’ of clergy who have already transferred from him to it, both inside and outside Moldova. Only if the Romanian Church granted him autocephaly, would the rest of the Orthodox world recognise it, leaving Moscow even more isolated and lacking a part of its former Diaspora in Western Europe. A Moldovan Church would be the eighteenth Local Church.

The Baltics and Beyond

Beyond this, Moscow would also have to deal with Church affairs in the three independent Baltic republics. If it does not give them autocephaly, they will be further racked by schism and destroyed and undermined by their Russophobic State authorities. Moscow’s long refusal to grant autocephaly has already led to divisions in Estonia and Lithuania. However, since the total number of bishops in the three countries is, I believe, only eight, and numbers of the faithful are fewer than half a million, it would make sense to set up a Baltic Orthodox Church, covering all three territories. Indeed, it could be argued that Finland should become a fourth part of this Baltic Orthodox Church. This would be the nineteenth Local Church.

Beyond this there is the Russian Church in the Diaspora. Here there is schism in Western Europe because of the schism of the very aggressive American Synod of Russian bishops, with its ghetto churches in backrooms and garden sheds, with a dozen or so ‘onetrue church’ converts in each one and clergy who have no theological training or qualifications, ‘making it up as they go along’. They have no idea of mass Orthodoxy. The people and priests turn away from homosexual, bisexual and schismatic psychopathic bishop-pharisees, shouting in jealousy, threatening, intimidating, punishing, trying to steal property and screaming: ‘Give me the keys!’ Their refusal to co-operate with other Orthodox is based on their ideological and racial hatred.

Africa

The Russian Church has Exarchates in Belarus (see below), and two missionary exarchates, in South-East Asia and in Africa. This latter is highly controversial, as the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt has for nearly a century claimed Africa as its territory, though until the late 1920s it had claimed only Egypt and Libya. Although here it has made several hundred thousand Black African converts, its missions have been weak and control of the Church is 100% in Greek hands and Greek embassies. The Russian mission appears to have opened in revenge for the 2018 Greek setting up a ‘Church’ with US finance in the Ukraine, Russia’s canonical territory. Does the Russian missionary Exarchate in Africa have a future then?

On paper the Russian Exarchate appears to be as uncanonical as the Greek ‘Church’ in the Ukraine. However, in the Ukraine the people do not attend the top-down Greek Church, which recently adopted the ‘new’ calendar against all tradition and many of whose clergy are not even ordained. On the other hand, the Russian mission has attracted grassroots interest, with over 100 African priests and their communities joining it. Collective baptisms are taking place. If the Russian mission goes native and has black African bishops, then it will have a future. But first it has to prove that it is not a political, Russian embassy set-up. Only if it goes native, will it get canonical recognition as a fait accompli and become the twentieth Local Church.

Conclusion: The Revelation Is At Hand

There are other former Soviet, but now independent republics, such as Belarus and the five stans of Central Asia, especially Kazakhstan, where there are several million Russians. At present none of these countries has asked for its own autocephalous Church, but that time will almost certainly come. As for the Moscow Diaspora in Western Europe and the Americas, it has largely become a ghetto, as the Russian Church is seen as politically compromised and has painted itself into a nationalist corner. However, the Greek Diaspora is also politically compromised, it is largely elderly, to the point of dying out, and its episcopate suffers from severe homosexualisation, with all the usual accompanying financial and moral scandals.

The Russian Church is already facing financial difficulties inside Russia. Fewer and fewer are attending churches there, as they appear to be subordinate to politics and not to the Gospels and spirituality, which the people seek. In that respect it is like the Protestant Church of England, which is also seen as hopelessly in political thrall to the State. In general, the age when the Church can be held hostage to Greek and Russian nationalism is over. The vital forces of the Church are elsewhere. The Orthodox world is not Greeks and Russians – they are only two of the already sixteen Local Churches, perhaps to become twenty. The others, what we have called ‘Carpathian Orthodoxy’, provide the Third Way. This means that the Centre can hold.

Notes:

  1. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/05/russia-ukraine-orthodox-christian-church-bartholomew-kirill/677837/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the-atlantic-am&utm_term=The
  2. See the portrait of the dried-up pharisee-monk Fr Ferapont, full of hatred and jealousy for the saintly Elder Zosima in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, or the portrait of the very unpleasant émigré bishop in the 1957 novel Father Vikenty by Paul Chavchavadze. We know who the model for that crust-dry bishop was, obviously a repressed homosexual or pedophile.

 

 

 

The Restoration of Orthodox Christianity in Europe and Russia

 Foreword: European Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodoxy

On my almost daily travels through Suffolk, I regularly see flying in gardens the Suffolk flag, the golden crown crossed by the two arrows of St Edmund on a blue background. It refers to the martyrdom by arrows of St Edmund, the last King of East Anglia, in the Year 869. This was part of European Orthodoxy, the England which was defending itself against paganism because it was in communion with, and part of, the Orthodox Christian world. This is just the opposite of today, when England has gradually returned to paganism because it has for nearly a millennium been out of communion with, and not part of, the Church.

In writing these words about the love for St Edmund, I am reminded how just over 14 years ago I sat with our own Suffolk Count and Countess Benckendorff in that oasis of culture, the Munnings Museum in Dedham, Essex. Then we discussed my recent visit to our Russian Orthodox ‘catacomb’ community in Old York and next fell to discussing the poetry of Masefield, a great friend of Sir Alfred Munnings, which we compared to that of Hoelderlin, de Vigny and Tyutchev. This is Russian Orthodoxy, not brash and alien, modern American or European anti-culture, which Sir Alfred used to mock. After that conversation the Benckendorffs returned to Church life, reassured that the Church at least locally survives.

On 5 April this year we and the Benckendorffs met again, at the Cock Inn in Polstead. This time we discussed a recent visit to our mutual friend, Baroness Olga Tiesenhausen, in Surrey, to whom I gave confession and communion. The daughter of a White Russian noble, turned seamstress in exile in Paris, she loved the old parish in Meudon outside Paris, where she grew up, and our then rector, Fr Alexander Trubnikov, who was one of us who love the Tradition and therefore hate extremism of both sorts. She had recently been made very unwelcome in both Russian churches in London; the one a political extension of the post-Soviet embassy; the other under the control of pathological crazies, fanatical and culture-less converts who hate all who are not schism and sect like themselves. Tragically, through their schism they missed the great opportunity to become a canonical, but also politically free and multinational part of the Russian Church, working with others in Catholicity. They have zero understanding of the real Russian Orthodox Tradition and Russian Orthodox culture.

They ‘defrock’ conscientious and principled Orthodox pastors of integrity and of the Tradition. This imaginary punishment, as it comes from schismatics, is worn by them as a badge of honour and makes them even more popular among ordinary Orthodox and proves that they are not unprincipled bureaucrat-clerics and careerists. It is all so different from the beloved real Russian Church and its European culture in which we were all brought up, like our parishioners in Old York too. With the Benckendorffs we fell to discussing the post-Soviet nightmare, which began in 1991 and continues today. We concluded that the solution can only be in the coming Tsar and the complete cleansing of Church and State of the pre-Soviet diseases of bureaucracy and corruption (as portrayed for example by Gogol), of the Soviet diseases of centralisation and persecution (as portrayed for example in the late Soviet film The Irony of Fate), and the post-Soviet diseases of (US-imposed) militarisation and nationalism.

Introduction: The Restoration of Russian Orthodox Culture

Just before the 1917 palace revolt in Russia, falsely known as the ‘Revolution’, British spies murdered Gregory Rasputin. It was the ‘first shot of the Revolution’. His name means ‘the parting of the ways’, whereas the name ‘Putin’ means ‘the way’. His way is not the way we want to take, but we believe that it will, by the paradox of Divine Providence, lead to where we need to be. This is a quite different place from now. We have far greater aims than post-Soviet deviations. These include the cleansing of the fringes of the post-Soviet Russian Church from American schism and hate-filled sectarianism, and of the post-Soviet Russian Church itself from politicking, financial corruption, careerism, moral decadence and the extremism bred by them.

Together with all our dear friends in the Patriarchate of Romania, gathered over the last three decades and who have welcomed us as refugees from the vicious persecution by Russian schismatics and hysterical converts, as well as with our dear friends all over Europe, in Russia, Moldova, the Ukraine, Greece, Cyprus, the Baltics, Belarus, Poland, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Czechia, in the cleansed St Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Paris and our friends in the churches in Geneva and Baden-Baden, we will see the Russian Church restored to what Tsar Nicholas II wanted it to be. That is what the whole mainstream Orthodox world also needs it to be. The Orthodox world has been patiently awaiting this restoration for generations. The now very isolated Local Church of Russia has not yet taken up in the spirit of Catholicity the place waiting for it in the concert of the sixteen Local Churches, of which it is only one, albeit by far the largest in number. Only together can they be the voice of God.

Instead, it isolated itself by its refusal to turn the other cheek when uncanonically attacked by US-financed and homosexualised Constantinople in the Ukraine. Then it imposed on itself the further isolation of cutting of communion, followed by uncanonical revenge in Africa, and nationalistic and militaristic politics. The martyred Tsar’s vision of the restored, pre-Imperial Church, like the church of the Fyodorovsky Icon which he built in Tsarskoe Selo and which was restored over a decade ago, is also ours. It is like our church, also free of the decadence that began with Peter I, free of its decadent iconography and Italianate opera singing, its theatrical ritualism, bureaucratic clericalism, anti-pastoral, Statist rigidity, money-grubbing and love of luxury, nationalistic and militaristic phariseeism, hatred for others, and practice of rare communion – at best once a year.

The whole Orthodox world, not least here in Western Europe, awaits a restored, post-post-Soviet, broad and benevolent Russian Church, a Church of European culture, not of convert fanaticism or of narrow, nationalistic and militaristic post-Soviet politics, without sympathy for others and without mission. And we are the majority, the mainstream, representing all the free Local Churches, fourteen votes against two. This is the future of European Orthodox culture, though not of modern Europe. Modern Europe, for all of us heirs to Tsar Nicholas II, is like someone intent on committing suicide, both economic and moral, by hating Russia. Russia is poised to become the fourth largest economy in the world, overtaking Japan. (Russia has already overtaken Germany, indeed the latter is about to be overtaken by Indonesia). Let us look at the example of Great Britain to find the roots of this suicidal bent.

British Establishment Hatred for Imperial Russia

Emperors Paul I (+ 1801) and Nicholas II (+ 1918) of Russia were both removed and then murdered as a result of plots hatched by the British ambassadors in the Saint Petersburg of their times. As John Gleason points out in his 1952 book The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain, systematic and institutionalised British Establishment hatred for Russia began after the liberation of Paris by Russian troops in 1814, which had shocked Britain. This Russophobia was ‘an artificially manufactured product’ of ‘a campaign of a relatively small number of men’ who ‘won acceptance for their views by force of repetition’. In other words, if you repeat the lie often enough, it will stick. It was all about the British elite’s fanatical ambition for world hegemony. No rivals could be allowed.

Thus, the British ruling caste, ‘the Establishment’, engineered wars in which European countries destroyed one another, thus destroying any rivals. It was the same divide and rule policy of the pagan Romans, whom the British elite so admired. Thus, the Victorian Age became that of the purely British Establishment-invented ‘Great Game’, of which the Russians had never heard. In this the British Establishment obsessed itself with its deluded idea that Russia wanted to liberate British-occupied India. This self-delusion led the British Establishment to invade Afghanistan and lose three wars there, to occupy Cyprus (from where it now feeds the Israelis with bombs to genocide Palestine), to help finance the Suez Canal, to arm Japan to the teeth and get it to invade Russia, and then to invade and massacre in Tibet. All unnecessary.

Such British Establishment-orchestrated Russophobia was even reflected in the 1905 children’s book by Edith Nesbit, called The Railway Children. It came as no surprise, for London has long been a centre for plotting and exiled Russian traitors like Herzen, the murderous anarchist Bakunin and then the genocidal and Christ-hating Lenin. Even the evil Trotsky-Bronstein was later sent from arrest to Canada to foment revolution in Russia by the British elite. Today London is again the welcoming centre for anti-Russian oligarchs.

Conversely, the Suffolk Benckendorffs had a relative, Count Paul Benckendorff, who always remained faithful to the Tsar, as he recorded in his book The Last Days at Tsarskoe Selo. As the martyred Tsar’s noble sister, Olga Alexandrovna, who knew Count Paul, somewhat naively wrote: ‘My best friends and so many of my relations are British and I am devoted to them and to much in the English way of life….It has never been possible to discuss with them the utterly vile politics of successive British Parliaments. They were nearly all anti-Russian – and so often without the least cause. So much of British policy is wholly contrary to their own tradition of fair play’ (The Last Grand Duchess, Vorres, P. 240).

British Establishment Hatred for Soviet Russia

Through meddling in Russia in 1916 and 1917, the British elite inadvertently set up the USSR. They had imagined that they would remove the Tsar and then a group of selected oligarchs (that is, British-style aristocrats and ‘liberals’ like the transgender murderer Yusupov – there is nothing new in LGBT) would set up a British-style ‘constitutional’, that is, oligarchic, monarchy. It was clear to anyone outside the West that this would never happen in Russia. So the deluded British indirectly ended up imposing an evil Tsar, called Stalin. And then they sent Hitler to destroy the USSR. Only once again, it all went wrong. Instead of the Nazis destroying the USSR, the USSR defeated the Nazis.

Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz and the other horror camps of Western anti-Semitism, despite Churchill who unnecessarily genocided Leipzig civilians as a warning to Soviet troops. Yet they still arrived to liberate Berlin from the Western dictator Hitler, just as they will soon do when they liberate Kiev from the Western dictator Zelensky. The shock of 1945 Berlin was a repeat of 1814, when Russian troops liberated Paris from the Western dictator Napoleon. And so in 1945 Churchill thought up his ‘Operation Unthinkable’, in which the US, Germany and the UK would invade their supposed ‘Ally’, the USSR, and destroy it. Only nobody wanted that, though the Americans did drop nukes and kill 250,000 Japanese civilians as a warning to the USSR and began the ‘Cold War’, proclaimed by Churchill soon after.

After World War II the half-American Churchill reluctantly handed over the tattered remnants of the British Empire to the Americans and the British Empire became the American Empire. However, the latter had no colonies, it was a rogue-state which camouflaged its hypocritical asset-stripping greed behind the excuse of bringing ‘freedom and democracy’. So it brought the debilitating slavery of poverty and the corrupt tyranny of capital to the banana republics it created. Who cares about freedom and democracy, when you have nothing to eat and drink? As in Latin America, Africa, Italy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Gaza.

Even in 1956, when the US abruptly shattered British delusions of empire at Suez, and the British Establishment finally began to admit that it was only a US satellite, the British flattered themselves that they still had ‘a special relationship’ with the US. It is special, like every master and slave relationship. However, such a relationship also infects the master, for he too becomes vain, just as emperors, including those who have no clothes, become vain when they are constantly flattered by yes-men courtiers like the British Cameron and court jesters like the British Johnson. Thus, when the USSR fell because of its economic failure, because, as they said at the time, its Marxist centralised economy could not even supply its women citizens with hygiene products, the US imagined that it had defeated Russia. It is as delusional as the British imagining that they still have an empire.

British Establishment Hatred for the Russian Federation

After 1991, the British took part in the general triumphalist contempt felt by the Western world for Russia, and in the rape of Russian assets, inviting thieving oligarchs to come and live in London. The West failed to understand that Russia had not been defeated. Certainly, in 1991 the Soviet system collapsed, just as in 1917 the Imperial system had collapsed. But a temporary political system is not a country, especially it is not the largest country on earth with its millennial civilisation. The transformation of the Russian Empire into the Soviet Empire and then into the Russian Federation did not persuade the West that the real Russia could survive the failed Western political and economic systems imposed on it.

This age-old Russophobia has been summed up in the recent book of the perceptive Swiss author, Guy Mettan, now translated into English: Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria. When Britain finally began to understand that the West had not defeated Russia in the 1990s, it invented or took part in various sad conspiracies to frame and discredit the new Russia. First, there was Litvinenko, then the Skripals, then MH17, shot down by Ukrainian Nazis, then the plot to destroy the Russian Federation through helping to arm and train the Neo-Nazi Kiev regime in British military camps, the terrorist attack on Nordstream, the deployment of British Special Services to the Black Sea and British PR companies to the propaganda department in Kiev, with their invented ‘Bucha’ narrative myth and such like.

The British Establishment has shown itself to be the most aggressive of all the Western Establishments for absurd propaganda rhetoric during the US proxy war in the Ukraine and in the ‘Cancel Russia’ campaign. It is a fact that even at the height of Nazidom, there was never any ‘Cancel Germany’ campaign. Indeed, the British theme tune for the liberation of Western Europe from the German Nazis consisted of the opening notes of the German Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. The British Establishment took a zealous part in applying the 16,500 illegal and backfiring sanctions against Russia in order to destroy it. They failed and made Russia even stronger. It tried to regime-change Putin, quite possibly the most popular leader in Russian history. It failed and made him even more popular. It sent Kiev regime Nazis against the Ukrainian people. It failed and Ukrainians defected to Russia. It decided the only way of winning was through creating terrorist attacks such as that on Crocus City Hall. It failed and made tens of thousands of Russians volunteer to fight against the West in the Ukraine. Today the British MI6 continues to supply Neo-Nazis with weapons in the Ukraine and the Baltics, just as it did throughout the 1950s. In their vain imagination they are working for ‘the Anglosphere’. In fact, the reality is that they are slaves to the Americanosphere.

Russia will not disappear as a reality, whatever the wishful thinking of Hitler or Thatcher, who both equally wanted to reduce Russians to a few millions of people to be herded onto ‘reservations’ for the natives in Siberia, as they openly declared. Millennial Russia will always continue in one form or another, for the moment as the tripartite Union State of East Slav Rus. In the face of the new reality of the rout of its Kiev regime proxies and the cleansing of the Ukraine from Nazi tyrants, the USA will make peace with the Union State. After seeing the US abandoning its failed Ukrainian tool and with NATO and the EU collapsed, the Western European war party, including the British Establishment, if it is not first overthrown by the English, the Scottish and the Welsh who yearn for basic health care, schools, roads and social justice, will be replaced by real leaders. They will be the peace-party, who will make peace with the Union State of Rus, because they look eastwards to the future towards Eastern Europe and Eurasia, and not westwards to the past across a vast and empty ocean.

Conclusion: The End of Western Superiority

The Western war against Russia in the Ukraine is existential for Russia. It is in fact a repeat of the 1962 Turkish missile crisis, (known absurdly in the West as the ‘Cuban’ missile crisis) which the USSR won, when the US was forced to withdraw its missiles from the Turkish-Soviet border. However, this Ukrainian war is not at all existential for Western people, only for the Western ruling class, because it has invested everything in its superiority complex, of which this war is its expression. For the British and the Western Establishment in general, the war is existential because the mere existence and survival of Russia challenges its delusion that it is exceptional, superior and indispensable to all others.

American and Western European elites declare: ‘It is essential that the Ukraine win’. But it is not essential for the peoples of the West or for the peoples of the Ukraine, only for the Western and Ukrainian ruling class, so that they can cling on to their stolen power and stolen money a little longer. Western Europe is certainly not indispensable to Russia, though Russian culture, like Russian gas, is indispensable to Western European peoples. Russian gas can give physical energy back to Europeans. And real Russian culture, which is still largely buried beneath the weight of present post-Soviet Russia, is that of Europe. It is far more European than the modern, Americanised, cultureless Europe of today’s elite. Real Russian culture, once fully revealed, can give spiritual energy back to European people.

After Russia has discredited ‘Western values’ (= orders from the Washington elite), the Western millennium will be over. The time is over, when the American elite arrogantly tells the Central Asians, the British elite tells the Chinese, and the French elite tells the Africans, how to live their lives. Nobody wants to live in the decadence of the modern West. Today the USA has accumulated 34 trillion dollars of debt, which is increasing unsustainably by one trillion dollars every 90 days, 10 trillion dollars every 30 months. It is estimated that it will take 800 years to pay the debt off. Who wants to join bankruptcy? Geopolitical and geostrategic problems and the existence of real European Orthodox and Russian Orthodox culture are ultimately geotheological. It is all about spiritual values. One day the modern West will understand this. Only by then it may be too late.

In the meantime, we of Orthodox Europe will hold on to our European Orthodox and Russian Orthodox culture. One day, once all the post-Soviet extremes in the Russian Orthodox Church, both shrill, hysterical and homosexual American convertitis and Soviet careerism, militarism and financial corruption, have gone, Russian Orthodox culture will find its rightful place in the mainstream of the great conciliar symphony of multinational Orthodox culture. This is not a place of domination or of intimidation of the fourteen free Local Churches by politicised Greeks or politicised Russians, but a place of international co-operation and diplomacy, of the Catholicity of the Church, of the Word of God, not of the CIA or of Papal-style personality cults. Then the real Russia will be restored – after over 300 years of erring along the torturous paths of Imperialism, Marxism and post-Sovietism, imposed by Western hatred for Russia and accepted by the anti-patriotic inferiority complex of Russian traitors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Returning Church Administrations to the Royal and Conciliar Way: A Plea for Catholicity

As a result of Constantinople’s US-financed aggression against the Russian Church in the Ukraine, begun in December 2018, the crisis among Local Orthodox Churches continues. The Russian Church is out of communion with Constantinople and several Greek Churches, or parts of them, and all for purely political reasons. Moreover, this Ukrainian division between Moscow, 70% of the Orthodox world, and Constantinople, one of the smallest but also the most prestigious of the Patriarchates of the Orthodox world, which followed the division in Estonia thirty years ago, has now also spread to Lithuania.

Meanwhile, Moscow and its out-of-control schismatic and sectarian ROCOR branch, which has still not been called to account for breaking communion with Moscow’s Western European branch, again all for political reasons, have been trying to impose themselves. The swamp has not been drained. All this means, ‘imposing’ their compromised authority against some of their most senior pastors by using the canons politically! The result is that all their uncanonically ‘defrocked’ pastors, the ones who have integrity and principles, are taken into other Patriarchates, not least into Constantinople.  The political use of the canons is only that – uncanonical. Those who do that subject themselves to canonical and spiritual punishment.

As a result of all this, the situation in Africa is appalling, with the Church there split into two and the Patriarchate of Alexandria ‘defrocking’ poor Africans. The poor African Orthodox, deprived of everything, have become political pawns between Moscow and Alexandria. There is still an uneasy peace between the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch. Now there is tension between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Bucharest about the canonical jurisdiction of the Orthodox churches in Moldova, with Moscow again ‘defrocking’ many clergy for purely political reasons, as also in Lithuania and Russia. The Romanian Church accepts them all, ignoring the abuse of the canons, just as Moscow ignores the very same misuse in Africa and elsewhere.

All these arguments and divisions are about territory. This has long been the case in the Diaspora in Western Europe, the Americas and Australia. All that has happened is that more territories, the Ukraine, Africa and the Baltics, have been added to the disputed list of the Diaspora. For where there are churches on a territory, there is income. In other words, all these sordid stories are about sordid money. And money is power. Just as Judas sold out Christ for money and power, so now they do the same. The simple people, families, clergy and monastics, are all betrayed by those who are supposedly spiritual guides!! What is to be done?

On 17 March 2024 two letters of His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of Albania were published. These were written to Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria concerning the Russian Orthodox Church’s African Exarchate’s activity on the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The first letter is from 7 February 2023, the second is from 14 March 2024. As a real archpastor, Archbishop Anastasios takes a mediating position, offering both support and criticism as necessary. He has consistently opposed Constantinople’s interference in the canonical Ukrainian Church and the creation of a gangster group called the ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’.

Archbishop Anastasios has also written to persecuted hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, assuring them of his prayerful support against Constantinople’s gangsters. However, he has also told Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow that he does not support the Russian Synod’s decision to break communion with Constantinople. In February 2023 Archbishop Anastasios stated plainly: ‘The incursion of the Patriarchate of Moscow into Africa (done in revenge for what Constantinople had done in the Ukraine) was clearly an unacceptable anti-canonical action, undermining the unity and the missionary work of the Orthodox Church. What you describe in detail confirms that a clear schism is unfolding within Orthodoxy’.

At the same time, the Archbishop told Patriarch Theodore: ‘Our long Church experience and theological engagement confirm that the tactic of reprisals, however justified it may seem, does not solve problems; instead, the prolongation of the conflict deepens the wounds. What is needed is the therapy of reconciliation and resolution’. As the Archpastor has done repeatedly since 2018, he again calls for a pan-Orthodox Synod to resolve the problems in the Ukraine and Africa.

His letter from March of this year repeats the same points: ‘We clearly do not agree with the demonstration of power on the part of the Patriarchate of Moscow, especially in the sensitive area of mission in Africa. We clearly deem such methods unacceptable and condemnable. Equally, we do not agree with the adoption of a similar mentality and methods of reaction – with the depositions of hierarchs and the creation of a climate of tension among the Orthodox Churches in the media. On 16 February 2024 the Alexandria Synod decided that it was ‘defrocking’ Bishop Konstantin of Zaraisk, the Russian Church’s second African Exarch. The Synod had already decided to ‘defrock’ the first Exarch, Metropolitan Leonid of Klin, in November 2022 in addition to two Russian priests in February 2022. (Metr Leonid has since been defrocked by Moscow itself, like so many of its recent bishops, but that is another story…).

Unilateral actions offer nothing to Church unity, says the Archbishop. ‘The problems that have arisen in recent years, due to the end of Eucharistic communion between Orthodox Patriarchates, cannot be resolved through unilateral decisions and announcements’. Again he calls for a Council of the whole Orthodox Church. In this way His Beatitude sums up the views of hundreds of politically free Orthodox bishops, in Albania, Romania, Antioch, Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland, Georgia and in other Local Churches, and indeed the views of the vast majority of Church people and clergy.

Enough is enough. Let them stop doing things for political and nationalistic reasons, let them do what they do for Church reasons. In disputed territories, enlightened politicians allow the people to choose for themselves which country they want to belong to. This is called self-determination. Why not apply the same principle to territories that are in dispute between Churches, such as Moldova? Such matters can be debated in a free Council. The Inter-Orthodox Royal way, that is, the Conciliar and Catholic way is the only way. This is the multilateral and multipolar, not unilateral and unipolar, way.

After the US proxy war in the Ukraine ends with the inevitable Russian victory, the Church situation there will have to be resolved by the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Its future territory will be defined by the coming peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev. The Russian State has won the war there, but that only means that the Russian Church will have to be magnanimous in victory and do what should have been done over thirty years ago: Grant the Church of the New Ukraine autocephaly – full independence. Otherwise their churches in the Ukraine will be empty and bankrupt.

The desovietisation, that is, decentralisation, of the Russian Church is inevitable. This concerns not just the Ukraine, but elsewhere, in the republics born out of the USSR which collapsed in 1991 not because of some mythical victory of the West, but because of its faulty economics. As the new generation that grew up after the collapse of the USSR comes to the Russian episcopate, all will change and the old-fashioned centralising nightmare will end anyway. The Russian Church, like the Church of Constantinople, will have to return to the mainstream, the Royal Way. Then the Constantinople schism can also be resolved and schismatics, whether Russian or Greek, called to account. All this confirms that every division in the Church is always caused by politics, by this world. There is nothing spiritual in any of this at all. It is sordid.

Thoughts on the Orthodox Future of the Post-Western World, Europe and England

Introduction: After the Defeat of the West

Even Western-sponsored Ukrainian terrorism has failed. The Western media are none too keen to expose the Western defeat in the Ukraine and so the media are now largely falling silent about the Ukraine. The US and the EU have completely failed to weaken, destroy, dismantle and balkanise Russia into between 18 and 32 separate republics by illegally sanctioning it and then overthrowing its government. The West wanted to do to Russia what it had done to Yugoslavia. ‘Since we can bomb and destroy Belgrade, let us bomb and destroy Moscow’, was the fantasy. This aim was publicly announced in the 2019 Rand Corporation report in the USA. According to this report, Russia had to be destroyed in order then in turn to weaken China. This was to be done by manipulating (and then betraying) NATO-armed Ukrainian proxies, in whom it otherwise has no interest (as Borrell has openly admitted), into dying for Western aims ‘to the last Ukrainian’. Among the western Ukrainians they found pro-Nazi Russia-haters. They were the ideal useful idiots for use as cannon fodder.

After the Western defeat the world is entering the post-Western age, the real New World Order. The West is old and tired, its symbol is the dementia of the US President, who with his minders confuses wishful thinking with reality, the virtual world with the real world. The end comes after a thousand years of domination and exploitation, firstly by Western European Empires, Papist and then Protestant, and since 1945 by the Secularist USA. Through its war on Russia through the Ukraine, the West totally isolated itself from the Global Majority, which mocks its ruling imperialist caste and its age-old visceral hatred, inspired by jealousy and greed, of Russia. Western Europe has lost the last traces of its prestige, as symbolised by the humiliating ejection of colonial France from West Africa. The new multipolar world, founded by the Russian-initiated BRICS Alliance, is going to look very different from the old one. Western Europe will of course still exist, but simply as a Region equal among many others in the global community.

As for the USA, it is going to go home to lick its wounds and sort out its debt and internal chaos and decadence after 35 years of hubris, arrogance and delusion and two recent routs, first in Kabul, then in Kiev. Perhaps then, and only then, God will bless America, which for now appears to have cursed itself. The millennial defeat of the West means that it must admit that it has been humiliated, that its values were false all along. It will have to rethink its whole place in the world and ponder on its tragic history, becoming humble in the face of reality instead of delusion. The Western ideology of arrogant military superiority, enforced since the eleventh-century Crusades by superior forms of organised violence and murder, including through illegal economic sanctions, is discredited. So what will the future world, the future Western Europe and specifically the future England look like? First, let us look at the post-Western world in general.

The Twelve Regions of the Post-Western Multipolar World

  1. Eurasia (The Russian World of the East Slav Three, ‘Rus’, together with the three independent republics of the Caucasus and the five of Central Asia)
  2. Western Europe (See below)
  3. East Asia (The Chinese World, also Tibet, Mongolia, Korea, Japan and the Philippines)
  4. South East Asia (Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia)
  5. South Asia (The Indian World and countries around it, including Pakistan and Afghanistan)
  6. West Asia (the former so-called ‘Middle East’, including the Arab World, Turkiye, Iran and Iraq)
  7. Northern Africa (largely Muslim)
  8. Southern Africa (sub-Saharan Africa, largely Christian)
  9. Northern America (the USA, Canada and Greenland, largely English-speaking)
  10. Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean (led by Mexico)
  11. South America (led by Brazil)
  12. Oceania (led by Australia and with a tiny population)

Two of the sixteen Local Orthodox Churches are in Region 1 and ten of them are in Region 2. We suggest that Region 1 needs initially another three Local Churches to cover the Ukraine, Belarus, and Central Asia (the five stans). Two of the Local Churches (Jerusalem and Antioch) should cover Region 6. One Church, Alexandria, should cover Regions 7 and 8. There is one disputed Local Church in Region 9. We suggest that Region 2 initially needs seven new Local Churches (see below), Region 3 initially needs two (for China and Japan), a Local Church for China and another for Japan. Regions 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 all initially need one new Local Church each. This would bring the total number of Local Churches to 33, the number of the age of Christ. Some of these new Local Churches would at first only become autonomous (partly independent) while waiting to grow and mature, others would from the start become autocephalous (fully independent).

The Four Confederative Regions of Western Europe in the Multipolar World

Western Europe means the western half of Europe (54%), not the eastern half (46%), which consists of Belarus, the Ukraine and Russian Europe. Its Americanisation began in 1942 in the UK, then in 1944-5 in the Western half of the Continent, spreading eastwards in 1989. After the end of US unionist organisations like NATO and the EU, what could its future be? We suggest its future is as four Regions which have common histories:

  1. North-East Europe (Poland, Finland and the three Baltic States, formerly largely part of the Russian Empire). All these five countries could be taken care of by the Polish Orthodox Church, to be renamed the Baltic Orthodox Church.
  2. South-East Europe (the racially very mixed former Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empire in Europe, nearly a half of which is Orthodox Christian: Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, European Turkiye, Greece, Cyprus, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia-Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia). This Region has nine Local Orthodox Churches. We suggest a new binational Local Church should be founded for Hungary and Austria, similar to that which already exists for Czechia and Slovakia.
  3. North-West Europe (the largely Germanic world: Iceland, Ireland, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Flanders, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein). None of this region has its own Local Church. We suggest three, one for Germany, the Netherlands, Flanders, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Liechtenstein; one for the British Isles and Ireland; one for the four countries of Scandinavia.
  4. South-West Europe (the largely Latin world: France, Wallonia, Monaco, Italy, San Marino, Malta, Andorra, Spain, Portugal). None of this Region has its own Local Church. We suggest three, one for Iberia, one for Italy, San Marino and Malta and one for France, Flanders and Monaco.

At present this Western Europe consists of 42 countries. However, if one day, for example, Serbia and Montenegro reunite and Bosnia-Herzegovina dissolves back into Serbia and Croatia, once US pressure for Balkanisation is removed, Moldova and Romania reunite, and Belgium dissolves into Flanders, going back to the Netherlands, and Wallonia, going back to France, but the UK separates into its constituent parts of England, Scotland and Wales (with Northern Ireland returning to the Republic of Ireland), that would make 40 countries.

The four Regions of Western Europe could form a Western European Confederation and consult in a new Confederative centre. The ideal geographical location for this centre is surely Vienna, the Capital of Austria, in what used to be called Central Europe. Vienna is also closer to Orthodox South-East Europe and to Moscow, both geographically and culturally, and Moscow is effectively the centre of the eastern half of Europe, which stretches to the Urals, but also far beyond that to the Pacific, so providing Belt and Road connectivity to China. Moscow is also the capital of Russia, which has the largest economy in Europe and is its main source of energy.

The Decomposed and Recomposed ex-United Kingdom and Reunited Ireland as an Example of Future Western European Countries

The United Kingdom (UK) is a state as artificially-invented and disunited as the Ukraine or Belgium, and was invented just over a century ago. It is reigned over by a Dutch-German Royal House, ingloriously imported by regime change by the Norman-founded Establishment and City of London merchants for their ‘Great British’ manipulation from 1688 on. Since 1956 the UK has been governed as a satellite of the US-controlled British branch of the Globalist Uniparty. This is why, only recently, Brexit did not take place under the opportunist Johnson, who never believed in anything apart from himself. Since his sacking for disobeying his own laws, the UK has been ruled by unelected Prime Ministers and reigned over by an unelected and disliked King. It may be time to find a new dynasty, a new Royal House of England, perhaps composed for the first time since 1066 of Englishmen and Englishwomen?

Both Left and Right agree that the future lies in the so far vitally absent policies of National Identity and Social Justice, the two things that the Globalist Uniparty does not allow and which it contemptuously dismisses as ‘populism’. The alien British Establishment hates the three peoples, the last which still remain directly under its tyranny, the English, the Scottish and the Welsh. If all the peoples of the former UK could free themselves from Globalist tyranny, denormanising themselves, they could form an Anglo-Celtic Confederation, together with a reunited Ireland, to be called perhaps ‘IONA’, the Isles of the North Atlantic, with an administrative capital at the central point of the Isle of Man, from where all four countries are visible. Four Countries, One Confederation.

Conclusion: The Future of the Western Half of Europe

As US troops are at last pulled out of Western Europe, eighty years late, a result of NATO’s comprehensive rout in the US war against Russia in the Ukraine, fear and panic have begun to spread among the US-appointed elites in Western European capitals. Like children who have been abandoned by their parents who used to tell them what to say and do, now they do not know what to say and do in their empty house. Like those who were subject to Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, they are frightened of freedom and prefer to be serfs and vassals. They are like drug addicts who have run out of drugs. It is time for the alien and narcissistic ruling caste, which rules by intimidation, creating fear, anxiety, stress and bogeymen among the people (Communism, Islamism, Brexit, Covid, Putin etc), to be replaced by those who do not gaslight because they have come up from the people and can represent them.

As NATO is disbanded, so every Western European country can make huge savings on so-called ‘defence’. Western Europe can be denuclearised and demilitarised. The money saved can go to improve its derelict infrastructure and public services, which have largely become disservices, and paying off its crippling debts, inflicted by the ruling class. Once the Western ruling caste has been ejected, good relations can be established with Russia and the eastern half of Europe composed of the three countries that form the Union State. There is little doubt that the three States, Russia, the New Ukraine and Belarus, will be cleansed and come to be ruled officially by a new Tsar. In this way, work towards rediscovering local patriotic identities and implementing social justice may be carried out in the other countries of Western Europe, which suffer from similar oppression as in the ex-UK.

Once despised and repressed by the USA, they can now become creative once more by reference to their roots. At the same time, in the new multipolar world those countries would have to work together. Not in a Unionist, ‘one size fits all’ form, as in the old and hated, US-imposed European Union with its anti-democratic Commissar gauleiters, who in panic face Eurexit in their failure to create a mythical Europe, but in a Regional Confederative form. Western European countries have to adapt to Freedom – to their real place in the new multipolar world, returning to their identities which are rooted in their still undiscovered and concealed first millennium. This process of the dewesternisation of the West is what we have been speaking of for nearly two generations. It is now under way and presents both challenges, but also extraordinary opportunities, both political and spiritual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why the Kiev Dictatorship has not been able to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

https://spzh.media/en/zashhita-very/79475-why-hasnt-the-authorities-banned-the-uoc-yet

Why haven’t the authorities banned the UOC yet?

28 March 14:01
1264

Author: Kirill Aleksandrov

The campaign to ban the UOC has entered a new stage. Journalists are jailed, MPs can be sanctioned, and the West made the first anti-church publication. What’s going on?

After the attack on March 12, 2024, on UOJ journalists and church rights activists by the SBU, it was expected that this would catalyze the adoption of the anti-church bill 8371 banning the UOC (along with the final seizure of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra). With the journalists being silenced and rights activists intimidated and detained, it should be painless to vote to ban the Church, according to the logic of the orchestrators of these events.

However, something went awry. The vote, slated for March 20, 2024, had to be postponed. MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak announced on his Telegram channel that bills were being removed from the agenda altogether. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, many deputies, including those from the presidential faction “Servant of the People”, simply sabotage meetings and do not come to work in the Verkhovna Rada. Secondly, the Rada has accumulated quite a lot of unpopular, controversial, and scandalous bills. As IT specialists say in such cases, applications begin to conflict with each other.

In other words, using administrative resources, you can push through a vote on one scandalous bill, but not on all at once. Therefore, administrative resources have to prioritize bills, while parliamentarians calculate which bill’s vote could cause them more tangible troubles.

As it turned out, Bill 8371 banning the UOC is the biggest trouble, not only to the country as a whole, but also to each individual deputy personally.

Amsterdam’s warning

On March 15, 2024, UOC lawyer Robert Amsterdam wrote a letter to the parliament speaker and members of parliament, not for the first time explaining that bill 8371 is unconstitutional and unlawful, and its adoption will not only tarnish Ukraine’s image as a non-democratic state but also expose the MPs who vote for it to certain packages of Western sanctions. Moreover, this applies not only to the vote in the Verkhovna Rada but also to other persecutions against the UOC: seizures of churches, beatings of believers, and so on.

One of the most well-known sanction packages of this kind is the so-called “Magnitsky List”. But in many countries, there are similar lists that include officials and public figures who violate fundamental human rights. According to R. Amsterdam, these lists include individuals for much less significant human rights violations than those committed against UOC believers in Ukraine.

Amsterdam’s warning caused a very nervous reaction in the Verkhovna Rada, which the lawyer himself described as apoplectic.

This means that the deputies took the warnings seriously and had second thoughts to the effect whether it was worth playing with fire, as sanctions may involve entry bans to EU countries, the USA, asset freezes, and other dismal consequences.

In view of Amsterdam’s warning, an emergency meeting of the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy was convened in the Verkhovna Rada on March 18, 2024, and they were so outraged by the activities of the American lawyer that they called his warnings threats and decided to complain to the SBU. MP from the party of former President P. Poroshenko’s “European Solidarity” Iryna Herashchenko called the warnings fake, while pressure on deputies – interference in the work of state institutions. She even wondered if sanctions should be imposed on R. Amsterdam.

However, Mrs. Herashchenko did not consider that, firstly, imposing sanctions against human rights defenders for their legitimate human rights activities is akin to authoritarian, not democratic countries. Secondly, by her excessive reaction to the warnings, she (like other MPs) actually indicates that these warnings sound quite serious and authoritative. Well, and thirdly, if, for example, adults warn a child not to put nails in the socket because it will shock them, does it mean pressure on the child and an infringement of their freedom?

They will take a different path

Apparently, Amsterdam did make an impression on the Verkhovna Rada MPs, as the authorities decided to first prepare Western public opinion for the adoption of the anti-church bill 8371, and only then put it to a vote.

The head of the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy, Mykyta Poturaev, suggested sending a delegation of MPs and representatives of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches to the US to try to explain to the American establishment that violating the right to freedom of conscience is not considered a violation as long as it is directed against the UOC.

One might assume that this attempt will be unsuccessful, since both the US and European countries are perfectly aware of what human rights are and what constitutes their violation. However, there is still a certain hope for success, as it was the Americans who lobbied for the creation of the OCU and subsequently provided it with active support and assistance. Moreover, this support was demonstrated by representatives of both the Republican and Democratic parties. However, in our opinion, American lobbyists for the OCU did not anticipate that it would come to the point of forcible seizures of churches, mass violations of legislation during the re-registration of communities, and now to the prohibition of the UOC at the legislative level.

On March 21, 2024, Ukrainian political analyst Kostiantyn Bondarenko announced on his Telegram channel that the Office of the President had ordered several Western editions to publish articles against the UOC, in defense of the anti-church bill 8371, justifying the persecution of the Church, as well as discrediting lawyer R. Amsterdam and his human rights activities. K. Bondarenko also mentioned the considerable budget for such an order – over $2.5 million in March and April 2024.

No sooner said than done – and on March 22, 2024, the first customized article appeared in The Wall Street Journal titled “Is Religious Liberty ‘Under Attack’ in Ukraine?” Its author, a certain Jillian Kay Melchior, believes that liberty is not under attack in Ukraine, but “the country faces a dilemma in how to deal with an Orthodox church controlled by Russia” and with R. Amsterdam, who spreads fakes about persecution of the Church.

The text of the article itself gives the impression that it was written by poorly talented authors in Ukraine, offering blunt narratives and unsubstantiated claims. If Jillian Melchior is indeed an American journalist, why didn’t she even bother to edit the following paragraph: “Five years ago, the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized the fully independent, self-governing Orthodox Church of Ukraine. But the ROC and the UOC-MP refuse to recognize the OCU”?

Firstly, there is no UOC-MP in nature (this is an invention of the Church’s internal Ukrainian enemies), there is only the UOC. Secondly, the right to recognize or not recognize the decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople is part of religious freedom, the right to freedom of belief.

Any community, any believer can recognise or not recognise the decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople, just like any other religious leader, which is their constitutional right.

The content of the article contains so many unsubstantiated statements and accusations that there will be a significant workload for lawyers and human rights defenders to hold the publication accountable for causing moral harm and baseless discredit. For instance, it claims that the UOC-MP provided material support for Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the East of Ukraine in 2014. Where is the evidence? For such a statement is definitely hazardous for one’s reputation.

In the United States, as in other developed countries, there is a clear distinction between the actions of individuals and the actions of organizations. In other words, we speak about individual responsibility vs. collective responsibility. The fact that individual believers and even priests of the UOC supported Russia’s aggression does not in any way prove the guilt of the entire Church.

In this regard, we cannot ignore the recent statement by the head of the SBU, V. Maliuk. On March 26, 2024, in an interview with “Facts ICTV”, he stated that to date, the court has sentenced 23 clergymen. And a total of 37 suspicions have been announced to representatives of the UOC clergy, with more than 80 criminal cases opened. Let’s reiterate it: 23 convictions! And now let’s compare this figure with the numbers of traitors in the SBU itself. Back in 2016, the SBU published on its website a list of its former employees who defected to Russia, which consisted of 1391 (!) people, including one major general and 47 colonels.

Simon Shuster in his book “Showman” about Volodymyr Zelensky quotes former Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov, who said that at the beginning of the full-scale war, the most desertions among the security forces were in the SBU. The exact number was not given, but it was said that “their departure depleted the ranks of the SBU.” So where are the bills to ban the SBU? Where are the accusations of undermining national security? Where are the calls to hold the entire SBU accountable for the actions of these employees?

It can be assumed that such an experienced lawyer as R. Amsterdam will certainly use these facts as arguments in support of his position.

Actions in defense of the UOC

Supporters of the UOC are also not sitting idly by, but taking vigorous actions to defend their Church. On March 26, 2024, the United Nations Ukraine website published a report from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights “On the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine”. It asserts that over the past three months, “clergymen and parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church continued to experience intimidation.”

The report describes several cases of violent seizure of temples. On the same day, an interview with the UOC lawyer, Archpriest Nikita Chekman, was published on the YouTube channel of the NGO Public Advocacy, a human rights organization. The interview discusses specific violations of the rights of UOC believers, forcible seizure of temples, searches at the Center for Legal Protection of UOC Believers, arrests of journalists from the UOJ, and so on.

These facts of violations of believers’ rights will be disseminated among international human rights organizations and will also be heard at the UN Human Rights Session.

In other words, defenders of the UOC are doing everything possible to draw the attention of the international community to violations of UOC believers’ rights. And in competition with adversaries of the UOC trying to prove the opposite, defenders of the UOC seem to have a more fair chance to win. After all, there are so many offenses committed over the past 10 years that hiding or misinterpreting them is no longer possible. Moreover, most of them are well documented and formulated as statements to law enforcement and judicial authorities of Ukraine.

In addition, the Ukrainian authorities have decided to take actions that are almost zero-tolerated in the West. We are talking about encroachments on journalistic activity and the work of lawyers. Unfounded arrests of Orthodox journalists and gross unlawful interference in legal practice are perceived extremely negatively in the West.

But relying on the assistance of the international community and the reaction of Western countries to the violation of the right to freedom of conscience in Ukraine is not enough. The most important thing is the steadfastness and fortitude of believers within the country.

The guarantee of the existence of the UOC is not the protection from American or other lawyers, but the fidelity of believers to their Church, the readiness to defend their religious beliefs despite threats and intimidation.

You can take away the temple, but you cannot take away faith. You can illegally re-register a community, but if the community confirms its loyalty to the UOC and its Primate Metropolitan Onuphry, then it remains in the fold of the Church, and people continue to be in communion with all Christians as members of the Body of Christ. This cannot be fought or overcome by any anti-church laws or prohibitions. Our strength is in the fidelity to our religious choice, fidelity to Christ, in fulfilling His commandments.

What might happen next

Most likely, the anti-church bill 8371 will be put on hold for some time. They will wait for the reaction of Western society to the commissioned articles against the UOC and its defenders. Perhaps they will send a delegation of officials and representatives of various denominations to the United States, who will try to convince their counterparts that there is no persecution for faith in Ukraine. Unfortunately, things like church raids and illegal re-registrations of UOC communities in favor of the OCU will continue. But the decisive steps of the authorities to ban the UOC (or the absence of such steps) will mainly depend on the situation on the fronts.

This is all nothing new. Any authority, in various failures, tries to redirect public anger to someone else. It has always been this way. Let’s remember the very first persecution of Christians under Emperor Nero. When in 64 AD almost the entire Rome burned down and the citizens guessed that the emperor had himself set fire to the city, then the authorities, without much thought, accused the Christians of arson.

A new religion, incomprehensible, suspicious – is a very convenient target to redirect the crowd’s anger. The same thing can happen today.

If military failures follow, the authorities may intensify persecution of the Church so that Ukrainian society sees the UOC as an enemy, shifts its focus to dealing with it, and does not ask inconvenient questions from the authorities. But this is only one of many factors that will influence the situation. The opinions of Western countries and the struggle for power within Ukraine will also have their impact, inter alia.

Anyway, the most important thing is God’s providence, which can steer the situation in ways that no one currently anticipates. “Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails” (Proverbs 19:21).

The Situation of the Orthodox Church in 2024

Introduction

The Orthodox Church is a Confederation of sixteen Local Orthodox Churches, totalling some 200 million faithful, with about 80,000 priests and 1,000 bishops. Most Orthodox Christians live in Eastern Europe, though there are minorities in most countries in the world.

Of these sixteen Local Churches, the Greek Church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (now called Istanbul) stands out as the historically most prestigious Local Orthodox Church. For over a thousand years of history until 1453, it was powerful and in Constantinople there lived the only Orthodox Emperor. However, today this Patriarchate is very small in numbers, with a few million faithful at most, of whom fewer than one thousand actually live in Istanbul.

Of these sixteen Local Churches, the Russian Church of the Patriarchate of Moscow also stands out, partly because many see it as the successor to the Church of Constantinople, but above all because it has, or used to have, about 70% of the total number of the faithful, 140 million. This is because it is, or used to be, multinational, with a third of its members Non-Russians of many nationalities. This is unlike the other Local Churches which are in effect National Churches. However, today, this is increasingly less the case, as we shall see below.

The Negative

As a result of the pre-eminent positions of these two Local Churches, the powerbrokers of this world have always striven to take control of their senior clergy.

Thus, after the Ottoman capture of the City in 1453, the Constantinople Church gradually fell under foreign, later French or British, control, with their ambassadors appointing the leader or Patriarch of the Church for payments of money to the Ottomans. After the fall of the British Empire at the end of the Second World War, Constantinople came under the control of the successor Empire, the USA.

In 1948 its Patriarch, Maximos V, was removed by the Americans by force and flown in President Truman’s personal plane into exile in Switzerland, dying there in 1972. He was at once replaced with a Greek-American puppet-patriarch, who proceeded to do anything the Americans wanted. Some forty years ago I got to know a Greek bishop who had been Patriarch Maximos’ personal deacon at the time and was an eyewitness to those events. He told me how the CIA thugs took Patriarch Maximos with violent threats, intimidating him with possible death if he refused to obey them. ‘We have ways of making you come with us’, were their exact words.

As for the Russian Patriarchate, after 1700 it came under the control of Protestant-style laymen, called ‘oberprokurors’, who were appointed by the government. Russian bishops were appointed by politicians, some anti-Orthodox and often strongly anti-monastic, just as in the Protestant Churches, in Germany, Scandinavia or England. For example, in the latter country the Prime Minister, who may be an atheist or a Hindu for instance, is still responsible for appointing all Anglican bishops. As for the former Russian Empire, after 1917 the situation became even worse and Soviet atheist laymen openly persecuted and controlled the Russian episcopate, most of whom it murdered and martyred. After the fall of atheism in 1991, the Russian Church revived, but its senior clergy remained with the subservient mentality of the previous three centuries.

As a result of such politicisation, Orthodox who are part of the Russian Church but who live outside the borders of the Russian Federation and are not Russians, are leaving the various parts of the Russian Church. This is most obvious in the Ukraine, but also in Moldova, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as in Western countries. They do not wish to belong to any part of the Russian Church, which is being nationalised, that is, Russianised. They want to worship Christ, not a national, political system. In other words, the Russian Church is becoming alien to them. As one of its very young but senior metropolitans, filled with ethnic hatred and conceit, said when he expelled some Non-Russian clergy and faithful from the Church recently and handed them to another Local Church: ‘Too bad for them’.

In this way, clergy and people are leaving the Russian Church because of their desire for self-determination, they are ‘voting with their feet’. As a result, the missionary work of the Russian Church has all but ceased. Who wants to belong to a Church which persecutes its own? Only a few extremists. The numbers of the faithful in the Russian Church could eventually go down to 50% of the total number of Orthodox from 70%, as a result of the foundation of new Local, or National, Churches for Orthodox, who live in independent countries or regions outside the Russian Federation. These could be formed in the Ukraine, the Baltics, Moldova, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Western Europe, South-East Asia, Africa, Australia, Latin America or elsewhere.

As a result of the acts of politicians there is at present a serious schism between the Constantinople and Russian Churches, which between them number some 72% of all Orthodox. In 2018 the Constantinople Church, egged on and very generously financed by the US State Department, was told to try and destroy the Russian Church. Therefore, Constantinople created a purely political schism with the Russian Church by opening its jurisdiction on what had for centuries been uniquely Russian territories, namely in Estonia, the Ukraine and now in Lithuania.

Consequently, since then the Russian Church has refused not only any communion with the Constantinople Church, but also with other Greek Churches or bishops who for ethnic, financial or political reasons support Constantinople. This includes the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Russian Church has in revenge opened many parishes on African territory, which Alexandria has claimed for nearly a century. Both sides are excommunicating each other and defrocking each other’s clergy tit for tat, quoting the canons in false justification for their own purely political and punitive purposes. There is no Love, only the spirit of revenge, and so the Church is under attack and there is chaos.

The Positive

Some might conclude from the above that the situation in the Orthodox Church is dark and desperate, given the views of senior hierarchs of both the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow and their schism. However, those outside the Church refuse to understand a vital fact: senior clergy are not the Church. This is important because senior clergy die and are replaced. There is no reason to think that the succeeding senior clergy will take the same line as before. All wars sooner or later end in negotiations.

For example, within the Patriarchate of Constantinople there are a great many pious bishops, priests, monastics and people, who remain faithful to Orthodoxy. Many there regret the anti-Russian aggressiveness of their Patriarchal authorities and their uncanonical actions under US pressure, just as they regret the equally aggressive Russian response. When asked by the faithful about those actions which have led directly to schism, such pious Greeks simply reply: ‘It is all politics. Pay no attention’.

In other words, the storm will pass, just as the storms of earlier centuries have also passed. And within the Russian Patriarchate, most also have the same viewpoint. Here there are also many pious bishops, priests, monastics and people who refuse to take part in the politicisation of any part of the Russian Church, either by the Russian secret service, the FSB, or the American, the CIA, which are both trying to undermine the Russian Church, bribing individual corrupt clerics.

As a local example we have for exactly fourteen years been greatly supported by a new White Russian family in East Anglia, Countess Benkendorf, strongly supported by Earl (to give him his English title, which neither of them uses publicly) Benkendorf. They support the Tsar and all the New Martyrs and Confessors, having a new martyr as a direct ancestor, and give no support to mere politicians in any part of the now unfree Russian Church. They are among the new White Russians who now live here in East Anglia, but are in fact relatives of the old White Russians. For the last ambassador of Imperial Russia to Great Britain was Count Alexander Benkendorf (+ 1917) who lived here with his wife Countess Sophia (+ 1928 in Ipswich), whose descendants were also friends of my late aunt in Colchester.

They are devoted to the local St Edmund the Martyr, the last King of East Anglia and have East Anglian rose-growers and sweet pea growers among their close friends. Earl and Countess Benkendorf reject all politics and extremes in the Russian Church, whether of the old politicised and money-minded White Russians, who worked for MI5 and MI6, or of the new nationalistic and secular-minded post-Soviet Russians. They remain in the centre, in the mainstream, following the golden mean, the middle way of the Fathers and the Saints. The Earl and Countess represent us all, they are our Connection, but they are just local examples of a far, far greater and worldwide movement.

Thus, apart from the majorities in both these Patriarchates who reject politicisation, most of the other fourteen Local Orthodox Churches, although slightly more or less close to one side or the other, still keep their independence. Nearly all stand somewhere in the middle, not taking sides, like the traditional Greeks and Russians described above. We note especially the position of the Romanian Church, the second largest Local Church, and of the Albanian Church, together with the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch and the Polish and Serbian Churches. They all show great independence. Here bishops and the faithful insist on the catholicity and conciliarity of the Church. We all call for a Church Council, where the Church can come to unity through depoliticisation, the rejection of bribes and political pressures from States and their secular minions, who wrongly think that they can buy the Church.

Conclusion

Non-believers, as well as those who believe only weakly, overlook Divine Providence in the history of the Church. The greatest proof that the Church is run not by human beings, but by Divine Providence, is that it has survived extraordinary human stupidity, pathological individuals and incompetence for nearly 2,000 years. Human institutions, like clerical elites, survive for a few centuries at best, and often only for a few decades or even a few years. God’s Providence protects us, for the Church belongs to Christ the Son of God, not to mere men, and Christ is always victorious.

 

A New World and Church Order

Kill them all

Words of one of the leaders of the Catholic Crusade which massacred some 10,000 people at Beziers, France, on 22 July 1209

Kill them all

Words of another new Herod, US Congressman A. Ogles, speaking of Palestinian children, 21 February 2024

Introduction: The Real World  

In order to understand the conflict in the Ukraine which the USA began in 2014 at a cost of $5 billion to its taxpayers, we have to understand the background to it. Only then can we appreciate its huge significance for the future, for the result of this American war against the Ukraine and so Russia and so China is a New World Order. This is a millennial turning-point, the first since the ‘revolution’ or ‘transformation’ of the mid-eleventh century, which marked the rise of the West. This is not like the historic changes that took place in, for example, 1096, 1135, 1215, 1378, 1492, 1517, 1688, 1789, 1815, 1919, 1945 or 1991. Although these were all highly important, despite the rhetoric around them, none of them led to a New World Order, but to just further extensions of exactly the same old Western World Order. However, it is this conflict in the Ukraine, the last straw that has broken the camel’s back, that is leading to a New World Order following on from the post-Imperial West. Let us explain this by describing the World Order as it is today, with its division into two, the isolated, minority West versus the Global Majority, North, South and East.

The International Chessboard

On the one hand, in today’s world there are the globalist, amoral-liberal oligarchies, known as ‘the West’. These represent only 12% of the world population of eight billion human-beings. Although just a small minority, this West includes vast territories (especially the largely empty and uninhabitable spaces of Canada and Australia) and many of the richest and most powerful individuals in the world – the capitalist oligarchs of transnational corporations and their bankster politician servants. These elites are renowned for promoting Godless, anti-national and anti-family ideologies: Atheism (as the oligarchs are atheists, they replace God and play at Him), Globalism (= the control of the Globe by oligarchs) and LGBTQ (the oligarchs’ favoured forms of depravity).

On the other hand, in today’s world there are also the sovereignist, national-authoritarian democracies, known as ‘the Rest’. They are democracies, albeit quite militarised but not autocracies, as their elected leaders’ priority is to represent the broad national interests and identities of their peoples, not of the rich and their banks, transnational corporations and decadent liberals. These sovereignist democracies represent 88% of the world population of eight billion human-beings. Although the overwhelming majority, they include most of the disinherited and powerless in the world. However, they are growing less poor and less powerless, as the teeming millions of Asia, Africa and Latin America are brought together by their common values of belief in God and universal moral values, patriotic respect for the Nation, and the importance of the Family, amid the common search for peace, justice and prosperity for all.

Thus, on the black side of the international chessboard, there is the King that is Israel, the Queen that is the USA, with rooks represented by Japan and Germany, bishops by the UK and France, knights by Canada and Italy. The pawns are represented by US-run countries or groups of countries like Kiev regime Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States, most of the rest of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Spain, Taiwan and South Korea.

On the white side of the international chessboard, there is the King that is China, the Queen that is Russia, with rooks represented by India and Brazil, bishops by South Africa and Belarus, knights by Iran and Saudi Arabia. The pawns are represented by countries like the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, North Korea, Hungary, Serbia, Venezuela and Cuba.

The Deluded Narrative of the West in the Ukraine

The elite of the West lives in a state of delusion, so profound that it actually believes in its own virtual world delirium of propaganda myths or ‘narratives’, as it calls them. For example:

  1. The Western elite believed that it could enforce its own illegal sanctions against Russia. Its sanctions failed miserably, indeed backfired, and have helped isolate and bankrupt European economies, making them into failing States. They did not realise that Russia has autarchy, that it is independent, and is itself a huge source of oil, gas, fertilisers, chemicals and foodstuffs, especially wheat, on all of which the Western world depends. By its boycotts of vital Russian goods, the West has wrecked its own economies, forcing many staples to double in price, so undoing itself. Russia has not attacked it; it has done it all to itself. It believed in its own delusional propaganda, that Russia is just ‘a gas station with nukes’, ‘with the GDP of Spain’ (!), and not a sovereign country and a great diplomatic and military power, already the most powerful economy in Europe, and is supported by most of the world. Thus, the self-destructive sanctions of the West only strengthened Russian sovereignty. Indeed, economists forecast that the Russian economy will overtake the US economy during the present century, to become the world’s third largest, after those of its allies, China and India.
  2. The elite believed that it could enforce regime-change in Russia. In fact, its scheming only made the very popular President Putin, a national representative and sincere patriot, more loved, and made itself even more loathed. Despite the lies (narrative/PR/psyops/propaganda/spin) of the West, which is all it has, President Putin is not dying of cancer, dementia or anything else, unlike the openly senile President Biden.
  3. The elite believed that it could apply the offensive military technology which it had used against Iraq twenty and thirty years before, against Russia, this time using Kiev regime cannon-fodder as its proxies. The elite believed that its ‘game-changing’ weapons, tactics and training were superior to the far advanced Russian, when in fact they were either obsolete or else over-engineered because of its own profit-obsessed, oligarch-driven and suicidal deindustrialisation and decadence. The obsolete or unsuitable weapons and munitions from NATO cannot be replaced because of the deindustrialisation of the West. However, increasingly militarised Russia has a huge military base, with a million well-trained volunteer troops drawn from four times the Ukrainian population, and cannot run out of weapons, missiles, tanks, ammunition, men etc. This is unlike the US colony of the Ukraine, which is running out of all of them, even of ill-trained conscripts abducted by force off the streets. Up to 500,000 Kiev troops (Ukrainians and NATO ‘advisers’ and mercenaries) have died so far and at least another 700,000 have been wounded. On the Russian side the anti-Russian, BBC-sponsored Mediazona project reports the deaths of over 45,000 troops and an unknown number of wounded Ukrainians, Chechens, Russians and Ghurkas, all of whom are fighting for the liberation of the Ukraine from the Kiev dictatorship. The ratio is 1:10. The West has failed miserably, thus falling into the Russian trap, facing yet another humiliating defeat in 2024. It has learned nothing from its previous routs in Saigon and Kabul, still cultivating the seeds of its own destruction.

Restoring the Real Ukraine 

The Russian Special Military Operation (SMO) in the Ukraine was never against the Ukraine, still less was it ‘a war’ against the Ukraine, it was intended to end the war begun by the US against the real Ukraine in 2014. It was never about occupying or destroying the Ukraine, it was only ever about overthrowing the US-installed dictatorship in Kiev and liberating the peoples of the Ukraine, undoing the artificial, centralised, Sovietised Kiev State, as it had been created by Communist tyrants like Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchov, and as supported by pro-Nazi Western elites. Russia had no interest in war, only in applying pressure to begin talks about security, which the Kiev regime and its Western patrons had rejected for eight years.

This is why only a small number of Russian-trained troops, about 10% of its armed forces, many of them Eastern Ukrainians, began fighting in the Ukraine in February 2022, facing huge odds. This was a small-scale operation that had been provoked by the anti-Ukrainian Kiev regime’s genocide of Eastern Ukrainians for eight long years. In this way, after 24 February 2022, the Russians pre-empted the proposed full-scale Kiev invasion of the Donbass by a few days, destroying anti-Slav US biolabs in the Ukraine and gradually grinding down the huge NATO fortifications which had been prepared over the previous eight years. The West forced larger-scale military action on Russia by its aggressiveness, forbidding Kiev to make peace, arming the South American-style terrorist junta and the dread secret police in Kiev, for whom Hollywood, literally, wrote the scripts. It supplied the junta with huge amounts of NATO equipment, munitions and tactics, which were all stuck in the time-warp of the deserts of Iraq of the 1990s.

This ensured the rout of the so-called ‘counteroffensive’ of the Kiev forces in 2023. However, the ‘permanent war’ dreamed up by the West also meant that Russia’s first aim of freeing the Donbass (and protecting the Crimeans, whom Kiev next also threatened) would have to be extended to liberating all the Russian east and south of the Ukraine. Apart from this liberation of the eastern and southern half of the Ukraine, there remained two other vital aims – the demilitarisation and denazification of the rest of the Ukraine. Demilitarisation is now three-quarters done. It has taken much longer than it would have because since 2022 there has been so much extra military equipment from NATO countries to destroy. Now we come to the third and most complex aim – denazification.

Denazification means the removal by the Ukrainian people themselves of the Nazi junta. It is not something that Russia will do directly, it does not go in for US-style regime change manipulations. It will wait until the consciousness of Ukrainian people awakens and they themselves overthrow the US-imposed junta that has been murdering their menfolk in their hundreds of thousands. Signs of this new consciousness are becoming apparent, with an open political split into factions in Kiev. Its removal is necessary because under Washington orders, the junta in Kiev outlawed negotiations with Russia in April 2022. For peace talk to begin, the Russian aim all along, that junta must first therefore be removed. Russia cannot begin peace talks with US-controlled European puppets or the American puppeteers, as they refuse to talk. Talks will be possible only with Free Ukrainians, those who have understood that the West wants to kill them ‘to the last Ukrainian’ for the sake of the West. The West has no love at all for Ukrainians; it prefers Israelis. Peace talks are impossible with the present US-imposed Kiev elite.

The Consequences of the Western Defeat

A Free Ukraine will be established within its new borders. This will be after those who choose by self-determination to belong to Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania (certain people are already gathering like vultures around the corpse of the Ukraine) have returned with their territories to their ancestral homelands. What will happen to the for now forty countries of the north-western peninsula of Asia, which calls itself Non-Russian Europe? Abandoned by their ex-globalist, turned nationalist, puppet-masters in the US, its former European satellites will have to sort out their own national affairs, just as Eastern Europe had to, once it was abandoned by the USSR. What of the twenty-one countries of North-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe? Russia will have a border with Hungary, which in turn has a border with Russia’s past and future ally, Serbia. The way will be open for all the at present sixteen countries of South-Eastern Europe to form an Alliance, helped by the multipolar BRICS Alliance, Chinese investment and Russian energy. This Austro-Hungarian-Ottoman Alliance could stretch from Hungary to Greece, Austria to Cyprus, from Czechia to Croatia, Albania to Moldova (perhaps minus Russian Transdnistria and Gagauzia), Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim, doing away with the old local petty nationalisms and primitive racism, working towards a Confederation for the peace and prosperity of all. However, these are not the only local consequences. There are the local consequences for the five countries of North-Eastern European, which border Russia and Belarus, that is, Finland, the three Baltic States and Poland (whose farmers are at present blockading the border with the Ukraine – for Poles resent Ukrainians and their sense of entitlement). The consequences there will be just as significant, once their US-imposed elites have been removed and popular governments elected.

As for the other for now nineteen European countries, those of Western Europe – and we know what Washington via Victoria Nuland thinks of Europe – they will at last be free to throw off their old Uniparty Russophobic elites, who have between only 10% and 20% of approval, and start all over again, in face of the new reality. The European puppets are now arguing with each other, finger-pointing, like children when the (American) parents have left the room, as they are incapable of doing anything except taking orders. The days of the pygmy von der Leyen, pretending, with others who also had Nazi grandfathers like Baerbok, to be Charlemagne, of the bankrupt pygmies Johnson and Sunak pretending to be Churchill, but with nuclear submarines held together by superglue and aircraft-carriers whose propellors do not work, of the megalomaniac pygmy Macron pretending to be Napoleon and in charge of NATO, but with French farmers pouring manure onto his buildings, and of the pygmy Scholz pretending to be Hitler, are over. And NATO, which does not exist to protect Europe, but to control it, will be over with them, as will the EU with its unelected Commissars. The new reality will be the Union State of the Russian Federation, Belarus and the New Ukraine and, beyond that, the BRICS Alliance. The Alliance has already replaced the old unipolar West as the new, multipolar, economic, political, diplomatic and military centre of the world. Western Europe has yet to catch up with this and reintegrate the Asian landmass, of which Russia is the hub.

Beyond this, there are the consequences for the USA. Since 1945 it has been the leader of the West, with all its decadence, exploitation of others and above all hubris. It inherited the privateering piracy of the failed oligarchy of the global British Empire, with its plundering of others’ raw materials, usury, financial speculation, slave-trading, drug-trafficking and permanent war. The American Empire, which cannot even defeat the Houthis, who do not even have a Navy and Air Force, has failed for all the same reasons. The future President Trump is not going to allow the conflict in the Ukraine to continue until his election in November 2024, though President Biden desperately wants it to continue after he imagines that he will be re-elected. Trump wants to ensure that the USA’s second humiliation in four years, from Kabul to Kiev, will also take place under the Democrats. The American Empire is now collapsing under its senile leader, who symbolises its disgraceful decline, and losing control of its feudal vassals in Europe, Oceania, Asia and Latin America.

And then the USA, shorn of its bankrupting overseas burdens like its NATO vassals and its coastal protectorates, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel, will be governed by an American Nationalist (ex-Republican) Party. This will have to sort out the huge mess of abortion, corruption, crime, debt, drugs, deprivation and injustice which its elite has allowed to develop within its own borders. In order to do this and so avoid yet another Civil War, it may have to split up into its constituent parts, returning the south to Mexico, the north-east and north-west to a reformed Canada, making California independent, and returning Alaska to the Russian Federation. The overseas US protectorates, including Australia and New Zealand, will be left to find their own way, making peace with their neighbours and integrating the real world.

The Orthodox Church after the Western Defeat

The leaders of Roman Catholic and Protestant religious institutions were at the root of the Western ideology of racial and religious superiority, that is of Western pride. Outside Western Europe, the clergy of the Orthodox Church have suffered many distortions and much corruption in the second Christian millennium (1033-2033). This is especially where they found themselves in political centres and so became victims of the then much more powerful Western Europe, geographically next door to it. The corrupt forgot the people of the Church, who are soon going to have self-determination. However, today’s reality is that the two most important Local Orthodox Churches, 75% of the whole Church, are in a state of schism and are even trying to drag the other fourteen Local Churches into their schism, and with some success.

For this reason, for instance, the Greek Orthodox episcopate in particular has been subject to the political manipulations of the Western Powers. For example, those who were at the centre of the then Ottoman Empire in Istanbul (Constantinople) found their episcopal posts being traded by the Ottomans and sold to French and British ambassadors who then appointed their puppets. Since 1948 they have in the same way been controlled by the Americans. They have not been politically free, as is evidenced by the lives of St Nectarius of Pentapolis in Egypt or Patriarch Maximos V of Constantinople in the last century. Currently, the political grip of the US secularists on its episcopate seems to be ever tighter.

In the Russian Church, there was no Patriarch between 1700 and 1917 and the Church was governed by laymen, several of whom were either atheists or else enemies of the Church, yet they made appointments to the episcopate and persecuted monasticism. Then, between 1917 and 1991, the episcopate of the Russian Church was under the intense scrutiny and control of the Soviet atheist regime, which appointed many corrupt individuals to it and persecuted those who were not corrupt. The Church was Sovietised and so centralised. After 1991 the episcopate did not de-Sovietise and decentralise and was also subject to all manner of financial and political pressures. This led to many immoral and corrupt actions, which discredited many parts of that episcopate and scandalised the faithful, with the result that fewer and fewer Russian Orthodox attend their churches. The onion-domes, regilded by corrupt oligarchs, may gleam, but the people do not want clergy who live corrupt lives, they want living examples of faith. As regards the Russian Orthodox Church outside the Russian Federation, it is now in a state of self-destruction, under attack not only from the CIA, but also from ‘One True Churchism’, or rather from ‘One True Jurisdictionalism’. Missionary work from the Russian Church is now virtually impossible outside Russia. They seem to have lost it, after wasting their huge opportunities over the last thirty years.

The Church itself, whether in Constantinople, Russia or in the many other parts of the world where it exists, has always survived thanks to bishops who live by the Holy Spirit, monastics who actually live the monastic life inside monasteries and convents, incorruptible and unbribable parish clergy, and the little people. We are those who refuse to sell our souls for money and worldly honours. From here have always come the fearless martyrs and confessors, by whom the Church has always lived despite corrupt bishops and clergy. The latter proclaim the lie that all owe obedience to them, even though they are financially and morally corrupt, undermined by their lusts for power, money or depravity, and create sectarian schisms and even heresies. To gangsters we owe no obedience, for we owe obedience to Christ, who precisely overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. Let the corrupt bishops be warned even now: We have always won and we always will win. The episcopate of the Church is going to be cleansed. The Great Cleansing is coming, not least in Russia, where the State is being cleansed and the Church is the next on the list.

 Conclusion: The New Church Order

 Once freed from the political pressures of the old Western powerbrokers of this world, from whom the episcopate of the Orthodox Church has suffered so many manipulations and temptations down the centuries, today’s unnecessary internal tensions and disagreements between Local Churches can be resolved. These have been thrust on the Church by those selfsame powerbrokers. On the one hand, there can be decentralisation, with the Church no longer being a plaything of the centralising, imperialist ideologies, which make some in two Patriarchates use the canons for politics, to the scandal of all. Such seem to consider that the Church belongs to them, and not to Christ. On the other hand, there can be a strengthening of the spirit of the Catholicity of the Church, creating a much deeper conciliarity. Then all the Local Churches, whose number could swiftly rise to perhaps twenty-four with new Diaspora Churches, could meet regularly in Councils to resolve disagreements because they will at last be politically free to do so. The opportunities for a New Church Order are here. But will they be taken?

A New Pharisaism

https://www.antiochian.org/regulararticle/1956

His Eminence Metropolitan Saba (Isper)

There is a negative trend in the Church these days, with certain people criticizing everything. They adhere in an extreme way to what they believe is authentic, while attacking all that they consider innovative, calling it heresy that destroys the Faith and the Church of Christ. The adherents of this trend tend to be aggressive in their attacks and fundamentalist in their opinions, denouncing as heretics all those who disagree with their opinions, views, and citations.

They employ the interpretation of Scriptures as they see fit, for their purposes. They adhere to the letter and not to the spirit of the text, neglecting what St. Paul said: “For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6).

The Church was not born yesterday; her earthly age is 21 centuries. She has experienced all kinds of systems, situations, cultures, and heresies. The Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, has always expressed her faith and steadfastly witnessed to it—even unto martyrdom—through different circumstances and pressures, wars and persecutions, peace and freedom, on top of intellectual, cultural, and religious or atheistic trends. According to the word of the Lord, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).

The followers of this new trend forget all the good and the benefits that the Church provides. They fail to see God’s acts in history and blind themselves from seeing how history works. Therefore, their responses come as brutal, hostile attacks, lacking the love that marks disciples of Christ.

They remain on the surface and do not dive into the essence of things, failing to differentiate between the essential and the superficial. They do not assign any importance to the changing course of history or the turning points of science and the challenges these pose. In their rigid view, humans are subject to requirements of the Faith according to their historical formulations, without regard to human capabilities and advances across generations.

They claim, for example, that churches should be built of stone. They argue that the life of the brick does not exceed one hundred years, which necessitates the demolition of the church building after the expiration of the brick’s effectiveness. They ignore the number of stone churches that were destroyed by the passage of time and by wars and earthquakes. They also forget churches that were turned into places of worship for other religions, or even into animal pens, due to their desecration and the disappearance of Christians from these places, as in northern and southern Syria.

These people are armed with the malleable phrase “according to the holy fathers” to support their opinion. If you ask most of them about their references, they cannot provide an answer. The phrase “holy fathers” has become a term used to defend and justify their positions, but often without knowledge or understanding. This happens with some Christian groups that cling to the letter of the Scripture while disregarding the living word of God that comes through the perpetual presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ.

According to these people, the Church must remain captive to expressions, systems, and traditions (and I do not mean “Holy Tradition”) formulated by the Spirit for a specific era, in order for the Church to express its faith among different languages and cultures. According to them, if the Church expresses something in some way at some time, then this expression must prevail at all times. The Holy Spirit, therefore, must stop working, according to these people, lest He invents something new, necessary, and beneficial for the salvation of man. Do you think that a person is saved through molds and forms, or through the Holy Spirit alive and effective in him?

In addition, you sense in them a fear for the upright faith, bordering on terror—to the point that it almost becomes a pathological obsession, seeing in everything a conspiracy against the Orthodox Church and the truth that it faithfully preserves. They believe that they are the only ones to preserve the truth, so they resort to strict adherence to the forms and calendars that the Church knew in the past, which were a successful expression of the upright faith in the cultures of that time. Writing the names of saints on icons in the local language becomes a heresy, because the ancient Greek letters, in their view, alone are appropriate to the Orthodox art of the icon! They circulate a saying of Saint Nektarios, “Poor thing, Orthodoxy,” claiming themselves to be the defenders of Orthodoxy. Every effort in the Church, according to them, whether pastoral, institutional, or spiritual, is aimed at eliminating the faith and fragmenting the Church.

If these people poison the Church with a spirit of hatred, discord, blasphemy, and hostility toward every leader, guide, and spiritual father who does not say what they say, then they miss seeing themselves as a tool of Satan, who is targeting their Church. Truly, this is his murkiest trap. He abuses the naivete of some Church members to split it. They fall under the delusion that they are cleansing it.

Faithfulness is required of all believers. You may differ with your brethren regarding matters unrelated to doctrine. We prevent fracture with continual love, humility, and dialogue. However, to monopolize Christ, appoint yourself as His spokesman, and break from His true Church to establish what you want His Church to be means that you have sunk to a level of pride that makes you a tool in the hands of Satan.

Truly, this is the greatest sin.

Why We Reject both Roman Catholic and ‘Orthodox’ Popes

Real Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops claim only spiritual authority. However, there are a few Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops who appear to claim temporal power also, just like Roman Catholic ‘Popes’, whose power they seem to admire. Those Popes have consistently claimed both spiritual and secular power. But what is the origin of the claim of the Roman Catholic Popes to this?

The earliest and most famous forgery which justified this blasphemous claim is known as the ‘Donation of Constantine’. It was fabricated in a Papal scriptorium, probably as early as the 750s, in order to get military support from the Germanic King, Pepin the Short, against barbarians attacking Rome. In any case, the earliest known allusion to it is in a letter of 778, in which Pope Adrian I asks Charlemagne to endow his Church with land and income.

According to this document, several centuries earlier Emperor Constantine the Great had, out of gratitude for a cure from leprosy, ceded ‘to Pope Sylvester (285-335) and all his successors until the end of the world all the imperial insignia’, that is, the totality of ‘the imperial greatness and the glory of our power’. Constantine also allegedly ceded to Pope Sylvester ‘both our (the Lateran) Palace and the City of Rome and all the provinces, localities and cities of Italy or Western regions’. However, from a simple attempt to get protection and sponsorship from a local Germanic king, the Donation of Constantine was to be turned into the centrepiece of a massive enterprise of falsification.

The first Pope to abuse the Donation came three centuries later. This was Leo IX, in a letter sent to Patriarch Michael of New Rome (Constantinople). The Pope cited a large portion of the document and this led automatically to the Western Schism of 1054. Having supposedly received full temporal power over the West, the Popes strove to transform all its kingdoms into Papal fiefs and their kings into vassals. Thus, in 1059 Pope Nicholas II gave Orthodox southern Italy and Sicily (if he could conquer it) to the Norman bandit Robert the Cunning (in Old French ‘Guiscard’), on condition that he pay him homage.

Next, in 1066, Pope Alexander II gave England to another Norman gangster, William the Bastard, on the same condition, this betraying the people of England too. Then, in January 1077, Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) forced the German Emperor Henry IV to humble himself before him and recognise his suzerainty at Canossa. The (English) Pope Adrian IV (1154-1159) next betrayed Ireland, granting it as a ‘hereditary possession’ to the King of England, Henry II, because ‘all the islands are supposed to belong to the Roman Church under ancient law, according to the Donation of Constantine, who richly endowed them’.

To justify their power-grab project of universal monarchy, from the twelfth century onwards the Popes employed an army of legal scholars who developed a new canon law, using forgeries to make their new system appear to be the oldest. The purpose was to invent precedents for the sovereign authority of the Bishop of Rome over the Universal Church on the one hand, and over all Western secular sovereigns on the other hand. Slowly but surely, from one coup d’état to the next, thanks to its magic weapon of excommunication, the Pope became the overlord of Europe, receiving allegiance and tribute from countless kings.

However, the forger of the Donation of Constantine gave the Popes spiritual supremacy not just over Western Europe, but over the whole world. Thus, Constantine the Great is made to decree that the Bishop of Rome ‘shall govern the four Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople (which did not exist at the time of Constantine as Patriarchates!), as well as all the Churches of God throughout the world. The Popes who will now preside over the destiny of the most holy Roman Church will be the highest, the head of all priests all over the world and all things will be regulated according to his decisions’.

This Papal claim of supremacy over other Patriarchs was yet another betrayal of the original ‘Catholic’ (= Conciliar, in the Orthodox sense of this Greek word) constitution of the Church. This was an attempted coup against the principle of brotherly entente that was the condition for the Holy Spirit to guide the whole Church. Already, in the year 1001, in response to a request from Pope Sylvester II to ‘restore’ to the Holy See eight counties of Italy, the highly-educated, half-Greek Western Emperor Otto III had denounced the ‘negligence and incompetence’ of the Popes, as well as ‘the lies forged by themselves’ written ‘in letters of gold’ and placed ‘under the name of the great Constantine’.  He for one clearly had no illusions about the forged Donation.

While the Donation was used as a legal document by the Papacy from the eleventh century, its authenticity or validity were challenged. At the beginning of the 13th century, Walther von der Vogelweide, a poet close to the ‘Holy Roman’ Emperor Frederick II, though not disputing the origin of the Donation, saw it as a great misfortune, which reversed the natural order of the world and caused infinite suffering to Europe. Frederick II had his lawyers declare it unlawful: Constantine simply had no right to make it. As for the Italian poet Dante (1265-1321), he wrote:

Ah, Constantine, how much evil was born,
not from your conversion, but from that donation
that the first wealthy Pope received from you!

Dante Alighieri, Inferno, Canto 19, lines 115–117

However, by the 15th century the fraudulent origin of the Donation began to be recognised widely through a fairly simple critical analysis (for example, how could Constantine evoke the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which did not even exist then?). Yet no official apology was ever presented by the Vatican for its fraud. In fact, nothing changed fundamentally in the attitude of the Papacy and, although already unmasked as liars, in 1870 they resorted to the absurd claim of ‘Papal Infallibility’.

Today US Presidents, who from their Roman temple in Washington act as successors to the Popes as the ideological leaders of the Western world, do exactly the same thing. They operate by coup d’etats, overthrowing other governments by ‘regime-change’, thus exacting allegiance and tribute from today’s puppet ‘kings’, and issuing illegal ‘excommunications’ (now called sanctions), proclaiming that US Presidents too are infallible and ‘exceptional’.

We reject the Sanhedrin of the scribes and pharisees, for we belong to the Church of Christ. However, this essay is not an anti-Roman Catholic polemic. Ordinary Roman Catholics are the first victims of this fraud of Papal power. They have our sympathy. And as we mentioned at the very beginning of this article, a few individual Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops also try and claim more than spiritual authority. In reality, our Church is the one of married priests, church communities and families, all together, for we all have a family life. As for more spiritual things, we go to monasteries and hermits, who are celibate by Divine calling, not by the ordinances of mere men.

Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops are administrators and spiritual guides like the apostles, and they should most certainly have nothing to do with money, property and power, which all inevitably lead to corruption and moral decay. And if they are involved with this corruption, then they are not with us, but are against us, the ordinary people, parish clergy, monks and nuns, as they make themselves into mere ‘princes of the Church’, exactly like the Popes. For their spirit too is precisely that of Papism, even though they may dare to call themselves ‘Orthodox’, which they are not.

 

 

Foreword to the Fourth Edition

The priest must be above the lordly arrogance of the well-born and overprotected and not cringe or fawn before that arrogance; he must not lower himself or be cowardly before the powerful of this world, but conduct himself with a sense of his clerical dignity, gravely, evenly, in a pastoral manner – and serve unhurriedly, not to please people. He must denounce whims, lordly arrogance and any coldness towards matters concerning the faith.

St John of Kronstadt

Local Transformations Since 2014

Fifty years since the first of the essays in Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition was written and nearly thirty years since the first edition was published, we have been asked to reissue the anthology, as the third edition has sold out. We are hoping that this will be ready by Easter.

Since that third edition appeared in 2014, we have bought and established more new churches in Eastern England, in Norwich and in Little Abington, just outside Cambridge. These followed the foundation of the new inter-Orthodox parish in my native Colchester in 2008, though we received not a penny from the Church authorities. Indeed, quite the opposite. We bought this extremely large wooden building and opened it as a church for Orthodox of all nationalities against the views of the clerical doomsayers, who later became jealous and tried to close us and even told others that we were closed (!), just as we gained ever more parishioners. Thus, we now have permanent parishes in Essex, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. This still leaves Suffolk without our own permanent church building. There is work to do here, though we do have a special, indeed mystical, place here in mind.

Not having closed our main church in Colchester during the covid persecution – at one point we were apparently the only church to be open in the country – our multinational parish community thrives. Furthermore, my native Colchester was made a City in one of the last acts of the old Queen. And once we were safely anchored inside the Romanian Orthodox Church in February 2022, we received another influx of Orthodox, including refugees from the tragic deviation of a schismatic and a spiritually alien ‘Russian Orthodox’ sect. (You do not obey schismatics). Today, in 2024, with a throughput of 5,000 Orthodox a year, an average Sunday brings 200 Orthodox to church and there are Sundays with as many as 400. Then the church building begins to look too small.

The Patriarchate of Bucharest allowed us to defend the church from the swaggering foreigner and ‘confound their politics and frustrate their knavish tricks’. First, the money-obsessed wished to take the church from us by legal subterfuge, then, power gone to their heads, he persecuted us and tried to close all our churches and missions and prevent us from providing services and books in understandable English. All this went against the fruit of our life’s work, forty years of struggle, which they tried to destroy. Thank God for the canonical protection of the Romanian Orthodox Church, as agreed by the two Patriarchs, in view of the new narcissistic cowboy culture of the psychopathic schism which we opposed.

With its repressed homosexuality (which is why it is so aggressive), bullying, betrayals and total lack of respect for local people, language and culture, it made the CIA task of destroying the Russian Church from the inside so easy and at no cost. It was all so different from the old and noble White Russian culture of the past. To this new mentality we repeat the old English saying: Tell the truth and shame the devil. We are English, our forebears fought against Hitler because we love freedom and we the people shall not be persecuted by any more arrogant foreigners.

International Transformations Since 2014

However, our small struggle in the East of England against a proud foreigner has been mirrored on a vast scale in world-shaking events. For the publication of this new edition comes at what we can only call a millennial turning-point in history, one which we already sensed was coming in the seventies of the last century and which is now here. The headlines succeed one another at breathtaking speed: Protestant apostasy, Brexit, Trump, a schismatic American-founded ‘church’ (another one) in the Ukraine, covid, transgenderism, the African Exarchate, the corruption of Washington, Prince Harry in a narcissistic trap, the proxy war in the Ukraine, the death of the Queen, the fall of Germany, genocide in Palestine, BRICS expansion, the apostasy of the papacy, the cancer of the new King. Astonishing tectonic shifts are turning the world upside down, the Angel of History is looking East, while the West, corroded and paralysed from the inside, looks on.

300 years after the Russian Orthodox Lands (Rus’) became an Empire, based on Western aristocratic ideology, and 100 years after the formation of the USSR, based on Western proletarian ideology, the now Russian Federation has been forced by Western aggression to choose between the West and the Rest (of the world). At the receiving end of Western bullying and betrayals in the Ukraine, the Federation was welcomed by the Rest, that which used to be called ‘the Global South’. This is a historic moment, the long-awaited restoration of the sovereign and multipolar world, the attack on which began not 500 years ago, as some wrongly write, but 1,000 years ago.

The ‘cancellation’ of Russia, illegally-sanctioned by the aggressive West, and the Shakespearian tragedy of the American war against the Ukraine and Russia in the Ukraine are precisely the processes which both the Russian Federation and the Russian Orthodox Church have to go through, in order to be cleansed of their spiritual, moral and financial corruption. Only then can the unity of the threefold Russian Lands be reconstituted. This war is precisely existential for this reconstitution of Rus’. Only thus will a renewed, de-Sovietised, decentralised and financially and morally cleansed Russian Orthodox Church be made ready for its real destiny after three long centuries of tragic losses, illusions, misdirections and divisions. The schismatic traitors and bullies, including those who have infiltrated the Russian Orthodox Church, have been revealed. Indeed, we were used as one of the baits used to trap the naïve narcissists, who thought they were destroying us, before the Great Cleansing could begin.

The unnecessary American war against the tragic Ukraine and Russia, indeed against the whole of Rus’, which started in 2014 and is still being fought in the Ukraine, largely by Ukrainians on both sides, could have ended within a few weeks. Instead, the war is taking over two years, as the West has in fact demanded that the Russian Federation not only liberate, demilitarise and denazify the American-occupied Ukraine (its original aims), but the whole of NATO. Delusional narcissists and their lies (narcissists are by definition always delusional and always tell lies) will be driven out as the real enemies of both Ukrainians and Russians, just as we drove out the delusional narcissist here. As regards Europe, now a vassal of the USA, its spiritual and so moral self-destruction, which began in Sarajevo in 1914, continued in Warsaw in 1939 and was renewed in Kiev in 2014, continues apace.

The Hubris of the USA and Its Vassals

In Greek mythology Hubris, the narcissistic demon of insolence, violence and outrageously rude behaviour was, according to some, the daughter of Dyssevia, which means Impiety. And so it is in Biblical language too – the impiety of pride always goes before the fall. Hubris is the superiority complex of arrogant pride – we are better than you, exceptional, and therefore you must do whatever we want. This is in fact the cruel racial pride of Roman paganism which, revived, began to reinfest Western Europe in the eleventh century. It was the same delusion of hubris as had infested the builders of the Tower of Babel, then the eleventh-century Papacy, Great Britain before the Titanic and 1914, then was renamed Nazism in Germany, and from there contaminated the USA, indeed many ‘ex’-Nazis were at the founding of the CIA. This last infestation became especially severe after the fall of the Marxist pseudo-paradise, established in the former Russian Empire after 1917 and falling in 1991, whose fall the elite in Washington wrongly credited itself with.

This is not the end of history, as falsely announced in 1991, but it is the end of the history of that hubristic Western elite. For the great loser of the tragic war against the Ukraine and Russia, the result of 1991 and still ongoing in the Ukraine, is precisely the US elite. This war is existential for the elite, whose first victims are not the poor Ukrainians, but the longsuffering peoples of Northern America and Western Europe. The elite will have to dissolve its fragmenting NATO pact and flee back across the Atlantic in order to struggle to keep American unity, which is threatened by the current internal disintegration of the USA and its huge debt. Will Alaska return to Russia, as some believe?

All the US vassals in East Asia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia, will be freed, just as those on the now sinkable US aircraft carrier of Israel. Other losers will be the Baltics, Scandinavia and the UK, that is, the whole basically ex-Protestant North-Western and North-Eastern Europe, which so deludedly backed the ex-Protestant USA. Impoverished Europe has made itself not only the political and military graveyard of the United States, but also an economic graveyard.

In North-Western and South-Western Europe

The for now twenty countries of Western Europe (North-Western and South-Western Europe) will become a Confederation after the collapse of the US-made EU and after they have rebecome nation-states. These countries are for the moment: its leader, Germany, then Switzerland and Liechtenstein; Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland; the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg; the UK and Ireland; France and Monaco; Andorra, Spain and Portugal; Italy, San Marino and Malta. Artificial unions like the UK and Belgium may not survive, new nations, like Catalonia, Scotland and Wales, may re-emerge. The tiny population of Scandinavia will have to back down from hostility to the reality of the reunited Russian Lands. In the UK, the US-manipulated British Establishment elite will be cast off, new leaders will appear. Hopefully, the liberation of the UK will lead to a reunited Ireland, to an independent Scotland and Wales and, above all, after a thousand-year wait, lead at last to a Sovereign England. Thus, the Isles of the North Atlantic (IONA) can be cleansed of the parasitic, vampire-like British imperial myth, which enslaved it after the 1066 tragedy and has sucked on our blood ever since.

In North-Eastern Europe

In North-Eastern Europe, the three tiny, impoverished and depopulated Baltic States and Finland may yet become truly independent republics, allied with the future Union State of Rus’ in order to survive economically. Certainly, they will all have to rid themselves of their US-appointed puppet elites, stop behaving like disruptive teenagers, come to terms with reality as mature adults and, with Russian help, become prosperous once more. The fifth country here, largely ex-Catholic Poland, already has its own Local Orthodox Church, and is where remaining traditional Catholics have worked out what is really going on. It will also have to make its peace in maturity with the reality of a reunited Rus’ and stop wasting money on useless weapons. This will be all the more urgent for the Polish Republic, once Germany returns to sanity from anti-German hysteria and commits anew to mutually beneficial agreements with the Russian Federation.

In South-Eastern Europe

The great victors of the American war in the ‘borderlands’, which is the translation of the Russian word, ‘Ukraina’, will be Hungary and Slovakia. Then, by repentance, can come a reunited Serbia and Montenegro, (North) Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova, Greece and Cyprus, followed by Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Czechia, with a Bosnia-Herzegovina reintegrated and an at last prosperous Albania, attracting like a magnet Albanians at present living outside it, especially those in Serbian Kosovo and Macedonia. Thus, all the for now sixteen countries of South-Eastern Europe, many of them Orthodox, can be drawn into a Russia-friendly but independent Confederation, part of BRICS, supplied by Russian energy. All of them have a Local Orthodox Church except for Austria and Hungary, which will surely form a new Austro-Hungarian Local Church.

The Return of the Church

I apologise for the long geopolitical digression above. However, it is necessary, for the results of geotheology are precisely geopolitics and pastoral. Whereas once people could find some sort of spiritual refuge and survival in parts of the Protestant denominations, and then in Roman Catholicism, today most can see that in the Western world where those two decadent structures are not entirely dead, they are rapidly dying. The tragedy of the second millennium Western world is that it ended up by voluntarily and suicidally renouncing the values of its own Civilisation, thus ensuring its own death. However, this also means that the Western Lands now have an opportunity to return beyond those to their real roots in the first millennium.

When the masses return to the Church of their ancestors, we must be ready for them, like forerunners, who prepared the way for them. Schismatic psychopaths whose evil deeds have already gone down in history, will have to stop persecuting their own clergy, trying to close their own churches, forbidding their own clergy from doing missionary work, and receive former Roman Catholics and Protestants into the Church canonically, as the 1,000 canonical Orthodox bishops in the world do, outlawing such schismatic novelties as ‘corrective baptism’ and ‘corrective ordination’, as practised by at least one Russian bishop in the USA, and using accessible books written in accessible English, not in a pseudo-archaic American jargon.

Orthodoxy, which has providentially returned to Western Europe, must make ready to receive the believing remnant after it had been usurped for a millennium by structures which are now rapidly disappearing into the black hole of apostasy. The Orthodox Church, severely battered, bruised and abused after a thousand years of persecutions from both inside and outside, has returned. We are indeed at a turning-point. We have made ready for the return of many here in Eastern England, preparing the way against all the extremists of the secularist left and the arrogant foreigners of the secularist right, ever keeping to the Royal Path.

Archpriest Andrew Phillips,

City of Colchester,

England