What This Blogger Stands For
I am Arthur Richard Harrison, Administrator of the Avenging Red Hand. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian and a blogger in the movement known as “reaction,” or in some cases, “neoreaction.”
The fundamental premise of both reaction and neoreaction is the rejection of the belief in human equality and an advocacy of hierarchical society. Individuals and groups (races, sexes, etc.) differ in ability and temperament and should be treated accordingly. Moreover, stability and order are more important than fairness.
My own political opinions can be described fairly comprehensively as ‘traditionalist’; I support, for example, patriarchy, monarchy, and an immigration policy designed to preserve and protect the interests of native citizens and the traditional ethnic and cultural groups that make up a particular society.
The Avenging Red Hand 
The Dark Enlightenment on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/DarkEnlighten/status/330397227006705665
Have you defended your position as a libertarian, in the present political system, who simultaneously believes in monarchy? I’d be interested to read it.
I dont know how I failed to respond to this for five months. I guess I dont really pay attention to this page. The truth is, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the designation ‘libertarian’ any more. Even when I wrote that, I was libertarian in a temperamental, rather than an ideological sense. That is, I considered leaving people alone a reasonable default; nothing more. I’m not sure whether I’d agree with that statement, or the description of that view as ‘libertarian’, now.
That said, I do believe that from a libertarian perspective, monarchy is probably preferable to democracy, insofar as it tends to tax, spend, war, and legislate to a far more limited degree because of the monarch’s lowered time preference as a property owner vis-a-vis the high time preference of democratic stewards or ‘renters’.
And your position as an Orthodox Christian is now in considerable doubt! Seeing that the Church is not a vehicle for your social and political views.
Heimbach today – Harrison tomorrow.
Bring it on, faggot.
If the OCA hierarchy excommunicates me for ‘phyletism’ I’ll have a field day. They’d have to excommunicate Abp +NATHANIEL of Detroit while they were at it.
To compare yourself to Archbishop Nathaniel of Detroit is a stretch at best and a sign of prelest at worse. Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America was originally part of the Romanian Patriarchate but separated because of communism’s control over the Mother Church. They were in limbo until 1970 when they entered the OCA under the premise that it was an autocephalous Church and by doing so it was closing jurisdictional gaps, moving towards a more united Orthodoxy in the US. To quote the 1970 agreement:
“The Orthodox Church in America recognizes that canonical unity does not mean suppression of particular national traditions and is not based on the predominance of one national tradition, but on the cooperation of all in love for the good of the One Church.”
Though it’s far from perfect, this was actually a step towards getting around ethnic divisions. To some degree there have always been ethnic divisions, but this is due to historical circumstances (not just geographic ones). When ethnicity is elevated to the theological basis for such a division, you slip into heresy.
Have you actually ever been to any of the OCA ethnic diocese parishes? I attended one off and on in undergrad. They aren’t exactly ethnically uniform…
Ethnic uniformity or lack thereof is irrelevant. Phyletism is a heresy because the canonical order of the Church is that episcopal jurisdictions do not overlap. The Romanian Episcopate was very specifically designed to be a jurisdiction with no particular geographical reality as its basis, but rather existing to serve a particular ethnic community. That is 100% uncanonical, and it is phyletism *actually being implemented in the Church*, which, it seems to me, is a bit worse than anything I could do as a layman.
Orthodox Christians do not use insulting language like that, sir.
Then again, maybe by recourse to insults you might convince me that you are right!
Yes, it’s far from ideal. The difference being that it’s the result of *historical* circumstances as opposed to saying it’s some theological ideal. Church history is full of canonical abnormalities. One notable example would be the “mullet” system that the Turks imposed. Furthermore, it’s clear that phyletism is not entirely about geographical control. Two years before the council condemned it, the Bulgarian Exarchate was formed for nationalistic reasons. This was the context that caused the 1872 council to denounce the phyletism by Bulgarians in Constantinople. To quote the council:
“We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which ‘support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.'”
I’ve never said phyletism is a theological ideal. In fact, I recognise and condemn it as a heresy. But opposing interracial marriage, supporting ethnic/racial restrictions on immigration or even Jim Crow-style segregation is not phyletism.
If phyletism is the separation of people along ethnic and racial lines, then disallowing so-called “interracial” marriage is phyletism.
If phyletism is the separation of people along ethnic and racial lines, then Jim Crow segregation is phyletism.
If phyletism is the separation of people along ethnic and racial lines, then immigration restrictions on ethnic and racial lines are phyletism.
And you, sir, have no business being in the Church with such views. Either repent, or leave. And while we are at it, a believer in the Christian religion foreswears revenge, and does not take upon himself the moniker of “avengingredhand”.
But still, see if you can persuade me by referring to me as “faggot”. Insults settle issues and win debates, you know!
Moreover, there is absolutely zero reason Romanian-speaking parishes full of Romanians couldn’t continue to be such while submitting to and commemorating their local diocesan bishop, thus maintaining the canonical order.
A lot of those Romanian parishes are as assimilated as they get, and do services entirely in English. It’s an outdated canonical system in the OCA, and one that was meant as a stop-gap measure.
Well I never called for your excommunication. I leave discussions of that nature to the clergy since I am not trained in pastoral care. I was only pointing out factual inaccuracies in your previous posts. I agree that parishes can maintain a Romanian identity so long as they submit to the local bishop and that ethnicity does not get in the way of the wider calling of the Church. As for the issue of interracial marriage (an issue that I have been asking TradYouth to address but to no avail), wouldn’t opposing it create a racial litmus test for a sacrament? As long as it’s inside the Body of Christ, who cares?
You are part of the OCA and were received on Holy Saturday, correct? Well, I’m part of the OCA and was received on Holy Saturday. Small world I guess. 🙂
I was received in September 1993, at the age of 21.
I have a goddaughter who is half Phililino and half Irish. And now married a pure blooded German, who is also an Orthodox convert. And there were absolutely no canonical impediments whatsoever to her baptism or her marriage.
Meanwhile, there is a family at my parish where the man is from India and the woman is Chinese. Again, no canonical impediments.
You’ve got the wrong Church, Arthur! Or, maybe the you’ve got the right Church and are going to impress us by losing the Confederate flags and losing the attitudes.
I really couldn’t care less when you were received, who your godchildren are, or whether you are impressed with me.
*You* came to *my* blog to comment. Therefore you are clearly, for whatever reason, interested in me. I never showed any particular interest in you or what you thought and continue not to, beyond replying to some of your inane comments.
O, and I’m interracial. 😉
Gavin:
The claim that Orthodox Christians ‘do not use insulting language’ is so monumentally idiotic that I am not going to dignify it with any more response than this.
Regarding phyletism: Yes, if phyletism is separating people along ethnic/racial lines, those things are phyletism. But it’s not.
Lawrence:
You haven’t pointed out any inaccuracies yet.
As for interracial marriage, the claim that interracial marriage is *invalid* would definitely be heretical. The claim that it is or should be *forbidden by Church law* *might* be heretical. The claim that it is unwise and generally should be avoided is another matter.
Well, actually, that is what phyletism is, division along ethnic and racial lines.
Specifically, division of what?
Answer: ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Stop trying to expand it to include any possible ethnic division; that’s stupid.
Hey, guess what? St. Jacob Netsvetov had Russian ancestry and Native Alaskan ancestry. So, if race exists (it doesn’t), then a canonised saint of the Orthodox Church is a product of so-called “miscegenation”! How “unwise” of a saint’s parents! If they had generally avoided their marriage, then there would be one less Orthodox saint for the Americas. You are here to teach us of such foolishness and how to generally avoid it! By calling people names, no less.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I haven’t stated that I am opposed to interracial marriage, only that such opposition is not what the Synod of 1872 condemned under the name of phyletism.
But perhaps I shouldn’t begrudge you the conclusions you jump to; it’s probably the most exercise you get all day.
All right, I’ll leave you alone. You’ll be faced with some hard choices sooner or later. Even if you never get excommunicated, there’s some difficult turning points coming your way. I hope and pray you make it through them.
But I leave you with this thought:
For any society that is divided along racial and ethnic lines, whatever Orthodoxy is there will be divided along such lines.
Where Orthodoxy is divided along ethnic and racial ethnic lines, there is phyletism.
Therefore, for any society that is divided along ethnic and racial lines, there is phyletism in it’s Orthodoxy.
You’re right. Therefore, societies should be ethnically and racially united, which is only possible when they are homogeneous.
Homogeneity is impossible. As is ethnic unity.
Racially, however, the entire planet is already united.
Gavin, examples of phyletism based on race would be refusing to kiss a black bishop’s hand, only because of his race, or refusing to receive sacraments from black presbyter, only because of his race. Also, Arthur has given another example, and that is saying that interracial marriage (or marriage of two people different nationalities) is invalid as a sacrament is also phyletism.
But this:
“For any society that is divided along racial and ethnic lines, whatever Orthodoxy is there will be divided along such lines. Where Orthodoxy is divided along ethnic and racial ethnic lines, there is phyletism. Therefore, for any society that is divided along ethnic and racial lines, there is phyletism in it’s Orthodoxy.”
it is just a faulty reasoning, to put it mildly (realistically that is a bad try to mind rape Orthodoxy so to bend it to social “justice” nonsense). Overlapping dioceses is phyletism (separate churches on SAME geographical location, divided among racial and/or ethnic lines). What you describe is not (separate churches on separate geographical locations). Note that if what you say were to really be phyletism, it would then mean that phyletism existed even in the early church, and also the middle ages, and would exist until the whole planet is mixed uniformly.