Daily Archives: August 20, 2015

Who is the Greatest Enemy of the English?

Who is the greatest enemy of the English? Could it be the Irish? Or perhaps the Germans? Or perhaps the Argentinians? Or perhaps the French? Or perhaps the Kenyans? We think none of these.

First of all, in order to answer such a question, we must ask ourselves what being English means, what the most fundamental English values are. We would suggest, and we believe that this is not a subjective answer and that a great many people, both English and Non-English, would agree with us: Freedom, Respect, Tolerance, Fair Play and Honesty. Now let us look at those who reject these values. If we can find out who rejects them, then we can find out who the greatest enemy of the English is.

Freedom

Which country, a great slaving nation but apparently ‘mother of the free’, has invaded nearly 90% of the world’s countries during its history, imposing itself on them in naked aggression, with only 22 out of the world’s 193 countries not on the receiving end of its warlike and exploitative imperialism? (Its State spies also monitored the freedom-loving George Orwell of ‘Big Brother’ fame for the last twenty years of his life).

Respect

Which country courted the Libyan leader, used torture chambers in Libya to torture its enemies, then bombed it, destroyed its infrastructure, watched as its leader was sadistically murdered and has now created a refugee crisis of millions, which has led to thousands of Libyans drowning in the Mediterranean Sea? (Moreover, it has repeatedly done the same thing in many, many other countries over the last ten generations and more).

Tolerance

Which country massively monitors the telephone calls and e-mails of its citizens and threatens them for their opinions, but denies that it does so?

Fair Play

Which country over 900 years ago massacred 5% of its population and continually maintains that this was a huge triumph, the beginning of its history?

Honesty

Which country continually lied to its people about its massacres of the peoples of dozens of other countries around the world in their name, opened the first concentration camps, and calls itself democratic, even though its governments are chosen by an often small minority of its people?

The answer to all these questions is Britain. The Norman-founded British Establishment, 6% of the population, established by invasion, massacre and occupation 949 years ago, champion of lies and hypocrisy, is the greatest enemy of the English people, 94% of the country, and of England, and has constantly betrayed us. Is it not time to start an English Liberation Movement (E.L.M.), its logo an elm tree, a symbol of our age-old roots in England and Englishness, and fight against the British occupation?

As Tsar Nicholas II’s younger sister, the Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, said in an interview fifty-five years ago: ‘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…But, of course, it has never been possible to discuss with my best friends the utterly vile politics of successive British Parliaments. So much of British policy is wholly contrary to their own tradition of fair play’ (2).

Notes:

1. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/…/04/britain-invaded-countries.
2. The Last Grand Duchess by Ian Vorres, P. 240, 1964

Our Hope for a Russian Orthodox Church in Norwich (Update 5)

£55,000 Reached in Eight Weeks! Thank you!

The Update

On Wednesday 3 June we launched an internet appeal for £55,000 in order to set up our own church in Norwich. By Wednesday 29 July, eight weeks after the appeal launch, total gifts and pledges had reached £55,000. We are now waiting for legal documents to be exchanged. Once this has happened we can start building work to transform the building into an Orthodox church. With God’s help we hope to start services in November. At last a permanent home for Russian Orthodoxy in Norwich after over thirty years of struggles. Thank you!

All donations, when required in September, will be made to our charitable trust: East of England Orthodox Church (Registered Charity No 1081707). May God bless you for having considered the Russian Orthodox Community in Norwich in your almsgiving.

Archpriest Andrew Phillips

20 August 2015

The History

On Friday 8 May, Fr Andrew saw a leasehold property for sale on the rightmove website for £50,000 at 134, Oak Street, Norwich. It measures 88 square metres externally and is at present used as offices and rooms for a cultural centre. It has electricity, heating and water and is in very good condition. It is so cheap because it is leasehold, in other words, you have to pay £100 rent per month for the ground it is built on. This amount is fixed until 2032. The lease itself is even longer – it lasts until 2047.

On Wednesday 13 May we organized a visit to these premises, attended by 9 local Russian Orthodox.

By Friday 15 May, Orthodox in Norwich had generously promised to donate £5,250.

On Monday 18 May Fr Andrew received Archbishop Mark’s blessing to buy the building if possible, meaning we could start obtaining pledges to donate.

On Thursday 21 May we heard from the surveyor that it would cost £3,000-£5,000 to knock down the internal walls and make good the floor and ceiling, so we could use this building as a church. This was lower than Fr Andrew had estimated.

On Wednesday 27 May we heard that our offer of £42,500 had been accepted. However, since conversion and furnishing costs will come to £12,500, this meant that we would need £55,000 in all.

On Friday 29 May we submitted the planning application for change of use from offices to a place of worship. This would take at least 6-8 weeks but should result in a positive answer.

Wednesday 3 June we launched a public internet appeal for the remaining funds, given that £5,250 had already been pledged.

The Continuing Crisis in Rue Daru

There is now great dissatisfaction in the Paris Exarchate (‘Rue Daru’) with its new archbishop. In blogs and comments, criticisms abound. Whatever the truth behind the sometimes serious accusations, one thing stands out. This is that Archbishop Job’s critics appear to have no concept of what a bishop (or a liturgist) is. Some of the behaviour criticized is that of almost any bishop of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and of other bishops in other Local Churches. We fail to be scandalized by this. A bishop who quotes the canons and is guided by them is a normal bishop. The impression of some of those who complain is of a group of people who have been living without the canons for a very long time. After all the liberals and modernists who are complaining are the very people who persecuted ordinary Orthodox for decades and chased them out of the Church. Now they are suffering in their turn and now they know what it feels like. There really is no-one as intolerant as a liberal.

The fact is that the Rue Daru jurisdiction always had weak bishops, who were appointed by exiled laypeople, at first by aristocrats, who had wanted the anti-Church Revolution and so power for themselves, and then by intellectuals. Whether it was Metr Eulogius, who was so indecisive that he kept changing jurisdictions, or the saintly but weak and openly mocked Metr Vladimir and Archbishop George (Tarasov), or the bishops born in Western Europe who followed them, the Paris Exarchate never had a bishop who stood up to its powerful laypeople, least of all Archbishop George (Wagner), who ordained several of those who are now in trouble. Now that the jurisdiction has an appointee of Patriarch Bartholomew, of course some in it are very dissatisfied. The problem is that when your Patriarch has appointed your bishop, who is a Phanariot loyalist, there is only one way you can avoid him and that is to leave his jurisdiction. Essentially, what is happening is that the jurisdiction is at last having to face reality after decades of fantasy.

After all, the Rue Daru jurisdiction has always been a ‘Protestant’ jurisdiction, both in the sense that its elite is composed of protestors (les ‘frondeurs’ et ‘soixante-huitards’, as Protopresbyter Alexis Knyazev used to call them) and also in the sense that it is composed of rationalists (like Protestants). This is clear from the code of camouflaged words, with which its elite defines itself. For example, they talk of their spirit of ‘renewal’ ( = in fact, pseudo-intellectual, renovationist modernism), their combination of ‘Orthodoxy with Western rationalism’ (= in fact, desacralization and spiritual decadence), their ‘creativity’ (= in fact, the condescending pride of those who imagine themselves to be the centre of the world, when it is in fact marginal French navel-gazing, ‘du nombrilisme hexagonal’) and of course ‘ecumenism’ (= in fact, apostasy from the Tradition). In many respects, it would make sense for the Roman Catholics to set up a Russian Uniat Exarchate in Paris which such individuals could join, as modern Catholic values differ little from rationalistic Protestant values.

It is said that Rue Daru is divided between those who want to remain ‘Russians’ and those who are ‘open’ and want to build a ‘Local Church’. What utter nonsense! All that was 30-40 years ago under Archbishop George (Wagner). This is now just self-justification for a gerontocratic ideology, which lives on notions removed from reality (sobornost, being, communion), and consistently avoids everything that is practically and concretely Orthodox. The daydream of ‘building a Local Church’, or rather, talking about building a Local Church, purely secular-liberal in its progressivism, is leading nowhere in Rue Daru. Elsewhere we are faithful to the Russian Tradition and also celebrate in the local languages and venerate the local saints. There is no either/or between faithfulness to the Russian Tradition and being a Local Church, it is both/and. The modernists play on the ambiguity of locality, appropriating arguments which require an Orthodox Church to be an Orthodox Church in a particular location. It then misuses those arguments to claim that therefore their own secularist foibles – which they have managed to enforce in that particular locality (Paris) – should be normative for the Orthodox Church there.

All of this illustrates the identity crisis of Rue Daru, a jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, supposedly of the Russian Tradition (though as someone said to me, the Russian Tradition never even stayed the night in most places in Rue Daru). Is it Greek or is it Russian? Before its former representative in England, Bp Basil (Osborne), was defrocked, he had the title of Bishops of ‘Amphipolis’. Various wags soon deformed this into Bishop of ‘Amphibious’ and Bishop of ‘Ambivalence’. Joking apart, there is here a serious question. Who do you think you are? The clergy that I knew and knew of in Rue Daru were all clergy who wanted Rue Daru to return to the Russian Orthodox Church as soon as the political obscenities in Russia were over. They have long been over. Archbishop George (Tarasov), Archbishop Sergiy (Konovalov), Bishop Alexander (Tian-Shansky), Bishop Methodius (Kulmann), Bishop Roman (Zolotov), Protopresbyter Alexis Knyazev, Archpriest Alexander Rehbinder, Archpriest Vsevolod Dunaev, Archpriest Igor Vernik, must all be turning in their graves at what is happening today. They would all long ago have returned to the Mother-Church, together with a mass of laypeople, who wanted none of this nonsense.

Apart from the hopelessly old-fashioned modernist ideology of its elite (an anachronism in a post-modernist world) Rue Daru has enormous financial problems. The Cathedral on Rue Daru needs two million euros, St Serge appears to be bankrupt and the pre-revolutionary church in Biarritz needs expensive repairs. It is difficult to see how such a group can maintain the pre-revolutionary churches in Florence and San Remo – also part of the Russian (not Greek) Orthodox heritage in Europe. Then there is the problem of finding priests to serve – more and more of them come from Eastern Europe and have no time for or understanding of the modernist ideology of the elite or its liturgical fantasies. Two people have said to me that one day Rue Daru will have more defrocked than frocked clergy. Here is the result of decades of easy ordinations of the untrained and uncanonical, showered with high awards – presumably for chasing out and persecuting faithful Orthodox. All this was carried out in order to build a jurisdictional empire. As a parting thought, perhaps if we do not get the bishop we need, then we get the bishop we deserve.