Last week I commented briefly on this post by Scott Clark. Since that time I have thought about it some more, and wanted to make some follow-up comments.
That the whole thing was about as out of line as it gets was revealed in how Scott Clark has handled the comments afterwards. When the original post appeared, it was plain that he was talking about Moscow, but he didn’t come right out and say that. Deniability was preserved. As the comments opened, one honest individual — no friend of the FV — asked if that was really necessary. Clark’s response revealed overtly that he was talking about Moscow, and shortly afterwards, the comments were closed. Now all the comments that had been previously allowed have been removed.
But while the comments were up, Clark said something like this: whether or not his cautions and warnings applied to me straight across was for “others to say.” In other words, Clark is not competent to say that I am to be compared to a mass murderer. He is, however, competent to insinuate it. He also knows how to turn the comments feature off on his blog — he doesn’t like being called to account for his words there any more than he would be willing to debate a proposition of theology — that is, if it were the kind of debate in which the other guy was allowed to talk.
So we see that when it comes to cultural analysis, Clark is auguring in. For Westminster West the whole thing is beyond sad.