The Passing of a Legend

The policy on Monomakhos is to concentrate on Holy Week by publishing as little as possible and then only religiously-themed narratives. We make an exception today because of the passing of one of the truly great Country singers of all time. George Jones was a legend and an inspiration to many others. Though he lived a hard life, his talent was real and his voice as pure and distinctive as only a few others. Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra spring to mind but I’m hard-pressed to find any other.

I was reminded of his soulfulness the other day when I turned on Big Country 99.5 FM on Sunday morning. From 7-12 they play Gospel music and I like to listen to it as I drive to church (it’s a 30 minute drive). The honoree of course was George Jones and one of the songs they played was “Old Rugged Cross.” That’s one of my favorite hymns but hearing Mr Jones sing it –with all his tragedies, foibles, and brokenness–made it poignant in ways that defy definition.

Anyway, his recent passing was a musical milestone. Though justly lauded by those that mattered, there were a few pinheads who viewed him as nothing more than a Redneck, Christian, and “gasp!” Patriot. Please take the time to read this fine essay by Jim Goad, himself an accomplished musician.

The Tolerance That Is Only Skin Deep

Source: Taki’s Magazine | Jim Goad

george-jonesCountry singer George Jones, who to my ears had the greatest voice ever recorded, died on Friday. A genius of phrasing and nuance, Jones had a stratospheric voice that captured human heartbreak with bottomless poignancy. I once read that when he was a kid, Jones’s father would wake him up in the middle of the night and threaten to beat him if he didn’t sing for him. Whether or not that’s true, his voice conveyed a tortured soul that was unmistakably human.

Standing outside an Atlanta club on Friday night where I’d performed an amped-up version of “White Lightning” in honor of Jones’s passing, a self-proclaimed fan of mine told me he’d mentioned Ol’ Possum’s death on Facebook, only to receive a verbal feces-smearing by someone who called Jones a “racist” and a “redneck” who deserves to “rot in hell.”

As far as this guy could tell, his Facebook buddy felt Jones’s main transgression was that he was a white man who sang country music and was therefore automatically less than human.

Apparently, progressives only believe in hell when their perceived ideological enemies have died, hence the joyous “death parties” when Margaret Thatcher gave up the ghost and the cowardly gloating over Andrew Breitbart’s still-warm corpse by sneering, bucktoothed hacks who weren’t fit to sniff his underwear.

Without ever feeling a need to apologize, I’ve done a great deal of hating in my life, but I’ve never seen a group of twisted, self-satisfied losers so unabashedly hate-filled as modern prog-bots. This is unforgivably and punchably ironic mainly because their entire platform is erected upon shaky Popsicle sticks of “compassion,” “tolerance,” and respect for the “cultural other.” Since their default defense mechanism is to accuse their enemies of being motivated primarily by hatred, it reinforces my belief that the primary impetus of modern leftist psychology is blind, stupid, hypocritical projection.

Just as normal cells mutate into cancer cells and metastasize, the word “liberal” has strayed far from its original moorings and now tends to indicate someone who despises liberty and freedom and is a pathological control freak that wants to obliterate the mere suggestion of any thought that would undermine their bloated and unwarranted sense of self-worth.

More and more, the modern leftist resembles an 80-year-old film actress who never quite made it in the business and lives huddled somewhere in a dusty Hollywood apartment with 20 cats and five pounds of makeup on her face. Peel away the thick mask she’s painted on her crinkled mug, and you have Medusa in curlers.

More and more, it strikes me that leftist compassion is truly skin-deep and goes no further than the epidermis. Oh, sure, they will tolerate a multitude of skin colors (except for the paler manifestations), a sickening array of reconstructive genital mutilations, a Boschian tableau of divergent sex organs crammed into improbable orifices, and any yapping, screaming vagina no matter how hateful or insane the she-beast obviously is.

They will tolerate racial violence as long as the targets are correct. They will applaud homicidal sexism so long as the victims are male. They won’t blink if you demean others’ sexual orientation so long you’re shitting upon the straights. Obviously, their tolerance is massive and ever expanding.

But don’t you dare think differently than they do. Their tolerance does not extend to what’s in your brain.

If you dare to disagree with them, they will attack like a pack of starved rats. Their behavior suggests that they believe others should suffer literally—even corporeally—not because of their actions, but because of their thoughts alone. This will manifest as bald aggression rather than fuzzy compassion. And when they mock and threaten, it’s not bullying. When they get you fired from your job or reveal your home address, it isn’t McCarthyism. When they call you a piece of shit, they aren’t dehumanizing you. And when they wish ass cancer upon you, there’s nothing hateful about it. They’ll engage in purely totalitarian tactics while calling you a fascist.

This is not the behavior of people who are secure in their beliefs. This is the hysterically phobic reaction of those who dread that they might be wrong. If you base everything on a false premise of equality, you’ll have to become a liar to keep propping it all up. You’ll have to enact codes and laws and punishments for anyone who dares question the sanctity of their fundamental premise.

They demand a rainbow on the outside, but internally, they insist it’s all the same dull shade of grey. Their behavior suggests that if they had their way—and through pharmacology and ceaseless propaganda they may one day get it—they wouldn’t so much like for everyone to think identically as they’d prefer that everyone share the same brain, an ideological cloud computer that they’ve meticulously seeded.

Born in 1961, I caught at least two decades of the so-called Red Scare, but what’s going on now with political correctness, AKA the bloody afterbirth of the civil-rights movement, is the most egregious moral panic I’ve seen. This is far more than a battle for the “right” to interracially date or to engage in same-sex soixante-neuf. This goes far deeper than such trivialities. This is a war of attrition to control thought and language and culture, to demean and ostracize anyone who doesn’t fall obediently in line, to declare certain subjects beyond discussion and maybe even one day to make it impossible to think differently than the herd.

I often wonder what quotient of the population feels effectively silenced. How many Americans fear speaking their minds in the workplace because they don’t want to get fired or sued? How many people feel like a pithed frog, mute and helpless, their brain severed from their spine? I suspect that it’s quite a few—perhaps even the majority. Although I don’t like the feeling, I have a firm sense that it is not me, but rather the whole world around me, that is rapidly going insane. But unlike the modern, deeply indoctrinated, progressive hive-mind robot, I allow the possibility that I could be wrong.

Whereas such ludicrous constructs as Negrophobia, homophobia, and misogyny—which are, by semantic alchemy, presumed never to be the fault of Negroes, homosexuals, or women—are said to be based in a fear of the other or a fear of the unknown, leftist ideological intolerance seems based in a fear of the misunderstood. At times it seems rooted in a fear that if the threatening idea were to be properly and soberly apprehended, it would invade their consciousness, infect their brains like a virus, and send them into a state of ideological vertigo where they finally realize they are as full of shit as their detractors have always said they are.

So unless you’re ready to fight back and never let down, don’t ever tell a brainwashed person they’re brainwashed. They can handle indoctrination fine, but the truth drives them crazy.

About GShep

Comments

  1. George Osborne says

    You should have seen the size of his funeral cavalcade in Nashville today. The Briley Parkway was backed-up for miles due to the traffic. A fitting send-off for one of Nashville’s finest musicians and a true country legend. On a more sober note,however, I know he lead a very troubled life and I have no idea of how things stood between him and his Maker but, as the Fathers tell us, if it be not sin to say so, “May the Good and Mericiful Lord forgive him sins and transgressions and have mercy on his soul.”

    • Ladder of Divine Ascent says

      “As far as this guy could tell, his Facebook buddy felt Jones’s main transgression was that he was a white man who sang country music and was therefore automatically less than human.

      “Apparently, progressives only believe in hell when their perceived ideological enemies have died, hence the joyous ‘death parties’ when Margaret Thatcher gave up the ghost and the cowardly gloating over Andrew Breitbart’s still-warm corpse by sneering, bucktoothed hacks who weren’t fit to sniff his underwear.”

      The left lectures about how twisted people are for celebrating at the deaths of terrorists like Bin Laden or Boston Bombers or rapists and murderers (justice and the removal of threats to society), but don’t even pretend not to bathe in pleasure at the deaths of people who did nothing but oppose their ideology.

      But, you’re still too liberal yourself George. Realize that democracy itself is twisted and evil (monarchy is the most Godly form of government, the form which restrained the appearance of the Anti-Christ. Daniel 11:21, “a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty”). So Bill Clinton drops endless DU on the former Yugoslavia, creating an ongoing genocide against all people who will reside in the area until the Second Coming, far worse than the Serbs vs Muslims vs Croat conflict that it was supposed to remedy. Of course Obama has been brining democracy to the Middle East with “wonderful” results in Egypt, Libya, and Syria (which Stan the man strangely blames on Neo-Con Republicans, as they were still running things, and as if the agenda was any different in the Democrat party). “Western Civ” is like Mystery Babylon riding the Beast (Islam) who hates it. Voting, protesting, none of that is as effective as the prayers of an Orthodox Christian, for our personal salvation is a battle we can win, and if we reach theosis then thousands around you can be saved, and society changes slowly in micro that way.

      Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, p. 139:
      In discussing the nature of modernism, Eugene also wished to judge, according to Orthodox Christian teaching, three worldly “idols” of the modern age. The first he called the “cult of civilization.” Having outlined several aspects of this idol, he indicated how Christians can succumb to it by making their service to “humanity” an end in itself; and he contrasted this with reflections on the nature of true Christian charity. A Christian responds to an immediate human need out of love, in the name of Christ; but when he begins to think, “If it is good to feed one hungry man, it is much better to feed a thousand–one is a drop in the bucket,” then he begins to make of Christianity a system, to reduce it to an ideology. Recalling Christ’s words Ye have the poor always with you (Matt. 26:11), Eugene wrote: “Christ did not come to feed the hungry, but to save the souls of all, hungry or replete.”2

      • George Michalopulos says

        I don’t disagree with you at all. However, I’m not a (d)emocrat but a (r)epublican in that I don’t believe in majority rule at least on the national level but in republicanism. At least for this country. We forget that this country is made up of 50 individual, sovereign states and that each state is allowed to order itself according to its own customs, history, demographics, etc. I’ve been accused of being a Secessionist but truth be told, I’m a Federalist. If we got back to more Federalism there would be more liberty and no talk of secession by anyone.

        The principle is best encapsulated in the concept of Subsidiarity. It was first canonized by Pope Leo XIII back in 1980 or so. Basically it states that the functions of society should be relegated to the lowest possible chain in the hierarchy. If a child stubs his toe, he should run to Mommy, not call the Mayor. If there’s a pothole outside your driveway, you should call the Mayor, not the Governor. If there’s a natural disaster, call the Governor not the President. If we’re being attacked by Martians, call the President.

        Under this scenario, democracy works best on the precinct/municipal level and can be extended with some attenuations to the State level. On the local, juridical level, I am in favor of Jury Nullification if that’s what it takes to protect a defendant from the State if it behaved in an immoral or illegal fashion. On the Federal level, it should be republicanism: checks/balances, minority rights, States’ rights, veto, super-majorities, etc. Filibusters can and should be used. I would even go so far as to argue for Nullification.

        The above scenario –Republicanism–worked wonderfully in the US for the most part. It’s based on a flaw and that is that the people as a whole must be virtuous. Ben Franklin saw this problem when after the Constitutional Convention, he replied to a woman who asked him “what kind of government did you give us, Sir?” He replied: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

        The flaws of all Republics is that over time the people lose their virtue and start voting themselves largesse from other peoples’ pockets. The end state to this is tyranny.

        Overall though, you are correct, the Christian monarchy is the system that best reflects God’s will. It was the Christian monarchs from AD 318 to 1917 which restrained the power of Antichrist.

        • Michael Bauman says

          While I understand the impetus to monarchy, I think it is a misreading of things. The original governance of the nation of Israel was republican/federalist. When the people petioned God for a king , “so that they could be like others”. God gave in but told them they wouldn’t like it.

          The structure of the Church, though hierarchial, is not monarchical but federalist. If you want Christian monarchy go to Rome.

          • George Michalopulos says

            I see your point, Michael, but if I may interject: the ancient Israelite commonwealth was a confederation of 12 tribes, each ruled by a tribal council and each tribe subdivided into large clans, each ruled by a sheikh. As a nation they were by and large mono-cultural and ascribed to the same religious cult which was administered by yet another tribe (the Levites). Their adherence to the moral laws of Moses allowed them to police themselves and enjoy a self-governance. I’m not so sure how they would have fared however as a universalist religion based on this tribal mentality. A hereditary monarch though at the very least serves as a protector of the Church.

            Following this rationale, a Christian emperor can restrain the power of Antichrist. The overthrow of the Christian monarchies following the Great War –specifically the overthrow of the Russian emperor–made possible the 20th century which was the bloodiest century in all of history.

            Anyway, that’s my take.

            • Tim R. Mortiss says

              The Popes of the 19th century didn’t like the American Republic, either.

              I am rather strongly attached to the Republic of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and Lincoln, myself.

              There are millions here whose ancestors fled various Most Catholic Majesties, Prince Bishops, and, indeed “Christian Emperors”. May such august worthies and their ilk ever remain far from North America!

              • George Michalopulos says

                You’re actually more right than you know. During the War Between the States, the Vatican was openly pro-Confederacy. In fact, in the Vatican archives there are two letters written to the Pope during that time, one by President Lincoln, the other by President Davis. The Pope replied in writing to Davis and (in Latin) used this phrase: “President of the Confederate States of America.” At that point, one foreign government actually recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. Great Britain and France were itching to but never did, mainly because Emperor Alexander II of Russia stationed several Russian warships in San Francisco and New York, where they were to serve as a trip-wire should these other countries do so.

                After the War, the Pope fashioned a crown of thorns with his own hands and sent it to Jefferson Davis during his imprisonment.

                • Christ is Risen! Χριστός Ανέστη! Al-Masih-Qam! Христос Воскресе!

                  It’s understandable that postings have been slow here during Great Week, but I confess I am dismayed to see this

                  George Michalopulos says:
                  May 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm

                  You’re actually more right than you know. During the War Between the States, the Vatican was openly pro-Confederacy…. the Pope fashioned a crown of thorns with his own hands and sent it to Jefferson Davis during his imprisonment.

                  posted on the night of Pascha instead of the Paschal greeting.

                  • Imagine if Google neglected the feast!

                    Monomakhos’ “Cesar Chavez” is the Pope recognizing the Confederacy: One schismatic recognizing another.

                  • CQ, how about you create and maintain your own blog and keep your dismay to yourself.

                    It always “dismays” me that people write whatever they feel like writing on this blog, ad nauseum, and then they take George to task for writing his own opinions on HIS OWN BLOG!

                    George, keep up the good work and post away!

                    • Carl Kraeff says

                      Nate–George has graciously invited any and all persons to post on his blog, including those who do not identify themselves. I do not think that CQ is to be criticized for obliging our gracious host.

                    • The proper response is:

                      “Indeed, He is Risen!” “Αληθώς Ανέστη!” “Hakkan Qam!” “Воистину Воскресе!”

                      This is not about opinion. It’s about Orthodox Christianity.

                      I’ve read more on Monomakhos in the past couple of years about the failures of Orthodox leadership than anywhere else on the internet. And Monomakhos did not hesitate to take Google to task for respecting Cesar Chavez’ birthday instead of Western Easter.

                      So when Pascha came I was disappointed that Monomakos booted the ball. Apparently this upsets you, and I’m sorry for that.

                      Christ is Risen!

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Trenchant criticism CQ, however the reason I posted next-to-nothing during Holy Week and nothing at all on Pascha is because I wanted to honor the holiday. Plus I helped roast a whole lamb (that takes about 6 hrs and transport yet more food for our annual Agape Vespers Picnic. Between Sat morning and Sun nite I was operating on less than 3 hours sleep. Plus my IT department was even more clerically engaged. 🙂

                    • Monk James says

                      CQ says (May 6, 2013 at 6:53 pm:

                      The proper response is:

                      “Indeed, He is Risen!” “Αληθώς Ανέστη!” “Hakkan Qam!” “Воистину Воскресе!”
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      The OCA’s Department of Religious Education insisted on ‘indeed’ a few decades ago, but they were wrong. In a face-to-face conversation I had with the chairman of the DoRE, she denied that she had indeed started this, but I don’t think she was being truthful.

                      I grew up with ‘Truly He is risen!’ in English, and was startled by ‘indeed’ beginning only about twenty years ago. Some people and parishes still resolutely resist ‘indeed’ and are ignorantly and unfairly mocked for their accuracy.

                      In any event, referencing just the three languages cited here, it can be clearly seen that the first half of each response is formed on that language’s word for ‘truth’.

                      Now that I’ve studied languages ancient and modern for more than fifty years, I can confidently say that the two words of the greek original should be rendered:

                      Christ is risen! Truly risen!

                      Anything else — especially ‘indeed’ — is a distortion of meaning.

            • “The structure of the Church, though hierarchial, is not monarchical but federalist. If you want Christian monarchy go to Rome.”

              Or the “Byzantine” empire, or the Russian empire, or any of the monarchies that have traditionally governed Orthodox people from the time of Constantine to 1917. I’m always amazed that this is even a debate within Orthodox circles. Neither is the Church federalist. It is governed by the Holy Spirit through what is essentially an unelected senate of regional monarchs, the presiding senator in each state/monarchy/empire having a responsibility to keep the country’s monarch true to the faith.

              • Michael Bauman says

                Misha, because we are goverened by the Holy Spirit the Synodal System works. However, not matter what system the non- eccelsial government uses. It is a big stretch to call the organization of the Church monarchical. Are we not counciliar? Are not all bishops equal, all priests equal, all laity equal, all equal in salvation before God?. Call it what you will that doesn’t sound like any monarchy I’ve ever studied.

                It sure isn’t democracy either thank God.

                • “It is a big stretch to call the organization of the Church monarchical.”

                  Agreed, I never did so. What I described it as, accurately, is “an unelected senate of regional monarchs”. I was referring to bishops in their dioceses, the “presiding senator” being the primate of a local church.

                  Is it federalist? Once one acknowledges that at the diocesan level the Church is monarchial, I’m not sure that designating it as federalist serves much of a purpose. A federation of what? Certainly not republics.

                  • Carl Kraeff says

                    My idea is that we were once a confederacy and should be organized along the same principle in the future. I base my idea on the following principles:

                    1. The Ignation model of an ontologically complete Church: One bishop, surrounded by his priests, deacons and laity.

                    2. Apostolic Canon 34 that defines the relationship between these bishops: everybody operates on the principle of unanimity on matters that affect all. The Presiding Bishop presides but is bound by the same rule of unanimity: “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”

                    3. The involvement of the entire laos in some aspects of the church’s ministries in line with the New Testament. We have yet to figure out what the role of the laity should be in those nations where there is a separation of church and state.

                    4. While there is no question that a ruling bishop is the highest authority over his own diocese, I would hesitate to characterize him as a monarch. It may well be a good term but humanity’s experience with monarchs and bishops who act in an autocratic fashion are a hindrance to using that term without qualifications. I would think that “servant-leader” would be a better term instead, based on the Lord’s instructions at the Last Supper in John 13: “12 So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.”

                    Added: I just noticed Michael’s comment that follows. I guess that we are in agreement. Here is another thought that I had posted elsewhere: “We are so stuck on models that were developed for reasons of state that we cannot see a simple solution. Let’s look past the Roman, Ottoman, Russian Empire models, as well as the nation/state models that came about in the 19th Century. Let’s look back to the Holy Scriptures and to the Apostolic Church instead. What we have is the Great Commission that tells us to bring into Christ’s Body all nations, as well as city-churches that were ontologically complete (Ruling bishop surrounded by his priests, deacons and laity). You go forward in time a bit and in the Apostolic Canon 34 we see the principle of how to get organized beyond the city-church level (today’s equivalent being a diocese). You have a Metropolitan or senior bishop, a primate (first among equals) whose job is to make sure that unanimity of the ruling bishops is required to change anything affecting all dioceses.”

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    A federation of local churches. And bishops are elected. Used to be elected by the people. We still have a role. Bishops are not hereditary nor do they ascend their thrones in a trail of blood as monarchs typically do.

                    Republics can be of several types, but they have some things in common: limited sufferage; a limited/defined pool of candidates for ruling office; a clear vision/philosophy/dogma that constitutes the ruling principals; a method of accountability for those in power which often includes an organic/personal connection with those they govern. Republics are based in community. We should not forget that Mt. Athos is a monastic republic.

                    Over time republics are weakened as sufferage is expanded, the qualifications for high office watered down , the ruling vision adulterated and/or the accountability for rulers relaxed or corrupted.

            • Michael Bauman says

              But, the U.S. Republic was drawn from a number of sources: The Iroqois Confederation, the Israelite confederation, English common law, and Enlightenment idelaism. Both the Church in its local church/synodal/Patriarch model which follows the example you gave earlier and the original United States government have much more in common than we do with monarchy/empire which we inherited when Constantine converted. With the collapse of imperial power in the west, the Roman bishopric remained as one of the few people/institutions who could exercise any sort of authority at anything other than a local level. The medieval concept of monarchy (as opposed to emperor or republic was born.

              Now, with the Constantinian model in tatters, never to be restored.

              The beauty of the hierarchical-confederation model is that there is always accountability in both directions, not perfect, but it exists. In democracy there is no accountablity or restraint placed on “the will of the people”. In a monarchy, there is no accountablity placed on the monarch except the vague idea of responsibility to God. Lack of accountability with we humans is always a bad idea. Totalitariaian statism is just about the worst system imaginable as the thugs always rise to the top and are continually knocking each other off while raping(literally and figuratively), killing and imprisoning those they rule.

              Of course all systems of government fail eventually due to the lack of virtue in the people being governed and/or doing the governing, before they fail they generally don’t work all that well except in the beginning. Its down hill from there.. That is why we cannot rely on systems of government or idolize them or place any hope in them. Yet we have to have them. The best government is the one that is the most local.

  2. Hyperdox Hank says

    Wow- way to turn the passing of one my favorite singers into an excuse for utterly none-sensical psycho-babble. Rhetoric is dead, George, all you need to do it to is scream into the microphone.

  3. cyntha curran says

    The principle is best encapsulated in the concept of Subsidiarity. It was first canonized by Pope Leo XIII back in 1980 or so. Basically it states that the functions of society should be relegated to the lowest possible chain in the hierarchy. If a child stubs his toe, he should run to Mommy, not call the Mayor. If there’s a pothole outside your driveway, you should call the Mayor, not the Governor. If there’s a natural disaster, call the Governor not the President. If we’re being attacked by Martians, call the President. This needs to be work out more, there are a lot of secular or nominal Religious Republicans that don’t care that much and can be as nasty as some people on the left in their remarks. As for monarchy it can turn you against your relatives.Justin the 2nd killed a 3rd cousin Justin to get rid of a political arrival. Justin the 2nd was Justinian’s heir and he was also his nephrew. Irene blinded and later killed her son. Also, Justinian while not killing a relative off was accused of killing Vitalian to make certain he succeeded his uncle to the throne Justin the first. Historians debate from the anicent sources if he was behind it or not.

  4. cynthia curan says

    Well, a lot of Christians have borrowed things let leaving fields to be glean by the poor from the old testemtn. Christian groups have lent money without interest to the poor from the other Old Testment. Three is some of it that can be use today. Michael is kind of right the very early Jews were loosely led by the Judges since archelogy shows no central authority but expansion of the populatoin and military threats probably lead to the kingship system.

  5. cynthia curan says

    But, the U.S. Republic was drawn from a number of sources: The Iroqois Confederation, the Israelite confederation, English common law, and Enlightenment idelaism. Both the Church in its local church/synodal/Patriarch model which follows the example you gave earlier and the original United States government have much more in common than we do with monarchy/empire which we inherited when Constantine converted. With the collapse of imperial power in the west, the Roman bishopric remained as one of the few people/institutions who could exercise any sort of authority at anything other than a local level. The medieval concept of monarchy (as opposed to ). Also, the old Roman Republic, Wasington was called the Cincinnatus.of his Country. Also, even in the 6th Century, the emperors in Constantinople called the Senate Conscript Fathers, an old Roman tradition, granted, the Senate was lot less powerful. John Zonaras a medieval historian seems to prefer Emperors within somewhat of a Republic system with some influenece by the Senate.

  6. cyntha curran says

    Diocletian (Latin: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus;[5][notes 1] c. 22 December 244[3] – 3 December 311[4]), was a Roman Emperor from 284 to 305. Born to a family of low status in the Roman province of Dalmatia, Diocletian rose through the ranks of the military to become cavalry commander to the Emperor Carus. After the deaths of Carus and his son Numerian on campaign in Persia, Diocletian was proclaimed Emperor. The title was also claimed by Carus’ other surviving son, Carinus, but Diocletian defeated him in the Battle of the Margus. Diocletian’s reign stabilized the Empire and marks the end of the Crisis of the Third Century. He appointed fellow officer Maximian Augustus his senior co-emperor in 285.

    Diocletian delegated further on 1 March 293, appointing Galerius and Constantius as Caesars, junior co-emperors. Under this “Tetrarchy”, or “rule of four”, each emperor would rule over a quarter-division of the Empire. Diocletian secured the Empire’s borders and purged it of all threats to his power. He defeated the Sarmatians and Carpi during several campaigns between 285 and 299, the Alamanni in 288, and usurpers in Egypt between 297 and 298. Galerius, aided by Diocletian, campaigned successfully against Sassanid Persia, the Empire’s traditional enemy. In 299 he sacked their capital, Ctesiphon. Diocletian led the subsequent negotiations and achieved a lasting and favorable peace. Diocletian separated and enlarged the Empire’s civil and military services and reorganized the Empire’s provincial divisions, establishing
    Let’s say that spilting up the Roman Empire helped the eastern half and the rise of Christianity gave it a more unifrom religious view and the Greek Language gave it a common culture in the east., so it survive the western half by centuries.

  7. cynthia curran says

    The structure of the Church, though hierarchial, is not monarchical but federalist. If you want Christian monarchy go to Rome.”

    Or the “Byzantine” empire, or the Russian empire, or any of the monarchies that have traditionally governed Orthodox people from the time of Constantine to 1917. I’m always amazed that this is even a debate within Orthodox circles. Neither is the Church federalist. It is governed by the Holy Spirit through what is essentially an unelected senate of regional monarchs, the presiding senator in each state/monarchy/empire having a responsibility to keep the country’s monarch true to the faith. Well, you have a point there not certain if Greece or the Eastern European countries can go to a monarch.

    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)