Author Archives: Father Andrew

More on Fr Seraphim (Rose)

The latest article by Sergei Chapnin, Canonization and the Act of Betrayal,  https://publicorthodoxy.org/2026/05/11/canonization-and-the-act-of-betrayal/ highlights the catastrophic identity crisis of the new ROCOR. Having ejected the old traditional ROCOR priests (yet another one has left the tiny Western Europe Diocese, mainly staffed by converts and Moldovans, this time for South America), the latest crop of American bishops has no idea of what ROCOR was and is. The proposed canonisation process for Fr. Seraphim Rose (1934–1982), the first possible convert-saint of recent years, unlike the wonderful non-convert St Olga of Alaska. As Sergei, press officer of Patriarch Alexei II, who loved the old ROCOR ever since his visit to us in 1997, points out:

The decision to move toward Fr. Seraphim’s glorification forces ROCOR to confront the inner logic of his own ecclesiology—and it is precisely here that the Synod may already have stepped into a trap….I suggested that ROCOR is now opening the way to a political canonization, responding to a specific demand for ideological Orthodoxy in the contemporary American context.

Sergei refers here to the sectarian and schismatic ideology of the new, post-2017 ROCOR. He continues:

A church body that has severed itself from the ecclesiological horizon within which Fr. Seraphim understood truth, apostasy, and fidelity cannot quietly edit away the sharpest lines of his worldview and then glorify him as though no contradiction existed. In his own eyes, the present ROCOR would no longer obviously belong to the “genuine Holy Orthodoxy” of which he wrote. And if a church community has lost its own living bond with what he regarded as true Orthodoxy, then it has also lost the spiritual right to deliberate about his sanctity. In that light, a canonization carried out by the present ROCOR would appear, from within Fr. Seraphim’s own ecclesiological logic, not as a triumph of holiness, but as a cheap spectacle.

In 2021 we left the new schismatic American ROCOR after the old ROCOR had been assassinated by American converts. We duly returned to the Western European Archdiocese, from which we had been loaned in 1988, our 2007 mission to return ROCOR to canonical communion completed. When Metropolitan Jean was forced by Moscow career politicians to abandon us after fifty years of fidelity to the real Russian Orthodox Church, he issued us with letters of canonical leave, which took us at once to the Patriarchate of Romania. Unlike Russian bishops, Romanian bishops at once blessed our missionary work, did not try to steal our churches and even awarded us, not persecuted us, for resisting theological schism.

 

 

On Fr Seraphim (Rose)

We are not examining here whether the late Californian monk, Fr Seraphim (Rose), who in the 1960s joined the then Russian Orthodox Church in exile (ROCOR), was a saint or not. That is not our task and we are not qualified to do this. In the 1970s we always found his works logical and obvious, with common sense, opposed to ‘super correct’ fanaticism, but no more. I remember saying at the time that if you did not already know what he was writing, then you could not be a conscious member of one of the Orthodox Churches.

We cannot find proofs for or against his possible holiness. Perhaps God will reveal something and then all will be clear, one way or the other. Our task here is to examine why many members of the American Synod of Bishops, still called ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), despite the fact that it has been almost completely Americanised and most of its bishops cannot even speak correct Russian, want to canonise him today. There are clear reasons for this which are to do with the Synod’s historic crisis of identity.

Now, all Local Orthodox Churches in Western countries are primarily composed of immigrants or exiles from Orthodox countries, from Romania, Greece, Russia, the Ukraine, Serbia, Bulgaria, Syria etc. However, unlike all others, ROCOR, founded after the 1917 ‘Russian Revolution’, no longer has a natural constituency. Normal Orthodox Russians, not many of whom live in Western countries, do not join the New York-based ROCOR, if they can join what they prefer, their own Moscow-based Church of present-day Russians.

The latter is nearly 200 times bigger than ROCOR. Some wonder why it bothers with such a small group abroad. The reason is political, as the Russian Patriarch told a Metropolitan-friend. The Moscow Church needs to be represented in the USA, ROCOR is good for that, even though ROCOR has in the last decade become increasingly strange, even to the point of schism. For reasons of State, Moscow has chosen to overlook that. However, behind the shield of Moscow, which alone gives ROCOR official canonicity, ROCOR has an identity crisis.

Originally a part of the pre-Revolutionary Russian Church, today its third, fourth, fifth and even sixth generations, few in number, hardly speak a word of Russian. Most Russians were assimilated generations ago and lost all interest in Russian Church life. This membership has been much supplemented by converts, who have no Russian origins, with the result that a once Russian Church has largely become an American Church. However, most converts join mainstream Orthodox groups. Why join a historical fragment, ROCOR?

Most American converts to Orthodoxy join their own Church, the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) or other US groups. However, ROCOR in the USA has attracted a niche group, or constituency, often called ‘crazy converts’. These are highly conservative and even pathological converts, apparently quite common in the USA and in California, though there are a few such people especially in other English-speaking countries, who are drawn to what is exclusive and anti-Protestant (ironically, most converts are Protestants).

Today, the American episcopate of ROCOR wants to canonise a convert, which is what Fr Seraphim (Rose) was. He will then be the saint of their converts, a self-justification for their schismatic behaviour and condemnation of all others, a kind of national flag, a unique and exclusive identity, which they hope will attract even more crazy converts. And they are necessary, as the old ROCOR Russian core is today growing ever smaller. However, it is pathological converts who have created the anti-woman and anti-family ethos of today’s ROCOR.

After its long-awaited submission to the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church and so the restoration of full canonicity in 2007, ROCOR had the opportunity to merge with the Moscow-based Church and also contribute positively to the other Orthodox living in Western countries from the mainstream. Tragically, by 2017 ROCOR had turned its back on this God-given opportunity and turned inwards, cutting itself off from others, refusing concelebration and communion, openly supporting Trump’s Republican Party.

In choosing the uncanonical and politically-driven path of the Protestant sect and condemning other Orthodox like pharisees, taking their clergy without letters of leave, the American Synod has isolated itself and discredited itself. Its intention to canonise an American convert, a repentant homosexual, but who did then spend many years with a pedophile, has cast further doubt on it, already compromised by its links with the CIA. In any case, as regards a possible canonisation of Fr Seraphim Rose and after the war in the Ukraine is over, Moscow will have the last word.

 

 

Filioquism, the Last Crusade and the Post-Filioque World

Foreword: Might is Not Right

Throughout history there have always been those who believe that ‘Might is Right’, either individually or collectively. Big and powerful individuals, kings or bishops, have often bullied the small and weak. Big and powerful nations have often bullied small and weak nations. There are many examples in history, from the Persians, the Chinese, the Indian kingdoms, to Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Franks, the Aztecs, the Incas and African tribes who sold each other into slavery. However, the case of the barbaric European tribes who even made their rivalries and jealousies into ‘World Wars’ is unique. This is because those rivalries were institutionalised, made systematic, made into an ideology. It is this ideology, at first racist, then of beliefs, at first confined to one individual in Rome, then spread to millions, who share the ideology.

The Suicide of Filioquism

To cut off your nose to spite your face is an expression which means to harm yourself in an attempt to harm someone else. This expression defines the attitude of the European elite towards the Ukraine. It has fully supported the Neo-Nazi regime which the US installed in Kiev in 2014 despite isolating itself from the vast majority of the world diplomatically and morally, not to mention losing cheap Russia oil and gas, without which most European industry is going bankrupt. Why this self-harming obsession? It is all about justifying the elite’s millennial ideology of superiority over others. For them that is what ‘Europe’ means. For Europe is not for them a geographical understanding, but an ideological construct. They are mentally unable to look back to the Old Europe, before the barbarian Franks and Normans introduced Filioquism. What is this?

Filioquism

Filioquism, more recently known variously as Zionism, Trotskyism, Fascism, Nazism or Globalism, is the ideology that one ‘self-appointed’ group should reign supreme above all others. It is completely secular. Believing Jews do not accept Zionism, just as believing Christians do not accept ‘Christian Zionism’ (which is a contradiction in terms). We do not seek to build a paradise on earth (which is what Karl Marx, the apostate, atheist grandson of a rabbi, wanted), nor do we seek to force Christ to return to earth by destroying the planet in Armageddon (the prideful fantasy of self-righteous ‘Christian Zionist’ prigs), we seek the Heavenly Jerusalem. What is the origin of this heresy, that an elite should seek to build a paradise for itself in the form of an anti-spiritual dictatorship, regardless of whether it is called the USSR, the USA or Israel?

The origin of Zionism as an ideology is in the ‘filioque’, a system a millennium old, which claimed that the Holy Spirit does not govern humanity, as the Holy Spirit had been replaced by a man in Rome. That is the first thing that the abandonment of the Nicene Creed by Rome in 1014 led directly to, thus reviving and justifying pagan Roman emperor-worship. By the end of the eleventh century, in 1096, exactly 930 years ago, this novel substitution of the Holy Spirit by a supposedly Divinely-sanctioned earthly authority, known as ‘the filioque’, had spread to all that man’s followers. They launched ‘the Crusades’, acts of organised imperialist violence against ‘inferior’ neighbours. All who accepted this ideology were in fact ‘filioquised’, as they exalted themselves above all others, making themselves superior to all others.

The first ‘inferior’ neighbours of Western Europe to suffer were Jews, then Muslims and Orthodox Christians. These ‘Crusades’ slaughtered their way through Europe into West Asia, lasting almost 200 years, from 1096 until 1291, in the Holy Land and the surrounding lands. However, they had begun with other ‘Crusades’ which had slaughtered Muslims and Jews in the Iberian Peninsula, murdered Orthodox in southern Italy and launched the bloody invasion of England in 1066. After the ‘Crusades’ had begun, there were ‘Teutonic Crusades’, invading northern Russia. Although the crusades in Iberia and England were successful, the eastward crusading movements against the Holy Land and Russia failed. Thus, with the movements eastwards resisted by Islam and Orthodox Christianity, the failed West looked further westwards.

Specifically, the Frankish Spanish who had been successful in what is now Spain and Portugal, looked south-westwards, helped by a greedy and fanatical Italian merchant-explorer called Columbus. Having failed to liberate the earthly Jerusalem in the Holy Land, these self-appointed ‘infallible beings’ decided to create their own New Jerusalem in the New World. They created what is now Latin America, genociding, both consciously and unconsciously, its native peoples. As for the Norman elite, who had been successful in England, it looked north-westwards and the Anglo-Normans created what is now the USA and Canada, genociding, both consciously and unconsciously, its native peoples. Here is the origin of ‘Judeo-Christian Civilisation’, a phrase invented only in the last century to describe the Western mentality, which is Filioquism.

The Last Crusade

The Last Crusade of the ‘Judeo-Christians’ is that of the last Crusader State of Israel, founded by the Anglo-Norman elite. It succeeded the Crusader settler State established in the twelfth century. This State is now genociding native Palestinians, just as the first Crusaders genocided the local Muslims, the Spanish and Portuguese genocided the native peoples of Latin America, and the British, French and other Filioquist Europeans genocided the native peoples of Northern America. The settler State of Tel Aviv exists only through the finance and arms donated by the USA. It uses them to attempt to genocide Gaza, the West Bank, the Lebanon and Iran. But today the USA has been defeated in its war against Iran and has seen nearly all its bases in the Persian Gulf destroyed. It is in full retreat from West Asia, once called the Middle East.

Afterword: The Post-Filioque World

Today, the USA is not only in full retreat from West Asia, but also from Western Europe, from where it is withdrawing thousands of its troops, and from East Asia, which it has lost to the economic influence of China, as well as from Africa, which rejects European colonialism, from Latin America and even English-speaking Oceania. Russia, Iran and China are together freeing Eurasia, by defeating the US rogue state in the Ukraine, Iran and the Pacific rim, where US hegemony had since 1991 been unchallenged. India, and many others, will follow. Here is the New, Non-Zionist World, the Post-Filioque world, which says that it is the Holy Spirit that governs us, not those who falsely claim Divinely-sanctioned supremacy. Meanwhile, the filioquised Western media only deals in wishful thinking, not reporting the facts of this Post-Filioque New World.

 

 

NOTHING HAS CHANGED: ON THE RUSSIAN CLERGY ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION

From the Memoirs of St. Mardarije (Uskoković)

Fpr those who do not know the Russian Church and Russian history well, below is the key to everything. Having read it, you will understand why the Russian Revolution, with the brutal persecution of Russian Orthodox, carried out mainly by baptised Russian Orthodox, took place.

Mitred Archpriest Andrew Phillips

St Mardarije (Uskoković)

The future St. Mardarije (Uskoković) (1889–1935), the first Serbian bishop in the United States and Canada, spent more than ten years in Russia on the very eve of the revolutionary events that brought tragic and unprecedented trials to the Church. The uniqueness of the young Serbian hieromonk from Montenegro lay in the fact that during his years of study and service in Russia he interacted with a remarkably broad circle of public and ecclesiastical figures, from Volhynia and Kishinev to Kiev and St. Petersburg. As a vivid and exceptional personality, he was welcomed into various homes and circles and spoke extensively with bishops and other representatives of the Russian clergy. At the same time, he was always filled with ardent love for the Russian Church, Russia itself, its spirituality, history, and culture, to which he became deeply spiritually akin in the fullest sense.

Hieromonk Mardarije (Uskoković)

He began early to write and speak about various problems in society and Church life. It is possible that his judgments and actions were marked by a certain youthful fervour and naivety, but they were also entirely sincere. The young servant of the Church soon revealed a gift for preaching, which was especially appreciated by the Russian flock. Several collections and pamphlets by the future saint were published in Russia, and he himself took part in the Local Council of 1917–1918. As a man deeply immersed in Church life and personally acquainted with it from within, the future bishop wrote with pain about certain phenomena he observed.

It is interesting that the young hieromonk repeatedly expressed his views on the state of the Russian clergy and on relations between bishops and priests in private conversations with outstanding hierarchs and pastors of the Church in Russia. Many of them listened to his assessments with attention and interest; some agreed, while others disagreed less with his conclusions than with the practical steps he proposed for changing the situation as he saw it from distant Montenegro. Nevertheless, the memoirs and descriptions of the future saint are of special value, first and foremost because they illuminate important aspects of the life of the Russian Church on the eve of the terrible trials that befell it after the Revolution, and they compel us to reflect on what lessons and examples we may draw from the tragic experience of the Russian clergy more than a century ago.

The memoirs Incomprehensible Russia was written by St. Mardarije in the 1930s, though it is possible that it was based on periodic notes written earlier and later assembled into a unified work. Its English-language text, entitled Incomprehensible Russia, was discovered only relatively recently and is dated 1935. A Serbian translation was published in 2017 with the blessing of Bishop Longin of New Gračanica and Midwestern America at St. Sava Monastery in Libertyville.

From the Chapter ‘On the Russian Clergy’

Representatives of the Russian episcopate, for the most part, very rarely descended from their thrones into the midst of ordinary life. Avoiding contact with common people, they also tried not to allow the lower clergy to come too close to them.

Such aloofness was explained by the belief that close interaction with parishioners and priests could undermine the authority of the “princes of the Church,” whereas distance only elevated them further.

Only a few fortunate members of the lower clergy ever received a “gracious” invitation to dine at a bishop’s table. Fewer still were those who could freely visit a bishop expecting a warm reception.

The attitude shown toward me by the higher Russian clergy was, of course, exceptional. To this day I gratefully remember the hospitality with which certain bishops and the rector of Kazan Cathedral, Archpriest Ornatsky—who was not only a priest but also a philosopher—received me. But things were quite different with the Russian priesthood generally, as I repeatedly observed while traveling throughout Russia.

Yet there are no rules without exceptions, and among the one hundred and thirty Russian bishops there were notable exceptions to the rule I have described of proud isolation. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the Russian episcopate was divided into two classes: those who kept themselves apart and enjoyed a lifeless authority sustained by vanity formed the first and much larger class, while the second, smaller group consisted of those unconcerned with their own dignity, who believed in spiritual communion with the people and regarded the clergy not as subordinates but as fellow labourers in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

This smaller group did not lose authority; on the contrary, it raised its authority in the eyes of clergy and parishioners alike by creating a living bond of mutual love and respect in place of the armour of cold formalism. How far the first group stood from the meek image of the Savior, walking through the wheat fields of Galilee with words of love on His lips and seeing nothing degrading in washing the feet of His disciples. Nothing but mutual love and faithfulness explains why the Lord’s disciples were ready and glad to die for Him.

I recall a typical example from the first, larger group, which I once witnessed in a bishop’s reception hall.

In a large round chamber, petitioners and visitors stood waiting along the walls, as was customary in the offices of ministers and government officials, while important and highly placed persons were received in the bishop’s private study.

After some delay, the bishop appeared accompanied by a secretary carrying pencil and paper. The bishop began walking around the room while the secretary followed behind, taking notes concerning the business of the petitioners.

At first the bishop was cold, dry, and formal. Suddenly something displeased him in one of the priests who had come with a petition, and he unleashed the full force of his anger upon him. The petitioner was stunned and too frightened to gather himself and explain; besides, the bishop gave him no opportunity to do so.

Nearby stood a rural priest with an ascetic, deeply wrinkled face resembling one of the fathers of the ancient Church. It seemed as though St. Anthony the Great, Paul of Thebes, or Pachomius the Great had come there from the Egyptian desert. In his aged hands he held a petition requesting the ordination of his grandson so that he himself might retire.

But he could not withstand the bishop’s fury. Trembling, he dropped the petition from his weak hands, as though expecting that the bishop’s wrath would soon fall upon him as well.

Distressed by this sad and unseemly scene, I turned my gaze toward the corner of the reception room, where there stood a blessed icon of the Savior, who patiently endures even those who have sinned deeply.

Although the bishop kept an icon of the Savior in his reception room, I saw no evidence that this stern, thunderous hierarch carried that image within his own heart.

During my years in Russia I encountered bishops from both groups, and now I would like to sketch a pair of contrasting portraits.

I remember one bishop from the first group very clearly, because I studied together with him.

As an academy student he distinguished himself in nothing except his enormous stature and thunderous voice. In these he had no equal.

Lacking particular spirituality, he paid great attention to the external appearance of a priest. If one of his fellow students—a monk gifted with talent, spirituality, and a true pastoral calling—merely trimmed his beard, our future bishop sharply criticized him. His own beard was always very large, since he regarded it as a necessary outward symbol of three qualities he himself did not possess: piety, spirituality, and monastic restraint.

Even during his student years, while still only a monk, he openly declared that he expected to become a bishop. At the time this amused us more than impressed us. But he had influential friends, and after graduating from the Theological Academy he advanced through the ecclesiastical hierarchy twice as fast as normal. A talented graduate without connections needed about ten years to reach a bishop’s see. He achieved it in four. He quickly became a vicar bishop, and soon afterward received his own diocese.

Before departing for his diocese, he summoned representatives of the diocesan clergy to the capital in order to instruct them regarding the ceremonial arrangements for his solemn entry into his new episcopal residence. Everything was carefully prescribed, and they returned with detailed instructions on how he was to be received generally and, in particular, how he was to be greeted at the diocesan border.

Before boarding the train, he changed his appearance, replacing his modest black monastic cassock with a purple one and decorating his mighty chest with all the honours he possessed.

The train arrived at the station, where officials had gathered on the platform awaiting the new bishop. His personal railway carriage, adorned with flowers and branches, stopped opposite a special reception area, and from it emerged the bishop in solemn procession, immediately surrounded by the crowd ordered to greet him.

At the appointed hour he arrived at the cathedral for the solemn liturgy, where a great crowd awaited him, including clergy, officials, and military officers. Seeing his immense stature—for physically he resembled Ilya Muromets—and hearing his powerful voice, those present imagined that a giant both of spirit and body stood among them.

But disappointment awaited them. At the conclusion of the brief service the bishop addressed the people, as was customary. His voice carried beyond the cathedral walls, but his words were banal, empty, and devoid of spiritual meaning.

An even greater disappointment awaited those who sought an audience with him the next day. Despite carefully prepared letters of recommendation, it proved far from easy to obtain access to the new bishop. By the evening rumours had spread throughout the city and diocese that a steel barrier, embodied in the secretary and the bishop’s lay brother-assistant, had arisen between the bishop and his flock. Visitors had to pass through the purgatory of double interrogation. Moreover, it was their practice not to admit petitioners and not even to listen to those seeking spiritual support. Such people were sharply dismissed: “The bishop should not be troubled over trifles.”

Nor did the bishop himself show much hospitality toward those wishing to visit him—whether bishops from other dioceses or former fellow students, even those who had become outstanding preachers.

He politely declined such visits. In this way he succeeded in protecting not only his cathedral but the entire diocese from visits by authoritative, energetic, and talented individuals.

Thus he became a highly successful representative of the first group of bishops already described.

And now—a portrait of a very different kind of bishop, a man who made an unforgettable impression on me.

A large crowd of people, myself among them, waited beneath the warm spring sun for the arrival of the train. That day too there was a crowd, but with one important difference. The people had come not because of an episcopal order, but voluntarily, having heard many good things about him.

Animatedly conversing, everyone watched intently as the train approached the platform, then rushed toward the last carriage, where governors and bishops usually travelled.

We waited for the bishop to appear. A minute passed, then another. Our impatience grew, but no one emerged onto the platform. Someone bolder asked the conductor and then turned to us and announced that the bishop had arrived in a third-class carriage attached directly behind the locomotive.

Without losing a moment we hurried there, but it was too late. The bishop had already left the station through a side exit, hired the first cabman he found, and gone to the cathedral.

At first those standing in the cathedral were perplexed by his modesty and simplicity of dress. But the opening words of his address explained everything. His speech was fiery, and the hearts of the listeners “burned within them” (Luke 24:32). Some even wept. The sermon concluded with the words of the Great Shepherd: “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28), to which the bishop added: “Believe me, the doors of my home will always be open to all who are in need of help and counsel.”

Those present at the reception of the new bishop departed with warmth in their hearts and the joyful news: “This new bishop is right for us.”

In the first months of the Russian Revolution, a phenomenon occurred in many dioceses that at first glance seemed surprising. Priests gathered together to vent their anger against their bishops. I witnessed such scenes many times, but I was not surprised. In those dioceses no spiritual bond united bishop and flock, and there was nothing surprising in their desire to replace a worthless bishop with a better one. In some dioceses the bishops were better, and everyone knew it.

During those revolutionary days I attended an assembly in one such diocese. At the mere mention of the bishop’s name, thunderous applause broke out, although he himself was a thousand versts away in Petersburg on diocesan business.

I understood well what had provoked such an ovation. Several years before the Revolution I had accompanied him on an inspection tour through the diocese. He visited peasants in their humble village homes. He spent much time with his clergy, instructing them, paying attention to their children, and explaining to their wives how they might become true friends to their husbands and help them bear the heavy burden of responsibility. With interest and love he asked about their troubles and emphasised the importance of their labours for the welfare of the Russian people.

It is no wonder that when the Revolution began, priests and laypeople unanimously demanded the return of absent bishops such as this one. They knew they could rely on him in difficult times.

 

 

 

 

 

Q and A Spring 2026

We do not want to go to Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, we want to go to Heaven! We want Archpastors, not Archpoliticians!

The Nature of the Church and its Governance

Q: With the schism between Greeks and Russians, some say that the Orthodox Church does not exist. What would you say?

A: Of course, it does not exist and never has done. But this is nothing to do with the current political dispute, created by the CIA. The words ‘the Orthodox Church’ are abstract, but the principle of the Church is concrete, it is the Incarnation. The Church it is not an abstract idea, as in the minds of Protestants, it is real in places. Concretely, we think of the real Local Orthodox Churches, of Orthodox Christianity, of the Orthodox Faith. Such was the situation in the New Testament, with the Local Churches in Corinth, Ephesus, Colossae, Philippi, Galatia, Thessaloniki, Rome. Today there are sixteen Local Churches, double the number 150 years ago. In 150 years’ time, that number may well double again to 32 Local Churches, in any case reaching at least 24. What is One and creates Unity is the Orthodox Faith, shared by all the Local Churches.

Q: Can the Church be corrupt?

A: If you see ‘The Church’ as a group of upper middle-class Anglican bishops appointed by an atheist or Hindu Prime Minister, as I think you do, then it is corrupt. However, that is not the Church, that is a mere human organisation, founded by a corrupt and evil King out of lust and some of whose properties were ‘privatised’ and handed out to his cronies, and which is run by accountants. In reality, the Church is the Body of Christ (in the words of the Apostle Paul), and it is run by the Holy Spirit. This can be seen clearly in the case of the Church in heaven.

As for the Church on earth, I think it can be likened to a huge Ship, carrying to Paradise those who sail in it, the captain, the navigator, the senior officers, mechanics, cooks, waiters, cleaners, plumbers, doctors, as well as the very many passengers, who are baptised. Some of these help the crew greatly, some do not, in fact they hinder. Sometimes some passengers decide to leave the Ship on lifeboats, which get lost or sink, others follow in the wake for a time and some from them get back on. Some passengers jump off, others come in new boats and climb on board. If the latest captain is bad, so what? Sooner or later the Owner of the Ship will come and change course, appointing a new captain. In the end, all are only passengers, who follow the Owner.

Q: Is the Church hierarchical or congregational?

A: If you are Roman Catholic, especially a traditionalist, then it is hierarchical. If you are Protestant, then it is congregational. If you are a normal Orthodox Christian, it is both. However, if you are some sort of old calendarist / ROCOR convert and you dream of dressing in clerical or monastic garments and hats and having a long beard or, if a woman, of dressing as a nun, then it is hierarchical. And if you are a liberal modernist, then it is congregational and you ignore and despise bishops.

Q: What happens in a Church if there is a shortage of suitable candidates for the episcopate?

A: We recently had the visit of a Romanian bishop. He told us how he and the Metropolitan are the only bishops in the Metropolia of Iasi of over 1,200 parishes. The Metropolia is in fact run by 15 deans, married priests. This system of delegation works very well. And that is in a Local Church which has a lot of active monasteries.

I remember in Moscow in 2007 being told that the Russian Church had 2,000 candidates to be bishops. This was quite untrue. They had in reality 2,000 single men who had an interest in a career in the Church. In fact, over 300 of the 2,000 became bishops. The results have been catastrophic and many have already had to be defrocked; many others will be. Single men with an interest in the Church do not make bishops! When will this common sense fact be understood in Moscow and Constantinople?

If there is a shortage of good bishops, then delegate! Thus, in the Russian Church exhausted bishops rush around at the end of Lent and in Holy Week doing long unction services, whereas in the Romanian Church priests can do unction services every month, if they wish. Such things are delegated. Only ordinations are not delegated.

Q: What sorts of bishop are there in your experience?

A: There are the real bishops, who are shepherds and love their flock, who loves them: St Spyridon, St Nicholas, St Nectarios, St John of Shanghai. The rest are lovers of themselves – administrators, narcissists, intellectuals, careerists, thieves, sadists, bullies, sexually disturbed homosexuals, pedophiles and psychopaths.

Q: What is more important, frequent confession or frequent communion?

A: Both. There should be frequent communion and confession, together with frequent prayer, the prayer of the heart and prayer from the prayerbook. This is different from the heterodox world, which has only frequent communion.

Q: Ever since the incidents in Amsterdam in 2022, the Russian Church has been known as ‘the Persecuting Church’ and lost most of its credit. How did a Persecuted Church become a Persecuting Church?

A: Persecution certainly was not present until 2008, when Patriarch Alexis was there. Then tens of millions of newly baptised and sometimes very zealous people and clergy worked enthusiastically hand in hand to rebuild the Church. The change came afterwards, with the spirit of centralisation (an old Soviet hangover), Papalisation (all those visits to the Vatican were a sign of this), bureaucratisation (the paperwork which was suddenly demanded by the Centre and detested by the priests), the military-style clericalisation (literal uniformity in dress, but also in political opinions), the closeness to the State and the Armed Forces, ‘blessing’ tanks, bombs and guns, and the insistence on rigid discipline, ritualisation and the use of archaic and little understood Slavonic.

All I can say is that the Persecuting Church developed in a process between 2008 and 2022. Let us take the mid-point of 2015 as a symbolic date for its appearance. And the essential reason for all this is that by then State politics, raison d’etat, had been put above pastoral love and above the support for Orthodox teaching. Schism followed. Schism always follows politics, that is why we speak of party (part) politics.

Q: Has your parish ever produced a monk?

A: Yes, we had one. However, he went to a monastery in the USA, where he was ‘touched up’ by a monk. He fled and came to complain to the bishop here, who had already turned down the offer of a free monastery, which had involved me in a lot of hard, but wasted, work. That bishop in turn made homosexual advances to the monk. The result was that the monk fled from him too. Later, others fled.

Q: Where do you think ROCOR is heading today?

A: In 2007 it had the opportunity of bringing its liturgical and ascetic heritage to help in renewing the life of the ex-Soviet Russian Church and the Local Churches in the Diaspora, as the late Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) insightfully urged. Instead of making a positive contribution, however, ROCOR gradually began developing into a negative exclusive sect and cult, especially after 2017.

Having only a very small ethnic flock, it began recruiting crazies. The rest, as they say, is history. Therefore, today its American Synod is already in schism from most Local Churches, for which it has expressed hatred, not love. After its recent meeting at its former US church in Munich, donated to it by the CIA, I fear it may turn altogether into a Californian homosexual and pedophile sect. See: https://www.bing.com/search?q=pokrovtruth+fr+seraphim&FORM=PVSBDF&PC=PV02

The Undivided World and the Zionist World

Q: How did the Western world come to dominate the rest of the world until quite recently?

A: This is the question raised, but only vaguely answered, by the great Roman Catholic cultural historian and philosopher, Christopher Dawson (+ 1970), the English Berdyayev, in such books as Religion and the Rise of Western Culture. Here he writes that Western supremacy comes from a restless spirit, a spiritual energy, ‘a spirit that strives to change the world’. In Orthodoxy, we know what that spirit is; as a Catholic, he did not.

Before the eleventh century there was a multipolar world, as the Pentarchy of five Patriarchates was, which was not dominated by any one centre. We can see this in the life of the saintly English King Alfred the Great, who visited Europe, sent alms to Jerusalem, which he never, quite unthinkably, tried to seize from the Muslims. He also sent alms to India and despatched a mission to explore the countries around the White Sea.

Multipolarity is a sign of diversity and of unity in diversity, the sign of the Holy Trinity. The late historian Robert Moore describes in detail how from the early eleventh century on, any diversity was persecuted, in his The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western Europe, 950–1250.

Multipolarity was gradually destroyed by what we can call Zionism or Universalism. The First West, the West of the first millennium, was pre-Zionist, that is, diverse. The symbol and reality of this Zionism is the filioque. That heresy, adopted in the late eighth century as an imperial ideology in what is now western Germany and spread slowly until it was promulgated in Rome in 1014, is anti-Trinitarian. It dePersonalises the Trinity, making the Father and the Son into One and the Holy Spirit the mere link between them (as portrayed in many a heretical icon). This is why the Church insists on the Holy Trinity.

To the Vatican it was rather irrelevant, as the Unitarian Head of their ‘Church’ is the Pope of Rome, whom all must obey. Protestant Unitarians are like freemasons, who believe in One Architect-God. Thus, Western Europe moved away from the ascetic and grace-filled towards the legal and the moral, as seen, for instance, in Roman Catholic ‘days of obligation’ and Protestant puritanism.

Q: What is Zionism, in theological terms?

A: Zionism means universalism that is, globalism, the movement towards One World Dictatorship, homogeneity, unity without diversity, overseen by oligarchs. These think they are infallible, superior to those whom they consider to be lesser human-beings. Trotskyism is a classic example. Today’s extraterrestrial (or is that demonic?) ‘Muskism’ is another. Zionism can only exist outside the Holy Trinity, which is the principle of unity in diversity.

Here it is important to state that Zionism is by no means necessarily Jewish. By far the majority of Zionists are not Jews. Indeed, a great many Jews are anti-Zionists. For example, the last Non-Zionist US presidents were Eisenhower and Kennedy, that is, over sixty years ago. Since then, all US presidents have been Zionists, whether Democrat or Republican, but none has been a Jew. One of the greatest British Zionists was the psychopathic Churchill – he had no Jewish blood, despite what absurd conspiracy theories claim. His ancestor John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, was also a Zionist. Other British Zionists include Cromwell, Rhodes, Thatcher and Blair, among many others.

Moreover, even among Jewish Zionists, there is huge variety of individuals, of left and right and nothing at all, for example, Rothschild and Marx, Trotsky and Zuckerberg, Freud and Spielberg, Sarkozy and Zelensky, in the UK Maxwell, Mandelson, Starmer (by his wife), Straw, the Milibands and Polanski, Milei in Argentina, or in the USA, Epstein, Witkoff, Kushner and Cohen (Trump’s mentor and friends).

Some homosexual politicians are also Zionists, for example, Mandelson (and many other Blairites such as N. Brown and Streeting), Lord Ali, the Dutch Rutte, several in the US-run Baltic States, and the US Bessent, Graham and many others.

Some pedophiles are also Zionists and are very active in the media, for example in the gagging-ordered, heavily censored (‘editorially controlled’) BBC. This perhaps should be called the ABCC (the Anti-British Broadcasting Corporation), as it appears to be controlled by Zionist journalists and pedophiles too numerous to name here, for Savile, Harris and Edwards are only the tip of the iceberg.

Today parts of the USA appear to be ruled by Zionist oligarchs and perverts, the so-called Epstein class, the majority of whom are not Jewish, but who are globalists. They run the banks, the oil corporations, Silicon Valley, the nuclear-armed military, Wall Street, Hollywood, the PR industry, the legacy media, the social media and pseudo-academia. They operate by sanctions and tariffs, instead of by encouragement and development. To drain the US swamp and not to be sucked into it must be very difficult.

Contemporary Wars

Q: Would you say that the wars in the Ukraine and Iran form one single World War?

A: Yes, but it must be understood that this World War is not only a military War and that it began decades ago. Indeed, for 35 years, since 1991, the West has been embarked on a war against the world, which has been composed of a series of campaigns to promote a ‘forever’ war in several phases, both military and social. This began in Iraq and Serbia, spread to Afghanistan, created the chaos in Libya and Syria, included the campaign against the anti-globalist Brexit, the social engineering attempts to enforce the manmade climate change and net zero myths and to poison the weak and elderly with manmade covid, and then the new phases of this one single war, in the Ukraine and Iran.

Is Today’s Rome Washington or Moscow?

Q: The US Secretary for War, Hegseth, has on his chest a tattoo in the form of a red cross, surrounded by four smaller crosses. It looks Orthodox. Is it?

A: No. This US Secretary for War wears the crusader cross. He has, after all, like the crusaders, tried to destroyed to invade West Asia and Eastern Europe. These crusades have since 1096 become worldwide. Thus, President Bush also launched a ‘crusade’ against Iraq, as he publicly declared, and that is why the current US Secretary of War wears a crusader cross tattoo. He follows a very long history.

It is all logical. Just as the Papacy used excommunications and indulgences, so his successors, the US President in his Capitol and the EU Commissars, use sanctions and tariffs. However, those ‘infallible’ and ‘exceptional’ Fascist crusaders, who are above the law, not only cannot win in the Ukraine against a Superpower like Russia, they cannot even win against a regional power like Iran. Washington is not Rome.

Q: Is Moscow the Third Rome?

A: When Archbishop Nikitas was at last appointed Archbishop of the Greek Thyateira Archdiocese in Great Britain in 2019, in order to save a Greek ethnic group from rapidly dying out, he gave a radio interview to the Spectator. In this he stated that the Moscow the Third Rome idea is absurd, that there is no Third Rome, only a First and Second Rome! In other words, he was only a mouthpiece for Phanariot ideology. As one very senior and outspoken (in private) Greek cleric from the Patriarchate of Constantinople said to me of his own Patriarch last year: ‘We are waiting for the toilet to flush’. His words, not mine.

Rome, First, Second or Third, are all an absurd and fatal distraction, worse still, a delusion and those who believe in it are delusional, whether in Washington or Moscow. We want Jerusalem, not Rome. Romes are the downfall of the Church. We do not want to go to some Rome, we want to go to Heaven. We want Archpastors, not Archpoliticians. The so-called First, Second and Third Romes are irrelevant in Church life, as they all fell, in 1054, 1453 and 1917 respectively. Why keep harping on about the fallen and disappeared past? Neither Moscow, nor Constantinople, nor Rome are of any importance or help now, as we face, potentially, the end of the world.

Hatred of Russia

Q: Why do so many politicians hate Russia, but not other Orthodox countries like Romania, Greece, Bulgaria? King Charles, for example, loves Romania, and owns properties there, tourists love Greece, yet many hate Russia.

A: The elite of the Western world hates Russia and not other Orthodox countries, because the latter are small, poor and weak, unlike Russia, which is vast, rich and powerful. In other words, it is all about jealousy and greed for resources.

The British elite especially hates Russia, because in October 1917 Russian-language, Marxist ideologues overthrew the masonic MI6 regime imposed on Russia by the British between December 1916 and October 1917. This is why they made up the Litvinenko, Salisbury and now El Money cases as cheap propaganda. In the same way, the American elite hates Cuba and Iran, because they are the only ones who successfully overthrew CIA-imposed regimes.

As regards British Russophobia, see in greater detail: The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain from 1815 to 1841: A Study of the Interaction of Policy and Opinion by John Howes Gleason, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, London Oxford University Press 1950.

President Putin

Q: President Putin seems to be very cold. Do you think he is?

A: I have only been able to observe him one in real life, in 2007, but I think his apparent coldness is because he is probably autistic, that is, he is someone who is brilliant at systems, but perhaps lacks people skills. He is an ultra-cautious diplomat and lawyer, who does everything by the book. He has an excellent memory and is brilliant at chess and German, but he presents a very blurred image of Russia.

Nobody quite knows where he stands. He used to be a devout Westerner, a protégé of Yeltsin, who wanted to join NATO. He has acknowledged publicly his many mistakes of naivety after 2014. Many blame him for the Ukrainian situation and not acting then, which would have been far less destructive of life and property. His present indecisive diplomacy is frustrating to some and makes him seem weak and naïve. As a result, he has led Russia into full-blown nationalism. Neither his previous Westernism, nor his present nationalism are Orthodox. We are still obliged to wait for Russia to move out of both these deviations, Westernism and nationalism, towards Christ.

Q: Who could replace Putin in this year’s Russian elections?

A: The elections in Russia next September are Parliamentary elections, not Presidential. President Putin will stay. But the influence of the former Westerner and now strong Russian nationalist Medvedev may become a lot stronger. Rightly or wrongly, he is seen as strong and decisive. Others have unflattering views about him. We shall see.

Personal

Q: Do you hope to live a long life?

A: I hope so, as there is still so much to do, or so it seems to me, but what I hope is completely irrelevant. God decides. Perhaps tomorrow I will be gone! As Chaucer wrote: The life so short, the craft so long to learn.

 

 

The Saints of Exning in Suffolk

Exning is a village in Suffolk, 2 miles north-east of New­market, 11 miles south-east of Ely, 14 miles east of Cambridge and 14 miles west of Bury St Edmunds. Its name may go back to the Celtic Iceni (pronounced Ikeni) tribe, who lived in what became Norfolk and North Suffolk. They may be recalled by other place-names on their southern border like the local Icknield Way, Ickworth and Ixworth, and Iken on the Suffolk coast. Exning too may have been a centre for the Iceni, famous for Queen Boudicca, who in the first century AD fought back against the sadistic Romans.

Whatever its origin, by the seventh century Exning was a well-fortified, strategic location. From the north it was protected by the low-lying, swampy fenlands and from the south by the low hills and then the forests and rivers of southern East Anglia. In the gap from the west it was protected by a huge manmade earthwork, today known as the ‘Devils Dyke’, though originally called ‘the Great Ditch’. This defensive earthwork, seven miles long, was built some time in the mid-sixth century as a border wall to protect the East Anglians from peoples to the west.

The Apostle of East Anglia, now Suffolk, Norfolk and eastern Cambridgeshire, is St Felix. Coming from Burgundy in Gaul (France) in 633, he sailed to Canterbury and then across to the Roman fortress by Felixstowe, which is named after him – ‘stowe’ means monastery – to enlighten the pagans. He opened his activities by setting up churches and monasteries near royal halls. One of these was in Rendlesham, upriver from the monastery in Felixstowe in the south-east, another was in Blythburgh, near the port of Dunwich, and to the north-east in Loddon and Reedham.

Around the coast, o the north-west of East Anglia there was another mission centre in Babingley and in the south-west was another in Soham and nearby in the stronghold of Exning. Here there was another royal hall located by the strategic border of East Anglia and it was here that Bishop Felix baptised the King of the East Angles, Anna, and his family. All of them, Jurmin of Blythburgh (+ 653), Audrey (Etheldreda) of Ely (+ 679), Saxburgh of Ely (+ 700), Wendred of March (?) and probably a grand-daughter, Withburgh of Dereham (+ 743), were to become saints.

Even today there is a holy well named after St Wendred in Exning (and also a road) and its water was famed locally among believers for its healing powers. Nobody can remember it freezing over, nor can anybody remember it drying up. It was in the water of this well that Wendred, Audrey and their siblings were baptised. It would seem certain that the original church in Exning was founded by Bishop Felix. Indeed, that church has always been dedicated to St Martin of Tours, who was much venerated by Bishop Felix and throughout Gaul, as well as in Canterbury.

Only in the early thirteenth century was Exning taken over in importance by a ‘new market’, what is now the town of Newmarket, first recorded in 1228, just to the south. The importance of this ‘new market’ may have come about as the result of the many pilgrims who came walking from London by the Icknield Way, whose route is now followed by the A11. They were heading for the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in north-west Norfolk, where the Mother of God had appeared to Edith the Fair in 1061, warning of hardships to come under the Norman Yoke.

 

 

Resisting the Servants of Antichrist: Working for the Freedom and Unity of Old and New Orthodox Churches

You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free

John: 8,32

Introduction: Patriotism Defeats Globalism

The enemy of local Patriotism has always been Globalist Imperialism. That means the hegemonic rule and tyrannical domination of the world by one monopolistic power. This is known as Zionism. And if we are speaking about Imperialism since 1945, we are speaking about Americanisation, also known as Globalisation, meaning Zionisation. This is the One World Dictatorship of Antichrist, which his servants have been working towards for ten centuries and was first attempted by the universalist claims of the Popes of Rome.

Today, however, we are entering a new period, that of a world without a monopoly of power, a world with at least nine different centres of power and influence, China, Russia, India, the USA, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Iran, South Africa. As a result, we are speaking about the Re-Sovereignisation of the lands of the world after the defeat of Globalism by Patriotism, described below.

Political ReSovereignisation

Today we see that the USA is being forced to leave North Asia (Eurasia, known as Russia), abandoning its outmatched, outclassed and bankrupt Neo-Nazi proxy, the Kiev regime, which absurdly attempted to destroy Russia by sacrificing the lives of millions of its own citizens to the Zionist US elite.

Today we see that the USA is being forced to leave North-West Asia (the Western European Peninsula), abandoning to Eurasia the hated Globalist, illegal puppet elites the US put into power in the Neo-Nazi controlled NATO/EU countries.

Today we see that the USA is being forced to leave West Asia (‘the Middle East’), abandoning the Zionist settler state and its corrupt and tyrannical Gulf puppets to the Great Power of West Asia, which is, and always has been, Iran.

Today we see that the USA is being forced to leave East Asia (China), abandoning its local puppet elites in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and withdrawing its missiles and troops from there.

Today we see that the USA is being forced to leave South Asia (the Indian subcontinent), which depends on Iranian and Russian energy to survive.

Today we see that the USA is being forced to leave South-East Asia (Australia and all Oceania), abandoning its absurdly expensive and quite unnecessary local NATO, called AUKUS.

Today we see that the USA is being forced to leave Africa, as its lands at last gain the courage to throw off colonial control.

Today we see that the USA is being forced to leave Latin America, having lost all support for the conquest of Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland and Canada.

Church ReSovereignisation

‘Those who put the Patriarch into power in Constantinople will remove him’.

Eldress Galaktia of Crete (+ 2021)

In Church terms, this means that the USA will also be forced to abandon its puppet in Constantinople. This it has controlled ever since, in one its first criminal acts, the CIA kidnapped the righteous confessor Patriarch Maximos V in 1948 and took him into exile in Switzerland in the presidential plane of the atomic mass murderer Truman. As a result, the CIA tried to exercise its anti-canonical control over all the Local Orthodox Churches through the deliberate Zionist misinterpretation of the Church canons, notably Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, thus flattering anti-Christian Hellenist racism.

Freedom at long last for the Patriarchate of Constantinople would mean that the Russian Church would not have to try and be Zionist either. For, equally absurdly, Zionist, Soviet Moscow has in rivalry also tried to lay claim to universal domination of all the Local Orthodox Churches in the same way as Zionist Constantinople. Now they both harbour the same imperialist, that is, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic and anti-local, ambitions. The restoration of Russian Church governance through its Re-Sovereignisation would be possible. But for that it must overcome its stiflingly bureaucratic Soviet-style Papalised centralisation.

However, the corruption of the Russian Church, its Papalisation, Statisation, nationalisation, clericalisation, militarisation, bureaucratisation and ritualisation, goes back before 1917. For even in 1917 the vast majority of its bishops betrayed the Orthodox Tsar. But the heroic confessor and martyr Patriarch Tikhon did not. Before that, it was for 200 years enslaved as a Department of State on the Protestant model by a Tsar who was Protestant in all but name. Any number of episcopal quenchers of the Spirit, ‘good administrators’ (the words of Metr Antony of Kiev (1863-1936)), now called ‘effective managers’, were found then, as now.

The governance of the Russian Church is Papalised (they adore the Pope of Rome and go there as often as possible), controlled by a Sovietised senior clerical caste, for now schismatically out of communion with other Local Churches, is top heavy, irrelevant to the people and above all has been unfaithful to the New Martyrs and Confessors. The New Martyr Tsar Nicholas knew this 120 years ago and prayed for the spiritual renewal of the clergy. The best of the Russian emigration like St John of Shanghai knew it too. But freedom and restoration have still not come. Soviet-style nationalism is not patriotism, for it makes Russia hated.

Conclusion: The Suicide of Psychopaths Brings Life to Others

A few days ago, the psychopathic and foul-mouthed Trump, the master of vulgarity and bad taste, resembling the mafia boss of a gangster Empire more than a President of a democratic republic, threatened that a ‘whole civilization will die tonight’. In his malignant narcissist folly mixed with dementia, the main representative of the anti-family Epstein class threatened to kill 5,000 years of Iranian Civilisation. This was just like another American narcissistic bully, a spoilt brat and virulent supporter of Trump, only a few of whose effeminate and sycophantic clergy had the guts to resist. He threatened to kill 50 years of English Orthodox Civilisation, its foundations in the distant past and threatened to destroy its families today.

In fact, both shot themselves in both feet, Trump, by losing in the Ukraine and then in Iran, the bishop by creating a schism against Orthodoxy and then against English identity. Trump is isolated from the rest of the world, he has no allies and has blasphemed against Christ, so he will finish badly. The bishop has isolated himself from fifteen Local Churches and will be isolated within his own, once it comes out of its schism against the Greek Orthodox world. Once his own Local Church is no longer distracted by politics, he too will find himself totally isolated. Thus, we successfully resist the servants of Antichrist, when they commit spiritual suicide.

 

 

 

Can the Suicide of the Western World Be Stopped?

It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.

Henry Kissinger

Nightmares

Last year a young Ukrainian refugee, aged 27, came to us. She told us of her fiancé whose job had been drone-making. One day one of them exploded in his hands. All that remained of the young man’s body was a pair of legs. Last week another Ukrainian from the west of the Ukraine came to us and told us how in his city there is a curfew from 9.00 pm till 6.00 am every night, when trains arrive with the corpses of thousands of dead soldiers to be buried by night.

The old cemeteries are full and the new ones too. Such is the nightmare in the Ukraine, now being repeated in Gaza, the West Bank, the Lebanon, Iran and Israel. It is a nightmare of injustices and death. The last 112 years have been dominated by injustices, starting with those that occurred during and after the two World Wars. The Western elites caused them; all peoples suffered from them. The time has come for retribution and the correction of injustices.

Prophecies and the Decline of the Western World

We have entered the times of Biblical prophecies, when armies are massing in Biblical lands, and the times of the prophecies of Orthodox elders. However, all prophecies are conditional on repentance. So far we have seen no signs of repentance on the part of those who have begun their wars of choice against both Russia and Iran. In the wings is China, which has had its own difficulties with the West and may have been mentioned as ‘Sinim’ in the Book of Isaiah.

Extremists refer to Babylon and Armageddon, the prophecies of the Prophet Daniel, prophecies from the only Prophetic book in the New Testament, the Book of Revelation (the Apocalypse), and prophecies made by recent saints regarding what is now Turkey. We should be careful. There are those who through ignorance or through malevolence misinterpret such prophecies. All are conditional, all should be read through the prism of Church life.

The USA has much accelerated its own decline, decadence, bankruptcy and death through its many futile and unprovoked wars of death and destruction, for example, against Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, but above all more recently against Russia, Yemen and Iran. Its vassals, the Ukraine, Western Europe and the Gulf emirates and sheikhdoms, are committing suicide together with it. It is always better not to ally yourself with a suicide.

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are just beginning to understand this and may yet save themselves, like rats trying to flee the sinking US ship. On the other hand, the feudal and anti-patriotic Globalist Western European elite still plans to turn the welfare States that it inherited into warfare States, just like their beloved Nazis. Only if that elite is changed, by election or by popular revolt, even at this eleventh hour, is there still any lingering hope of salvation.

We have seen that ‘Democracies’ are plutocracies and oligarchies, which are fundamentally feudal and have strong Fascist tendencies. And we have seen that ‘Autocracies’ are the still sovereign countries with people who patriotically resist Western Globalist oligarchy, colonisation and exploitation and retain their national identity. This is why throughout the twentieth century the Democracies set about destroying the remaining Autocracies, as in 1917.

Narcissism

Those who did not know the American bishop have learned that malignant narcissists like Trump do have superficial charm, but suffer from pompous and fantasist self-importance, with greed for money and power, stimulation, lies, manipulation. They also suffer from the inability to feel remorse and guilt and the pathological need to blame others for everything in self-justification. When they have lost, as they always do, they always walk away, declaring victory.

They disdain empathy, honesty, compassion and self-sacrifice, all the values of Christ, Whom they only pretend to confess. That is why they turn the Persecuted Church into the Persecuting Church, and are so aggressive, anti-missionary, anti-woman and anti-family, and may be sexually disturbed, like Hegseth, Graham or Bessent in Trump’s USA. Their Creed is: ‘Me, me, me’. And that is why they have no room in their lives for any others and destroy everything.

 

 

 

 

I Had a Dream: Twelve Days that Would Shake the Orthodox World

Moscow, Wednesday 1st, The Ascension Thursday 2nd, and Friday 3rd June

After the Liturgy for the Leavetaking of Pascha and the resignation of the previous Patriarch, Metropolitan Pavel was elected Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox (ROC). The first act of the Patriarch and his Synod was to rename the Soviet-era ‘Moscow Patriarchate’ ‘the Patriarchate of New Jerusalem and All Russia’ and to move his administration to the New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow for deSovietisation. Then the Synod refrocked all who had been defrocked for political reasons by the old regime and cleansed the Church by defrocking ‘the princes of the Church’, placed there by the old regime. These were all the corrupt careerists, thieves and sadists, who had humiliated and persecuted faithful priests and people, the sexually disturbed narcissists, intellectuals, homosexuals, pedophiles and psychopaths who hated married priests, women and children.

After the Ascension Feast Liturgy, Patriarch Pavel set up four new Autocephalous Local Churches. These new Churches were: the Kievska Rus Church (for the new Ukraine), the Belarussian Church, the Baltic Church (for Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania) and the Central Asian Church (for the five stans of Central Asia). Also the OCA (Orthodox Church in America), founded by Moscow, was renamed the NAOC (Northern American Orthodox Church). The ROC gave up its Northern American parishes to the NAOC, those in Oceania to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, those in South America and those in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean to the Patriarchate of Antioch, and all those in Western Europe and Hungary to the Patriarchate of Romania. They also told the rogue, schismatic ROCOR group that it had one year to follow or be excommunicated.

Finally, the Patriarch also transformed the Church’s Department of External Relations into the Department of Inter-Orthodox Relations. On Friday afternoon the new Patriarch left Moscow and proceeded with his delegation to Istanbul for reconciliation and the renewal of concelebration with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the other Greek-speaking Churches.

Istanbul, Saturday 4th, Sunday 5th and Monday 6th June

After the resignation of the previous Patriarch, Bishop Petros was elected Patriarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The first act of the Patriarch and his Synod was to cleanse the Church by defrocking ‘the princes of the Church’, placed there by the old regime. These were all the corrupt careerists, freemasons, thieves and sadists, who had humiliated and persecuted faithful priests and people, the sexually disturbed narcissists, intellectuals, homosexuals, pedophiles and psychopaths who hated married priests, women and children. Then Patriarch Petros and his Synod abandoned the fake ‘Church’ in the Ukraine, which had been known as the OCU, and told them to join the canonical Church. It then decided to recognise and concelebrate with the Patriarchate of New Jerusalem and all 20 Autocephalous Churches, including the four new ones.

Finally, all agreed to establish a new Autocephalous Church for Oceania, also giving its parishes in Northern America to the NAOC, giving up parishes in South America, and those in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, to the Patriarchate of Antioch, and those in Western Europe and in Hungary to the Patriarchate of Romania, where new Local Churches would be established.

Alexandria, Tuesday 7th and Wednesday 8th June

After the resignation of the previous Patriarch, Bishop Moses was elected Patriarch of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Born in Uganda, he is the first black Patriarch of Africa. The first act of the Patriarch and his Synod was to cleanse the Church by refrocking those who had been defrocked for political reasons and defrocking ‘the princes of the Church’, placed there by the old regime. These were all the corrupt careerists, freemasons, thieves and sadists, who had humiliated and persecuted faithful priests and people, the sexually disturbed narcissists, intellectuals, homosexuals, pedophiles and psychopaths who hated married priests, women and children. He replaced all these with black African bishops. Then Patriarch Moses decided to move his administration to Nairobi, the Church keeping its ancient title as the Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa.

A number of Greek, Cypriot and Russian bishops were appointed to continue to serve in the Patriarchate as consultants. However, the Church is now dominated by African bishops, selected from the local clergy, who are spread out all over the African Continent. A plan has been drawn up to greatly expand their numbers, which is vital to the Africa-wide spread of the Church.

Cisinau, Thursday 9th and Friday 10th June

The Moldovan President greeted Patriarch Pavel of Moscow, Patriarch Daniel of Bucharest, their delegations, and both Metropolitans of the two still separate parts of the Moldovan Church. As nationwide democratic referenda had already been organised on self-determination, the results were announced. Apart from Transnistria in the far east, Gagauzia in the far south and a small area in the far north, which all transferred to Russia, over 80% of Moldovans had voted to join the Republic of Romania, their new region to be called the Autonomous Republic of Bessarabia. Following this decision, Orthodox in Bessarabia joined the Autonomous Bessarabian Metropolia under the Church of Romania. Patriarch Daniel accepted this and agreed to lead the formation of a Western European Orthodox Church and also a Local Church of Carpatho-Rus and Hungary.

In return, Patriarch Daniel ceded Romanian Orthodox parishes in Northern America to the NAOC, the few parishes in Latin America, and the few in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean to the two new Churches to be organised there by the Patriarchate of Antioch, and those in Oceania to the new Church to be organised there by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Bucharest, Saturday 11th and Sunday 12th June, the Great Council and Pentecost

At the new Cathedral of National Salvation in Bucharest, the largest Orthodox Cathedral in the world, all the leaders of the Local Churches held the Great Council of the whole Orthodox Church. There Patriarch Petros announced that his Patriarchal administrative centre would move to Thessaloniki, as the Church of Greece, centred in Athens, was merging with the Patriarchate after the uncanonical British-enforced separation of Greece some 200 years before. Thus, the episcopate of the old Church of Greece joined the renewed and cleansed Patriarchate of Constantinople and All Greece. The Church of Cyprus was represented by its new head, after the resignation in Nicosia of the old Archbishop of Cyprus. The Patriarch of Jerusalem announced a renewed episcopate, dominated by several Palestinian bishops and a Russian and a Romanian bishop.

In this way the Diptychs of the Church were renewed, listing 24 Local Churches in all, nine new. Thus, after the Great Council, on that great day of the Feast, the Feast of Pentecost, Sunday 12th June, all 24 Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Archbishops of the 24 Local Churches, old and new, concelebrated in the Cathedral for the first time: of Constantinople, New Rome and All Greece, of Alexandria and All Africa, of Antioch and All the East, of Jerusalem and All Palestine, of Georgia, of New Jerusalem and All Russia, of Serbia, of Romania and All Bessarabia, of Bulgaria, of Cyprus, of Albania, of Poland, of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, of Northern America, of Macedonia, of Kievska Rus, of Belarus, of the Baltics, of Central Asia, of Western Europe, of Carpatho-Rus and All Hungary, of South America, of Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, and of Oceania.

 

Delirium in the Western Bunker

The Tax Collector was saved and the Prostitute turned to chastity, but the Pharisee with his boasting was condemned. For the first cried ‘Be merciful’, and the second, ‘Have mercy on me’; but the third said, boasting, I thank Thee, O God’, and the other words of madness.’

The Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=vengeance%20for%20all%20iranian%20video&view=detail&mid=99BC269141107036CF0F99BC269141107036CF0F&ajaxhist=0

One Vengeance For All

The Zionist World Order and the Final Showdown

With the spread of US popular culture, especially through media, advertising, PR, films and music, and not only in Western Europe, in the 1960s and 1970s people began to speak of ‘Americanisation’. This word was later replaced and disguised by the words ‘Globalisation’ and ‘Globalism’. Now the undisguised truth is coming out. This attempt to control the whole world is neither of the above, it is in fact ‘Zionism’, the imposition of the Zionist World Order. This is the transnational ideology (not Jewish, most Zionists are not at all Jews and many Jews are anti-Zionist) that the whole world must be controlled and conquered by atheist supremacy over ‘The Rest’, summed up as ‘West is Best’.

Today, the ‘West is Best’ world and ideology are in turmoil. In the Western-created, armed, trained and financed contemporary Ukraine, Russia has defeated and humiliated Western Europe and demilitarised European NATO, though NATO’s delusional elite still refuses to admit it. And in the Gulf, Iran is finishing it all off, defeating and humiliating the already partially demilitarised USA, cutting off energy supplies to all US allies. Neither Russia, nor Iran wants a ceasefire which the USA is desperate for, after the unprovoked and disastrous Israeli-American attack on Iran. There are other parallels between the conflict in the Ukraine and that in West Asia, between Russia and Iran.

The End of Western Supremacy through the Ukraine and the Persian Gulf

Both Russia and Iran want not a ceasefire in their conflicts but a permanent peace, guaranteeing no more Western invasions and attacks, either directly or through proxies. Tired of repeated Western invasions over the generations, both want security for their region, with the removal of US and NATO bases in Europe and of US and Israeli bases in West Asia (just as China wants the removal of US bases in East Asia). Both wars in the Ukraine and Iran have been caused by the USA. Both Russia and Iran have nationalist-religious ideologies, one called the ‘Russian World’ and the other ‘Shia Islam’.  Both occupy a racial and civilisational space, promising heaven if you die in their name.

Thus, both desire a regional security architecture, one in Europe, the other in West Asia, since both Russia and Iran are tired of being continually attacked and invaded by the West. On the other hand, the once subservient, but now sulking and abandoned Western European vassals of the USA have turned down the ticket for the last voyage of the Titanic offered to them by Trump. They have refused to take part in the Israeli-US Zionist war against Iran, though they still want to destroy Russia. For this Trump has labelled them cowards, as he sees NATO as a worldwide offensive alliance. The Titanic fall of the USA, which we are witnessing today, comes a generation after the fall of the USSR.

The Soviet fall began in 1989 at the Berlin Wall and ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR itself. The fall of the USA began exactly a generation after 1989, in 2014, when the USA violently usurped the democratic government of the Ukraine, and the succeeding Neo-Nazi regime has brought about today’s catastrophe there in 2026. We should see the falls of the USSR and the USA, of the red star and of the white star, as the beginning and the end of one long, single fall of two materialistic empires, which are based entirely on Zionist ideologies, those of Rothschild and of Trotsky. In other words, the fall of the USSR and of the USA are two halves of the same fall.

Today’s Epsteinian fall of the US Empire comes on the 250th anniversary of its foundation. In his study The Fate of Empires, the Middle East expert Sir John Glubb (+ 1986) (https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf) describes how empires generally only survive about 250 years. Now this year, 2026, falls precisely on the 250th anniversary of the foundation of the USA. Coincidence? Perhaps. However, one of his unchallenged and significant conclusions is that all empires fall by overreach, by overextending themselves. This is just like the Roman Empire, which fell by overreach, stretching out to east, west, north and south, and had to be split into two and even four parts.

The Fall of Empires

Thus, the French Empire fell by overreach, bankrupting itself through fighting in Europe, ruinously financing the revolt of English colonists in North America, who were fighting against the German King who had been imposed in England by City of London oligarch-merchants, as he could be manipulated by them, and finally through the megalomaniac Napoleon. Similarly, having conquered Western Europe, the German (Nazi) Empire also fell by megalomaniac overreach, by invading Russia in 1941, instead of invading the oil-rich Middle East (and later repeated this error, its tanks burning on the steppes in 2023, just as its tanks burned almost in exactly the same place in Kursk in 1943).

The British Empire also fell by overreach, starting a war for no national defence reason against Germany in 1914 in Belgium, but out of the megalomaniac desire to control everything and everyone. Having learned nothing from its losses and bankruptcy after 1914 and its subjection to the USA, it deliberately started a second war against Germany in 1939 in Poland, again for no national defence reason, and soon another against Japan. The British Empire was duly humiliated twice, in its greatest military defeats in history, at Dunkirk and Singapore. Later, the Soviet Empire also fell by overreach, occupying Eastern Europe and then Afghanistan, so bankrupting and discrediting itself.

The Western European Union ‘Fourth Reich’ Empire is now also falling by overreach, centralising power and extending into the Ukraine. Thus, it militarised itself to attack Russia, just like the Third Reich, which also was not content with conquering Western Europe. In this way the Brussels-directed EU became just an arm of the Brussels-directed NATO. And today the founder of the EU, the American Empire has fallen by overreach and bankruptcy in distant Ukraine and in Iran, having learned nothing from its routs in Vietnam and Afghanistan about keeping itself to itself and not meddling in the affairs of others. As the deluded there say: ‘We are America, we can do anything’.

In all cases, we see how empires fall through the pride of the hubris of ‘we can do anything’, which is what causes overreach. Their falls are caused by megalomanic and paranoid attempts to control everything everywhere. In all cases we see how empires meet their inevitable destiny of falling, precisely on the path they took in order to avoid that destiny of falling. Like a schoolboy bully, Trump asks others if they want to help him bully others. When they refuse, he tells them in a tantrum that they are cowards and that in fact he does not need their help anyway, but that he will take Greenland just to punish them. And that will be the last nail in the nail-covered NATO coffin.

Secular and Religious Hubris

In our experience such narcissists as President Trump, who lie unconsciously, as they breathe, are full of negativity, nobody can be equal to them, others are always to blame for everything. Trump is a jealous, narcissistic psychopath. That is why he can never admit defeat, even as it stares him in the face and everyone else sees it. Similarly, there are bishops who are narcissistic psychopaths, self-preoccupied bachelor ‘monks’, but not pastors. In other words, they do not love the people, they love only themselves. And there are just such ‘Orthodox’ in the USA, who worship Trump. He is their infallible Pope. He is just like an Orthodox bishop we met, a mini-Trump and fake professor.

The latter surrounded himself with fantasist egomaniacs. He would not attract our priests, who are missionary lorry-drivers, builders and teachers, like the Apostle Paul. Practical priests, we appreciate those who buy buildings and make of them churches for the people as real fathers, and not tyrants and bullies. In that Protestantised ‘Orthodox’ group in America, hubris leads to ‘OneTrueChurchist’ sectarianism, exclusivity, the ‘only we will be saved’ ideology of the pharisees. Outside that group in America, it leads to the Zionism of the Evangelicals, the ‘only we will be saved’ ‘rapture’ ideology of the pharisees. Whatever the label, it is the same delirium in the same bunker.