Saturday, April 19, 2008

Anonymity Part VIII: When Documented Facts Constitute “Slander”

I want to continue my examination of the Fearless Leader’s claims yesterday, where contra the serrated edge that has defined his ministry, he suddenly adopted the Golden Rule as if he really conforms his behavior to it, and where he claims that those of us who document his vindictive acts are “liars” and “slanderers”:

So here is the summary. I believe that men like Mark T lie as as [sic] fast as a dog can trot. And when I say “lie,” I mean that in the old-fashioned sense that would get you into a fight in a bar. He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything. Disagree with Wilson, and get a visit from jackbooted deacons in the middle of the night! That’s why he has to attack without any accountability for himself. We, by our evil, have forced him to it. Now I don’t fault anonymous critics in cultures where there are Gulags, racks, stakes, and more. But is anonymity really necessary when what would happen is that the man’s pastor (assuming with a long shot that he has one) would get a letter? (“Ninth Commandment Issues”; emphasis original)

Notice that he says he believes men such as me “lie as fast as a dog can trot.” Clever line, but where’s the proof? Where’s the documentation to support his claim? Where’s the documentation to refute all of my documentation? Yesterday we uploaded 3 pages of his police report — two of them handwritten and signed by our neighbor — to demonstrate that when he retaliates, it’s forever. And by that I mean that that public record will remain in the City archives forever and anyone can put in a FOIA request at City Hall to see the sewers where his mind wanders when he has a vendetta.

Moreover, yesterday I linked to a post that documented one of Doug’s Thug’s attempt to silence a University of Idaho employee (professor?) from commenting about cults on the local listserv. This was just one out of dozens attempts by Wilson’s disciples to silence members of the community. It took exactly 18 minutes from the time the original email posted on the list for Doug’s Thug to fire a complaint to the man’s superior seeking disciplinary action. I realize the Fearless Leader thinks this was a harmless act, but the target of this attack — Wilson’s neighbor — saw it differently, writing,

“While there are explicit laws applicable to contacting someone’s employer or supervisor with the aim of undermining the employment or status of an individual with regard to their employment. . .”

He understood that Wilson’s disciple had just made a move on his job. And don’t forget that this particular incident took place only two days after Wilson’s personal assistant Mike Lawyer asked forgiveness from Bob Mattes for his despicable email attack on Bob.

And as long as I’m on it, I anticipated Wilson’s attack on Bob Mattes (I would call him “Mr.” but I assume he’s an officer and I think it would sound disrespectful) last August when Bob called Wilson on his sin. Here’s the thread from Green Baggins:

Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Lane, then what you are saying is that it isn’t over, and that the courts haven’t spoken, and that Chris Hutchinson was asking my friends to move along prematurely?

greenbaggins said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:45 pm

No, it isn’t over. The study committee report is a shot across the bow, shall we say. It indicates what direction the guns of the PCA are directed. If the FV ships wish to avoid the broadside that is coming, then they will leave.

reformedmusings said,
August 17, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Cute analogy, Lane, and appropriate.

I guess it depends on what one considers “over.” None of the PCA officers who signed the joint statement have come before their presbyteries since the 35th GA. That changed the landscape significantly. Even before that, one presbytery examination committee admitted that they didn’t have time to adequately study the individual’s views. Listening to the recordings of proceedings in another presbytery sounded more like a meeting of a “good ol’ boy” club than a serious ecclesiastical examination, even loaded with apologies to the examinee.

I personally expect the landscape in the presbyteries to continue moving with the 35th GA vote, accelerating as we go through the coming year. As I’ve said many times, it’s a shame that a few men believe that it’s OK to drain the precious resources of the church away from spreading the gospel to require contentious and divisive trials.

Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 9:59 pm

. . . Reformedmusings, you said:

“As I’ve said many times, it’s a shame that a few men believe that it’s OK to drain the precious resources of the church away from spreading the gospel to require contentious and divisive trials.”

To which someone might reply, “Why are you wasting my time getting beat up like you are? What are you doing lying on the ground like that? Why do you think it is appropriate to get blood from your face all over my knuckles?” I like that — the people bringing charges, making accusations, creating controversy, and so on, then turn around and accuse those they are attacking of wasting their precious time. You really ought to know enough about this controversy to be able to state who is on offense, and who on defense.

reformedmusings said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm


Cute, but WAY off point. This is not an arbitrary or trivial situation like the one you posit. Please see comment #57. Since you aren’t in the PCA, I guess that I shouldn’t expect you to honor our denomination’s rulings, though as a Christian brother you probably should not aid and abet those who defy them. Your call. However, I do expect PCA officers to submit to their PCA brothers since they swore an oath in that regard.

As for creating controversy, the PCA was generally doing well until the Auburn Avenue conference in 2002. The PCA, RCUS, BPC, OPC, OCRC, RPCNA, and URC didn’t start anything. That distinction belongs strictly to those who are trying to redefine the Westminster Standards and 3FU over the objections of the overwhelming number of their brothers in seven denominations (so far). Not your denominations, but a Christian brother shouldn’t be inciting or aiding dissent within other ecclesiastical bodies. Again, your call.

Douglas Wilson said,
August 18, 2007 at 6:48 pm

I just wanted to note for the record how much I appreciate the manner in which Lane, Vern, Grover, and R.F. White are discussing these things. I thank you.

Mark T. said,
August 18, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Notice that Wilson’s expression of gratitude did not acknowledge ReformedMusings, did not thank him, and certainly did not answer him — and this is not because ReformedMusings has not been gracious and it’s not because he has not been any less charitable than the others. It’s because ReformedMusings held Wilson accountable for his irresponsible behavior when he wrote,

“. . . but a Christian brother shouldn’t be inciting or aiding dissent within other ecclesiastical bodies. Again, your call.”

Of course, Wilson is the so-called “Christian brother” inciting and aiding dissent within the PCA, most likely because he holds dear the peace and purity of the church. Regardless, the point is that if you want to get along with Wilson you have to ignore his sin. . . .

This was classic Wilson endeavoring to split Bob off from the rest of the list — silently singling him out, just as he tried to isolate Dr. Clark. Wilson established this pattern for everyone to observe; I’ve seen a million times and when I saw it this time I nailed him. Sure, he backed off and threw Bob a bone after I flagged him (just as he threw Pastor Lane a bone yesterday); but his bones don’t displace his enmity. In Bob’s case Wilson waited three months until he found an opening and then he struck, like a wolf, coming out of nowhere to pounce on his victim. But the predator underestimated his prey. Bob’s no lamb; he’s a true shepherd, like David who killed a lion and a bear, and feared not the uncircumcised Philistine. Bob taught Wilson that his Moscow tactics only work in Moscow. So they hugged & kissed and everyone will live happily ever after. Not likely. He’ll be back, which doesn’t matter because Moscow is still Moscow and Wilson is still Wilson. Nothing has changed.

That’s why I pointed to two documented proofs, i.e. two witnesses, that Wilson exacts vengeance against those who criticize him in public — an attack on an employee’s job at the University of Idaho and an attack on the reputations of five law-abiding citizens in Moscow. Wilson responds, however, by calling these facts “slander”:

“He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything.”

Did you notice his misrepresentation about “secret police” and all? I never said he does it in secret (though he definitely operates surreptitiously): I’ve been pretty clear that Wilson and his thugs do their dirty work outside in public for everyone to see. Wilson bullies and harasses people in public on purpose — he wants to send the signal that he will make you pay if you speak. This is his reputation in Moscow. This is the reputation that he carved for himself, in Moscow, with a serrated edge.

But please do not miss this point: THIS IS THE REPUTATION THAT HE WANTS IN MOSCOW. The police report states, “Wilson said he did not want to pursue the incident, but wanted to have it documented.” Wilson wanted to document the names of five neighbors in Moscow as persons he thought may have committed a federal offense. He did this without ever contacting them. HE SIMPLY WANTED IT DOCUMENTED. That’s right: Write it down with an iron pen because Wilson shows his love for his neighbors with a club, a sword, and a sharp arrow — “A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is like a club, a sword, and a sharp arrow” (Prov. 25:18).

The thing I don’t understand is why he doesn’t want to admit these facts on his blog or to Pastor Lane. Why does he call it “slander” when people infer the most obvious conclusions from his terrible behavior? Why doesn’t he want people to visit my site so they can see his police report written with his own hand? After all, he did this in real life to real Christians who are his real neighbors in Moscow. This is how Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, loves his neighbors. Oh, and did I mention that one of the persons he named in the report teaches Sunday school at the local Baptist church? Yes, that would be the same church that prohibits Wilson from performing marriage ceremonies on their property. (They have a wonderful building whereas the Kult meets on a basketball court.) But I digress. The point is that he has gone out of his way to make a reputation in Moscow for striking back at those who criticize him but for some inexplicable reason he refuses to admit it. I would think he’s proud of it.

And I wonder why he didn’t think what any normal person would have thought when he allegedly discovered the unclean contraceptive — this is a college town and teenagers commit sin. I remember visiting the Arboretum last summer and seeing a used condom on the gravel in the parking lot. It was disgusting. But we live in a college town. Teenagers drink in their cars, commit sin in the cars, and toss the unseemly evidence of their act out the window. That’s teenagers. But you know what? — I never thought to file a police complaint alleging that Wilson may have placed the condom in that parking lot to continue his pattern of harassing me. After all, Wilson and his hooligans uploaded a website to persecute leading citizens of the community who took offense at that worthless monograph Southern Slavery As It Was. He called it He used it to verbally abuse Christians and non-Christians alike. He insulted them, called them names, and ridiculed them — including me because I signed the “Not In Our Town” petition and targeted everyone who signed that petition. It follows therefore that he would soil a prophylactic and leave it in the Arboretum parking lot to continue his pattern of harassing me and Moscow. Sound stupid? Of course it does, but that’s his argument.

And you have to ask yourself this: Why would a so-called Christian pastor who just yesterday wrote 2,205 gushy words expositing his obligation to love his neighbor — including his enemies — upload such a reprehensible site? Here, let me frame the question another way: Why would any Christian, pastor or not, upload a highly offensive website that he specifically designed to insult about 20,000 of his neighbors? The vitriol on that site is so damaging to the Kult that they killed the link in so that no one can see the truth about them. But that does not change the site’s intent. Wilson put it up to intimidate an entire community into silence. He sent the message loud and clear that if you criticize him, he will ridicule and humiliate you in public. But the Fearless Leader is too much of a coward to admit it now. As I predicted a few days ago, he revised his story. Suddenly he’s a kind-hearted Christian who loves the Golden Rule and I am evil slanderer for publishing his documented record.

Now I ask you, am I lying when I present these historical facts? Am I slandering that Son of Belial by publishing the fruit of his ministry? Or did he slander thousands of his neighbors with that hate-filled website? Did he slander five of his neighbors when he identified them as possible suspects in a vile federal crime?

Maybe I’m just too sensitive. Maybe I don’t understand the Golden Rule. Maybe I don’t understand the hidden gospel message of hatesplotch or the Christian compassion of Doug’s Thugs’ acts of harassment or the pastoral example of filing a police report to stain five of his neighbors’ reputations. I invite Beelzeblog to account for these things.

But whether he accounts for himself or not, this much I know: he may dismiss these documented facts as “slander,” which completely befuddles me; he may accuse me of countless absurdities while he refutes nothing here; he may laugh it all off as one big April Fools’ Day joke — indeed, he can laugh till Judgment Day, and I’m sure he will. But he forgets that the Scripture says, “and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works” (Rev. 20:12). He doesn’t understand that these documents and the works they represent are the fruit of his ministry, and if they’re written down on a silly blog, easily accessible for all the world to see, then he should rest assured that they’re written down in God’s holy books for that dreadful day. Only then it will be too late.

Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Hi Mark,

One thing one could give DW is that his characterization of these facts as "slander" is at least an acknowledgment on his part that the deeds in question are objectively evil. No-one ever claimed "slander" when falsely praised for good things that he had not done. So some part of DW's conscience recognizes that he is not earning a good report. I'd like to think that that might be a tiny bit of progress.

Thanks for your 'blog.



Mark T. said...

Hi Sam,

I think I follow your argument but I fear you give him entirely too much credit. He has not acknowledged any of the documentation on this site and to my knowledge he has only acknowledged two posts: “Bag o’ Snakes” and “Only In His Dreams.” And he only acknowledged the second post after Pastor Lane called him to account. My point is that you have not established the premise of your argument, i.e. that Wilson has acknowledged the warp and woof of this site. He merely asserts “slander” as he completely misrepresents things I’ve written, that is, if I follow your argument correctly.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mark,

I don't understand DW at all. All I'm saying is that he seems sensitive to others' perceptions that the things that you report are, if true (I put this qualification in not to question your documents, but "for the sake of argument"), objectively evil. If he didn't think the facts you are documenting look like evil to other people, he wouldn't have a motive to dismiss the documentation as "slander." (So, for example, he doesn't dismiss as "slander" the praise he receives from his devoted followers).

But this might not be evidence of a conscience that is still alive; it might simply be "fear of man." So I'll concede that my prior post doesn't establish anything.

Again, thanks for your 'blog.



Mark T. said...

Thanks, Sam, I understand your point. And your right, this only establishes that he has the capacity to recognize right and wrong, which makes him no different than a sociopath. We have yet to establish, and he has yet to demonstrate, that he has the capacity to feel right and wrong, which would distinguish him from a sociopath. Moreover, to the extent that he exploits the sense of right and wrong in others to manipulate their behavior, while he himself operates completely independent of any set of morals, he demonstrates that he is a sociopath.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mark,

A final thought. In calling your documentation "slanderous", DW does seem to be acknowledging the objectively evil character of the documented deeds. So he is calling his own deeds "evil" (while not acknowledging that they are his own deeds). It is sort of like the observation you have made about DW's assertion that intra-communal rape is a sign of God's judgment. His own words pronounce his guilt.

Thanks for your 'blog.


Mark T. said...

In essence, you’re arguing that he is a self-accused hypocrite, which is true.