What are your views on America today?

America is a sick society. It is an oligarchy. The state and her "culture" is the property of private interests, and therefore, so is her foreign policy. She is attempting to lead the development of an a-cultural world order dominated by finance and commodity capital, and, therefore, all nationalists and separatists within her borders are mercilessly hounded and regularly assaulted. The extreme left and their neo-conservative hangers-on are funded exclusively by corporate capital, and the public records of their political largesse are available at the Capital Research Center. However, the good news is that the oligarchy is currently losing a war in Iraq, is drowning in unrepayable debt, and is addicted to China’s commodity capital, providing the latter with a substantial lever of power against her imperialist tendencies. Therefore, there is no feasible way for America to recover outside of the slow dismantling of the federal system, and a return to regional and state sovereignty. America’s fall from global power means that the world will be remade into a series of regional power centers, each developing the specific potential of her region.

What are your views on Russia in World War II?

I believe that no one could win WWII. The world would be either made safe for Stalin (which is what happened), or Hitler. Neither alternative was desirable. Stalin and his creature, Mao, murdered over 20 million people in the name of “equality” and “brotherhood.” Hitler would have done the same for a different ideology.

Hitler and Himmler believed the Slavs were a slave race (with the exception of Croatia, apparently), easily expendable in creating a “Greater Germany.” Read Himmler’s “Posen Speech” for a vivid confirmation of this.

I am anti-racist, anti-leftist, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist and anti-communist. As a Serbophile, I condemn Hitler’s genocide, but also realize that his defeat empowered Stalin’s and Mao’s tyranny. Therefore, I reject WWII as the “Good War.” I am a romantic in my view of ethnicity and nationalism (somewhat akin to Mykola Drahomanov), and such ideas were violated under the ideologies of the 20th century, none of which I accept. The 20th century was the graveyard of modernity, and anyone who believes in the promises of the Enlightenment after the "century of slaughter" is a fool.

It should be kept in mind that the mass slaughter of WW I is ultimately responsible for WWII, and the elimination of the Kaiser in Germany and the Tsar in Russia are primarily responsible for the rise of pagan Fascism and atheist and western-financed Marxism in their respective countries. Remember that the Marxists had taken over Bavaria and Hungary briefly just after WWI. I maintain that royal governments in both Germany and Russia remain the only legitimate form of state for those countries. Royalism will temper the complete domination of private, leftist capital in Germany, and the oligarchy of ill-gotten wealth in Russia.

As far as the Third Reich is concerned, it was the Nazis and Italian fascists who assisted the Croat attempt to destroy Serbia (with some reservations). It was the Nazis who invaded Yugoslavia and decimated the Serbian population. It was Himmler who believed Slavs were non-Europeans (i.e. Mongols), and that the Russians were to be enslaved in the interests of a "greater Germany." It was the Nazis who created the Islamic SS in Bosnia, and consistently encouraged Albanian raids on Serbian territory. No true Slavophile can be a supporter of the Third Reich, or Nazism of any kind. I support the German monarchy and empire (i.e. the first and second reich), not the secular politicians of the occult Thule Society who formed the core of German Nazism.

Ironically, it is the US/Soros complex that is continuing the Third Reich’s policies concerning the Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, in the creation of a Greater Islamic movement in the Balkans.

What is the role of Orthodoxy in this?

Orthodoxy has always insisted on the local synod for the solving of local problems. The church is not the hierarchy, merely associations of bishops, but rather takes into account the entire body: local conditions, ethnicity and language, and local problems. All of which are the conduits of grace, not merely synods of bishops. In Slavic, this view is called sobornoprovan', and is a brilliant encapsulation of this notion of communal decentralization.

What is the fate of American Orthodoxy?

Unfortunately, America is too corrupt to properly assimilate the ascetic ideas of Christ’s church. The middle class lifestyle, based on competition, fashion, and materialism, must be rejected for the Orthodox mind to grow. For the new-calendar jurisdictions, Orthodoxy is merely another denomination, part of the "diverse fabric" of American life, and other such meaningless slogans. Therefore, I am a part of the Church in Resistance, and would like to see islands of small house chapels and sketes (both lay and monastic), with small, intimate congregations who form a single body in Christ, not merely a Sunday gathering, leading to a merely pagan existence throughout he week. We form an exclusive Community of holiness, the incarnation, in a sense, of the Holy Ghost, and are radically different, therefore, from the rest of society. We should be leading separate lives in Community, and viewing the rest of society as a unredeemed and graceless, alienated from God. Unfortunately, my friends in the Antiochean jurisdiction cannot wait to submerge Orthodoxy into the corrupt and immoral life of America, being absolutely clueless not merely about the nature of the church they claim to represent, but also of the corruption of modern life.

What is the Antiochean Western Rite?

This is a brand new quasi-liturgical movement begin by the fallen Philip Saliba of his AOC in America. The “western rite” vicariate is a fraud, as is so powerful proven here. It is a method of building WCC’s “superchurch” right within “Orthodoxy” itself. The “western rite” church among the Salibites is merely Prayerbook Anglicanism with a few icons. They use unleavened bread, openly venerate post-schism western “saints,” venerate the “sacred heart,” pray the Latin rosary, perform the “May crowning,” perform the “stations of the cross,” use organ music, and refuse to assimilate to the actual Orthodox way of life in any way. And yet, they have the gall to attack legitimate western rite parishes in the Synod of Milan as “non-Orthodox.” Nothing more arrogant can be imagined. I am a western rite priest in the Sarum tradition, not that of the BCP, which was never authorized by any Orthodox body with any competence over western liturgics. These can under no theory of Orthodox life be called “Orthodox.” They are Anglicans who no longer trust Canterbury, and seek to protect Anglicanism by bringing it under Saliba and co. These are not Orthodox parishes, they are Anglican, and are utterly and completely devoid of grace.

There are a few bad things about your founder, Archbishop +Auxentios of Athens, found throughout the web. Can you comment on this?

There are a few slanders circulating the web that need to be refuted.

The first is that he consecrated a bishop an alleged homosexual named Dorotheos Tsakos. Auxentios denied ever doing this, and that if such a thing was done, it was done without his permission. The synodal trial never produced any evidence of such a thing. It was this that led to the schism of Chrysostomos II, though many of these hierarchs publically repudiated their schism at the great archbishop’s funeral. This new synod later recanted their accusations some years after Auxentios’ death.

As far as the so called “Kallistos schism” is concerned, some of the condemnations made against Auxentios were hashed out in court, for the synod of Auxentios had the schismatics tried for slander, a case which he won, and the offending bishops came back to the bosom of the Auxentian synod.

Archbishop Auxentios is the most beloved of all the Old Calendar hierarchs of Greece. Attacks on him largely come from professional envy, a pandemic among Old Calendar hierarchs, and was something that the archbishop was forced to live with throughout his career. If some accuse him of introducing irregularities into the synodal business, this does not distinguish him from any other functioning Orthodox synod in the world today, but is only a claim that his bureaucratic capacities were below par, a weakness of no real interest to the church. It is a mere reflection of the confusion of the times, a confusion that is getting only worse. It might be noted that the blessed Archbishop demanded affidavits from all clergy seeking canonical protection from him, and this only persistent misrepresentation and perjury allowed some immoral clergy from the Greek new calendarists to infiltrate his synod.

Why is there a schism between “old” and “new” calendarists?

The calendar alteration was forced on the Greek church by the Greek government, and the very election of the deposed Patriarch of Constantinople (actually he was driven out of town by a mob in 1923, after which he resigned) Meletios Metaxakis, was fraudulent, paid for with Greek and English money. It was Metropolitan Germanos who received the majority of the votes for that election, but political pressure saw to the election of Meletios. Later, the Metropolitan stated that he was asked to take a bribe of 10,000 English pounds to forfeit the election in favor of Meletios. Like it our not, this is the origin of the calendar change and of the ecumenical movement as it pertains to the Greek church. As it happens, Meletios had been deposed by the Greek synod on December 29, 1921 for “creating a schism,” and was “elected” to his patriarchal post soon after, quite unexpectedly. He was reinstated later that year. Most of the churches in Orthodoxy, especially the church of Alexandria, condemned the new calendar as late as 1921. The Orthodox Church of Greece condemned the new calendar in 1903 and again in 1919. The church of Romania in 1903.

Metropolitan Germanos, for his part, pointed a finger at English interests both in Greece and Egypt, paying quite a bit of money to make sure that “western oriented” persons were elected to both Orthodox Sees. According to the Metropolitan, Greek nationalist politicians had visited him after the fraudulent elections and explained to him that English pressure brought this all to bear, claiming that Meletios had substantial contacts with England, and could bring in much money and political prestige to Greece, particularly after the destruction of World War I and the necessities brought to bear on the Orthodox world after the murders of the Russian royal family. The fact that the Freemasons of England at the time called Meletios a “brother” certainly did not hurt his cause.

Now, in spite of all the fraud, the calendar was just the beginning. The new calendar, the way Meletios saw it, was a stepping stone for broader ecumenical relations. Since that time, the mainline Orthodox churches have joined the World Council of Churches (WCC), who, as part of its constitution, claims that all religions have an equal share of truth, spiritually speaking. This was reaffirmed in 1992 at Barr, Switzerland, where the WCC officially proclaimed that “Christ was not necessary for salvation.” It was this outrage that led the patriarchates of Serbia, Georgia and Bulgaria to leave the WCC (though the American branches of these churches remain). Mainline Orthodox churches often commune and concelebrate with Roman Catholics and Anglicans, particularly the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Patriarch of Antioch has officially entered into communion with the Jacobite church, despite the synodal anathemas passed against the non-Chalcedonians.

These are serious canonical infractions, not to mention scandals to the Orthodox faithful. Hence, a state of schism exists, where the True Orthodox condemn these canonical violations and have protected themselves from such activity by forming independent synodal organizations, as the canons of St. Basil (among others) explicitly provide for. The mere attachment to a historical patriarch is not sufficient to claim one is “canonical,” but an actual following of the canonical regularity of the church, however, is. The mainline attacks on the True Orthodox as “non-canonical” are mere name calling, and are designed to distract attention from the own lack of respect for a true canonical order.

It remains, however, that, because of the personal ambition of many hierarchs among the True Orthodox under the synod of Auxentios in the 1980s, the movement itself has disintegrated into several squabbling groups. This situation is embarrassing, and desperately needs to be settled. Until then, however, we remain in limbo, a status, however, that does not speak to the faith or devotion of the True Orthodox movement, such as it is.

Tell us about your Education.

My M.A. was earned in the History of Political Ideas in St. Louis, at the University of Missouri, in 1994. There, my thesis was on Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. On May 15, 1999, my doctoral dissertation was sucessfully defended at the University of Nebraska, largely centering on the connection between science and revolution in Michael Oakeshott’s Experience and its Modes. Therefore, my graduate education, whether in Lincoln or St. Louis, largely centered around Hegel and Idealism. It was not long before I discovered the Slavophiles, who cut their teeth on Schelling and Hegel, and from then on, I focused on Holy Russia, Herder and Proudhon. In 2006, I have completed by seminary studies at the Monastic Seminary of the Holy Name in New Jersey under Bishop +JOHN (LoBue), where I specialized in early medieval liturgics, chant and church history, all from a Benedictine and Gregorian monastic perspective.

My conversion to Orthodoxy came, ironically, at a Uniat parish, that of St. George in the Ukrainian Uniat church, located in the Belmont district of Lincoln, NE. It was a tiny group of old folks, all of whom were survivors of both Stalin and Hitler’s camps. They were forced laborers in the GULAG and at Dachau. St. George was an extraordinary place. Ethnic tradition, unity and love united this congregation, and, despite their frequent fights, they remained a family. Though they had menial jobs, they wanted for nothing, and sacrificed to send money and material to the imprisoned Ukrainian Uniats and Orthodox in the old country. I was “adopted” by this group, and made a reader (whether I liked it or not). I then served at the altar as an acolyte. Regardless of the fact that the parish was Uniat, they were simple enough not to know or care about the distinctions, and lived and prayed in an Orthodox manner, since this is all they knew, and had no grasp whatever on “Catholic” theology or practice. Some time later, I was chrisimated by the Serbs, and then received by the Bishop of the GOC-E Synod of Milan.

Why do you, an academic, insist on publishing on the web rather than in the more conventional academic journals?

Primarily because few people read the “conventional” journals. I have several “peer-reviewed” publications, but have no intention of submitting anything else. It is not only because these journal are obscure and largely unread, but also because the peer-review process is a fraud. It is a means whereby the academic establishment can filter out any views about which they disagree. The various papers I have submitted to academic journals have led to peer-reviewers merely mouthing off over completely non-academic things. They are worried, not so much about the presentation, but about the ideas themselves. The peer-review comments I have received sound identical to the old Soviet censorship, and have more to do with ideology than scholarship.

The fact is that academic fetishize academic journals. They exist to provide academics the proverbial “line on the vitae.” In my case, I get, according to Lycos, Inc., 17,000 unique hits a month (i.e. unique IP addresses), which is more than conventional academics receive in a career. Today, when students want to find information, they go to the web. When people are searching for answers, they go to the web. The average intelligent seeker normally does not trot over to his local academic library and search the periodical stacks. It is not necessary anymore. The web provides the same information without the enforced ideological conformity, which is why there are few academics who utilize the web, and even fewer will publish their own research online.

Academics are aware that a well presented and high-brow website or web-journal will get a large number of hits and garner comments, as well as void copyright, notoriously unenforceable online. I have always wondered why academic demand their work be copyrighted, especially those whose salaries are at taxpayer expense.

In your opinion, what is the relation between Russia as a royal, imperial ideal and that of an ethnic group? Do you see a tension here?

This has been a particularly difficult question for serious Russia scholars to deal with. My interest is Russia as an ethnic entity, an ethnic entity whose culture is specifically Orthodox and communal. I have written elsewhere that the imperial idea ultimately led to a schism between the narod and the tsardom, typified by the Old Believers schism. Furthermore, it seems to me that, given our hindsight, Pugachev was right, right in that he represented (albeit in a crude way) the Russian narod, while Catherine II had little actual claim to the throne. Incidentally, I do not believe that Catherine I or Anna of Courland had any claim to the Russian throne, and hence were interlopers. Elizabeth reestablished the line, while Paul, in his turn, did the same. Given that Peter I joined a Masonic lodge in the Netherlands during his Grand Embassy, he also lost the claim to the throne.

But that’s just the issue: the imperial idea says Peter was legitimate because he was the proper next in line. We medievalists reject Peter I because he abandoned the Orthodox faith in favor of Faustian Freemasonry. Therefore, I hold the view that Russia is a tightly bound, integral Orthodox unity at its root, and its governing structures should be limited by custom and canon law. Hence, not only was Pugachev correct, but so were the Old Believers.

While I have praised Nicholas I, I also realize the weakness of his social theory, that of an abstract legitimism divorced from the narod. I realize that Nicholas I was a nationalist at heart, but the imperial trajectory caused him to place his faith in the royal house rather than in the narod that elected it to power in 1613. The royal line of Russia, whether Romanov or Rurikid (or any other future house) depends on its representation of the people, the Russian Orthodox people in Russia and abroad. Without this, the royal house becomes one-sided, representing the legitimate principle over its “parent” the Russian Orthodox tradition. Hence, I reject the specifically imperial aspect of the tsardom, and look instead to Ivan III, Basil III and Ivan IV for the true nature of the tsardom and its relation to the nation. This idea I develop in greater detail in my Lectures on Medieval Russia.