Laying Down the Gauntlet: A Traditionalist Critique of Racism and Liberalism


"After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands." -Revelation 7:9

“After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.” -Revelation 7:9

In light of all the comments and railing against TradYouth and Traditionalists in general by the pseudo-Orthodox Progressive Fifth Column, who is very vocal, it is a refreshing welcome to post this article by a non-partisan Traditional Orthodox man who has no dog in this fight and is unaffiliated with TradYouth in any fashion, yet understands our Faith quite beautifully through the eyes of the Ancients. Enjoy!

by OrthoMax

June 1, 2014

What is identity? And how does the answer to this question determine our attitude towards the twin evils of racism and cultural Marxism (Liberalism)?

First off, we should reject any proposed notion of identity that reduces human beings to any biological or physiological set of distinctive features. A person is more than his or her biology–or class, or personality, or intellect for that matter.

In strict theological terms, a person, through his “nous” (the seat or center of the human soul, located near or around the region of the heart) is one who is created capable of achieving direct communion with God through prayer (per the mystical tradition of Eastern Orthodox hesychasm–the spiritual tradition of this author), and through Eucharistic unity (communion in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ).

In anthropological terms, a human person is a communal being, not an object in a vacuum. He therefore requires community. He craves fellowship with other human beings. He is created to love, and to be loved in return. He has a will, and freely exercises his capacity for self-determination (for good or ill). He possesses reason and moral judgment. He perceives and appraises the aesthetically pleasing, and is armed with the capacity and potential for building cultures and civilizations.

Any ideology which limits identity to something biological alone (genetics, skin tone, gender), or to any human faculty or group of faculties (the will, the emotions, the intellect) consigns other human beings to the status of sub- or even non-humanity. And this is the irony of racism, for it conveniently exempts one’s own race (or ethnicity) from this crude and bare-bones definition of identity, while happily and eagerly applying it to others.

Racism is hypocritically built on hatred for the other more than it is built on love for one’s own. And in fact, if each human being, created in the very image of God, possesses his own unique expression of that image, then anyone who hates the image (as instantiated in a person of another race), hates himself. To truly love oneself (and one’s own people), one must honor “the other” selflessly, sacrificially, and without compunction.

It should be noted as well that no people promoting the dominance and spread of their own unique biological or racial distinctives to the detriment of another people is capable of contributing positively to the edifice of culture. Even if it is conceded there are areas in which one race may surpass another (be it in physical strength or intellect), the notion that a race may be intrinsically superior to another in the ontological sense of that word completely misses the (distinctly non-racial) meaning and reality of personhood. By eviscerating others of their transcendent and spiritual character, the racist inadvertently demotes his own people as well, reducing them to an animal nature by conflating the spiritual with the natural or created (e.g., a human faculty such as intellect). Peoples and nations seeking to build identity in opposition to other identities build their identity on violence rather than on beauty and transcendent truths–the perennial qualities of strong, stable, and long-lasting civilizations.

Furthermore, racism seems to be predicated on the unspoken (if not spoken) assumption that one’s race or ethnicity has remained–will always remain–more or less “pure” over long ages, unaffected by the vicissitudes of nature, such as: displacement and wars, migration patterns, environmental effects on genetics, and assimilation to other cultures (cultural hybridization), resulting in the creation of new (or modified) cultural identities. This “scientific” notion of identity is wholly inadequate. It is a crude, materialistic (reductionist), and anti-spiritual conception of the human being. It is a truncated, utterly adulterated view of identity relative to that which prevailed in the pre-modern world.

The flip-side of overt racism is much more prevalent in the western hemisphere, not to mention far more subtle and insidious. Its design is the same: the eradication of races, cultures, and distinctive civilizations in the name of “multiculturalism” (as discovered in the broader globalist program).

Cultural Marxism (or Liberalism) is a phenomenon that spans the whole of western secular culture. Liberalism here does not denote a political party or organization; rather it is a pervasive and ubiquitous force–an assumed or unconscious mindset–that has burrowed itself deeply into the psyche of western man largely due to the influence of popular culture, entertainment, the secular education system, the mainstream media, and lavishly funded NGOs (non-government organizations). Whereas racists have learned to hate “the other”, the cultural Marxist contends that real differences either do not exist, or are much too irrelevant to worry about. Humanity is a homogenous blob of interlocking opposites and compatible contradictions.To elaborate, the cultural Marxist/Globalist paradigm is rooted in a radically individualistic, rootless cosmopolitanism driven by the primary urge to prosper economically (materialism/hedonism). The human being is not much more than a potential producer and/or consumer for the economy–a tool to fuel fiscal growth. (He might even watch a football game, see a movie, or go to church over the weekend.) Communities, races, religions, ethno-cultures, and sexual identity (fixed gender) are meaningless baggage to be discarded and eternally forgotten. These are all secondary to building the new Babel of Biblical lore, the (economic) Tower reaching to heaven.

If a religion is foreseen in this new society it will only unite people to the extent that it has already stripped them of their humanity and traditional identities, subjecting them to the status of full-time producers and wage slaves. Religion will simply serve to provide symbolic enforcement of the new norms. It will truly be reduced to an opiate–an epithet once applied to traditional religions by Karl Marx himself. Instead of recognizing that what one does must conform to what he is, the Liberal argues that one can be anything he wants–anything other than what he actually is–by sheer fiat. Sexual preferences need have nothing to do with one’s gender, for example. A person is what he does (argues the cultural Marxist). A man is a “homosexual” who has relations with other men. That he is a man somehow has no ontological value or metaphysical meaning whatsoever.

Cultural Marxism is, quite literally, an illusion. It rejects the ontological importance of fixed realities in order to create a fantasy world divorced from nature. Cultural Marxists disavow these obvious fixtures of reality in order to build an alternate reality in their own minds. This liberal philosophy embodies the ultimate rejection of reality itself. Only the most hopeless dualist would be capable of pretending that race, ethnicity, gender, and religious differences don’t really exist, or that they do not have ultimate metaphysical meaning or predictable implications. So we now begin to see the unthinkable, like the teenage girl who recently labeled herself a “trans-ethnic” woman, denying her own identity as Japanese. Thus the liberal tries to destroy natural identity by denying its existence. Nature is an illusion, a trick of the mind (like Liberalism!).

As an aside, one must wonder (on Liberalism) what it is to be a racist after all. When the liberal cites “racism”, is he not assuming the existence of that which he denies to be real? Given liberal assumptions, it is logically impossible to condemn the sin of racism! Identity is thus very real, but it is not found in the merely subjective or ethereal realm of “spirit”, “emotion”, or what have you–but in the visible world. Individual identities cannot be divorced from the collective realities of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, or gender. If we extended the liberal logic to the human being, even his body (all matter) would be an illusion! This is a delusional philosophy of pure despair, for it not only destroys natural differences between cultural races, but between the eternal and created aspects of human beings. On such grounds, even murder and suicide is permissible. (“The flesh isn’t real after all!”) What racism and cultural Marxism jointly offer is a false dialectical framework which engages in the total de-construction of reality, even if their starting points are different. Racism limits the person to a biological mass by ignoring the higher spiritual dimension inherent to him; Liberal Marxism (oppositely) rejects nature as illusory so as to supplant and replace it with an alternate and illusory “reality”. But the human is not “merely” one or the other (spirit or matter), he is both! And both the racist and cultural Marxist ultimately reduce the human to nothing–consigns him to the bin of non-reality–by limiting his identity to one thing

What we have seen is that it is not possible on the grounds of racism or Liberalism to build a truly multi-cultural world order–an order in which diversity among races and cultures is genuinely honored and celebrated. “Multiculturalism” (on Liberal/Marxist grounds) is a candy-coated epithet for violence and coercion: the destruction of cultures by means of conformity to a homogenous and ultimately borderless/globalist society of mindless producers and consumers on the model of hedonism, humanism, commercialism, and imperialism.

We here emphasize the importance of race only to the extent that we emphasize more transcendent realities in lieu of race. Culture is a deeper, richer, broader concept from race, but cultures naturally arise and flourish within races and ethnic communities. In turn, a common religious tradition provides the cohesion necessary for cultures to grow alongside each other. A common spiritual identity enabled traditional civilizations to accommodate many cultures/nations/ethnicities under one (political) umbrella. (The “nation-state” is a modern, 19th c. golem that supplanted the breakup of the traditional empire by “enlightenment” anarchists. In the classical and pre-modern worlds, neither ethnicity nor race was conceived to be co-extensive or identical with the state apparatus, and the emperor or king symbolically represented the spiritual unity of the people in the midst of their rich diversity. Traditional societies were viewed as comparable to living organisms with a paternal head and a body cohesively held together–not like the atomized, fractured, and “poly”-centered societies of the modern western world with their overarching “unity” rooted in economy: work, money, and pleasure.)

Thus, I have come to appreciate the wisdom of my own religious tradition concerning matters of race and culture. Its balancing act, far from betraying an ambiguous or equivocal point of view, actually succeeds in navigating between the Scylla and Charybdis of racism and western-liberal Marxist thought. On the one hand, it has never encouraged a program–an agenda–of racial miscegenation comparable to liberal Marxism, realizing that cultures are the expression of faith and spiritual devotion, while races and ethnicities are the vehicles and carriers of culture, providing the stability and cohesion needed to not only create, but preserve and pass on culture. Spirituality and high culture (via the organic, ethno-traditional tribe) inoculates against the degrading influence of liberal Marxism with its deep-seated enmity of nature, morality, spirituality, and authentic human diversity

On the other hand, my tradition does not prohibit inter-racial or inter-ethnic marriage in the absolute sense, recognizing that uncompromising refusal reduces people to biological entities, constituting racism. The Sacrament of Marriage preserves its integrity in the context of inter-racial and inter-ethnic conjugal relations. The sacrament, in other words, is not rendered void or illegitimate. The only type of marriage that is outright forbidden is that which occurs outside the faith (i.e., to one who is not a baptized member of the faith-community).Racial miscegenation has never been a normative phenomenon, wherever one may look in the world. It has always been the proverbial exception proving the rule in human experience. In fact, several studies indicate that those with more similar genetics naturally attract. This results, of course in people typically marrying within their own race or ethnic tribe. One need not teach or actively promote this, it is inbuilt. Miscegenation may occur more often in the western world, but it remains on the fringes. This is why African-Americans, Asians, Arabs, Semites, White Europeans, South Americans, etc. tend to gravitate towards one another, establishing common enclaves, ghettoes, and areas within cities and neighborhoods throughout the western hemisphere.

In condemning or forbidding “miscegenation”, one may find himself close to espousing racism. There is no point in condemning what has been unnatural for most people throughout all of history. This is a losing tactic. If something should be condemned (and it should), it is cultural Marxism as such. This ideology is not repugnant for its recognition of inter-racial/ethnic marriages (traditional religions have always done this), but for its (1) underlying metaphysical belief that nature is an ever-shifting, non-fixed thing (thus undermining culture), and (2) for its aggressive tactical agenda of re-education, designed to force society into a mold that it would not have otherwise considered apart from coercive manipulation.

Liberals are unhappy being different. They are not content to simply exist or be accepted. Liberalism must force itself upon the many, alchemically transforming society via mind manipulation and propaganda techniques over generations. Further, it will labor tirelessly to induce guilty consciences by assigning unfair names and labels (like “hater” or “bigot”) to those who do not support or cooperate with the agenda. Liberalism excels in the art of demonization. It is skilled at tearing down. It thrives on violence. Hate is precisely nurtured in Liberalism. It is, in a word, intolerant. The fact that Liberalism must crusade to actively teach new generations of children and young adults that it is not only permissible but possibly even preferable to become something that he isn’t–something other than that which nature hath assigned him–is nothing short of suicide, a psychotic descent into self-hatred. The notion that we can be what we are obviously not is a child’s fairy tale, a puerile fetish no less fantastical than Peter Pan’s Never-Never Land. Seeking to de-construct metaphysics, liberals end up de-constructing themselves. When they are finished, there is nothing left to redeem or salvage.

We have established, then, that one’s identity is rooted in spirit and in nature, jointly. Man is a composite and complex entity. He is a beautiful tapestry or mosaic joined together by a host of diverse factors coming together to form a single identity. His identity is not just self-referential, but reaches out to embrace other people. It is communal/cultural. This is true in general, but it is also true in a very particular way: man was intended to find community among those whose values and way of life are similar to his own. He was designed to be the creator and bearer of culture and civilization. He was designed to seek and find his Creator. Producing and consuming are only a means to the more important task of knowing God and knowing oneself through Him. That is the task of life, a journey that continues until our death.

Finally, we have also noted the desperate militancy of western-liberal Marxists and their inability to bring peace or real diversity to humans, being rooted in a metaphysics of chaos and non-being. The Liberal Marxist, by denying nature and stripping human beings of their God-given identities, endorses a worldview established on narcissism, blending cultures into a melting pot of self-serving and self-satisfying individual personalities. Liberal Marxism is not satisfied with the piecemeal destruction of select races by racists, it shoots for nothing less than the destruction of humanity en toto. The logical outcome of this wholesale program of destruction is: Trans-humanism. But that is a topic for another article.


  • SimplyFred

    SEGREGATION BY RACE, RELIGION, AND NATION IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE METHOD. See:
    GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS (They Proved It Again!)
    We have shown that groups that are not well-mixed but are geographically separated by natural or political boundaries into autonomous domains are peaceful in both Switzerland and the former Yugoslavia. Our work clarifies the ambiguities of mixed languages and religions in Swiss cantons by showing that in most cases the natural geography of the populations conspires to lead to a low level of violence, so that additional boundaries were not necessary; where they were needed, as in Graubünden, they were established. The highest calculated propensity to violence is between linguistic groups in the northern part of the canton of Bern, where historically unresolved real world tensions actually exist. Our analysis indicates that both administrative and natural barriers can play a significant role in mitigating conflict between religious and linguistic groups. Historical evidence suggests that for religious groups the boundaries in Switzerland were created to provide autonomy to a group with a shared identity and avoid conflict among multiple groups. Ongoing efforts to reduce tensions in Bern include introducing new political boundaries. The many political, social and economic factors that play roles in reducing violence [4]–[6], [9]–[14] build on a strong foundation of geographical borders. Our analysis suggests that when partition within a country is viewed as an acceptable form of conflict mitigation, such partition can give rise to highly stable coexistence and peace.
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0095660

  • George Skanderbeg

    An excellent article brother.

    • Fr. John+

      If you are a Muslim, even if you are a white, you are not Christ’s brother.

      Or does Galatians 4:30 mean nothing to anyone, anymore?

      TY, I would say that, while this article is quite well-written, it presumes two major factoids that the author needed to prove, prior to all his pious posturing.

      One, that Christ, in deliberating with the Holy Trinity, did not choose ONE specific ETHNOS in which to Incarnate- for the Scriptures and the Fathers clearly note that this was done, ‘before the foundation of the world.’ [ Eph. 1:4]

      For if Christ chose US ‘before the foundation of the world,’ then He also had to CHOOSE our salvation, and how that salvation was to be effected- namely, Christ’s willing desire to Incarnate as the ‘express image of His [God the Father’s] person’ [ Heb. 1:3]. The Greek here is composed of two words, ‘character’ and ‘hypostasis’ – the first, meaning a mold, or image cut into stone or wood- a conscious crafting of Adamic man, apart from, and AFTER the other races, if anthropological records of the appearance and rise of the White Adamic man is to be believed. For the fallacy that ‘all men are created in Adam’ as if HE is the ‘father of all mankind’ is ludicrous, knowing what we now know about genetics, the ‘Seven Daughters of Eve,’ and the patristic witness of Eve’s seduction by Satan, and the ‘seed of Cain.’ All of which are not merely CI aberrations, but historical, genetic, anthropological facts that most (all?) of the Trad. Orthodox aren’t interested in, and the Modernist Orthodox dare not go near, as it would decimate their ‘post-racial heresies!

      God’s act of CHOOSING all elements of the Incarnation, means that the Incarnated Flesh, as well as the FORM of HUMANOID Christ chose, matters almost as much (more, in this era!) as the fact of His Crucifixion and Resurrection. It is contained in the patristic doctrine of ‘recapitulation’ – the idea that ALL of Christ’s actions, both during Eternity past, His life on Earth (including taking on the DNA of the Theotokos, as a daughter of Adam!) means something FAR GREATER than mere nods of the head to the Modernist Heresy of Multiculturalism and the jewish lie of ‘racism.’ i.e., the Doctrine of predestination and Election.

      So, your commenter’s naive presuppositionalism, that “First off, we should reject any proposed notion of identity that reduces human beings to any biological or physiological set of distinctive features” begs the question.

      If such things as biology, race, skin color, eye color, and physical statue matter little to God, then we have a GNOSTIC presupposition operating in this man’s thought, rather than the clear understanding that Christ both: a) sees the Father when he looks at Adamic mankind, and that b) this specific Ethnos [where the Hebrew word, ‘Aw-dam’ means ‘fair, rosy, able to [visibly] blush!!] as a White/Caucasoid, was decided upon, well before the WORLDS WERE CREATED;

      and that ALL subsequent actions on the part of the Life-giving and Holy Trinity, were done toward the end of GLORIFYING and DIVINIZING ONE RACE ALONE- the race of the Incarnate Redeemer, who clearly noted that: 1) He was sent ONLY to the ‘lost sheep of the House (Gr. ‘oikos’- family, clan, race) of ISRAEL, and that 2) the Angel noted that fact that ‘HE [Christ] will save HIS PEOPLE (not all hominids of every melanin stripe, everywhere- isn’t this the HERESY of UNIVERSALISM? – it is) from THEIR (not other’s) sins [ Matt. 1:21].

      Until and unless the Trads (who also are imbued with the heresy of the ‘spirit of the age’ whether they know it or not) along with the Multicultists renounce this Gnostic/Judaizing balderdash, I have little time to listen to such Blasphemy.

      “You ONLY of all the nations of the world, have I known.’ – Amos 3:2a
      ‘The Good shepherd KNOWS HIS OWN, and his own know HIM.’ – John 10:14
      ‘ We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.’ – Heb. 13;10
      “But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman SHALL NOT inherit with the son of the free woman.” – gal. 4:30

    • Anonymous

      It’s funny to watch Fr. John+ try to syncretize Eastern Orthodox Christianity with British Israelite kookery.

  • John

    “In condemning or forbidding ‘miscegenation’, one may find himself close to espousing racism. There is no point in condemning what has been unnatural for most people throughout all of history.”

    Well, if it is unnatural, then why not condemn it? And especially why not condemn it at a time when the powers that be are trying to force us to believe that it is perfectly acceptable, just as they are doing with homosexuality. In both instances the action is rebellion against God’s created order. For the origin of race, there are only two possibilities. It is either a biological accident of evolution, or a purposeful action of God’s Providence. If it is the latter, then man should not undo what God has ordained.

    Opposition to miscegenation need not reflect malice or hatred. From a traditionalist perspective, it reflects love of ancestors and the desire to maintain continuity with them. It reflects love of descendants by imparting to them the strength of an undivided lineage.

    • Gavin James Campbell

      Opposition to so-called “miscegenation” does not reflect love of ancestors or descendants. For the simple fact that it will have the inevitable consequences of consanguineous couplings, and all out incest. Nobody can accuse Barack Obama of being a product of inbreeding!
      Still, if you persist in breeding your own stock, then don’t say you weren’t warned when your descendants are riddled with birth defects.

    • Orthodox Mike

      Gavin, go away.. Time to take out the Anglo libtard trash, yet again… Some folks never learn. Go find some Arab or Black nationalists to play with and see what they tell you.. LOL

    • Leith

      Mike, could you stop using Anglo as an epithet? It’s insulting.

  • Pingback: A Defense of Christianity, in Response to Alex Linder | Traditionalist Youth Network()

  • Brendan Hall

    Race-mixing will destroy the White race. Anyone who promotes it is anti-White.

    • Gavin James Campbell

      In which case, I hope you aren’t going to do this jazz about white people having Neanderthal DNA. Because if it’s true that people with white skin and European ancestry have Neanderthal DNA while blacks allegedly don’t; then makes us white people the product of something beyond mere “race mixing”, but all out species mixing.
      From a logical point of view, you’ve got some hard choices to make. If white people are a human/neanderthal crossbreed, then you’ve no real basis for objecting to people of different skin colours having children.

    • Orthodox Mike

      Leith, first of all, to non – Protestants, what saints and Fathers of the Church say are important and doctrinal. Secondly, I do apologize for using Anglo disparagingly. It’s just that it is primarily the Anglo world from the time of Cromwell onward they have been complicit in aiding our enemies. I do admire ancient Saxon and medieval Anglo-Saxon culture.

  • an observer

    “Whether one be white or black, one is by no means less a man.” – Saint John of Damascus

    • Leith

      What is that supposed to prove? Not everything a saint says is true and/or begs acceptance.

  • Orthodox Mike

    No one is questioning anyone’s mankind, other than Globalist Gavin, the Rootless and Reviled.

  • Clovis

    You can tell this article is written by a white man – no Japanese or Congolese fellow would ever detach racial identity from cultural identity – they are inseparable. There can not be a black Bavaria or a white Qatar. Any European living in Africa or Asia will forever be seen as a European – see South-Africa – because that’s what he is. Likewise, no African can ever be a European. Race is not a social construct, rather society is a racial construct. Of course no-one is less of a man or less of a Christian or less of anything because of his racial heritage, but that’s not the point. Preserving global diversity means refusing mass migration and saying no to the forced repopulation of the West (actually, that’s genocide) & multiculturalism/multiracialism – at least on a massive scale. An artificial society will always lead to totalitarianism anyway, as is already evident today. I also want to add that a black Miss France or an Asian Miss Germany, for instance, is an absurdity and a slap in the face of all ethnic French and Germans, it’s harmful and psychologically damaging. And that “spiritual wickedness in high places” uses mass migration as as a tool for its antichristian vision. Kind regards from Eurabia, soon to be the biggest Islamic continent in the world!

    • Orthodox Mike

      He wasn’t separating ethnic identity from culture, rather was simply stating that we are more than our mere biology. Our culture is a mixture of DNA, faith, and linguistics and customs and traditions. There are plenty of cultureless of all races.

  • JC Rules

    Quote form Article;..”Any ideology which limits identity to something biological alone (genetics, skin tone, gender), or to any human faculty or group of faculties (the will, the emotions, the intellect) consigns other human beings to the status of sub- or even non-humanity. And this is the irony of racism, for it conveniently exempts one’s own race (or ethnicity) from this crude and bare-bones definition of identity, while happily and eagerly applying it to others.”
    _________________________
    Recognizing that what the Liberal/Left/Cultural Marxist broadly define as “Racism” is as natural and common as dirt in all human beings doesn’t mean regulating them to appearance only…I certainly don’t and i would definitely be labled “Racist” in a heartbeat by anyone on the Left as a conditioned over the last 40 years kneejerk reaction…
    Wariness ,and rejection of those different than us ,is a hardwired protection that we can try to sublimate ,but it never really is removed form our nature,in fact it’s some of the more perverse and destructive idealogy of the Left is to want to manipulate and oppress natural instincts to create a “New Man” ….
    People bond , form communitys and Nations, based on shared Ancestry and Culture ,the more similar the people,the Stronger the Bond….To deny this is to deny 10,000 years of Historical fact,to make out that Nationalism is akin to Racism is to agree with Marxist Vladmir Lenin who was the first to use the term “Racism”, to describe the Ukrainians resistance to Communist Russia’s Plan to de-Nationalize their country..

  • Orthodox Mike

    It was actually Trotsky that coined the word and the author doesn’t refute the importance of communal ethnic bonds and identity. I suggest you reread it. He is just saying biology alone isn’t what makes a man.

    • Gavin James Campbell

      If Leon Trotsky invented the words “racism” and “racist”, then we should expect those words to be Anglicised Russian words. However, the Russian word for “race” is род (rod). So according to Russian morphology, we should expect the noun form of Trotsky’s word to be родник (rodnik), and the adjectival form to be родичевский (rodichevsky). As a matter of fact, however, the Russian word родник is another word for spring. While the Russian noun for a racist is расист (racist), and the adjective is расистский (racistsky), which are both loan words from the French word “raciste”. So, obviously, the English word is not of Russian origin. Which therefore means that Leon Trotsky did not coin the phrase. There is a Russian loan word from French, namely, раса (rasa), but again, we should expect Trotsky to follow Russian, not French morphology in coining his words. We should expect him to have said расник (rasnik) and расичевский (rasichevsky). But again, this is not the case.
      The logical conclusion is obvious. Trotsky did not invent the word racist. Might I recommend that you learn some Russian?

  • Orthodox Mike

    Might I recommend you go bothering other people with your idiocy. Racistov was used by Trotsky, and I’m sure it was borrowed from a root word from another language. He used it to specifically demonize Monarchists, Slavophiles, and the White Russians opposed to Marxism.

    • Gavin James Campbell

      Oh dear.
      Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Russian declension system would recognise immediately that расистов (racistov) is the plural genitive of расист. If, by your own admission, Trotsky borrowed a word from outside of his native Russian language, then you have effectively admitted that he did not invent the word! That he Russified a French word, which had it’s assigned meaning before it become a loan word.
      When, as a matter of fact, the first recorded instance of the word “raciste” was traced back to a French newspaper editorial in the 1930’s, well after the Russian Civil War. It should also be noted that the Russian White Army was as multicultural and multiracial as it could get. It’s absurd to imagine that anyone in the Red Army thought that accusing them of being racist could have ever served their purposes. The quote attributed to Trotsky is an obvious forgery. I recommend that you not only learn the Russian language and it’s system of grammar, but you learn some Russian history by which you can recognise these forgeries.

  • Orthodox Mike

    I may know little Russian, but I am quite aware of much of Russian history as I learned Orthodoxy by many ROCOR clergy pre- and post- MP union. The Black Hundreds, for instance, hosted many members who were clergy and Saints. They were a very pro-White Army force. You can be a Globalist all you want. It is your prerogative, but don’t shove your Babelism down our throats. You are not going to sway us.

    • Gavin James Campbell

      Babelism?
      No, that’s just Christian Identity talk. That simply is not Orthodoxy by any standard at all. I hate to break it to you, but the story of the Tower of Babel has nothing whatsoever to do with race, either mixing it or separation. It simply tells of how the languages came into being, nothing more and nothing less.
      Please have the decency not to smuggle in concepts from the Christian Identity movement and think that they can be passed off as Orthodox. I can accept that not everyone in the Church will accept my political views, but let’s be clear that the Orthodox Church has NEVER forbidden people of different skin colours (or race, assuming it exists; it doesn’t) from mixing, mingling, or even marrying.
      Like St. Jacob Netsvetov, who had both Native Alaskan and Russian ancestry.
      (And for the record, I can accept, reluctantly, that the Iron Guards and the Black Hundreds had some measure of Orthodox doctrine to them. But only a measure. They do not represent the entirety of the teachings of the Church.)

    • Orthodox Mike

      If you read the article you are commenting, it is clearly stated that interracial relationships aren’t strictly forbidden, but, as many clergy have taught in the past, it is not a recommended thing, and never has been. Just read the ‘455 Q&A About Orthodoxy’, by Fr Stanley Harakas, a guy that is very moderate. He even says as much. Babel didn’t have to merely do with languages. I didn’t get that from any CI source but from the Scriptures themselves and Church Fathers’ exegeses. Why don’t you read them on the topic yourself?

  • Melvin Polatnick

    Beautiful prostitutes get paid well by their wealthy customers, but often they become pregnant. Most are wives whose husbands raise the children while their mothers continue to work. It is not surprising that due to their wealthy clients the children inherited genes that got them to be shrewd and smart.
    “Jewesses were prominent in the practice of prostitution. Thus, of 5127 licensed prostitutes in 1889, 1122 or 22 per cent were Jewish. Prostitution was very prevalent in the impoverished Habsburg province of Galicia. According to Rabbi Rosenak of the German Union of Rabbis, in 1902”
    Owing to widespread poverty in the Jewish community many Jewish wives resorted to prostitution in order to live. The upside is that their children often came out with blond hair, blue eyes, and were smart and shrewd.
    That is the reason why many Jews today are millionaires.
    By MELVIN POLATNICK
    May 2015

  • Melvin Polatnick

    Bongo beats start playing in the prison yard as a celebration for the entry of a new white inmate. He soon will be making phone calls to his family, not to say hello, but to wire funds for guys named Rufus and Pedro. The toughest white dude is no match for the non-white gangs that lurk in the prisons toilet or TV rooms; they will not murder the goose that can pay for their heroin habit, bitch slapping the dude a few dozen times is enough to get him on the phone to his family.

  • Guest

    I think that ethnic nationalism is not Christian. If other races cannot be welcome in your country this leads to a problem. If you send missionaries to a foreign country and they make converts, the foreign country will persecute these converts. If they are not welcome they literally have nowhere to go, no home either in their homeland or a Christian country. Why then preach the gospel and call them brothers if they can’t be welcomed in your home? If you cannot welcome foreigners in your country, why complain when foreigners do the same thing? Why complain when Christians are persecuted in East Asia when according to East Asians they are polluting the purity of their culture? The difference between a missionary and a non-missionary religion matters. A pagan won’t go around seeking converts. I don ‘think understand how nationalism is good for the goal of Christianity. And in fact for most of the history of Christianity there were no nation states in Europe.

    • We have an example in St. Herman of Alaska in squaring up this apparent paradox between identity and tradition. The missionary’s work is to baptize the culture, not subvert and replace it. While many missionaries carelessly blurred the lines between military, cultural, and religious imperialism, St. Herman of Alaska strove to bring Christ’s message to the Inuit without bringing introgression, forced integration, and cultural imperialism to the Inuit.

      The Catholic Church has a similar figure in Bartolomé de las Casas, and all of the denominations (including my own) have a mixed legacy in this regard. Christ’s message is for the diverse peoples of the entire world, not just White people and their subjects. The Oriental Orthodox of Ethiopia were Christian for centuries, and there’s nothing intrinsically Western, White, Jewish, or Ethiopian about Christ’s universal message.

      With modern communication technology, the potential for evangelizing without imperializing is easier than ever.

      As for the whole thing about being able to be brothers but not allowing them into our homeland, I’m at a loss. It’s intuitively obvious to me that my fellow Orthodox Christians of my own ethnic identity are not allowed or welcome to intrude on my property uninvited, help themselves to my fridge, and drive me out of my own home.

      We have families. We have nations. We have homes and homelands. The notion that Christ’s message is incompatible with the defense and preservation of one’s home and homeland is a very very modern contrivance.

      Anti-Christian identitarians enjoy playing a game against Traditionalist Christian identitarians where they embrace Marxist and Degenerate Christianity as the “real” Christianity. It’s tacky and destructive. The presence of universal truth doesn’t negate the diversity and distinctness of the human experience.

      How would neo-pagans feel if I insisted that the only “real” paganism was the middle-aged bisexual single mom in sweatpants witchcraft-indulging liberal variety? That sort of paganism is, after all, more popular and prevalent than the sorts subscribed to in identitarian circles.


By: Orthodox Mike



%d bloggers like this: