[Vision2020] The “anonymous flyer”
News of Christ Cult
news.of.christ.cult at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 09:36:12 PST 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007 The "anonymous
If you get bored reading about Douglas Wilson's stunningly stupid revision
of Southern slavery, then you're missing the big picture. Yes, Wilson's
position on slavery represents his twisted worldview, but it also represents
a first step of indoctrination for his loyalists. If you surrender your
intellectual faculties to buy his revision, then you have given him a
stronghold in your head that he will exploit. You're fast on your way to
becoming a monkey boy. And if you dismiss his Southern fantasy as just that
— *pure fantasy* — but you still think that he has something to offer, then
you have conceded no less of a stronghold to him than his loyalists, because
you have made excuse for a man who has no excuse. And if you do it once,
you'll do it again.
The Southern Slavery scandal did not hit the Palouse by accident. Douglas
Wilson could have averted it easily if he had simply admitted that, in
hindsight, he relied on specious arguments to overstate his case. End of
story. In fact, there is no story. The whole thing goes away. But that's not
how it happened.
Early in the week of October 11, 2003, someone (no one knows who) papered
downtown Moscow with a flyer advertising Wilson's and Wilkins' booklet
Slavery As It Was*. The flyer made two points: First, Wilson & Wilkins wrote
a book containing these quotes (and it reproduced some of the more shocking
statements from the booklet) and, second, it noted that both men would be
speaking at the UI in February 2004. It closed with the words "Meet the
The flyer looked more like litter than street art, but that wasn't the
point. The point was to call attention to *Southern Slavery As It Was* by
saturating the town with these flyers. Accordingly, someone left a stack of
50 flyers on the front desk of the *Daily News* who contacted Wilson to
confirm the accuracy of the quotes. Unbelievably, Wilson not only confirmed
the quotes, but he invited the *News* — with their cameraman — into his
living room to discuss the biblical merits of that Peculiar Institution
known as Southern slavery. He even smiled for the camera, it's the famous
photograph you see
Two days later they splashed photo and
the front page.
Now, please stop for a moment of morbid introspection to reflect upon
Wilson's conduct. A so-called minister of the gospel took time out of his
busy pastoral schedule to inform the local media in northern Idaho that he
thought the slaves had a pretty good deal and that history has maligned the
reputations of their noble masters. And as you contemplate this historical
fact, remind yourself that serial paedophile Steven
Sitler<http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/>was raping helpless
children in the Kirk and he would continue to rape lambs
of the flock for another year and a half.
Now, stop for another moment to pick up your jaw.
That's Douglas Wilson, mighty man of God.
Regardless, he got his headline, just as he wanted, and it took him exactly
three days to figure out that this story had legs. Manstealing, slavery, and
racism are a tough sell to a civilized audience — educated or not. So the
first thing Wilson did to sidestep this controversy was use dougspeak to
blame an "anonymous flyer" for his woes. Never mind that he invited the
local media into his home to discuss the story; he pinned the whole thing on
a mysterious "anonymous flyer" and he never let go of his scapegoat:
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:38:55 -0700
Related to the article in the newspaper this weekend, there is one other
item you should know. The *Daily News* did the story on the basis of an
anonymous flyer that was circulated downtown. The flyer was done in such a
way that if someone was not paying close attention (as some people on this
list sometimes don't), they might think we had done it. But no, not us.
P.S. I think someone needs to write a biography soon — *The Life and Times
of Anonymous: A Profile in Courage*.
Mon, October 27, 2003 8:52 AM
Ambrose Bierce once defined ink as a "villainous compound of tanno-gallate
of iron, gum-arabic and water, chiefly used to facilitate the infection of
idiocy and promote intellectual crime."
On Friday, *The Idaho Statesman* picked up the article which had previously
run in the *Daily News*. They ran it with this by-line: "Pair to give their
"biblical" defense of practice at U of I conference."
1. The conference is not on slavery. Never has been. The *Daily
News*really needs to quit relying on anonymous flyers as part of their
crackerjack reporting team. The savings in payroll are not really worth the
2. No, we are not going to give a defense of slavery at the
3. It is not a U of I conference.
4. Having shouted their error on the front page, the *Daily News* had
whispered a teeny correction later on. *The Statesman* must have
missed it somehow.
I would like to ask Nathan Alford to respond, or someone at the *Daily News*.
Who is responsible for misrepresenting our history conference in this
egregious way? What are you going to do about it?
Tuesday, October 28, 2003 12:30 PM
Greg Burton asks:
My question is will Wilson and Wilkins discuss slavery or will they not?
The answer is that no, we will not be discussing slavery. The conference is
on Revolution and Modernity — Marx, Robespierre, et al.
If so, the article is accurate in my mind.
But if not, then the article is inaccurate, right? And the *Daily
News*should correct it. The real issue in my mind here is that the
*Daily News* is being as stubborn as the pope's mule. The only basis they
had for connecting this conference and slavery was the fact the connection
was made for them by the anonymous Timid One.
Many times, too, a journalist will get a tip about something, examine the
veracity and go with the information if they can confirm it elsewhere.
In this instance, the reporter confirmed with me that the conference was NOT
about slavery. And the error appeared in print anyway. And the newspaper
will not acknowledge it as an error.
Maybe that happened in this instance. If not, there should be a simple
correction or clarification. Further, the "journalistic integrity" slug to
this thread is a red herring.
What brings journalistic integrity into question is not the initial mistake
(although it is at least suspect). The thing that shows a lack of
journalistic integrity is the simple refusal to acknowledge that the article
wrongly identified the topic of the conference. What would be lost if
News* said, "The article xyz wrongly identified slavery as a topic in the
upcoming history conference." They did that, the conference not about that.
Why the reluctance?
*The New York Times* incident was about integrity and ethics, this seems
more like quibbling.
It is only quibbling if you don't mind being called a racist on AP wires
across the Pacific Northwest. But I do object to it. I do not mind (at all)
standing up for what I believe. I do mind being made a defender of something
I loathe. Quibbling?
[Vision2020] The end of
Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:41 AM
Donovan wrote to ask about my responsibility in helping to give Moscow a
black eye in the PR department. What was my intent in all of this?
First, Donovan is exactly right in anticipating how I would respond. We did
not print and distribute the anonymous flyers, we did not ask for a front
page news story that erroneously proclaimed slavery as the topic of the
conference, we did not ask for the AP to pick up the story, using that error
as the hook of the story, we did not ask for certain progressives to start
boycotting businesses owned by multi-racial families who happen to attend
our multi-racial church (to show their opposition of racism!), and we did
not ask for the subsequent torrent of shrill, humorless, and ugly
denunciations. Now, according to the normal drill, whenever the progressive
meat grinder goes into action, the selected victim is supposed to apologize
and promise to be a good boy thereafter. But we, taking our cue from Tom
Petty, are not backing down. And now Moscow has a black eye because certain
people insisted on maintaining their slanderous lies at the top of their
voices. . . .
I think you get the point. The implication was plain, though Wilson never
stated it outright: "The story is not true; the *Daily News* relied on an
anonymous flyer and reported lies." Clearly his monkey boys understood the
message because if you search the Vision 20/20 archives you'll see them
swarm the Internet, advancing Wilson's falsehood wholesale. But not once did
he ever take responsibility for granting an interview to the *Daily News*.
Without exception, he blamed this so-called "anonymous flyer."
Now look at the flyer <http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Flyer.jpg>.
Please notice that there is not one false, incorrect, or misleading
representation in it, which is why Wilson confirmed the accuracy of its
contents to the *Daily News*.
And now I have exceeded my word count. So if there's anything you can take
from this post, it's that when Wilson screams the word "anonymous," it's
because every word of the anonymous witness is true. And you should not make
excuse for a man who has no excuse.
Posted by Mark T. at 9:30
Labels: DUMB and
2 comments: Rev. Jesse Pirschel (OPC) said...
Your blog post "anonymous flyer" shows you have no shame whatsoever. I am
hoping ministers will be wise enough to not use your website as a place to
launch any of their arguments. Tying the issues that you did together in
that post is beyond ridiculous and shows you have a personal vendetta of
some sort that has allowed you to callously bring up tragic circumstances in
the lives of church families for your personal gain (or at least for the
personal harm of Rev. Wilson, which clearly gives you glee).
December 13, 2007 6:27 PM
T. <http://www.blogger.com/profile/09673762599798493263> said...
I am afraid that you have mistaken me for someone such as yourself —
completely ignorant of the facts of the case, that is. Therefore, you'll
have to excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm. Do you know the victims?
Have you spoke with them? Do you even know how many child molesters struck
Christ Church during that period? Have you even read the court records? Do
you know any of the facts at all?
While I am confident that you must answer "No" to these questions, I can
answer "Yes" to all of them.
But let me ask you a few more questions with the hope of redirecting your
righteous indignation. Can you tell me what "Pastor" Wilson's response was
to the serial paedophile whom God brought to Christ Church? Do you know how
long he waited to warn the families in his charge of the possibility of the
predation? Do you even know if "Pastor" Wilson bothered to warn the church
I'll give you a day or two to compose yourself and contemplate the answers
to these questions.
December 13, 2007 6:53
Advocate for the Truth from Jesus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020