Anonymity Part III: The Great Protector

I hoped to work this into another post at another time, but given the present circumstances now’s as good as time as any. About 18 months ago Douglas Wilson filed a frivolous complaint with the Moscow Police Department that alleged someone had vandalized his home. Despite furnishing no evidence of any crime, the Bishop of Moscow asserted that, included among these alleged acts, someone placed a used condom in his mailbox. Furthermore, the Great Protector identified in writing the names of four possible suspects (three of them friends of mine), alleging that they publicly criticized him and his church, which in his mind meant that they would therefore also commit a defiling felony.

This incident created no small stir in Moscow because as a high-ranking police officer told me, “I don’t know why he put any names there, half the town hates him.” Not ironically, one of the persons that Wilson identified teaches Sunday school at the church where the Assistant Police Chief serves as a deacon. Ooooops.

Regardless, I note this historic fact because it constitutes one more reason for anyone interested in honest discourse on this matter, such as me, to leave their name out of the conversation rather than incite the Fearless Leader to commit a random act of defamation. He has demonstrated that when it comes to defending his “good” name, he will stoop to all-time lows in order to soil someone else’s.

Thank you.