Am I Being Detained?
RE: “My Little Visit from the FBI” I’m not a glazed eyed conspiracy person, an Alex Jones-ite or any such thing. I do have some affinity for Ron Paul but that is as far as my fringe views go. I am pretty much a Greg Bahnsen type theonomist and love John Murray and the right wing of the OPC (sorry, no FV for me). All that said, next time I strongly recommend you insist on having witnesses and recording any interaction you have with the FBI. Your view of the FBI is that of a simpleton. We know they alter their 302s all the time and you are helpless to refute their assertions (lies) if you have no hard evidence. As a matter of fact, they could still arrest you tomorrow based upon “their recollection” of this interview. Don’t be simple. “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished” (Pr 27:12).
Graham
Graham, thanks for the feedback, albeit a bit high and inside. I did think about recording it, or having someone sit in, but at the moment decided not to. My protection, such as it is, has been to write my account of it first. Remember if things are as bad as all that, they could just make up a 302 without having seen me at all. I do approve of prudence, however.
You write: “One group shakes the head disapprovingly, worried about the testimony, and what does this do to the good reputation among outsiders (1 Tim. 3:7)? The second kind of Christian leader hears of something like this, and his heart sinks. ‘Why can’t something like that ever happen to me?’ And his wife says, ‘Honey, don’t . . .’” I would argue that there might be a 3rd response from Christian leaders who would say “kudos to the FBI agents.” I know a number of Blog and Mablog followers who are literalists (probably a lot of home schoolers), and would take the statement literally. And that actually does become a matter of national safety: seeing as it comes out of Idaho where a lot of Christian cults reside. You also state: “One kind of Christian leader thinks that it is an honor to be honored. The other believes that it is an honor to be dishonored, a grace to be disgraced.” I would argue that the third kind of Christian leader believes it is an honor to be disgraced for righteousness. Now, a simple visit from the FBI is not necessarily a disgrace or even a dishonor. What I would argue for is the reason why we are dishonored as Christians. In this scenario, if we could argue that you are being dishonored, you are not primarily being dishonored for speaking out against public education which would be righteous (a U of I prof at your door would be dishonoring you for that), but for the metaphor of burning schools down which would be unrighteous. In that case, the I Peter 4: 15-16 comes into play: “But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” The FBI is looking into a scenario that could involve murder (or incitement to murder), and they did not arrest you, because they probably realized that you are a godly Christian pastor. Thanks for all the work you do in engaging the culture. I have learned a lot from your approach.
Nathan
Nathan, thanks, and yes but. If they had just showed up because the phrases “burn all the schools” was tossed at them by an algorithm, then yes. But they came to see me because one of our intolerista enemies seized on a phrase which they then tried to use as a means of bringing a government agency against me. Remember that slander is an essential part of all this. At His trial, Jesus was accused of wanting to destroy the Temple (vandalism), which, even though vandalism should be against the law, didn’t prevent the accusation from being outrageous.
Thanks for sharing. I finally got around to reading Flags Out Front over the past week, so this is extra amusing to me. When I told my wife about your very first no-quarter paragraph leading to an FBI visit, she said “I bet he’s so pleased with himself. He’s exactly the kind of person that when God wants to give him an ‘attaboy,’ He sends the FBI.” May your tribe increase.
Keith
Keith, yes. But tell your wife that I was only pleased with myself in ways that comport with modesty and decorum.
Before the next time happens, I beg you, read You Have The Right To Remain Innocent, by James Duane (read it, but you can google his viral video now, about not ever talking to law enforcement without a lawyer present (who will tell you not to talk to them)). I know it sounds nuts, but you dodged a bullet. (Does your story, in hindsight, not sound a bit Michael-Flynn-ish?) . . . Keep up the good work!
Steve
Steve, yes, I have read that book and recommend it.
Another lesson: don’t talk to the police! Anyone who has been paying attention to the current political follies knows about perjury traps, and more broadly speaking it’s almost never in your interest. This is from a law professor, and part 2, which should be automatically linked to it, is from a former police investigator and is just as informative.
Kirk
Kirk, thanks.
While I’m happy that there was an understanding, I hope in the future you will always insist on having, not a colleague, but an attorney present, any time law enforcement wants to speak with you. The fact that they say it’s not necessary means diddly squat. I say this as someone who hopes to read many more blog posts from you, and would prefer you not go to prison on the basis of your memory conflicting with an FBI agent’s faulty memory.
Edward
Edward, yes, reasonable point, but see above. I memorialized the visit in prose. My post, in effect, was “notes from the meeting.”
“. . . sack all those who were responsible for it in the first place, have them flogged in the church parking lot first . . .” Ummm, yes, hello pastor Wilson, this is the FBI again. Was that another H. L. Mencken quote? ; – )
Jason
Jason, it was in the style of Mencken. Performance art.
More on Emeth
Re the Salvation of Emeth. You write: “When Jesus cleanses the Temple, He drives out the merchants and money changers from the Court of the Gentiles.” Just curious about this—it doesn’t seem explicit in my reading of the NASB. I don’t really doubt it but I’m naturally skeptical and wonder how you know this. Maybe I just missed it.
Nathan
Nathan, that court is not explicitly named as such in Scripture. We know about it from other historical sources. Here’s a link.
Salvation of Emeth—thank you for this. A very helpful and clear bit of untangling of a thorny issue. However, is this what Lewis himself would have said in defense of Emeth? Not being a precise theologian (by his own admission) it seems like Emeth’s salvation might have been less thought through in his mind than your explanation gives him credit for. How much should authorial intent impact our understanding here? Also, it doesn’t seem that Naaman is the best example to end with, because though he did not have contact with the name of Jesus, he did have contact with YHWH. Whereas all of Emeth’s “good works” were done strictly in the name of Tash, and Tash as understood popularly by the Calormens (even if not worshipped as devoutly by them as by Emeth). The parallel from the OT seems to be rather, whether a devout Philistine offering all his allegiance and love and loyalty to Dagon could be saved on the basis of that loyalty and love, because it was truly given. Isn’t that more like what Lewis is saying?
Joe
Joe, thanks. We don’t have an exact parallel anywhere. If a Philistine approached Dagon the way Emeth approached Tash, he would be a Dagon-heretic, out of step with all his people. And the way Emeth turned the moment he encountered Aslan seems more like Naaman to me.
Thanks for tackling the Emeth issue. I like what you have done with it, but might there be also a rather simpler shortcut to the whole thing? Emeth was not dead when he met Aslan. What he experienced in that meeting was not a postmortem evangelism, but rather something more like Saul on the road to Damascus. Sure, the circumstances are bit more spicy because the world was kind of ending, but the fact remains that Emeth had not yet died, and so the time for judgment wasn’t yet upon him. He met Aslan and responded with faith to the truth that was being proclaimed to him. So his zeal for Tash was actually misplaced zeal for Aslan, and that is easy to understand, but his salvation doesn’t have to be out of the ordinary at all.
Corey
Corey, yes. Emeth did not die exactly, and his encounter with Aslan was kind of in Heaven already.
Your post on the Salvation of Emeth is missing one very important text. “Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” The chain of logic present in Paul’s questions assumes that people need to hear the gospel and can’t be saved without explicitly hearing and believing it. It’s at least pertinent to those who are able-minded. I don’t see a way to get around this like Lewis was attempting to do.
Geoff
Geoff, yes, but I don’t think it is that simple. You insert “those who are able minded,” which seems right to all of us, but Paul doesn’t even hint at something like that. So the first question is “are there any exceptions to the Romans 10 pattern at all?” If there are, and they are not referred to in that text, we have to find the boundaries of such exceptions in the rest of Scripture, in the whole counsel of God.
Thank you for this article. I have also wondered whether some people in the Old Testament era who did not know about the Lord would be saved. I am not sure if all babies or severely retarded people will be saved, especially since in the latter case some have been guilty of appalling crimes that could not be interpreted as anything but evil, (and children of unbelievers are considered unclean, unlike those of believing parents), but the possibility that a man who did not know the Lord but believed what little gospel truth he knew may enter Heaven may explain how every tribe has representation in the Heavenly kingdom, given that some tribes have certainly died out without having learned about Jesus. Thank you also for your article arguing for the eventual salvation of Queen Susan.
James
James, thank you. And it is fortunate for all of us that God is the one responsible for all it—and the judge of the whole earth will do right.
A Holy PCA Ruckus?
What form should the ruckus take? Maybe Christians who do not want the PCA to go liberal should join the PCA, where they could do something about it. Otherwise, those Christians might be right, but why should the PCA care? Not disagreeing or criticizing here, just observing that any effective resistance would most likely have to come from within the PCA. Do other reformed bodies have an association with the PCA that would give them any leverage? Don’t know, I’m asking.
John
John, the PCA in such instances is responding to cultural pressures that did not arise within the PCA. I believe that Christians outside the PCA should be able to make enough requisite noise.
And while we are on this topic, the session of South City has released a (lame) statement, which can be read here.
A Random Note:
Re: “When Things Go Awry” To this day, my instinct is to pronounce it AW-ree. David
David, have you sought help?
A Tough Situation:
For the last decade or so I have been reading your articles, listening to your arguments about public schools. Before I learned I was pregnant with my daughter, I knew that I wanted to give our daughter (my husband and I) a Christian education. When I learned I was pregnant, I was aware of the task at hand; to train up my yet to be born child into His Word. To minister the Gospel. By the time she was born, I already knew which Christian homeschool curriculum I was going to pick and I had found a good Christian brick and mortar school if we decided to go that route. I was ready. I wasn’t, however, ready for the challenge of a child with severe cognitive and intellectual delays. By the time she turned 4, she was barely meeting the milestones of an 18 month old and as we look toward her beginning kindergarten, it is clear that she needs specialized education. None of the Christian private schools in our offer a special education program, and if they do, they are not equipped for a still diapered, completely non-verbal 5 year old severely autistic little girl with violent tendencies. My husband and I are reformed in our theology, we believe that the Bible applies to her. We trust in the Lord that He has entrusted us with this child and that He is the great healer, she could talk tomorrow and we believe that He can extend saving grace to any soul, including our daughter. That’s why, despite the challenges, we attend a family-integrated church and we involve her in our family worship and Bible time. But we are struggling with how to move forward with her education. We don’t want to send her to public school, but it’s difficult to not see the appeal because they can offer her specialized education. There are specialized secular private schools for children with her needs, but they are 1) secular 2) come with a price tag of between 35-50 thousand dollars a year. We reside in a state where homeschool students are required to pass state testing and we are being told that they do not make accommodations for children with special needs. We are at all a loss. Because of all the work you have dedicated to the promotion of a Christian education, I am certain that I am not the first one to come to you with this question and I pray that you can offer some wisdom. Thank you in advance.
Tina
Tina, first I have a great deal of respect for you and your husband. So begin with the well-done. You are in a hard situation, and I wouldn’t want any advice that I might give to sound like I think it is easy. My teaching on the use of the government schools presupposes a normal situation, and difficult cases (like yours) make bad law. That said, in a perfect situation, I believe a Christian approach to severe special needs would be better than a secular approach to severe special needs. The question you are facing is whether a secular approach to severe special needs is to be preferred to a non-existent Christian approach. And I think that the answer is probably yes. But I would encourage you not to come to that conclusion until you have thoroughly researched two options. One has to do with the possibility of relocating (dependent on your husband’s job) to a place with a large enough population to support a Christian educational program for special needs kids. Is there a place anywhere in the country that could help your daughter, and is there a livelihood for your family there? And secondly, I would encourage you to get a legal opinion on your homeschooling options in your state. I would want more information there than “we are being told.” One final point. It is tempting in such situations, at least in the hard moments, to think about the hard providence that God gave you. But always remember that in this God has also given your daughter something remarkable in this. He has given her a true blessing in you. And so be encouraged. Your labor in the Lord is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58)
What It Means to Forgive
You mention “forgiven people forgive.” I have three questions about this. Coming from an IFB background, this has eluded me: what is the connection between forgivability (the desire to forgive) and the act of forgiveness? Is it right to forgive someone of a wrong doing if they never seek forgiveness, and even if that person is hostile to the idea of seeking forgiveness, or do we just indiscriminately forgive the wrong? How does this work with restoration of fellowship?
Timothy
Timothy, if someone has wronged you and for whatever reason does not seek forgiveness, the transaction of forgiveness cannot occur. If someone steals your car, you can’t yell down the road after them “I forgive you.” But the disposition to forgive can occur. You can have that present wrapped and waiting for them, so that you can give to them the first moment it is appropriate to do so. If you are in an ongoing relationship with someone like that, then you need to ask if it is the kind of sin that love can cover a multitude of. If so, then that’s what you do. If not, then you pull out of that relationship.
A Trenchant Counterargument
You da dumb man, dougie. Really, slavery was good? Hahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahah. Alignment with a southern nationalist? Hahahahahahahahahahah you are da idiot. Tell john piper to shut up.
Jim
Jim, thanks for the cogent riposte. I confess that I have never thought about this thorny issue from such an insightful angle before.
Another Thorny Issue
On the dancing squid dish, we need you to explicate Luke 10:8, “eat such things as are set before you.”
Steve
Steve, quite. What you need to do is anticipate when someone like that might conceivably happen, and make sure to be in another country at the time.
Southern Gospel
Love that Gospel revival! A group called The Lower Lights is cooking up similar goodness.
Joseph
Joseph, thanks for the link.
No Quarter Marriage?
Pastor Wilson, the Book of Worship, Faith, and Practice provided online (https://www.christkirk.com/our-church/book-of-worship-faith-practice/) is an invaluable resource for a congregation desiring to become more CREC-like. As it is such a tremendous resource for budding congregations, may I ask for more? May I ask for variations regarding wedding ceremonies and funerals (while they’re unlikely to be part of Sunday worship, I think you get my point)? Having a blueprint of worship order and structure, if not the direct vow language itself, would be a great help. I also wonder if Christ Church would consider a “camp” of sorts for congregations to send a delegation of elders/pastors/lay leaders to be instructed on the how and why of expecting the Holy Spirit to move in a worship service. A DVD series, an online set of classes, an Idaho experience: I don’t know what shape this takes, but I suggest it as there is a paucity of faithful learning opportunities granted the church planter. A great number of idolatrous Hospice Churches will fall in the coming months and years. Please be an integral factor in helping educate those who would happily take the reins and drive congregations towards Christ. No Quarter Sunday?
Ron
Ron, thanks for the ideas. In the meantime, you might find Terry Johnson’s book Leading in Worship helpful—on weddings, funerals and other special circumstances.
Hi Tina, you probably already know this, but your local school district has a responsibility under IDEA for all special needs students in its area, regardless of whether they attend public or private schools. Some of their federal funding (though not much) must be set aside for the needs of disabled children attending private schools. My own experiencing with helping a few parents navigate the process is that your school district will not be very helpful until they hear from your lawyer or an advocate for the disabled. If your child attends a Christian school, he won’t be eligible for… Read more »
Gosh Tina, leave it to Jilly to be a font of good will and good advise! I have a son with autism who is 21 now. I describe him as “the ultimate guy!” He does whatever he wants, to the exclusion of everything else, and boy am I jealous! But seriously, he is not as bad as that may sound! I actually appreciate his focus. My son is not all that verbal, though he may be more integrated than your daughter. I do view my son’s autistic focus ability as a protection for him and a “ministry” if you will.… Read more »
Excellent comment, Jilly. I would second (third?) the recommendation to get in touch with HSLDA and become a member. I have been critical of some of their alarmism in the past – but you definitely want them on your side if you are concerned about interference from the authorities.
Tina, Thank you for writing regarding the issue of school and your special needs child. I have often thought of doing the same, as we have navigated the same questions with regard to our son over the past few years. It is a very difficult decision and one that will most likely change over time. We chose to place our son in public school, due to the reasons you are contemplating that for your daughter. He’s in his second year there and it’s not a decision we “like” but it is the one that he “needs” at this time. We… Read more »
Hi Tina, dealing with state testing is an issue I can’t speak to, but I second Jill’s recommendation to contact HSLSA. I’m pretty sure they will make a stink for you, if that’s what is necessary. I would also visit Memoria Press’s website. They are the only source I’ve come across for an integrated, Christian, classical special needs curriculum. My son is intellectually and physically disabled, and it took me years to find the right homeschool resources for him. We pay for private therapy, which is mercifully affordable where we are. But you know, the biggest aid to our sons… Read more »
There is an interesting subtext to all of the comments about Doug’s conversation with the FBI. We are a radically low-trust society – many of us believe that law enforcement is the enemy, or at least a potential enemy. Also, the lawyerification of America is nearly complete. We immediately frame experiences in “lawfare” terms.
This may be a prudent way of viewing the world; but I think it is a radical departure from the mid-20th century. I wonder if there has been more change in the behavior of law enforcement, or in the rhetoric?
demo, Good question. Overall, I suspect law enforcement behavior has generally improved (from what I’ve heard, in the past it was horrific in certain places). But, with technology improvements in the past fifty years, the quality and, especially, the speed with which “bad cop” behavior is communicated to the general public, there is now a greater awareness of these instances. What might have taken days to be noticed by most may now be less than an hour. The media are also complicit as it seems all the outlets want to be the first to report on anything, and then talk… Read more »
Probably law enforcement had always lied to bad guys. Serves them right anyway.
What may be different is an awareness of how easily any of us may be considered the bad guys. For one thing, the culture wars are more warlike than ever.
Another thought is that the FBI in particular is known to use “lieing to the FBI” to take out people that they otherwise can’t touch. This might very well have changed in recent decades, but I couldn’t really say.
demosthenes1d wrote: I wonder if there has been more change in the behavior of law enforcement, or in the rhetoric? Good question. As with gun violence and “climate change”, I suspect it could have a lot to do with more refined reporting and crisis-communication. We are certainly more aware of the extreme law enforcement abuses because of hyper media coverage, and so there is no doubt some sort of confirmation bias as work. As they say, it’s just 99% of the lawyers, and law enforcement, that give the rest a bad name. Confirmation bias basically runs our current culture. It… Read more »
Demo, Great observation. I think it is worth noting that as bad as it might seem to be now, we are still very far from most non-Western parts of the world. Radically low-trust might be too strong. When I was at the Defense Language Institute in 2011-2013, I studied with a dozen or so Iranian ex-pats. One of them made an interesting observation that stuck with me. He said he thought it was weird how we thought about police. He said in Iran, if the police came to your neighbors house, you would go to your wife and wonder why… Read more »
BJ, You are right, radically low trust is a little overheated. We have much lower trust than we have at times in our past, but still higher trust than many disfunctional societies. There are several potential forcers that i can think of. I would curious about your thoughts on them: 1. Increased diversity – Putnam’s research shows that when diversity increases trust decreases. This phenomenon appears robust in different societies. Charles Murray type class diversity may play a role as well. 2.Availability heuristics – both in increasing the apparent amplitude of diversity and in magnifying relativly rare events of malfeasance… Read more »
Demo, Once again, astute points. I see it this way: (1) The larger more powerful law enforcement and intelligence organizations have historically gone through periods where they become politicized. I think that when that happens paranoia grows and that explains much of the reaction to Doug’s post. The trust of these organizations ebbs and flows based on their perceived neutrality. (2) The primary factor in the loss of social trust is not diversity, in and of itself, but a lack of assimilation to a unified worldview. This is partly why I argue for an immigration moratorium. It would give us… Read more »
BJ said: “This is partly why I argue for an immigration moratorium. It would give us time to assimilate.” I have my doubts that recent immigrants desire to assimilate (and I wonder if this doesn’t also apply to others, for example, African Americans), instead preferring to remain separate and retaining their own culture and language as much as possible. It seems this is promoted by the politically correct, where, much like it’s considered wrong to culturally appropriate, it’s wrong to expect immigrants to culturally integrate. So, for example, instead of expecting immigrants to learn English and use it, the current… Read more »
“So, for example, instead of expecting immigrants to learn English and use it, the current citizens are expected at a minimum to accept the immigrants’ language and, more commonly, to even pander to it.”
Hey man, you really need to translate that into Ebonics…unless you’re some kind of xenophobic racist….
I suspect that human nature resists assimilation if it is very easy to avoid it. In Los Angeles with its large and distinct ethnic communities, an immigrant–though not his child–doesn’t need fluency in English in order to hold a job, watch television, manage his financial affairs, attend church, or talk to his neighbors. Ethnic enclaves prevent assimilation for the first generation. I don’t doubt that PC ideology plays a role, but I think this is also partly driven by corporations viewing large immigrant communities as a valuable demographic. Major banks are very willing to staff a bank in Little Saigon… Read more »
BJ, Thanks for your thoughts, very helpful. Each of your points prompted me to reflect a little more. (1) I wonder if the politicization that you mention is the product of our cultural and political differences becoming less tractable. Most people feel that their concerns aren’t or can’t be answered by democratic representative bodies (look at congresses approval rating). This has led to more attempts to capture less democratic institutions such as the Supreme Court and the federal law enforcement agencies. The attention on these institutions decreases peoples trust in them and the perception that they are neutral arbiters. (2)… Read more »
“I dont think the problem is just that immigrants havent had time to assimilate, it is that America doesnt have a strong common culture to assimilate into. We are a house divided on really fundamental issues (such as, is there a God that we must worship).”
That is an important point. The divisions, the mistrust, really have little to do with immigrants except insofar as immigration is a divisive issue among the native born. We would be a house divided if there were no immigrants at all.
John, I think immigration rates and settlement patterns are important even in a healthy society with good cohesion. There is only so much assimilation that can happen without radically changing the nature of the host society, when these changes move from a reformatory pace to a revolutionary pace it causes a lot od dislocation, resentment, and reactionary sentiment. I think you see this happening in the 19th century with the great irish migration (per capita the greatest migration in American history, I believe). We may be better for it now (open question), and it was certainly better for the migrants,… Read more »
Irish immigration is a good example to cite, because it reminds that we’ve seen it all before. Complaints about current immigration are more or less of the same nature as those made about Irish immigration in the 19th century. No doubt among the complainers are plenty of descendants of those 19th century Irishmen. There was an element of truth to the complaints then, just like there is now. No doubt earlier influxes left things a little different than before, and in localities a lot different. Yet, here we are, sky still above us. “If, however, a man in his advancing… Read more »
I agree that irish immigrants are a decent historical proxy for mexican and central american immigrants. But there were some groups that lost out big due to the mass irish immigration. Some economic historians believe that the glut of cheap labor provided by the irish was part of the reason for apalling working and loving conditions for the urban poor in the 19th century. The culture and nature of some places where irreversible altered as well. Id you happened to like (post)puritan boston in the early 19th century, you were about to have a rude awakening. I think these factors… Read more »
I have no problem with people voicing concerns or the present situation either, and have some of my own, though they’re not precisely the ones you mention. I do have a problem when there is a thin line, or none at all, between cultural concerns and antipathy toward immigrants generally. I have a problem with racist tinged concerns. I have a problem with the attitude (started to say idea) that immigration is the only issue that matters. I have a problem with emotional overreaction that demands political overreaction. It used to be my arguments were more often with open border… Read more »
I understand that so well, John. I read the data on the effect of uncontrolled immigration on my state’s schools and emergency rooms. I admit, yes I can see that my county has neither the housing, the water, or the freeways to handle ten million people with more arriving every day. And then someone says it’s not just about the money, it’s about preventing the dregs of humanity from despoiling the glories of western civilization. Boom! I’m right back where i started.
Jill, your first point is very good. Your latter concern is a straw man and an appeal to pity. Unfortunately, it’s very common and exacerbated by a 24/7 newsfeed telling us what to think. However, policy decisions shouldn’t be made on what an imaginary person might say.
JP, Jilly’s part about preventing the Dreg’s of society from despoiling the glories of Western Civ may be a weak man, but it is no straw man. There are many voices in the right (many of the most interesting voices) who hold that immigrants are invaders, that accepting third world peasants is lowering our IQ and compromising our future, that Muslims in Europe are completing what was stalled at Tours, and that Mexicans are trying to reclaim their northern states. These claims may be wrong, they may also be a bit fringe, but they definitely exist. See Vox Day’s writing… Read more »
I’m not here to defend VD, but I believe he’s mostly written such things about parts of Europe. Based on first hand accounts I’ve heard and stories like the one below, I’d say he’s at least halfway right:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/741773/video-migrants-storm-spanish-enclave-over-border-fence-ceuta
My point stands that arguments and policies shouldn’t be based on our anger/fear over rhetoric (real or imagined) that others supposedly spout.
JP,
My point wasn’t that political opinions should be shaped by rhetoric, or that VD was wrong (I’m sympathetic to some of his views, while being opposed to his rhetoric). It was simply that Jilly wasn’t presenting a straw man. The views she was responding to are real and I think they should be addressed rather than ignored or denied. There is a lot of overton window policing being done by just denying that positions exist, i don’t like seeing it on any front.
Demo, fair enough, but is there a semi-mainstream conservative voice in the U.S. saying anything about “preventing the dregs of humanity from despoiling the glories of western civilization” or remotely close? Possibly Pat Buchanan, but he’s a lot more polished and not very influential any more. We can assume that’s what some people “really think,” but those type of assumptions have caused a lot of harm politically and theologically IMO. For example, that’s what many Federal Vision opponents did to completely shut down honest discussion. (“Those guys want to lead us straight to Rome…just read between the lines of what… Read more »
JP, I don’t know about mainstream voices – thats part of my point, people often police their desires overton window to not have to deal with positions. Steve King is a sittimg representative and he has called immigrants “violent invaders” some would say he isnt mainstream (fencing). The Taki Mag crowd of Buchanan, Derbyshire, and Sailer seem to have a similar view. And many in the NRx crowd (mostly anonymous, but at least somewhat influential like Moldbug and now ZeroHPLovecraft) would take the invaders despoiling western civ angle. Our former frequent and articulate commenters ashv and Barnabas were in this… Read more »
Demo, you said: Steve King is a sitting representative and he has called immigrants “violent invaders”… He has? Where? This is what King actually said: The violent death rate in Honduras is 94.7 per 100.000. Compare that to the violent death rate of Japan at 0.27 per 100,000. And, nine of the ten most violent countries in the world are south of the US border. 16 of the 20 most violent countries are also south of the US border. The remaining four are all small countries in Africa. So, what is happening is, we are getting illegal, and to an… Read more »
FP, You don’t appear to be reading me closely. I’m not censuring King. I think he speaks for a substantial part of the right, and i think his stance should be engaged, not shoved outside the window. I think it is fair to say that he thinks underclass migrants (illegal, and to some extent legal) from mexico and central America are an invasion. You appear to agree to some extent. I think invasion is the wrong terminology; I disagree with the rhetoric. But the demographics of migrants to the US and Europe is something that should be more broadly known… Read more »
Demo, you missed my point. King didn’t call all immigrants “violent invaders”. He didn’t even call many or most immigrants “violent invaders”. You misrepresented what he actually said, and by extension, you misrepresented much of the political right on the issue. This is why it’s next to impossible to have a rational debate about immigration. The left routinely takes what the right says about certain immigrants (usually those of the illegal variety) and disingenuously attributes them to all immigrants, just like what you did with Steve King here. Not saying you’re a leftist, nor am I saying that you’re incapable… Read more »
demo,
It is all of the things you said, plus there is a bigger crowd that thinks the same as Taki and the NRx, even if they are less informed and less coherent. A shrewd demagogue could succeed bigly playing to the sentiments of such a crowd.
JP, of course you’re right that appeals to pity, or an aversion to white nationalism, should never inform public policy decisions. I trust that if I am ever in a position to vote on immigration policy, I will stifle my wavering sympathies and vote on reason alone. But people are not purely rational, and I doubt that I’m unusual in my reaction to the kind of rhetoric I described. But it is not always purely hypothetical: California white nationalist Patrick Little ran in the Senate primary on a campaign pledge to smash the Zionist oligarchy and expel all the Jews.… Read more »
I’ve never heard of Little, but I’d say he’s a fire ant compared to a charging herd of buffalo with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and co. on the rise. He’ll never get anywhere with his ideas. They might, especially during a financial crisis with people hungering for Chavez-like solutions. And I’m not talking about their race or religion–just their ideas and apparent ignorance and naivety.
The election of ACO reminds me of the time when, at around her age, I was nominated as a “joke” candidate for the head of the teachers’ union. When it appeared I was going to win, I panicked, knowing how completely unfit I was for the job. No such self-doubts have ever plagued Alexandria! In Tlaib’s case I would add bigotry and malice to the flaws you identified.
Jill, Ha! I actually had a manager who reminds me a bit of ACO. Rumor was that a crusty retiring employee recommended her for the job as a joke and it became a reality .I’m not sure if someone took him seriously or they filled a quota with her. She was giggly and talked really loud, giving the appearance of a nice but dim type who didn’t do much harm (or work). Behind the scenes she was very passive-aggressive and transferred work from her friends to employees who worked hard and complained little. I once politely asked why I had… Read more »
As unique as the Irish are, they had a lot more in common with their neighbors than Central Americans or Somalis do. Chinese immigrants in the 19th Century are a closer example, but they weren’t scattered all over the nation. Also, many of them returned to China after their work was done. Thomas Sowell’s work has shown that the Chinese tend to be productive and successful wherever they go. It took a few generations, but certainly happened in the U.S. That’s not true of all immigrant groups, though.
I really don’t understand how the Irish had “a lot more in common with” their neighbors than Central Americans. Somalis, sure. Other than a common language, spoken in a way that was so universally despised and derided that it might as well have been a foreign one, I can’t see many commonalities at all. The Catholic Irish in Protestant America were considered far more alien in the 19th century religiously, than people consider Catholic ethnic groups now.
JP, I’ll grant you Somali’s (which are a tiny part of our immigration; chinese may be a better proxy for muslim immigrants generally) but I think you vastly underestimate how big the Catholic issue was in the 19th century (and on up through JFK, with weakening ardor). I would argue that Irish Catholics were more “other” in 19th century America than a Mexican or Central American immigrant is today. In parts of the US soanish was te majoriry language from te beginning, so it is far more baked in as part of the culture (in El Norte, specifically). There was… Read more »
demo,
I hardly think the Amish qualify as a group who have assimilated into the culture, but a group who have chosen to remain separate without complaint.
I disagree. Women might be performing equally with men, but I have seen and heard of too many cases where there is no way that the woman manager has outperformed her subordinates, but has been promoted to prove there is no discrimination in promotion. This is especially common in companies with traditionally male majorities, for example, manufacturing engineering.
If I understood Demo correctly, he wasn’t implying that women are doing a better job than men, but rather that they are out competing men for opportunities in the job market overall. One study says that at this time women are one-third more likely than men to get hired. After an interview, women are 25% more likely to be offered a job. (They also ask for lower salaries.) I think the trend Demo identified is likely to increase over time. There are more women than men in America’s law schools and medical schools; there have been more women than men… Read more »
Jilly understood me correctly here. Outcompeting in our current economic system doesn’t imply a higher level of productivity – though it is likely that women outperform men in some jobs. But around 60% of Bachelors and Masters degrees are going to women now, and as Jilly mentions, in highly prestigious professional degree programs women outnumber men. As this generation works through the economy women will become more and more dominant. However, given the nature of men’s talent distribution (fatter tails, higher variance) the upper echelon in most fields will likely remain male biased, which will keep to pressure on to… Read more »
Re. women “outcompeting” men, To me, outcompete has the connotation of getting better results because you are better. In the case of job placement, women’s hiring may be the result of political correctness more than possession of better job qualifications. In other words, women may be getting jobs because of gender bias, rather than who is actually the best candidate. Or, put another way, women are “outcompeting” men because the game is rigged. I have seen many reasons that might help explain why more women today (from all backgrounds) attend college than do men. However, they are not de rigueur.… Read more »
OKR, then what concise word would you use to mean “beating more of the time regardless of actual merit?”
Jane,
Rather than “outcompeting men in the current marketplace”, I think “exceeding men in job placement” considerably reduces the connotation of better performance.
I think the game is more often rigged when the qualifications are subjective and ill defined and when an employer is rewarded by outside factors for hiring women. I think favoring a less qualified woman is even more likely when the person doing the hiring is not directly responsible for the company’s profitability. But that doesn’t explain why female law school graduates have an easier time getting hired by private law firms. No partner whose primary concerns are extracting the maximum number of billable hours and ensuring that cases are handled without any costly errors is likely, on ideological grounds,… Read more »
Jill, Supposing “female law school graduates have an easier time getting hired by private law firms”, I consider these as possible explanations: – Women may be more likely to leave due to pregnancy, spouse work transfer, etc. and then the firm can hire a new graduate at lower pay, keeping the firm’s overhead down. – Women may be more content than men to do the lower-level work. – Women may be more willing to accept a lower salary. The firms probably do not hire “obviously less-qualified women”, but, if they appear equally qualified and 60% of the candidates are women,… Read more »
“…hiring may be the result of political correctness more than possession of better job qualifications. ”
That’s not just for women, either. But if a woman has double minority status, that can be a big edge in both hiring and promotions.
I agree with Jilly. Outcompeting is not necessarily outperforming.
OKR,
The Amish were given as an (extreme) example of how some European groups resisted assimilation. They are a remnant of a large Anabaptist migration in the late 18th and early 19th century. Most of those people eventually assimilated but it took a long time.
Demo, I have often wondered how it came about that our presidents are expected to assume a quasi-paternal role toward the American people. No coverage of a major disaster seems complete until we learn that the president has embraced the victims’ loved ones and assured them of the nation’s sympathy. We even judge presidents on how skillfully they do this–Reagan, warm and comforting; Obama, cerebral and cold. I find this very unhealthy even as I recognize its potency. Even I, wary of this phenomenon, felt some sort of positive emotion when the president arrived to survey the damage following the… Read more »
“I have often wondered how it came about that our presidents are expected to assume a quasi-paternal role toward the American people.”
Precedent set by FDR? Juvenilization of the culture? Increased female political participation?
Off the top possibilities that occur to me.
The lessening of genuine paternal authority and care in the culture combined with nature’s abhorrence of a vacuum, maybe.
Jilly, I’m not really qualified to answer, as my knowledge of presidential and political history prior to the 20th century is piddly – but I guess that never stops me… I think the presidency has always been cast in a paternal fashion, but the nature of paternal language and expectations around fatherhood have changed dramatically. Early in tge 20th century a shift began where the dominant view of ideal fatherhood was no longer a stern hand guiding a ship, a man of competence to provide and defend, but rather a man of affection who could respond and relate to the… Read more »
No wonder I find this so puzzling. My childhood development was under the supervision of an excellent father who was never informed of this shift in expectations. Children have an emotional inner life? Nonsense. And if they do, it shouldn’t be encouraged.
Contrary to what many people believe, I think that life before this sea change might have been more pleasant for both fathers and children.
Jilly, it was not for nothing that “the founding fathers” were called fathers then and now.
And…….then and now, fatherhood takes a lot of doing on many levels!
Incidentally, my older “typical” son, just got a good post college starter job!????????☀
DW’s latest post is quite good, especially this part, which I’ve been saying for years: “In short, you are going to get PCA churches in St. Louis maintaining what no one has denied—which is that LGBT+ people are created in the image of God—and there will be no way on earth that you could get them to say the same thing and in the same way about Klansmen and editors of neo-Confederate newsletters. Their interest is therefore not the gospel. Their agenda points in another direction entirely. ” You don’t even have to go that far. The woke crowd won’t… Read more »
“Micro virtue signaling”???
I believe the correct term would be:
“Virtue slithering”!!
????
Rod Dreher has a pretty good article on the topic. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/queer-positive-pca-congregation/ The comments are good, too. The one by “Conjunction77” nails it. An excerpt: “1)The seminaries, parachurch ministries, and denomination hierarchy crave intellectual respectability. Being “woke” is a strategy for garnering respect from secular academia. 2) Many in the PCA and SBC had (and have) the best motives in seeking so-called “racial reconciliation.” It turns out, however, that the kind of black Christians most interested in having this kind of “racial reconciliation” discussion are highly-political, chauvinistic left wing race-idolaters. The nice-guy whites involved in this effort think they have no… Read more »