Friday, March 29, 2019

The Virtues of St Gorgonia

In honor of the Annunciation to the Most Pure Mother of God on March 25th, or Lady Day as it is also known (for a sermon about this great feast day:, we offer a couple of essays this week on women.  Today is the second:  the funeral oration of St Gregory the Theologian (+389) for his sister St Gorgonia (+372).  We hope all Southern women (and men!) will be spurred on to greater virtue by the recounting of St Gorgonia’s life in the oration of her brother.  Here is just a part of it:

11.  . . . Of her prudence and piety no adequate account can be given, nor many examples found besides those of her natural and spiritual parents, who were her only models, and of whose virtue she in no wise fell short, with this single exception most readily admitted, that they, as she both knew and acknowledged, were the source of her goodness, and the root of her own illumination. What could be keener than the intellect of her who was recognized as a common adviser not only by those of her family, those of the same people and of the one fold, but even by all men round about, who treated her counsels and advice as a law not to be broken? What more sagacious than her words? What more prudent than her silence? Having mentioned silence, I will proceed to that which was most characteristic of her, most becoming to women, and most serviceable to these times. Who had a fuller knowledge of the things of God, both from the Divine oracles, and from her own understanding? But who was less ready to speak, confining herself within the due limits of women? Moreover, as was the bounden duty of a woman who has learned true piety, and that which is the only honourable object of insatiate desire, who, as she, adorned temples with offerings, both others and this one, which will hardly, now she is gone, be so adorned again? Or rather, who so presented herself to God as a living temple? Who again paid such honor to Priests, especially to him who was her fellow soldier and teacher of piety, whose are the good seeds, and the pair of children consecrated to God.

12. Who opened her house to those who live according to God with a more graceful and bountiful welcome? And, which is greater than this, who bade them welcome with such modesty and godly greetings? Further, who showed a mind more unmoved in sufferings? Whose soul was more sympathetic to those in trouble? Whose hand more liberal to those in want? I should not hesitate to honour her with the words of Job: Her door was opened to all comers; the stranger did not lodge in the street. She was eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, a mother to the orphan.7 Why should I say more of her compassion to widows, than that its fruit which she obtained was, never to be called a widow herself? Her house was a common abode to all the needy of her family; and her goods no less common to all in need than their own belonged to each. She hath dispersed abroad and given to the poor,8 and according to the infallible truth of the Gospel, she laid up much store in the wine-presses above, and oftentimes entertained Christ in the person of those whose benefactress she was. And, best of all, there was in her no unreal profession, but in secret she cultivated piety before Him who seeth secret things. Everything she rescued from the ruler of this world, everything she transferred to the safe garners. Nothing did she leave behind to earth, save her body. She bartered everything for the hopes above: the sole wealth she left to her children was the imitation of her example, and emulation of her merits.

13. But amid these tokens of incredible magnanimity, she did not surrender her body to luxury, and unrestrained pleasures of the appetite, that raging and tearing dog, as though presuming upon her acts of benevolence, as most men do, who redeem their luxury by compassion to the poor, and instead of healing evil with good, receive evil as a recompense for their good deeds. Nor did she, while subduing her dust9 by fasting, leave to another the medicine of hard lying; nor, while she found this of spiritual service, was she less restrained in sleep than anyone else; nor, while regulating her life on this point as if freed from the body, did she lie upon the ground, when others were passing the night erect, as the most mortified men struggle to do. Nay in this respect she was seen to surpass not only women, but the most devoted of men, by her intelligent chanting of the psalter, her converse with, and unfolding and apposite recollection of, the Divine oracles, her bending of her knees which had grown hard and almost taken root in the ground, her tears to cleanse her stains with contrite heart and spirit of lowliness, her prayer rising heavenward, her mind freed from wandering in rapture; in all these, or in any one of them, is there man or woman who can boast of having surpassed her? Besides, it is a great thing to say, but it is true, that while she was zealous in her endeavour after some points of excellence, of others she was the paragon: of some she was the discoverer, in others she excelled. And if in some single particular she was rivalled, her superiority consists in her complete grasp of all. Such was her success in all points, as none else attained even in a moderate degree in one: to such perfection did she attain in each particular, that any one might of itself have supplied the place of all.

14. O untended body, and squalid garments, whose only flower is virtue! O soul, clinging to the body, when reduced almost to an immaterial state through lack of food; or rather, when the body had been mortified by force, even before dissolution, that the soul might attain to freedom, and escape the entanglements of the senses! O nights of vigil, and psalmody, and standing which lasts from one day to another! O David, whose strains never seem tedious to faithful souls! O tender limbs, flung upon the earth and, contrary to nature, growing hard! O fountains of tears, sowing in affliction that they might reap in joy.10 O cry in the night, piercing the clouds and reaching unto Him that dwelleth in the heavens! O fervour of spirit, waxing bold in prayerful longings against the dogs of night, and frosts and rain, and thunders, and hail, and darkness! O nature of woman overcoming that of man in the common struggle for salvation, and demonstrating that the distinction between male and female is one of body not of soul! O Baptismal purity, O soul, in the pure chamber of thy body, the bride of Christ! O bitter eating! O Eve mother of our race and of our sin! O subtle serpent, and death, overcome by her self-discipline! O self-emptying of Christ, and form of a servant, and sufferings, honoured by her mortification!

15. Oh! how am I to count up all her traits, or pass over most of them without injury to those who know them not? Here however it is right to subjoin the rewards of her piety, for indeed I take it that you, who knew her life well, have long been eager and desirous to find in my speech not only things present, or her joys yonder, beyond the conception and hearing and sight of man, but also those which the righteous Rewarder bestowed upon her here: a matter which often tends to the edification of unbelievers, who from small things attain to faith in those which are great, and from things which are seen to those which are not seen. I will mention then some facts which are generally notorious, others which have been from most men kept secret; and that because her Christian principle made a point of not making a display of her [Divine] favours. You know how her maddened mules ran away with her carriage, and unfortunately overturned it, how horribly she Was dragged along, and seriously injured, to the scandal of unbelievers at the permission of such accidents to the righteous, and how quickly their unbelief was corrected: for, all crushed and bruised as she was, in bones and limbs, alike in those exposed and in those out of sight, she would have none of any physician, except Him Who had permitted it; both because she shrunk from the inspection and the hands of men, preserving, even in suffering, her modesty, and also awaiting her justification from Him Who allowed this to happen, so that she owed her preservation to none other than to Him: with the result that men were no less struck by her unhoped-for recovery than by her misfortune, and concluded that the tragedy had happened for her glorification through sufferings, the suffering being human, the recovery superhuman, and giving a lesson to those who come after, exhibiting in a high degree faith in the midst of suffering, and patience under calamity, but in a still higher degree the kindness of God to them that are such as she. For to the beautiful promise to the righteous "though he fall, he shall not be utterly broken,"11 has been added one more recent, "though he be utterly broken, he shall speedily be raised up and glorified."12 For if her misfortune was unreasonable, her recovery was extraordinary, so that health soon stole away the injury, and the cure became more celebrated than the blow.

16. O remarkable and wonderful disaster! O injury more noble than security! O prophecy, "He hath smitten, and He will bind us up, and revive us, and after three days He will raise us up,"13 portending indeed, as it did, a greater and more sublime event, yet no less applicable to Gorgonia's sufferings! This then, notorious to all, even to those afar off, for the wonder spread to all, and the lesson was stored up in the tongues and ears of all, with the other wonderful works and powers of God.  . . .

(Thanks to C for the link to the Oration.)

Holy Gorgonia and Holy Gregory, pray for the South!


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

Anathema to the Union!

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Women without Breasts

In honor of the Annunciation to the Most Pure Mother of God on March 25th, or Lady Day as it is also known (for a sermon about this great feast day:, we offer a couple of essays this week on women.  Today is the first.


Women Without Breasts
By Paul H. Yarbrough

“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” C.S. Lewis

"Now, we build women without breasts and expect milk and kindness. We laugh at chastity and are surprised to find rapists in our midst." Paul H. Yarbrough

Harvey Weinstein will probably be rehabilitated and come back from whatever plush, sex rehab twelve-step program that his plenteous, Hollywood treasure will allow. After that, who knows what lies ahead for the future conduct of this man of the artistic world. He will probably get an award at next years’ Academy Awards or Golden Globe or whatever of the many mutual-admiration-award-love-ins these morally dark regents of stage and screen (now, perhaps, stage and scream) create for themselves. Possibly the “I am Sorry Award,” because he will finally confess that he, himself, was abused when a child.

One can almost write the script (I’m sure he knows many fiction writers): “I just didn’t get it. But my soul had been darkened because of the era when sexual abuse was swept under the carpet by the world which was governed by the masculine power structure led by the Western Church not allowing us to be egalitarian mutants which is what God really intended in His creation. We are all guilty of what I have done because our parents taught us so . . . ad nauseam, don't blame me."

I italicized “man” above for emphasis, not because the liberated women of the world despise its use but to deemphasize his (Weinstein’s) merits. As well, the sadness that so much was done to so many women without a single man (and there were many who knew) taking such an animal in tow and whacking the snot out of him.  I heard that manly Brad Pitt went to Harvey and verbally suggested that Weinstein’s conduct was unacceptable (or some such timid twaddle). At least little Brad took some action, pitifully little as it was, while there do not seem to be any other reports of anyone smacking the crap out of Harvey for his conduct.

Someone should have reported Harvey’s conduct to Hillary or Gloria earlier, as either of them is more manly than most in Hollywood (or Congress for that matter). Or even better Lois Lerner, who could have financially gelded him with complete immunity.

At the fall, in Eden, the woman having been tempted, then tempted the man. The result being both were expelled from the Garden, after the woman is stricken as a subordinate to man. He and she had not equal before (any more than apples and oranges are equal) but now she was under him to the point of a lesser being. Adam, having lost the life of eternity and perfect senses now must rule (from imperfection) over his woman. Having taken on the burden of sin, Adam (man) and his seed are now permeated with the temptations of seduction, abuse, rape and all that might go with superiority over another in a sinful world.  Even though God had left him with a conscience, Satan is more powerful. Man, and woman, now live through sinful personalities.

Now, as we say today, fast forward to Bethlehem a few thousand years later. God came to man in the image in which He had created man, His own; though now a savior, Jesus Christ.  The New Adam.

At the age of 30, Jesus begins his ministry and through the four gospels much is revealed of the life and conduct of our Lord—not the least of which, early on, His own temptation.  Unlike the first Adam, He won the battle.

Throughout these same gospels, we are introduced and edified regarding the twelve apostles he chose, their work, their habits, and their conduct. We are given specifics on these twelve, though less information on dozens, even hundreds of disciples (followers). However, some of the most beautiful stories are of his women friends: Mary, Anna, Martha et al from the beginning of his ministry until his execution and resurrection where Mary Magdalene first discovered Him missing from the tomb.  And one of the most captivating stories is His divine approach to the Samaritan woman at the well.

 Jesus (God) has a revealed relationship with both creations, male and female, with the humanism of seduction or disparagement not to be borne by either. And, they are instructed and loved in the nonegalitarian milieu of “apples and oranges.”

If we are going to tear down monuments, we really need to fill in space. I suggest obliterating the Washington Monument and erecting (no pun intended) a monument, in the tradition of Mount Rushmore or Stone Mountain, as a multi-stature replication of Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Jack the Ripper. These are men whom N.O.W. can be proud of. A group that pigeons would poop on with pride (you go, boy).

But, if this is the level of manhood salutation, which women must be glorified? Perhaps Madonna and Lady Gaga, built in marble, joining hands, and, supplanting The Statue of Liberty with The Statue of Eves.

“I'm actually a very moral guy.” Hugh Hefner.


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, March 22, 2019

Offsite Post: ‘Is War Necessary to End Abortion in the States?’

Since the abortion/infanticide debate has begun to rage more intensely lately, the question is being asked by various and sundry, ‘What kind of nation do we want America to be?’ 

A better question would be, ‘Is America a nation at all?’

In the States, there have generally been two views on this question.  The first is that the entity referred to as ‘America’ is not a unified nation-state but a voluntary confederation of independent States, each of which may leave the union at any time and resume its life as a separate nation, unhindered by any of her sister States.  The second is that America is ‘one nation, indivisible’ and that the States are ultimately subservient to whatever decrees come out of Washington City.

The way one answers the second question will determine how one answers the first; the conception one has of the States and the union will shape the policies one desires to implement at the ‘national’ level.

What is the answer to the second question, then?  Is America an indivisible nation or a voluntary confederation?  The reigning idea is that America is one nation, and the States, cities, counties, etc. all owe their existence and allegiance to the Great Union, whose collective life is centered in Washington City.  This idea has been promoted by influential men through the years:  John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, etc.

But it is undoubtedly false.  One of Virginia’s leading men prior to the War, Abel Upshur (1790-1844), gives ample testimony to this in reply to Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.  On the idea of there being one homogenous American people, he writes,

In order to constitute "one people," in a political sense, of the inhabitants of different countries, something more is necessary than that they should owe a common allegiance to a common sovereign. Neither is it sufficient that, in some particulars, they are bound alike, by laws which that sovereign may prescribe; nor does the question depend on geographical relations. The inhabitants of different islands may be one people, and those of contiguous countries may be, as we know they in fact are, different nations. By the term "people," as here used, we do not mean merely a number of persons. We mean by it a political corporation, the members of which owe a common allegiance to a common sovereignty, and do not owe any allegiance which is not common; who are bound by no laws except such as that sovereignty may prescribe; who owe to one another reciprocal obligations; who possess common political interests; who are liable to [ *15 ]*common political duties; and who can exert no sovereign power except in the name of the whole. Anything short of this, would be an imperfect definition of that political corporation which we call a "people."

Tested by this definition, the people of the American colonies were, in no conceivable sense, "one people." They owed, indeed, allegiance to the British king, as the head of each colonial government, and as forming a part thereof; but this allegiance was exclusive, in each colony, to its own government, and, consequently, to the king as the head thereof, and was not a common allegiance of the people of all the colonies, to a common head.[1] These colonial governments were clothed with the sovereign power of making laws, and of enforcing obedience to them, from their own people. The people of one colony owed no allegiance to the government of any other colony, and were not bound by its laws. The colonies had no common legislature, no common treasury, no common military power, no common judicatory. The people of one colony were not liable to pay taxes to any other colony, nor to bear arms in its defence; they had no right to vote in its elections; no influence nor control in its municipal government, no interest in its municipal institutions. There was no prescribed form by which the colonies could act together, for any purpose whatever; they were not known as "one people" in any one function of government. Although they were all, alike, dependencies of the British crown, yet, even in the action of the parent country, in regard to them, they were recognized as separate and distinct. They were established at different times, and each under an authority from the crown, which applied to itself alone. They were not even alike in their organization. Some were provincial, some proprietary, and some charter governments. Each derived its form of government from the particular instrument establishing it, or from assumptions of power acquiesced in by the crown, without any connexion with, or relation to, any other. They stood upon the same footing, in every respect, with other British colonies, with nothing to distinguish their relation either to the parent country or to one another. The charter of any one of them might have been destroyed, without in any manner affecting the rest. In point of fact, the charters of nearly all of them were altered, from time to time, and the whole character [ *16 ]*of their government changed. These changes were made in each colony for itself alone, sometimes by its own action, sometimes by the power and authority of the crown; but never by the joint agency of any other colony, and never with reference to the wishes or demands of any other colony. Thus they were separate and distinct in their creation; separate and distinct in the changes and modifications of their governments, which were made from time to time; separate and distinct in political functions, in political rights, and in political duties.

The provincial government of Virginia was the first established. The people of Virginia owed allegiance to the British king, as the head of their own local government. The authority of that government was confined within certain geographical limits, known as Virginia, and all who lived within those limits were "one people." When the colony of Plymouth was subsequently settled, were the people of that colony "one" with the people of Virginia? When, long afterwards, the proprietary government of Pennsylvania was established, were the followers of William Penn "one" with the people of Plymouth and Virginia? If so, to which government was their allegiance due? Virginia had a government of her own, Pennsylvania a government of her own, and Massachusetts a government of her own. The people of Pennsylvania could not be equally bound by the laws of all three governments, because those laws might happen to conflict; they could not owe the duties of citizenship to all of them alike, because they might stand in hostile relations to one another. Either, then, the government of Virginia, which originally extended over the whole territory, continued to be supreme therein, (subject only to its dependence on the British crown,) or else its supremacy was yielded to the new government. Every one knows that this last was the case; that within the territory of the new government the authority of that government alone prevailed. How then could the people of this new government of Pennsylvania be said to be "one" with the people of Virginia, when they were not citizens of Virginia, owed her no allegiance and no duty, and when their allegiance to another government might place them in the relation of enemies of Virginia?

In farther illustration of this point, let us suppose that some one of the colonies had refused to unite in the declaration of independence; what relation would it then have held to the others? Not having disclaimed its allegiance to the British crown, it would still have continued to be a British colony, subject to the authority of the parent [ *17 ]*country, in all respects as before. Could the other colonies have rightfully compelled it to unite with them in their revolutionary purposes, on the ground that it was part and parcel of the "one people," known as the people of the colonies? No such right was ever claimed, or dreamed of, and it will scarcely be contended for now, in the face of the known history of the time. Such recusant colony would have stood precisely as did the Canadas, and every other part of the British empire. The colonies, which had declared war, would have considered its people as enemies, but would not have had a right to treat them as traitors, or as disobedient citizens resisting their authority. To what purpose, then, were the people of the colonies "one people," if, in a case so important to the common welfare, there was no right in all the people together, to coerce the members of their own community to the performance of a common duty?

It is thus apparent that the people of the colonies were not "one people," as to any purpose involving allegiance on the one hand, or protection on the other. What, then, I again ask, are the "many purposes" to which the author alludes? It is certainly incumbent on him who asserts this identity, against the inferences most naturally deducible from the historical facts, to show at what time, by what process, and for what purposes, it was effected. He claims too much consideration for his personal authority, when he requires his readers to reject the plain information of history, in favor of his bare assertion. The charters of the colonies prove no identity between them, but the reverse; and it has already been shown that this identity is not the necessary result of their common relation to the mother country. By what other means they came to be "one," in any intelligible and political sense, it remains for the author to explain.

--A Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Character of our Federal Government, ch. II,

It being the case, therefore, that there is no single American people and thus no single American nation either, it begs another question:  Is the current federal constitution a fitting instrument with which to govern a pluri-national confederation of States?  And again we must answer in the negative.

The current constitution of union, written in 1787, is a chimera, incorporating both the one people, one nation doctrine and the independent States doctrine.  It was thus doomed from the outset to be unstable and to cause antagonism amongst the parties governed by its institutions.

But we ought to speak more plainly on this point.  The 1787 charter was not a blundering attempt at a middle way.  It was in fact a counter-revolution waged against the decentralized government of the Articles of Confederation that was set up among the States in 1781 as an attempt at union after declaring their independence from the British Empire:

 . . .


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

Anathema to the Union!

Oddities about the New Zealand Shooting

Valuable reporting from off the beaten path.

Mike Adams asks some good questions:

Did Podesta telegraph the shooting beforehand?


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

Anathema to the Union!

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

‘Uaine Bheag’

In honor of St Patrick, who is honored on 17 March, and all the holy saints of Ireland, and in honor of the Irish part of Dixie’s heritage, we offer to you all a beautiful little waltz by the Irish band Slide, ‘Uaine Bheag’, as heard on the radio program Celtic Connections, broadcast from Southern Illinois University:

For a full playlist of songs by Slide, go to this address:

Holy Patrick, and all Saints of Ireland, pray for the South!


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

Anathema to the Union!