Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
All right, everybody, I hope you had a good weekend, a good Lord's Day, a good everything. Excuse me, I'm watching the Mets game over here, so if you see me looking over this way and getting a little bit distracted, that's what's going on.
We've got a day game today, and man, the Mets have really turned it around. I honestly can't believe it. This is so un-Mets-like. Although there is an aspect of the Mets that they kind of lure you back in before they crush your dreams, but hey, I'm just riding the wave, you know what I mean?
I expected going into this season that we would be a good team, that we'd be hanging around for a playoff spot, even though a lot of people thought we would be nowhere near a playoff spot. First five games of the year we lost, and I felt like I was a fool.
I got fooled again. They fooled me. But hey, my first instinct was right, I think. I don't know, man. It's looking pretty solid right now. Anyway, let's jump right back into it today. I am going to talk about a Michael O 'Fallon tweet today, which some of you guys really don't care.
Some of you guys, you know, really like Michael, and I personally like Michael, although lately, yeah, lately we'll just say that not so great. No bueno. But that's okay, that's okay. One thing I will take my hat off to him for, he said, is that he got me to do something that I've never done before, and that is he got me to watch a Tucker Carlson entire segment.
Now, I'm not going to say I watched the whole show because I didn't, but I watched a whole segment for the first time in my life, an entire Tucker Carlson segment. Is it the first time in my life? It's definitely been not many if I've ever watched one before, but I can't remember if I have actually watched an entire Tucker Carlson segment before in any context, in any platform.
But I did, I watched the Doug Wilson segment, and you know, it was okay. It was okay, you know what I mean? I was glad to see it. And Doug Wilson did a great job, as he did. He's a preacher, and he did a little bit of preaching, which is what you expect a preacher to do, because he's a preacher.
But then Michael O 'Fallon, not too pleased. Not too pleased at all. And I wanted to read you his remarks here, because I found them to be pretty hilarious. So let's do it. Let's get it done here. Michael O 'Fallon of Sovereign Nations says this.
It seems that Tucker consistently interviews and authenticates men who are firmly committed to a, quote, national divorce. The end of inalienable rights and the desire to eliminate our constitutional liberties.
These men are part of what can be described as the anti-liberty movement. Let me just stop there for a second. This is very, very alarmist. These are the, we're the anti-liberty movement. Christian nationalists desire to eliminate constitutional rights.
The end of inalienable rights. And all of that, it certainly sounds pretty serious. And might I just say, very, very troubling. Now, what I think we get here with Michael O 'Fallon's tweet is a little dose of a right-wing version.
And I say right-wing, you know, it depends on your perspective, of course, but a much more right-wing version of the Ligon Duncan nonsense. You know what I mean? The Ligon Duncan deception. Michael O 'Fallon is being extremely deceptive here.
And he doesn't actually lie. If you notice, it's very similar to the Ligon Duncan version of deception, where he doesn't actually say anything that's necessarily untrue. But when you put it into the context of what he's talking about, it becomes a lie.
This is a very skilled way to lie, because it's very difficult to get called on it. It's very difficult to get called on your deceptive words when you actually don't tell a lie. But when you put it in the context, it is not true.
And the context here is talking about Doug Wilson's appearance on Tucker Carlson. How do you know that, A .D.? Well, it's because it's screen—or not screenshotting, rather. He doesn't screenshot people he likes, of course.
He's quote-tweeting Bill Roach, who says, so, this is Doug Wilson in the Mott mode. Now, I am a bit of a connoisseur of the old Mott and Bailey fallacy. In fact, you might even say that I was the very first person to use the Mott and Bailey fallacy in the context of the woke movement.
And then, of course, we all know what happened from there. You know, what's-his-face James Lindsay stole my idea and then started using it and made it famous. But I was there first! And I think it's important for everyone to know that.
I kid, of course. I kid. But anyway, so he's talking about Doug Wilson being the Mott in the Mott and Bailey, being the one that defends the easy things to defend. But really, he's pushing on the sly the very difficult premise to defend that, you know, is kind of packaged into his whole deal.
And so it's a way—it's a fallacy, but it's also a way to be deceptive. This is an accusation of Doug Wilson being deceptive here. He's promoting the Mott, even while he's pretending to push forward the Bailey.
And so it's a fallacy of equivocation, is what it is. And so that's the situation here. This is Michael O 'Fallon saying, yes, I agree! Doug Wilson is the Mott and Bailey! And so here is what he says.
So if you read this, again, it's a very skilled way to deceive people. Because what this would require, it requires you to say that Doug Wilson went on Tucker and he said all these things that are, yeah, he's four, but really he's on the sly promoting this thing where he wants the end of inalienable rights.
Doug Wilson—you heard it here first! Doug Wilson promotes the end of inalienable rights, the desire to eliminate our constitutional liberties. That's Doug Wilson we're talking about here. And they are the anti—they can be described as the anti-liberty movement.
Doug Wilson, Douglas Wilson can be described as being a key member, maybe the most key, the key member of the anti-liberty movement. Very interesting. How do you know this? Well, Michael O 'Fallon goes on.
He says Christian nationalists, neo-integralists, have openly advocated for the use of postmodern Mott and Bailey strategy. The Mott and Bailey fallacy occurs when someone advances a controversial claim, one that's difficult to defend, and when challenge retreats to an uncontroversial claim.
The bold claim is the Bailey and the safe claim is the Mott. My mistake. I think I might have confused that earlier. The bold claim is the Bailey. The safe claim is the Mott. And so what this would require is that Doug Wilson, again, on the sly, does this kind of Mott and Bailey old switcheroo.
That's really the way you can describe it to people that went to public school like me. It's the old switcheroo, you know, you offer this, but then, you know, when someone goes to grab it, you slip in the new thing and there you go.
It's the old switcheroo. That's what Michael O 'Fallon is accusing Doug Wilson of here. Or is he? And this is where the deception comes into play, I think, because I don't think you're going to find Doug Wilson saying anything like he promotes the end of inalienable rights.
In fact, what's so weird about this is, again, I did listen to the interview with Doug and and Tucker for the first time. I listened to an entire Tucker segment. And in the segment itself, Doug Wilson affirms inalienable rights.
In fact, he says, if you're against inalienable rights, I mean, that's just wild. In the very video that Michael O 'Fallon is now saying is really just a secret ploy. It's just the Mott and Bailey, you see.
Very strange. Very strange indeed. Michael O 'Fallon goes on. It is painfully obvious that when a Christian nationalist neo-integralist is interviewed by Tucker, they immediately jump into the Mott. As these men reinvent themselves just before our presidential election in November, it's important to remember the following.
The quote, or number one, the proposal that evangelization through preaching the gospel has been ridiculed by Christian nationalists over the past two years. That's number one. You got to keep that in mind.
I know Doug Wilson said that evangelism is the key to this. Otherwise, none of it works. But that's not really what he meant. What he meant was that evangelization, evangelization through preaching the gospel, he's ridiculed that privately, or secretly, or on the sly, or maybe not.
Maybe he just didn't tell you about that part. Number two, Christian nationalism, neo-integralism has shown a central goal of balkanizing the United States and the big sort. Now, I tried to watch the video where Michael O 'Fallon talks about the big sort, but I was bored to tears.
Absolutely impossible to slog through. It was the single most boring video that I've ever seen from Michael O 'Fallon about the big sort. That's just my opinion, of course. Maybe you like it. Number three, Christian nationalists have openly supported the idea of a vicar of Christ who will punish non-believers.
Doug Wilson? Vicar of Christ? Interesting. Very interesting. Christian nationalists, neo-integralists have been trying to start a reactionary movement that calls for an unbound executive like the Red Caesar, or the American Franco, or a Pinochet-like figure to eliminate their enemies and end the constitutional republic.
These are some very strong words that I am supposed to, at least if you follow this tweet, assign to Doug Wilson. See, this is where the deception comes into play, right? Because he didn't actually say that Doug Wilson believes this, but he is saying it, because Doug retreated to the... which means at some point, Doug must have been at the Bailey.
And these four principles that he's putting forward here, the balkanization, the vicar of Christ, the end of inalienable rights, the big sword, the whole thing. That's the Bailey. And Doug was on Tucker, and just like every Christian nationalist does on Tucker, he retreated to the Mott, where he said, oh, evangelism is cool.
But then when he was at the Bailey, he was like, yeah, evangelism? Are you crazy? Are you crazy? Very deceptive. Very deceptive. Because if you read this tweet, and you just didn't know, you would assume he's talking about Doug, because that's what he did.
He retreated from these four Baileys over to the Mott of pro-evangelism. He goes on. Tucker is undoubtedly aware that these men advocate for these changes. However, he conducts, and Tucker's part of it now.
Can you believe, even Tucker, he's part of the whole deal. He's like, all right, Doug, here's what we're going to do. We're going to do a softball interview where I'll let you do the Mott stuff, but on the sly, I know you're really for the Bailey stuff, and so we're going to do this interview so that way we can trick them all.
We can just trick them all. Tucker's in, he's undoubtedly aware. Morpheus knows, man. Morpheus definitely knows. However, he conducts a softball Mott interview with men like Charles Haywood, Santiago Pliego, and Victor Orban, who is believed to be the puppet of the Chinese Communist Party.
See, this is where the deception comes into play, right? Because if you notice, he names Charles Haywood, he names Santiago Pliego, and he names Victor Orban, but he does not name Doug Wilson. But the whole tweet is about Doug Wilson.
And so it's a very skilled way to deceive, because I guess you're supposed to throw Doug in that group because he's, I mean, after all, that's what he's talking about here. He's talking about Doug. Hey, there's Keith Hernandez.
Good to see you, Keith. Anyway, very sneaky, very deceptive. This is very similar to the Ligon Duncan thing, where he deceived you without really saying anything that untrue. Now, he did say, Ligon did say some untrue things, and I have a feeling that Michael's probably saying some untrue things here, but let's not even focus on that.
Let's talk about the skilled deceiving that's going on here. Put a neocon on Tucker's show, and he will eventually tear them to shreds. Place a neointegralist on Tucker's show, and Tucker literally gazed in open-mouth wonderment at all of their mott answers that have no relationship to what they have said in the very recent past.
Now, I happen to follow Doug a little bit. I'm not one of these guys that always watches every Doug Wilson video or reads every Doug Wilson article. I like Doug Wilson just fine, so don't hear me saying I don't.
I like him just fine, but I'm not one of these, I consume everything he says, right? But I do follow him, and I have heard Doug numerous times in different contexts talking to different people, unlike Tucker Carlson, where he said the same exact thing about how evangelization is the key.
None of this works without evangelization of the masses. It's got to be a bottom-up type of thing instead of a top-down type of thing. So Doug Wilson has said numerous times. In fact, one time I can remember was with James White.
He was talking to James White, and they were both kind of saying, yeah, yeah, it's got to be a bottom-up type thing. It can't be a Pinochet-like figure or an American Franco. That won't work. It's got to be a bottom-up.
Now, I remember this, and the reason why I remember this is because I actually don't necessarily agree. I think evangelization, evangelization, evangelization, I think it's key. I think it's absolutely part of the solution here, but I don't think it's in isolation from top-down reforms that could also be made.
I think that God has a lot to say to civil governing authorities that have an impact on what we do when it comes to evangelization, and can have a positive impact on that or can have a negative impact on that.
But I think that we have to understand there's multiple spheres here, and the different spheres have different duties. The Pinochet-like figure has duties before God, even if he's not in a constitutional republic like we are.
But if he is in a constitutional republic like we are, he still has responsibilities before God that he should do, that will promote human flourishing, that will promote the church to grow, that will promote evangelization.
They have different duties, different areas of responsibility, both answer to the Lord. So I remember I disagreed with Doug when he said that, but he has said that consistently in numerous ways, in numerous contexts, again and again and again.
Now I happen to know that Doug agrees with me that a ruler has responsibilities before God. I happen to know that, and so I'm sure he said that rulers have responsibilities before God. But that's not quite the same thing that Michael O 'Fallon here is trying to say.
Not quite. Not quite at all. Michael goes on. What is clearly happening is a feedback loop of authentication, where those in cahoots are being validated to popularize various integralist and fascist movements.
Strangely enough, many people fail to notice that this is pure reflexive, this is pure reflexivity meant to subtle, subtly encourage Christians to embrace a movement towards stakeholder, autocratic, technocratic, distributist ideology on the right, which aligns with the system promoted by the World Economic Forum and the Vatican.
And that's Michael O 'Fallon's tweet. That is Michael O 'Fallon's tweet. Now I want to give Michael as much credit as I possibly can, because Michael is not an idiot. He's a deceptive person, but he's not an idiot.
And Michael is deceiving you right here. He's doing it without really any specific, you can point to them, lies. But he's not giving you the whole facts. Very similar to like Ligon Duncan. Because if you remember Ligon Duncan said, mocking and slander are not the only ways to engage the culture.
Lobbing grenades is not the only way you can be faithful. And that's true. Lobbing grenades is not the only way to be faithful. But what he forgot to tell you was that while Doug Wilson agrees that lobbing grenades is a way to be faithful, he also says numerous times in numerous ways, in numerous contexts, that it's not the only way.
But if you just listen to Ligon, you would get the impression without him telling you specifically, without him lying to you directly, you get the impression that Doug has said that lobbying grenades is the way to be faithful, which is what makes it a lie.
It makes it deceptive. It makes it untrue. And so, so, so in this tweet, I mean, let me take that back. Michael O 'Fallon might not be a deceptive person, but he is being deceptive right here. Here's what I think is going on.
I think what Michael and many of his cohort does, and I've seen Cody Leibel do this. I've seen Bill Roach do this. What they do is if any Christian nationalist ever at any point, no matter who it is, no matter how obscure they are, no matter what, if anyone has ever said something, they now assign that to Christian nationalists as a whole.
And so that is a tactic that I've seen Cody Leibel use. I've seen Michael use it numerous times. I think he's using it here. I've seen Bill use it. I've seen James use it. I've seen so many people use it.
Now here's the thing. It's not necessarily bad to do that. You could say stuff like that. Christian nationalists have said this. Christian nationalists have said that. But the problem, though, is when you try to put those things into a specific person's mouth, which is what they're trying to do here with Doug Wilson.
Now, Doug Wilson is a big boy. He can handle himself. He's a bit of a whipping boy. You get a lot of kudos for attacking Doug Wilson. So that's why people do it, because it's very safe, you know what I mean?
You don't have to really worry about it, right? Of course, Doug Wilson has his followers, and of course, they'll call you out on this stuff, like I am right now, but it's a very safe thing to do in general.
But what I think is going on here is that these four points, yeah, there's definitely Christian nationalists who have said these four things most likely, right? Most likely. I could disagree with some of the framing, like ridiculing preaching the gospel.
I don't think that there's many people that have ridiculed preaching the gospel, but I think what has been said, and I've said this myself, is that preaching the gospel is what preachers do and should continue to do.
That being said, we also have political solutions to our problems, right? So it makes sense for preachers to focus on preaching, but politicians and governors and presidents and legislatures, they should do what they do and what they're tasked to do.
They might preach too, right? But what their task is as a legislature is very defined, and it's different than evangelizing. It's different. And so we got to let the politicians do what politicians do, and we got to let the preachers do what preachers do.
That's not quite the same thing as ridiculing preaching the gospel, of course, but it is making a distinction, and I think we need to do this. And so here's what I think. I think what Michael's done, and what Cody has done, and what some of these guys have done, if any Christian nationalist has said anything at any time, it's now, Christian nationalists say this!
It's really not the case. Some Christian nationalists say it, but not all. And so it's not really truthful to try to put some of those things in Doug Wilson's mouth as if he's being sneaky, right? Because that's the real rub here.
It's the idea of him retreating to the Mott from the Bailey. He's on the slide promoting the Bailey and ridiculing gospel preaching. That's what they're trying to say. If you read this tweet, you would just assume that.
I guess he's being sneaky. He ridicules preaching the gospel, then he goes on Tucker and says, yeah, preaching the gospel is the key. It's not really what's happened here. What's happened here is that there's a disagreement, I think, sometimes amongst Christian nationalists.
And I think even Stephen Wolf had a tweet yesterday where he says, look, I see one of the key differences between me and Doug displayed in this Tucker Carlson interview. Because he's saying it's got to be bottom-up evangelization, and then of course the state follows.
And I'm saying evangelization, yes, but there's also political solutions top-down that we can actually accomplish, that we can actually do, and it would be good that we do. That's a difference between Stephen and Doug.
That's what he's saying. But then Stephen goes on to say, but I don't really think in practice Doug differs that much from what I say. It's really more about what he says and his posture. It's not really in practice.
He understands that the civil governing authority has a duty before God that's different than the preachers. This is deceptive. Michael O 'Fallon is being deceptive here, in a very similar way to how Ligon was being deceptive.
Now, I don't care about this. I mean, at the end of the day, they're going to do what they got to do, and hey, it's fine. They can do what they got to do. They're going to keep doing it, because Michael O 'Fallon has been at this for a while at this point.
So they're going to keep doing that kind of stuff. That's okay. That's okay with me. But it is very similar to Ligon Duncan. It is very similar. It's obviously from a different perspective. Ligon Duncan's pretty woke.
Michael O 'Fallon's not woke, but he's certainly using some of the same tactics, some of the same playbook as the woke. Simple as that. Simple as that. It's very humorous to me. The neo-integralists are the new woke, and it's just so humorous because so many of the tactics used against the quote-unquote neo-integralists are very much the same as the woke church movement.
They call us racist. They call us anti-Semites. They call us names and this and that. It's all the same nonsense. But I thought that was interesting. I felt like he's really onto something here. Yeah, he's really onto something.
Yeah, he's onto the same thing Ligon Duncan was on. Simple as that. But that's my video for today. I may have another one coming. I will see how much time I have, but hope you found this one helpful. And remember, who better to trust than the guy who coined the Mott and Bailey fallacy in this guy?
Coined it, guys. And then James Lindsay stole it from me. Simple as that. Oh, by the way, here's another funny one. Here's another funny one. James Lindsay's cohort, Peter Boghossian. He's the guy who wrote the handbook, The Manual for Creating Atheists.
Hilarious book. Absolutely hilarious. He said, what we should do is we should have a team of street epistemologists. Instead of street preachers, it's going to be street epistemologists. It's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.
Anyway, he's very upset because I guess in Spain there was a legislature or a governor or something who would film himself eating feces as some kind of sexual gratification. And I guess he resigned and people were upset about it.
And he's basically saying, mind your own business. Live and let live. You got to love it, man. You got to love it. Brains have completely fallen out. And now it's a problem. It's a problem for you if you have a problem with your civil governing authority literally eating feces for sexual gratification.
Yeah. Christian nationalism can't lose. You got the Christian nationalist on one side and then you got the team that's like, freedom. We need liberty and freedom. And what they mean, it's liberty to eat.
Oh, man. What a gift. What a gift. What a gift. What a gift. In any case, I hope you found this video helpful. God bless.
