Monday, June 24, 2019

Christ’s Church Is Not a Democracy

Mr Wm Federer gives us more evidence for why the ‘American Experiment’ is headed for disaster one day:  It is based on the false notion that the Church is a democracy.  Here are a couple of quotes from an essay of his on this subject:

Rev. Thomas Hooker gave a sermon at the colony's capitol city of Hartford on May 31, 1638, where he championed universal Christian suffrage (voting), stating:
"The foundation of authority is laid firstly in the free consent of the people."

 . . .

In the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that:

'The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people ... The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.'
This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church ..."

Coolidge continued:
"The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts ... writing in 1710 ... 'Democracy is Christ's government in church and state.'

The foundation of authority is not ‘laid firstly in the free consent of the people’; it is laid firstly in the authority of God.  And God always distributes authority, whether to angels or to men, through hierarchy - that is, from the top down. 

On the angelic hierarchy:

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem says the following: "Imagine how numerous is the Roman population; imagine how numerous are other barbarian tribes existing today, and how many of them have died during one hundred years; imagine how many have been buried during a thousand years; imagine all the people, beginning with Adam, to the present day; there is a great multitude of them. But it is yet small in comparison with the angels, of which there are many more! They are the ninety and nine sheep of the parable, but mankind is only one sheep. For according to the extent of universal space, we must reckon the number of its inhabitants. The whole earth inhabited by us is like a point in the midst of heaven and yet contains so great a multitude; what a multitude must the heaven which encircles it contain! And must not the heaven of heavens contain unimaginable numbers? If it is written that `a thousand thousands ministered to Him; and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him,' it is only because the prophet could not express a greater number."

In view of such a multitude of angels, it is natural to suppose that in the world of angels, just as in the material world, there are various degrees of perfection and, therefore, various stages or hierarchical degrees of the heavenly powers. Thus, the word of God calls some Angels and some Archangels (1 Thess. 4:16; Jude verse 9).

The Orthodox Church, guided by the views of the ancient writers of the Church and Church Fathers, divides the world of the angels into nine choirs or ranks, and these nine into three hierarchies, each hierarchy having three ranks. The first hierarchy consists of those spirits who are closest to God, namely, the Thrones, Cherubim and Seraphim. Within the second, the middle hierarchy, are the Authorities, Dominions and Powers. In the third, which is closer to us, are the Angels, Archangels and Principalities. Thus, the existence of the Angels and Archangels is witnessed by almost every page in the Holy Scriptures. The books of the prophets mention the Cherubim and Seraphim. Cherubim means to be near; hence it means the near ones; Seraphim means fiery, or filled with fire. The names of the other angelic ranks are mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians, saying that Christ is in the heavens "far above any Principality, and Authority, and Power, and Dominion" (Ephesians 1:21).

Besides these angelic ranks, Saint Paul teaches in his epistles to the Colossians that the Son of God created everything visible and invisible,"Thrones, Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers" (Colossians 1:16). Consequently, when we join the Thrones to those four about which the Apostle speaks to the Ephesians, that is, the Principalities, Authorities, Powers and Dominions, there are five ranks; and when to these we add Angels, Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim, then there are nine angelic ranks.

In addition, some Church Fathers expressed the opinion that dividing the angels into nine choirs touched only upon those names that are revealed by the word of God but in no way encompasses other names and choirs of angels that have not been as yet revealed to us. For example, the Apostle John the Theologian mentions in the book of Revelation mysterious creatures and the seven spirits by the throne of God: "Grace be to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is coming, and from the seven spirits who are before His throne" (Apocalypse 1:4). The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians writes that Christ resides in heaven far above the enumerated angels and "every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come" (1:21). Thus he hints that in Heaven there are other spiritual creatures whose names are yet not revealed to mankind.

--Bishop Alexander Mileant,

About hierarchy in the Church, the Holy Apostle Paul writes in his Letter to the Hebrews (13:17),

[17] Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Later, in the early second century, the Holy Martyr Ignatius (+107), Bishop of Antioch, the disciple of the Holy Apostle John the Evangelist and Theologian, would write in his letter to the Trallians while he was on his way to be martyred at Rome,

For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.

It is well to point out here that all three levels of the ministry in the Church (bishops, priests, and deacons) have their origin with the Holy Apostles, not the democratic decision of the laity, and that all consecrations of new members to these offices are by the successors to the Apostles, the bishops.  (For an expanded look at this particular subject, we recommend the section ‘The Church Hierarchy’ from Fr Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

Even after the resurrection, there will still be a hierarchy in the Church:

[39] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
[40] There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
[41] There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead.

It would be strange indeed for the Holy Trinity, after thus ordering things hierarchically in the angelic realm and in the Church, to allow the government of mankind for his other affairs to be founded and conducted on the opposite principal, the democratic.  But that is not what we find.  For ensample:

[13] Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
[14] Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
[15] For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

The principal that Mr Federer lauds is a dangerous one:

A "Republic" is where the people are king, ruling through their servants, called representatives.

It leads in the end to all kinds of chaos.  There is one father in a family, one king over a country, one priest ruling in a parish church, one bishop over a diocese:  a reflection of the rule of the one God over His creation.  To say that every man is a king undermines all governing authority in society, whether the state or the Church or anywhere else.  This limitless authority of the individual to govern himself is what is at the root of abortion rights, LGBT rights, the gangster/thug culture of the inner city, etc.  Mr Federer and his likeminded friends in the post-Orthodox West therefore face a conundrum of their own making:  They want to hold fast to their republican/representative democratic ideology, but they do not want to live with the consequences that inevitably flow from it.  This is as non-sensical as asking the night not to follow the day.

All told, the only thing exceptional about Yankee America is her Gnostic rejection of God-ordained authority.  This is why New England is a religious wasteland today, and why the South, which has retained some waning respect for hierarchy and tradition despite the repeated attacks of New England upon her culture, still has something resembling Christianity alive within her today.  Thus, to the South and to all who want a Christian future, we would strongly caution that in general they not follow the example of Puritan New England.


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Saturday, June 22, 2019

The Bladensburg Cross Decision Is Nothing to Be Elated about

It is being hailed as a ‘major ruling’ and a ‘sea change’:

But it is not quite so.  Why is that?  We will answer this in a moment, but first let us go over some of the good parts of the opinion: 

-It does not require that the memorial cross to be removed, modified, etc.;

-It all but scraps the convoluted Lemon test in Establishment Clause cases;

-It severely criticizes the ‘offended observer’ theory of gaining standing in the courts.

The major problem with the ruling, however, and the reason why we say celebrations should be largely muted, is that the majority based the constitutionality of the display of this cross on the fact that it is a secular and not a religious symbol.  Over and over again, Justice Alito writes in this vein:

The existence of multiple purposes is not exclusive to longstanding monuments, symbols, or practices, but this phenomenon is more likely to occur in such cases. Even if the original purpose of a monument was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment. As our society becomes more and more religiously diverse, a community may preserve such monuments, symbols, and practices for the sake of their historical significance or their place in a common cultural heritage. Cf. Schempp, 374 U. S., at 264–265 (Brennan, J., concurring) (“[The] government may originally have decreed a Sunday day of rest for the impermissible purpose of supporting religion but abandoned that purpose and retained the laws for the permissible purpose of furthering overwhelmingly secular ends”).

--pgs. 18-9

With sufficient time, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices can become embedded features of a community’s landscape and identity. The community may come to value them without necessarily embracing their religious roots. The recent tragic fire at Notre Dame in Paris provides a striking example. Although the French Republic rigorously enforces a secular public square,19 the cathedral remains a symbol of national importance to the religious and nonreligious alike. Notre Dame is funda-mentally a place of worship and retains great religious importance, but its meaning has broadened. For many, it is inextricably linked with the very idea of Paris and France.20 Speaking to the nation shortly after the fire, President Macron said that Notre Dame “ ‘is our history, our literature, our imagination. The place where we sur-vived epidemics, wars, liberation. It has been the epicen-ter of our lives.’ ”

--p. 26

That the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts does not change the fact that the symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials.

--p. 28

The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent. For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home. For others, it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices for our Nation. For others still, it is a historical landmark. For many of these people, destroying or defac-ing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment. For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution.

--p. 31

It appears that the only reason the Bladensburg cross survived this examination by the majority is because of a dishonest sleight of hand:  They have emptied this cross of all Christian significance; they have made it a secular monument - there is no longer any way it can ‘offend the Constitution’ or anybody else from a religious point of view.

We appreciate much more the honesty of Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor in their separate opinions because they recognize the inherently religious nature in choosing a cross as the design for this WWI memorial, though they take different views on what this entails.  We agree with Justice Thomas that this is wholly a concern for Maryland, that the 1st Amendment is addressed to Congress alone, that a State may have an established religion if it so wishes.  Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor take the usual Leftist line of separation of church and state.


The majority in this ruling, and many Evangelical leaders in the States, dwell a lot on religious freedom, tolerance, and inclusivity as benefits for the States, as conferring peace, harmony, and contentment upon all.  However, this is flawed reasoning.  A couple of analogies:

First, since a country is a large family, let us look at this from the vantage point of a single nuclear family.  Suppose it is made up of members of different sects:  The father is an Episcopalian, the mother a Southern Baptist, one child is Mormon, another is Pentecostal, another Roman Catholic, another a Seventh Day Adventist, and so on.  In all honesty, would this family be able to live and work together in harmony?  Of course not!  They would not even be able to agree on basic things, like what day of the week it is appropriate to worship on.  The only way they could get along with one another is if their religious beliefs were shoved into the background and other more secular concerns became the sole focus of their communal life together.

That is precisely the problem with the focus on religious freedom as a great social virtue in the States.  It leads to exactly this sort of secularization of public life in its attempts to deal with all the different religious sects that the people adhere to (or else to the equalization of all faiths, the relativization of all ‘truth claims’; e.g.,

This leads us to the next analogy.  Consider a factory.  It has one goal:  to manufacture an automobile.  The foreman of the factory has given the workers the plan for piecing it together.  As long as the workers follow his blueprint, the factory functions well.  But then, one by one, the workers decide to deviate from the plan because of a secret enlightenment each believes he has received that he thinks will make the vehicle better.  Will that factory in the end produce anything valuable?  No!  It will end up making a completely useless jalopy!  Will the foreman be pleased with their work at all?  No!  He will chastise them for their presumption, howsoever hard they may plead with him for the authority they claim is theirs by virtue of the priesthood of the assembly line worker to interpret the blueprint according to his own inner convictions.

It is the same with the people of a country.  It has one main goal:  The salvation of the people.  There is one way to accomplish their salvation:  Follow the Orthodox Faith given to the Holy Apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ.  When a hundred different sects arise, then the faith of the people is shipwrecked.  Nothing of permanent value is made, and the Lord Jesus will say to them, ‘Depart from me.’

Nothing good comes from making religious freedom the highest value of a society.  It leads to a secular public square (as the Bladensburg case demonstrates once again) and apathy toward truth in general and the Christian faith in particular.

Hear well the Holy Apostle Paul:

[4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
[5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

One faith, not dozens.  One body, not hundreds.  Unity is paramount in Christianity.  To rip the seamless robe of the Orthodox Church into a hundred different fragments only serves the devil’s interests.  But the States have rejected those truths for the idol of religious freedom, and they will suffer the consequences of ongoing spiritual confusion and death until they repent.


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Friday, June 21, 2019

Thoughts on Racism

Racism: The Western “Struggle Session” for Equality
By T.L. Hulsey

Is there even one gripe left in the Western world that is not ultimately rooted in racism?

Mind you, I’m talking about the outlying provinces of discourse, far from the tower of ideation on race, far from dispassionate consideration of Arthur Jensen’s g Factor or Charles Murray’s bell curve. There, as in the story of Rapunzel, to ascend the tower and see the truth is to risk having your eyes scratched out by a vengeful witch–the Witch of Buncombe.

No, I’m talking about the surrounding forest of thorns constituted by “social” media (a Newspeak term if there ever was one), by the blogosphere, by the thought-guarded “discussion” in the campus rathskeller, by the corporate “sensitivity” officer, by the “diversity commissars” at all levels of the outrage industry–by all the delicate and ever more refined antennae attuned to that inadvertent word of yours that klaxons to the world that you are a racist.

At one time “racism” had a fairly clear meaning. One key definition was given at least as far back as 1938, by Jacques Barzun: The attribution of moral or intellectual qualities from physical characteristics–a kind of whole-body phrenology. But nowadays the charge of racism has no bounds: It’s all grown up and busted out of its britches as a strict definition. According to the new rage in thought–and yes, do take that both ways–power plus prejudice constitute racism.

This trope immediately leads to problems, even if we wink at the free pass given to everyone who can claim to be powerless in some way or other. Consider antisemitism, for starters. For example, is it allowed now to trash those powerful white guys with the little cap glued to their thinning pates? Hey, just a damned minute! The new Ptolemaic system needs some epicycles to explain this retrograde motion. Thankfully, Olivia Goldhill provides it. She says that antisemitism still works because “[r]ather than denigrating Jews as inferior, it casts them as maliciously superior.” And all this time I had thought they were delightfully superior! But hold on, which direction are we going here? How can they claim victimhood when they’re white guys with power? Didn’t the redefinition of racism just recast them as victimizers, not victims? What, do we need an indictment of semitism along with antisemitism? And the issue gets even more complicated when we realize that folks like the Palestinians are a semitic people. For g-d’s sake, don’t tell Rabbi Sacks about that!

The real purpose of this redefinition of racism begins to come clear when we refine it in terms of its reputed victims: The Marginalized People. Just who are these folks? According to Stacey Abrams they’re “women, Native Americans, African Americans, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community.” Let’s hope that the marginalized and powerless Miss Abrams, who by the new definition can’t be a racist, is not lumping in Hispanics with those “immigrants.” In any case, for all their being on the margin, the Marginalized People are mighty thick on the ground. Even with both your social antennae bent, you know what’s going on. As Tucker Carlson puts it: “The ‘dominant’ are everyone who’s left. So do the subtraction: That’s only one group; you know exactly who they are, and so does Stacey Abrams.”

Any first pass at this subtraction can surely give us The Combover Satan. Indeed, we were doing so well, until Trump came along, at least according to the highly objective researchers Tessa and Mahzarin. After 4.4 million tests over 13 years, they aver that the halcyon days of racial bliss smiled upon the land from 2007 to 2016–dates that, aw, shucks!–that wouldn’t be the Obama administration, would it? But let the factual chips fall where they may! Notwithstanding, this same Trump has made it his policy to “decriminalize” homo­sexuality–keep them at the head of your son’s scout troop, serve as teacher role models for “alternate” life styles in your kids’ high school, you know, that sort of thing. This witless pandering is of course racist, according to Out Magazine’s Matthew Rodriguez. Why? Because it’s an “old racist tactic,” because it’s “colonialist,” because it’s “paternalistic,” because. . .–oh, come off it: It’s because it’s Trump, who of course is part of the white power structure using the policy to “amass power.”

Is there anyone left outside this oppressed mass of Marginalized People? If women–fully half the former republic–are “marginalized,” surely the white working poor are. After all, they voted from the margin to elect . . .–ah, wait a minute. Clearly, more epicycles are in order to keep this hermeneutic system working. “[D]ysfunctional, downscale” working class white communities exist from racism and “deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible.”–Thus sayeth one Kevin D. Williamson, who began his screed with the usual banal Nazi references spewed at Donald Trump, and concluded with a final solution for The Donald’s loser friends: To the gas chambers, go!–yes, corrobo­rating Nietzsche that fighting monsters risks becoming one, but more importantly, keeping the Marginalized voting identity in order.

Today’s definition of racism–even with the refinement from “power plus prejudice” to “power plus prejudice against marginalized people”–begins to spin like a wild orrery, threatening to fling moons and planets in a centrifugal hail of sprockets and bolts. For all the supposed woe and suffering in the Marginalized club, folks are packing the entrance like the ticket window to a Beyoncé concert.

Not only have the “alternate lifestyle” people gained racist victim status, as canonized by Huffpo, but so too has every whiner and his cat–cat, and horse, and pig, and bull (say what?). According to PETA, phrases like “bring home the bacon” and “flogging a dead horse” are comparable to racism and homophobia. Words are so hurtful, yes? PETA suggests the following linguistic purgative to defeat this harrowing threat to animal self-esteem:

Minus Social Credits
Plus Social Credits
“Kill two birds with one stone.”
“Feed two birds with one scone.”
“Be the guinea pig.”
“Be the test tube.”
“Beat a dead horse.”
“Feed a fed horse.”
“Bring home the bacon.”
“Bring home the bagels.”
“Take the bull by the horns.”
“Take the flower by the thorns.”

Even the planet has become marginalized, forming a rainbow coalition that incorporates literal rainbows. It’s not just that pollution is racist, whereby the “the non-Hispanic white majority” belches poisons into the lungs of The Marginalized People, somehow holding their own breath all the while. I mean, this fact already has been established by the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a peer-reviewed journal,” as the U.S. News magniloquently trumpets. But no, the situation is even more dire than this. Mother Gaia has gone bull dyke, joining hands with the LGBTQ victims as an appalling victim of “environmental racism,” which of course is the same as “environmental sexism”–whatever that is.

Despite the expansiveness of The Marginalized People, there is strict discipline for its membership, enforced by its mob of Twitter SA Brownshirts, threatening race taboo third-rail electrocutions for the least infractions. Thinking of wearing cornrows, sister? That’s “cultural appropriation.” Any of you feminists have the least reservation about the trans movement? Careful. Not even a word, but even your furtive “dog whistle” won’t escape the searchlight the Brownshirts have on your consciousness: “It’s notable that anti-trans feminists are employing similar racist dog-whistles that have been used by the Right for centuries.” And should one of the brothers get caught starting his own affiliate to the outrage industry, the Brownshirts know how to make lemonade: Make the Jussie Smollett incident an opportunity to “start a national conversation” on that 17% uptick in hate crimes–issued by the FBI, all factual, all immune from overreporting.

On the other hand, if you obediently stay within the system, no further rules apply. Sarah Jeong will keep her job with the New York Times, despite writing immortal free verse such as: “how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”; “f**k white women lol”; “dum***s f**king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pi**ing on fire hydrants.” (I bowdlerize the free-spirited Sarah with asterisks.) And let’s not forget another gem of her insightful analytical mind, which is of course not racist: “White men are bull***t.”

No matter how sprawling its definition or its list of supposed victims, the target of the new usage of “racism” is unmistakable: High-achieving white males in positions of power.

How can whitey absolve himself–especially when he’s never used the “n- word,” never looked beyond the content of character in his hiring practices, never downrated Shaft, The Wiz, or Pootie Tang on Rotten Tomatoes? Short answer: He can’t. Racism, according to the new usage, may not always reveal itself in personal moral actions, despite the term’s clear moral import. It’s done up and got “systemic.” We know this because the ice cream guys Ben and Jerry said so. Actually, the two white guys quote a Puerto Rican, so it’s bi****n’ biblical: “The main problem nowadays is not the folks with the hoods, but the folks dressed in suits.”

Now, since personal moral culpability is irrelevant, how can there be any demand for atonement? After all, the systemic effect abides, regardless of any personal action. Why the Twitterstorm, the doxxing, the threats to family members, the in-your-face shouting at restaurants? Because the Twitter Brownshirts do not want a change in behavior; they want a change in consciousness. This is the purpose of the totalitarian “struggle session,” the relentless public hectoring and baiting and shaming: To reshape thought, to replace the offender’s personal value system with that of the group, and to make his own mind its enforcer. No individual is ever the real offender. The gripe is with an entire class, with a class that, behold! is identified by the very race thinking that was the pretended original offense. The image of offending “white males” who are “dressed in suits” perfectly fits the true definition of racist thought that simplistically attributes moral or intellectual qualities from physical characteristics. This is the thinking that fulfills a profound need, as Jacques Barzun made clear:

[I]n a real world of shifting appearance, race satisfies man’s demand for certainty by providing a small, simple, and complete cause for a great variety of large and complex events.[Race, page 108.]

This further refinement of the new definition of racism–from “power plus prejudice against marginalized people” to “power plus any disparity of result for our in-group, regardless of intent”–at last brings us to our destination. “Racism,” so defined, is not about racism at all. It’s about radical democratic egalitarianism. It is not primarily about the covetousness that lusts for other people’s material goods. It is the envious desire for their spiritual goods: Their beauty, their ability, their superior intellect, their creativity–everything that inspires the embarrassed realization that the “victim” is somehow inferior. Indeed, his inferiority is precisely his victimhood, named not by the supposed “racist,” but by his own self-awareness. And since his feeling of inferiority can never be eradicated, the ululations for a solution that can never be found become ever more shrill, ever more neurasthenic.

It is fitting that the Austrian nobleman and superior intellect Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn should describe the social disease:

The demand for equality and identity arises precisely in order to avoid that fear, that feeling of inferiority. Nobody is better, nobody is superior, nobody feels challenged, everybody is “safe.” Furthermore, if identity, if sameness has been achieved, then the other person’s actions and reactions can be forecast. With no (disagreeable) surprises, a warm herd feeling of brotherhood emerges. These sentiments–this rejection of quality (which ineluctably differs from person to person)–explain much concerning the spirit of the mass movements of the last two hundred years. Simone Weil has told us that the “I” comes from the flesh, but “we” comes from the devil.

“Racism,” as a popular smear, is nothing but a mask for destructive envy.


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!