What do Orthodox churches teach regarding racial diversity?

Status
Not open for further replies.

frjohnwhiteford

Chicken
Orthodox
Priest
Thanks for sharing these articles, however, I find this alarming. In the first article, he begins by accepting the Satanic premise of unconscious racial bias, one of the founding pillars of critical race theory. Since this is only one man, I hope that he is not representative of the entire Orthodox Church.
I was speaking about prejudice against people based on race that is often done without any thought being given to it. I am not talking about microaggressions. If you don't think that is a reality, I don't think you have spent much time in contexts in which people of different races interact. But that actually was not want the article was really about. The article is about people advocating for racial separatism within the Church.

Promoting racial harmony, especially among Christians, is pretty much the opposite of critical race theory. Those promoting critical race theory do not want reconciliation and harmony, they want to destroy society, so that they can rebuild it as they see fit.

Here are two sermons I have preached that talk extensively against critical race theory:

 
The idea of a “nation” meaning a hodgepodge of wildly different groups of people, with different ethnicities and religions and cultures, is a very new thing in the grand scope of history. I don’t think you’ll find many Fathers, if any, commenting on this because it was simply not the world they lived in - at least not to anywhere near the degree that the modern West experiences it.

The only official Orthodox view I’m aware of that addresses this at all comes from the Russian Church in a document called Basis Of The Social Concept, which you can find online, in English, for free.
In the Bible, in the writings of the Greeks, Romans and anywhere else nation always equals ethnicity. Even based Christians make the mistake to denounce "ethno-nationalism", because ethnicity and culture (religion etc) have always been the marks of a nation. The great Ethiopian kingdom has been an ethno-nationalist kingdom. Ancient Greece was ethno-nationalist.

It is like, when someone criticizes Ben Shapiro and is programmed to add "but I'm not an anti-semite". Ivan the Terrible and Charlemagne and pretty much all notable characters in world history were ethno-nationalists by today's standards.

There is a reason why Europeans and East Asians have produced a ton of great art and inventions, while others have not. Vincent James often talks about intelligence and crime and the correlation is just evident. If Christians are commanded to speak the truth, which they are, they should have the courage to say these things without fear.
The American Indians were called racists for refusing to give up their traditional culture, which shows you that this word has always been nothing but slander. If stating statistical facts, the objective truth, makes you a "racist", you should just ignore that word with a smile.

People need to stop accepting terms and their definitions by people who hate them.
 

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
The American Indians were called racists for refusing to give up their traditional culture, which shows you that this word has always been nothing but slander. If stating statistical facts, the objective truth, makes you a "racist", you should just ignore that word with a smile.

People need to stop accepting terms and their definitions by people who hate them.
This is very true, the first person documented to use the terms "racist" and "racism" in English was Richard Henry Pratt. To state that the Indians shouldn't be forced to adopt Americana cultural values was deemed "racist" by this man and his league "Friends of the Indian." The term from the beginning was always used to slander, not communicate truth, and to continue the US's Masonic Imperialism.

Oppose kidnapping Indian children and forcing them into boarding schools? You're racist.
Think the natives should be free to self-determination for their own tribes and nations? You're racist.
Oppose forcing the idea of American culture and masonic democratic-republicanism on other peoples? You're racist.
Noble men like Mark Twain and the American Anti-Imperialist League were called racist for opposing the gifting of the "superior" American way of life to Hispanidad through gunboat diplomacy, invasion and coups. What could be more racist than not forcing a "superior" way of life onto non-Americans?
If one opposed beating Indian children to stop them from speaking their own languages, that made you racist too! This attitude continued in the southwest where many grandparents of friends of mine literally had the Spanish beaten out of them.

Scientific racism of the wignats and scientific anti-racism proposed here are both reductionist and materialist; both are alien to Orthodoxy and frankly every society in history outside of Protestant cultures.
 
This is very true, the first person documented to use the terms "racist" and "racism" in English was Richard Henry Pratt. To state that the Indians shouldn't be forced to adopt Americana cultural values was deemed "racist" by this man and his league "Friends of the Indian." The term from the beginning was always used to slander, not communicate truth, and to continue the US's Masonic Imperialism.

Oppose kidnapping Indian children and forcing them into boarding schools? You're racist.
Think the natives should be free to self-determination for their own tribes and nations? You're racist.
Oppose forcing the idea of American culture and masonic democratic-republicanism on other peoples? You're racist.
Noble men like Mark Twain and the American Anti-Imperialist League were called racist for opposing the gifting of the "superior" American way of life to Hispanidad through gunboat diplomacy, invasion and coups. What could be more racist than not forcing a "superior" way of life onto non-Americans?
If one opposed beating Indian children to stop them from speaking their own languages, that made you racist too! This attitude continued in the southwest where many grandparents of friends of mine literally had the Spanish beaten out of them.

Scientific racism of the wignats and scientific anti-racism proposed here are both reductionist and materialist; both are alien to Orthodoxy and frankly every society in history outside of Protestant cultures.
Outside of American "Protestant", rather masonic, culture. In Europe everybody valued the cultural importance of ethnicity and that different ethnic groups rather stay for themselves. The Holy Roman Empire was a federation of different ethnicities, and these were all White Europeans who respected the differences between them. They went to war for financial and political reasons or worked together, but they did not want to destroy their people's unique genetics by mixing. That was not hateful "racism", but just common sense and love and respect for their ancestors.
The insanity we see today goes way beyond classical masonic nonsense. The Founding Fathers, as masonic as they were, were more based than most of today's right-wing politics.
 

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
Outside of American "Protestant", rather masonic, culture. In Europe everybody valued the cultural importance of ethnicity and that different ethnic groups rather stay for themselves. The Holy Roman Empire was a federation of different ethnicities, and these were all White Europeans who respected the differences between them. They went to war for financial and political reasons or worked together, but they did not want to destroy their people's unique genetics by mixing. That was not hateful "racism", but just common sense and love and respect for their ancestors.
The people of the HRE had no concept of White, which was an AngloMasonic invention to destroy ethnos, nor did they have a concept of genetics. Genetic preservation came from 99% of people marrying someone who was born within 12 miles of the place of their own birth. The elites on the other hand were far more intermarried than the overall population of the modern US.

I'm more familiar with the medieval multiethnic kingdom of Spain. The boundaries of what we call race were religion, language and patria. In the case of the Spanish empire, Cristo Rey, Spanish and Mestizaje. The local fuerros were respected in a way that the states of the US wish they were by DC, and Spain successfully Hispanicized thousands of pagan tribes being only surpassed by Holy Russia. Neither were interested in the concept of genetic purity, resulting in Russian and Spanish genes spreading far beyond their respective heartlands.

The whole medieval period as well as the Spanish and Russian empire, not to mention the Chinese, had a concept of ethnos that was immaterial with material effects, not material with immaterial effects. Genos is downstream from Ethnos, Genesis 11 is hard Scriptural evidence of this.
The Founding Fathers, as masonic as they were, were more based than most of today's right-wing politics.
The Founding Fathers were far more radical than what they could successfully achieve. Jefferson, Paine and Franklin were on board with Adam Weishopt's proto-Communism. There goal was to destroy Patria, ethnos, and Christianity to establish a New World Order, like their brothers the Jacobins in France. Their experiment is why Americans are deracinated, demoralized and dechristianized. The nations in Europe, except Britain, are in a far better spot than America. They still have an ethnos, which Americans lost long ago.
 

soli.deo.gloria

Woodpecker
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
If race mixing was inherently wrong, I believe God would not allow it.
God allows murder, fornication, adultery, lies, theft, blasphemy, etc.

However once you cross into being relieved that there's no X race at the Parish, condemning the sacrament of marriage because of "race mixing", or mocking "mixed race" children (who are Icons of Christ) etc etc you've crossed into the territory of overt racial idolatry IMO - all common behavior amongst the "dissident right". Even amongst those who call themselves Christian.
I would never turn away from a fellow brother or sister in Christ, regardless of race, sex, etc. That being said, God separated the races and confused the langauge for a good reason imho. I do not know if the Orthodox Church has an official position on this, though.

I'm more familiar with the medieval multiethnic kingdom of Spain. The boundaries of what we call race were religion, language and patria. In the case of the Spanish empire, Cristo Rey, Spanish and Mestizaje. The local fuerros were respected in a way that the states of the US wish they were by DC, and Spain successfully Hispanicized thousands of pagan tribes being only surpassed by Holy Russia. Neither were interested in the concept of genetic purity, resulting in Russian and Spanish genes spreading far beyond their respective heartlands.
It is perhaps a different concept to spread your seed among a foreign population as conquers. As far as I know Spain did not cease to be an ethnically homogenous society at that time (not so sure about current year though) so I have to assume they weren't all about importing hordes of random people and race mixing.
 
Last edited:

soli.deo.gloria

Woodpecker
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
I was speaking about prejudice against people based on race that is often done without any thought being given to it. I am not talking about microaggressions. If you don't think that is a reality, I don't think you have spent much time in contexts in which people of different races interact. But that actually was not want the article was really about. The article is about people advocating for racial separatism within the Church.

Promoting racial harmony, especially among Christians, is pretty much the opposite of critical race theory. Those promoting critical race theory do not want reconciliation and harmony, they want to destroy society, so that they can rebuild it as they see fit.

Here are two sermons I have preached that talk extensively against critical race theory:

Fr., thank you for replying, and I apologize in advance for asking so many questions but I am doing so in order to make a point.

Do you genuinely believe that people hate or dislike others solely for their skin color (as an example)? As in if they were identical in every other way except a color that would actually make a difference? Do you not think it is instead because of a pattern of behavior?

Are you familiar with FBI and other crime statistics and information that clearly shows patterns of how people of a certain race or other qualities behave which strongly implies a given individual may be far more likely to rape, murder, steal, etc? The relationship between race, IQ, crime, and other patterns of behavior?

In light of those facts do you believe that it is immoral or otherwise against the teachings of the Church if you see a person who you reasonably believe to be a threat based on statistical facts and/or personal experiences and in turn feel negatively towards them? Are we not taught that it is permissable or even righteous to feel anger or disgust in the presence of evil?

Of course I am aware that some will say we should judge each person as an individual and love our enemies, etc. I strive to always do that and to treat people with love and respect and compassion by default, but there are also certain realities that we face in our daily lives. Things that if you aren't careful can easily get you into big trouble. Speaking from personal experience - this is not a hypothetical argument from my perspective.

In light of these questions, what would be your opinion on how an Orthodox Christian should conduct themselves?

Thank you for your time & God bless.
 
Last edited:

lskdfjldsf

Pelican
Orthodox Catechumen
Gold Member
The Founding Fathers were far more radical than what they could successfully achieve. Jefferson, Paine and Franklin were on board with Adam Weishopt's proto-Communism. There goal was to destroy Patria, ethnos, and Christianity to establish a New World Order, like their brothers the Jacobins in France. Their experiment is why Americans are deracinated, demoralized and dechristianized. The nations in Europe, except Britain, are in a far better spot than America. They still have an ethnos, which Americans lost long ago.

Not everything is some Freemason conspiracy theory.

The deracination of American Whites was an organic process resulting from culturally and ethnically similar peoples occupying the same living space over time. The term "White" itself was all-encompassing and used since the beginning for a reason; it was the broadest common ingroup denominator among contrasting, and largely hostile outgroups (natives, blacks, etc). These identifiers were helpful in unifying German and Irish and English settlers around a common identity, necessary to the stability of a new nation.

Church attendance, belief in God, opposition to abortion, etc. are substantially lower in Europe, even today. The early U.S. was a safe haven for extreme religious groups outcast from Europe (e.g. Quakers) and Puritan morality can still be seen in many ways. The U.S. cannot be said to be intentionally "dechristianized" from the beginning, when it's very existence was due in large part to Christians seeking shelter from secularizing European governments.

Separately, post-industrial atomization and excesses of scale accelerated deracination and dechristianization. A people without rootedness feels no loyalty to itself, physically or spiritually. It happened in the U.S. and Europe alike. Go to any developing nation and you see the same trend at work today.
 
The people of the HRE had no concept of White, which was an AngloMasonic invention to destroy ethnos, nor did they have a concept of genetics. Genetic preservation came from 99% of people marrying someone who was born within 12 miles of the place of their own birth. The elites on the other hand were far more intermarried than the overall population of the modern US.

I'm more familiar with the medieval multiethnic kingdom of Spain. The boundaries of what we call race were religion, language and patria. In the case of the Spanish empire, Cristo Rey, Spanish and Mestizaje. The local fuerros were respected in a way that the states of the US wish they were by DC, and Spain successfully Hispanicized thousands of pagan tribes being only surpassed by Holy Russia. Neither were interested in the concept of genetic purity, resulting in Russian and Spanish genes spreading far beyond their respective heartlands.

The whole medieval period as well as the Spanish and Russian empire, not to mention the Chinese, had a concept of ethnos that was immaterial with material effects, not material with immaterial effects. Genos is downstream from Ethnos, Genesis 11 is hard Scriptural evidence of this.

The Founding Fathers were far more radical than what they could successfully achieve. Jefferson, Paine and Franklin were on board with Adam Weishopt's proto-Communism. There goal was to destroy Patria, ethnos, and Christianity to establish a New World Order, like their brothers the Jacobins in France. Their experiment is why Americans are deracinated, demoralized and dechristianized. The nations in Europe, except Britain, are in a far better spot than America. They still have an ethnos, which Americans lost long ago.
Which led to genetical defects in European nobility. That poor Russian boy needing Rasputin to pray over his wounds was a result of European nobility abandoning that 12 miles-concept.
White is just a term used for skin colour, a concept that people always understood. White, Black, Brown, Yellow are just helpful general definitions as European and Asian are.
As we can see, the masonic and the ethnos concept both lead to horrible results. Masonic America and Latin America are both hellholes. The truth is probably to find in the middle. Both concepts have an imperialistic note. Alexander the Great combined them and his empire went down.
Couldn't you say, that Masonic and Latin (Ethnos) America team up to poison people with narcotics? Is that a coincidence?
Jokes aside, I am not a fan of such concepts, because they have the tendency to ignore reality.
 

johngbeckham

Chicken
Orthodox Inquirer
Sure thing brother. If all of the American Clergy were like Fr John Whiteford it'd be a heavy shift to the "right" for American Orthodoxy. His comment "Furthermore, we have to fight even unconscious forms of racism and ethnocentricism because these things are barriers that prevent people from coming into the Orthodox Church." is only problematic if we assume "and thus CRT and anti-white rhetoric is the solution". I think ultimately our response to various fully Orthodox teachings will depend on what baggage we have coming into The Church. Example there are many potential "left leaning" or "centrist" converts that would take issue with Fr Joseph Gleasons article below. Yet I see no conflict between what he expresses or and what Fr John Whiteford does.

BLM EXCOMMUNICATED: Priest Denies Communion to All Members of Black Lives Matter​


I agree, BLM should publicly renounce Satan before being allowed to join/take communion, just as I would expect any other convert from a Satanic or Luciferian cult to do so. How else would we know they are truly repentant, being unable to know their hearts as God does? It does not follow therefore that we should worry about turning away people (left or right) if what they are doing involves the manifestation of Satanic evil in the spiritual or real world.
 
Not everything is some Freemason conspiracy theory.

The deracination of American Whites was an organic process resulting from culturally and ethnically similar peoples occupying the same living space over time. The term "White" itself was all-encompassing and used since the beginning for a reason; it was the broadest common ingroup denominator among contrasting, and largely hostile outgroups (natives, blacks, etc). These identifiers were helpful in unifying German and Irish and English settlers around a common identity, necessary to the stability of a new nation.

Church attendance, belief in God, opposition to abortion, etc. are substantially lower in Europe, even today. The early U.S. was a safe haven for extreme religious groups outcast from Europe (e.g. Quakers) and Puritan morality can still be seen in many ways. The U.S. cannot be said to be intentionally "dechristianized" from the beginning, when it's very existence was due in large part to Christians seeking shelter from secularizing European governments.

Separately, post-industrial atomization and excesses of scale accelerated deracination and dechristianization. A people without rootedness feels no loyalty to itself, physically or spiritually. It happened in the U.S. and Europe alike. Go to any developing nation and you see the same trend at work today.
Don't we see the same problems in Russia that we see in America? Many of these problems just seem to come with a higher standard of living. In Europe drinking and smoking clergy, may it be a Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, is not uncommon, while in America you see Catholics and Orthodox being pretty puritan. And whatever we can say about the Founding Fathers, they gave you the Bill of Rights, which is better than anything leaders before ever gave to their people.
There are Heavy Metal bands in Africa nowadays, which is proof for the trend you talk about.
 

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
As far as I know Spain did not cease to be an ethnically homogenous society at that time (not so sure about current year though) s
Spain was multiethnic, with the exchange going both ways with the New World. There is a reason the ethnos of Catalan, Andalucian, Galician, etc. still exist.
Not everything is some Freemason conspiracy theory.
Why is the US constitution so similar to Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 that governed the Lodges?
The deracination of American Whites was an organic process resulting from culturally and ethnically similar peoples occupying the same living space over time.
Nothing organic about it. Hispanidad was in the same boat for 300 years longer yet not deracinated because of lack of Protestantism and Capitalism, both of which inevitably lead to individualism, which is what breaks down racial, tribal, religious and familial identity.
The term "White" itself was all-encompassing and used since the beginning for a reason; it was the broadest common ingroup denominator among contrasting, and largely hostile outgroups
The 18th century isn't the beginning. Have you read anything of Darwin and The Royal Society? They used the term "White" to differentiate themselves from Mediteraneans and Slavs.
These identifiers were helpful in unifying German and Irish and English settlers around a common identity, necessary to the stability of a new nation.
Now you've stumbled onto the Masonic conspiracy which was written out first in Bacon's New Atlantis, the undoing of the Tower of Babel, not through unity of faith but through erasure of nationhood.
Church attendance, belief in God, opposition to abortion, etc. are substantially lower in Europe, even today.
6% of the US population have a worldview that could possibly considered Biblical, according to Barna. Most US churches are self-help social clubs with a ted talk and a mediocre rock band.
The U.S. cannot be said to be intentionally "dechristianized" from the beginning, when it's very existence was due in large part to Christians seeking shelter from secularizing European governments.
In the words of Weishaupt, Lutherans and Calvinists are super easy to deceive. Ministers like Jonathon Edwards marveled at how the ruling class of the US were Deists, not Christians.

In the words of Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson in 1831:

"The founders of our nation were nearly all infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected, not a one has professed a belief in Christianity."

Europe secularized after the world wars.

post-industrial atomization and excesses of scale accelerated deracination and dechristianization. A people without rootedness feels no loyalty to itself, physically or spiritually. It happened in the U.S. and Europe alike.
That is the effects of Capitalism and free mobility of labor in a nutshell. Yet my wife and I have over 80 cousins combined. Her family had been here since the US annexed Puerto Rico. Why has the American experiment affected us to a far lesser extent than Protestant America? Already now the boat has been turned around in Georgia, and is being turned around in Orthodox Europe. It's almost as if the Apostolic Faith is the key to renationalizing, remoralizing and reculturing the peoples of the American empire.
 
Already now the boat has been turned around in Georgia, and is being turned around in Orthodox Europe. It's almost as if the Apostolic Faith is the key to renationalizing, remoralizing and reculturing the peoples of the American empire.
Puerto Rico Fertility Rate: 1,04. The "American Experiment" hit them harder than it hit America.
How is the boat turning around in Bulgaria and Romania? Georgia seems to be on a good path, better than Russia in my opinion. Hungary, which is not Orthodox, but Catholic and Protestant (Orban is Calvinist?) is on a better path than Bulgaria and Romania and Greece for sure and also Serbia and Russia in my opinion. You oversimplify complicated matters.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
In the words of Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson in 1831:

"The founders of our nation were nearly all infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected, not a one has professed a belief in Christianity."

Europe secularized after the world wars.

At around the same time Alexis de Tocqueville from France wrote “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.” Even back then he already recognized that religion had a much stronger hold among the typical American then the typical European.

Pew Research on religion in Europe:


2 Even though most people identify as Christian in the region, few regularly attend church. In every country except Italy, non-practicing Christians (that is, those who attend church no more than a few times a year) outnumber church-attending Christians (those who attend church weekly or monthly). In the UK, for example, there are three times as many non-practicing Christians (55%) as practicing Christians (18%). Non-practicin

8 Majorities across the region, including most Christians, favor legal same-sex marriage and abortion. Similar to religiously unaffiliated adults, the vast majority of non-practicing Christians say gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry, and that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Churchgoing Christians are less likely to take these positions, but even among religious Christians, majorities favor gay marriage and legal abortion in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.
 
Last edited:

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
Puerto Rico Fertility Rate:
You forgot the mainland, there are more Puerto Ricans in NY and Florida each than the island. And yes, Boricuas are the most Americanized and deracinated of all of Hispanidad.

My family is in Texas. Average age of Hispanos: 20. Average age of White America >40, and that's not even including the population share. Especially after the BLM riots, Boricuas, Cubans, Mexicans and Tejanos are getting along far better than before.
How is the boat turning around in Bulgaria and Romania?
EU
You oversimplify complicated matters.
It's called pattern recognition and drawing useful rules of thumb.
Which led to genetical defects in European nobility.
That was from marrying cousins, not St Alexander Nevsky marrying a Mongolian Khan's daughter.

As we can see, the masonic and the ethnos concept both lead to horrible results.
One of these was created by God, for His good purpose. Rejecting ethnos is Masonic Liberalism in a nutshell.

Couldn't you say, that Masonic and Latin (Ethnos) America team up to poison people with narcotics?
The drug trade was started by the Bronfmans, agents of the British crown. Taken over by the Cocaine Import Agency, aka CIA, who set up the cartels. Check out the film American Made for a slice of this history.
Jokes aside, I am not a fan of such concepts, because they have the tendency to ignore reality
Immaterial things like logic, numbers and ethnos are quite real, whether you choose to recognize them or not.
Masonic America and Latin America are both hellholes.
Agreed. Under 250+ years of rule by a king, Colombia had internal peace and high social mobility. Under 200 years of Masonic Republiquette rule, Colombia averaged one civil war every 20 years and the last lasted 63 years. Mexico had a similar experience.
 

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
Alexis de Tocqueville from France wrote “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.”
Filled with Christian brotherly love they were, each day they Schismed like 1054!
 
God allows murder, fornication, adultery, lies, theft, blasphemy, etc.
All of which are condemned with penalties under the Noahide Covenant and Mosaic Law. No penalty or condemnation exists for interethnic but believing marriages.

I would never turn away from a fellow brother or sister in Christ, regardless of race, sex, etc. That being said, God separated the races and confused the langauge for a good reason imho. I do not know if the Orthodox Church has an official position on this, though.

True. But as others have discussed earlier. Its not condemned either. God doesn't mind. Because there is already an inbuilt in-group preference among most people of an Ethnos. Whilst allowing some to intermarry should they choose.

France and Germany was also originally different Nations which every single Tribe regarded themselves as. But their intermarriages made them the country they are today.



Too many people fall for the false binary. And this issue isn't a binary.
 
You forgot the mainland, there are more Puerto Ricans in NY and Florida each than the island. And yes, Boricuas are the most Americanized and deracinated of all of Hispanidad.

My family is in Texas. Average age of Hispanos: 20. Average age of White America >40, and that's not even including the population share. Especially after the BLM riots, Boricuas, Cubans, Mexicans and Tejanos are getting along far better than before.

EU

It's called pattern recognition and drawing useful rules of thumb.

That was from marrying cousins, not St Alexander Nevsky marrying a Mongolian Khan's daughter.


One of these was created by God, for His good purpose. Rejecting ethnos is Masonic Liberalism in a nutshell.


The drug trade was started by the Bronfmans, agents of the British crown. Taken over by the Cocaine Import Agency, aka CIA, who set up the cartels. Check out the film American Made for a slice of this history.

Immaterial things like logic, numbers and ethnos are quite real, whether you choose to recognize them or not.

Agreed. Under 250+ years of rule by a king, Colombia had internal peace and high social mobility. Under 200 years of Masonic Republiquette rule, Colombia averaged one civil war every 20 years and the last lasted 63 years. Mexico had a similar experience.
Hispanics have the second highest abortion rate in the USA and the second highest or maybe the highest number of gang members. They are nothing like traditional Spaniards, but rather like the Aztecs, although the Spaniards of today also resemble rather the Aztecs than their forefathers - in a specific way, not in general. Sure, they are younger on average, because they get imported en masse by Masonic forces to replace White America and they are allowed to work under the table and to receive welfare on top (paid by White America). You want me to admire them for that, for being egoistical puppets (rhetorical exaggeration) of an evil empire? Why is Texas turning blue? Is one major factor that the imported Hispanics vote majority blue?
Your ethnos concept loses in Mexico, Colombia against the Masons and in Bulgaria and Romania against the EU and the Hispanics are puppets of the Masons in America. I am not saying, that there is nothing good about the concept, but obviously it is not supreme, and needs additions.
Not that all Hispanics are puppets, but the majority are willingless tools and the concept of ethnos did not prevent them from that. We see the same ills in Serbia that we see in America, the only difference is, that America and Western European countries get the full destruction-treatment by the globalists.
 
Last edited:

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
Racial diversity is not intrinsically evil, so whether it is good or bad is a matter of civic wisdom. Orthodox are free to have opinions on this.

However, there are limits. If Orthodox were to oppose, for example, a mixed race marriage between two fully Orthodox laypeople, that would be wrong. On the other hand, support for critical race theory is also incompatible with Orthodoxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top