Monthly Archives: May 2015

Questions and Answers from Recent Correspondence (May 2015)

Q: Your writing seems to have become less apocalyptic and more optimistic in the last 10-15 years or so, why is that?

A: In the 70s, 80s and 90s, we thought that was probably it, that there was little hope for any revival of Orthodoxy inside Russia and that therefore outside Russia, little ROCOR would just have to hold on to the end, which could only be a few generations away at most. For example, I remember meeting in 1977 the elderly widowed matushka of the philosopher and inventor of ‘eucharistic theology’, Fr Nikolai Afanasiev, from Paris (she was much more Orthodox than he was). She told me despairingly, ‘Russia is finished’. Of course, many in her generation who had lived through the Revolution and exile thought exactly that.

Indeed, I too had great doubts as to whether I would see a revival in my lifetime. The 90s under Yeltsin brought little hope; it seemed as though after the obscenities of atheism Russia was just going to copy the West in terms of continuing apostasy. And yet we have, ever since the Jubilee Council of August 2000 and the canonization of the New Martyrs and Confessors, begun to see the long-awaited transfiguration. Everything changed on that day as was seen in the miracle of the Cross in the sky that appeared then. Russia is the key, if Russia is restored, then the restoration of the rest of the Orthodox world from decadence and Halfodoxy will follow. It is the signs of this process that we are so eagerly following now.

Q: Are you not over-optimistic? Look at all the problems in Russia, abortion, alcoholism, crime, mass nominalism, the Ukraine.

A: I have always said that the revival on Russia is on a knife-edge. Everything can still go one way or another. The Ukraine is a huge warning that shows just how fragile the situation is. What lies behind the civil war in the Ukraine is the spiritual crisis of nominalism which shows that fragility. So-called Orthodox Ukrainians are defending statues of Lenin, the monster who created the Ukraine! What sort of Orthodoxy is that? It is no more Orthodox than the Uniats who want to put up statues of Hitler.

Washington can still undermine everything, as we have seen in Constantinople since 1948 when its agents deposed the Orthodox Patriarch and replaced him with their puppet. Now, throughout the Balkans and the Middle East, Washington, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly through its EU vassal, is attacking the soft underbelly of the Orthodox world. Whether in decadent Syria, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, the Ukraine, it is trying to destroy the Orthodox Church as the last bastion against Antichrist, whom neocon Washington is aiming to enthrone in its Israeli client-state. Wherever there is decadence in the Orthodox Church, there Washington and its colonies are attacking and intimidating. We have to be strong and consciously resist – then they cannot attack us.

Q: Does this explain the present situation in Macedonia?

A: Yes. Washington was so angered when Russia freed Bishop Jovan from his Macedonian prison and when Russia proposed to send a pipeline through Turkey, Greece and Macedonia (since Washington had bribed corrupt Bulgarian politicians not to accept it there) that it decided to organize a coloured revolution in Macedonia using its Albanian mafia clients from Kosovo. That is what is happening there now.

Q: How is the Serbian Church reacting?

A: It is in a dilemma. The Americans had already vetoed the election of Metr Amfilochije of Montenegro as Serbian Patriarch, but not everything is going their way, just as in the Romanian and Greek Churches, despite their manipulations there. Notably in Greece, the veneration of the relics of St Barbara by hundreds of thousands is greatly irritating the Americans. Anything traditionally Orthodox annoys them immensely because it automatically shows solidarity with the Russian Church, which it is desperate to destroy, as its neocon leaders openly proclaim. However, they have been annoyed above all by the resistance of Ukrainians to their puppet show in Kiev and its mass murder. The Orthodox seem to be winning there. That is a miracle. We are hopeful that the prophecy of Elder Jonah of Odessa will yet come true. But like all prophecies, it will need mass repentance to come true.

Q: What prophecy?

A: That victory for Orthodoxy will come in the Ukraine, but only after a bloody Easter (in 2014) and a hungry Easter (in 2015), at Easter 2016.

Q: All of these events are happening far away, in the Balkans or the Middle East, surely it does not affect us here in the West?

A: Oh, yes it does. For instance, the Russian Church faces immense opposition to the establishment of even a single new parish in the Western world. On the other hand, the West supports the establishment of parishes of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Why? Because it fully controls them through freemasonry etc. This is the case locally in the east of England, as all over the Western world. Beware of the fifth column. Look at how many years we have had to wait for the new Russian Cathedral in Paris. The foundation stone has just been laid – five years late, twelve years after it was first mooted with sorts of delays, some created by the homosexual former mayor of Paris.

Q: How do you resist? How do you achieve anything against the establishment of a masonic Orthodoxy which has been promoted in the West? Why has an ‘Establishment Western Church’ not appeared, when so much has been done to create it?

A: Thanks to the immigration of real Orthodox from Eastern Europe, a ‘Eurochurch’ has not been formed. Immigrants have come to the West in the last 15 years and saved the situation, supporting us, the once small minority, on whom the Establishment used to spit and turn its back in contempt and condemnation. Real Orthodox can no longer be ignored in the West – much to the fury of the Halfodox. They had counted on establishing a kind of degutted ‘Euro-Orthodoxy’, an ‘Orthodoxy Lite’, a Constantinople-controlled (that is, US State Department-controlled) Finnish Orthodoxy throughout Western Europe. This was to be built on protestantizing half-converted Europeans and on lapsed second and third generation Orthodox. This was as crazy as a chain-smoker trying to build an American Orthodoxy on half-converted ex-Episcopalians and former Uniats.

Q: Why is the West so opposed to the Russian Church in particular?

A: Precisely because we do not represent some sort of Establishment-approved Balkan folklore or masonic lodge, but the uncompromised Church of God. The devil is angry with us and so uses his agents against us. Wherever there is compromise in matters of the Faith, there is the devil. He does not want integrity. As the old proverb says, ‘the devil always builds a chapel next to a church’. This became crystal clear in 2006 when the British Establishment and media so vigorously approved the schism in the Sourozh Diocese in this country and launched a vitriolic campaign against the Russian Church. Their hatred was really quite shocking, all for a tiny and spiritually irrelevant schism! But the Establishment always defends its own, as it is always shaken when it is resisted; this world does not want any witness to the other world.

The same situation prevails in all other Western countries, where certain senior clerics, academics and laypeople of the OCA in the USA and of the Paris Jurisdiction in France work for those countries’ Russophobic secret services. We must never lose our freedom in the Russian Church, as they have. Once you have lost your freedom, you are spiritually compromised. And let us be frank, this also happened to a few individuals in ROCOR between the 70s and the 90s. It can happen anywhere. As the secret services say: ‘Every man has his price’. That is the cynical level they work on.

Q: So how do we resist?

A: As a new Catholic acquaintance said to me only a few days ago, ‘Orthodoxy? That’s an advanced form of Catholicism, isn’t it?’ I was struck by this view from the outside. What is certainly true is that there are individuals on the fringes of the Orthodox Church who do not at all confess ‘an advanced form of Catholicism’, but confess a modern Catholicism, i.e. a debased form of Protestantism, in fact, more or less secularism.

Q: So what do we have to do?

A: We have to reverse the processes by which the Church in the West was debased into Catholicism and then the processes by which Catholicism in turn became debased. That means going back to before 1054.

Q: Can you explain that in more detail?

A: Growing up in England, the one historical date I knew even as a small child, like all children, was 1066, the Battle of Hastings. I realized that it was very important locally, but did not understand its general context until some years later through the Church. Later placing that date of 1066 in its historical context as an Orthodox, I realized that it was all linked with the processes that had taken place during the eleventh century, through which Catholicism had been founded and, through it, a Western European world quite independent of and separate from the Church of God, with its own fake Christian institutions.

In other words, I discovered that 1066 was not some isolated date unconnected with everything else, it was part of a much wider process, of which provincial England was just a part. Locally, it meant the final debasing of England as an Orthodox country, but this was the same thing that had happened elsewhere before, in ‘Frankland’, Northern France and Western Germany, then in southern Italy and Spain, and happened elsewhere later, in the Crusades in the Middle East and with the Teutonic Knights in Eastern Europe. The aim was to turn the whole world into ‘Frankland’ – which is what Washington is now trying to do in the Ukraine and Macedonia at this very moment, 950 years later.

Moreover, the situation that developed in 1066 in England has lasted until today; we are still occupied by the Normans because there has been no repentance. Incredibly, 1066 is still marked by Establishment types as some sort of progress or victory, the birth of England, instead of its death! That is the result of a total lack of repentance. Lack of repentance always justifies evil. Look at the neocons in the USA today as examples of lack of repentance and justification of evil! Remember Madeleine Albright who said that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children was ‘a price worth paying’. The Nazis said the same sort of thing. Little wonder that the neocons support Neo-Nazis in Kiev. They come from the same stable.

And no repentance means no restoration. So what do we have to do to restore Truth? We have to deNormanize or, to express it in its general European and world context, deFrankize, in other words, we have to return to the Church and the Church way of thinking. That is absolutely vital if we are ever to found a Metropolia in Western Europe, the basis for a new Local Church.
Q: You mention 1066, behind which hides 1054, are there any other concealed dates in history like that?

A: Definitely yes and many of them. You see, a correct understanding of the Church is the key to understanding the past, just as a correct understanding of the Church is the key to understanding the future. What makes no sense in secular terms always makes sense when it is put into the light of the Church – or into the darkness of the absence of the Church. 1066 makes no spiritual sense until you understand that 1054 lies behind it, that it was all part of the same process of spiritual degeneration in Western Europe that had begun with Charlemagne and has still not ended. For example, today’s civil war in Syria makes no sense until you understand the spiritual degradation that went on in Syria before it. Another example, much closer and more obvious to us, is 1918, behind which hides 1914.

Q: 1918? Can you explain that?

A: 1918 marked the killing and martyrdom of Tsar Nicholas II, a date which changed world history because it created the Soviet Union and all that that entailed, including Communist China. There is no going back to before that until repentance and so restoration. Behind 1918 is concealed 1914 with the German (or rather Prussian – ‘Prussia ruined Germany’ as the Hessian princess the Tsarina Alexandra said in 1914) declaration of war. And that meant the spiritual suicide of Europe.

Q: On this subject, Western sources more or less all assert that the fall of the Romanovs was their own fault, for instance that it was Tsar Nicholas’ weakness that led to the Romanovs’ downfall. Is this true?

A: Of course not, this is all just self-justifying propaganda. Yes, it is true that Tsar Nicholas II came to the throne young and unprepared after the totally unexpected death of his father, Alexander III. It is true that in the first years of his reign he suffered much from the cabal of his power-seeking uncles, the corrupt Grand Dukes, who took advantage of his youth and great kindness. But the real reason for the downfall of Imperial Russia was the treason of the aristocracy and the generals, including, it is true, of a great many of the extended Romanov family and many Grand Dukes, because of their apostasy from Orthodoxy, which caused jealousy, greed, gossip, slander and the murder of the peasant Rasputin.

These aristocrats wanted to overthrow Tsar Nicholas, the legitimate authority, because they wanted power for themselves. Seeing Tsar Nicholas’ strong will and resolution, they slandered him and carried out a coup d’etat, accusing him of a weak will and irresolution. This was mere self-justification. Their agreement to a Revolution that had been prepared by Buchanan, the British ambassador in Saint Petersburg, who soon regretted his foolishness, created the nightmare. Of course, they punished themselves because they lost everything. It was their own fault. The best of them understood it and had time to repent for it in the Bolshevik Gulag or else in exile, in Berlin, Belgrade, Paris, London (like Fr George Sheremetiev) and elsewhere. Others never repented of the blood on their hands.

Q: So are you saying that the West was responsible for the Revolution?

A: Directly, through its agents, and indirectly, through the westernized aristocrats, yes. Fopr example, directly because of German funding for the Bosheviks (just as the Japanese had funded the 1905 Revolution and the British and Americans had stood behind the Japanese, using them as vassals – as the USA still does). Directly because the British wanted revenge on Russia because Russia had supported the Boers and the Americans wanted revenge because the Russians had supported the Native Americans (as they still do), so they sent Trotsky. Directly because the British did not want to see Constantinople freed by Russia in 1917. But also indirectly because of the treason of the Russian aristocracy, blindly anglophile like the murderous Oxford graduate the transvestite drunkard and parasite Yusupov, one of the richest men in Russia. His ideal was not Holy Rus, but Oscar Wilde! What hope was there with such as Yusupov?

Q: What was Russia’s aim in the First World War?

A: It was, as Tsar Nicholas said to the treacherous French ambassador in 1914, the destruction of German militarism. The Tsar actually predicted that if it was not defeated, there would be another war. Tsar Nicholas had already targeted it in his proposed Hague peace and disarmament conference at the end of the 19th century. Russia knew that once militarism was defeated, peace could prevail in Europe and thus worldwide. However, the West, especially Berlin but also London, did not want peace, and so slaughtered its youth. And nor did the bankers of New York want peace. However, with Russia taken over by the Wall Street backed Bolsheviks, only war could prevail, which is exactly what has happened ever since 1918, indeed since 1914. The world has not known peace for 101 years. That is not Russia’s fault.

Q: What are the temptations which could stop Russia’s revival today?

A: On the one hand, there is westernization, such as that which infected the pre-Revolutionary aristocracy and today infects the US-controlled puppet oligarch-bandits, the modern aristocrats, who actually are mainly Jewish. On the other hand, there is the threat of a narrow Russian nationalism, such as that which prevailed in parts of ROCOR between the 1970s and the 1990s. This could prevent Russia taking imperial responsibility for the rest of the Orthodox world, parts of which have fallen into such great decadence since 1918. All is still on a knife-edge. We make no predictions. All we can say is what we have to do is clear – to fight for the Orthodox Truth without compromise; as to whether we can be successful and so delay the coming of Antichrist in the near future, that is not clear. All we have is hope, faith and love.

Orthodoxy: Creationist or Evolutionist?

Little has been written about the Orthodox viewpoint on Evolution. Why? Primarily because it is not a question that concerns the Church, but rather concerns the various forms of Protestantism outside the Church. Interestingly, the controversy on the theory of evolution also concerns Catholicism less – for the reason that Catholicism, until recently anyway, has conserved more of the sense of the Church than the various Protestant sects.

Thus, unlike Protestant groups, Orthodox are not obsessed with the Old Testament (except for the Psalter), for we see the Old Testament through New Testament eyes, the eyes of the Church. Orthodox are more interested in saving our souls than abstract arguments like how long did each of the Six Days of Creation last and what was the nature of Noah’s Flood. Nevertheless, since we live in a world where secularist, that is, post-Protestant, culture prevails, we have to have answers to such questions.

This is all the more the case when on the fringes of the Orthodox Church we can find individuals influenced by both Evolutionism and Creationism. Thus, the largely Episcopalian-oriented and modernistic St Vladimir’s Seminary in the OCA has looked favourably on Evolutionism, similarly modernists in the Greek Archdiocese in North America or individual modernists of the Paris School or the notorious provocateur and now discredited Deacon Andrei Kurayev in Moscow. On the other hand, under the influence of evangelical ‘missionaries’ working in Russia in the 1990s, some recent converts in Russia (and also in Greece) have fallen under the influence of Creationism.

Does this mean that mainstream Orthodox take an intermediate stance between Creationism and Evolutionism, somewhat like many modernistic Catholic intellectuals? No. Evolutionism (and it is only a theory) is simply anti-Orthodox; it is the atheist product of nonsensical Darwinism (‘man descended from the ape’), which, amoral from the start, soon turned immoral and evil, into Communism and Nazism (‘the survival of the fittest’ i. e. those who hold our atheist ideology or belong to our master-race); since man is merely an intelligent ape, he can be slaughtered by the million, just as we slaughter millions of animals in abattoirs.

The fundamental ideology of Evolutionism is atheism. As Bible-practisers (rather than mere Bible-believers), Orthodox believe in Creation. However, we dislike all ‘isms’ (which are always manmade, not Godmade). Thus, we dislike the literalism and fundamentalism of Creationism. And if we were to use an ‘ism’ to describe ourselves, it would certainly not be ‘Creationism’, but ‘Creatorism’. We believe in the Creator, not in Creation, which is merely the Creator’s handiwork. We confess ‘I believe in One God the Father, the Almighty, Who created the heaven and the earth’, not in ‘One Creation’.

And mention of the Creed should remind us that is the Creed that we confess; everything else is not a dogma. Thus, if Orthodox disagree with what I say below about the Six Days of Creation or Noah’s Flood, that is fine. All I am doing is putting forward suggestions, not dogmatizing what in the end is only opinions. Opinions which in no way contradict the Scriptures (something that modernists constantly do) must be looked at. The Book of Genesis is like a telescope and enfolds all the ‘prehistory’ of mankind into a few chapters and pages, therefore there is room for interpretations and therefore controversy. For example, the Book of Genesis does not contain dates – we can only suggest them. Here we should be careful not to fall into putting scientific theories above Biblical facts.

The first common controversy is what is meant by ‘a Day’ in the Six Days of Creation, 24 hours – or more – or less? The answer to this is we do not know. Apart from St Ephraim the Syrian, who says precisely 24 hours, no Church Father seems to be bothered by such a question. In fact, all we can say is that each day, before the creation of sun and moon on the fourth day, may have lasted exactly 24 hours, but equally may have lasted a split second or else short periods of perhaps thousands of years.

Why must we answer thus? Because we do not know, all we know is that God is Almighty and therefore can do anything. To limit God is mere human rationalism. In general, our feeble human understanding cannot understand what it is meant by a day; together with the Fathers, we would do better to think of ‘Six Acts of Creation’ rather than ‘Six Days’. The Holy Scriptures, and in general the Holy Fathers, are not interested in Chronology, but in facts. God created everything; that is what is important, the when and the how are unknown to our over-tidy and over-inquisitive minds.

When was the world created? We do not know from the Scriptures because they do not say, except that it was five and a half ‘days’ before God made man. However, the Church, not the Scriptures, does give the symbolic date of 5,508 BC – that is, 5,500 years (five and a half ‘days’) before the Birth of Christ) for the date of the Creation. Thus, symbolically, the date of the Creation is five and a half days before the date of the creation of man, who had to wait 5,500 years until his ‘re-creation’ through the Birth of Christ. Some people take all this literally and that is fine because no modern theory can actually and irrefutably contradict.

However, if you prefer modern scientific theories (which are only ever-changing hypotheses) and prefer to believe in billions of years, that is also OK. The age of the universe is not a Church dogma. Nevertheless, a symbolic date does not necessarily mean an unreal date. Given the fact that all techniques of scientific dating have been put into doubt by facts such as that rocks created only 210 years ago by volcanic eruptions have been ‘scientifically’ dated as hundreds of millions of years old, no ‘scientific’ dating can be trusted. The fact is that the universe may have been created in 5,508 BC. Of course, if you prefer to think otherwise, that is fine. It will not endanger the salvation of your soul, which is our only basic concern.

We believe that Noah’s Flood took place. The Bible says so (Genesis 5-10; Matt. 24, 37; I Peter 3, 20; 2 Peter 2, 5 and elsewhere) and indicates that it took place in the fourth millennium BC, between about 3,300 and 3,500 BC. Moreover some 140 different human cultures affirm it, from the very garbled Gilgamesh version of the Flood to the perhaps far more interesting Australian Aborigene version. However, there are difficulties of interpretation – above all was the flood local or universal? Again, there is no Church dogma on the matter and we can believe as we wish. However, I believe, like most Orthodox, that it was universal and this for many reasons.

First of all, if the Flood were only local (and archaeologists like Woolley long ago confirmed that naturally there were local floods in Mesopotamia thousands of years ago), why spend a century building a massive Ark (the largest vessel in world history until the 19th century), why not simply walk away, as Lot did from Sodom? Why were all the animals (except for sea creatures), the whole gene pool of the then animal world (and so of all modern breeds), taken into the Ark, as also the whole gene-pool of humanity (Genesis 10, 1) ? If the Flood had only been local, that would have been unnecessary. Why do the Scriptures speak of the destruction of all humanity and all creatures (Genesis 6 ,7 and 7, 21-22), if they do not mean that?

How else do we explain sedimentary layers thousands of feet deep, fossil graveyards, fossil fuels, the destruction of the dinosaurs, frozen mammoths, glaciations and the ice caps of the Poles, the deepening of the oceans and the raising of the mountains (Ps 104, 8), continental shelves, the later continental drift and separation of continents and so separation of languages after the Tower of Babel, if there was not a universal Flood? All these phenomena witness to the pre-diluvian world, proof of Noah’s Flood, as witnessed to also by countless folk traditions.

Moreover, recent research has suggested that many antediluvian civilizations existed before the Flood, and their remains can be found under the seas as ‘underwater kingdoms’. Folklore from all around the world has always spoken of earlier, pre-diluvian civilizations, such as Atlantis, and they are spoken of in the Book of Genesis (5 and 6, 1-4) before Noah, including a civilization of giants. Archaeologists confirm them, as they also confirm post-diluvian civilizations, of which Western civilization is one, although in the case of Orthodox civilization, it would be clearer to speak of a post-Resurrection civilization.

In other words, we are saying that a universal flood confirms all that has been found on earth. The homing instincts of animals would have directed them to enter the Ark, given that they had a century to gather from the single continent or Pangaea (‘dry land’ – Genesis 1, 10) where they lived. There would have been no problems feeding and caring for them in the huge Ark if they hibernated and the animals would have no problems breathing when the floods rose over the then in any case much lower mountains as the atmosphere would have been raised above sea level.

The amount of water required for such a flood would be explained by the pre-diluvian water vapour canopy over the earth collapsing (Genesis 7, 4) and ‘all the fountains of the great deep’ bursting forth (Genesis 7, 11), water under the earth, breaking. The only reason why none of this could not have happened fewer than six thousand years ago is ‘scientific’ dating, which we know can be be inaccurate by billions of years. Here science, that is, the microscopic amount of human knowledge and understanding, is irrational, as it is built on countless flimsy, hypothetical theories, which are constantly changing. The Bible, however, deals with facts. Only our interpretations vary.

The Disunited Kingdom

Seeing the Christian people of the Crimea overwhelmingly vote for freedom and sovereignty and return to Russia last year, Christian Serbs also voted for freedom from looming EU/US tyranny and asked to be governed by Russia. Now it is the case of the peoples of the UK in their bid for freedom from the Westminster tyranny of the public school elite, from which Irish Ireland separated nearly 100 years ago and won freedom by violence.

Following the successes of anti-Establishment parties in the anti-democratic UK elections on 7 May, the governing elite has been taking its revenge. Last Saturday extensive rioting by crowds in London, Bristol and elsewhere was censored by the State-run media, especially by the BBC and the Murdoch press, who reported it as involving ‘100 people’ and presented them as violent anarchists, when in facts tens of thousands were involved.

In the UK politicians are not assassinated by the Establishment, however their characters are. Hence this week’s extraordinary campaign of vilification against the leader of UKIP, which is in effect the English National Party. The BBC have taken particular glee in digging up a critic of that leader and concentrating on his attacks. UKIP gained nearly four million votes: the Establishment was not amused and therefore it must divide and continue to rule.

Incomprehensibly for the BBC, that leader is very popular among the unknown to them white working class, who have for long been utterly abandoned by the Westminster elite. We now await a campaign of muck-spreading against the leader of the Scottish National Party. No doubt the BBC have been ordered to find dirt and a dissident there, so that the Establishment may also divide and continue to rule in Scotland. No-one has forgotten Casement in Ireland.

Now over 35,000 people from northern England have signed an online petition (, asking to separate from London and join a future independent Scotland. The northerners have more bonds with Scotland than with “the ideologies of the London-centric south” and “the deliberations in Westminster are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the north of England”. Will other regions of England follow? We in East Anglia are ready. Freedom remains the great goal.

There will be a Tsar in Russia!

Introduction: Eight Years

Eight years have passed since Ascension Day, 17 May 2007, and the long-awaited entry into canonical communion of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church, of the vast majority in the Patriarchate centred in Moscow and of the small minority in the Church Outside Russia, centred in New York. Thus, ninety years after the catastrophic overthrow of the Lord’s Anointed, Tsar Nicholas II and the legitimate Russian government, since when the whole planet has been unbalanced and torn apart by unceasing war and terror, there came hope of restoration. This reconciliation was one of the first signs that the historic injustice of the overthrow by its enemies of the Russian Empire, which had been on the verge of victory in the First World War, could be righted and that the Orthodox Empire could at last be restored. But why were the two parts of the One Russian Church separated in the first place?

The Past

As is known, the separation came about only because of the seizure of power in 1917 by aristocratic Western-backed traitors and then by militant atheists who cruelly persecuted the Church in what remained of the former Russian Empire. Thus, when the Church inside Russia, just as outside Russia, fell under attack from renovationism, we stood together side by side, condemning both the heresies of Bulgakov in Paris and of Vvedensky in Russia. When Church representatives inside Russia were forced into lieing and saying that there was ‘no persecution of the Church’, we understood that they were hostages and spoke for them.

In freedom we refused to remain silent and spoke to the world of the persecution of the Russian Church. Understanding the enforced paralysis of the hierarchy of the Church inside Russia, we proceeded with the canonization of saints like St John of Kronstadt, St Xenia of Petersburg and finally the New Martyrs and Confessors. And when the hierarchy of the Church inside Russia was forced to accept unworthy representatives and renovationists abroad, in Vienna, Paris, Berlin, London, New York and elsewhere, and when they engaged in the ecumenist heresy, again we spoke and defended the Orthodox Church and Truth.

Of course, there were small numbers in the Church Outside Russia who also made mistakes. Even though we lived in political freedom we failed to canonize the New Martyrs and Confessors until 1981. St John of Shanghai had wanted it nearly fifty years before! Why did we have to wait for so long? Because of those on the political wing of the Church Outside Russia. These who were politically motivated, mainly on the fringes of the Church, were engaged in anti-Russian politics and schismatic attitudes, notably in the 1990s accepting into the Church individuals living outside our canonical territory in the former Soviet Union.

It was noteworthy that these tiny groups, the renovationist cults and ecumenists on the fringes of the Patriarchate and the schismatic sects and extremists on the fringes of the Church Outside Russia, had fallen away from the Church by 2007, the moment of our unity. Extremists could not stand unity and they lapsed, either crossing into the liberal, ecumenist, new calendarist Patriarchate of Constantinople or else fell away into various pharisaic, uncanonical, old calendarist groups. Thus, both masonic renovationists and politicized schismatics left the golden path of unity of the Russian Mother Church for isolation and separation.

Conclusion: The Future

In the last eight years we have continued to experience the deep spiritual unity of the Russian Church. Outside Russia we have been able to witness to the truths of our uncompromised Orthodox Faith far more deeply than before to the other Local Churches, to the heterodox world and to the apostate West. Inside Russia we have made friends with those who struggle for the Church and for the restoration of the Russian Orthodox State and society. Our united opposition to the onslaught on the Ukrainian people by the American junta in Kiev is evidence of this hope and prayer, as also is our loyalty to His Holiness Patriarch Kyrill, the symbol of our unity in freedom. Ultimately we seek the restoration of the monarchy inside Russia. Only an Orthodox Tsar for all the Russian Lands and indeed for all the Orthodox Lands can combat the apostate Western world and avert the Apocalypse, as ‘the rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born’, as Yeats prophesied. There will be a Tsar in Russia!

Through Worldwide Aggression the US Neocons Have Created a New World Order, but not The One They Wanted

An Interview with the Most Reverend Metropolitan John, First Hierarch of R.O.M.E., the Russian Orthodox Metropolia in Europe

Q: Vladyko Metropolitan, this is the twentieth anniversary of the foundation of the Metropolia of Paris and Europe after the completion of the new Russian Cathedral in the centre of Paris. Can you say something about this moment?

A: Thank you. I have been asked to relate a few facts regarding our Metropolia in this interview. At this historic moment it is not only the twentieth anniversary of our Metropolia, but also 100 years since the Nazi-led European invasion of the Russian Lands – just as European and multinational an invasion as the 1812 invasion – on the feast of All the Russian Saints in 1941; 50 years since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991; and 25 years since the events in the then Ukraine and the 2016 Council – and we know how those ended.

And it is also 38 years since His Holiness Patriarch Alexei II announced – prophetically –remember this was before the 2007 reconciliation between the two parts of the Russian Church – the intention of establishing a Metropolia for Europe. This was to be built on the foundation laid by all those faithful to the Russian Church, then in three different jurisdictions, one completely outside the Russian Church, and as the foundation of a future new Local Church. As the now autonomous Metropolia, it is still towards this Local Church that we are working. It is not far away now – as the illusions and temptations of the past have fast receded.

Q: Which countries does the Metropolia cover?

A: Its territory covers all the European countries which are not already covered by a Local Church, such as the Serbian, Polish, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian Churches and the Church of the Czechs and Slovaks. This means 20 mainly Western European countries which all have small Orthodox minorities, less than 5% of the total population, namely: Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and Italy.

Q: What were the most difficult tasks in establishing the Metropolia?

A: The two most difficult tasks were undoubtedly the struggle against provincialism and parochialism on the one hand and against disincarnate, intellectualized Orthodoxism on the other hand.

Q: Can you explain these words?

A: Provincialism and parochialism were in the twentieth century the bane of all the Local Churches. I remember how back in the early 2000s, Metr Amfilochie of Montenegro told us how when he had first become a bishop, he had decided to visit one of his remote parishes. Up in the mountains, where priests visiting parishioners used to wear a rifle strapped across their shoulders against marauding bears and wolves, there was one parish, which had not seen a bishop in years. In fact, when he got there, the first things the priest asked him was: ‘Who are you?’ He answered, ‘I am your bishop’. The priest asked: ‘What is a bishop?’

It turned out that the ‘priest’ was not a priest at all, he had become a ‘priest’ because his family had from father to son all become priests. The man had never even been ordained. Of course, the incident says much about the failure of bishops to visit their parishes – a common failing in Europe before the Metropolia came into existence – but the story illustrates a real problem – provincialism, even parochialism.

And provincialism and parochialism were always the bane of the Russian diaspora, whether in Paris or New York, with their strange fantasies, theories and cultish and sectarian mentalities, based around strong personalities who lived in isolation from the catholicity and wholeness of the Church. It was only after the fall of the atheist regime in the Soviet Union in 1991 that all the different parts of the broken Russian ship could come together again in synthesis, and by blood, sweat and tears we could overcome such parochialism and provincialism with all its sects and personality cults. Viewed from the Centre, spiritually speaking Europe is only a Western province, even further westwards than provincial Little Russia or Slovakia, far beyond the Carpathians. However, even though we are a province, that does not mean that we have to be provincial, even less parochial. We must value our spiritual attachment to the Centre.

Q: So much for provincialism and parochialism. But what do you mean by ‘a disincarnate, intellectualized Orthodoxism’? What was the difficulty there?

A: At the one extreme stood the provincials and parochials, basically phyletists, bigots and racists. However, on the other side of the same anti-Orthodox coin stood the self-important intellectuals. Their mistake was to imagine that they were important! They misunderstood, they imagined that the Church was based on brains and not on saints, on academia, not on holiness. The two things are quite different. In their way the intellectuals of Paris, like those of ancient Athens and Alexandria, were just as provincial and parochial as the uneducated because they missed the main point. They talked and philosophized, but did not do. Just so much hot air: Orthodoxism.

The uneducated provincials and parochials never understood that the Church is about the Holy Spirit and the transfiguration of fallen humanity despite nationalism, the attachment to this world. Earth is not to take over Heaven. However, the intellectuals never understood that the Church is about the Incarnation, that our Faith is not some vain private fantasy, a mere set of ideas or piece of idealism, but it is about incorporating the Faith into public life. Faith has consequences, it is not some Protestant-style Sunday ‘God-slot’ religion, an intellectual plaything, a hobby or amusement for those with overdeveloped brains and underdeveloped hearts. Faith embraces the whole of our life in all its aspects and inevitably moulds and reshapes the State, including the Western establishments with their idolatrous religion of secularism. Heaven is to be brought to earth.

Q: Twenty years ago did you have grassroots support in establishing the Metropolia?

A: Yes, there was keen and long-standing support from a network of many clergy and laypeople scattered throughout Europe, in all the European capitals and cities from Helsinki to Dublin, from Stockholm to Geneva, from Vienna to Brussels, from Amsterdam to Madrid, from Paris to Munich, from Lisbon to Budapest, from Oslo to London, from Edinburgh to Rome, as well as in many regional centres. However, since they had always lacked a central Metropolitan authority and the corresponding infrastructure, it was difficult to co-ordinate all those who had always shared the same though often unspoken fundamental Russian Orthodox Metropolia values. Many had been waiting for decades, even generations, for such a Metropolia. This is why our annual Metropolitan conferences are so important: they bring people together.

Q: Why does the Metropolia cover Finland? Surely there are parishes of the so-called autonomous Finnish Orthodox?

A: They are not autonomous, but depend entirely on the political situation in Istanbul and Helsinki and for generations there have been other parishes in Finland which have nothing to do with that so-called Finnish Orthodox group. We hold the Orthodox calendar and avoid all manner of Halfodox modernism, such as intercommunion, semi-Uniatism, concelebration with Lutheran bishops and bishopesses or absence of iconostases, the sort of practices that were commonplace only a few years ago among some of the ethnic jurisdictions, whose policies, just like those of the Catholics and Protestants, used to be dictated to them by the US State Department, rather than by the consensus of the Church Fathers.

We have built our Metropolia on this basis, on faithfulness to Orthodoxy. In any of the twenty countries where we have our multi-ethnic jurisdiction, we attract Orthodox of all nationalities. Of course we already have the multinational base of the Russian Church, parishioners originally from the Baltics, Moldova, Central Asia, Poland and Slovakia, as well as from the three Russian Lands themselves, and above all their European-born descendants. Other parishes are in any case composed of local people who for generations have been Orthodox within the Russian Orthodox Churches.

Others come to us as whole communities and parishes because they feel that their identity is fully Orthodox but also European and no longer wish to be attached to their grandparents’ countries and their original ethnic jurisdiction. Others come to us as individuals because they feel that their ethnic jurisdiction, whether, say Greek, Roman Catholic or Protestant – and the two latter are also ethnic jurisdictions, make no mistake about it – has been spiritually corrupted.

Q: But surely the Metropolia is also attached to ‘the grandparents’ country’, to Russia?

A: Spiritually yes, but we have full autonomy, which will develop in time into autocephaly. Everyone knows that and knows also of our commitment to the use of European languages in our services and missionary work. None of the ethnic jurisdictions has such a commitment or such an infrastructure as the Metropolia. The fact is that we are the only multi-ethnic jurisdiction. This is the distinctive identity of the Metropolia.

Q: As we know, there are still parishes in the twenty countries of Europe which are outside the Metropolia. Do you not want to bring them into the Metropolia?

A: Why? Everyone is free. There is no question of coercion. For example, there are embassy churches which are attached to their homelands. They will never be part of the Metropolia as they are basically dependencies, metochia in Greek, of their home countries. Then there are the old, dying ethnic parishes, founded in the 20th century and now closing down one by one, having failed to keep the children and grandchildren. Then there are recent immigrants who speak the local European language poorly; they are hardly ready to integrate the Metropolia and often lack the broad catholic vision, they are still provincial, parochial, they tend to cluster together in small ethnic groups.

And then of course there is still a tiny hard core who for ideological and political reasons do not wish the Metropolia well. They are mainly Halfodox modernists and Russophobes who have hatred and jealousy in their hearts; frankly it would be more honest of them simply to join the dying remnants of Catholicism or Protestantism. They really are on the fringes and margins of the Church and would only bring strife and conflict into the Church if they were allowed to join the Metropolia.

Q: So what proportion of Orthodox in Europe do you actually represent today?

A: Over three-quarters. This means that those who choose to remain outside the Metropolia are outside the mainstream, in fact, to be brutal, they are increasingly irrelevant.

Q: How do you see future structures developing in the Metropolia?

A: As you know, we now have over twenty diocesan archbishops and bishops in the Metropolia and seminaries in Paris, Munich, Madrid and Rome. We expect further developments with time. Without doubt autocephaly, the foundation of a European Orthodox Church, both European and fully Orthodox, is the next step.

Q: As we come to the end of this interview, would you like to say anything to our podcast listeners?

A: Glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace, goodwill among men!

+ John, Metropolitan of Paris and Western Europe

Paris, 7 May 2041

David Cameron (Wikipedia)

David Cameron is the son of a stockbroker and his wife a retired justice of the peace, daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet). His father, Ian, was born at Blairmore School, a country house near Huntly, Aberdeenshire. Blairmore was built by Cameron’s great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes, who had made a fortune in the grain trade in Chicago and returned to Scotland in the 1880. Through his paternal grandmother, Enid Agnes Maud Levita, Cameron is a lineal descendant of King William IV, thereby making Cameron a 5th cousin twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II.

In the 1830s Cameron’s first cousin six times removed was compensated with £4,101 for 202 slaves when they were liberated by Parliament. Cameron’s paternal forebears also have a long history in finance. His father Ian was senior partner of the stockbrokers Panmure Gordon & Co., in which firm partnerships had long been held by Cameron’s ancestors, including David’s grandfather and great-grandfather,[13] and was a Director of estate agent John D. Wood.

David Cameron’s great-great-grandfather Emile Levita was a German Jewish financier and a direct descendant of Renaissance scholar Elia Levita. Emile Levita obtained British citizenship in 1871 and was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969. Through Levita, Cameron is a descendent of the Levites. His wife, Cameron’s great-great-grandmother, was a descendant of the wealthy Danish Jewish Rée family on her father’s side.

One of Emile’s sons, Arthur Francis Levita of Panmure Gordon stockbrokers, together with great-great-grandfather Sir Ewen Cameron, London head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, played key roles in arranging loans supplied by the Rothschilds to the Japanese Central Banker (later Prime Minister) Takahashi Korekiyo in order to finance the Japanese War against Russia in the Russo-Japanese War.

1016-2015: A Royal Birth and a Commons Election

The birth to the Duchess of Cambridge of the French-named Princess Charlotte, brother to the English-named Prince George, marks another turning point in the history of the Royal Family. Never since the near 950-year Norman Occupation which began in 1066 have the heirs to the English throne been almost three-quarters English.

After all, Prince Charles and his ancestors are all Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Germans, disguised under the pseudonym of Windsor, but the two sons attributed to him are almost half-English. With the Norman-named Prince William marrying the most English Kate Middleton (what name could be more English than Middleton?), the third and fourth in line to the throne are not French, Welsh, Scottish, Dutch or German like all the other monarchs since 1016 (excepting the brief rule of Harold Godwinsson, before all these foreign monarchs Edward the Confessor was also foreign, half-Norman, and those before him Vikings like Harald, Sven and Knut). In fact we have come to the most English future monarchs since Edmund Ironside – who ruled until 1016 – almost exactly 1,000 years ago.

The UK elections have also been of historic interest. Firstly, a government has been elected which for the first time ever claims that it is actually going to allow the people of the UK to say whether they wish to be members of the European Union or not. This is a kick in the teeth for the Brussels Establishment tyrants. Secondly, the people of Scotland have voted out the Westminster elite. This is a kick in the teeth for the British Establishment tyrants. Some 100 years after the Irish tragedy, when Ireland was forced to leave the Island Unity because of the tyranny of Norman London, there is a new chance to see a Confederation of the Isles and reject the tyranny of Britain; the old dream of Four Nations living together in peace, in the unity and diversity of the Holy Trinity, has moved just a little closer.

Could the tyranny of Norman London (the English Capital was in Winchester) be coming to an end? Could the eighteenth-century Imperial project of the Hanoverian tyrants, who collectivized the land of the English and Scottish peasantry, so oppressed the American colonies and enslaved half of Africa and India (the Camerons were among the slave-owners), at last be over? Could all this be leading to the reshaping of the UK? Could all this be leading to a reshaping of UK politics, with the now degutted, Blairized, neocon, anti-working-class Labour Party dead and the Conservative Party, enslaved these 35 years to philistine Dickensian economists, their minds the size of grocer’s shops, and to US colonial wars, be reformed? If so, is perhaps even the reshaping of Europe and the end of EU slavery, not also possible?

We do not know. We know only that man proposes, but God disposes. And that we sense a breath of hope.

The Restoration of Europe and of Russia

The eleventh century made the distinction between the secular and the ecclesiastical fundamental to European society and culture for the first time and permanently. Since this distinction was the foundation on which European civilization has been constructed, it is not easy for Europe’s children to remember that it might have been otherwise. Our history has been written by the victors in the struggle to bring this social order into being, in the certainty that their victory was right, and because it was right, inevitable. By the middle of the twelfth century the victors dominated the record almost entirely and their spiritual descendants occupied the commanding heights of European historiography until the Enlightenment, and of much of European education, including higher education, until well into the twentieth century.

The First European Revolution c. 975-1215, R.I. Moore, Pp. 12-13

Introduction: A Spiritual Pilgrimage

I am one of ‘Europe’s children’, one of those who in the second half of the twentieth century ‘remembered’, first by instinct and then by knowledge, ‘that it might have been otherwise’ in Europe. In other words, I made a spiritual pilgrimage to the roots of Europe and found Another Europe. This was made possible firstly by the fact that I had been born into a family linked with farming in the English countryside, so into the most traditional of backgrounds. This took me back beyond the little that those in the big towns were allowed to know, especially those uprooted in unEnglish London, back to the great realm of lost knowledge. Secondly, with shock my father, a soldier of the Second World War, also told me in childhood what he had seen of the unjust way that the imperialist Norman British Establishment behaved in Egypt and in other colonies, a way completely at odds with the far older, neighbour-loving, Christian traditions of popular England. All this gave me a sense of the beyond, a sense of piercing the veil beyond the present and superficial, getting through to the essence and roots of things, and also to a sense of my own destiny.

The Consequence of the Sense of Beyond

The sense of the beyond came to me in my discovery of the Old Saints of England, who had lived locally. Their names in some form or other had been passed down in local place names, which is how I first came to hear of them, and yet their lives and feats had been made into foolish legends or else wholly forgotten: Felix, Cedd, Botolph, Audrey, Osyth, Albright, Edmund, Alfred and many others who witnessed to holiness, that which was quite unknown to the England of the present, meaning that all manner of charlatan could claim to be holy without being so. I noticed that these Old Saints had all lived long before the Middle Ages, itself a period long before the rapidly disappearing Protestant present of fifty years ago. And then I discovered at the age of twelve that that past was still alive in spirit in Orthodox Christian Russia and indeed in all the other much smaller and captive Local Orthodox Churches. At that time, however, the Russian Orthodox Church was Herself captive to an atheist regime, the ultimate, fully anti-Christian result of the spiritual degeneration of the Western world which had first begun to lose its way precisely by forgetting its saints, its Felixes, Cedds, Botolphs, Audreys, Osyths, Albrights, Edmunds, Alfreds and many others.

The Double Restoration

Therefore it has somehow been my calling, obviously in a very, very modest way, to help contribute to a double restoration. Firstly, there has been the restoration, contributed to by so many, of the veneration of those Old Saints, not only of Old England but of all Old Europe. And secondly, especially in the last twenty-five years since the slow but long hoped-for resurrection of Russia began, and again in a very, very modest way, to help contribute from outside Russia to the restoration, contributed to by so many others who have played far, far more important roles, of the Centre of the Orthodox Church in Russia. This has meant struggling for the purity of Holy Orthodoxy against all deviations to left and right, both inside the Russian Church and in the other Local Churches. And this has also meant defending the Incarnation of Orthodoxy into life, both inside Russia and also in other lands, through the preparation and hope for the restoration of the Christian Emperor, the Tsar. For, since our Faith is not some private, individualistic, Protestant-style fantasy, this incarnational public restoration is the only thing that stands between us and the apocalyptic End of the World.

Conclusion: Hope Against Hope

I have lived and fought for the Church of God, quite naturally centred outside the secularist Anti-Europe which in its anti-Christian delusions so fears, hates and tries to destroy the Centre of the Church. I have done this so that ‘it might be otherwise’. I have challenged the victors and their spiritual descendants, the historiographers, who have supported that false and secularist millennial social order. In the certainty that their victory was not only wrong, but also not at all inevitable, I therefore venerate the Saints of Old Europe and honour all the others for whom it was otherwise. I have struggled to reverse the temporary, though millennial, victory of their Anti-Europe and unfolded the vision that it once was and again shall be ‘otherwise’. For in the third millennium the revolutionary New Europe, that is, the second millennium Anti-Europe presaged by Charlemagne in Aachen, may yet be overthrown. Thus, first millennium Old Europe can be spiritually restored through the Church of God in Europe, made possible as a Metropolitan extension of the Christian Empire of a restored Holy Rus.