Monomakhos’ Review of SCOTUS: 2020 Edition


Last year, as some of you may recall, I wrote a blog post about the 2019 Supreme Court session.  Overall, I was somewhat gratified by the tone and tenor of the rulings.  How gratified?  On a scale of one to ten, I’d say about somewhere between a 7 and 8.

Be that as it may, as many of you know, I am a fervent critic of the concept of the kritarchy.  (So were our Founding Fathers, by the way.)  Kritarchy is a fancy Greek word for “rule by judges”.

Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist no. 78, predicted that the judiciary would be the “weakest” part of the Federal government. As an underpinning of the concept of “judicial restraint”, a type inertia would allow the elected magistrates full rein. This was to be expected since this was, after all, an electoral Republic.

However, this wasn’t always the case. Almost from the start, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Marbury v Madison that the Supreme Court had a, heretofore, unknown right called “judicial review”. This meant that the Court could act like a referee between the Executive and the Legislative branches, whenever it was called upon to do so.

Since that fateful date in 1803, it’s been downhill.  The list of egregious Court rulings has been mercifully short, but nevertheless destructive. It was most damaging in destroying the necessary comity that must exist in a Federal Republic between historic Christian institutions and the state. Prime examples of this include West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette (1943), Engel v Vitale (1962), and all the demonic stupidity unleashed on us in the 1960s by that odious harridan, Madalyn Murray O’Hair (Murray v Curlett 1963).

Incongruous and out-of-character with America’s foundational Protestantism, West Virginia, Engel and Murray literally blindsided America. America, after all, was a land whose national legislature built one of the world’s largest Christian cathedrals just a few blocks from the Supreme Court. A country in which the Congress, and all state legislatures, employed full-time chaplains, and whose military cemeteries are marked with a myriad of Christian crosses.

It bears repeating, that so novel and so out-of-left field were these decisions, nobody could have seen them coming.

Justice Hugo Black, a former Klansman (another strike against secret societies, if there ever was one), overturned generations of accepted law regarding the legitimacy of civilly-protected Christian worship. Writing for the majority in Engel, Justice Black “. . . did not cite a single legal precedent or court decision in his majority opinion –because there were none,” and “for 170 years following the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no Court had ever struck down any prayer, in any form, in any location”. [Quotations found in Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, David Horowitz, 2020, p 50.]

That these cases proved to be significant in degrading the Christian ethos of America, there can be no doubt. In this respect, they have succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the anti-Christians.

Then, of course, came the infamous Roe v Wade (1973) which legalized for all practical purposes abortion-on-demand, a totally unnecessary ruling that has horribly divided the nation. Thanks to this egregious decision, we now have a legal regime of actual infanticide in two states, New York and Virginia, something that could not have been envisioned by the majority back in 1973.


The penultimate coup de grâce of what was left of American normalcy was delivered by Obergefell v Hodges (2015), which decided that sodomy was equal to marriage. This “right” was found to exist even though the concept of gay “marriage” was so novel a concept, there has not been one culture, in 5,000 years of recorded history, that ever envisioned it. Worse, whenever it was brought up before the people in the various states to be decided democratically, it was always struck down; not once, but thirty-two different times, even in liberal states like California.

I said “penultimate” above because the ultimate finally happened last month, when the Supreme Court ruled that sexuality –specifically transexuality–was to be afforded the same Civil Rights protection as sex, race, creed and color (Bostock v Clayton County). Shockingly, two conservatives, Gorsuch and Roberts, voted with liberals to provide a six-to-three majority for this absurd ruling.

On the whole, if one could do it over again, I’d restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicating cases between the states, or at least make sure that their rulings were on a super-majority basis:  2/3 if the number of justices is odd and 3/4 if the number is even. To my mind, if that threshold can’t be met for any particular ruling, then the ruling of the lower courts would stand. I’d even be in favor of a Court that only had eight members on it. If a simple majority couldn’t be reached on any decision, then the ruling of the lower Court would stand. (I’d also scrap the 16th, 17th, 23rd and 24th Amendments to the Constitution, but those are stories for another day.)


Needless to say, many on the Right are justifiably upset; however, Yours Truly, not so much. In fact, I’m actually optimistic. Allow me to explain.

I’m not upset, because the ruling is based on a fantasy so unreal it will not withstand the test of time. Transsexuality, in all its horrific glory, is a parody, a walking contradiction.  It is so phantasmagoric in its relationship to physical reality, that it could very well bring down the entire post-Enlightenment egalitarian ethos. Indeed, it undermines the core of the lesbian and homosexual movement; a movement that is predicated on the immutability of sexuality, i.e. one was “born gay”. Transsexuality completely contradicts this belief. Why? Because according to transsexualism, one is not innately anything. Indeed, there are thirty-eight “genders” from which one can choose as one’s identity. This is so out-of-touch with reality that hallucinatory doesn’t begin to describe it. Herein, we see the beginnings of how the entire sexual revolution will collapse under the weight of its own inherent contradictions.

There is more of course: all Leftist delusions once enshrined into law (or enforced as law), invariably implode; sometimes quicker than expected. Think of feminism, which is now groaning under the weight of the #metoo movement; the glass ceiling is still visible, but thanks to #metoo, it is now receding further from sight. Why? Because hiring women has become toxic. A middle-manager does so at his peril. So much for feminism and the great “gains” that women have made in the past fifty years.

The BLM movement, which unwittingly created a new Jim Crow-like segregation, is yet another example of a Leftist delusion.  Oh sure, this time black people will be given a more protected status (some would say a more a exalted status) but let’s be honest, how long will that last before it, too, degenerates into a quasi-Latin American caste-system? Either that caste-system will implode or the concept of the rule of law, which undergirds our Republic will, for we can have one or the other, but not both.

Because of the current pandemic, Washington State is toying with the idea of staggering the incoming school year –not based on alphabetical order mind you but on race. If this is realized, then a massive spike will be nailed into the coffin of Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society. And in relatively short order, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment will be struck down, as well. Civil Rights (in any meaningful sense) cannot exist under such a regime.

Nor will the deleterious consequences end there; because now Asians and Mesoamericans will demand a special caste for themselves, as well. It will not be a pretty sight when we watch the emanating tribes of America fight things out in the streets. You think what we’re seeing now is bad? Unless we nip this in the bud right now, it’s going to make the recent riots a permanent part of the American landscape.

Bostock will more negatively impact women, however, especially Title IX sports and women’s athletics in general. This new ruling all but ensures that biological males will be allowed –encouraged even (by greedy lawyers of course)–to take over these traditional female-only sports. Just as #metoo women is resegregating women out of the corporate boardroom, so too will they be resegregated out of athletics. And of course it doesn’t stop there. Police and Fire Departments will be able to fill their quotas for hiring “women” by hiring mutilated men instead. White fraudsters, such as Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King, have already take advantage of variation of this con-job by pretending to be black.  Enabling women to past muster in these professions necessitated a significant dumbing down of physical requirements, the military included, so this may not be, altogether, undesirable.  

Because it was a fantastical ruling based on a delusion, I simply don’t see it having anything but a negative impact, hence my belief that it will collapse under the weight of its own manifest contradictions. I could be wrong, of course, but those of us who are conservative have the luxury of looking back on a rich history of fantastical Leftist ideologies, which also didn’t make the cut: communism, egalitarianism, sexual equivalency, racial quotas, female-headed households, socialist economics, to name a few, are all smoldering on the ash-heap of history.

They have all failed. Utterly. Because you see, fantasies are like dreams in that they exist only in your head, not in the real world. One always wakes up from a dream, no matter how good –or bad–it was.

So you can see why I’m not that exercised about this disastrous ruling. Yes, it will wreak havoc throughout this great land. Injustices will compound geometrically. But in the final analysis, Bostock is yet again another example of identity politics, but this time it’s a false identity. Men aren’t women no matter how carefully crafted their vaginas are. Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims on the other hand are actual identities, based on biological or socio-cultural realities. And now we can add whites to the mix. (Indeed, there is no way that whites cannot be added to this mix.)

Which is why I believe that this idiotic ruling can be overturned, if not legally, then through some type of structural work-around. Or it may be left to die on its own accord, in much the same way that there are still laws on the books which prohibit premarital sex. Perhaps the newly-aggrieved women’s groups will rise up and challenge them in court. I can sense the existential dread that lesbian and homosexual groups feel right about now, as transgenderism is nothing less than the repudiation of their entire ideology. As noted earlier, either sexuality is a choice or its natural, it can’t be both. That’s why I believe that it will burn itself out in short order. There will be too many aggrieved people out there who will be negatively impacted by the enforcement of this anarchic legal regime.

That of course doesn’t mean that one can’t –or won’t–be punished for speaking the truth, as Solzhenitsyn found out in the last century when he was consigned to the Gulag. And now J K Rowling is being hit with this reality good and hard. She has committed the mortal sin of the modern orthodoxy in stating that “men with vaginas” are not women and so she is being thrown out the window by many of her former allies. Like Galileo, however, her riposte to the absurd phrase “people who menstruate” is priceless. Unfortunately, it will do her no good. Still it was her ideology, ultimately, that did her in.  The Revolution, like Saturn, always eats its own children.

In any event, Rowling, and other liberals who are similarly being defenestrated, are exposing the illogic at the heart of this new, false religion. And for that, we can thank them for it.


So yes, I am somewhat sanguine about the future. Most especially, however, because the Supreme Court did something monumentally beneficial the very next day in saving the Electoral College. Literally. In the recent Chiafalo, et al v Washington decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Electoral College; more specifically in empowering the states, in this case Washington State, to punish so-called faithless electors.

The proximate cause for this ruling was the defection of three Democrat electors from Washington State who cast their ballots for Colin Powell instead of Hillary Clinton. The State of Washington charged them with a violation of their oath and fined them each $1,000. The three electors in question appealed their conviction and their case finally made its way up the Supreme Court. Again, the Court ruled unanimously, against them for the State of Washington.

As to why this bodes well for the stability of the Republic consider this:  it prevents further meddling in the inner mechanics of the Electoral College. The intent of some faithless electors over the years has been to act provocatively in order to agitate for its abolition.

How so?

Let’s say twenty electors, from ten states, decide to throw their votes away on nonsense candidates or even for the other candidate.  Not only do we have a Constitutional crisis, but the Electoral College, itself, becomes a joke. If it’s a tight election, it doesn’t have to be ten; it can be eight, five or even two electors in one state. In any event, the actual vote will be thrown into chaos. The legitimate wishes of the voters in their respective states would be ignored. If this is repeated every four years, then the electoral process becomes a dreaded, quadrennial fracas, which in time will erode confidence in the legitimacy of the Republic, itself. This will eventuate in a situation not unlike the later Roman Republic, a state of affairs which was solved by the institution of a monarchy. But only after a century of civil wars.

The Founding Fathers saw this coming. They knew that democracy in Athens often resulted in oligarchies, which were then broken up by the occasional tyranny and they didn’t want that. First Athens, then Rome, accumulated power because they were the major population centers of their respective peninsulas. And as noted, within their cities, oligarchs were able to ply their will as they saw fit. In Rome, this resulted in  incessant civil wars of the Later Republic.

Contrast this with the United States, which, thanks to the Electoral College, has managed to have only one fratricidal conflict in 244 years. That is no small feat. 

We can thank the Supreme Court for saving the Electoral College and perhaps staving off another fratricidal war, for the time being.


As for religious liberties, I’m also heartened in that the Supreme Court came to the defense of the Little Sisters of Mercy. According to the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), this mendicant order of Roman Catholic nuns were required to pay for “reproductive care” (read: abortion) for their employees. This was not only a strict violation of the First Amendment but it was ridiculous on its face as this order of nuns were celibate and in no need of contraceptives. 

So yeah, I’m really stoked about this one.


For all the good it’s done, albeit inadvertently in some cases, a potential monkey-wrench, which could legitimize secession, was the McGirt v Oklahoma ruling. In this ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the Muskogee Nation’s treaty with the Federal Government is in force as to the Major Crimes Act. This means that members of the Creek nation who have been arrested, tried, and imprisoned for crimes by the Oklahoma authorities must be released and turned over to the Creek nation for adjudication. While the response was initially thunderous, the idea that several counties in Oklahoma had now formed a sovereign nation within the State of Oklahoma proved to be premature. (Or so we presume.)

As to what the death of Justice Ginsburg means, let’s just say this: it’s now obvious that the Democrat Party was hell-bent on taking the results of the upcoming election to the Supreme Court. Their game plan was to somehow convince Chief Justice John Roberts to pull an “Anthony Kennedy” and side with the four liberals against President Trump. That card has now been taken away from them.*

As to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I can’t say enough. It’s energized the base, and barring some cataclysmic event (like an extinction-level meteor event), she’s going to be placed on the Supreme Court in time for the election. The Democrats are in a pickle of course. Should they pull another Kavanaugh, they risk losing the election in a thunderous fashion. Me, personally, I think they’ve spent all their ammo during the Kavanaugh hearings.

Not that that will matter to the BLM/Antifa types who are threatening more violence in the streets.

Strap on your seat belts, folks. If you think the past four months were tumultuous, you ain’t seen nothing yet. For a hilarious assessment of what we can expect from many on the Left, here’s a preview of what we can expect:

*Editor’s Note: This particular blog post is mainly concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent rulings regarding the Electoral College, the Bostock decision, and freedom of religion in particular. It was written months before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg so I have decided to mention the ramifications of her passing in the conclusion, and then only briefly. In any event, I give the just-concluded term all-in-all a B+. Up from a last year’s B-.


  1. The clear assessment of what exactly has gone wrong in the supreme court decisions on this page proves that 2 diametrically opposed value system are competing against each other to eliminate the other. Secular-humanism and Jude-Christianity Authentic Christianity is reality. Truth is Truth, being perfect in accuracy as all thing are in Heaven. Humanism is trying to pound Truth into the ground, As the Holy Scripture said it would do. The two Trump appointee s and the chief justice seem to flip flob in siding with both on differing cases. This may be a continuation of the carrot and stick ploy to keep both value system supporters voting and putting money for the congressional parties. Divide and conquer compliments of the planetary environment destroyers, and fiat mark of the beast proponets in a cashless economic system. Again, as the Scripture states, non who does not have the mark will not be able to buy or sell. The Word does not ever return to Him void. The mark is coming soon. as is the catastrophic BOE. BLUE OCEAN EVENT. Hw who has , has the attitudes of the beatitudes, he who has shall be given more.There is limitless Good in Heaven. I have no doubt of this, and unquestioning belief that God is God and He loves mankind.

  2. Antiochene Son says

    Great piece, George.
    I am troubled by the fact that Supreme Court Justices almost always drift left over time (, with only Thomas and maybe Alito as the exceptions. Even liberal justices move left over time, though conservatives move further, faster.
    I was dumbstruck by Gorsuch’s support for trannies and Kavanaugh’s mealy-mouthed dislike of the means but not the outcome. I worry that Barret’s Haitian children signals a weakness on immigration, the issue of our time, and she has never indicated she would overturn Roe, rather the opposite.
    I cringe when I hear conservatives decry an activist judiciary, because it’s just another way we are cucked. The Left is activist, and openly so. The Right says, “Oh no, I will never let my views affect my rulings.” It’s time to stop this. In a war you take as much territory as you can, regardless of whose it is. The return to the original borders happens at the surrender. Either play for keeps or get steamrolled.
    I fear that despite a supposed 6-3 majority, we’re going to continue getting the same kinds of awful rulings, with maybe a small treat from time to time. I frankly don’t see a paradigm shift with 6-3 or even 7-2. I’d love to be wrong but I am not impressed by most of our “conservative” justices. The kritarchy will continue to serve its masters regardless of who is on the court.
    One ray of sunlight from the kritarchy: the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Gov. Whitmer’s Covid19 state of emergency is unlawful, and ruled 4-3 that the WW2 era law giving her broad emergency powers was unconstitutional. I hope other states follow suit. 

    • George Michalopulos says

      AS, I am more in sympathy with your views than you may know. As for the future of our Republic, I’m not exactly black-pilled, but I can definitely see that scenario becoming a reality.

      Having said that, there are two things that I see as well. The first is what I wrote in the entire piece especially what I wrote re the Bostock decision. Transsexuality is not only evil, it’s illogical, irrational, and just plain stupid. It’s also 100% antithetical to the entire homosexual ideology (for reasons I went to in the essay). What I teased out of this datum is that all “liberal” (re: anti-traditional/realist) ideologies will ultimately collapse under their own weight.

      Not that they won’t cause a lot of damage in the interim.

      The second thing is something that we conservatives/realists/traditionalists need to remember is that history never follows a neat trajectory. Liberals/progressives/ect. believe that it does, that “history is on our side”. Even when proglibs get a victory (electoral or otherwise), there are countervailing factors which come into play which stymie their agenda. This always happens. In other words, reality always reasserts itself. Hence my optimism that Bostock will crumble under the weight of its own inherent contradictions.

      Because of this, conservatives/trads should not waste one minute worrying about it or “fund-raising” on it like we did with Roe v Wade/em>. Once it became clear that the Establishment would never allow that egregious ruling to be overturned, then we should have concentrated our fire-power on mitigating its effects. Remember, the Achilles’ heel of Roe was always the word “viability”. We forgot that and decided to go whole-hog. Now, abortion is legal without any restrictions whatsoever, including day of birth. Most First-world countries that have legal abortion have legal restrictions on this egregious procedure. Because of our absolutist mind-set, we have none.

      Anyway, that last paragraph was a ramble. We should never forget that the Left always overplays their hand. Consider this example: last week, Idiot Comey was allowed to testify before the Senate from his kitchen via Zoom or Skype. Now, because two GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee tested positive for COVID, the libtards are screaming “we can’t meet in public to adjudicate ACB!” They didn’t foresee the possibility that the sick senators could also meet via Zoom.

      Moral of the story: ever since the election of GOP presidents and the deep disappointment with supposed conservatives like Souter and Roberts, SCOTUS has been drifiting rightward. Whether it’s enough to right the ship of state is still too early to tell. We have been “slouching to Gomorrah” for decades now and our socio-cultural rot may be irreversible.

      Other moral of the story: things don’t always progress the way the Left wants it to. Always be on the lookout for black swans. At least don’t be surprised when they appear.

      • To coin a phrase (well, to steal a phrase,
        from Aragorn): “There’s always hope.”

        • Michael Bauman says

          Yea, the totalitarians always hope to bring everything and everyone under there control.  Disembodied hope is nothing, indeed it can be toxic.   

      • cynthia curran says

        Good point. No matter how smart progressives are things don’t happen as they think they will. In fact progressives turn off cuban votes in Florida which means Trump still has a chance.

    • AS: “I am troubled by the fact that Supreme Court Justices almost always drift left over time…”
      As someone put it – “The facts have a well-known liberal bias” ?

      • If they did, liberalism would have arrived much sooner in history and not just in comfy societies.

    • Pat Reardon says

      I was dumbstruck by Gorsuch’s support for trannies 
      Ah then, brother, brace yourself for more. Gorsuch is an Episcopalian, whose pastor, I’m told, is a priestess.
      Women’s ordination is the original trannism.

      • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

        RE “Women’s ordination is the original trannism.”

        Father Patrick, is that pearl of satirical wisdom of your own creation or did you see or hear it elsewhere?  I always like to give credit to the author of great quotes.

        • Matthew Panchisin says

          Dear Archpriest Alexander and Father Patrick,

          Very often do many of us save for future reference what we have heard on websites, thank you Michael Bauman and so many others for sharing so many profound thoughts along with others.

          “Every single act of devotion any where in the world is interconnected with us. That is the way the universe is made. The full medicine is always available.”

          Hear hear,

          Michael Bauman’s words boldly and rightly referencing so many others.

        • Pat Reardon says

          Father Patrick, is that pearl of satirical wisdom of your own creation or did you see or hear it elsewhere?

          Oh, it’s mine, but hardly creative, I think.

    • Tim R. Mortiss says

      Antiochian Son says:
      “I worry that Barret’s Haitian children signals a weakness on immigration, the issue of our time…”
      Worry on, Christian! How many children have you taken into your home? My wife and I had 23 foster children, of all races and conditions. We didn’t adopt any; we had 5 of our own, but we did our part in our time. Not me; she dragged us kicking and screaming into it, and we (me and our kids) are glad she did. It was long ago now. We still see some of those kids now; now in middle age themselves.
      What a statement. God’s ways are not our ways, and surely our ‘worries’ are not His.
      There are no “issues of our time.”

      • Gail Sheppard says

        What does the foster care system have to do with immigration??? Worry can mean “uncertainty” and Antiochian Son’s point of the uncertainty with justices moving to the left is a reality.

        Foster children often go from one home to the next. There is a lot of neglect and abuse along the way, as some foster parents are just interested in the extra income that each additional child brings. At least Barret adopted. That shows a long term commitment to do the right thing.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          What does adoption have to do with immigration? We are to worry about Barret’s views on immigration because she adopted two Haitian kids?

          My point is that taking in children in need is nothing for AS or anybody else to “worry about”.

          President appoints a devout Catholic Christian with a big family and we “worry”? We already have enough real worries.

          Let evil be sufficient to the day thereof.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            I didn’t get that he was worried in the sense that you’re using it, but maybe I misinterpreted what he said. The concern, I believe, is that conservative justices have a tendency to lean to the left.

      • Antiochene Son says

        Immigration—all immigration, not just illegal immigration—has become a serious problem, much more than it was in the 1920s when immigration was shut down until 1965, when they lied to the American people in order to open the floodgates, promising like snakes that if the country opened up it wouldn’t lead to demographic change.

        The rapid and unchecked change in the demographics of our nation (I should say “population,” because “nation” implies people who have something more than a passport in common) is the problem of our time.
        People who have personally experienced something tend to be more outspoken to change society based on their experience. The parents of a homosexual child will tend to be more outspoken in favor of homosexual rights, for example, and then sob about how “you don’t understand!!!” if a normal person disagrees with them.

        So it’s entirely reasonable to expect the adoptive mother of an immigrant child to take a soft stance on immigration issues, as they project their personal experiences and emotions onto the other person.
        I think foster parenting is wonderful. It’s not for everyone, but for a family with a calling and proper dispostion to do it, it’s great. I have a problem with adopting foreign children however, when so many American children—of whatever race, I frankly don’t care—are in need of decent families. Especially when they are clearly viewed among the elite, as well as in some fringe Christian circles, as accessories/virtue signals/status statements. 

        Doesn’t St. Paul tell us to take care of your own family first? Well, our “national family” needs a lot of help first before we go across the seas in search of people to save.
        (Here’s an idea: no more foreign adoption until domestic adoption is easy enough to bring abortion rates down. But I’m not even convinced Barrett would rule in a Christian manner on abortion, based on her own words.)

        There is no logical leap between saying “I should bring a child here for a better life” than saying “This person whose case I sit in judgment over should be allowed to come here for a better life.” That is what concerns me. Because why not let in 5 million or 5 billion people who could have a better life?
        Judges are only too happy to bring their personal views into matters when they are a popular (at least with the left) position. With only two reliably conservative members on the court, I don’t hold much hope for this coming supposed 6-3 majority.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          I’m the son and grandson of immigrants; my grandad was born and grew up in Vancouver, BC. He was a pilot in the Royal Air Force in the First World War. My dad was born in BC; the family came to the States in the late 1920s.
          My wife’s maternal grandparents were born on Dalmatian islands; both came here as children in the early 1900s.
          When I parade my credentials as the son and grandson of immigrants, my wife cries out that British Columbia doesn’t count!
          Incidently, my grandmother was born in Kentucky in 1898 and raised there. When she married my granddad in BC in 1921, she lost her American citizenship, as was the law back then. She always had fun showing off her naturalization papers from 1947…

  3. Michael Bauman says

    Ah George, way too optimistic.  I am more inclined to paraphrase Shakespeare:  Democrats, Republicans! See what a scourge is laid upon thy hate that Heaven doth find means to kill thy love.  The Sun for sorrow doth hang its head. All are punished.
    Only repentance by all and abandonment of all the ideological nonsense, lust of power and idol talk will allow the country and us to heal.  
    Matthew 4:17 or doom, death and destruction shall follow. 

    • cynthia curran says

      Well, as said here Ron Dreher thinks that the left will dominate like Brave New World by making one to look bad if you don’t support PC causes. So, maybe it would be better if Trump wins. 

  4. I truly appreciate that you pointed out the difference between same-sex attraction (which is at least based on the reality of biological sex) and gender identity ideology.  I’m an Eastern Orthodox mom who facilitates a support group for parents of kids with Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.  I can critique gender ideology from an Orthodox standpoint, but realizing that I would be fighting against it even if I was a left-wing atheist is what made me one of the co-founders of this support group.  The other co-founders are two lesbian moms and a left-wing attorney from Women’s Liberation Front who has been on Tucker Carlson because she has been repeatedly silenced by mainstream media.  I’m also in touch with the organization Save Women’s Sports and the new Women’s Human Rights Campaign — the latter is necessary because the current Human Rights Campaign is a prime pusher and funder of gender ideology and has the Dems in their pocket.
    For a great summary of where we are with this as a nation, see Rod Dreher’s blog from this week at The American Conservative.  It’s called Trans Totalitarianism and Your Children.  May our great God and Savior, Who alone is the Lover of mankind, have mercy on us all.  

    • cynthia curran says

      Yeah, guys in chicks sports now hold all the track and field state records in CT. Ron Dreher recently wrote and spoken about corporations making it hard for you to work if you don’t believe trans women should use the same bathroom as straight women. It’s pretty possible with the PC thinking at Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and so forth.

    • George Michalopulos says

      MrsDK, to paraphrase C Montgomery Burns (of The Simpsons): “Excellent! All is going as I have foreseen”.

  5. Matthew Panchisin says

    Dear George,

    With such a dreaded prognosis being undertaken for several years now can you explain to me why there is such ineptness from the Republicans?

    There a wealthy conservatives corporations, why no generous offers or hostile takeovers of ABC, NBC, CBS?

    Why are there no new conservative platforms to counter Facebook and Twitter? Why isn’t big tech being broken up?

    If wealthy conservatives could loose everything why would they seemingly do nothing in such significant areas for all these years?

    • Michael Bauman says

      Matthew, the elites of the governing class are NOT conservative in any meaningful way, they just want the power they feel is rightfully theirs.  They have no conviction and usually fail to think long term as long as their passion for power is fulfilled for the moment

  6. Mulberry v Madison set the U.S. on the path of bureaucratic oligarchy as Congress lost legislative power to the Courts and Presidency. Our Founders were overly concerned with the powers of Congress creating division instead of unity. They thought that the Presidency and the Supreme Court would remain weak and Congress would dominate. The Progressives in the early 1900s ended that (Hillsdale College has a wonderful, free lecture series on this very issue). The vagueness of the powers of the Courts and Presidency as defined in the Constitution have lead America to the hopes of legislation from the President and Supreme Court. Debate and policy decisions have disappeared from the branch that represents more closely the people of our country. Instead we have become a bureaucratic state  no less archaic than the Soviets that can only be influenced by the banks and corporations. I agree George that the Supreme Court should only function when States sue each other or extreme conflicts between the Presidency and Congress. But I disagree that we were a Christian nation. Yes, many Christians lived here and fought for the ideals of America. But those ideals removed religion from the public square except as an expression of morality. Several states had established, state sponsored religion but those quickly disappeared after the passing of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment. Individualism is preached from the Bill of Rights. Just compare it to the 10 Commandments. The Sermon on the Mount turns that type of justice upside down.
    I admire those who hold to the Constitution and the respect for tradition that they have. We as Orthodox must remember that not all traditions are equal.
    George and Gail I hope to read an article on the Enlightenment, Rights of Men, or the influence of the Freemasons from an Orthodox perspective. I am just a student of history who is trying to understand what it means to be an American.

  7. Completely irrelevant to the post (sorry to high Jack),but, was just thinking that we at our parishes should be welcoming to people from a Catholic background who are visiting, I have a feeling there might be an uptick given Pope Francis’ most recent encyclical 

  8. Michael Bauman says

    Petros, that frog was boiled long ago. We could try being welcoming to those already here.

    I assume it will pass through anarchy into despotism or monarchy.  That is what the Fathers foretold.  The question is when, not if.

    • Misha, 
      Since becoming Orthodox and reflecting upon the daily prayers for Orthodox kings and queens, I have become curious about the validity of the monarchy. I still have very much enamored by civil rights and have for most my life believed that democracy, though not perfect, is still the best form of government. However after living abroad for seven years and experiencing other societies, I have started to question my assumptions.
      I hope someday to sit and discuss with you Moses, Judges, King Saul and King David to learn more about monarchy and its support in Orthodoxy. 
      On a side note, I found this interesting video that argues for monarchy from a secular perspective.

      • Ben David,
        If you haven’t read Moss’s essay to which I linked, that is a good place to start inasmuch as he surveys the Church Fathers on the subject.

        In Orthodoxy, we normally don’t just say, “I think this.” or “I think that.” On momentous questions we discern the correct faith on the matter from the consensus of the Church Fathers.  If there is a view widely held by them dating from the earliest times, that is going to be a statement of Holy Tradition, “that which has always been believed by everyone everywhere”.  That is the meaning of “catholic”, “of the whole”.  It is how we got Scripture, the Creed and Orthodox doctrine in general.  And so when the Church Fathers have such an opinion on monarchy, we are to take it quite seriously.

        Now, at the same time as favoring monarchy, there is a lot of play in exactly the form of monarchy that could be instituted wisely.  Any society with an overwhelmingly strong executive is, effectively, a monarchy, if not in name.  I have in mind the Russian Federation, for instance. You may recall that the fathers of Athos received Pres. Putin with the honors becoming an Orthodox emperor. That was the response of their noetic sensibilities.

        Also, though monarchy rests upon the divine right of kings established in Scripture and the Fathers as referenced by Moss, there is nothing preventing a king from taking power with the understanding that he and his heirs will abide by a constitution subsequently established immediately upon his taking the throne.  De jure, he must be an autocrat, but not necessarily in his de facto delegations of full authority.  That might provide for a parliament and judiciary with some limited degree of autonomy – dissolvable by the monarch, of course, but with an eye toward only doing that in extremis.  Britain, though too weak in practice to really qualify, is in theory this type of monarchy.  

        The alternative is chaos.  The partisan nature of republics and democracies renders them “polyarchic” in nature.  “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” and “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”  The domestic and foreign policy of Western powers has been too schizophrenic to ensure stability, for defensive purposes and to enable Western civilization to spread without strong foreign reaction supported by fifth columns inside America itself.  The internal politics of the United States, for my entire lifetime (I’m 52) has been a hot mess.  The progressive liberals (aka “Liberals”) and conservative liberals (aka “Conservatives”) have fought constantly and caused stark divisions within society and starkly different reactions internationally which no sane imperial center would cultivate.  It’s madness, really. 

        At the macro level, it corresponds to the problem we Orthodox have had in ecumenical dialogue with the Anglicans.  It is not that we do not know our own mind re: their beliefs so much as that they cannot agree on what constitutes Anglicanism.  There is no longer any American culture or American character.  It’s not John Wayne, nor is it Barack Obama.  It is a two headed (at least) monster.

        America needs to have one character.  If it be that that character is progressive liberal and therefore self-destructive.  So be it.  If the American people choose death, then their blood is upon their own heads and we can all move on.  I may emigrate regardless of their choice since they have dragged their heels and wandered far, far too long.

        And if they regain their senses and decide they want to be a decent Christian power, then so be it.  But stick with one mindset, not Jekyll and Hyde.  Because the one, conservative liberalism or better classical conservatism, is inherently relatively good and the alternative, progressive liberalism, is almost by definition evil in that it is a reaction to traditional authority, monarchy and the will of Almighty God.  The Left, both in the French parliament and on the political spectrum, is the ideological area most distant from monarchy and, therefore, sanity.

        Progressive liberalism has some good tendencies with regard to limited redistribution of wealth which are accounted for in classical conservatism, which is not quite the same is conservative liberalism (American conservatism, aka, Reagan/Goldwater conservatism).  Other than that, the Left is pure evil. Jekyll and Hyde got us through the Cold War without an internal socialist revolution despite quite a bit of agitation in that direction. But it is long past time to kill the monster.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Misha, if you don’t mind, can you hyperlink that essay by Mr Moss in a pdf or other printable format?

  10. George, in case you haven’t seen this. It seems that Elpidophoros is getting ready to replace Pat. Bartholomew, at least the author claims there is a conflict between the GOA and Phanar. What do you think, can it be true?
    ‘Archbishop Elpidophoros is Future of Orthodoxy, By Tom Sotiropoulos’ –

    • Gail Sheppard says

      We saw this piece, too. I do think he is getting ready to replace Bartholomew.

      This piece was written by an archon, George tells me. We posted it because it reads like the Babylon Bee!

      There are always conflicts with the Phanar. The spoon issue is no exception.

      “In a rare and rather unprecedented move by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a second statement (Greek, original) was issued today, which follows the first one that was issued yesterday, on the matter of Holy Communion and the mode of distribution.

      It clarifies, for those few individuals who perverted the original statement’s meaning, that the use of multiple spoons is not “blessed” but prohibited. The second statement explicitly states that the traditional distribution of Holy Communion, “handed down by the Holy Fathers,” is to be maintained.

      This completely contradicts the original interpretation offered by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in its press release issued following the first statement of the Holy and Sacred Synod.”

      • George Michalopulos says

        “Who’s on first?”

        Good Lord. Have mercy.

        • George Michalopulos says

          On another note, the publisher of The Babylon Bee is being forbidden from speaking at the “Christian” college he graduated from.

          You know, it’d be a terrible thing for grown men and women to hear opposing points of view. We might as well go full Soviet and be done with the charade.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Somebody’s sunflower is drooping. Just saying. . .

      • Watch the short video clip of AE at the bottom.
        I always have to laugh when anyone says (in so many words), “What matters is not the one spoon; what matters is the one cup,” as though that should allay the fears of those who are afraid of becoming infected from the spoon.  What about the cup?  You know, that one cup from which the priest and any other clergy just drank directly.  Or that one Lamb now in the one cup that the priest just touched with his bare hands.  Why should the spoon be considered a vector and not the cup?  It’s utterly nonsensical, medically speaking.
        Doctor:  Yes, Mrs Jones, you did see me drink from the container of  solution I am about to inject into your vein.  But don’t worry, the catheter is single-use sterile. 

  11. Abbot Tryphon calls it from Washington State:  BLM and Antifa are intent on Dismantling Western Civilization
    Like his kind description of “unthinking” which certainly describes those Christians (of all “tribes”) who think this nihilistic Marxist group is promising a 1960’s supposed “love fest.”  NOT.  Abbot Tryphon is usually the most conciliatory of posters.  Glad he is speaking exactly for all.  Hopefully all hierarchs could endorse or even say the same….

    • Michael Bauman says

      Nicole, somewhat disappointing that several of the commentators sided with BLM and the bogus concept of “racial justice”.  I shared this:
      There is a huge difference between racial “justice” and racial reconciliation.  “In the course of justice, none of us should see sslvation.”   
      Only our own repentance, each of us, will heal our mutual shame sufficiently to allow ud to work on “deeds of mercy” together with Christ our Lord. 

      • Oh dear Michael — in response to Abbot Tryphon’s blog? He mentioned that some folks had been unkind to the extreme recently so I hope you mean something else? He is the most loving easy-going understanding priest and has endured much, including two unprovoked serious beatings that we know of. A mark of his Christ-likeness indubitably!

        • Michael Bauman says

          Not the Abbot.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Nicole, I do not follow. Please clarify

          • Hi Michael, I wasn’t sure which commentators you were referencing…since you were responding to my Abbot Tryphon post I wondered if you meant folks  the commentators replying to him on that post?  

            • Michael Bauman says

              There were two or three commentators 9n the Abbot’s blog who were saying how lovely, sweet and gentle BLM was and they were just about affirming black equality and working for justice.  It was all a bit strange.  
              They were obviously sincere in their ignorance and into the false dicotomies of ideology which made it even stranger. 

              • MomofToddler says

                I don’t really know anything about Abbot Tryphon and have nothing against him, but one of my first encounters with him was this blog post where he called Pope Francis a “man of God”:  I thought the Pope, since the schism in 1054, was supposed to thought of traditionally as a forerunner to the Antichrist, at least  especially now given all of the heresies today. So regardless of who the pope is, why would any of them be called a “man of God” by an Orthodox Christian?  I posted this question once on another forum and most people responded that no one knew much about Pope Francis early on and he was hopeful and that all was good. However, again, regardless of who the Pope is, doesn’t it go against traditional Orthodox beliefs?    His full quote about the Pope is: “I like this pope, and I pray we Orthodox clergy, be we lowly monks like myself, or patriarchs, archbishops, archimandrites, or mitered archpriests, pay attention to the prophetic witness of this man of God.”  All I’m saying is, Michael Bauman might be noticing something subtle worth paying attention to.

                • Gail Sheppard says


                  I wasn’t able to access your link. This one works, though. I believe it’s a reprint of what you found on his blog:

                  I’m also including the following for I’m not sure it’s Orthodox teaching that the pope is a forerunner of the antichrist. I think it was Luther who postulated this but I’m opened to being corrected if I’m wrong.

                  • MomofToddler says

                    Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.” Pope St Gregory the Great (540-604 AD)
                    The hour is late and the largest jurisdiction in America is openly ecumenist, so I’m assuming this view is no longer popular.  From a YouTube channel I follow, I learned two days ago that Elder Gabriel, a disciple of St. Paisios and open non-ecumenist, is being expelled or may be expelled from the Holy Mountain. 

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      I don’t know. It’s an interesting question.

                    • Dear Mom of Toddler,
                      For what it’s worth, I have always previously felt he was in the too-kind camp and treated everyone so equally without wishing to offend which led him to the sort of ecumenicist fuzziness you mention as he was utterly loving no matter what.    Recently however he seems to have awakened to the damage being done to the Faith and in the past couple of months has been much clearer about lines of demarcation at last.  He still doesn’t go as far as I wish he would, but it’s encouraging to see this loving man become imho more of a father and less of a tolerant uncle (as I am a too tolerant aunt!). Glory to God!  He certainly has suffered for the faith and been a great example of loving one’s enemies when he has been badly used, and that’s beautiful always to see.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  Dear MOT, I am not being critical of the Abbotin anyway, gross or subtle. All I said was there were a couple od commenters on his site that were buying the Kool Aide on BLM.  Both the Abbot and several others gently corrected them.  

                • MomofToddler says

                  Forgive me for even bringing this up, but it initially seemed relevant to an exchange that perhaps I misunderstood.  His blog post I referenced was from 2016.  I know the words of Abbot Tryphon in 2020 are helping a lot of people now.  In my own weakness, after what has happened in the past 6 months, I am extremely skeptical of Orthodox voices in general unless that voice is extremely honest in all topics like Archpriest Peter Heers and Fr. Zechariah Lynch.  On the other hand, we are living through some apocalyptic times and caution is also warranted. 
                  When Metropolitan Hilarion of Russia, who I greatly respected, chastised those not cleaning the communion spoon with alcohol,  well, I realized, you just never know about someone.  We all need to be very watchful as the vaccine comes out and other things happen and not just trust people because we always have trusted them.   Pray for me a sinner!  
                  Reference to Met. Hilarion of Russia article:
                  “Referring to the feast of the uncovering of the relics of St. Sergius of Radonezh on July 17 and 18, Met. Hilarion told RIA-Novosti: “I participated in the service at the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra and I was surprised by the careless attitude of some of the participants in the service to what was happening around them.”
                  “I didn’t see any Communion cloths with alcohol on them, no disinfection of the [Communion] spoon,” he added. “Everything happened as if the epidemic didn’t exist at all.”

              • Perhaps they are only reading the NYT and watching CNN and Stephen Colbert!  Thanks for clarifying Michael…

                And by the way I do love how pastoral, loving and encouraging Abbot Tryphon is to Orthodox Christians and undoubtedly that very approach to others is why folks may convert from knowing him…

    • Thank you Nicole. Abbot Tryphon’s eloquent offering
      deserves a wide circulation.

  12. Fr Peter Heers tells it like it is!  Boy does he understand the process leading to adulteration of Orthodoxy via Ecumenism (not unlike the US Constitution via nihiilistic Marxism): 
    His new classes started tonight and the pdf and reading for the Truth of the Faith classes for Catechumens, Newly Illumined and Inquirers based on Elder Cleopa and other contemporary Elders is just like listening to my Catechizing priest or Vladika Dmitri.  Be still my heart!  Wednesday nights are the course on s Fr Seraphim Rose’s original Orthodox Survival Course of the 1970’s and Thursday nights on the Divine Liturgy.  What a Feast and antidote to the crazy adulterated world.  Glory to God.

  13. Orthodox Australia also has Fr Seraphim Rose’s complete audios of his Orthodox Survival Course from the 1970’s (as well as the pdf of the transcript!)  Good for them!
    The Patreon course on Fr Seraphim Rose’s OSC begins tonight, glory to God!  Last night’s “Truth of the Faith” Patristic class readings were wonderful. Elder Cleopa is awesome.  Thank God for the teaching by Fr Peter Heers pointing us back to the Fathers and our Patristic Tradition. A wonderful contrast to and antidote for the distortions we see today…

  14. My intuition tells me Trump is going to win in a rout. The rout will come from the cumulative effect of the Demsheviks’ insanity over the last several years, but most importantly this year. Even centrists have begun to understand that they’re disloyal and crazy.

    Assuming that, one should consider the dynamic that could unfold next month and be prepared for it. I’m sure many, many white males, myself included, have become truly, unalterably militant as a consequence of the insanity of the Left, the media made plague and the riots. Wild talk about “A Handmaids Tale” and “reaping the whirlwind” for conservative judicial appointments have clarified for many the scope and depravity of what we have come to see as mortal enemies no less than ISIS.

    And so, come November 4th, the stage is set for a massive trainwreck of historical proportions because the Left will be wildly angry at a Trump victory but the male Right will feel not only vindicated but will morph from cornered to empowered. The travesties of the Rittenhouse persecution and the two murders of Trump supporters are not lost on us.

    The potential for widespread escalation is extraordinarily high. We know more or less the lengths to which Antifa/BLM will go. They stop at property destruction outside the suburbs and low level violence.

    We do not know the limits, if any, to the rage from the male Right that may be released. That genie really hasn’t emerged since WWII.