Category Archives: Constantinople

The Sins of Love of Power and Money Motivating Those Who Oppose the Missionary Work of Founding New Local Churches

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

For the peace of the whole world, the good estate of the holy Churches of God and the union of all people, let us pray to the Lord.

Foreword: Church Unity and the Anti-Autocephaly Argument.

Although they are not Roman Catholics, there are those who love and admire Papism. They are mainly Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople. They love anti-missionary centralisation, keeping all power and money in their own hands, and are opposed to granting any autocephaly. They argue that unity is strength, division is weakness. Arguing for Papism, they forget that the Popes were the toys of medieval kings, more recently of Napoleon, Hitler and of the CIA, which appointed its political Polish Pope. Moreover, they forget that masses of Christians are not Roman Catholics and never will be, for they see in it just another centralist bureaucratic organisation, as tyrannical as any State.

New Local Churches and the Sin of Centralism

Since 2022 a series of clerics in the Russian Church, under threat of being defrocked by their hierarchy for not agreeing with the war in the Ukraine, refusing to pray for Russian victory, and so compromising themselves spiritually, have left it for another Local Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The problem here is that they have, perhaps not realising it, passed from one extreme to the other. They remain spiritually compromised, for the hierarchy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has for nearly eighty years been run as a sub-department of the hideously anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox US government, with its Protestant-style LGBT and all the rest.

There is only one reason why people leave the Church – because they have lost their Faith and no longer agree with the teachings of the Church. On the other hand, people can leave a part of the Church which is infected by nationalist politics because people belong to another nationality, have another language and live in a different State, which the nationalistic part does not accept. In this case, people are obliged to move to another part of the Church, which accepts them as they are, with their nationality, customs, language and government. They have not left the Church at all and, if anything, their movement is missionary, as they are in fact spreading Orthodox Christianity.

If a large number of people find themselves in this situation and are not accepted by their Mother Church because of their nationality, language or situation in another State, and have no other part of the Church to go to, then it is the duty of the Mother Church to establish a new Local Church for them. If it does not do so, then those in the Mother Church behave as a stepmother and commit the sin of centralism, which is simply the sin of love of power and money, which they cling on to. Administrative separation is not lack of unity, division of Faith or change of dogmas. The Faith remains the same. Let us explain this through some examples from ancient and modern history.

Three Examples of Centralism

Rome was the first to fall into the sin of centralism through its Germanic Popes in the eleventh century. They refused to establish or even recognise independent, ‘autocephalous’ Local Churches in different nations. They even imposed their Latin language, which few understood outside their clerical caste of scholars and bishops, ‘the princes of the Church’. This was anti-missionary. The Popes also launched bloody wars of persecution, Crusades and Inquisitions against dissidents and declared that those who massacred them would go straight to heaven. These acts of aggression created dissidents, logically called Protestants, who rejected the Popes and their Latin language.

Just like Rome, the Imperial Capital of Constantinople also fell into the sin of centralism. At first, Non-Greeks in Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria and Armenia left it. Then came the departure of Rome, which was also accompanied by Greek ethnic xenophobia. Understanding that it would lose all Non-Greeks, the Greeks later allowed other peoples to have their own Local Churches. Thus, the Serbian, Russian, Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian and Albanian Churches appeared. However, recently, it has threatened to take back their Church independence, called ‘autocephaly’, granted centuries ago, and to become ‘first without equals’. This is pure Papism, racist centralisation.

Just like Rome, Moscow also fell into the sin of centralism, a consequence of its centralising State. As a result, there appeared protesting Russian sects: Judaisers, Old Ritualists and then Dukhobors, Stundists, Baptists. Over thirty-five years after the dissolution of the Russian Empire in 1917, the Moscow Patriarchate was finally forced to grant Church independence to Orthodox in Poland, Czechoslovakia and then to those North America, and grant partial independence to Orthodox in Japan and China. Today, over thirty-five years after the dissolution of the Soviet Empire in 1991, Orthodox in the Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltics also want their independence in the same way.

Autocephaly, Not Nationalism

However, those in the Ukraine who want Church independence, ‘autocephaly’, are termed by those contaminated by nationalist hatred as ‘uncanonical’ or even ‘schismatic’. Ironically, those who call pious Orthodox such names are generally Soviet nationalists who wave the Soviet flag and appear to worship Stalin. However, support for autocephaly, granted as a result of the decentralisation of former centralised empires, whether those of Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, does not mean that we approve of the other extreme, of hateful nationalism and racist xenophobia. Patriotism unites and creates sympathy with other peoples, but nationalism always divides in hatred.

Local Churches need autocephaly in order to speak in the local language of their peoples, to respect their customs and for them to adapt to local political conditions. Thus, even Greeks and Greek Cypriots have their own separate  Churches – this is because they need to deal with their local ‘ceasars’ on different territories, having political independence, always strictly following the words of Christ: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. This is not nationalism, because nationalism puts the nation above Christ. That is as in the German anthem: ‘Deutschland ueber alles’ – Germany above everything – including above Christ and man.

All nationalists follow the same German example and as xenophobic racists put their nation above Christ. And yet He made us all, whatever our language and nationality. Our wish to see the autocephaly of Churches in countries which are politically independent from the country of the Mother Church is based on the example of the Local Churches, to Whom the Apostle Paul addressed his individual letters almost 2,000 years ago. There is nothing new then in such an ‘ecclesiology’, the incarnational theology of the Church. The persecution of those who work for future Local Churches and abuse them is proof that we are expressing a Gospel truth, which this world detests and rejects.

The Struggle for Autocephaly and the Catholicity of the Church

We have recently seen the example of the newly-founded Macedonian Orthodox Church, whose autocephaly was finally granted to it by its Serbian Mother-Church after decades of waiting, accusations and strife. The granting of Church independence, ‘autocephaly’, the founding of new Churches by Mother-Churches, is not a question of dogma. This is why the centralists’ accusations like ‘uncanonical’ and ‘schismatic’ applied to those who work as missionaries towards founding new Local Churches are absurd and vain. They go against the Catholicity of the Church, the third sign of the Church, which states that the Church is One, no matter where it is or what language it uses.

Similarly absurd and vain is the persecution of us who have always worked specifically for a new Local Church of Western Europe, which we have been proposing in concrete terms since 1988, though we have been opposed by centralising and racist Greeks and Russians. Both extremists on the fringes of the Church, these centralisers who refuse to establish new Local Churches because they are greedy to cling onto power and money, and also the sectarian schismatics, who want to maintain their power over their tiny ghetto-churches and condemn all other nationalities, have opposed us. We may not live to see it, but our children and grandchildren may live to see a Local Church.

Obtaining autocephaly has always been a struggle. Recently the Macedonian Church received autocephaly, but only after nearly sixty years, actually less than the length of struggle of the Bulgarian Church for autocephaly, which was especially bitter. As for the ancient Georgian Church, it had its autocephaly uncanonically suppressed for nearly 200 years by the Russian Church, itself then suppressed by Imperial and then Soviet control. Conversely, we do not hold with racist and politically-motivated Ukrainians who do not know the words of ‘Our Father’ and throw out icons of Russian saints from churches because they are Russian. That is just Nazi racism, the other extreme.

Afterword

Many think that today’s Russian Church leadership is just as subservient to the Russian State as the State-appointed hierarchies of the Protestant Churches, the Churches of England, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc, are towards their States. That was indeed the case of the Russian Church before the Revolution under the Protestant ‘Spiritual Regulation’ of Peter I. Under the Soviet regime, it was far worse, for bishops faced death for disobedience to the State. It seems that today’s Russian bishops are so psychologically traumatised by that period that they voluntarily do what they imagine the State wants. The State does not want such subservience, it is, amazingly, self-imposed.

 

A Call to Repentance: On Overcoming the Imperialism that is Alien and Divisive to the Church

Foreword: Superiority versus Humility

Ever since Cain and Abel the world has been divided into strong and weak, between those who consider that Might is Right and those who believe in justice and righteousness. The real revolution in world history here was the coming of Christ and His giving of the Beatitudes, which turned Cain’s law of the jungle upside down. However, for a thousand years now, the elite of one Civilisation, the Western, has proclaimed its superiority over all others and implemented its belief through multiple acts of violence, both locally and globally. This obsession with superiority is clearly in contradiction with the Christian Gospel of love for our neighbour and humility, despite their claims.

Introduction: Fukuyama versus Huntingdon

After the economic and then political collapse of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991, two schools of US geopolitical thought emerged. Firstly, there was Francis Fukuyama, who proclaimed that the Soviet collapse was ‘the end of history’ – the Triumph of the West, since the whole world would now apparently adopt the ‘superior’ Western ways, ‘the West is Best’ and ‘the Rest’ would have to slavishly follow. On the other hand, the conservative academic Samuel Huntingdon pessimistically declared that now there would be a ‘Clash of Civilisations’ and that the West would have to reinvigorate its decadent self in the new world, if it were to survive.

Fukuyama’s thesis was clearly wrong, but was Huntingdon’s civilisational clash inevitable? Clearly, it was unnecessary, but sadly, and credit is due to the prophetic Huntingdon here, clashes caused by the hubristic and therefore unreinvigorated West are what have happened. At present, there is a first armed clash between the West and Russia in the Ukraine and a second armed clash between the West and Iran. And apart from that, there are tensions between the West and China in Taiwan, between the West and Latin America in Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, and between the West and Africa, especially in former French colonies like Mali and Niger.

Two Local Orthodox Churches Contaminated by Geopolitics

It is as a result of this geopolitical background that the life of the sixteen Local Orthodox Churches has also been contaminated and overshadowed by the aggressive conflict between two of them, which are now in schism with one another. This conflict is the result of extremist clerical tendencies and the vain, but divisive attempts to try and dominate the other fourteen Churches on the part of both de facto schismatic groups. The two warring Local Churches at the heart of this problem are the Russian Patriarchate of Moscow and the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople. What are possible solutions for their future healing? Surely this schism cannot last much longer?

First of all, we must understand that the problems in both Local Churches are symptomatic of the wider problems in both their secular societies, which sadly have been reflected in their Church life. Both sets of problems were caused specifically by the former Russian and Greek Empires and their spirit of Imperialism which tried to dominate other races and which made the words, ‘Soviet’ and ‘Hellenism’, into dirty words among Non-Russians and Non-Greeks. Thus, the problems of Russian society are largely caused by Soviet imperialism, though that problem originated in the 200-year Imperial enslavement of the Church, even before Sovietisation under Stalin.

Similarly, the problems of Greek society, in Constantinople, Greece, corrupt Greek Cyprus and in the Greek Diaspora, are the result of intensive American Imperialism. Thus, all Greek Patriarchs since 1948 and all Greek politicians since the 1950s, and not only the Fascist Colonels of the 1960s, have been puppets of the US Deep State. This is also true of NATO Greek Cyprus, 40% of whose land was invaded by NATO Turkey, without the US lifting a finger to protect it. (Some say that the UK is at fault here; indeed, it was originally at fault, but now its two military bases in Cyprus are slavishly operated only for the US to bomb Israel’s Middle Eastern enemies).

The Patriarchate of Moscow desperately needs destalinisation, of which it is the last museum, that is, it needs liberating from its Russian nationalist centralisation, with its catastrophic failure to grant autocephaly to Non-Russian Churches. This has made Moscow detested in the Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics and in the Diaspora. Moscow’s militaristic (Stalinist?) and anti-lay clericalism, ritualism, episcopal taxes and bureaucracy are detested. Only by ridding itself of these Non-Christian attitudes can the Russian Orthodox Church be restored, as it was before it was made into a mere department of State, both of the Imperial State and then of the Soviet State.

As part of official delegations to the Russian Church in 2007 and then in 2012, I was shocked to see the potential degeneration in just five years then. In 2007 all was still possible. After the fall of the USSR, freedom had come and the faithful enthusiastically took up building and rebuilding churches, learning to sing. This was the People’s Church. By 2012, all had been put under central control and censorship, professionalised and clericalised. The old enthusiasm was going. People gave up trying: they could not fight against Church officialdom, who made them cry. Archpastors had been replaced by Archpoliticians. This was no longer the Church of the People.

The very term ‘Patriarchate of Moscow’ is a Soviet, or rather Stalinist, term. Therefore it has negative connotations among all Non-Russian peoples, in the Ukraine, the Baltics, Moldova and among lifelong Orthodox faithful in the Diaspora, who experience Moscow as a Persecuting Church. Let it be replaced as the ‘Patriarchate of New Jerusalem’, its headquarters transferring to the New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow. All parts of the Russian Church, including its Lutheran-style New York Synod, should return to canonical communion with all the Local Churches, to the catholicity of the Church, as an equal, thus overcoming nationalist domination, schism and the sect.

In the same way, the Patriarchate of Constantinople desperately needs deamericanising, that is, it needs liberating from its absurd hegemonic Papist ambitions, ecumenist secularism and indifference to the Church Tradition of the Holy Spirit. These have been reflected in it and imposed on it by its love for transatlantic dollars. Let Constantinople at last be reunited with the Greek Orthodox Church and transfer its administration to Greek Thessaloniki, near the benign influence of Mt Athos, returning to canonical communion with all the Local Churches, to the catholicity of the Church, as an equal, thus overcoming nationalist domination, schism and sectarianism.

Conclusion: Towards the New BRICS World

The New World of BRICS is all about building a worldwide Community of Nations, everything that the United Nations, with its inbuilt bias of three out of five nations on the Security Council being Western warmakers, never has been and never can be. This is also what the sixteen Local Orthodox Churches should also be – a Community. However, when Constantinople invaded Russian territory and Moscow cut off communion with it in 2018, that was hardly Communion. That the two Patriarchs refuse to take Communion together is their affair, but why involve all the bishops, let alone ordinary Greek and Russian pious priests and pious faithful, who have been scandalised?

All this is against the background of the collapsing US hegemon. The latter has refused to recognise the reality of its downfall, incompetence and inability to win any war, against the peasants of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, let alone against the advanced military technologies of Russia and Iran. Once it was ‘The West is Best against the Rest’. But today the Rest is grouping as BRICS, with ten full members and six partner countries, many who want to join, and three central members, the RIC: Russia, Iran and China – no longer India, which fell to Zionism and has now put itself on the fringes of BRICS, leaving Iran as the new moral leader of the Global South.

Afterword: A World Without the American and Soviet Empires

In other words, the Greek Orthodox world, just like the present Kiev puppet regime and its proxy soldiers, is losing America and American support. But equally today’s Russia is no longer Stalinist, despite the nostalgia of the elderly, including many bishops, as it is just one of many in BRICS. In other words, both the Soviet and the American imperialist mentalities belong to the past, and although not dead, they are dying. Ecclesiastical administrations, whether in Moscow or Constantinople, are to heed the fools for Christ, whose prophetic role is to call to repentance the rich and powerful, including rich, powerful bishops, who sinfully imagine that they are ‘princes of the Church’.

Unless you want your souls to die, let repentance begin!

 

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.

 

 

Half a Century in the Orthodox Church in Western Europe (1)

Introduction: Nothing New Under the Sun

Apart from one year in Greece and several months in the Soviet Union, and then in Russia and the Ukraine, with brief visits to Orthodox in Moldova, Romania, Belarus, Czechia, Slovakia, Finland, Serbia and Bulgaria, I have spent 51 years as an Orthodox Christian in Western Europe, 41 of them as an Orthodox clergyman in Western Europe, in France, Portugal and England, but with liturgical celebrations in Belgium, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. My conclusions?

First of all, there is nothing new under the sun. This is because human nature does not change. Anyone who reads the Acts of the Apostles or the writings of the Church Fathers from the first centuries knows that all the difficulties and scandals of today have already occurred in the past. Of 80,000 Orthodox priests, I have perhaps met perhaps 1,000 and of the 1,000 Orthodox bishops, I have met about 100. I have never seen anything new compared to the past.

Seven Local Churches exist in the Western European Diaspora today: the Romanian, the Greek (Constantinople), the Russian (divided into three parts, one of which refuses to be in communion with another, so is in fact in schism, as well as the 100 new but independent parishes of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church), the Serbian, and then the three very small groups under the Churches of Antioch, Bulgaria and Georgia. Only the three first big Churches carry any weight in terms of the Diaspora Church as a whole.

The Three Big Churches in 1976

Fifty years ago, there were two Russian bishops in this country. As they were both Russian, they were, naturally, at daggers drawn and out of communion with one another. One was an anthroposophist (look it up), a great eccentric who believed in Atlantis. The other one was a notorious womaniser. A few English people were allowed to join the two Russian groups, usually provided that they learned some Russian. This was because both groups were rapidly dying out (1917, after which most of the still living but elderly Russians had come here, was nearly sixty years before 1976). Priests, very few of them lived outside London and they were also elderly, spent much of their time doing funerals.

Fifty years ago, the Patriarchate of Constantinople in this country was dominated by Greek Cypriots, whose lives were largely devoted to Hellenism. Most had arrived here between 1950 and 1974. A homosexual archbishop preferred to ordain his boyfriends and one of his vicar-bishops was a pedophile, who at that time got away with it. Of course, there was at least one bishop who was excellent and many very virtuous priests and pious people. However, the opening to non-Greeks was all but non-existent. From the archbishop down, English people were told to go away, at best being told to join the Church of England or else to learn Greek, ‘if you want to become a Greek’, at worst being told to ‘go away’ by one Cypriot priest, only in the most vulgar way possible in the English language.

Fifty years ago, the Romanian Church was more or less inexistent, as the whole country was controlled by the Romanian Secret Police.

The Three Big Churches in 2026

Today, the Russians remain in small groups here, small because they have all failed to pass on the Faith to locally-born children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so on. No Russian group has learned how to cope with assimilation. Today, the larger (still small) group is 100% attached to the Russian Federation, politically and in all other ways, and is much compromised by scandals. The smaller group, dominated by American Trumpians, just encourages the crazies and so spawns old calendarists, just as the Russian Church inside Russia once spawned old ritualists, and is much compromised by appalling scandals. Another even smaller group just hangs on. All three groups are dying out – for all have survived largely because of immigration from Moldova. By far the saddest thing about the Russian Church is that it did not learn from history and so it has condemned itself to repeat the same mistakes as before the Revolution. Today, inside the ex-Soviet Union, the Russian Church strangely resembles the pre-Revolutionary Russian Church, with the same politicisation, the same militarisation, the same empty ritualism, the same inhuman rigidity, the same pharisaic and blind repetition that only they are ‘canonical’, the same blind obedience to the hierarchy and the State, regardless of Christ and His teaching.

Today, the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople in this country, although still dominated by Greek Cypriots whose lives are largely devoted to Hellenism, has a very dynamic archbishop, whose English is better than his Greek, and who is desperately trying to save his archdiocese from self-extinction despite his elderly flock. As he said to us a few months ago, he has one hundred priests who are so old that they are likely to die within the next five years and three candidates to replace them. For forty years the previous administration ignored all the warnings that this would happen. The saddest thing about the Greek Church is that they did not learn from the suicide of the Russian Church, so they are condemned to repeat the same suicide and also die out.

The Romanian Patriarchate is today by far the largest Church as a result of the immigration of four to five million Romanians and Moldovans here over the last 20 years. Overall, our two Autonomous Romanian Orthodox Metropolias in Western Europe have 10 bishops, 1,283 churches and 30 monasteries, which makes them by far the largest Local Church in Western Europe. We are about four times larger than the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople in Western Europe, five times larger than the Russian Church in Western Europe (most of which is composed of Romanian-speaking Moldovans) and incomparably larger than the tiny ROCOR and Antiochian dioceses, both with less than 100, mainly tiny (between 10 and 50 people), communities.

Conclusion: The Challenge for the Romanian Church

Between 1917 and 1962 by far the largest Diaspora Church in Western Europe, albeit divided into three warring groups, was the Russian Church. Between 1962 and 2007 by far the largest was the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But they both lost their dominating positions and indeed the respect of others, the Russians through their isolationist totalitarian politics, which excludes Non-Russians, and their lack of communion with others, the Greeks through their sheer racism. Today some 85% of Orthodox here are Romanian or Moldovan. Can the Romanians, now by far the biggest group, keep their position and the respect of others?

The Romanian Church has many devout clergy and people. It has the Carpathian spirit of solidarity. We are together in the Romanian Church, this is the People’s Church, with a sense of community, family and friendship. The Romanian language is a Latin language, written in the Latin alphabet. There is neither the politics, nor the military-style rigidity of the Russians, nor the racism of the Greeks. Moreover, and most importantly, the Romanian Church alone is in communion with everyone, in schism with no-one. However, the Romanian Church still faces two great challenges.

The first weakness of the Romanian Church, at least in Romania, is the temptation of money. Any Romanian layperson will tell you of a bad experience in Romania with a member of the clergy who demanded money from them. This is why some Romanians have become Protestants. I have not seen this temptation in the Romanian Diaspora, but we cannot be complacent. The second weakness of the Romanian Church is the potential lack of openness to others, in other words, the weakness of nationalism. To found a new Local Church in the Diaspora means to be open to others, to warring Greeks and Russians in particular, to be able to co-operate with others in a common language, accepting different languages, calendars and customs, and not imposing one’s own. Is this possible? Will it too fail to learn from history and repeat the errors of the Russians, repeated by the Greeks? We await the inevitable verdict of the history of the future.

 

 

Keeping to the Golden Mean: Avoiding both New Calendarism and Old Calendarism

Last week the Greek Patriarch once again compromised himself with the Pope of Rome, this time in Muslim Turkey. Many have been shocked by his ecumenism. It seems strange, since this Greek Patriarch has been doing such things for decades. And he is not the first Greek Patriarch to do such things. Many fail to understand that he has once again compromised only himself, not the Church. The Church is not some member of the clergy, a mere individual, whatever his title. Our salvation comes only through Divine Mercy following our repentance for our own sins, not through trying to save someone else. Only Christ saves.

Just because one of the Twelve was called Judas Iscariot, we do not reject the Eleven. Christ did not do so. Just because one of the apples in the basket is bad, we do not throw away all the others. To do so is puritanism, phariseeism, the heresy of the Donatists. As I remarked to a parishioner, at the Dread Last Judgement we shall have to answer for our own sins, not for the personal sins of someone else’s Patriarch. And even if he were our Patriarch, his personal sins would engage only himself, not us.

Here is the error of those who are scandalised by the deeds of such a Patriarch and join the old calendarists. Through not wishing to be in theoretical communion with such a Patriarch, they then put themselves out of actual communion with the whole Church! The old calendarists are not Orthodox, as they claim to be, since they are not in communion with the Orthodox Church, but only with a tiny sect, made up mostly of neophytes who are not rooted and grounded in the Faith.

Once again, the old calendarist group in question consists of members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlTaXUfyL6U&ntb=1&msockid=c33b6ec0ce1e11f0b05ac565ade6baa5).

That small group which has been spawning and feeding multiple old calendarist groups ever since 1986. In 2007 the campaign, in which we played an active part, to reunite ROCOR, especially in the USA, with the Mother-Church in Moscow, so that it would never again entertain the temptation of falling away from the Orthodox mainstream, seemed to be successful. All went well for the first ten years after 2007 until about 2017. Then sectarian elements in the USA, basically Russian old calendarists, took over ROCOR.

Then ROCOR soon began to fall out of communion from the rest of the Church, most notably in December 2021 under pressure from a former old calendarist priest, from another part of the Russian Orthodox Church! To quote the Book of Proverbs and the Second Epistle of the Apostle Peter, the dog returned to its vomit. When this became known, six parishes, twelve clergy and some 5,000 people, well over half of the ROCOR Diocese in England, warned the governing body of ROCOR in New York. However, that body, the American Synod, backed the schism. Thus we left the newly schismatic ROCOR, so that we would be able to remain in communion with the mainstream, the Church of God.

The only confusing matter here is that the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow itself did not take any action against the uncanonical and schismatic actions of ROCOR. For ROCOR, by the Act of Canonical Communion signed by ROCOR in 2007 (I was present), was supposed to be in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. This was why in 2006 my friend, Fr Alexander Lebedev, had visited the tiny old calendarist groups in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania to make it clear to them that no part of ROCOR was any longer in communion with them (our Western European part of ROCOR had never been in communion with them anyway).

It has been suggested that the inconsistent policy of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow in this matter was connected with political affairs connected with the Ukraine. Once the military operations in the Ukraine have been concluded, we can only hope that Moscow will discipline ROCOR and bring it to obey the canons. However, much of ROCOR will refuse to do this and break away from the Church into full-blown old calendarist schism.

 

How Will the Greco-Russian Church Civil War End?

All wars end in peace. Sometimes peace comes through compromises and ceasefires (the Korean War), sometimes through the total victory of one side and the unconditional surrender of the other (the Vietnam War). The present Civil War between Constantinople and Moscow, the rivalry between the ‘Second Rome’ and the ‘Third Rome’ for control of the Church, began long ago. This rivalry is purely political, as no part of the Church controls the whole. The Church consists of diverse parts and has never been controlled by one local part.

True, the First Rome, in what is now called Italy and which inherited from the pagan Roman Empire the obsessive desire to dominate all others, tried to control all. This only ended up in the self-justifying filioque heresy, which claimed that the Pope of Rome, and not Christ, is the Head of the Church and he has total control of the Holy Spirit. This heresy came to be called Roman Catholicism. Originally it affected only a small and backward part of Christendom, mainly newly-converted, post-Roman peoples and Germanic and Celtic tribes.

The First Rome, with its militarily conquered subject peoples, from Sicily to England, finally separated itself from the Church in the eleventh century. The First Rome was already notorious for carrying out bloody wars, conquests, persecutions, indulgences, tortures and inquisitions in its attempts to impose itself. Later, however, in the sixteenth century, it itself split into many parts, with most of the Germanic peoples revolting against its Latin Yoke. The Latin Roman Catholics became far more numerous only through the crimes of the Western colonisation of Latin America, Black Africa and parts of Asia like the Philippines much later.

It was this same will to dominate that had already tormented the Second Rome and in part led to the fifth-century nationalistic splits from it of Nestorians and Miaphysites, the latter group existing to this day in Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Armenia and parts of Syria. As for the Third Rome, its will to dominate resulted in the disastrous, seventeenth-century ‘Old Ritualist’ schism, created by the enforcement of new rituals by the Russian State. As a result, the Russian word for schism (‘raskol’) came to have the purely political connotations of treason to the State.

Both those in the Second and the Third Rome who want to dominate the rest of the Church today have been much influenced by the millennial example of the First Rome, which they often visit. The temptations to obtain more power and more wealth are very great among some. This will for centralisation, whether of the First, Second or Third Romes, is purely secular. What is the Church perspective? The Church view is made clear from the New Testament. This is of independent Local Churches in different places, which share the same Faith.

Thus, at that time none of the seven Local Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Colossae, Philippi, Galatia, Thessaloniki and Rome ever tried to dominate any other or even tried to impose something on another. This continues to be the overall situation in the (Orthodox) Church, where 16 Local Churches, now not covering cities, but countries or peoples, continue to exist. They are tied together by the same Faith; the current separation of a few of the sixteen is only because of political rivalry. This unity of Faith, in all places and at all times, is known as ‘Catholicity’.

Catholicity is quite different from ‘Catholicism’. The latter, by definition an ‘ism’ or ideology, denotes the attempt by one to dominate all others. Once Constantinople and Moscow are depoliticised and they rid themselves of their Imperialist pretensions (= the will to dominate and impose), that is, once they have been ‘dePapalised’, then Catholicity will return through the gathering of all at an inclusive, politically free Church Council, which will be free to set its own agenda. For Church Councils are where Catholicity, the Unity of the Faith in Diversity, is expressed.

In concrete terms, this means that Constantinople must give up its claims to traditional Russian Church territory (Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, the Ukraine etc) and that in turn Moscow must give up its claim to traditional Greek Church territory (Africa). In order to avoid humiliation for both, the clear way forward is to grant these territories Autocephaly, tcreating new and neutral Autocephalous Churches. Only then can serious discussions begin on joint Autocephaly being granted to areas where mixed Orthodox have lived in numbers for generations.

This means new Autocephalous Churches in Western Europe, Northern America (95% English-speaking), Latin America and the Caribbean, and Oceania. These Churches can only be formed by all the Autocephalous Churches which have populations there, not simply the Greek and Russian, whose populations in those Continents are often only a small minority. In Western Europe, the majority belongs to the Romanian Church, in Northern America and Oceania perhaps to Constantinople, in Latin America and the Caribbean probably to Antioch.

 

The People’s Orthodoxy, Church Freedom and the End of the War

So-called ‘Western Civilisation’ is composed of a fatal mixture of Roman paganism and Germanic barbarism. Thus, Western Europe gradually renounced its heritage from the first millennium, real Christianity, and became subject to pagan and barbarian practices. That mixture began to claim supremacy over the rest of the world, now known as ‘Globalism’. To support this claim, the Western world used its form of Christianity to justify itself, and so justified the devil through its reductionist and secularist forms of ‘Christianity’, ‘the white god’.

This ‘Western Civilisation’ began to collapse after the fall of the Western European empires in the First and Second World Wars. These had in fact both begun as purely European Wars, which Western Europe had spread worldwide, but used the USA to rescue it from its two attempted suicides. As a result of their Wars, the European elites failed to keep their empires. Therefore, ever since the Second War they have used and manipulated the Western European-founded USA to maintain at least the remnants of their power and prestige.

No Western European empire was more manipulative than the most successful Western Empire, the British, which used the English language and culture to gaslight the USA. This is the meaning of NATO, whose purpose was, in the words of its first (British) Secretary General, ‘to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down’. This was in the interests of the American people or in the interests of the peoples of Europe, but it was in the interests of the Euro-American elites, their high finance and military-industrial complex.

The reductionist and secularist forms of Christianity of the Western world differ from real Christianity, which is the Faith of the Orthodox Church. However, there are those ‘Orthodox representatives’ who also use our real Christianity to imitate that of the West, that is, the blend of pagan Roman paganism and Germanic barbarism. They suffer from a ‘Rome syndrome’, which is why such ‘representatives’ continually send their envoys to ingratiate themselves with the Pope of Rome. There is too much Rome and lust for riches and power.

Wherever there are Empires, real Orthodox Christianity has been abused. Most clearly this was the case with the First Rome in the West, but this has also been clear in the case of its imitators, in the Second Rome, Constantinople, and in the Third Rome, Moscow. Outside those two Imperial centres, Constantinople and Moscow, in the provinces, as in the fourteen other Local Orthodox Churches, we follow the People’s Orthodox Christian Faith, not a tightly-controlled, top-down, clericalist and ritualist, nationalised and centralised, State Religion.

Today, Greek leaders have dared to follow the oligarchic, Capitalist interests of the Americans and their vassals. On the other hand, Russian leaders have dared to continue with the Soviet-style, centralised interests of Russian nationalism. In both cases the interests are at root ideological, and tell those who are not of their nationality to ‘go away’, but other Local Churches welcome those who are told to go away. Chauvinism is not why the Lord granted any people the Orthodox Christian Faith. It was given to welcome people, not to dismiss them.

The following of Imperial, nationalist-political, ideological interests comes from a lack of repentance. And when there is no repentance, then enemies come. Thus, the Greeks had to fight the Persians, the Turks, the French, the British and the Americans. As for the Russians, they had to fight against attacks led by the Mongol-Tartars, the Poles, the Swedes, the French, the British, the Germans and today the Americans. As Russia is huge, each attack was combined, composed of several nationalities, as in the Ukraine, where they face the whole West.

Enemies are like the passions. They only attack us when there is no repentance, that is, no defence. This can be seen most clearly in that tragic situation today in the Ukraine. Both peoples are supposedly Orthodox Christian, but they are not, otherwise they would not be fighting. Every attack and every enemy is in fact a call to repentance. As long as there is no repentance, there can be no peace. This is why wars drag on, when they could end very quickly. Such is the case in the Ukraine, even now with a million killed and many more wounded.

The restoration of Orthodox Christianity throughout the Orthodox Church, and so outside Her in missionary work, will come only when Orthodox Christian leaders return to the People’s Orthodoxy and abandon Imperial, nationalist-political, interests. Those secular interests are wholly responsible for the present schism between Russians and Greeks. We confess the Faith, not some rigid, militaristic, and politically-inspired, centralised religion, designed to intimidate priests and imitate States. We refuse your Caesar and, instead, we follow our Christ.

 

 

Questions and Answers July 2025

The True Faith. The state of the various Orthodox jurisdictions in England today and fifty years ago. The moment when the Russian Church turned its back on Europe. The Oxford and London Russian parishes fifty years ago. Tsar Nicholas in England. The coming end of the war in the Ukraine. The consequent fall of the European elite and of its ideology versus Orthodoxy.

Q: What for you is the True Faith?

A: In my late childhood and early teenage years, I came to three conclusions about what must be the True Faith:

Firstly, the True Faith must be about Christ, as only Christ is God and man, combining East and West, North and South. The True Faith must therefore represent the spiritual reality of Him and not State manipulations of Religion and the Bible, based on nationalism, racism, imperialism, colonialism and all cultures of apostasy, like the White Supremacy Western world.

Secondly, the True Faith must be historical and not some recent invention, neither of the nineteenth century, nor of the sixteenth century, nor even of the eleventh century, for it must go back a thousand years before, to the Scriptures, to the Word of God Himself.

Thirdly, the True Faith must be universal, as is Christ. In other words, the True Faith must be for all races who seek it, accessible to all, that is, to all who are repentant and so seek Christ, and so is not some esoteric or obscurantist religion for one nationality, or for the select few or elite.

Q: Why did you not become members of the Antiochian Diocese when you left ROCOR in 2021, unlike the three Western riters who were purged by ROCOR and went to Antioch?

A: The short answer is that none of us twelve clergy, or any of our thousands of people, had ever been Anglicans, let alone Anglican vicars. You have to understand the Antiochian Diocese exists in this country for them. We have all always been Orthodox and have never known any other religion, so something for ex-Anglicans, however worthy and sincere they may be, has no interest for us. It is irrelevant to us.

Also, Antioch is not European, as we are, and cannot members of one of the four Arab families who operate it. The Church of Antioch here is tiny, consisting perhaps of only a thousand people, mainly ex-Anglicans or ex-Protestants, especially rather puritanical conservative evangelicals. (This puritanism is rather ironic given the behaviour of the former Antiochian Archbishop in the USA and also drives away normal Orthodox, who, like Arab Orthodox, are not puritans).

Another problem of Antioch being so small is that it is desperate to recruit clergy and people, with one recent disaster when they accepted a reject from the mainstream Churches, based in his front room in Liverpool, and another disaster, some years ago, in Belfast. I believe in the latter case that vicar-priest ended up in prison for fraud. Other Non-ex-Anglican clergy under Antioch eventually transfer back to the Local Churches they come from. They cannot take the Anglican mentality, however hard they try to deny their origins.

The long answer is that our first act after we learned, directly, (it was actually boasted of by the culprit!) of the ROCOR schism in April 2021 was to warn the ROCOR Synod of what was going on. As soon as we realised that the whole Synod in New York had been perverted into the new ROCOR, not leaving a shred of tradition and the old ROCOR, and misinformed, our second act was to report to Moscow. When they replied that, although they perfectly understood the insanity of the situation, for purely political reasons they could not receive us, our third act was to join the Paris Archdiocese under Moscow. This had largely been cleansed of liberal French intellectuals and we have many friends and family there.

After Paris was told by Moscow, which could not make up its mind at first, that it would not be allowed to keep us, as the Moscow aim was not to expand Paris but to close it down, our fourth act was to look at our other options. Although three different jurisdictions wanted us, the obvious and only correct option, which we adopted very quickly, was to go with our old friends in the Church of Romania. (Romania had been the original choice of the Paris Jurisdiction when they had quit Constantinople there years before, but occult forces had rejected that choice and it had joined Moscow. So we made the choice for them). The Romanian Church had been suggesting to us for years in case ROCOR turned schismatic and it was supported by Moscow for purely political reasons, we could transfer to them.

So we joined the Romanian Church with the tacit blessing of Moscow, and any other refugees who want to leave the schismatic ROCOR for the Romanian Church have been invited to do so too. We have simply paved the way for the others, who will follow us. The strangest thing about this was that there appeared a lie on the internet that the Romanian Church had not received us! There were actually people who believed this, though not in Moscow. But the lie only discredited him who invented it and those who believed it. Today the culprit for the lie is isolated, shunned and shamed as a liar.

Q: So Moscow is abandoning ROCOR behind their backs? Why did you not opt for the Russian or Greek Churches?

A: As I said, Moscow was not allowed to receive us for political reasons, even though it knew that ROCOR was engaged in its insane schism. As Moscow was not politically free (a very serious fault), it had to go along with the ROCOR schism. This was a turning point and next year, in 2026, all will see the significance of this. Later, Moscow was punished for this lack of principle and has since had to tolerate the recent horrible Russophobic attacks on the Moscow Patriarchate by both ROCOR bishops in Germany.

This is what happens when you compromise yourself with the positions of enemies of Church teaching, even if only once. It is a downward spiral, as you have to accept everything else they do later on. Moscow already regrets it, indeed it is the great loser in all of this, but that was its choice. It was clearly told what was going on, but Metr Antony Sevryuk suicidally rejected the warning and told us to join the Romanian Church. Thus, the Russian Church turned its back on Europe – I don’t think that even now he realises the scale and significance of his error. In one act he had handed over Western Europe, including the local Russians, to Romanian Orthodox jurisdiction.

As a result, the Moscow Diocese in this country is now programmed to become a small embassy ghetto, a dependency, with just its church in London and the small church in Oxford surviving, exactly as it was fifty years ago, the rest has literally been left to die out. Since the British Establishment, like the other Establishments in Europe, has blacklisted Moscow, Moscow has no hope of expansion or incarnation into Western society. Therefore, Moscow is for the time being closed down in Western Europe. There is no future for the Russian Church here. It has had to close its window on Europe, given European political hostility to it, and is looking towards Asia and Africa. It will take a generation for Moscow to turn back to Europe, if ever it does. 2022 will go down in Western European Church history as the moment when the Russian Church lost it.

As for the Greek Archdiocese, it has recently been renewed, as it was dying out. It now has several younger bishops, including one excellent one (if only he could be the next Patriarch!), still has excellent infrastructure and several big parishes in London and some outstanding priests, but it has huge problems. It is profoundly ethnically and politically Greek, compromised by its CIA Patriarch, and, like Antioch and the Moscow Church here, most of its priests are elderly and dying out.

As Archbishop Nikitas told us recently, he has 100 elderly priests to replace in the next ten years and only 3 candidates. It is now not possible to get lots of poorly-educated young archimandrites from Greece, like they did in the 60s and 70s. That source has dried up. Moreover, only one church, the newly-frescoed Thyateira chapel, actually belongs to the Greek Archdiocese. The others are all privately owned by Greek and Cypriot businessmen and restauranteurs, who do as they want.

Q: What then is the future of ROCOR?

A: In rejecting the mission of the Diaspora Church to gather all Orthodox together through its schism and racism towards Greeks, Romanians, Moldovans and rooted English Orthodox in particular, it refused to concelebrate with the mainstream and cut itself off from communion. It has instead concentrated on attracting extremists, the naïve, the vulnerable and the pathologically ill. This is the path of the sect and the cult. And that is what it has become.

Q: Did you know Fr Mark Meyrick and Metr Kallistos Ware?

A: Of course. I first met the then Fr Kallistos in September 1974. He was an old-style, upper middle-class High Church Anglican, with an incisive public school-trained intellect. I loved his lectures and learned a lot from him. But above all, he was a very kind and sincere man. I remember him and pray for him with gratitude, although I was on a quite different wavelength from him.

I first met Fr Mark in July 1976. The problem with Fr Mark, who came from a long line of Anglican vicars, is that he had chosen to live among Anglicans, cut off from the Orthodox mainstream. As a result, he had a tiny community in a Norfolk village, isolated from Orthodoxy. He mainly seemed to be interested in converting young Anglican men and encouraging them to grow extremely long beards! As I had no interest in either Anglicanism or long beards, that was not for me.

Fr Mark (later Archimandrite David), transferred from ROCOR to Moscow, I think, in 1981. This was because of the attempted Americanisation and sectarian fanaticisation of ROCOR, which began at that time and which ended in 2021 with the triumph of American convert ROCOR in Europe and its abolition as part of the mainstream. It is now an American crazy convert colony and has no future. Crazy convert Orthodoxy does not export, as it is culturally alien to Europeans.

Q: Are Orthodox bishops worse today than fifty years ago?

A: Absolutely not. Fifty years ago, I knew three of them. One was a homosexual bureaucrat who ordained his boyfriends. One of those he ordained became an alcoholic, another gave up the priesthood within two weeks. A second bishop was a lady’s man who spent time with his main mistress in a cottage on the south coast, or so I was told. I knew her. A third was an anthroposophist. So we decided to return to Paris, to people who knew the Tradition. Today’s crop of homosexuals and sociopathic narcissists created by being spoiled as children are no better, but also no worse.

Q: What do you remember of the University of Oxford in the 1970s and the Russian chapel, then inside the house in Canterbury Road in Oxford?

A: In those days (and I am told that it has not changed very much since then), there were three ways of getting into the University of Oxford as an undergraduate. In order of importance, these were: aristocratic privilege, wealth, and academic achievement. I was therefore automatically and distinctly third class from the outset. The first two types were there to complete their Norman education, so they could enter the Norman (British) Establishment.

Moreover, those aristocratic or wealthy types who had nearly always attended public schools were shockingly, to me an innocent aged 18, often suffered from Norman homosexuality, like William Rufus. Oxford was riddled with it. Another reason to keep well away. In any case, I was not there to enter the Norman Establishment, though many who had not been to public schools allowed it to happen to them, as they were venal careerists. I was there for exactly the opposite reason, to understand how to de-Normanise. By Divine Providence I studied in the Alfredian College, by tradition (even if not in reality), the only pre-Norman College in Oxford. All was right.

I attended the Russian chapel in Canterbury Road in October 1972 and again in February 1973, when I was sixteen, just before the modernistic, octagonal chapel was built in the garden. The old chapel inside the House is now the library, based on Rev Derwas Chitty’s books and magazines, which I helped put in there. That old chapel was charming.

On the other hand, the rather effete University chapel later built in the garden of 1, Canterbury Road was definitely not for the ordinary people of Oxford. The Serbs, who were ordinary people, kept well away, as did most of the Greeks. The few by then elderly Russian academics who were still alive went when they could to one or other of the two Russian churches in London.

Apart from the majority of normal people who went there, there were also wealthy Anglo-Catholic homosexuals, or else those who mistakenly thought that Church Tradition means the same as right-wing political conservatism.

Q: What was the London Russian Church in Ennismore Gardens like at the time fifty years ago in the mid-seventies? And the ROCOR Church?

A: The London Patriarchal church had been taken over by upper middle-class people from wealthy west London, owners of Cotswold cottages, villas in Tuscany or on Greek islands. These were intellectuals, Liberal Democrats, BBC directors, well-to-do academics, lawyers, journalists etc, so rich that they had the leisure time to be enthralled by ‘spirituality’, Orthodox or Buddhist, as spiritual tourists. In 2006 they left en masse for Constantinople, as their hero, Metr Antony Bloom, had died. He was the reason for them joining, so once he had gone, in 2004, it was all over. Their cliquish snobbery continues. Only five years ago I overheard one of these now elderly people saying about a very pious and simple Romanian man, who dared (once) to frequent his clubby (rented) church: ‘I hope he does not come back, but at least he has a degree’. Is that Christianity?

Fifty years ago the Emperor’s Gate ROCOR Church had twice as many people as the Bloomite church, but it was an old people’s home. Apart from two or three Anglican homosexuals, the average age of the parishioners, who were very nice, must have been about 80. The writing was on the wall. It was an ethnic club that had no future, as they had failed to pass on the Faith to their descendants.

Q: Is there anywhere you would go on to a pilgrimage to the Royal Martyrs in England?

A: There are two places: Osborne House on the Isle of Wight and Sandringham in Norfolk. Of the two I much prefer Sandringham, which is connected with the Tsar. He is still present there and he dreamed of becoming a Norfolk gentleman-farmer, if ever he had to leave Russia. Things will happen here.

For your interest, here is a full list of the five visits of the Tsar to England, with places and dates:

In 1873 the future Tsar first visited Queen Victoria as a five-year old child. He arrived on the Imperial Yacht at Woolwich on 16 June, stayed at Marlborough House on the Mall, visited Chiswick House on 28 June and on 28 July left for Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, staying at Albert Cottage. On 8 August he went to Cowes Regatta, leaving England on 13 August, having spent nearly two months in England.

He visited London at the end of June 1893, having been met at Charing Cross Station, and staying at Marlborough House again. He went to Windsor on 1 July, visited Hurlingham on 4 July and Buckingham Palace on 5 July, attending the wedding of the future King George V on 6 July. He left the next day, having spent just over a week in England.

He arrived on 20 June 1894 to meet the future Tsarina. He arrived at Gravesend in Kent and travelled to Walton-on-Thames via Waterloo Station. He also visited Frogmore, Bagshot, Sandringham, Kings Lynn, London, Eton, Slough, Farnborough, Aldershot and Richmond-on-Thames. On 19 July he left for Portsmouth to cross to Osborne House and Albert Cottage, visiting Newport. He left on 23 July, after over a month in England.

1896 was his first visit as Tsar, with the Tsarina and the Grand Duchess Olga. They arrived at Leith on 22 September and went to Balmoral by train via Ballater. Here he visited Braemar Castle. He then travelled by train via Preston and Oxford, taking the Imperial Yacht at Portsmouth on 3 October.

On Monday 2 August 1909 the Tsar and his family visited Cowes on the Isle of Wight for the Regatta. He stayed at Osborne House, visiting Barton Manor and leaving on 5 August, having given £1,000 to be distributed among the island’s poor.

Q: When will the war in the Ukraine end?

A: This US proxy war against Russia (as Marco Rubio has openly described it) is a war of attrition. First, the Russians ground down first the first Ukrainian Army, then the second Ukrainian Army with old Soviet equipment from Eastern Europe, and now it is finishing off the third Ukrainian Army, with its NATO equipment. Wars of attrition, like the American Civil War and the First and Second World Wars, can go on for years, but they always end very suddenly, as the Second War ended suddenly in Berlin.

We are now reaching that point in the Ukraine, as the Americans are getting rid of their actor-puppet Zelensky. He has got too big for his boots and is too corrupt, resists the puppet-master and has refused peace, which is want Trump wants. The end will come suddenly and, I think, fairly soon. This is why Trump gave him (not Putin) 50 days so Zelensky could be finished off. Either he will get out on a CIA plane or else he will finish with a bullet in his head. When will Kiev collapse? The German-led, Pan-European invasion of the USSR in the Second World War lasted three years and eleven months. So maybe the end to this war will come within the same time span. At present it has lasted three years and five months.

The only danger is that NATO may invade Russia, as it has threatened, then that will be full war. That is possible, if the crazies in NATO have their way. If so, they will be crushed, as NATO has already been demilitarised by Russia. Russia has defeated all the Western Coalitions that invaded it, that of Napoleon, that in the Crimea, that of Hitler, and now this American-led NATO one.

Q: What will happen to Western Europe, once it has been defeated in the Ukraine?

A: The consequences of the defeat of the Western puppet government in Kiev, created and used as a proxy battering ram against Russia, and so the defeat of the whole of NATO, will be tremendous. The West will never get its money back. Worse still, it will never get its prestige back. The West has gone, replaced by the multipolar BRICS world. This will feed through and the old governing elites in Europe will have to be replaced.

This is because all empires decline in depravity and perversion (from Roman emperors to the debauched King Edward VII and now the Mossad-Epstein orgies) or buffoonery (the leaders of Western Europe and Kiev today, if they are not also pedophiles and cocaine addicts). Decadence comes at the end and with it a total lack of sense of reality, as buffoons live in virtual reality, fantasy, just as Hitler did at the end. We can see this clearly in the last 35 years of US leaders, from Clinton-Lewinsky to Obama, ending with the demented Biden and the world’s greatest narcissist, the result of a materially spoilt childhood, Trump.

Q: Do you think that Europe could return to Orthodoxy?

A: Europe, no, but a small portion of Europeans, yes. In the Romanian Church we are preparing for this literally, as you will see next year. We already have ten bishops in the twenty-one countries of Western Europe and a flock of nearly five million. One of those bishops is French, all speak at least one Western European language, if not two or three.

Moreover, our bishops also have a conscience of the importance of the veneration of the local saints of Western Europe. This is unique. I remember the fierce and insulting opposition of the ROCOR bishops to their veneration until 2017, when they finally realised that the tide was too strong for them to swim against any longer and then they stopped persecuting me on that score at least.

It is clear that we are moving towards a post-American Europe, the post-1945 part of the history of Western Europe is over. The American invasion and occupation will soon end. Its old puppet governments, in the UK, Germany, France and elsewhere, will fall. And Eurasia, Russian, India, China, India and Iran, north, south, east and west, the centres of the Heartland, are now co-operating in BRICS. Thus, the Western world, which was formed in the eleventh century has after a thousand years made itself spiritually irrelevant.

Q: Are the media censored in the UK?

A: Yes. The name of the official censor is Ofcom, but censorship relies above all on editorial control. Here news editors are appointed to carry out the censorship duties imposed by the State/Establishment and journalists who are completely mercenary, ‘presstitutes’ as they say. The BBC is a classic case of such censorship, of deliberate non-reporting, deliberate misreporting, and diversion (reporting irrelevant local stories of no interest instead of reporting the actual news).

 

 

 

 

125 Years of Putting Off the Inevitable

Introduction: What If?

The First World War was triggered by great imperial rivalries, above all those between Britain and Germany, and financed by the big banks, centred in London and New York, and encouraged by greedy arms merchants. They were helped by French and Austro-Hungarian revanchism and the feelings of the oppressed small peoples, the Serbian, Irish, Polish, Finnish, Czech, Slovak, Slovene, Croat etc. The unjust outcome at Versailles in 1919 made the Second World War inevitable. And its injustices in turn made inevitable the collapse of the USSR, the wars in Yugoslavia and now in the Ukraine. Yet, peace could have been arrived at, perhaps in the Tsar’s Hague in 1900, without the needless bloodshed of tens of millions. For the unviable Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires would have collapsed anyway and the other colonial empires, British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, German and Belgian, could have dissolved peacefully.

Towards Today’s World

Imperial Russia could have decentralised then, as it did in any case between 1917 and 1991. The world would then inevitably and peacefully have seen what we see today: an economically German-dominated Western Europe, a Russian-dominated North Asia (Eurasia), a Chinese-dominated East Asia, an Indian-dominated South Asia, an Arab-dominated West Asia (‘the Middle East’), and a US-dominated Northern America. In the Global South, Latin America, Africa and Oceania would all have gone their own ways, free of colonial tyranny and ruthless imperialist exploitation. Only because the banks and the arms dealers did not want it, did it not happen then. Just as today in the Ukraine, so then there plenty who did not want peace. However, none of this ‘what if’, suppositional, counterfactual history addresses the real situation today in 2025. How could the problems of the present be resolved, despite the huge errors of the past?

If there is to be peace in Europe, there can be no more Western support for the Fascist regime in Kiev, neither military, nor financial (nor for the Fascist regimes in the Baltics, Scandinavia, Germany, France and the UK). The ‘Ukrainians’ must be freed of the regime that has been massively killing its own men as proxies to die for the USA. Then the Russian Federation would be able to create a new, smaller, but historically-based, and not Soviet-fantasy Ukraine, with the nine provinces of Crimea and the south and east returning to Russia, the four and a half south-western provinces returning to Poland (two and a half provinces), Hungary (one province) and Romania (one province), and the remaining half of the old Soviet Ukraine becoming historic Kievan Rus. That could be its new name with a new flag, as the name ‘Ukraine’ and its flag, Austrian inventions of the century before last, are absurd.

If it created peace, the bankrupt USA could withdraw its forces from all over Europe and close its bases there, and the anachronism of NATO could at last disappear, saving the USA trillions of dollars. It should have disappeared on 25 February 1991, when the Warsaw Pact disappeared. Similarly, if there is to be peace in West Asia, there can be no more US (and UK) support for the Fascist regime in Israel (even if that means that those compromised by the Mossad Epstein, are outed). Israeli Zionism has largely bankrupted the US through the futile wars of the US and its defeats in those wars. Finally, Taiwan would at last be free to return to China, and so Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia could save hundreds of billions of dollars in needless offence (‘defence’) spending. And the USA could withdraw its troops and close its bases there too, saving it hundreds of billions of wasted dollars.

The Russian Church

If there is to be peace in the Church, a new Patriarch would have to be elected in Moscow. This would be he who would restore communion with the Patriarchate Constantinople, except with the invaders under it on Russian canonical territory, and begin talks with the Patriarchate of Alexandria about its jurisdiction in Africa. Then the ball would be in Constantinople’s court to elect a new and at last politically free Patriarch. The full Council of Bishops in Moscow could grant autocephaly to the twelve and a half provinces of Kievan Rus, also allowing the Kievan Church to control its Diaspora. Then it could grant autocephaly to Moldova, in concert with the Romanian Church, in exchange for the return of North Bukovina to Romania, retiring the four discredited Moscow bishops in Moldova, refrocking all those defrocked for political reasons and allowing the Moldovan Church to control its Diaspora.

Autocephaly could also be granted to the Belarusian Church, the Baltic Orthodox Church (covering Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland) and to the Hungarian Orthodox Church, which would be based on the 600+ parishes of the old Transcarpathia, the province transferred back to Hungary from the Soviet Ukraine. The already Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America (OCA) could at last rename itself OCNA (Orthodox Church of Northern America), in return receiving into itself the forty or so parishes in Northern America at present under Moscow, on condition that Bishop Alexander Belja head the new ‘Kievan and Russian Diocese’ of the OCNA. Moscow should dissolve the anachronistic and largely schismatic Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), with its Russian parishes in the USA and Canada joining the OCNA in two dioceses, of east and west. Those who refused would go off to sects, as usual.

The remaining ROCOR parishes, in Western Europe and Australia, and its few small communities still left in Latin America and the Caribbean, could be handed over to Moscow, as part of three newly Autonomous Metropolias, namely those of Western Europe, Latin America, and Oceania. Internally, Moscow’s Soviet-founded, ecumenist Department of External Relations could be transformed into the Department for Inter-Orthodox Friendship. Bishop-bureaucrats should either become diocesan bishops or else be ‘retired’. There would be no place for ecumenists and ‘cardinal-metropolitans’ in the truly post-Soviet Russian Orthodox Church, which should drop the Soviet title of ‘Moscow Patriarchate’ for the ‘Patriarchate of New Jerusalem.’ Finally, discredited bishops should be ‘retired’ and all priests and deacons absurdly defrocked for political reasons since 2022 should be refrocked and restored.

Conclusion: In the Church

As by far the largest Local Church, eight times bigger than the second largest, a de-Sovietised Russian Church has a special responsibility to the other at present fifteen Local Orthodox Churches, not least to a de-CIA-ised Constantinople. Only such actions as the above could help gather together all the other Local Churches in an Inter-Orthodox Council. Here there would be one overriding topic of discussion: the uncanonical Orthodox Diaspora situation, the inevitable resolution to which has been put off for over a century only by politics. The paralysis of the Church from the Soviet age, when Constantinople was used as a Cold War pawn against Russia, and today’s paralysis from the Second Cold War, also launched by the USA, must end. And the Soviet centralisation of the Russian Church must end. There is hope for the future, but only in a Church at last free of both Soviet and CIA mentalities and interference.

4/17 July 2025, The Imperial Martyrs