The Trumpiad –Part I: “By What Lawful Authority, Do You Call Me Hither?”

These were the words that King Charles I of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France, asked the Parliament when they summoned him to be tried for “incitement”.

There was none and he knew it. Worse for them, they knew it. He began his defense every day of the three day-trial with this simple question: “I would know by what lawful power I am called hither, by what lawful authority?”

They could not answer him. Because there was none. It was “power without the law”. And in time, it would prove to haunt many of them.

Charles Stuart, a dapper dresser, looked every inch the king. An eloquent speaker, he had the “commissioners” (they could not bring themselves to call themselves “judges”) right where he wanted them. And were it not for the forceful hand of Oliver Cromwell, they would have wavered and probably let him go. As they should have.

And England would have been a happier place. As some wit wrote, the Cavaliers were “wrong but romantic” while the Roundheads were “right but repulsive”.

Unfortunately, Cromwell (the chief Roundhead), would have none of it. A religious fanatic, his attempt at puritanical theocracy was ultimately doomed to fail, but for now his side had won the war and he was resolved to execute King Charles to seal his victory. Incitement was merely a pretext; he would have Charles’ head one way or another.

Historical sidebar: Cromwell’s like had already infected the North American continent, primarily in New England. Later they became the Yankee aristocracy and under other elitist pretexts, in due time, would turn their self-righteous fury on the South. Their lust for blood not satiated, they would eventually, violently, torment the rest of the world in the twentieth century; their overweening sense of self knowing no bounds. (The “Cavaliers” on the other hand, landed in Virginia and bequeathed their military prowess to the Confederacy.)

Having said that, what we are witnessing these past few weeks is nothing but political retribution. It cannot be called legal or judicial in any rational sense. Impeachment is prescribed as a remedy by our Constitution only for those Federal officers who are still in the employ of the Federal government.

One cannot “remove” a private citizen from an office he does not hold! It’s a contradiction in terms. You might as well impeach the milkman because he forgot to pick up the empty bottles. What we are seeing, therefore, is political retribution, not justice and those who know some history knows that this never ends well.

And it will boomerang on them just as it did on the Rump Parliament that Cromwell was forced to dissolve (as Charles had done some years before):

Trump is a fascinating figure to be sure. He elicits either great adulation or great derision. There is no middle ground. The nation is so divided about him and his legacy that no normal discourse is possible with regard to his merits or demerits. Historians will be contemplating his real legacy for many years to come.

That is not the issue here. What is at stake is the sanity of his enemies. As such, I fear for the stability of the Republic.

Why? Because Trump committed no crime. Secondly, because his words were not an incitement any way you slice them. And thirdly, because the Senate has no right to sit in judgment of a private citizen (as stated above). And finally, because they are going to fail and in doing so, only make Trump stronger than he already is. The last two impeachments (against Clinton in 1999 and Trump in 2020) resulted in the parties of both men increasing their numbers in the House of Representatives.

They’re also setting a nasty precedent.  Why don’t we haul Obama in there and impeach him?

At any rate, the Chief Justice of the United States decided to not preside at this “trial”. Yet his presence is required by the Constitution.

Some tomfoolery can be expected from the House, the body closest to the population and thus the one more subject to democratic impulses. The Senate was created to “subdue” those passions. It is the one institution in which elderly, stentorian figures could deliberate on the great issues of the day in as a sober a fashion as possible. It is they who should know history and pay attention to the law of unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, this is proving to be impossible for them. Hence, my fervent belief that the “mystic chords” of common memory, the idea of a commonweal, are being frayed beyond all hope of redemption.

Let me reiterate: I believe that the Republic as presently constituted is not long for this world. To be sure, its outward forms may last for a decade or two but its ability to garner respect from the governed is decimated. (In addition, the economic restrictions that our Chinese overlords will put on us will make it impossible for us to remain as a military superpower.) Short of a public repentance by the haters of Trump and his voters, and a willingness to see the humanity in the other side, there is no coming back.

Some historian recently wrote that we are at “an 1854 moment”, that brief span of time in the Antebellum period in which war was anticipated –yet dreaded–at the same time. And worse, that by 1858 had become unavoidable.

I fear we are more closer to 1856, not 1854. Joe Biden is no Lincoln but neither is he a Nathaniel Pierce, a Northerner who had no intention of spilling his countrymen’s blood for whatever reason the liberals of his day demanded. He doesn’t even have the good sense to be a James Buchanan, who viewed himself as merely a timer-server.

Historical sidebar: Why didn’t wiser heads prevail? One of the more ingenious proposals for ending slavery came from President Joseph Smith, Jr, the Mormon prophet. During his campaign for Presidency of the United States in 1844, one of his planks was “gradual emancipation by 1850”. According to Smith, “The Southern people are hospitable and noble. They will help to rid so free a country of every vestige of slavery, whenever they are assured of an equivalent for their property.” The monies for compensation were to come from the sale of public lands. This came to be known as “emancipated compensation”.

Unfortunately, the auguries for reconciliation do not look good.  The passions and self-righteous fury of the Progressives are not abating. They should; after all, they “won” the election, didn’t they? Instead, by their own self-deluded lights, they feel that they have no choice but to press on with their Globalist program. That it happens to coincide with the wishes of their Chinese paymasters is just a happy coincidence.

Hopefully, this will not include going to war with Russia over Ukraine. But that too, is up to the Chinese.

There is so much that sober men in the Senate should know. But because the end-state of Puritanism is a utopian ideology, they cannot know. And that is this: the moral to the story of retributive politics disguised as justice is never pretty. After Cromwell’s death in 1658, he was so hated that his body was dug up by his many enemies and hanged on a gibbet. Then his head was removed and his entire corpse burned.

And the entire republican movement in Great Britain died for all time.

[Editor’s Note: Part II of the “Trumpiad: This is Sparta (You Helots)!” will be out soon.]


  1. Cromwell was a genocide, and curiously enough today’s far right in the UK (actual far right, Neo Nazis) love him and consider him a nationalist hero.

  2. Archpriest Paisius McGrath says

    According to my paternal family historic legend Cromwell and his army destroyed the McGrath family castle in Limerick, Ireland. May God forgive him

    • Fr. Paisius, are your McGraths related to the Scottish MacRaes?

      • Archpriest Paisius McGrath says

        Glory to Jesus Christ! Greetings Seraphim. That is a good question that likely is a yes. The various spellings of the name appears different regions in the Isles and begins as Mac Grae as attested in the Annals of Ulster. The McGrath/ MacGrae Clan is divided into sub clans called Septs. I’ve not done much personal research into this question, but remember learning this from my late dad, Liam McGrath, of blessed memory who spent 50 years of his life researching the McGrath Clan and its history. He definitely would say yes to your question. His work was of some influence among those who are part of the McGrath Clan gathering that gathers in Ireland I believe every decade, and especially after he returned to Waterford Ireland for the last 27 years of his lifeOur family come from the southern Ireland Sept of the Irish Clan and hails from the area of Limerick, Ireland from where my Great-Great-Great Grandfather Patrick emigrated to Chicago in the late 1880s. God bless!

        • Fr., I have MacRae ancestry on my grandmother’s side. I believe one story of the MacRaes in Scotland is that they came from Ireland in the 13th or 14th century. Very cool. Erin go Bragh! Alba gu Brath!

          On a side note, Fr. I’m interested to know your perspective on leadership in the Church during all of this. We just had a long talk with our priest and his wife today and I was not encouraged. Of course I’m not asking you to denigrate any bishops. I’m just looking for an honest opinion. Do you feel we should have normal church services in spite of covid or do you think we should do things different to protect people. Have you done/been able to do things normally? What has been your experience with your bishop? Supportive? Not?

          • Archpriest Paisius McGrath says

            The Holy Spirit will continue to guide and protect the Holy Orthodox Church during these trying times as in all times. I grieve for Orthodox faithful who find themselves in a place of displacement during these trying days. I find the response to Covid to be mixed and yes, wish all would be normal. Assigned to a new parish six months ago, I will tell you our experience. Here in our part of southern Mississippi we are the only Orthodox parish for miles around.We follow masks and social distance, yes. We have services on Sundays and week days and Holy Communion is received as traditionally done. Our Sunday attendance averages higher than in at least a decade as I understand. God has blessed us with 5 new Catechumens in the past few months and we have found ways to minister even under the current times,and so we are blessed. Our bishop is very supportive and that is a blessing.

            • One thing that I have been hearing consistently from pious friends and clergy from various parishes and jurisdictions is that, “despite everything, we keep getting more new people.”

              God is still with us.

        • As I understand it the Scottish Macraes are a sept (sub-clan)
          of the Mackenzies. They were originally based (in the 13th century)
          in the territories of the Frasers of Lovat. But, on falling out with them,
          they transferred to Kintail and were accepted by the Mackenzies.
          They became Constables of the Mackenzie stronghold of Eileen Donan Castle, probably the most beautiful castle in all Scotland.
          Search for: eilean donan photos

  3. The Dems seem to have painted themselves into the corner of ideological insanity. Their political philosophy is both crazy by historical standards and self destructive in terms of demographics and social cohesion. Their hold on power is tied to their political philosophy so they defend it tooth and nail, much like the Soviets toward the end, though they themselves must know that what they believe is both false and sick in their remaining moments of clarity.

    It is a mightily sticky wicket, indeed. And it couldn’t have happened to nicer people.

    God will sort it all out to His satisfaction, we may rest assured.

  4. I seriously doubt the far right in Scotland (such as it is)
    would have any love for Oliver Cromwell or ‘consider him a nationalist hero’.
    I expect he is better liked in Northern Ireland (in East Belfast, that is; not West Belfast).

  5. I may not completely understand everything. Do you feel the Civil War was a mistake? You think the South would have given up slavery voluntarily? Was Lincoln a bad man?

    • George Michalopulos says

      I don’t believe Lincoln was a bad man, so let’s get that one out of the way. In fact, he had every intention of being merciful to the South, that’s why he had Andrew Johnson of Tennessee as his running mate in 1864.

      Thanks to Abolitionist fury at the South plus the Haitian uprising in 1804, the South felt that there was no other option for them but to keep their African population in a servile state. Many Southerners disagreed and Virginia even came within three votes in their House of Burgesses to abolish slavery. (What turned the minds of many in the South who were sympathetic at that time was the Nat Turner Rebellion in 1831.)

      Still, as an institution, it was dying out. Many Southern planters actually broke the law and taught their slaves to read and write, against the day in which they would be emancipated. In any event, slavery as an institution was on its way out (as happened in Mexico and Brazil). And let’s not forget, all of the original Thirteen Colonies had slavery, even the ones in the North.

      The point was, Northern intolerance of the South made it difficult to find a peaceful solution. Joseph Smith’s proposal, to buy out the slaves’ contracts and then resettle them in the West was an intriguing one. One that should have been explored. It actually received wide support in Kentucky (which was a slave state).

      To be sure, some slave-owners would never consent to it and others viewed the American caste-system as divinely ordained. But it would have been taken up by other slave-owners. The question however is academic.

      Having said that, the newly-elected Lincoln, in his desire to preserve the Union, actually proposed a Thirteen Amendment to the Constitution, in 1861, one which would have preserved things as they were. Unfortunately, the passions on both sides ran so deep that there was no way to dial them back.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Also, it should be noted that Joseph Smith’s candidacy for the Presidency was not that a long-shot: there were three other men running at that time: James K Polk (Dem), Henry Clay (Whig) and James G Binney (Liberty Party).

        Smith was not a crank figure, politically speaking. He was the Lt General of the Nauvoo Legion, an army which had been outfitted by the Illinois Legislature with three cannon. The legion had 2,500 men in it, this at a time in which the United States Army had barely 10,000 men.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Also, it should be noted that Joseph Smith’s candidacy for the Presidency was not that a long-shot: there were three other men running at that time: James K Polk (Dem), Henry Clay (Whig) and James G Binney (Liberty Party).

          Smith was not a crank figure, politically speaking. He was the Lt General of the Nauvoo Legion, an army which had been outfitted by the Illinois Legislature with three cannon. The legion had 2,500 men in it, this at a time in which the United States Army had barely 10,000 men.

          • George Michalopulos says

            P.S., in 1860, Lincoln, who ran against three other men, won the Electoral College with only 40% of the vote.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Seraphim, you have to go back to at least Andrew Jackson to get a better understanding. It was not just a North vs South thing or slave vs free. It was a union vs states rights. Slavery was a significant issue but not the only one. Also involved was certain aspects of (as George suggests) class. Jackson was a westerner and of a lower class than the southern planters even though he owned slaves.

      Complicated does not begin to explain it.
      The moral way you frame it is, in fact, a remnant of the Calvinist Roundheads that were the precursors to the Northern aggressors. That is the way the leaders of the South saw it. The North was invading their country. Since the North won, they wrote the moralistic interpretation of the War that still rules our minds.

      IMO the South was manuvered into war. The power elites in the North wanted it. Constitutionally, the South had a strong claim, slavery or no slavery under the 10th Amendment.

      For a more nuanced view try

      Full disclosure, it is the only political organization that I send money to because they are the only one that is rational and can actually explain their stance.

      The spirit of the 10th Amendment is still alive as we have seen with Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah and North Dakota have advanced bills prohibiting transgender participation in high school sports to counter Biden’s executive order.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Michael, thanks for this excellent summary.

        I’m gonna look into this Tenth Amendment Center you write about.

        • Michael Bauman says

          George, TAC sent me a book recently because of my contribution: “State of the Nullification Movement.” In that book they explain the Constitutional basis for Nullification and cite several areas where making null and void is appropriate and working to some degree:
          Asset Forfeiture, Food Freedom, Marijuana, Sound money, Surveillance, Keep and Bear Arms.
          In my own lifetime I have seen dramatic changes in law and custom in two similar areas: giving birth and parental education rights.
          Conscious, aware and purposeful home birth was virtually illegal at one point. Home education was illegal.
          Not any more.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Just one article from their website.

          Unfortunately, the Orthodox Church has frequently been an established Church. To respond properly to government control we have to break that mindset. The Church is not, nor should She be an instrument of government.
          Hard sell. Gets emotional.
          TAC offers an effective way of addressing such matters locally.
          In our current condition we Orthodox put way too much attention in the Patriarchs(as we do with the Federal government) and far too little attention to our own parish and our local Bishop.

          I am blessed, my Bishop is right here in town. I have had tea with him at the Chancery. He knows me and I know him. He is a faithful man.

      • Thanks for this, I had no idea of the TAC or any such organization. It’s a huge inspiration to see these states pushing back against the Regime, a ray of hope that these irreconcilable differences may be worked out through legal battles thus avoiding the unthinkable Civil War 2.0

  6. Trump Acquitted in Second Impeachment Trial

    ‘ Democrats alleged many Republicans already had their minds set on acquitting Trump even before the trial started.

    “They were clearly in the position that regardless of the evidence right they were going to vote,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told reporters after the vote. ‘


    • I just heard that McConnell is talking about prosecuting Trump in a civil court of law as a private citizen.

      • Prosecuting him for what?

        • I suppose the Marxists are going to attempt to prosecute him as a civilian for inciting a riot. They will never give up. TDS is a terminal illness.

          • Interesting concept, though, as it would open the door to prosecute Mr. Obama among others for actual, as opposed to invented, crimes . Not that any of this will ever happen.

            • Obama and the other Demon-crat Marxists are untouchable. Only conservatives face consequences and cancelling. We are at a point in history in this country where you cannot be a Christian and a Democrat at the same time. They are the antithesis to our faith.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Mikhail, while I have no faith in the prospect of members of the Establishment being called to account, or getting back to the good old days of the 50s, the belief that any one of these miscreants is “untouchable” and do not “face consequences” is too confident by half.

                Leaving aside that Day which we all dread, history has a way of exacting justice of those who engage in revolutionary movements.

              • Accurate. You know it’s bad when even France is warning against Americas version of take-no-prisoners liberal Marxism

  7. PS: George,
    I doubt Charles Stuart figures on any list of the Kings of France;
    on any list written by a Frenchman, that is…

    • George Michalopulos says

      I know! Irony. Remember what I wrote about America being a vassal-state and I went into a mini-discourse on feudalism? And how the Baron of Ipswich could also be the Margrave of Swabia? Or the King of Bohemia could also be King of Croatia? Very confusing.

      So here goes: Edward III of England had a claim to the throne of France (which caused the Hundred Years War). The English never relinquished it until William IV gave it up. Totally abbreviated, way more complicated than that, but yes, the Kings of England claimed to be the legitimate Kings of France for the better part of 600 years.

      Glad you caught it though.

      Also, Stuart used to be spelled Stewart but Queen Mary, who was born and raised in France, gallicized it. Upon her return to Scotland, it remained Stuart.

      • Err… Mary Queen of Scots was born in Linlithgow Palace,
        fifteen miles or so from Edinburgh, in 1542.

        She didn’t go to France until she was five, when she was engaged to the three year old Dauphin to unite the crowns of Scotland and France. She married him in 1558 and in 1559 his father died and they became King and Queen of France.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Thanks for the correction. If memory serves, she was crowned Queen at five years old, when her father James V died.

          • Err… She was born on 8 Dec 1542. One week later,
            she became Queen when James V died on the night of 14/15 Dec 1542.
            There was no interregnum. “The King is dead! Long live the Queen!
            She was crowned on 9 Sept 1543 when she was nine months old.
            Coronation is a public celebration of succession in hereditary monarchy,
            but it is not generally necessary to the establishment of such a succession;
            unless there is, perhaps, a disputed succession.

            • Slick Willie says

              When King James V found out his wife had given birth to a girl, he is supposed to have said, “It came wi’ a lass, and it will gang wi’ a lass.”

              • Indeed he did. The reference was to the Crown.
                It came to the Stewarts through the daughter of Robert the Bruce.
                However, it did not leave with Mary Queen of Scots,
                the father of whose son (Lord Darnley) was himself a Stewart.
                No, the last Stewart Monarch (de facto) was Queen Anne.
                She died in 1714, to be succeeded by the House of Hanover;
                though the succession was disputed by the Jacobites for decades yet.

                • Here is an excellent lecture by Professor Murray Pittock
                  of Glasgow University on “Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites”.

                  The talk brings out the European and World significance of the Jacobite cause. Had it succeeded, there may well have been no French and Indian War and thus no (or no successful) American Revolution, no bankruptcy of France and hence no French Revolution and no Napoleon.

                  Professor Pittock also compares the motives of the Jacobite supporters in Scotland/Ireland and those in England with those evinced by the Remain/Leave voters of Scotland/Northern Ireland and England in the Brexit vote.

                  • Well, you guys certainly dropped the ball.

                    • …and not for the first time.
                      Scots are noted for possessing a self-destruct button
                      which we are forever pushing out of curiosity
                      to see what will happen next…

                    • Ah, you sound like us Greeks. Someone once told me that you Scots trekked through Greece on your way to the ends of the known world, is this true?

                    • A very dear Greek friend of mine once informed me that all the Northern Europeans are cold and unemotional, all except the Scots.
                      She says the Scots are the Mediterraneans of Northern Europe and that the only city where she feels truly at home (outside of Greece, that is) is Glasgow.

                      To your question: According to the Declaration of Arbroath “the Scots…journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today.”

                      On such an itinerary, a trip through Greece would certainly be possible. There is no doubt that Alexander negotiated a truce with Celtic tribes on the Northern borders of Macedon before he crossed into Asia. These Celts later sacked Delphi. Some of them even ended up in Asia Minor as the Galatians (to whom Saint Paul wrote an Epistle).

                      So, who knows? I don’t.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    BTW, I took the time to watch the video. Excellent. I didn’t realize that the Stuarts were the most senior heirs to several dynasties.

                    • The Stewarts were better connected than the Habsburgs.
                      Their chiefest descent (as far as the Scots were concerned) was from Fergus Mor mac Erc and Aedan mac Gabran of Dalriada; the latter of whom was consecrated as an Orthodox King by the laying on of hands of St Columba (Columcille – Colum of the Church) in 574 AD.

                      St Columba is one of the Twelve Apostles of Ireland as well as Apostle to the Picts and Scots of Dalriada. He was a fiery-tempered Prince of the Ui Neill who might have been High King of Ireland had he not become a priest.

                      Because of his pride and covetousness he caused a battle in which many died. As a penance, he was banned from Ireland until he had converted as many to Christ as had died in the battle.

                      In his great age, he was a humble old man
                      who saw the uncreated light before he died.

                      His memory remains strong in the
                      songs and prayers of the Gael.

          • Pat Reardon says

            If memory serves, [Mary Stuart] was crowned Queen at five years old, when her father James V died.

            It is refreshing to learn that somebody on the blog is older than I am.

  8. Austin Martin says

    The foundational premise that all congressmen and senators agree on, however they voted today, is that the capitol surge was a bad and illegitimate and undesired thing. Every single one of them agrees with that premise, because every single one of them is a traitor.

    The capitol storm was the greatest thing that’s happened to this country since 1861. That was the day nation took its dignity back. The gulf between the Brahmin caste and the untouchables was manifest. That’s why they are so afraid of it. That’s why the capital is still under military occupation. That is why every Gehenna-bound Republican and alleged conservative media talker is opposed to it. They know what it means.

    China doesn’t own America. If China owned America, the media would not be agitating for war with it. We wouldn’t be sponsoring revolts in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t be accusing them of uncorroborated “human rights abuses” in western China or “aggression in the South China Sea” or having military bases all around them. We wouldn’t block their websites and social media and even technology companies (such as Huwaii). No, our government is terrified of China, because they know China could own us.

    The Chinese don’t own America, but even if they did, I wouldn’t complain if they burned Washington. Their jizya has to be less than federal taxes already. The Chinese government is certainly kinder to its citizens than ours. The … people whom Jesus called the children of Satan … “they” own America, and they are agitating for a war with China, Russia and any other country that refuses to be bullied into anal pride parades.

    The Chinese don’t make up half the president’s cabinet and almost all the important positions. DHS, AG, CIA, secretary of state, treasury, chief of staff, National Intelligence, Science and Technology, Senate majority leader, second gentleman, 2/9 of the supreme court — none of those are Chinese. They are another ethnicity.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Austin, I think you’re incorrect regarding who owns who. I very much believe that China “owns” America in that it is the largest shareholder of National Debt. Plus, culturally speaking, it controls Hollywood (for all practical purposes) and it owns and/or has completely infiltrated our major research universities. In addition, I’d say it has firm control over most of our Congressional leadership.

      And then there’s the Hunter Biden thing. So yeah, China’s tendrils go all the way to the top. If that’s not “owning”, I don’t know what is.

      Having said that, I agree that there are some in the popular media who are not shy about pointing out China’s human rights abuses. I chalk a lot of that up to controlled opposition.

      As for our sponsorship of the Hong Kong demonstrations –that was in the past.

      I suppose that there is a subset of neocons who would like nothing better than some type of gunboat war with China over the Spratleys or whatever but if they got anywhere close to achieving their aims, I fervently believe that China will direct their martial ardor towards Russia. It is in the interests of the globalists that the revival of Christendom –whether tradcat (as in the Visograd four) and especially Russia–be permanently derailed.

      • Austin Martin says

        You think Hollywood is controlled by the Chinese and not the Jews?

        • George Michalopulos says

          Well, I while I realize that there’s a huge Jewish contingent in the News & Entertainment industry, I can tell you for a fact that whoever runs it, they are bending over backwards to cater to the CCP.

          • That speaks more to shared ideology than actual ownership. PRC is a nation of bugmen, while the… others wish to turn us into a nation of bugmen too. They have been successful thus far.

        • ROCOR Reader says

          George, I’m frankly surprised you’re willing to entertain Austin Martin’s blatant racism (he said blacks and whites cannot live together in peace) and anti-semitism. What does it take for a moderator to disapprove a comment on this blog?

          • George Michalopulos says

            ROCOR Reader, you are wrong on several levels. First of all, I don’t know Mr Martin so I can’t say whether he’s a “racist” or not. If by “racism” you mean integration being a failure, that is an assertion which is observable. That doesn’t mean that any of the blacks or whites who self-segregate are racists themselves. It’s just normal self-selection. People do this all over the world and in almost every instance they do so for non-nefarious reasons. Heck, in Israel Mizrahi Jews worship in their own synagogues and have almost nothing to do with Ashkenazi Jews. Certainly you would not impute racism to them, would you?

            Now, some who do so self-segregate are quite possibly racists. I write these words as a man who attends a multi-ethnic/bi-racial church. As such, I would hope that you don’t impute racism to me.

            I’m not sure why you threw in the “anti-semitism” thing in there.

            This blog is open to rational inquiry. That means that no person, group or institution is above criticism. (Invective criticism is of course not allowed.)

          • Austin Martin says

            I’m also homophobic and, like, super patriarchal. That’s just because my white male fragility can’t abide the fact that women have bodily autonomy. It’s really a control issue on my part rooted in mommy issues.

            • Coffee on keyboard, thanks.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Austin, that’s actually called “human nature”.

                • Austin Martin says

                  Are you suggesting that patriarchy and a strict sexual dimorphism is the norm across all human existence? Because that will get you 10 years in the gulag by the end of this year.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    As a lover of nits, I might quibble with the word ‘strict’ as I find the natural interplay between male and female (spiritually, emotionally and physically) quite creative and life giving, I agree with the essence of your comment.

                    It is important to note that the male-female binary is part of the warp and woof of the entire creation. The only place we have the hubris to deny it is in sinful, fallen human sexuality.
                    The denial is an expression of my sinful unwillingness to repent and receive His mercy.

                    That mercy is the ultimate source and expression of patriarchy, I think.

                    And less we forget, God’s condescension to death on the Cross is how we are given access to His Mercy. The Cross is the essence of true patriarchy. Mt 20:25 is a specific example of Godly patriarchy for us in this life.

                    God forgive me for my failures.

                    As to the gulag, that is also in His mercy whether it be now or if it be later or not at all, the readiness is all.

      • George, our country is run by neocons. Just look at Biden’s warmongering cabinet. And all of those neocons are in conflict with China. Examine the actions of nations, especially the U.S., which has not changed.
        1. During the Nixon through the Bush years, U.S. foreign policy hoped that by opening Chinese markets they would be able to promote democracy to politically destabilize China and open a new market for American companies. The desire for Chinese profits are the same reasons for the NBA, Hollywood, and universities kowtowing to Chinese consumers. The NBA has a bigger market in China than the U.S. Hollywood has mostly failed to capture and control the Chinese market especially with Chinese movies becoming more popular there. Universities receive 3x the tuition from international students and received a lot of grants from Chinese donners. China places a lot more emphasis on education and provide higher social status for those with many degrees (especially from American and British universities). With a growing middle class in China, this is again a market forces that public universities are paying attention to. We could stop the problem by removing private benefactors but that will never happen in the U.S. We need to distinguish the difference between politics and the global economy.
        2. When economic pressures don’t work then our government applies military pressure. This pivot started during the Obama years and continued during Trump’s and Biden’s. We have had military control of East Asia since WWII with military bases in Japan, South Korea, and other areas depending on the local political climate and the U.S. confidence of needing direct control. The Philippines is a prime example of the U.S. giving up control of military bases but constantly control the politics and economy. Obama’s pivot to Asia that sought to build up a military alliance among East Asian countries to counter China through selling weapons or bribing politicians with ‘aide’. Trump sold a massive amount of weapons to the nationalist government of Taiwan (which is the only East Asian country to legalize same-sex marriages). And just last week, Biden has restarted war games with South Korea and sent massive military ships in the straight between China and Taiwan. Imagine the Chinese selling weapons and supporting the nationalist movement in Puerto Rico and sending military ships between Florida and Puerto Rico (or even Cuba)! We would declare war!
        3. The threat that China and Russia hold is moving the center of trade and commerce from the Atlantic countries to the traditional Eurasia. The belt-road initiative is the Chinese Marshal Plan without the idealogical baggage (right now). Russia has modernized its military to specifically target American offensive weaknesses. The U.S. aggression towards China, Russia, and Iran will push an alliance between these countries and start to create new systems of alliance in Africa and South America who are tired of the Atlanticists domination of their countries. With the dismantling of the pedrodollar, America will only have military recourse if it want to continue its empire.
        4. Propaganda needs to be fought. If we wish to be engaging citizens, we need to hold them accountable for their constant lies with protests boycotts, etc. We need to fight for practical things that matter like small businesses, education, infrastructure, and healthcare. We have been heavily propagandized with identity politics and a puritan good/evil mentality. We need to repent of ideologies and learn from the OT and our Eastern European brethren who have suffered through propaganda instead of embracing it like we have since the founding of the U.S.A. The propaganda has always been about expanding and profits for the elites. In my opinion the downfall of the U.S. began when we crossed and settled the Appalachians breaking treaties with various Indian Nations in order to expand the market instead of solving the real problems of property and poverty in the original 13. The fight against propaganda must first start with ourselves.

        If you wish to learn more about the American empire, I suggest reading Strategic Culture and The Saker blog. There are other sources on the anti-imperialist Left but who I don’t think would be read here. In sum, ignore the local propaganda, look at the bigger picture, and protect the practical things that you can. We have one life and one repentance.

        • George Michalopulos says

          The difference btw neocons and neolibs at this point is immaterial. There really isn’t any, not for all intents and purposes. We saw this in the aftermath of the 2020 election. all Impeachment 2: Electoral Boogaloo did was flush out the remaining GOP squishes.

          • I agree George. Neocons (Bush) and neolibs (Biden) are the same. They paint themselves as centralists but are the real extremists. The neocons and neolibs work hand in glove to provide us with false choices, stump speeches instead of debate, and the same pitiful results that harm the common people. Any options are flushed out (primaries, winner-takes-all, media-block-outs, third parties destroyed, etc.)

  9. Regarding your historical aside concerning Joseph Smith, emancipated compensation was indeed put on the table but unfortunately due to Lincoln things were made a little more complicated than the more judicious proposal by Smith.

    The congressional group known as the Radical Republicans put a fire under Lincoln to really get after the South, and threatened to do in his administration if he did not. The emancipation efforts by Lincoln were considered a war measure, a way to destabilize and bring down the South. Lincoln didn’t much care about freeing the slaves.

    The problem with Lincoln’s attempts at compensated emancipation is that he always coupled it with conscription for Southern slaves during the war and deportation to Haiti, Africa or South America otherwise, including Black Americans who were already free. He thought America was suitable for only one race, the “superior” white race.

    Of course he made no friends among abolitionist or black folk with this attitude. The famous former slave Frederick Douglass, then a member of the Radical Republicans, said this about Lincoln’s political gyrations regarding emancipation and deportation:

    “Illogical and unfair as Mr. Lincoln’s statements are, they are nevertheless quite in keeping with his whole course from the beginning of his administration up to this day, and confirm the painful conviction that though elected as an antislavery man by Republican and Abolition voters, Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine representative of American prejudice and Negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery, and the favor of the Border Slave States, than for any sentiment of magnanimity or principle of justice and humanity.”

    Historian Lerone Bennett Jr, who wrote extensively on black history, and author of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, says this about Lincoln:

    “What Lincoln proposed officially and publicly was that the United States government buy the slaves and deport them to Africa or South America. This was not a passing whim. In five major policy declarations, including two State of the Union addresses and the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, the sixteenth president of the United States publicly and officially called for the deportation of blacks. On countless other occasions, in conferences with cronies, Democratic and Republican leaders, and high government officials, he called for colonization of blacks or aggressively promoted colonization by private and official acts.”

    And the intro to his book says this:

    “[Lerone Bennett’s] basic idea…is simple: Everything you think you know about Lincoln and race is wrong. Every schoolchild, for example, knows the story of “the great emancipator” who freed Negroes with a stroke of the pen out of the goodness of his heart. The real Lincoln…was a conservative politician who said repeatedly that he believed in white supremacy. Not only that: He opposed the basic principle of the Emancipation Proclamation until his death and was literally forced – Count Adam Gurowski said he was literally whipped – ‘into the glory of having issued the Emancipation Proclamation,’ which Lincoln drafted in such a way that it did not in and of itself free a single slave.”

    The political slickness of the Emancipation Proclamation is that Lincoln applied it only to slaves in the states controlled by the Confederacy, who obviously would ignore it, and didn’t apply it to the states where he could have granted slaves immediate freedom.

    “Make Negroes politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. I will say that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

    Ultimately with the rejection of Lincoln’s proposal of emancipated compensation 650,000 people from both the North and South died. Chew on that for a moment. Nor did the rejection of Lincoln’s efforts justify Sherman’s March to the Sea where he murdered tens of thousands of Southern civilians – men, women, and children – in one of the most atrocious acts of criminality, with Lincoln’s full support, in American history.

    As a contrast, England (unlike the US) ended their slave trade peacefully in just six years. Wilberforce (who was not only a member of Parliament but a devout Evangelical Christian), spent over 40 years of his life trying to abolish that trade. And when Parliament finally took notice, six years later it was done, three days before Wilberforce died.

    Another aside, Wilberforce was greatly influenced by the Anglican Priest and former slave trader John Newton (back in my bad old Protestant days when I revered the “Puritan Divines” I use to have the works of John Newton on my shelf). Newton was the author of one of the most famous western hymns of all time, “Faith’s Review and Expectation” which today we know as “Amazing Grace.”

    • George Michalopulos says

      Michael, all of which you write is correct. If I may however iterate this: Smith’s proposal of “compensated emancipation” was not unique to him. In general others suggested something along these lines. The difference however is one of timing. Smith suggested this a good sixteen years before the 1860 election. By that time, the spirit of compromise had deteriorated so badly by then that war became inevitable.

      That essentially is my point. Timing is everything. And like in the 1850s (“Bleeding Kansas”) things had gotten so bad between the regions that the nation then was not recognizable to what obtained in the post-Jacksonian era.

      This is where we’re at today. The feeling of goodwill and Americanist/democratic liberalism of the post-Reagan era has evaporated. I can’t imagine the entire BLM cult being propagated by Bill Clinton (who took on Sister Souljah for her anti-white racism) or even Barack Obama who had the good sense to at least talk about “our Awesome God” in the “Purple States”. Thanks to the iconoclasm of 2020 (which includes the glorification of homosexuality and transsexualism) we are now fully culturally Marxist.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Michael, in your third-to-the-last paragraph, you encapsulate the murderous spirit behind Puritanism: an overweening sense of self-righteousness that its conscience as it goes about committing atrocities. All in the name of “good” (however good is politically defined at the moment).

      That is why we are now hearing about “deprogramming Trump supporters” or “removing their children from them”. I am convinced that were it not for the pall of illegitimacy that hangs over Biden presently, that the military would be unleashed on the Red States.

      That might still happen.

      • Well, they are trying to appoint political generals;
        are they not?

        • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

          Brendan, with increasing frequency during the last ten or so years–i.e., since the advent of the Obama-Biden administration–the four-star generals and admirals serving in all of the U.S. armed forces have leaned heavily to port. They are, from I what I can discern, political operatives whose wending their way to the highest officer rank validates the satirical “Peter Principle” dating back to a book with that title in 1970–namely, that, in the structure of many organizations, people tend to rise in the hierarchy to the level of their incompetence.

          The current batch of four-stars may know how to fight and win wars–the only necessary mission of a military leader–but they are uniformly craven and willing to promote any radical notion advanced by left-wing U.S. presidents, including open homosexuality and gender dysphoria in the ranks, allowing women to pretend that they can serve alongside male combat troops, and implementing the latest political ideologies from the left such as “critical race theory” and “anti-racism” indoctrination.

          Each day I thank God that I retired from the U.S. Army in 2010 and did not have to confront those monstrosities while serving in uniform. I probably would have been court-martialed.

          • Nowadays, Fr Alexander, I suspect The Peter Principle
            would become The Wendy Principle in today’s Never Never Land.

          • Fr., thank you for your service, both in the military and as a priest.

          • Orthodox Former Naval Officer says

            Fr. Alexander, having served in the military for 11 of the last 12 years, I can assure you that our 4-star Admirals and Generals are not left-leaning. The civilian leadership, such as the former SECNAV Ray Mabus, have been very leftist, and our 4-stars have stuck to the American principals of obeying the civilian leadership and staying out of politics. This allowed the Obama administration, together with Congress, to accomplish what Mattis called the greatest harm the US Military has ever suffered, much greater than any foreign military has accomplished waging war against us, and has left us woefully unable to win wars.

            Tragically, President Trump did little to reverse the damage and doubled down on most of Obama’s destructive policies instead of reversing them, leaving us in an even worse state of military unreadiness than we were in 4 years ago.

            • George Michalopulos says

              OFNO: first of all, thank you for your service.

              I really hate to get in the middle between you and Fr Webster but (caveat aside: I’ve never served) but based upon what I know about Gen Mattis and the public pronouncements of other high-ranking military, however, I must come down on the side of Fr Webster on this and I’ll tell you why.

              Mattis, a man whose praises I have repeatedly sung, did everything to subvert Trump’s ban on transvestites and transsexuals serving in the military. Adm McRaven likewise openly ridiculed the Commander-in-Chief. Others, such as H R McMaster did what he could to undermine his pullout from Afghanistan.

              Unless the continued feminization and homosexualization of the military is viewed as “conservative” then I don’t see how Fr Webster’s assessment is wrong.

              My own sources in the military paint a dire picture of the deterioration of the fighting spirit of regular (not special forces fortunately) and subsequent demoralization. Based mainly on the fact that while civilian society was “slouching to Gomorrah” the military still held out as a bastion of normal masculine Americanism.

              Having said that, even if what you write is correct (and I hope to God that it is), what good are conservative, right-wing generals and admirals if they stand by while the Pentagon becomes a hotbed of social liberalism?

              I may be missing something so I will gladly stand to be corrected.

              • Orthodox Former Naval Officer says

                “Having said that, even if what you write is correct (and I hope to God that it is), what good are conservative, right-wing generals and admirals if they stand by while the Pentagon becomes a hotbed of social liberalism?”

                They believe in democratic rule. Rule by the people, not by the military. If the people elect a left wing President, they support him, within the generous bounds afforded by the Constitution. If the people elect a populist President, they do the same. That is what I have witnessed, and the effect on the military over the last 12 years, particularly in the Western Pacific, has been devastating. There has been some discussion about whether the situation calls for a modern day Revolt of the Admirals, but the revolt didn’t succeed, so their isn’t much hope in taking that extreme course of action. Ultimately those to blame are American voters who have elected these Presidents, and have not cared about how much the military has been defunded, dismantled, obstructed, and dishonored. For better or for worse, that is the prerogative of the electorate in a democracy.

                It bares mentioning that I have experienced complete religious freedom and extensive accommodations for practicing my Orthodox faith under both administrations. My rights to freely believe what I want to believe have been overtly protected throughout all the changes.

                • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

                  RE: “I have experienced complete religious freedom and extensive accommodations for practicing my Orthodox faith under both administrations.”

                  Anonymous Former Naval Officer, if you were not an Orthodox chaplain, then I can understand how that comment could be true. I rejoice in your good fortune.

                  Have you known or encountered any Orthodox USN chaplains during your tours of duty of late? If so, I have two additional questions for you.

                  1. Have any of those Orthodox chaplains, as far as you know, managed to pray in the name God the Holy Trinity (or Our Lord Jesus Christ) in any command settings, including onboard ship or at USN bases?

                  2. Have any of those chaplains managed to conduct married couple retreats and other pastoral events for married couples, including pastoral counseling, without having to “include” LGBTeieio individuals and without any negative repercussions on those chaplains’ follow-on assignments or officer FITREPs (“Fitness Reports”)?

                  In my 24 years of military experience as a U.S. Army chaplain, those two situations–the first with the First Commandment in the Book of Exodus at stake, and the second with the Seventh Commandment at stake–posed the greatest unjustifiable threats to the ministry and careers of Orthodox military chaplains.

                  • Orthodox Former Naval Officer says

                    Fr. Alexander,

                    I have had the good fortune of meeting several Orthodox military chaplains. The most recent was serving at the Orthodox chapel of St. Nicholas built by the military for our exclusive use on Camp Foster in Okinawa. It is the only Orthodox church in the Okinawa prefecture.

                    Most Christian Chaplains I have encountered pray “in Jesus’s name” at official command functions. I can’t say I have ever heard any of the Protestant ones pray in the name of the Holy Trinity. Looking over their choices of hymns each week as they cleared their things out of the aircraft carrier chapel as I prepared to serve Typica, you could not have positively identified them as Trinitarian, sadly.

                    As the legal officer for my command in Yokosuka, I was involved in an incident where a Protestant chaplain was reprimanded for his treatment of a gay Sailor in regards to a planned retreat. Looking over the evidence, the chaplain had flatly lied to the Sailor, putting himself in an impossible position. I was assured by the senior chaplain in the area that what the chaplain was supposed to have done according to policy was let his chain of command know that there was a gay Sailor who wanted to attend the retreat and that his faith tradition did not allow him to provide such services to homosexuals. Had he done that, both would have been accommodated, either by sending the Sailor to a neighboring base for their retreat or by having a different chaplain run that retreat.

                    I have heard from Navy chaplains that the Air Force does not let its chaplains pray “in Jesus’s name”, but I have no first hand experience of this. The closest I have come to anything like that was when the BRAC joint basing plan placed the Naval Station in Charleston, SC under the Air Force base there. The Air Force chaplain tried to force the Navy to change the base chapel’s name because he felt “All Saints Chapel” was too denomination specific. He wanted it to be called “The Weapon Station Chapel.” The Navy chaplains told him to pack sand.

                    • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

                      Thank you for sharing those experiences. I commend you for serving as both a JAG and a devout Orthodox Christian. Obviously, not all lawyers are scoundrels! (Full disclosure: one of my sons-in-law is a practicing attorney.) Your leading Typica Services as a layman also testifies to your strong faith and dedication to your fellow swabbies.

                      Your email also confirms my intel pertaining to the difference between the USN chaplaincy and the USA and USAF chaplaincies on one key issue. The USN chaplaincy allows for what I understand is a dual-track schedule of married couple retreats and other ministries: (1) an “inclusive” track intended for both traditional marriages and the new faux “marriages” between two men or two women, and (2) a more traditional option for marriages between one man and one woman alone. Navy chaplains may elect to offer either according to their consciences and faith group requirements without adverse consequences.

                      Alas, the Army and Air Force, the last time I checked, do not provide such options.

                      Perhaps some of the other retired US military chaplains or even some still on active duty (without disclosing their names) who read this blog will weigh in here on this predicament.

                  • Orthodox Former Naval Officer says

                    Fr. Alexander, I attempted to answer your questions based on my experiences, but it looks like my post for some reason is not displaying.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      The fact that we’re even debating whether a Christian chaplain can say “in Jesus’ name” or invoke the Holy Trinity means that we’ve pretty much de-Christianized the armed forces, doesn’t it?

                    • Give it time 🙂

          • George Michalopulos says

            One thing we learned during the 2020 lock-down is how easily the police forces could be made to arrest peaceful people who resented the insane orders of the likes of Gov Whitmer. When it came to choosing between one’s pension and doing the right thing, the majority chose their pensions.

            I imagine that the military will do so when the Oligarchy unleashes it on the Red States. (Not that it’s gonna be easy.)

            • The military and the police are no longer our friends. I’m happy that more and more people are realizing this.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Basil, I’d say it’s a little more complicated than that. In the main, you are correct however I believe that if push comes to shove, then we could be pleasantly surprised in certain significant cases.

                One thing about the 2020/stolen election/gamestop is that it has woken up all Republicans, conservatives, Christians, believers, etc., and not a few normal Democrats, honest liberals, etc. I can safely say that many police have taken stock of the entire situation and if Gov Whitmer/Cuomo/Evil Prog unleashes them again, more than a few will get the Blue Flue and/or find another excuse to get another donut.

                As for the military, it’s dicey.

    • Austin Martin says

      Let’s be fair to Lincoln. Can you really look at the events of last summer and say that blacks and whites can live in harmony?

      As for General Sherman, I don’t want to defend him, but I’m fairly certain his men did not attack civilians. There was a lot of looting and arson. By today’s standards he would be a war criminal. But there were almost no rapes. I don’t know for absolute certain he didn’t murder any civilians, but I’m mostly sure.

      Interestingly, Confederate General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson proposed something similar at the beginning of the war, that they should cut through Pennsylvania, burn Philadelphia and make their way to Lake Erie, all without relying on conventional supply lines. The Confederate leadership was appalled at the idea.

      The best thing that could have happened would be for McClellan to have conquered Richmond in the summer of 1862 (which almost happened). At that point the union could have been put back mostly as it was. The war didn’t have its moral dimension yet – at the time it still was about territory and sovereignty. By the end of the year, that dream was dead.

      • Michael Bauman says

        Austin, we can absolutely live in harmony with other human beings even the white one’s. Look at the work of Fr. Moses Berry and the Fellowship od St. Moses the Black.

        When Fr. Moses was 19 he was in the drug scene and very much the type to riot and destroy. God changed him.

        He has been a friend and mentor since 1973.

        So, Austin, read and ask for the intercessions of St. Moses the Black.

        All things are possible with God. Rejoice in thanksgiving for His mercy which endures forever.

        • True unity in diversity can only be found in Christ’s Church, hence Fr. Moses’ heart-warming witness.

          Unfortunately, most people are sadly not pursing the grace-filled life in Christ and it is very evident to see that “us” and “them” are always going to be at each others’ throats, whether it’s white and black Americans, Serbs and Croats and Bosnians, Greeks and Turks, Indians and Pakistanis, Hutus and Tutsis, Tamils and Sinhalese, etc.

          It’s best for communities to just keep to themselves in most cases, I think.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Wise words, Basil.

            While I agree that there is “neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free” etc., there is absolutely nothing wrong with people of various ethnicities choosing to worship with each other. When Chrysostom was Arb of Cpole back in the day, he strived to learn Gothic because there was a Gothic congregation in that city and he took his archpastoral duties seriously.

            I have been a huge critic of the GOA these past few years but one of the things that I will not criticize them for is the erection of the so-called ethnic vicariates that are in the offing. The criticism comes from the very real fear that the GOA (which is already liberalized) is going to make common cause with Hispanic and African-American jurisdictions that are already well-to-the-Left theologically speaking. That’s a huge issue.

            Having said that, there is no reason why after a generation or two different ethnicities amalgamate and thereby worship together.

            The ideal thing to do would be for an amalgamation of all Orthodox Churches in America around the person of the Arb of Washington with territorial bishops according to the one-city/one-bishop rule. And for ethnic vicariates to be erected but headed by only Archpriests. The purpose of said vicariates would be to provide materials, rubrics, demographic info to be provided for an already-existing ethnicity that is in an existing diocese.

            Example: If the AOC (American Orthodox Church) bishop of Houston is a Serb and he doesn’t speak Spanish, and there is interest in Hispanic missions in his diocese, he could write to the head of the Hispanic vicariate (say, headquartered in DC/wherever) and work out some arrangement to missionize them. He would still be their bishop as they are in his territorial diocese and so they would commemorate him. He would of course provide them with an antiminsion.

            The thing that I fear would be all Hispanic missions/parishes everywhere reporting to an ethnic vicar-bishop located in Los Angeles, when there are already territorial bishops in Houston, Denver, Chicago, wherever. That makes no sense.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Basil, you mistake the nature and quality of Fr. Moses witness. It may warm the heart but only after one goes through a searing repentance.

            No, I do not think for a smidgeon of an instant that “our two communities” should keep to themselves. That is a fundamental denial of the Gospel. If the same principle were applied to other “separate” communities, all of the Lebanese who began and have maintained my parish for over 100 years should have not allowed a white pseudo-Christian like me into their community.

            George, what you propose is not the same ad what Badil suggests at all. His words are not , “wise”.

            • I think you misread what I wrote. There’s nothing in my comment about worshipping separately. In fact, quite the opposite message should be extracted from my words.

              My words were directed at the all-too-obvious divides that exist in the world between peoples of differing ethnicities, cultures, religions, and languages. In the social context, there is always conflict, despite the best intentions of some within the communities. I’ll add Northern Ireland, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kurdistan, Israel, and China to my list of places where two communities have irreconcilable differences and should try and keep a distance from one another.

              Only in the Church are these divisions truly overcome and people can come together in unity, concord, and true love.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Just to be clear: the repentance involved in Fr. Moses mission is not just “white” repentance. It is the to repentance that is always in the Church but focused on an area of humanity that needs work. Fr. Moses has told me more than once that he has had to repent as well. Indeed, I think he is bearing the racial sins of us all in his own body. A true confessor of the faith. His wife Mat. Magdalena suffers with him.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Austin, regarding Sherman, most of his casualties were civilians. Those that were not outright murdered had their houses and farms pillaged, thereby reducing them to starvation.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Austin, to be fair, I must also point out that the vast majority of the pillaging and rioting that took place last summer was done by mostly white SJWs. Black people did riot, yes, but the most damage and all the leadership was Caucasian.

          One of the theses of the “Long, Cold, Civil War” is that all such internecine conflicts are basically perpetrated by the white majority. Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities are mere auxiliaries in the conflict. The war –cultural or otherwise–is between white demographic groups. Black Lesbian Marxists (my new term for BLM) is merely an excuse used by the leftist side to serve as propaganda against the white “patriarchy”.

          For once, black people have caught up to this insight (which was first proposed in similar fashion by Malcolm X [who truly despised white liberals]). That’s why Trump doubled the share of the black vote in 2020. And that’s why we saw the BLM “uprising” in 2020, which was first “beta-tested” in 2019 with the Jussie Smollett hoax.

          I for one am surprised that the Democrats didn’t openly revive the Klan and had them pillage black areas and businesses. My guess is that as a false flag, it would have been too obvious.

        • Austin Martin says

          I’m not defending Sherman. Well maybe a little bit, but I’m not condoning him. I’m just saying that I’m not aware that he killed any civilians. I could be wrong.

          The civil war in Missouri was highly interesting. I recently finished reading “Martyrdom in Missouri”, about how the war and the aftermath affected churches, published in 1870. It’s very prescient to what’s going on now.

  10. Censorship, bullying, threats of jail… how Nicola Sturgeon’s
    storm troops turned Scotland into a banana republic without the bananas

    ‘ These are dark, even dangerous days in Scotland. The stramash between the country’s two most famous politicians, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, has resulted in vital public documents being censored or banned, important information being suppressed, the media cajoled and cowed, the legal system brought into disrepute, the Scottish Parliament neutered and even bloggers being threatened with jail. …

    A former Scottish National Party first minister of Scotland (Salmond) is accusing the current SNP First Minister (Sturgeon) of lying to and/or misleading the Scottish Parliament.

    He also claims she was part of a concerted effort, involving the Scottish Government and SNP executives (including the party’s chief executive, who happens to be Sturgeon’s husband), to destroy his reputation, even to the extent of seeing him jailed.

    These are extraordinary claims. But not as extraordinary as the official response, which has insisted that crucial evidence that Salmond thinks corroborates his claims be censored and remain unpublished. This in a democracy. In 2021.

    Sturgeon, who continues to ride high in the polls ahead of May’s Holyrood elections but has started to look somewhat flustered, emerged from her bunker this week to state to the cameras there was not ‘a shred of evidence’ to support Salmond’s accusations.

    Since her own Crown Office –Scotland’s public prosecution service – had warned even the Scottish Parliament, never mind the media, not to publish his evidence, it was a wee bit difficult to put either his or her statement to the test.

    His claims are being investigated as part of a Scottish parliamentary inquiry into why the Sturgeon Government made such a hash of its handling of sexual harassment accusations against Salmond in 2018 that it ended up shelling out more than £500,000 to cover his legal costs in a judicial review of its actions. The Government lost because the court concluded its procedures were ‘unlawful’, ‘unfair’ and ‘tainted with apparent bias’.

    Two weeks after the Government’s case crashed and burned – at huge taxpayer expense – Salmond was arrested and charged with a long list of sexual offences, of which the most serious was attempted rape. He was acquitted on all counts by a jury last March – although that criminal trial forms no part of the current inquiry. …

    The Crown Office, which is meant to be independent, has become the ‘lickspittle arm’ of the SNP Government, says Alistair Bonnington, former professor at Glasgow University’s School of Law. It operates ‘at the direct command of the cabal currently at the head of the Scottish Government’.

    The Crown Office is in crisis. In a recent case involving the famous Glasgow Rangers football team it was forced to admit to a ‘malicious prosecution’ – legalese for proceeding with a prosecution even though you’ve been advised that you don’t have enough evidence to secure a conviction.

    It’s already had to pay out over £20million in compensation and legal fees. The final bill could be close to £100million.

    Nobody has been sacked. Nobody has resigned. Perhaps becoming the legal shock troops of the Sturgeon Government in its dealings with the Salmond insurrection is a way to ensure survival. …

    If Scotland was Texas, the Justice Department in Washington DC would have sent in the Feds by now to investigate the various breaches of first amendment rights, which guarantee free speech and protect a robust Press. …

    Err… Re that last paragraph: NO, they wouldn’t. Not nowadays.