I simply can’t give Archbishop Elpidophoros the benefit of the doubt any more. It’s not possible. Everyone has their breaking point and I’ve reached mine.
It wasn’t always this way. In the past, I have been willing to cut him some slack. That’s because I give any Tom, Dick or Harry such consideration in the hope they’ll extend it to me.
Mind you, it hasn’t always been easy. Honestly, it stopped being easy when he was appointed by the Phanar to be the archbishop here in America.
But I tried. I continued to try.
In spite of the pratfalls, scandals, and other miscalculations, I believed it was because he wasn’t an American; that he didn’t really know the lay of the land here in the States.
That proved not to be the case.
Perhaps he was advised by the elites who have been marinating too long in the East Coast bubble where they don’t know there’s a whole other country west of the Hudson River.
I guess it’s also possible that he was advised by certain characters who didn’t have his best interests at heart. They may have been setting him up.
I dunno. Probably any combination of the above might be the case.
Having said that, I can’t go on any more making excuses for his mistakes. They seem too intentional, which means they aren’t mistakes at all.
The other day, The Orthodox Observer, the official publication of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, published an interview in which he sat down with a correspondent from Ta Nea.
You could tell by the tenor of the inquiry, the interviewer was a flaming liberal. When the questions weren’t nonsensical, or worse highly prejudicial (anti-conservative), rather than take the reporter to task for impugning the beliefs of tens of thousands of Greek Orthodox laymen, His Eminence took the bait and played along.
It’s right here so you can see it for yourself: https://www.goarchorg/-/interview-with-ta-nea-gr-english-translation-archbishop-elpidophoros-2022
Oops, there I go again: See, I said he took the bait, thereby implying that because English isn’t his first language, he was unaware of the subtleties of our native tongue.
I would be wrong, however, as the interview with the reporter was done entirely in Greek.
The Archbishop seemed quite aware of the nature of the interviewer’s questions. In fact, I would go as far as to say the entire affair was stage-managed, from soup to nuts, in order to showcase his very liberal agenda.
For every question asked, he responded with the correct, liberal, talking points. Even when he upheld the Church’s teaching on abortion, he did the famous Elpi two-step, which he trotted out after Roe vs Wade: “We affirm the sanctity of life of the born and unborn, while at the same time affirming the respect for the autonomy of women.”
I think he really believes what he says; that abortion is an evil, but he also believes that women should have the right to perform this evil.
To hold such a position is not only illogical, it’s doublethink of the highest order. To be sure, such duplicity is par for the course for the denizens of the Phanar but for other people, such cognitive dissonance cannot be maintained forever. Eventually, one’s head explodes.
Archbishop Elpidophoros has clearly demonstrated he is a man of the Left –and proudly so. He isn’t going to trim his sails because some Trads in the blogosphere have taken him to task for espousing some globalist talking points.
He’s become defiant in this respect. He no longer cares what anybody thinks. He’s going to do what he wants.
Believe it or not, I can kind of respect that. (Kind of, not completely.) If nothing else, we at least know where we stand. As I see it, that’s a huge benefit. It’s now become clear that the members of the GOA have only two choices: they can stay or they can leave.
Those who aren’t scandalized enough to leave are going to have to be OK with their jurisdiction becoming an Eastern-Rite Episcopal Church.
There is no other way.
We can’t save the GOA from itself anymore. That option is off the table. The leftist/globalist trajectory is as clear as the day is long. And make no mistake, once leftism gets its claws into the Church, it’s going to be lights out one way or another.
Instead of fretting about their future, I’m more interested in exploring what the Archbishop’s stalwartness is all about. Not just in going forward but the back-story.
Here are some random thoughts:
- Given that he was just appointed to the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it’s clear that Patriarch Bartholomew doesn’t care about the Big Fat Gay Greek Glyfada Baptism. Nor does he care about the multi-spoon fiasco, the BLM march, the continuing financial scandal that is the St Nicholas Shrine and Bereavement Center, etc., etc., etc.
- Because none of this matters, though by rights, it should, we can infer that the State Department has the Phanar’s back.
- Bartholomew knows that the Church of Greece is a paper tiger. They can huff and puff all they want about the Glyfada fiasco but, ultimately, he doesn’t care.
- This tells me that the Church of Greece merely went through the motions of being outraged. In other words, they were complicit to the degree they remained silent.
- As for the Archon/L100 class of laymen, he has nothing to fear from them. In case you didn’t see the video we put out yesterday, Leadership 100 was mentioned as being one of the many subversive elements that support the Fordhamite agenda.
- So, Elpi is basically bulletproof. He’s “in like Flynn,” as they say. And therefore, he is probably going to succeed Bartholomew.
That’s the bad news. At least as far as the GOA is concerned. As for the traditionalists within that jurisdiction, they can stop hoping for a better outcome. Either they get on board or they get off. Pretending they don’t know what is happening is no longer an option.
For those not in the GOA, Archbishop Elpidophoros’ numerous pratfalls and scandals are no longer so easily excused.
But gone are the days where we have to look the other way or be fearful of calling him out for his mistakes (and by extension, Bartholomew’s).
What’s more, we don’t have to hope for the day in which all Orthodox jurisdictions in America will be united; not if it means Elpidophoros, or somebody like him, is Metropolitan of all-America.
I can’t imagine any exciting news to the contrary coming from the Episcopal Assembly. From what I hear, the other jurisdictions and their bishops are not all that hopped up for unity under these conditions.
The disunity that I used to decry as a member of the Orthodox Christian Laity (OCL) I now see as a blessing; a merciful one from on high.
After all, there are worse things than the current uncanonical situation. If the various immigrant groups and their bishops saw no reason to honor the canons back when there was an actual canonical archdiocese in North America, then there’s no reason for us to get upset about it today.
If that’s what it takes to prevent the rest of us from being dragooned into a liberal church, one doomed to fail, it is our best option, our only option if we want to call ourselves Orthodox.
George, since you have brought up the nuances of the English language, may I take a moment to play the pedantic grammarian? The phrase “Eastern-Rite Episcopalian Church” is incorrect.
In the Anglican sphere, the word “Episcopalian” is used in the nominative form. It’s a noun, much like “Christian” or “Armenian” when those words stand alone. On the other hand, “Episcopal” is used in the adjectival form. It’s an adjective that modifies a noun, as in “Episcopal Church”. So, I can say that I used to be an Episcopalian since I belonged to the Episcopal Church.
Let us hope that the GOA doesn’t become an Eastern Rite Episcopal Church, but it’s well on its way to becoming one. Refugees of that apostate sect like me witness what is now happening to the GOA and have an unpleasant sense of déjà vu. Members of the GOA would do well to ignore the claim that the gates of Constantinople can withstand the relentless siege of the Devil. Constantinople has but a conditional membership in the Church that Christ said he would build. They should sober up and remember what happened to Rome.
Lawrence, I stand corrected!
While on the subject of grammar, George, you consistently & frequently misuse the phrase “begs the question.” Look it up in a book of elementary
logic. What you need to write is “raises the question.”
Father,
We understand that it is important to improve one’s writing but in this case the only thing George is guilty of is using an idiom.
Technically, only when the expression is used as an adjective does it refer to a fallacy, as it becomes a question-begging argument.
However, when it is used as a noun, something that involves an assumption whose truth may be questioned, it is no longer an argument.
Even Merriam-Webster agrees with me. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/question-begging
There is a bigger issue here, however, and I’d like to thank you in advance for your understanding when I point this out: Can you imagine how intimidating it would be for someone who might one day want to comment here to see someone point out a grammatical error with such obvious annoyance?
My mother, who was a teacher, used to do this. I would write a letter home during the summer and she would take out her red pencil, correct it, and return it to me. By the end of the summer, not only was I no longer writing to her I was barely speaking to her and that continued for a very long time.
Pointing out perceived errors, especially with such obvious annoyance, will shut people down tighter than a drum.
If the criticism comes from someone who also calls out his “rank and file number,” it is doubly intimidating especially if it is someone in a position of authority within the Church. You are by no means the only one who does this, which is why I even published your comment.
This is a teachable moment.
On Monomakhos, one can beg the question, raise the question, invite the question, or anything else they want to do and that goes for us as well. The expectation is not that we do it perfectly. It’s that we keep on writing. It’s good that George and I make mistakes so others feel they can do the same, although after 2 years of logic in highschool and having a second major in logic in college, I feel like I’m on pretty solid ground in this particular department.
Although a labor of love, this blog is also grueling work and it takes a bit of courage to put yourself out there like we do. That goes for all the people who comment here as well. A little restraint in the critical department with respect to one’s delivery would be appreciated.
As linguist Mark Liberman at Language Log recommends, when people use the expression try to “cultivate an attitude of serene detachment in the face of its use by others” because it is not incorrect.
And even if it were, it doesn’t matter: it’s the message that matters.
Gail,
AMEN SISTER!
I would have posted here so much more, but my grammar sucks. As such it can be so time consuming not coming off as a complete DUM-DUM. Thanks Gail and George for never being critical of my bad writing skills.
You’re always welcome here. You know that.
But NEVER let that stop anyone!!! If you all knew how much editing we have to do behind the scenes just to approximate what passes for normal sentence structure, you would know our grammar isn’t the best either.
And if you could see the number of tabs I have open to find out how to correctly spell a word, you would also know I can’t spell!
Not required. Not important. No one cares.
We do the work because we’re hosting the blog. But no one else has to do anything to comment here. Think of it as a text to a long-time friend.
This conversation reminds me of an encounter I had with an Old Testament professor I had in seminary. He had written a paper when he was taking Old Testament in his seminary days, but since he was no good at typing, he hired a young lady to do the typing for him. He had used the term “pericopè” in numerous places throughout the paper. Unaware that “pericopè” is a theological term for a passage of Scripture, the typist changed the spelling to “periscope” – as in the looking gadget on a submarine. Everywhere he had written “pericope” she put “periscope”. Well, such an oft-repeated typographical error wouldn’t due by the strict standards of the day, so circumstances required that she retype the whole paper all over again. Poor girl!
My prof related this hilarious story in order to console me while I was typing an essay for him. This was the time when Japanese word processors were just coming out on the market. Well into the work, he was giving me dictation and hit the wrong key and POOF, the whole damned thing just disappeared. The screen went gray. We had to go back and start again at the beginning.
I lost my sense of humor during the Summer of Floyd at the start of the pandemic. Thanks, everyone, for giving me a rare chance to chuckle again…and since my comment seems to have hit a nerve, I’ll make a note that grammar ought to be the fourth topic that should never be raised in polite company along with sex, money and politics!
I remember those days when you’d had to retype everything. Never made a mistake quite that bad. I did go to an amusement park and asked where the gold was. I thought Fort Knox was Knott’s Berry Farm, so I can’t brag about being any less ditzy.
Dino, eisai pallikari! Don’t sweat the details. (Gail still can’t spell my name!)
Well neither could your Junior High Reunion Committee and most of the girls running it were there just to see you! Mrs. Michaelopolos
I know! 😉
Here is a *possibly* relevant point of grammar:
What’s the origin of the phrase
‘To boldly go where no man has gone before’?
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/385400.html
‘ This introductory text was spoken at the beginning of many Star Trek television episodes and films, from 1966 onward:
Space: The final frontier
These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise
Its 5 year mission
To explore strange new worlds
To seek out new life and new civilizations
To boldly go where no man has gone before
Space: the final frontier
This line reinvigorated the last-lasting debate over split infinitives. These are infinitives that have an adverb between ‘to’ and the verb. Those grammarians who still cared about this in the 1960s complained that ‘to boldly go’ should have been ‘to go boldly’. The debate had been simmering on and off for the best part of a century. As early as 1897, Academy magazine suggested that an insistence that split infinitives were incorrect was somewhat pedantic:
“Are our critics aware that Byron is the father of their split infinitive? ‘To slowly trace’, says the noble poet, ‘the forest’s shady scene’.”
Most authorities now accept Star Trek into the grammatical fold and no longer care, or at least rarely publicly complain, about ‘to boldly go’.
To boldly go where no man has gone before
By 1966, people cared more about implied sexism than doubtful grammar and the show’s producers received criticism for the ‘no man’ part of the speech. Despite some recourse to the tradition defence of the use of ‘man’ to mean ‘human’, that is, ‘man embraces woman’, by the time Star Trek: The Next Generation was aired, in 1987, the shows producers had opted for the more politically correct last line – “Where no one has gone before”. In that series the hirsutely challenged Patrick Stewart took on the role of the Star Trek’s commander and wags could hardly miss the ‘to baldly go’ quip at his expense. ‘
To boldly go? To go boldly?
The aversion to split infinitives is a mark of Latin lovers.
But English is not Latin, it is English.
To split? Or not to split? Is that the question?
It is the poetry that should decide.
I’m with Byron (“Born half a Scot, bred a whole one”).
And on this, I’m with Gail (and George).
Monomakhos is neither a philosophy nor a logic academy.
It is a non-scholastic blog for ordinary people
to discuss weighty matters affecting life and faith.
Language is for communication.
What matters is being understood,
not being pressed between the leaves
of a grammarian’s butterfly word book,
kept forever perfect – and forever dead.
I had a teacher in high school who said he was born in England. I asked him, “Are you English American or American English?”
His reply? “I’m hauf and half.”
My great-grandmother, Nellie O’Hara, was born in England, but she was quick to point out that she was really Irish because she was a “bun in the oven” at the time.
In Glasgow “a hauf ‘n’ a hauf” is traditionally
half a pint of beer and half a gill of whisky.
It provides the belt without the bulk…
The source of this debate in English grammar is that the language allows adverbs to go either in front of or after the verbs they describe. In linguistic parlance, this is is called left-branching and right-branching constructions, respectively. Examples of left branching phrases are “to boldly go” or “boldly to go”, whereas an example of a right branching phrase is “to go boldly”. I personally love left branching constructions, and I think they should be rigidly applied to relative clauses as well, for instance “the at midnight, with music blaring, past the stadium zooming car” instead of the right-branching equivalent “the car that zooms past the stadium at midnight with music blaring”. Some languages like Japanese, Korean and Turkish are fully left-branching, and I think this forces the speakers of those languages to think through the small details first, making them better planners. Right branching phrases seem to be full of afterthoughts and reflect a sloppy, disorganized cognitive process. Left branching phrases, on the other hand, give the impression of a thoroughly planned idea, all wrapped up neatly with a bow tie (the final noun/verb, or “head” of the phrase). Who wants to take bets as to which of these linguistic constructs are used in Heaven or in the pre-Babylon universal language, haha!
Thank you, Gail. It makes one wonder that they are diverting attention from what matters most: the actual message or mistakes of grammar? You are correct that some may feel gun shy to respond to important matters in future.
And we don’t want that. Most people don’t even see the mistakes.
‘…the claim that the gates of Constantinople
can withstand the relentless siege of the Devil’.
The City has fallen twice already: to the Crusaders and to the Turks.
This should perhaps suggest she is not necessarily invulnerable…
George & Gail,
As a FORMER cradle G.O.A., I believe the least corrupt branch of Orthodoxy is ROCOR and encourage G.O.A. brethren to recognize that they will almost certainly be facing a choice of remaining in a marginalized G.O.A. branch or getting into a branch like ROCOR where they can stay more pure. It’s EXIT STRATEGY time for G.O.A. faithful, ask yourself where to move to for the G.O.A. has slipped into mockery of ancient Orthodox tenants.
God gave humanity free will. And it just seems you are always angry that women use their free will in ways you don’t approve. Seems like it’s a YOU problem, and not a God problem.
Linda, we ALL have freewill. Therefore ALL of us have rights. But NOBODY has the right to do that which is evil. The Bill of Rights is a social compact which enumerates the natural rights that all human beings have by virtue of the fact that they are created in the image of God. And yes, have freewill.
That’s why I can’t murder somebody who slandered me or why Joe Somebody can burgle my home because he needs money. If I am wronged, then I have recourse to the justice system and can file a civil suit. If Joe Somebody has lost his job and he needs money to feed his family, he can approach the Church for alms or go on Welfare.
And if a college coed wakes up the next morning from a hangover and then realizes she got pregnant, she can (1) marry the man who impregnated her or (2) put the baby up for adoption. (She also didn’t have to get drunk and sleep with the any Tom, Dick or Harry in the first place.)
Let me repeat: strong>nobody has the right to do that which is evil. Period.
In my experience women have an accountability problem, and this post right here proves it. Just because you have free will doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want without consequence, or that certain things aren’t wrong. Should someone like Ted Kazinski not be thrown in jail?
Women are perfectly free to do good or evil as they choose. The people, through the law, are free to punish them if they use their freedom to violate the law. The Church is a voluntary association and the Church is free to discipline women if they violate the Church’s teachings on this or that matter.
It has nothing to do with anger or women’s freedom.
Very well said, Misha.
That’s all folks! The GOA cannot be saved. Do not weep! Let’s drop to our knees and say thank you to all the good journalists who lifted the veil from our eyes. I do not know where or how this apostasy will end but I just keep reading my Orthodox Study Bible. As for the Fordham Fools; they are not so clever. They are Satan’s minions. We see right through their evil.
God uses many figures to relate Himself with His people. Some examples are:
A church of saints (1 Cor. 1:2).
A kingdom of citizens (Eph. 2:11).
A building of stones (1 Pet. 2:5).
A vine of branches (John 15:5).
A fold of sheep {John 10:1-18).
A household of children (1 Pet.. 4:17; I John 3:10)
A body of members (Rom. 12:4, 5)
The GOA hierarchy cannot stand to have their false control, false power, false authority, and free money stripped from them, and will live until they die, defending their delusions. They sold themselves to the State Department so easily.
Jesus said in John 10:7, “…I am the door of the sheep…”
When I read the the Orthodox Study Bible, I cannot find Scripture stating non-profit GOA church corporations are “The Door” to life, grace, truth, forgiveness, or anything!
not sure how it happened, but somehow there seems to be a typo in the video link. I think there needs to be a period in between goarch and org. If anyone else is having a problem with the link, here is what works for me:
https://www.goarch.org/-/interview-with-ta-nea-gr-english-translation-archbishop-elpidophoros-2022
George/Gail – you can delete this comment if the link in the article is corrected
Elpi must be a great student of Pope Francis, because he uses the same technique of doubling down on heresy in interviews with hand-picked journalists.
I became Orthodox in the Antiochian Church, I left the Antiochian Church for ROCOR due to lack of Antiochian monasteries in the United States. I hope to be a monastic one day. As an American convert in ROCOR I’ve felt nothing but love. Eventually I was ordained to the Diaconate. I think ROCOR is a great place to walk the narrow path to the Kingdom of Heaven
The link in the article is broken
https://www.goarch.org/-/interview-with-ta-nea-gr-english-translation-archbishop-elpidophoros-2022
just need to add the missing period before “org”, should be goarch.org
Fixed it. Thx
George,
I suppose I understand your preoccupation with the Planar, GOARCH and Elpi. They are your fellow Greeks, misguided as they have become. However, much of the rest of the Church have moved on. Intellectually, the Mormons and the Muslims may be interesting specimens. But they are not in the family.
That is the way many of us have felt about the Phanariotes for quite some time.
Interesting point. I’ve thought about it and it should be obvious that I’m not trying to save the GOA from themselves.
So why am I doing this? Mainly because (1) I want to expose heterodoxy within the Church wherever it occurs, (2) to make sure that all the people within the GOA know that there are off-ramps, and (3) that the laymen in the other jurisdictions know what they heck is going on.
Hopefully, this will result in (4) the derailment of Bartholomew’s plans for creating a ukrocephalous Orthodox Church in America.
That’s basically it.
Misha,
“Intellectually, the Mormons and the Muslims may be interesting specimens. But they are not in the family.”
May I ask what you meant by that statement?
Thanks
Dino,
Without prejudice to those under Constantinople who still hold the Orthodox faith, it is clear that the Phanar and Elpi do not. The ROC has already excommunicated them over the Ukraine affair. Articles of accusation of heresy against Bartholomew have been sitting without action before the synod of the Church of Greece for years now. And it is clear that the Planar has chosen the path of schismatics and will soon become actual rather than de facto Uniates.
That being the case, there is no reason for the Church to be further preoccupied with them any more than with the Episcoplians, for example. That is, unless the Church grows the cajones to actually anathematize them. They are a waste of time.
I should also add that anyone still holding the Orthodox faith within GOARCH must be indifferent to all of the above in order to remain. You cannot wake a person who only pretends to be asleep.
I’m going to start using “Fanar”. Spell check just will not let that “ph” be.
Misha,
While I agree with most of your reply, I did not understand what you meant by Intellectually, the Mormons and Muslims being interesting specimens.
Not that important I am sure, but did you mean that they are the last of large organized religions that are unyielding with their beliefs, and/or hold pre-1960 traditional American values, while most other Christian religions have gone with the flow of modernity, new definitions, and new science. Not to mention “new reality”. But who cares, since not in our fold, who cares?
While again, I agree, who cares?
But in a world where insanity might prevail soon, and force fed, or enforced thought control. We may find strange partners to call our allies, within the fight against the insanity, evil, and God forbid World War 3.
I’ll let Misha speak for himself, but I see your point. At this point, if you believe that having some sodomite dressed in satanic drag reading fairy tales to children is a bad idea, then you’re on my side.
I meant that though they may be the objects of intellectual inquiry for the Orthodox, they do not warrant the concern of those in the family. That is a conviction I share about Fanariotes at this point.
Have you thought about the possibility of him being black-mailed ?
That used to be the way the State Dept did things. For myself, I believe the case is more along the lines of “birds of a feather.”
Young Greek men going 40 years on now have imbibed the liberal/globalist worldview on pretty much everything. Tangent: part of the reason for this is that “New Rome” doesn’t exist. If you’re a diaspora Greek and you’ve got spiritual leanings, then to have any relevancy at all, you have to hitch your wagon to the phanariote star. Otherwise you’ll be second-class in Moscow.
New Rome is a fantasy but the Phanar actually exists (if barely). Rather than evangelize (which they can’t because of the Turks) they give themselves to the globalists with the hope that “ecumenical” will buy them the necessary currency to act like they matter.
Getting back to your point, it used to be that the Turkish (and Greek) intel services went out of their way to groom homosexuals for the episcopal track as those men were eminently blackmailable.
I no longer think that is necessary, especially given the fact even straight priests and academics in the West have swallowed whole-hog the entire globohomo agenda. Basically, the entire heterosexual world is running interference for the homosexuals highlighted in the video which was posted the other day.
You cannot be blackmailed (in the modern sense)
unless you have a sense of shame.
In the original sense of the term
(from the Anglo-Scottish Border Wars)
it was just a protection racket – like any other…
“What we should strive to avoid is reducing women to mere “child-bearers,” as if this were their sole purpose in life,” says Elpidophorous. Yet isn’t that exactly what happened to the woman who carried the children for the gay couple? Did he say anything specifically about her, about the “surrogate” mother?
On the subject of surrogacy, see also this interesting piece by Mary Harrington: https://unherd.com/2022/10/how-surrogacy-is-transforming-medicine/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=9ca7fff288
Reminds me of that bishop who felt he should say, “Happy Mother’s Day” to women who aborted their babies because they carried a child for a time.
That comment would make every Orthodox woman cringe. He’s reminding one group of women of the worst experience they probably ever had and insulting another who knows that being a “mother” entails a whole lot more than just getting pregnant.
Blimbax, one of the things that bothered me so much about his interview (and of prog/libs everywhere) is how emotive they are. I guess they think that by “caring” they don’t have to the heavy lifting of “thinking.”
Seriously, the interview was an embarrassment. And the fact that it was carried in The Orthodox Observer makes me worry about the rest of the hierarchy and administrators on 79th St.
Speaking as a man, I can say that women have the greatest ministry of all: creating life.
I believe I speak for other males of the species when I say that this is something that makes many of us envy. That’s the reason we try to accomplish all that we can, whether it is art, literature, architecture, athletics, you name it. Even –regrettably–conquest, whether of foreign territory, air or space.
The prologue to the original Star Trek poetically pointed that out: “Where no man has gone before.”
Yes, I realize that “man” in this sense means “humanity,” but still…
George,
this is a very interesting analysis which I had not thought of before. Men are much
more creative in the material sense. Perhaps this is why. I had to laugh when you say that you envy women because they create life. You wouldn’t envy us as much if you had to give birth. Just a wee joke…
Katherine, believe it or not, subconsciously we do. Men are both in awe –and terrified–of women’s sexuality.
Camille Paglia first verbalized the cause of male creativity about 30 years ago in her book Sexual Personae. Even though she’s a never-married lesbian, because of her appreciation for European culture (especially the Renaissance –she’s Italian) she was able to cut through the feminazi nonsense that is peddled as “higher education” in Academia.
She pegged it: men create (or otherwise kill, build, explore and destroy) in order to acquire women. The downside is that this can cause anxiety in men; for example if they lose their status or sexual potency then they feel they’ll lose their women. A woman can always find another man (even if she’s not fertile but especially so if she is).
As father of two, I wouldn’t describe it as envy. A more fitting description is sheer awe.
“…the entire heterosexual world is running interference
for the homosexuals highlighted in the video
which was posted the other day.”
Not quite the entire world. Not yet.
Which is one of the reasons why
they hate the Russians so much…
https://orthodoxreflections.com/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=track&action=click&data=WyIzOSIsIjZtdWxraW1sN3h3Y3M4OGM4ODRrazA0YzhvNDRvZ2tnIiwiMjE4IiwiZjAxZjI2MzY1YzlhIixmYWxzZV0
From our friends at Orthodox Reflections laying out the disgraceful interview of Elpi, line by line.
Thank you Dionysia (and thank you Orthodox Reflections) for taking the time to analyze Elpi’s interview.
Those within GOARCH who retain the Orthodox faith need to leave immediately, regardless of the cost. Those who remain are beyond the pale. I spent eight years in a Greek parish. I know exactly what I’m saying and what I’m talking about. There are many Greeks, et al., who agree with Elpi on this. Maybe most. The dominant mentality there is very cosmopolitan.
Such people should not expect salvation.