Translate

Thursday, 17 September 2026

Vincent Bruno, the return of Carol and questioning the viability of Orthodox Christianity in the UK

 https://t.co/y0Byl20Mes

 https://neoludendorff.blogspot.com/2026/09/what-is-neo-ludendorff-discipline.html

8:00  I am not making magical claims. 

My claim is that it would be logical to infer a Creator if there was a Creation. 

33:00  How can Ludendorff be better than organised religion?

34:00  https://clairekhaw.substack.com/p/immanuel-kant-belief-in-a-personal?r=8t05d

https://clairekhaw.substack.com/p/khavian-koranism-merges-with-khavian

38:00  Raymond Cattell

39:00  Noahide laws

The Fourth Political Theory by Aledsandr Dugin

40:00  Beyondism promotes diversity.

42:00  quran.com/49/13

43:00  Vincent neither denies nor confirms the existence of God.

44:00  Self-sabotaging

45:00  Creation story

46:00  A superior and simple narrative

47:00  Choosing  a rational course of action

48:00  Noahide laws

49:00  The kind of Jews Vincent talks to are ignorant Islamophobes

Chabadniks are idolaters.

50:00  No rabbis won't talk to Vincent. 

52:00  Irrational

53:00  Non-Spaceo Temporal

54:00  The inventor is always prior to his invention. 

55:00  What was God doing before Creation?

56:00  CAROL joins.

57:00  Neo-Buddhism

58:00  Ethics - no murder and theft

59:00  The social group

1:00:00  Cheating in a test

1:04:00  Mythos

1:06:00  Poisoned water filter

1:09:00  Rationing or cannibalism

1:10:00  Moral inspiration to be part of the group

1:14:00  Socalism and Communism

1:15:00  Land of Milk and Honey

1:16:00  Genetic diversity

1:19:00  Religions are neo-tribes eg Jews.

1:20:00  Noahide laws

1:21:00  Animal cruelty 

1:25:00  One Grand Experiment

Inter-racial marriage

1:26:00  State rights, communes and libertarians

1:27:00  Melting Pot

1:30:00  Beyondist intentional communities

1:34:00  Vincent's aggression

1:35:00  The founding of America

1:36:00  Buddhism

1:37:00  Aarvoll

1:39:00  Noahide laws

1:40:00  Difference between Beyondism and Libertarianism

1:42:00  Neo-Platonic Dictatorship

1:44:00  The Balkanisation of America

1:46:00  States rights v federal supremacy

1:47:00  Aarvoll

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_the_Land

1:48:00  Secession

1:49:00  Definition of virtuous

1:50:00  Secular Koranism

1:51:00  The Woke Brigade

Education and military

1:53:00  Corruption

1:54:00  Self-sabotage

1:55:00  Americans checking out and going on the dole

1:56:00  Rejecting the Abrahamic God

1:57:00  Sexual immorality and murder/abortion

1:58:00  Family

1:59:00  Privileging married parents over non-parents

2:00:00  The effeminacy of Western men

2:01:00  States rights v federal supremacy

2:02:00  How does it sound in theory?

2:03:00  SK USA

Education and Sharing Day

2:05:00  Denialism

2:06:00  Hypocrites Muslims and non-Muslim

2:09:00  Moral imperative

2:10:00  The Islamic nature of the Declaration of Independence

2:12:00  27 Amendments

2:13:00  Hierarchy

2:15:00  Rockefeller

One-party state

2:16:00  Jefferson and Hamilton

2:17:00  18th Amendments

13th Amendment

2:18:00   SK with state characteristics

2:19:00  Dumbing down of America

2:20:00  One nation under God trusting in God

Are Americans a moral and religious people?

2:21:00  Good is what God commands, evil what He forbids.

2:23:00  Moral hierarchy

2:24:00  Ruling class

2:25:00  School board

2:26:00  Councillors

DEI is an unofficial religion.

2:29:00  Judicial review

2:30:00  NATTY joins.

2:33:00  Back in the closet

Paedophiles

2:36:00  Murder

2:37:00  Monarchy

2:38:00  Muslims

Zionists

2:39:00  People who agree with us

2:40:00  The Dissident Right

2:41:00  Islamophobes

2:43:00  Christian Perennialism

2:46:00  Christian Nationalism

2:49:00  Christian Perennialism

2:50:00  High level talks amongst  the Apostolic Church

AI Overview        

The Apostolic Church is a major global Apostolic Church movement that traces its modern origins to the Welsh Revival of 1904–1905 and was formally organized in the early 20th century Apostolic Church (1916 denomination).

Core Beliefs and Practices
Pentecostal Doctrine: Emphasizes baptism in the Holy Spirit, divine healing, and the operation of spiritual gifts.

Church Government: Led by a hierarchy that includes modern-day offices of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers.

Foundational Faith: Holds a Trinitarian view of God and practices full-immersion water baptism.

3:03:00  God

3:05:00  The Trinity

3:06:00  Spacetime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime 

Who do Americans vote for at local level?

Americans vote for specific candidates rather than political parties in local elections, selecting officials who manage core community services like **police, fire departments, transportation, housing, libraries, public schools, and drinking water**.

**Key local positions elected include**:

*   **Mayors and city council members**, who oversee municipal governance and budgets.

*   **County and sheriff officials**, who handle local law enforcement and judicial administration.

*   **School board members**, who determine educational policy, though these elections often see the lowest turnout (5–10%).

*   **Special district officials**, who manage specific areas such as transit, water, or fire districts.

Participation is highly skewed, with turnout typically ranging from **15% to 30%** of eligible voters in municipal races, and often lower in "off-cycle" elections held separately from national contests. Consequently, the electorate is disproportionately **older, wealthier, and white**, with voters aged 65 and older being up to 56 times more likely to vote than those aged 18–34 in some jurisdictions.

3:13:00  Pantheism

3:24:00  Post or pre-incarnation

Natty @ladies4pdis an ex-Men's Rights Activist and Orthodox Christian who maintains the West is not gynocentric and stresses that women respond to men's own behavior and leadership. She regularly challenges red pill ideas such as exaggerated hypergamy and evolutionary psychology tropes about female resentment or nature, instead highlighting assortative mating and the value women add through beauty, essence, and relational support. Her posts blend gender relations with Christian perspectives, often calling for men to embrace responsibility amid societal urgency.

"Most women engage in assortative mating. Hypergamy has been greatly exaggerated. Grow up." -@ladies4pd

What was her reason for converting to Orthodox Christianity?

She found Orthodoxy in 2021 (after involvement in men’s rights activism and then nationalism/Brexit), with her family baptized around 2023–early 2024.

In a detailed March 2026 post explaining her background, @ladies4pd (Natty / Mary Natty Hamlin) stated:

“I started in men’s rights → moved through nationalism (Brexit) → found Orthodoxy ☦️ in 2021. My whole family baptised in 2023.
...
We’re at the end of a civilisational cycle. ... This isn’t just political it’s metaphysical. Our assumptions about reality are breaking down.
I believe Orthodoxy ☦️ offers the most coherent map of reality especially its understanding of the Triune God which speaks directly to the fragmentation modernity has produced in us.
...
In short: I’m trying to step outside modern ideological frames entirely, every ideology has some degree of truth and I just try to accept what they are and extract them out. I look toward something wiser, more rooted, and (I believe) more true. Beauty first.”

She views Orthodoxy as providing a holistic, non-ideological framework that addresses modernity’s fragmentation of the person and society. This includes its Trinitarian theology, anthropology of Adam and Eve (emphasizing healing of the will and relational personhood rather than domination or egalitarianism-as-interchangeability), theosis, and a transformed “Christ-like” (sacrificial) form of patriarchy/order. She rejects both left- and right-wing modern assumptions as largely theatrical, seeing Orthodoxy as a more rooted alternative focused on beauty, tradition, free will/consent (e.g., via the Theotokos), and rightly ordering human nature rather than engineering it away (as in technocracy/transhumanism).

Her writings and posts consistently frame the conversion as a move beyond the limitations she experienced in the MRA/manosphere and broader modern political frames toward what she sees as Orthodoxy’s coherent, healing vision of reality.

What views has she expressed about Jews?

She has primarily expressed theological and political critiques of religious Zionism and certain political influences, while explicitly rejecting hostility toward Jewish people as such.

In a detailed August 2026 post outlining Orthodox positions, she stated that Orthodox Christianity “is not simply ‘against Jews and Muslims’” and does not have a single binding political stance of “anti-Zionism.” The core issue she identifies with (religious) Zionism is theological: when the modern Jewish people or State of Israel is treated as retaining the Old Testament covenantal status of biblical Israel apart from Christ. She cites Galatians 3 and Romans 9–11, arguing that the promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and His Church, into which both Jews and Gentiles are incorporated. Orthodoxy, in her view, cannot accept Christian Zionism’s claim of a separate divine covenant for the modern state or a religious obligation for Christians to support its territorial claims.

She is careful to add: “This does not mean that Orthodox Christians must oppose Israel’s existence as a civil state, nor does it justify hostility toward Jewish people.” She also notes that the Orthodox position does not fit neatly into modern pro-Israel vs. pro-Palestine categories, and she references Palestinian Orthodox Christians as an indigenous community in the Holy Land.

Politically, she has criticized “Zionist foreign policy,” “American Zionist Christian Nationalist sponsors,” “Zionist protestant alliance,” and influences she associates with figures or funding linked to Zionism (e.g., in critiques of certain right-wing parties, technocratic projects, or figures like James Lindsay). She has described the monarchy (in a UK context) as quietly against Zionism and argued that Christian perennialism cannot coexist with a Zionist Protestant alliance.

In one post she referenced historical claims (e.g., about Hitler and Zionism via Ken Livingstone) and, in another, used the phrase “Who killed Jesus Christ?! … The Pharisees!!!” in a broader critique of left/right politics and power, framed in Christian theological terms rather than ethnic ones.

She has also affirmed the Orthodox teaching against racism, quoting Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) and stating that one can prioritize one’s own people without believing in a racial hierarchy.

Overall, her expressed views focus on rejecting Christian Zionism and certain political/ideological alliances she sees as problematic from an Orthodox Christian perspective, while distinguishing this from ethnic or personal hostility toward Jews. She does not appear to promote conspiracy theories about Jewish people as a group or call for discrimination against them.

What views has she expressed about Muslims?

She has expressed primarily theological critiques of Islam from an Orthodox Christian perspective, while rejecting narratives that frame Islam as the main threat to the West.

In a detailed August 2026 post, she wrote that Orthodox Christianity “is not simply ‘against Jews and Muslims.’” However, Orthodox theology is in serious tension with Islam for theological reasons distinct from those applying to Zionism. Specifically:

  • Islam reveres Jesus (Isa) but denies core Christian claims: that He is the eternal Son and Word of God, truly divine and truly human, crucified and risen.
  • Islam explicitly rejects the Trinity.
  • From an Orthodox standpoint, Islam therefore cannot be regarded simply as another compatible expression of Abrahamic monotheism.
  • Orthodoxy rejects the idea that Muhammad’s revelation corrects or supersedes the Gospel. Christ is the fulfilment of God’s revelation, and all nations are called into His Kingdom.

She has also described Muslims historically as having started out as heretics who were trying to worship the God of Abraham but went off course, noting that “Islam only exists because of Christianity.”

On broader cultural and political issues, she has stated that she does not view Islam as the primary threat. In her March 2026 background summary she wrote: “I don’t think Islam is the primary threat. Immigration is a symptom. The deeper issue is a civilisational and spiritual vacuum.” She has similarly argued that England’s identity problems stem more from pluralism, neoliberalism, and corporatism than from Muslim immigration alone, and that even without it there would still be low birth rates and community breakdown.

She has repeatedly pushed back against claims that King Charles is promoting an “Islamic takeover” or is himself Muslim. She attributes his multi-faith stance to perennialism (drawing on thinkers such as Guénon, Nasr, and Lings), in which different religions are seen as distinct expressions of one eternal truth. In that framework, she has said Islam is treated not as a rival but as a tradition that has preserved elements of sacred order the modern West has lost. She has described herself as a “semi perennialist,” adding that “whatever good Islam has it’s operating [within] Christianity.”

Occasional other comments include noting similarities in online gender dynamics or hypocrisy between some Muslim spaces and redpill/fundamentalist Christian ones (e.g., scapegoating women), and observing that many Islamic immigrants complain about their children becoming liberal.

In summary, her expressed views centre on Orthodox theological incompatibility with Islam’s rejection of the Trinity, Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, combined with a rejection of alarmist “Islamisation” narratives in favour of diagnosing a deeper Western spiritual and civilisational decline. She does not promote ethnic hostility toward Muslims as a group.

Has she ever explained why she chose Orthodox Christianity rather than another denomination?

Yes, though not in one single comprehensive conversion narrative comparing every denomination side-by-side. She has repeatedly explained what drew her to Orthodoxy and how it differs from (and, in her view, improves upon) other Christian traditions, especially certain forms of Protestantism.

Main positive reasons for Orthodoxy

In her clearest personal background post (March 2026), she described finding Orthodoxy in 2021 after men’s rights activism and nationalism (Brexit). She said it “offers the most coherent map of reality especially its understanding of the Triune God which speaks directly to the fragmentation modernity has produced in us.” She presents it as a way to step outside modern left/right ideological frames toward something “wiser, more rooted, and (I believe) more true,” with an emphasis on “Beauty first.”

Contrasts with Protestantism

She frequently distinguishes Orthodox teaching from Protestant (particularly fundamentalist, complementarian, or “biblical patriarchy”) positions:

  • On gender and authority: She states that ideas such as women remaining silent, strict “obey” language in marriage, or pre-Fall male ruling authority over women are Protestant fundamentalist readings, not Orthodox. Orthodoxy, in her account, sees domination as a post-Fall distortion and emphasises communion, mutual self-emptying love, and the healing of the will (especially Adam’s).
  • She has written detailed comparisons showing Orthodoxy’s differences from groups such as the Plymouth Brethren on authority (Apostolic Tradition vs. sola scriptura), ecclesiology (visible sacramental Church vs. invisible fellowship), sacraments (transformative vs. symbolic), and salvation (theosis/healing vs. primarily legal justification).

She often criticises “Orthobros” or converts who import Protestant-style reactionary or legalistic views into Orthodoxy.

Relationship to Roman Catholicism

She is more irenic toward Catholicism. She has noted framing differences (e.g., “Roman Catholic lens v Orthodox”) while affirming agreement on core points such as the importance of life-giving. She has said Catholicism has “some error according to ☦️,” but she respects the tradition, has described Catholics as siblings, supports potential reunification if done without dominance, and mentioned that her own priest is a former Roman Catholic monk who still appreciates certain aspects of the magisterium. She has also clarified “I’m not Catholic” when people assume otherwise.

Summary

Her explanations centre on Orthodoxy’s holistic, Trinitarian, sacramental, and anthropological vision (especially regarding personhood, gender, the Theotokos, and theosis) as better addressing modernity’s fragmentation than the alternatives she encountered. She highlights its continuity with the early Church and its resistance to both modern egalitarian assumptions and certain Western/Protestant legalistic or hierarchical readings, while remaining relatively open toward Catholicism compared with Protestant fundamentalism. These points appear across many posts rather than in one dedicated “why Orthodoxy over everything else” statement.

How does she the future of Christianity in Europe?

She sees Christianity in Europe (especially Britain and the broader West) as facing a deep civilisational and spiritual crisis, but believes recovery of the sacred is possible through tradition, Orthodoxy, and a monarchical/hierarchical orientation rather than modern political alternatives.

Key elements of her view include:

  • End of a civilisational cycle and spiritual vacuum: She has stated that “We’re at the end of a civilisational cycle” and that “this isn’t just political it’s metaphysical. Our assumptions about reality are breaking down.” Modernity has privatised faith, fragmented tradition, and flattened the understanding of reality, creating a “civilisational and spiritual vacuum.” Immigration and other symptoms are secondary to this deeper loss.
  • Recovery of the sacred via the monarchy and tradition: She frequently defends King Charles’s interest in Orthodoxy (including Mount Athos), sacred tradition, iconography, and perennialism as an attempt “to recover the sacred in a Britain that has largely forgotten it.” She does not fully agree with his perennialism but prefers it to technocratic or purely secular paths. In her framing, the Crown can act as a unifying symbolic authority holding different traditions in a hierarchical sacred order, rather than dissolving Christianity into relativism or allowing a demographic/religious takeover. She contrasts this with billionaires (e.g., Musk-style “buying Britain”) who treat the nation as an asset to remake. “Britain needs a Crown, not a CEO.”
  • Role of Orthodoxy: She presents Orthodoxy as offering “the most coherent map of reality,” particularly through its Trinitarian theology and holistic anthropology, as a remedy for modernity’s fragmentation. She supports Orthodoxy taking root in the West (including Western Rite) but warns that American-style “Orthobro” or reactionary gender frameworks (gynocentrism theory, status anxiety, etc.) distort it and hinder genuine growth, especially among women. Authentic Orthodoxy, centred on the Theotokos and communion rather than resentment or fallen hierarchy, is what she believes can be fruitful.
  • Rejection of certain alternatives: She is critical of both progressive/egalitarian trends in churches like the Church of England and reactionary “Christian Nationalist” or Puritan-influenced movements (often American-influenced), which she sees as sharing problematic modern roots. She favours progress “through tradition, not against it,” a Christ-like (sacrificial) order, and a return to embodied, beautiful, hierarchical sacred life over technocracy, transhumanism, or ideological nationalism.

In short, she views the current trajectory as one of decline into a post-Christian spiritual vacuum driven by modernity, but holds out hope for renewal through a recovery of the sacred—centred on Orthodox insights, tradition, and the monarchy as a stabilising, transcendent symbol—rather than left-wing secularism, right-wing reaction, or technocratic control. Her focus is more on Britain than continental Europe specifically, though she frames it as a broader Western issue.

How are her relations with Orthodox Christians in America?

Her relations with Orthodox Christians in America are mixed and often strained, especially with the online “Orthobro” convert scene.

She is a UK-based Antiochian Orthodox Christian who engages with American Orthodoxy and supports its growth in the West. She has noted higher rates of religious practice/engagement in the USA compared with much of Europe and uses analogies (such as The Karate Kid) to illustrate how Westerners can receive the Eastern tradition without needing to become culturally Greek or Russian. She also interacts with American Orthodox content and figures when it aligns with what she sees as authentic teaching.

However, she is frequently critical of large parts of the American online Orthodox convert culture, particularly those she labels “Orthobros.” Key points of friction include:

  • Importing reactionary frameworks: She argues that certain online influencers and some clergy in American Orthodoxy (especially the USA) are bringing in internet-derived gender ideas—gynocentrism theory, emphasis on female “disorder” or submission, preservation of fallen male hierarchy, and status anxiety—that distort Orthodox anthropology. She says this focus on resentment and control rather than the Theotokos, communion, and the dignity of women hinders the Church’s ability to attract female converts and produce spiritual fruit.
  • Specific critiques: She has publicly questioned why ROCOR allows significant influence to figures such as @OrthoArchist (Brian Patrick Mitchell), accusing him of a superficial or selective reading of the Fathers (e.g., St Maximus) and a Protestant-fundamentalist-style misinterpretation of Genesis 3 / Adam and Eve. She links much “Orthobro nonsense” to these errors.
  • Direct confrontations: She regularly engages (and clashes) with individual American or American-influenced Orthodox accounts online, calling out what she sees as circular thinking, inability to relate to women as persons, DARVO tactics, or “spiritually homo” dynamics. Examples include heated exchanges where she challenges them on Church teaching versus manosphere-style narratives.
  • Broader comments: Her priest has reportedly referred to American Christian Nationalists as the “Christian Taliban.” She distinguishes authentic Orthodoxy from what she views as politicised or reactionary versions prevalent in parts of the American convert scene.

In short, she supports Orthodoxy taking root in America and the West and engages positively with elements she considers faithful to the tradition, but maintains adversarial relations with significant segments of the online American “Orthobro” community due to deep disagreements over gender theology, the influence of right-wing internet culture, and what constitutes proper Orthodox formation. Her interactions are mostly online rather than institutional.

What is her relationship with American Orthodox Christian Andrew Wilson?

Her relationship with American Orthodox commentator Andrew Wilson is strongly critical and adversarial.

@ladies4pd (Natty) has repeatedly and publicly criticised Andrew Wilson (and his wife Rachel) as promoters of what she considers a distorted, modernist version of Orthodoxy. Key points from her posts include:

  • She rejects their promotion of the idea that “the West is gynocentric.” She calls this a manosphere-derived, modernist (and even “Stalinist pseudo-history”) framework that treats men and women as interchangeable units in a social system of incentives and power, rather than as persons called into communion. In her view, this anthropology is fundamentally modern and incompatible with classical Orthodox teaching centred on personhood, sacrament, the Theotokos, and the healing of the will.
  • She argues that Wilson’s complementarian approach mirrors red-pill/manosphere logic (just dressed in church language) rather than offering a genuinely historic Christian alternative. She has written that both start from the same modern assumption of sameness/interchangeability and therefore reach similar conclusions.
  • She claims that clergy and more mature Orthodox Christians warn people away from Wilson and his wife, describing their activity as “grifting,” and has said that having them as ideological opponents is “a blessing.”
  • She groups him with the broader “Orthobro” online scene (alongside figures like Jay Dyer in some comments) that she believes is importing reactionary, status-anxiety-driven, or “spiritually homo” dynamics into American Orthodoxy, and she has stated that the Church is not doing enough to curb this influence.

There is no evidence in her posts of personal friendship, collaboration, or positive engagement. Her comments are consistently oppositional, framing Wilson as a prominent example of the American convert/Orthobro tendency she opposes on theological and anthropological grounds. Interactions appear limited to public online criticism rather than private or institutional relations.

Who is the most prominent Orthodox Christian on X?

Jay Dyer (@JayDyer / @Jay_D007) is generally the most prominent Orthodox Christian on X (Twitter), particularly in the English-speaking online Orthodox sphere.

Key indicators:

  • He has approximately 137,000 followers on X (as of recent data).
  • He is widely recognized as one of the biggest online Orthodox influencers, especially among converts. He is frequently cited for his debates, apologetics, cultural commentary, and role in drawing people (especially young men) toward Orthodoxy.
  • He maintains a large YouTube presence (over 200k subscribers in related mentions) and appears on bigger platforms.
  • In OrthoTwitter discussions and lists of influential accounts, he is regularly ranked at or near the top for visibility and impact.

Other notable figures for comparison:

  • Jonathan Pageau (@PageauJonathan) — ~93,500 followers. Highly respected for symbolism, iconography, and thoughtful cultural analysis; more focused on meaning and tradition than polemics.
  • Institutional or news-style accounts (e.g., general Orthodox Christianity pages) typically have far fewer followers (tens of thousands at most).
  • Clergy such as those associated with Patristic Nectar (Fr. Josiah Trenham) or other priests are influential but usually have smaller pure X followings.
  • Some political or celebrity accounts held by Orthodox Christians have larger overall audiences, but they are not primarily known as Orthodox Christian voices.

“Most prominent” is somewhat subjective (followers vs. theological depth vs. mainstream respect vs. convert influence). By the combined metrics of follower count, online cultural impact, and recognition within English-language Orthodox discussions on X, Jay Dyer stands out as the clearest answer.

Does she say why she prefers a monarchy?

Yes, she has explained why she prefers a monarchy.

In her detailed March 2026 background post outlining her views, she wrote:

“Politically: I lean pro-monarchy. Not out of nostalgia, but because a paternal, personal authority can stabilise a nation better than abstract systems. Progress should come through tradition, not against it.”

She expands on related reasons in other posts:

  • A king “inherits a people and a duty,” in contrast to a billionaire or CEO who “buys an asset” (she has used this framing when contrasting the monarchy with figures like Elon Musk).
  • “Britain needs a Crown, not a CEO.”
  • Christian monarchy, properly understood, symbolises that political power is received rather than manufactured, and that the ruler stands under judgment before God rather than claiming to embody or represent the divine. She contrasts this with Christian Nationalism, which she sees as collapsing God into the nation and treating Christ as a cultural mascot for power.
  • She has described herself as supporting an “interventionist monarchy” and rejected purely constitutional or passive versions in some contexts.
  • She links monarchy to hierarchical, sacred order and the recovery of the sacred in a secular age (while noting she does not fully share King Charles’s perennialism).

In short, her preference is practical and theological: she sees personal, paternal, tradition-rooted authority as more stabilising and properly ordered than modern abstract systems, technocracy, or ideological nationalism.

 

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Vincent Bruno, the return of Carol and questioning the viability of Orthodox Christianity in the UK

  https://t.co/y0Byl20Mes — Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) September 16, 2026