Contra Fordham(ites)

Well, our good buddies over at Fordham, champions of the Alphabet People (and other Jesuit-approved intersectionalities), have taken the Philip Ludwell III Orthodox Fellowship to task.

One of their partisans, a certain Dr Aram G Sarkisian, recently wrote something scathing in Public Orthodoxy about Orthodoxy in the South entitled “Orthodox America Has a Lost Cause Problem”.   Besides the Ludwell Fellowship, he throws in a word or two against your humble host as well. 

As you can tell from the screen shot that accompanies this story, Dr Sarkisian is not one much open for debate.  Which is strange given that he’s a post-doctoral fellow at Northwestern University.  And the Public Orthodoxy people, ensconced as they are at Fordham University, are academics themselves.  

I mean, you’d think that if they had the moral high ground they’d be open for debate.  But they’re not.  You see, their gig is to be the “go-to” people for American Orthodoxy in general.  Kind of what the late and unlamented OCANews used to be when it came to the OCA all those years ago.  Only on a bigger, more institutionalized manner.  After all, these guys got the academic might of the Jesuits behind them.  That’s pretty much the big-time. 

Oh well.

You know, liberals would have a leg to stand on about the whole “Lost Cause” issue if they hadn’t gone and hated on Abe Lincoln.  Or Frederick Douglass.   Or U S Grant, or William McKinley, or the American flag.  But they did.  They tacitly agreed with those savages who took down all of their statues last year.  And they gave Colin Kaepernick an “attaboy!” when he told Nike to remove the Betsy Ross flag from their sneakers.  Yep, the first flag of these United States.  Not a peep.  So save me the sanctimony.

You can read Sarkisian’s essay it in its entirety here:

Or you can watch my own take-down of it below.   

But first, this: 

                                                                 Why?  Because we can.

Anyway, here’s my take on this whole matter:  


  1. Fun fact: If everyone pretending that Public Orthodoxy and AFR ceased to exist, they would become completely irrelevant, no matter how much Rockefeller money they had.

  2. “… more aligned with conservative views on Culture Wars issues like abortion and LGBTQIA rights.”

    Keeping the commandments of God and being salt and light to the culture? Oh the horror!

  3. Bravo for posting the Confederate flag, I have one on my living room wall now (largely as a result of our present racial dramas).

    I have toyed somewhat intellectually with the merits of actually embracing the label “white supremacy” given its rabid overuse by the left. I think though that it still retains pejorative connotations of night riders in hoods burning crosses and the attendant violence. What French nationalists embrace is ethnic French supremacy. Russian instinctively embrace ethnic Russian supremacy. Brexit types desire, perhaps most dramatically, British supremacy for themselves and their land.

    And BLM, make no mistake about it desires black supremacy under the guise of “anti-racism”. They lead with their shield and profess opposition to “white supremacy” but condemn a society which actually embraces forms of affirmative action for women and minorities as intrinsically systemically racist. They are not in favor of proportional representation of blacks, which is often the case or exceeded today.

    They want revenge for the perceived grievances preached to them by the Democratic Party left. That is the point of BLM, 1619, “anti-racism”, etc. – black supremacy.

    And so it makes perfect sense that they want to attack whites defending themselves from such an onslaught as “white supremacists” – whites who still make up a majority of approximately 70 percent of the electorate. It’s all a sick race hustle. But there is an underlying reality present that will continue to defy peaceful resolution.

    A race is also the repository of a culture or cultures. And multiculturalism is doomed to failure. Europe is a glaring testimony to that proposition. America has only survived as multi-ethnic and multi-cultural because the dominant culture has always been that of whites of European ancestry. The very idea of racial equality arose and emanates from this camp and has no corresponding manifestation in black African culture. When black Africans take over a country previously dominated by whites, the result is always tragic (see Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and the plight of Afrikaners in South Africa).

    And so a multi-racial society is one which will inevitably have either a cold or hot race war perpetually afoot as a result. Tribes vie for ethnic dominance. It is seen as normal and almost a sacred right all the way back to the Hebrews in Egypt. Their solution, the only real solution, is separation. I don’t mean segregation. That is, at best, a temporary imperfect remedy.

    I mean separation of populations by race/culture into their own self-ruling states. This removes the source of the conflict. Colorblindness might, were it embraced by all. But it only takes one faction to upset that apple cart and the rewards of stoking flames of racial enmity are too enticing for everyone to resist it indefinitely.

    PS: The South was right about the entire matter in every detail. Slavery was a legal institution which the North had no right to eradicate by any means other than the consent of the electorate. The South fought in order to defend its autonomy, its right to secede from a Union it no longer saw as beneficial. The North had no power to abolish slavery at the commencement of the war and that was not on the table. Lincoln famously quipped that he would even extend slavery if it would preserve the Union.

    In the end, slavery was abolished by extra-constitutional means. The seceding state, while being told that they were in rebellion and that they did not actually successfully secede in the first place, were blackmailed into enacting the Civil War amendments, including the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, under duress and as a condition for being “readmitted” to the Union (which again, they were told they had never successfully left). There is no provision in the Constitution preventing a state from seceding but there is a 10th Amendment guaranteeing all rights not explicitly allocated to the federal government to the states and/or the people.

    Thus the entire American enterprise has actually been illegitimate, strictly speaking, since at least the end of the Civil War. Moreover, it is the sad legacy of the coercion used in pursuit of racial politics ever since that we are seeing come home to roost at present.

    • Seems to make the Forhamite case pretty well.

      Good news is that I have never met anyone in any parish anywhere who espouses this kind of thing.

      Guessing not a slav either.

      • I doubt Greg has ever heard Slavs speak frankly. Political correctness is not a notable feature of Slavic speech.

        Racism is in the eye of the beholder. By Fordhamite standards, I may well be a racist. So be it. Opinions vary.

        • George Michalopulos says

          By Fordhamite standards, anybody who associates with people of his/her own race is a racist. Even people people who live in states that are overwhelmingly white (e.g. Vermont, New Hampshire, Montana, etc.)

          In other words, you can’t win with these people.

        • Given I am a slav, speak some Russian and have spent a fair amount of time in Russia and Ukraine both, I am pretty up on how slavs speak (though since I note you didn’t answer the question I posed, I assume “Misha” is a cosplayer name). In any case, there is a distinction between “not politically correct” and “white supremacist.”

          • Gail Sheppard says

            English please, Misha.

            • I’m not accustomed to conversing with trolls.

              • Gail Sheppard says

                Surely you don’t mean me!

                • Galinushka,

                  No, no, dear! Not you. The troll is the guy who said I proved the Fordhamites’ point.

                • That’s two jokes in one thread, Gail.
                  I hope I’m not the only one laughing…

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    I think we’re all laughing! If you could only see the comments behind the scenes. . . Some trying to cozy up to people to leverage them. Others, just saying, “I hate you”.

                    • Really, some leftards are using scatological names after posting their hateful comments. Things akin to Things along those lines.

                      That means that they’re losing it. I can’t say that I blame them, what with the Presidency, both Houses of Congress and the Deep State in their pockets, they’re still not able to get what they want.

                    • Trolling defined.

                      Spewing ad hominems re ancestry rather than addressing the substance of an issue would qualify. I actually have no qualms with anyone categorizing me as a white supremacist as I mentioned before. I do not think terms like that or “racist” actually describe my beliefs inasmuch as they give an inaccurate picture of substance and tactics. Both terms have been so devalued that they are practically meaningless, like the boy who cried wolf.

                      As far as my views being out of step within Orthodoxy, I doubt that very much as well. Some trolls don’t get out very much. I would characterize myself as ethnocentric and anti-multicultural. I just happen to be intellectually honest and consistent with the scriptures and the Church Fathers regarding the slavery issue.

                      Mea maxima culpa.

                      So, Gail, don’t let the fools gaslight you. You’re doing fine.

              • You don’t seem to understand what trolling is. I pointed out the obvious- someone who is comfortable identifying as a “white supremacist”, believes that chattel slavery is moral, etc more or less objectively fits the profile they are projecting on southern American Orthodoxy.

                I have never met an Orthodox Christian who fits that mold personally so I seriously doubt this is a real world issue: like much of what shows up in Public Orthodoxy it seems to be a projection of sorts.

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  Trolling obviously depends on the latitude given to you by your host. I consider trolling as personal, unflattering commentary that doesn’t let up. Lest you be considered a troll, please stop commenting on this! You submitted the same thing yesterday.

    • Misha, do you as an Orthodox Christian, believe that some people have a right to own other people, for any reason (racial, ethnic, religious etc). If you don’t, then your theory does not stand. Slavery of any sort is repugnant to Christian ethics. As we all ‘are free in Christ’.
      Just wondering where you stand on this issue….

      • George Michalopulos says

        Jim, of course Misha can reply for himself. I however will ask this question: given that “slavery of any sort is repugnant to Christian ethics”, an assertion which I personally agree with, how do those who are supposedly anti-slavery justify the importation of millions of helots into the United States?

        I’m asking this not to be snarky but honestly. I have seen these helots work under brutal conditions; their injuries which are left untreated and the withholding of their wages by their bosses. While this is not the chattel-type slavery which was based on race in the Antebellum era, it is only a step up from this. In some ways, it’s worse: slaves in the Antebellum South were at least housed, clothed and fed. These migrants have no such consideration.

        • George,

          I would rather stay focused constructively on disaster that is the CP’s supremacy announcements.

          Since you want to know an answer, the metaphorical “helots”, like wage slaves in the past, are apparently in a better status overall because of their freedom. With literal slavery, a master could be extremely brutal, even performing rapes in history, and the slaves were stuck under their bullwhip. With metaphorical “wage slavery”, the slave can leave and go elsewhere. I say that they are better off “overall” free, because there are some ways in which slavery is better. If the slave dies, the owner is at a big disadvantage and so he must try to make sure that the slave survives and is in “working condition.” But even this is not absolute, as there were cases of masters who maimed or killed slaves.

          There was a “documentary” that ROCOR did about Orthodoxy in Dixie, focusing on ROCOR parishes in South Carolina:

          This is the kind of presentation that I object to. The opening song is about “Dixie” and the opening interview is with the director of a Confederate war museum connecting Orthodoxy to the Confederacy via “manliness”, valor and “beards.” Even supposing that people love the Confederacy for “valor” and I were to be a sympathizer, there is a big practical problem because by connecting Orthodoxy in the South to the Confederacy, you have immediately alienated about half of your audience, if not more. Further, even someone who is really into the Confederacy problem would not typically want to join Orthodoxy out of love for Southern heritage. This is because despite ROCOR being “conservative” in some social sense, the US South is typically associated with Protestantism. Indeed, the Ludwell Southron Society has pictures of Protestants and Evangelicals in its banner heading mixed together with Orthodox portraits, as if there is a connection between Southern US Protestantism and Orthodoxy. There is some overlap between Protestantism and Orthodoxy, but it’s a portrayal that Orthodoxy itself, as far as I can tell, would disagree with.

          Further, I know the priest at the end of the interview, and he is pretty nice. He told me that in the past there was discrimination against Greeks in the South. Certainly that would be true about the US in general in the past, but my point is that I don’t see Southron or Confederate heritage to give an audience a very good picture of the actual Greek or Orthodox experience in the South, even though there would be some truth in that. For example, there was a wealthy Greek slave trader in New Orleans who was a major patron for the Greek parish there soon before and then after the Civil War. So there is at least a grain of truth in the depiction. But Ludwell himself was outcast in his religious practices in the colonial South because it was not Protestant, as the Ludwell society itself admits. So the Ludwell Society’s associations between Protestant heritage in the South and Orthodoxy is not a very helpful picture.

          I wish the Ludlwell society success in bringing people to Orthodoxy, but emphasizing Confederate heritage seems a bad way to do it for multiple reasons.

          This documentary came out in 2013, so I am pretty curious about what sparked the Public Orthodoxy article only now on 12/3/21, claiming that this is a problem for Orthodoxy in America.

          Someone brought the topic of the Ludwell Southron Society on an Orthodox internet forum because people were talking about St Vladimir’s potential move to Texas, and then soon afterward I see this announcement on the Public Orthodoxy blog.

          All the Best.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Thank you Hal.

            Your points about the relative status of present helots & past racial slaves is well taken.

            A point about brutality: white indentured servants could (and sometimes) were flogged. So we’re free-born white men in the US Army & US Navy during this very same time.

            Cruelty happened but not as often as we think. If nothing else, a slave was a capital asset. Farmers do not go around destroying tractors nor tailors their sewing machines.

            I’m not defending slavery by any stretch; as the son of a union worker, I know how helots/slaves can undercut the wages of working men. Alexis de Tocqueville saw it as well in the 1830s when he made his grand tour of America and saw the difference between Indiana and Kentucky.

            Historical context is key to understanding.

            It.would have been best had indentured servitude/African slavery never had implemented in the first place.

            • It’s nice to write to you,
              Discrimination in America is a problem, but I’m inclined to think that it’s not a problem for the EO Church like the article is suggesting. To think that it was a problem, I would want to see a lot more evidence than the Ludwell Southron Society, which looks small. I would want to see minorities being mistreated when they visited EO Churches, Southron identity being a common Coffee Hour topic, sermons promoting Southron heritage, EO churches having Confederate flags on the wall, etc.

              In contrast, we had GOARCH parishes reading from their ambos episcopal declarations favoring the OCU and against those who “defy” the CP’s decisions. We have the CP getting applause when he says Skasilou mou about the break in relations between the CP and MP and getting applause. We have the CP making repeated supremacist declarations about Greek blood and genos and against Slavs. And the GOARCH churches are going along with this.

              I don’t know how true it is today, but Greek Americans in past decades had a reputation of being cliqueish in their relations with nonGreeks. Fortunately, I haven’t experienced much of this directly and just heard stories about it, like Albanian EOs getting turned away from Greek Churches in the 1930’s. If those claims are true, then certainly you would have a better idea than me.

              Probably the two main problems for Orthodoxy in America today are declining nationwide attendance and the CP’s destructive new supremacist ecclesiology. Parishes that survived for 100 years in the Rust Belt are closing, and it can’t all be attributed to people leaving the Rust Belt.

              Likewise, supremacist ideology was the main cause of the break in relations between the RC Church and the EOs as the Pope demanded fealty and obedience to his extrajurisdictional decisions. This is a recipe for disaster and schism anywhere that the CP decides to impose his new powers.

              I can get Southern EO conservatives to agree that White Supremacism is wrong. Fr. Whiteford signed and posted a declaration from EO clergy against racism. But can I get GOARCH leaders like clergy, the Fordham Center, and Archons to agree that the CP’s supremacy powers and ethnic supremacist declarations are destructive and wrong.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Hal, as Fr Whiteford has so eloquently written, the Fordhamites are supremacists as well. In their case is the supremacy of Cultural Marxism.

                • George,
                  I came across an article of yours on the OCL website decades ago when you were exposing corruption in the GOARCH. This is one of your fortes because there is little online about this topic. Even James Jatras doesn’t know where the CP’s missing millions go. Some of the scandalous stories about the CP from the last few decades, like the deaths of dissident Chicago diocese priests, are even a little scary. And the CP is not transparent about his actions, like why he tried to disband the AROCWE.

                  And you do a service by having these comments. Do Fr. Whiteford and Public Orthodoxy even have Comment sections?

                  When the COVID restrictions went into force and churches closed last Paskha, I used Fr. Whiteford’s Reader’s service texts to chant. I haven’t really seen much to show that he is racist in light of his article justifying interracial marriage. To put this in context, when my brother was in a Methodist Sunday school in the 90’s, a guest “teacher” came in and told the kids that interracial relationships are wrong.

                  Public Orthodoxy complaining that Fr. Whiteford left comments on Monomakhos is one of the worst quality criticisms. If Abp Desmond Tutu left comments here, would Public Orthodoxy attack Abp. Tutu?

                  I can’t find much constructive connection to make between Stonewall Jackson and Orthodoxy. I could write a much better article to write criticizing the Ludwell Southron Society. But there are so many problems in this world, I don’t have the energy. A certain percent of political “provocateurs” work as somebody’s agents. Matthew Heimbach and “Brother” Nathanael Kapner have performed such counterintuitive and ridiculous actions and mixed them together with “Orthodoxy” that it makes me wonder if they are even serious or are secretly trying to be provocative and destructive. Heimbach made a big white cross and beat his political opponents with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if provocative individuals joined the “Southron” society too, either from the start or once it got going.

                  I don’t see infighting as generally helpful. Take for instance Abp. Irenei. Unless one theorizes that AROCWE is doing secret dark things behind the scenes, Abp. Irenei’s breaking communion with them is only a destructive event for the Church. And no one has given evidence of any real, good reason that he has for this. The only evidence of his real reasons seems to be his past opposition to “Russification.”

                  Maybe Fr. Whiteford made good points in defending himself, but his emphasis on cultural “Marxism” and talking about Chinese victims misses the mark. It is like using a baseball bat to kill a fly. It can sound good in polemics, but the P.O. article author didn’t say anything specifically Marxist and I don’t have much particular reason to think that he is one.

                  I don’t know if the CP is ever going to give up on their new ecclesiology in my lifetime. The OCU, the “KP”, and the CP have been connected to political state actors for decades, and signs of the CP asserting supremacy in Eastern Europe go back 100 years. It took the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople to effectively put an end to the CP’s union of Rome at the Council of Florence, which is ironic, because the CP made the Unia hoping for help from Rome against the Ottomans.

                  Zdorovie Tebe / Stin ygeía sou / Kind Regards.

                  • He defended Critical Race Theory, which is a Marxist theory. And he has not complained publicly about slavery going on today in China, though he wants to virtue signal about slavery 160 years ago in the United States. Taking on China’s slavery might actually cost him something. Taking on Marxism would almost certainly end his academic career. So it is far safer to talk about a problem that has been settled for a century and a half.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Spot on, Fr!

                      You know, you gotta give it to the CCP, they’ve been spreading around millions of dollars over the past two decades. They’ve totally got Academe, Hollywood, the Congress, Biden (of course) in their pockets. And now that they’ve picked up the Taliban, they’ll have Bagram AFB in Afghanistan, basically the final nail in the coffin as far as solidifying the underbelly of the Eurasian landmass via their Belt and Road Initiative.

                      As far as the Muslim Uighers and the soft genocide being perpetrated against them –crickets. Not only from the West but from the Islamic ummah as well. So far, the only Muslim to speak out is Enes Kenter, the center of the Boston Celtics. The hypocrisy is stunning.

                      But you’re right: Sarkisian and his ilk dare not take on the CCP or the cultural Marxists. Game, set and match.

                  • I don’t see infighting as generally helpful. Take for instance Abp. Irenei. Unless one theorizes that AROCWE is doing secret dark things behind the scenes, Abp. Irenei’s breaking communion with them is only a destructive event for the Church.

                    I found an inside “run-down” on the tragic conflict between ROCOR and AROCWE by Fr. Andrew:

                    “From Cardiff to New York and Moscow: How in One Tragic Year a Local Schism Was Spread Worldwide”

                    It is well written and quickly narrates events from Dec 17, 2020 to Dec 17, 2021.

                    • Although I have been a reader for many years of Fr. Andrew’s blog and have always found it to be very interesting, his recent postings on this situation I feel have been repetitive, highly biased, overestimating the scale of what occurred in the UK, and self-aggrandizing.

                      At this point he’s flogging a dead horse as it looks like ROCOR are not interested in making a public response to him, although it would probably help clear things up.

                    • Hal, I pray that you can find some peace in your heart and move on from this one instance you perceive to be so unjust. Believe me when I say how much I can empathize with your sense of injustice, that someone has been wronged. However, the ROCOR Synod has issued a very strong statement on the matter, in support of Bishop Irenei, and I think the matter should be laid to rest at this point, don’t you?

                    • Christine,
                      I didn’t know that ROCOR has a statement on this. Do you know where? One risk is that it could widen as a schism, with ROCOR leaving the MP. That is worrisome, because Fr. Andrew said that ROCOR announced that it won’t attend the MP synod this year if AROCWE attends.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      What you’re witnessing are the consequences of a schism that happened 3 years ago to the day, 01/05/19. It was created by a patriarchate going into another bishop’s territory, previously acknowledged as belonging to the other, and claiming it for its own. (This isn’t granting autocephaly, BTW. If you look at the fine print, the OCU cannot do anything without Bartholomew’s permission.)

                    • Hal, Fr. Andrew said a lot of things. I think that there is absolutely no chance of ROCOR leaving the MP and all this about the ROCOR episcopate not going to Moscow is probably false.

                • I feel like I’m so out of the loop on this stuff, as I am about pretty much everything. I know Fordham is a university that has gone really liberal. But what happened? It wasn’t always like that right? Metropolitan Jonah went there back in the day. How did they end up all alphabetish?

          • cynthia curran says

            Well, some of the more successful states in the south like South Carolina have Yankees from New York bringing in the same woke stuff. The right fail to say for years that California and New York are getting whopped by nice suburbs in the south. In fact the left’s biggest arguments is because of Silicon Valley Ca has a high GNP or because of Finance New York has higher salaries for professionals even though New York also has a lot of low paying service jobs because of tourism. In fact the suburbs of Texas or Georgia were successful because they didn’t tax people to death but the right has been focus on that its behind Ca or New York which is not true if you compared suburbs in Dallas gave you a much higher standard of living than burbs in New York or Silicon Valley. The shift from the right was related to Trump picking up votes in the Midwest as a rustbelt and ignoring the already success of burbs in some parts of the Midwest like Carmel Indiana or in the south like Franklin Tn. In fact the south is still a lot more religious than New York City, so its easier to get converts to orthodoxy in the south more than New York.

      • Jim,

        It is interesting to note that the only Church Father who took a principled stand against slavery – the only – was St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. John Chrysostom saw slavery as beneficial to both master and slave and that was the common conventional wisdom in the first millennium.

        So your premises are deeply flawed.

        However, for those interested, I do not believe that we need to allow slavery anywhere as a social caste inasmuch as our means of production have left the utility of such arrangements far behind as well as the fact that our emotional attitudes have subsequently militated in favor of universal freedom. But it was not always so. I do not suggest for a second that this has anything whatsoever to do with Christianity, however, since the record of the Church Fathers is quite clear on the subject.

        So, for example, I do not judge Southern whites of the Old South as being the least bit unchristian for holding slaves or engaging in the “peculiar institution”. That was completely normal and moral in the cultural universe they inhabited. Moreover, in a republic, one cannot simply assert that a thing is moral or immoral and expect everyone else to obey. One must persuade the electorate then in power to change their system voluntarily through legislation.

        The Civil War was a completely lawless endeavor and slavery was abolished in the United States by right of conquest. This is evident in a sort of back handed way by the references in written works after the war referring to the slavery question as being settled by war.

    • Russia was always a multiethnic, multireligious, multiracial state. For many centuries.

      • Kyrill Kraeff says

        Misha – I will respectfully disagree and state it as forcefully as I can: the Southern states rebelled and did not use the means available in the Constitution to separate from the Union. As the Founders had stated, the toleration of slavery in the South was to ensure success against the mother country, England, during the War for Independence. Once the Southern states broke the covenant, they freed the Union from having to tolerate slavery, which always was the greatest affront to the founding principle of the United States.

        As for the situation today, I believe that we live in a similar age when there is a civilizational divide, a term that I have chosen to designate irreconcilable differences between blocs of people. The greatest difference is that for the first time ever there are folks for whom God is no longer a factor in their lives. The greatest consequence of this is the widening gulf between them and those who do believe, where their disagreements are intractable. I think that we may because to consider a different United States of America, one that is a true federation, very much like the Swiss who have regional states with their own separate executive, legislative and judicial branches, with the federal entity drastically reduced to national defence and foreign relations. The overall principle is to live and let live. I honestly cannot see how, for example, South Carolina where I live and California (or any deep blue state) can work together in peace and harmony for long. It would be best for our peace of mind (and theirs) if we each minded our own business. So, how about a United Confederation of North America where we could have up to four or five semi-autonomous regions. You could even leave it up to the counties to choose which region they wish to join.

        • Kirill,

          “. . . the Southern states rebelled and did not use the means available in the Constitution to separate from the Union.”

          That is precisely false. The southern states were entitled to secede by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution which reads as follows:

          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

          There is no mention of secession in the Constitution that would prohibit such an action. Thus the southern states repealed the articles they had passed ratifying the Constitution of the United States, thus severing all legal connection. This was all done precisely to the letter of the law.

          Moreover, after a war of aggression by the Union (the remaining United States under totalitarian control) against these sovereign states, the conquerors deigned to admit the conquered back into the Union (which the conquerors previously protested that they had never successfully left) only on the condition of duress that they ratify the Civil War Amendments, thus abolishing slavery by coercion rather than Constitutional procedure.

          That travesty, and Reconstruction, are at the heart of today’s drama regarding race due to the enabling of liberal white guilt afforded to the Civil Rights movement and black liberation movements by the false narrative regarding the Civil War.

          The South was morally correct as well as being legally correct and we should not shrink away from asserting that fact in defiance of every attempt to malign our honor. Slavery was legal and was completely in keeping with Christian tradition as understood by Southerners at that time and, as a matter of fact, by Orthodox tradition as expressed in the Old and New Testaments and the Church Fathers. There is no question that slavery was a norm in the biblical period and that the Church Fathers wrote either in tolerance of it or approval for the most part. The very dichotomy of indentured servitude as opposed to chattel slavery is based on the biblical model of servitude for Hebrews as opposed to foreigners. There is certainly no catholic consensus against the holding of slaves expressed in the tradition.

          Now, that does not mean that we should re-institute it. Changes in the mode of production, from agriculture to industry, are what really wiped out slavery. And pursuant to that economic evolution, our mores evolved to oppose slavery in principle. But this is not a statement of Christian tradition any more than the equal rights of women or the normalization of perversion are Christian tradition.

          Guilt for slavery is a psychological flaw, an Achilles heel, to American traditionalism much like lumping in Hitler’s national socialists with the true right. These are devices designed by our enemies. A failure to address slavery squarely and accurately leads to veritable pandora’s box of troubles.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Very well said, Misha. However, I for one do believe that chattel slavery as practiced (and based on race) is an invidious wrong. Still, we could have gotten rid of it had the Northern industrialists agreed to buy out the contracts of the slaves, pay the large planters for parts of their land and given the former slaves “40 acres and a mule” and/or given them allotments west of the Mississippi to set up their own townships.

            Instead, bloodthirsty savages like John Brown and Thaddeus Stevens took it upon themselves to wage a war of genocide against Southern whites.

            • George,

              I think some people get the misconception that I am defending slavery today. That is far from the case. The thought of owning someone else is inconceivable to me and I recoil from the proposition. However, much of the old world was such and we are very pampered in our time. You may recall that the Russian Empire only ended serfdom about the same time that America abolished slavery.

              However, given the Old Testament witness, it is simply impossible for me to morally condemn an institution ordained by God Almighty. I heartily agree its time has passed, but I do not feel free to make that moral judgment.

    • Quite right. I am a Native Texan and a Confederate at heart but not a white supremacist. I wish the South had won but I am glad it is gone. Secession is legal according to the original intent of the Framers no ratified it and slavery needed to be ended constitutionally. But history gets more complex when we start reading the primary sources.

      My views on slavery are closer to Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee who looked forward to the end of the peculiar institution than to Grant and Sherman who were in favor of and had slaves. I also disagree with Lincoln who endorsed the first draft of the 13th Amendment which promised to leave slavery protected forever if only the South would not secede.

      There is no Lost Cause Myth, there is a Righteous Cause Myth written by the victors to justify all the death and destruction they caused coercing the Union unconstitutionally.

      • I see I made a confusing error in my post above. I wrote, “I wish the South had won but I am glad it is gone”. What I intended to write was “I wish the South had won but I am glad slavery is gone”. The next sentence should say, “Framers who ratified it”. I apologize for that.

  4. Balkan Dan says

    I don’t think the article was aimed at you or your site, George.

    Yes, he mentioned you, Dreher, Fr Hodges and others, but he’s a minor academic. Academics need to get published to stay relevant. The premise of some kind of Orthodox Confederacy or whatever is pretty tenuous. He didn’t do a very good job making his case if there actually is one.

    I read articles like this all the time. He wrote it for his audience, a small group of academics and department heads within a circle of people to whom he wishes to make a statement. Maybe he wants to tap into the unreasonable (and unreasoned) success like Robin d’Angelo. If that’s the case, it’s a swing and a miss.

    To seasoned consumers of the news today, he’s simply virtue-signaling after running up a few ‘triggers’ to get people’s attention. There’s nothing redeeming about the article, nothing special about his style. Like so many writers of this type, he’s conjuring up a boogeyman. Orthodoxy isn’t sacred to him, clearly. He’s just using it to advance his own agenda.

    I give it a yawn.

    • Kyrill Kraeff says

      I agree with Balkan Dan. I would also add what an Orthodox priest from Southern California told me after he found out I belonged to the OCA’s Diocese of the South. He whispered, as if our roles were reversed and he was confessing, that he was kinda/sorts jealous; the people in the South were generally so much more religious!!! What could I say but Glory be to God!

  5. I wonder how they expect Christians to react to feminism/abortion, race baiting and perversion other than to recoil in horror. The Fordhamites can’t criticize us on the basis of the actual tenets of Orthodoxy, only the tenets of progressivism. Orthodoxy then, for them, is just another tribal designation under the all encompassing cult of Tammany.

  6. When I got to the part where he makes the jump that the concept of “baptizing” Southern US culture for those of us who are Orthodox is just kind of a front for getting white supremacy into the Church, I stopped taking it seriously. He obviously isn’t speaking to actual Southerners or anyone who ascribes to these ideas. We are not his audience, otherwise he wouldn’t be so rude or ridiculous. Even though I disagree with many of his claims and observations in the article, there is absolutely a way to present these ideas that would be listened to and maybe even sympathized with. But his lack of even attempting to understand reasons why people might have certain values or customs reveals the likely true purpose here, which was merely to poke fun at and condemn an entire subculture of American life. I don’t really know who he thinks he is talking to or about. Either way, his argument without any sort of concession is ultimately ineffective and honestly, pretty boring.

  7. Dissident Mama says

    The particularly beautiful Battle Flag Aram and his Fordham comrades chose to run as the feature image warmed me all the way down to my Southern toes! Thanks for your outstanding service in the pursuit of truth, George. We’re so blessed to have you as one of the Fellowship Friends – a group of fearless souls who ain’t skeered. Look forward to our chat tomorrow evening. 🙂

  8. The Ludwell Society’s website is titled the “Philip Ludwell” “Southron” Orthodox Society.
    “Southron” is a term that refers to the hypothesis that English/Scotch Whites in the slave states were a separate ethnicity from Northern Whites, and the name comes up in some Confederate battle songs talking about Southron “blood” and Southrons being different from another “race.”

    Like Ludwell, our Southron brothers and sisters have a nonconformist strength, which will benefit us in defending the ancient faith in our post-Christian world. We were never the majority historically and are most certainly outcasts now.

    This is why the Southern identity can be used as a tool to sow the seeds of Orthodox Christian identity, while Orthodoxy can help to protect our hospitable and historic homeland. These are not mutually exclusive identities at all, for they can work in concert – a symbiosis uniting the divine and universal with the Southron spirit. As St. Tikhon of Moscow said, the Orthodox Faith is “the best and most reliable way to preserve and support your national character.”

    So, let’s baptize what’s here. Let’s bring Orthodoxy to the “Southern nation” and consequently endow that tradition as a healthy and organic expression, not a theoretical idea.

    I can’t really sympathize with the “Southron” theme as a result. I don’t agree with promoting White English/Scotch Southerners as a separate White ethnicity or a separate “Nation.” I have a hard time expecting that George would agree with those Southron “nation” declarations either.

    On the other hand, at the moment, the Southron identity does not seem to be a serious problem for Orthodoxy in America, one reason being that English/Scotch Orthodox in the former Slave states are a miniscule slice of Orthodoxy nationally, and I have a hard time foreseeing Greek EOs in the US from joining in on this as “Southrons,” even though there must be some Greek EOs in the “South” who do just from growing up in the South. Greeks in the South in the post-Civil War era seem to have been something like “second-tier Whites”, tending to form Greek organizations and sections of cities for mutual support.

    However, the Fordham University Orthodox center does seem to have a problem with supporting the CP’s assertions of supreme authority over all EOs worldwide. In practical terms, the CP’s divisive assertions of power are far greater than the current “Southron” troubles.

    The Fordham center’s current co-director published:

    by George Demacopoulos

    The three-way dispute between Ukrainians, Russians, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the possibility of Ukrainian ecclesiastical independence is shaping up to be the greatest challenge to Orthodox Christian unity of our generation. From a purely political perspective, Ukrainian autocephaly would represent an unmitigated disaster for the Russian Orthodox Church. …

    Even a cursory understanding of Orthodox Christian history or canon law reveals that there is nothing inherently heretical about the papacy. Many saints of the Byzantine era, including John Chrysostom and Theodore the Studite, recognized the administrative seniority of the bishop of Rome and appealed to the super-jurisdictional authority of the popes of their day.

    Although I would not do so, one might make the case that the Ecumenical Patriarch is overstepping his authority. Or, one might contend that it is not pastorally prudent for the Ecumenical Patriarch to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church at this time. But neither of those positions would be akin to the slanderous accusation that the Ecumenical Patriarch has succumbed to the heresy of papism. …

    In all of this, perhaps, we should not lose sight of the difference between the millennium-long Orthodox critique of an expansion of papal supremacy that began in the Middle Ages and the rather recent appropriation of the phrase “heresy of papism” as an inner-Orthodox accusation, which is designed to delegitimate the authority of an Orthodox bishop.

    George Demacopoulos is the Fr. John Meyendorff and Patterson Family Chair of Orthodox Christian Studies and Co-Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      George used the term Southron in a post in 2018.

      • Well, Southron Pride is a moral weakness, as this kind of Pride comes before a Fall, whether it is White Pride, Gay Pride, pro-Confederate Southern Pride, Aryan Pride, or the Supremacism of the Constantinople Patriarchate. The moral ideal is for races and Churches to have equal rights, not for one race or Church to have a right to rule all other races and Local Churches. It is a moral problem of pride for one to suddenly assert in the face of Tradition that one has an inherent right by virtue of one’s Patriarchate to rule all other Patriarchs.

        Metropolitan Barsanuphius of Vinnitsa

        The first sign of pride: self-exaltation

        Pride is a moral sin and passion that, like any passion, has a progressive character and necessarily affects all aspects of a man’s spiritual life. St. John Chrysostom writes that “pride is the beginning of sin,” because “every sin begins from it and finds its support in it.” …
        Let us listen to St. Basil the Great: “The beginning of pride is usually contempt. He who disdains and considers others as nothing—considering some poor, others as people of lowly origin, others as ignoramuses—comes as a result of such contempt to a point that he considers himself alone to be wise, prudent, rich, noble, and strong.”

        Now let’s compare the words of the great Holy Hierarch [Basil] with several statements from Patriarch Bartholomew. For example, commenting on the Russian Church’s disagreement with the recognition of the OCU, the head of the Phanar said that it’s “a slanderous campaign against the historical responsibilities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which brought them Christianity and made them civilized people.”

        CP Bartholomew has repeatedly made Greek-racist and xenophobic declarations in the context of advocating for his supreme jurisdiction over all EOs. In his letter to the Jerusalem Patriarch, CP Bartholomew complained that the Jerusalem Patriarch was ignoring their common “martyric” “genos” (race/tribe) and “blood” by writing to the CP in English about the CP’s newly claimed supremacy powers.

        Having a “Southron” bishop as @Seraphim98 proposed in another comment would be a moral disaster for the OCA ( And I disagree with Monomakhos if they are going to promote White “Southron” culture, in large part because this kind of White Southronism typically suffers from racial Pride, as well as a history of Supremacism and Misanthropic ruelty and abuse. But currently, the CP’s supremacy claims and anti-canonical harmful interventions in Ukraine are a bigger and more immediate problem for the entire Orthodox world. And I am glad that Monomakhos is at least one of the few blogs bringing attention to this gigantic disastrous problem for world Orthodoxy.

        • Quit the hand-wringing. I notice you didn’t mention Black Pride, Asian Pride, or any other ethnic or racial minorities.

          Having a healthy pride in one’s people is not the same as asserting yourself over others, “supremacism” (who even believes this?), etc.

          • Dear Basil,

            Supremacism is a giant problem for Orthodoxy: The real life disaster for Orthodox unity worldwide right now is the CP’s vertical patriarchal-supremacist claims in which he is making himself the analogy of a medieval Pope. I say “medieval” because it wasn’t until the 19th century that Rome endorsed Papal Infallibility. CP Bartholomew’s most apparent successors, Abp. Elpidophoros and Met. Emmanuel have been strong advocates of the CP’s new supremacy ideology. CP Bartholomew repeatedly justifies his supremacy claims based on racist, supremacist slogans about Greek “blood” and “genos/race.” Meanwhile they, including CP Bartholomew, emphasize in these discussions that it was they, Greeks, who “civilized” the Slavs as if to denigrate the Slavs. Demacopoulos himself said that the CP’s intervention in Ukraine is a disaster for the Russian Church.

            The Public Orthodoxy article is from a Center that openly supports the CP’s dictatorial supremacy claims over the whole Orthodox world, yet the Article is complaining that Orthodoxy in America has a Southron Supremacy problem. The reality is that White Supremacism and ethnic Southron identity promotion, as far as I can tell, has minuscule support in Orthodoxy in the US, George’s Confederate flag posting here and the Ludwell Southron Society notwithstanding. I don’t agree with posting the Confederate flag “because I can”, as if to present it as a polite symbol. I don’t agree with what the Confederate flag represents. But I don’t see as a giant problem for Orthodoxy in America. If you could show me that Southron supremacism or Confederacte sympathy were standard in EO Churches in the former slave states of the US, then I would agree with the Fordham article’s title.

            Likewise, if the OCA made a separate ethnic Southron diocese or printed materials promoting ethnic Southronism, I would have to reconsider belonging to the OCA. But that is not the real situation for Orthodox Church relations and policies. The real situation is that it is the CP that is making policies and declarations declaring it’s own jurisdiction supreme and using offensive ethnic and cultural arguments. I can only guess that it doesn’t realize how offensive its statements on “genos” sound because the CP is not on the other end of the stick, not being the target of these put-downs.

            Where is there a Fordham Center Public Orthodoxy article calling out the CP for his repeated ethnic supremacist declarations about the supposed place in Orthodoxy of the Greek “genos” over Slavic Christians?

            Currently Monomakhos is one of few sources online directly and openly criticizing the CP’s jurisdictional global supremacist doctrines and power plays. Yet the Fordham Article criticizes Fr. Whiteford just for leaving comments on this blog. What ridiculous “Guilt by Association.” The Public Orthodoxy article doesn’t even have a Comments section.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Hal, there is much to admire in your response. I must say though that the OCA did have one Southron bishop, who created the most successful diocese in the US (regardless of jurisdiction), archbishop Dmitri of Dallas and the South.

        • Are you possibly conflating “pride” in the sense of respect, celebrations, appreciation of one’s ancestry, etc, with pride as in the opposite of humility?

    • George Michalopulos says

      Regarding the Papacy, it’s clear that Demacopoulos doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      Worse, he engages in sloppy elision of premises, posting a questionable premise about one particular aspect of the Pope in Chrysostom’s day (appellate authority) and then using that as an excuse to absolve Bartholomew of his supra-papal actions in the Ukraine.

      That’s a classic bait-and-switch.

      • Thanks for covering these issues with the CP, George.
        For years, I have distinguished the EO Church from the RC Church by the EO rejection that the RC Church has supreme jurisdiction over all Christians. How could we, as a practical matter, reunite with Rome while they, as a far stronger “partner”, believe that they can intervene into our Churches as if we are their subjects?

        The CP’s turn on this topic has been quite sudden and surprising for me, as has the turn among CP members like the Fordham center who should certainly know better. Demacopoulos is the “Fr. John Meyendorff” Chair of the center, but I expect that Fr. Meyendorff, as a leading OCA theologian, would disagree with the CP’s new supremacy claims.

        A Catholic article explains:

        The bishop of Rome, according to the Orthodox, is simply “first among equals” (primus inter pares). They readily concede to him a “primacy of honor,” which they say was acknowledged in early centuries. John Meyendorff explains the “honorary primacy” of Rome in early centuries this way: “[Rome’s] numerical importance, its central [geographical] position, and, above all, the unshakable orthodoxy of its bishops justified its primacy.”[1]

        Typically in the US, those who espouse the CP’s new supremacy teachings seem to belong to GOARCH, not to other Churches like the OCA or Antioch. One reason why they might not see it as the problem that it is can be the weakness of pride and callousness to others who are under your bootheel. If someone’s best friend is bullying a kid over nothing, maybe the person will not realize the harm and will even support the bully. And the CP is more than just GOARCH’s best friend, but their own “head”, one whom they have quite a close relationship with. Otherwise, how would one explain the discrepancy between Fr. Meyendorff’s would-be position and Demacopoulos’?


    • I don’t agree with promoting White English/Scotch Southerners as a separate White ethnicity or a separate “Nation.”

      Please explain that to the English and the Scots, who (as I have found out from experience) will tell you very explicitly that they are different ethnicities and different nations.

      WASPs and Southerners are different people. They look they same, mostly, but ethnicity is not just skin deep. Some of us Greeks are blond-haired and blue-eyed, while some (like me) look like Turks to the ignorant observer, yet we are the same ethnicity. There’s centuries, nay, millennia, of context here that mere physical appearance does not address.

    • Demacopolous is (possibly intentionally) committing a word concept fallacy there. Of course the Orthodox Church of the first milennia had papal primacy. The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils confirm this. What we never had was papal supremacy and infallibility, and even most roman catholic scholars today admit that was a later development after the EcumenicalCouncils of the first milennia. I’m very suspicious of demacopolous motives for saying such a thing. He’s well educated to know the Orthodox concept of papal primacy is no where near what the vatican’s is after the 1st Vatican Council of the 19th century that turned the pope into an appolinarian style god-man. It’s no surprise the bishop in america who gives the fordhamites unconditional support is elpidophoros who wrote an article several years ago calling the Ecumenical Patriarch “first eithout equals.” This is not an isolated idea anong GOARCH, as Met. Nathaniel of Chicago has also publicly endorsed elpidophoros statement on his twitter page. For anyone who knows Church Ecclesiastical History this is seeming errily similar to the situation that led to the Melkite schism in the 18th century. When the apostate cyril tanas and several other once Orthodox bishops were bribed by jesuit academics and missionaries into becoming uniates. It’s seems the same scenario is being played out now. When the dust settles only God knows how the Church will be affected long term. In a way, we will probably be better off.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Braden, good insights. If anything, the Fordham redoubt for Orthodox liberals is yet another sad indication of our feeling of cultural inferiority. The Jesuits sensed this long ago and by offering an institutional lifeline (so to speak), and one in which we’re not on the hook for financially, they form another pincer in the drive to delegitimize traditional Orthodoxy.

        The other pincer being the Phanariote-supremacist ecclesiology. Both pincers being fronts of the globo-homo agenda.

        Personally, I’d say that they’ve peaked. Our job is to is twofold: (1) call them out on it whenever and wherever we can, and (2) wait them out.

        Clearly, from the comments that we don’t publish, I can see that some of the more liberal ones (who have promised in the past to never darken our door again) are extremely irritated by the fact that “…we won’t go quietly into that good night.”

        • Despite the Fordham Center falling into some kind of blurry confusing category of “Liberal” on the Ametican social/political spectrum, I can’t interpret the teaching of CP vertical supremacism, his intervention in Ukraine, and his Greek genos-centric justifications as particularly “Liberal”, “Left Wing,” or “Progressive” in some vague American sense.

          Despite the Catholic Church having some vague Leftwing “Social Teachings,” there is a major aspect of the Catholic Church that has been seen as vaguely “Conservative”, authoritarian, and inflexible, and the concept of Papal Supremacism fits well within this “Conservative” aspect of the RC Church. I can give lots of reasons why Papal Supremacy is “anti-Liberal”, eg. “Liberal” means “free”, etc.

          Likewise, in Ukraine, it’s well known that the OCU is the more blurring “Conservative” or “Right Wing” of the major EO Churches.

          Plus, the CP’s repeated appeals to Greek Genos and blood and attitude to the Slavs in these discussions can’t match any “Liberal” or modern “Left” paradigm or way of speaking.

          Simply put, while Public Orthodoxy’s and CP. Bartholomew’s positions on some things like Environmentalism make sense as “Left” in a Left – Right paradigm, their advocacy for CP Supremacy makes no sense.

          But for that matter, repeatedly, CP Bartholomew’s new dramatic changes in the last few years don’t make much sense, and the Fordham Center should know better. It’s really hard for me to tell where they are coming from as a result. Labeling CP Bartholomew a Liberal for example wouldn’t explain why he seems to have some genos supremacist mindset or suddenly intervene in Ukraine the way he did. I don”t see Globalist Geopolitical Elitism as somehow matching Progressive Left ideals.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Very insightful analysis here Hal. I see where you’re going with this and I don’t disagree. Having said that, though phanariote supremacism doesn’t sound “liberal” (it isn’t), it has hitched its wagon to the globo-homo agenda. I think we can say that whatever else globo-homo is, it isn’t “traditional”.

          • “Simply put, while Public Orthodoxy’s and CP. Bartholomew’s positions on some things like Environmentalism make sense as “Left” in a Left – Right paradigm, their advocacy for CP Supremacy makes no sense.”

            “Labeling CP Bartholomew a Liberal for example wouldn’t explain why he seems to have some genos supremacist mindset or suddenly intervene in Ukraine the way he did. I don’t see Globalist Geopolitical Elitism as somehow matching Progressive Left ideals.”


            1. Nothing the ‘Progressive Left’ (and this term ought to be clearly distinguished from “liberal’) ever does makes any sense – except in their own deluded minds.

            2. Using the authoritarianism of Patriarch Bartholomew (or the pope or whomever) doesn’t have to make sense in terms of fitting into a truly ‘liberal’ paradigm. It only has to serve the purpose of achieving a desired end.

            Their paradigm isn’t liberal (except as presently conceived in their own minds). It is totalitarian – as all demonic ideologies that seek “to free us from the constraints” of the commandments of God are.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              I think they call themselves progressives now.

              • Gail,

                Really, there are only three teams at play, though a fourth is probably aligned with one of the three.

                The three are:

                Progressivism – Western, liberal, atheistic, quasi-socialist globalists who are joined in elite merger with the CCP


                Christian Nationalism – exemplified by Putin’s Russia, Orban’s Hungary and the furthest right elements in America and Western Europe (MAGA, Le Pen, AfD)

                India is a player unto itself but seems to be increasingly loosely aligned with Christian Nationalism (as Hindu Nationalism)

                Much as in places like the Ukraine or the Balkans, the lines between these forces run right through the US, even each state and community or neighborhood. What is happening at present is a changing of the guard in the US and Europe. Christian Nationalism is slowly but surely overtaking Progressivism.

                Progressivism does not like this and that is why we have Covid, uncontrolled immigration, stolen elections, Big Tech censorship, “climate change”, etc. All these are mechanisms that the Progressive Borg uses to defend itself. But it is losing the war, though it wins battles from time to time.

                The twenties will be remembered as the end of the Progressive Era.

            • I consider myself Progressive Left out of love for humanity, but I don’t agree with some things associated with “Progressive Left.”

              I agree with George’s comment that “phanariote supremacism doesn’t sound “liberal” (it isn’t), it has hitched its wagon to the globo-homo agenda.”

              “Liberal” advocates of NATO intervention in Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, etc. used the seemingly “Progressive Left” claim that these were interventions for “human rights” or for “humanity.” George W Bush Jr. used a similar justification for invading Iraq once it became clear that Iraq lacked nukes: supposedly it became an invasion to establish “Democracy.” It is kind of like P. Bartholomew’s and the CP’s occasional claims that they intervened in Ukraine out of a desire for “Democracy” or for Ukrainian Orthodox to become canonical or to join the canonical Church. This sounds nice. I don’t really know if the CP believes this argument themselves. The way that parishes have been ripped out of the UOC-MP and given to the OCU against the wishes of the UOC parishioners is not particularly Democratic. Nor is the GOARCH’s internal governance structure as far as I can tell. The GOARCH Archdiocesan Council, as I recall, had a preference for a different candidate than Abp. Elpidophoros to become their new ruling hierarch.

              • Well said.

                Seriously, we’ve been using “progressivism” since 1917 to justify wars. Wilson did it in 1917 to “make the world safe for democracy”, WWII,, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, etc, have all been executed for ostensibly progressive purposes.

  9. The level of intelligence for obtaining a PHD has sunk to new lows.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Yeah, I know. All we got to do is look at “Dr” Jill Biden.

      • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

        George, I ask that you not associate the so-called First Lady of the nation with those of us who successfully completed the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree.

        Ms. Biden’s terminal degree is the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in educational leadership from the University of Delaware, a professional, not academic, degree that required no proficiency in foreign languages. The so-called “dissertation” for that so-called “doctorate” was titled, “Student Retention at the Community College: Meeting Students’ Needs.” Not much of a new, unique contribution to the treasure-trove of human knowledge!

  10. Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

    I recall a surprising number of typos and grammatical errors when I skim-read that “dissertation” last year.

  11. What would St. Paul say about getting a doctorate in Religion? Just curious
    I am presently plowing my way through Galatians.
    Paul keeps calling them fools. Actually in the version I am reading, stupid. Because they seem to want to revert to rules instead of having a relationship with the Messiah. How does one measure a relationship with God except by the way one’s life is lived? Paul keeps emphasizing that we must trust God.

    A few weeks ago a friend of mine who was dying of lung cancer asked me why I trusted God. My answer was, Who else am I going to trust? He is the only one who will get me through this life.

    And that reminds me of the old story of a man who fell off of a cliff. On the way down he managed to grab hold of a small tree growing out of the side. “God, he cried out, ” What do I do now?” The answer he heard was, “Let go!”
    and the man shouted out, “Is there anyone else up there”

  12. This Aram Sarkisian fellow is delusional if he thinks that modern secular American universities care anything about traditional Christian Orthodoxy or our Orthodox faith.

    Rather, as his life experience demonstrates, they care only to the extent that Orthodox Christian “academics” devalue, change, or de-emphasize our faith in order to be try to be accepted and validated by the secular world.

    Too many Orthodox Christians in America behave like it’s still the 1950s or 1960s, when the likes of Harvard, Princeton, or other secular American universities were interested in the theological discussions of Fr Georges Florovsky or Fr Alexander Schmemann. They aren’t. Even back then, most of them were interested only to view Orthodox Christianity as a curious museum piece — few were interested in being transformed themselves by Christ and His Church.

    The only secular American learning institutions that may be interested these days are the Hillsdale Colleges or the St John’s Colleges – the smaller schools that make a decided point to pursue and love wisdom and truth. The Yales and Stanfords of America gave up on even pretending to love wisdom and truth a long time ago.

    Tragic, but aside from the Hillsdales and St John’s Colleges, if you want to be valued as an Orthodox Christian academic, you can’t do it in the West any longer, unless you’re seriously in the closet about it. Need move to Serbia, Athens, Kiev, or Russia for that sort of thing, if you don’t want to be shamed or persecuted for your faith in an academic setting.

    Seems that the way that Aram Sarkisian and the “Fordhamites” do it is by maligning their own faith – a place that most of us won’t willingly go.

  13. Same PO wolves now promoting more falsehoods and distortions. They’re too busy attacking Orthodox Christian conservatives to bother about the real evil and dark individuals (abortion, euthanasia, homosexual tyranny, children abused by LGBTQ insanity, destruction of the family, etc.) endangering families, children, priests and the Holy Orthodox Church.

    Public Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy in Dialogue, The Wheel = Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

  14. As with almost everything, if you wait long enough, Fr. John Whiteford will come and refute it:

    • George Michalopulos says

      BTW, I read it earlier today and I must say it’s fantastic!

      What I wish I had said earlier to those Cultural Marxists who are “against” slavery is this: then why don’t you pressure the Congress to declare war on Libya, where they have open-air slave markets, trafficking in black Africans?

      I know why: because Ss Hussein and Hilary created that miasma in North Africa. That’s why.

      It’s not really about slavery or injustice or anything else that the Left champions. It’s only about raw power.

      • Cultural Marxist seems like an odd term, because Marxism is chiefly economic. I believe in equal rights for blacks and am against slavery. I have mixed feelings about the US Civil War, because on one hand I am antiwar, but on the other hand, I am against slavery and the Confederacy attacked Union forces at the Union base at Fort Sumter.

        In the case of Libya, the NATO intervention ruined the nation, whereas now when they have slavery, a new invasion would create new bloodletting and to stop slavery like you are talking about would require ongoing policing. Plus, the Libyans haven’t attacked the US. I am fine if NATO wants to take non invasive measures to stop slavery in Libya now.

        But otherwise, I agree that the invasion was about raw power, not about Human Rights, so NATO is not going to invade over this now. Gen Wesley Clark was told by Rumsfield 20 years ago that there are 7 nations that the US is going to take down, including Libya as I recall. Clearly the invasion had to do with long term Geopolitical goals in the Middle East and assertions of hegemony like you said.

        CP Bartholomew seems to be a new tool in this Geopolitical chess game in Ukraine, sadly.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Marxism was indeed an economic ideology. On this you’re absolutely correct. However after WWI, when it was obvious that the “proles” did not rise up against the elites, Antonio Gramsci discerned a fatal flaw in Marxism, and that is that the people are more bound by ethnic identity than they are by the so-called class struggle.

          So Gramsci came up with the idea of “cultural Marxism”, the purpose was to deracinate the nations by creating identity groups within them, the better to pit them against each other.

          • The issue of Marxism is a subtle one. It is not only an ideology (or should I say “ideologies” in plural).
            It is also a theory , a diagnosis that uncovers sources of class exploitation and alienation, why it is needed to preserve and invest the surplus value, introducing historical dimension of socioeconomic formations replacing one another.
            On the other hand national syndicalists like Sorel, Pareto, Michels etc were right that lower classes are more bound by their tribal identity than class interests. Gramsci was not so original as he was involved in polemic with them.

  15. George Michalopulos says

    You see, this is why helotry-cum-slavery is a good idea, it reduces inflation by cutting wages!

    I mean, who are you going to trust, working people who can’t afford ordinary things or the Chamber of Commerce?

  16. I think, that idea o f restoring Southern mono-ethnic identity does not make much sense, for a very simple reason.
    South was always multiracial and multi-ethnic, and the English speaking whites had supremacy over blacks, Indians and Latinos that cannot be brought back.

    • Martin,

      If using Orthodoxy to “restore Southern identity” as you describe it was the stated goal of the Ludwell Society , I would agree with you. But it is not the stated goal. In fact the reverse is true.

      “This is why the Southern identity can be used as a tool to sow the seeds of Orthodox Christian identity, while Orthodoxy can help to protect our hospitable and historic homeland. These are not mutually exclusive identities at all, for they can work in concert – a symbiosis uniting the divine and universal with the Southron spirit. As St. Tikhon of Moscow said, the Orthodox Faith is “the best and most reliable way to preserve and support your national character.”

      So, let’s baptize what’s here. Let’s bring Orthodoxy to the “Southern nation” and consequently endow that tradition as a healthy and organic expression, not a theoretical idea.”

      I write this as someone born and bred in the upper Midwest, and even I can see that this isn’t about dreams of the “South rising again” in some sort of racial superiority. It is about a culture that is ripe for baptism – as are the remnants of Christian culture of other areas of the country.

    • Did someone suggest that we should establish a mono-ethnic South?

      • Fr John Whiteford says
        “Did someone suggest that we should establish a mono-ethnic South?”

        Well, not exactly, but someone wrote:

        “And so a multi-racial society is one which will inevitably have either a cold or hot race war perpetually afoot as a result. Tribes vie for ethnic dominance. It is seen as normal and almost a sacred right all the way back to the Hebrews in Egypt. Their solution, the only real solution, is separation. I don’t mean segregation. That is, at best, a temporary imperfect remedy. ”

        To which I responded:
        “Russia was always a multiethnic, multireligious, multiracial state. For many centuries.”

        • Martin,

          My point was that multi-kulti does not and has not worked better here than it is in Europe. I stand by that. I did allow that if all sides decided to pursue a colorblind policy then it could possibly work. But that is not human nature and very unlikely. There is too much to gain politically by exploiting racial dichotomy.

          I also do not think that complete separation will be tried in the short term, though it is IMHO undoubtedly the best solution. Too radical. Too openly admitting that liberalism has been defeated by demography and human nature.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Martin, you’re correct. But ever since Russia has been an empire (since the time of Ivan IV the Terrible), the Russian ethnicity has been the “state-forming” demographic that has called the shots.

          This was no different than what we had in the US when the WASP/Anglo-Celtic demographic has served that function here as well. That’s why when my great-grandfather came to America to deposit one of his sons with his American-based brother (who was childless), he bought himself some trousers. And it’s why my maternal grandfather learned English.

          For the Melting Pot to work, the newcomers have to accept the native norms and customs.

          • Exactly right. There has to be a dominant culture/language/religion to serve as the ‘rudder’ for an effective multicultural empire. Just like Greek and Orthodoxy in the Roman (not Byzantine!) Empire, so to Russian and Orthodoxy in the Russian Empire, Spanish and Catholic in the Spanish Empire, or Anglo-Saxon and Protestant in the United States.

            None of the minorities need to lose their unique traits, but they certainly need to conform to the standards laid down by the majority to maintain order, unity, and cohesion. Common sense.

        • And you will notice that Russia is a mosaic, not a melting pot. The various ethnicities have had their own homelands within the empire. There was some mingling of course, but the Rus’ were completely dominant, > 90%.

          So I will concede that multi-kulti can work – so long as there is one dominant culture firmly in control. But western liberal egalitarianism seems to militate toward ruling out that option.

        • cynthia curran says

          Texas, Georgia, the Carolinas, Florida have a lot of different groups not just blacks and whites like Mississippi or Louisiana. In fact northern places like New York City or San Franscio are losing blacks since its so expensive in those places.

    • Restore it? It exists. The problem is all these hypocrites got no problem with everyone being Orthodox and having their own ethnos celebrated EXCEPT for Southrons!

  17. BTW, Happy Feast of St Andrew today (Old Calendar) – the Saint who is the inspiration behind our honorable Battle Flag.

  18. I’m not sure where this thread has headed, but a few thoughts looking over the comments above:

    Russia has always been a multicultural society, and America is today. However, for most of Russian history and most of American history, whites dominated both. Which brings us to the real dynamic involved.

    The problem is with an egalitarian multiculturalism. Ethnic Russians have dominated and do dominate in Russia and the peace is kept. However, what has happened in Europe and in America is a frontal challenge to this domination by mass migration in both places and by a resurrection of the Black Liberation Movement here in America. The latter preaches black racism and supremacy, which is also the point of CRT. What BLM, etc. are objecting to as white supremacy is actually white dominance in a majority white electorate.

    Tribal identity and power is a very real thing. Part of the problem is the cult of white guilt swirling around the question of slavery. That is seen as the all justifying injury by people of color. And that is why it is of the highest importance to reject the entire construction as false and morally incorrect. Slavery is not the original American sin, nor was it inherently wrong. That narrative leads to CRT and to white Americans being treated like Afrikaners in South Africa.

    Slavery was the system we inherited from the UK. It was legal and was largely morally accepted throughout much of the then United States. Gradually, for economic reasons having to do with emerging industrialism, it was supplanted in the North. And there was a small but vocal contingent of abolitionist Protestants who somehow saw opposition to slavery as a moral imperative, despite the institution by the Lord God of a system of slavery and indentured servitude among the Hebrews by His own Word as well as the continuance of such practices throughout the New Testament period and the period of the Church Fathers, some of whom positively praised the benefits of slavery to both slaves as well as masters.

    What changed the morality was really the change in the mode of production. One can see this around the world where systems of involuntary servitude were phased out or ended with the onset of widespread industrial production. Later, during the Civil Rights movement. It became morally obligatory to condemn slavery as inherently wicked, despite the biblical and patristic witness to the contrary due to the emerging political situation. And so many find such condemnation a politically correct postulate that simply must be agreed to if one wishes to discuss the matter in polite society – i.e., one of our untruthful sacred cows.

    But the far more honest and healthy attitude, though it may be uncomfortable for people of color to hear it, is to assert that slavery was the way we did business then, it changed over time, and no one has anything to feel ashamed of – period. We can all condemn the abuse of slaves which occurred from time to time just as child abuse occurred and occurs from time to time. No one is championing cruelty. But that is no reason to condemn either parenthood or slavery as inherently wrong. And it is simply self serving to condemn the entire edifice of slavery at a time when it has become costless to do so and mores have changed dramatically from that period. It is nothing more than cheap virtue signaling.

    • George Michalopulos says

      As usual, Misha, you give us more food for fodder.

      I would like to take it a step further: that black/POC grievance is especially manufactured by the Establishment to permanently keep blacks in an underachieving position. Both Booker T Washington and Frederick Douglass believed this in an incipient form (I need to develop this further and hopefully will do so soon).

      Anyway, I have two points of evidence:

      1. When the Black Panthers came on the scene back in the mid-60s, the FBI groomed a certain Ron Karenga to found a controlled opposition to the BPs called “The United Slaves”. He then went on to create (out of thin air) the “festival” of Kwanzaa. Folks, Kwanzaa is as astro-turfed a holiday as is MLK Day (if not more so). Nobody celebrates it yet government officials feel they have to say something about it once every Dec 26 rolls around. It’s BS. And it does nothing –absolutely nothing–for black people (or anybody else).

      1a. The so-called Black National Anthem. Nobody even knowns what the frigging words are when it’s sung before NFL games. Bill Maher is right: we need only one national anthem, not two. If he’s smart enough to see it then the dumbass liberals at the top of the Establishment should be able to see it as well.

      2. This one is more insidious. 50 years ago, the white elites/Establishment/Oligarchy/Deep State changed their views about black people. They imbibed the philosophy of race relations of MLK and W E B DuBois as opposed the ideas of black emancipation championed by Marcus Garvey and Booker T Washington, a quasi-separateness-but-equality before the law. Further, these elites actually came to believe in the MLK/DuBois philosophy whereas the overwhelming number of American whites (perhaps) 90% did not. This included the full panoply of integration, even interracial marriage.

      Fast-forward 50 years to the present. Now, 90% of all whites have absolutely no problem with full-blown integration and interracial marriage at all. This would mean that interracial nirvana would have been reached. No more need for racial set-asides, quotas, special holidays, etc.

      So what do the white/DS elites do? They turn the tables and recreate the old system of racial strife. Purposely. Not so much to stoke interracial strife but find a belief-system that would separate them from the vast majority of whites. As well as ensure their continued place at the top of the social pyramid.

      In other words, the MLK vision was imbibed by them to insulate them from the bottom tiers of whites 50 years ago but now that the bottom tiers have come around to their way of thinking, they turn the tables in order to re-establish their separateness from the majority of whites who now agree with them.

      This is a type of Gnosticism in my opinion. Modern liberalism is nothing more than a mystery-cult adhered to by certain elites in order to create a permanent chasm of “the anointed” over and against the hoi polloi.

      What do y’all think? Am I on to something?

      Anyway, the project to turn other POCs into their magic little totems –especially Hispanics and Asians–appears to be crumbling as more and more of these groups are becoming Republican. So that means they have to redouble their efforts into keeping blacks as separate and as “victimized” as possible. So let’s look for more riots. Why? Because in the urban riots, it is black sections of the cities that are destroyed, including black-owned businesses. It also depresses real estate prices in the inner city so that developers can swoop in and buy them at rock-bottom prices.

      • George,

        I think I follow you on the Gnostic angle. However, what they are doing is not only twisted but dangerous. Blaming whites as a class for the “evil of slavery” is essentially black racism: entitlement founded on resentment of the white race. The attempt is to make “systemic racism” the original sin (in the Western sense). Hell, even black conservatives are allegedly tainted by it.

        The dynamic is not healthy for anyone.

        The cards we are dealt in America are inherently unpleasant due to multiculturalism. If “colorblind” is not embraced to keep the peace, “anti-racism” of the Kendi/CRT/BLM variety – which is simply black racism – will ignite a firestorm. But the Dems, BLM and Antifa are not satisfied with colorblind. I can see the Democratic Party descending into being the party of racial/woke animus – a bitter, dwindling party focused on hatred which even blacks and Hispanics increasingly flee.

        • George Michalopulos says

          No arguments here Misha.

          By saying that the (mostly white) Establishment has a belief-system that is akin to a gnostic mystery-cult, I’m in no way saying that there is no danger ahead. There most certainly is. I just made this observation so that those of us who are Christians (as well as realists) understand the nature of the enemy. Not only what they’re capable of but what animates them.

          If what I speculate is true –i.e. my diagnosis of the Elite–then there is hope in this regard: Christianity was surrounded by dozens of mystery-cults during the later Roman Empire, almost all of them based on gnostic dualism/neoplatonism. Only Mithraism preached an exclusive theology akin to Christianity. Yet it was Christianity that won out in the end.

          • Agreed. Wokeism is a newborn. Christianity is time tested. It may have been dormant or in a period of remission, but that is through neglect, not inherent weakness.

    • While I agree to some extent on the issue of slavery, but I do not think that Russian culture (or civilization) is based on racial or ethnic identity.

      Russian ethnic identity was formed relatively late from various groups while state existed much earlier.

      Modern concepts of race and ethnicity were developed in XIX century as a tool to justify colonialism and interests of competing national elites (it is easier to convince the poor to sacrifice their lives for the
      rich if done with the patriotic anthem and a flag).

      • “I do not think that Russian culture (or civilization)
        is based on racial or ethnic identity.”

        Russian culture and civilisation was mixed from the start.
        The Rus were Scandinavian and the Slavs were not.

      • “Russian” as an ethnicity is a mix of several strains wedded by culture and language as well as blood. Eastern Slavs either petitioned the Norse to come down and order their warring factions or were invaded by the Norse to that effect. This is the age of Rurik.

        So you have predominantly dark haired, Caucasian Eastern Slavs mixing with the Norse who often had blond hair. Finnish blood was always in this mix due to the location of the Finns with respect to the other two. Then, on top of that, there was a period of Mongol domination where Tatar blood becomes mixed in so that you get some mild slanting in the eyes and high cheek bones. All of that together constitutes variation within “the Rus'”. That’s the nuts and bolts of it.

        Now, Russians consider themselves Caucasians by race and will apply the adjective “black” to anyone with a swarthy complexion due to foreign heritage (Turkic, Asia Minor, Kazak, etc.). Africans and African-Americans often find themselves in somewhat more dire straits and some Russians simply cannot understand the reason for their presence in the country and refer to them with more base epithets.

        The Soviet Union prided itself on its ethnic diversity and inclusion. This was never actually the reality but simply an overlay of propaganda as was much else (like feminism) in the “workers’ paradise”. I point this out to emphasize that ethnocentrism is completely natural and the difficulty comes in the mixing which sometimes produces violence. Russians certainly would not want their country to become like America with its racial dichotomies. The one significant dichotomy in Russia is between Russians (“Russian”, “Ukrainian” and “Belorussian”) and a swarthy minority of foreigners. Russia has very few Africans but they have a curious and fascinating history:

        • George Michalopulos says

          The story of Peter the Great’s “black son” is a fascinating one. He rose to the pinnacle of power in the Russian Empire and was the great-grandfather of Russia’s greatest poet, Aleksandr Pushkin.

          For an enlightening education on the Rurikids and the ethnogenesis of Kievan Rus’, I highly recommend the multi-part documentary series The Rurikid. Star Media did the same thing with The Romanovs. Very well done.

          I wish though that the narrator had spoken English as was the narration with The Romanovs. Still, utterly fantastic.

  19. cynthia curran says National Revie painting incoming mayor Eric Adams as a moderate and not a radical. Adams in wrong of mural of Assata Shikir and Angela David.

  20. Kyrill Kraeff says

    I agree with Balkan Dan. I would also add what an Orthodox priest from Southern California told me after he found out I belonged to the OCA’s Diocese of the South. He whispered, as if our roles were reversed and he was confessing, that he was kinda/sorts jealous; the people in the South were generally so much more religious!!! What could I say but Glory be to God!

  21. This is what the American black community needs. The author is a Christian with five children who seeks a “post-racial” black America, revival of the family and the virtue of industry.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Of course you’re correct, Misha. The problem is that the elites will do everything within their power to bolix things up for people like this.

      • I found this interesting. The author describes a great political realignment that is driving the Demo(c)rats into a death spiral. Specifically, he notes that the one demographic group that seems to be the slowest to turn against Biden are college educated white women. Latinos, blacks, non-college educated whites are all heading rightward, relatively speaking. His approval is down in the thirties and there’s no bottom in sight.

        Now I’m going to try to be polite but I have to point out that the “college education” these white women received was actually largely indoctrination in woke feminist politics – thus the “women’s studies” departments at many universities. Much more than white males (obviously if you look at the numbers), white women have been deeply affected by the ideological indoctrination in critical feminist and other critical studies which animates most university campuses. Since it is not in the interest of white males to indulge in such quixotism, the phenomenon is concentrated. I’m avoiding using the word “gullible” but the temptation is overwhelming. In all fairness, it is probably hard for young impressionable women not to more or less swallow an ideology that appeals to them as being in their best interests; i.e., “empowering”.

        Anyway, the thing is, the wild crack-think on which these ladies dose is noxious and offensive to non-college educated whites, blacks and Latinos – thus their growing disapproval of Bidenism. One might call this the self destructive death spiral of “Karenism”. Or how miseducated white females are destroying the Democratic Party and, unwittingly, saving America. Because the crazier they enable the Dems to grow, the worse their polling numbers will get.

        And God is good, I tell you.

        • George Michalopulos says

          I completely agree with you Misha. The gullibility (and that is not too strong a word) for college-educated, barren white women is astonishing. This is one of the bitter fruits of Puritanism. It was white, Protestant women, allied with nativist, Protestant pastors, who drove the horrible Prohibition movement.

          Prohibition essentially destroyed the American legal system and helped birth organized crime in America. But that’s a story for another day.

          One of the great gullibilities of over-(mis)-educated young women is how quickly they embrace their own objectivity, especially in Hollywood, where every actress that has ever appeared nude in a movie talks about how “empowering” it is for them.

          Really, they’re either lying or their bloody stupid.

  22. George Michalopulos says

    BTW, my derisive put-down of AOC (Alexandria Occasional-Cortex) has hit the big-time! Go to second 45 and you can hear Styx call her that:

    • cynthia curran says

      Well, her state even lost people to Delaware Joe Biden place. Yikes, as states New York is not he place to be these days

    • I cut baby doll some slack. She is cute (and she knows it). Wild as a crack house rat, though. You have to think of her time in office as a very expensive fishing expedition in pursuit of a suitable sugar daddy with whom to feather a nest. That’s her ultimate angle. At her age you’re not expected to know your tail from a hole in the ground when it comes to politics. She’s just advertising and taking applications for a hubby.

      Nonetheless, she’s in way over her head in some kind of cultural expression phase of edgy leftiness at the end of the liberal era in blue NY. She and the squad are really doing the Right a major favor by their tilting at Tammany from the Sandanista side. I”m tempted to say, “You go, girl!!!!”, because the end result is that they’re gonna burn it all down. It’s getting clear enough that lots of people are speculating quietly about this self destructive spiral.

      When it’s all done she can do the speaking circuit, have a book ghost written, start a neo-Marxist foundation to suck in stray PAC money for the debris that will be left out there . . . maybe settle down, have a few kids and critique what’s inevitable.