06 November 2025

Insane clickbait? Game over!!! (some thoughts on manipulative exaggeration; partly a repost)

Cafe at Classic Football Shirts London. Source.

"By far the greatest Cafe the world has ever seen."

I was walking past a familiar storefront this afternoon, the Classic Football Shirts London shop, and happened to notice this claim in huge letters (how could I not?) on the front glass.

The cafe at this store is indeed nice, as Judy and I have experienced more than once. Does it live up to that claim? (Is it even in the same class as Chapters in Newberg, Oregon?)

I'd rather ask, does it matter?

My theme this evening is manipulative exaggeration. The "greatest Cafe the world has ever seen" may be exaggerated, but it's not manipulative. It's so over the top that nobody is likely to argue the point.

"Communist, not socialist. Communist."
Screenshot from source.

A few days ago, I watched a video clip of the USA's president say straight into the camera that New York City mayoral candidate is a "... communist, not socialist. Communist. He's far, he's far worse than a socialist."

I realize that as a rule the current U.S. president is not a reliable source of facts nor a defender of the biblical commandment against false witness, but I want to stick with this one case for a moment. Trump's assertion is an exaggeration (yes, Mamdani is on the left end of the USA's political spectrum, but not that far!) but also an outright falsehood (Mamdani is not a Communist either politically or philosophically, and this is a matter of public record).

The leader of what we used to call the Free World is guilty of manipulative exaggeration.

I realize that he's not the first U.S. politician to engage in this variation of false witness. As just one case study, I've just spend some time in a mixed experience of fascination and horror, reading about the 1884 presidential campaigns of Grover Cleveland and James Blaine. As American Heritage summarized it, "Grover Cleveland had seduced a widow; James G. Blaine had peddled influence [and] lied about it. In 1884, voters had to choose between two tarnished champions."

(My favorite line from Cleveland supporters: "We should elect Mr. Cleveland to the public office he is so admirably qualified to fill and remand Mr. Blaine to the private life he is so eminently fitted to adorn.")

Compared to the raging MAGA bulls in the china shop of democracy, it may seem like indulging in trivialities to point to the cesspool of manipulative exaggeration that makes up much of the Internet. But is this wider context just making it harder to raise a red flag when the president himself indulges? Might we become so cynical that we give up on seeking truth and unmasking manipulation even when it's conducted by our chief executive? And ... when it's conducted by "our own side" as well?

I'm sad to see that people on the left, where I generally find myself, are now constantly using these techniques of manipulative exaggeration, often in the form of "clickbait," in the supposed service of getting our attention for their message. My e-mails and my phone's text messages feature such lines as...

Re: Taylor Smith...Donald Trump's DISGUSTING rant.
re: Portland's polling location [Johan won’t respond??] (Portland, Oregon, doesn't have polling locations! Only drop-off points for our ballots, which can also be mailed in.)
We can't believe you're a Republican!!!
NOT asking for money, just your signature. (For the record, they did ask for money, too.)
Impeachment COMING SOON [MUST READ >>]>

And in addition, there are those frequent "surveys" and "polls" which both major parties send out constantly, with questions worded to make it obvious how we should answer.

He is starting to worry about me.

If there's anything unique about the text messages and e-mails from the Republicans, it's how stupid they think their audience is. A frequent theme: the president has been checking with his staff to hear how I've personally responded to their latest plea.

If there's any blessing in this Internet/phone blizzard of manipulative exaggeration, it might be that the formulas (including senders' addresses, CAPITAL LETTERS, shocking headlines, etc) are so absurd that we're probably all learning how to filter them out. The sheer volume of such traffic may also reduce my patience with even using these devices as much as I've done in the past. SHOCKING! It's WIN-WIN. GAME OVER!

Four years ago, I posted the following essay on clickbait. I find my YouTube feed to be slightly calmer these days. Is it because I've somehow trained it to reduce this kind of traffic, or are content providers themselves realizing we're burning out on manipulative exaggeration?

Youtube has figured out that I like videos about space travel, so they serve me up with lots of suggestions about the latest rockets and their builders.

Many of those videos have calm, interesting titles and descriptions, and the day is not long enough to view even a small portion of those. That's especially true for a video like this, modestly entitled "Crew-3 Mission | Approach and Docking," that takes more than six hours to watch from beginning to end.

Six hours may seem like a long time, but it's a lot shorter than the preceding video, "Crew-3 Mission | Coast and Rendezvous," which clocks in at nine hours. Strangely enough, that title completely omits the dramatic centerpiece of the video -- the launch!

Many of the videos I'm invited to watch are exactly the opposite: the titles are far more dramatic than the content. Often the titles reflect today's equivalents of the overused superlative "extreme" of a couple of decades ago.

These overly dramatic titles and descriptions are sometimes called "clickbait." This word entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 1999, longer ago than I realized. (According to the OED, clickbait is "Internet content whose main purpose is to encourage users to follow a link to a web page, esp. where that web page is considered to be of low quality or value.")

In our classes at the New Humanities Institute in Elektrostal, Russia, we occasionally presented our students with carefully curated cutting-edge lists of buzzwords and jargon (and sometimes asked them to predict whether those words and phrases would still be in use in five years), but I don't remember "clickbait" being in those lists. I think one of the last classes we did on this topic included the word "binge-watch" ... in case that helps you deduce what years I'm talking about.

Far from exciting my interest, clickbait titles and descriptions of videos relating to space travel usually repel me. Here are the top five words and phrases practically guaranteed to prevent my click:

game over! (which it never is!)

insane! (meaning, as far as I can tell, audacious)

humiliated! (usually comparing one tech entrepreneur/celebrity's success to another)

this is huge! (probably not)

it's happening! (and so is everything else)

I watched one of these videos, out of sheer curiosity and to maintain a shred of integrity for this screed. (What if it really was "game over" and my protests were just ill-informed?)

GAME OVER! Elon Musk & Google's INSANE Partnership Will Change EVERYTHING 🔥🔥🔥

The video on the "insane" partnership of Elon Musk and Google was underwhelming. The commentator simply described the Starlink/Google collaboration, which was already public news five months earlier, using video clips that were only vaguely related to the narrative, not a single voice other than his own, and no analysis that could not be found in corporate press releases. Youtube doesn't mind, of course -- the video was preceded by two ads.

More samples from one evening's Youtube browsing:

Original post and links for that day, November 11, 2021, are here.

A History of Rock and Roll in 500 Songs. Many thanks to Steven Davison for writing about this podcast. I've been sampling it. It lives up to Steven's praise. And if you think that rock music is a bit of a trivial subject for our difficult times, I can point out how multidimensional the podcast's coverage is, taking into account racial politics, business ethics, technical innovations, generational influences, in short, all the ways that music reflects life. What's more, we may need a thoughtful podcast on rock music while we're in detox from all that manipulative exaggeration.

While I'm at Steven's blog, here's a more typical post: a new look at "that of God" through the eyes of George Fox (of course), Lewis Benson, Rufus Jones, and Michael Langford.

What's going on in Richmond, Indiana? Two institutions closely related to Friends report troubling financial news. Here's an item on Earlham College and another on Friends United Meeting. (Part two of the FUM document is here.)

According to FUM's Weekly E-news, FUM has scheduled an online information session on the financial situation and the 2026 budget on Thursday, November 13, at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Register here. Lloyd Stangeland, FUM’s Acting Chief Financial Officer; Shawn McConaughey, Clerk of the Finance Committee; and Emily Provance, Clerk of the Advancement Committee, will facilitate the session.

"Responding to the calls of Palestinian Christians": a statement and petition campaign arising from the 2025 Church at the Crossroads campaign. Thanks to Kristin Du Mez for the link.

Blues from Brazil: Little Walter's "Sad Hours" performed by Sacha Gamarra. Below: From Dnipro, Ukraine, Kostiantyn Kolisnychenko with the same instrumental.

30 October 2025

Hope is not just for eternity

Photo by Judy Maurer, edited.

I've been seeing and hearing a lot about the theme of hope recently. Sometimes the message is "hang on to hope!" Sometimes it's more like "I've given up hope." It's made me think about how hope relates to reality and to faith.

The USA has been through some rough times in its nearly 250 years as a country, but in my lifetime, this may be the scariest. In previous crises, the danger may have been high (my first memories of national danger was the Cuban Missile Crisis) but at least there seemed to be competent people in charge. Now the people in those top posts seem to have a lot more fun generating crises than managing them. And some of them presume to bless this scene in the name of the Prince of Peace.

In fairness, neither corruption nor crises are anything new. The genocide in the Gaza Strip and in Al-Fashir, Sudan, are just the latest examples of what God already knew in this scene after Noah and the animals disembarked from the ark:

Genesis 8:20-21 (My emphasis) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humans, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

Kristin Kobes Du Mez really brought this biblical realism home to me last summer, as I described in this post, The long defeat, part one. She was listening to a sermon by Len Vander Zee. As she tells it,

Len was quoting Celeborn and Galadriel in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, saying: “together through the ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.” Tolkien expanded on this in a letter to a friend: “I am a Christian….so I do not expect history to be anything but a long defeat, though it contains…… some glimpse of final victory.”

In 2 Corinthians, Paul talks about the contrast between hope and reality in his own experience, shortly before charging his audience with the ministry of reconciliation:

2 Corinthians 4:8-12, 16-18 We are afflicted in every way but not crushed, perplexed but not driven to despair, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down but not destroyed, always carrying around in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For we who are living are always being handed over to death for Jesus’s sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us but life in you.
...
So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For our slight, momentary affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen, for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.

Death continues to roam the globe, among guilty and innocent alike, shredding credibility from those preaching too glib a picture of hope. I remember a blunt statement by T. Canby Jones: (paraphrasing from memory): Genuine Christian pacifism requires coming to terms with one's own death.

So: does hope have anything to do with today's reality? Yes, I believe it does. If we hope for good outcomes, and work toward them, we're not required to seek a guarantee that everything will change for the better. Hope doesn't require denying reality or concealing failure. Somehow I'm sure that in God's economy, no act of kindness goes to waste, but we may not see the fruits ourselves.

I love this quotation from Evelyn Underhill, via the Daily Quaker Message for October 24, "Love cannot be stopped."

One of the holy miracles of love is that once it is really started on its path, it cannot stop: it spreads and spreads in ever-widening circles till it embraces the whole world in God. We begin by loving those nearest to us, end by loving those who seem farthest. And as our love expands, so our whole personality will grow, slowly but truly. Every fresh soul we touch in love is going to teach us something fresh about God.”

I quoted Paul saying "...what cannot be seen is eternal." I think this is where hope and faith are related. In the letter to the Hebrews, the writer says, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." My own hope is for God to see a reason to modify that reflection in that Noah's Ark story, because it will turn out that humans might cease being inclined toward evil. I have no idea when and how enough of us will head Paul's call to become ministers of reconciliation, and enough hearts will be changed, so that cruelty is banished from human community. The apparent lack of realism in this vision doesn't mean that I shouldn't hope in that direction; it's just that I recognize that there will almost certainly be many cruelties and many deaths between now and its fulfillment, and I shouldn't pretend otherwise or gloss it all over with Christian clichés.

Maybe what I'm really asking for is the borderline between earth and heaven to begin melting, as in Revelation.

In the meantime, I gain hope just by reading the list of heroes of faith in the beginning of the eleventh chapter of the letter to the Hebrews. Today I saw something new to me in one of those heroes... Hebrews 11:11: And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. Sarah and Abraham had faith that literally bore fruit as God had promised. I believe Jesus' promise to me that he is trustworthy; therefore I take him at his word and trust him.

The traditional interpretation is that the only sure hope is for eternity, but I am impatient, and I believe that the more we hope, the more we'll get "some glimpse of final victory" even in this present age.

Sowing in tears.

Valiant for the Truth.

Another view of hope at Got Questions.

Stephanie Phillips, The Noise of Certainty and the Voice of Hope.

Philip Gulley, If America Were Great (1). "Do you know what it means to be a Christian? I don’t need to tell you this because you already know. But I’m worked up, so I’m going to say it anyway." ...

Sarah Thomas Baldwin asks, "Are you in the wilderness?"

Nancy Thomas, Poems of the Incarnation (1).

The great Homesick James in 1970, "Dust My Broom."

23 October 2025

October shorts

Klamath Falls. This shirt is available here.
Photo by Judy Maurer.

No Kings Day v.2, October 18, found us in Klamath Falls, Oregon. For some reason, I didn't expect much No Kings Day participation in Klamath Falls, maybe because in 2024 Klamath County voted for the current U.S. president by a margin of 41 percent over Kamala Harris.

As it turned out, participants made an impressive showing in Klamath Falls, lining along both streets, both sides, of a major intersection, and garnering lots of car-horn (and truck horn) approval.

The evening before, in a segment entitled "Older, Wiser," Rachel Maddow spoke on her television show with environmental activist and journalist Bill McKibben concerning the impressive proportions of older people in public actions such as No Kings Day. Back in 2021, McKibben launched an organizing campaign, Third Act, to mobilize people over the age of 60 for climate change activism. Among other things, McKibben said,

I think one reason that older people have been turning out in such large numbers, and they have been heavily overrepresented in these demonstrations, is because everybody can tell, with the heart, can tell that the Trump regime is bad news. But if you have 15 presidents, in your experience, you know that it's not just bad news. You know that it's utterly different from every president that we've ever lived through before, good or bad; that this is a complete rupture with the America that we knew. And I think that may strike old people harder. We've certainly noticed at Third Act that there's a huge willingness of people to be out in the street over and over again, and not just at these demonstrations.

I didn't do a count, but I'm fairly sure well over half of the participants in Klamath Falls were in the demographic group McKibben described.

In this archived interview, Bill McKibben describes his Methodist faith and experience.

While in Klamath Falls, we enjoyed a reunion with Klamath Falls Friends Church. We stayed with the pastors, Leigh and Joe Tolton, and enjoyed the incredible view of Upper Klamath Lake from their home.

This was our seventh visit to Klamath Falls Friends over the years, and we felt very much at home. Joe gave a sermon on simplicity (and how it differs from plainness), based on Matthew 10:7-14, and with illustrations from the life of Diogenes the Cynic. It evoked a number of fruitful reflections from attenders during the open worship.

Why Trump's demolition of the East Wing is so shocking. Is it shocking to you? Washington Post art and architecture critic Philip Kennicott explains his own reactions.

The leader as builder is an ancient idea, older than the Egyptian pyramids, older than the great public monuments of Rome, older than Emperor Constantine’s clumsy effort to eradicate memories of his predecessors by repurposing and rebranding their works as his own. Photography reanimated this ancient idea for a mass modern audience, rendering the leader as a colossus relative to the toy-sized representations of his architectural legacy. For democracies and authoritarian regimes alike, the image projected competence, the power and skill to serve the people with public works and leave a lasting legacy.

...

Trump made speedy demolition his priority, and speedy construction of the new ballroom is essential to his symbolic purpose, to offer a stark contrast to the dysfunction of Congress and, by extension, the torpid rhythms of democratic self-governance. He is the master builder, the developer who can cut through red tape. That image, whether deserved or not, is why many people voted for him. But to shred precedent is simply to set new precedents. And the precedent he is setting is that history doesn’t matter; laws, procedures and customs are irrelevant; and there is no role for collaboration, transparency and review in the construction of new buildings. Buildings are gifts to the people from leaders who are infallible, not the organic expression of civic values and ideals.

I can't tell whether the visceral shock of seeing FDR's East Wing utterly destroyed helped distract us from an arguably more important story: the U.S. military strikes on boats in South American waters. Another instance of making "speedy demolition" a priority?—and again we see striking passivity among the representatives and senators whom we pay to behave as coequal participants in governing the country.

Julia Steinberg entered Stanford University as a progressive. Her path to conservatism began her first year. Her story, "The Appeal of the Campus Right: It's Not About Trump," interests me because I have a friend in England who has undergone a similar transformation.

Steinberg arrived at Stanford expecting to participate in the progressive community there.

As the school year got under way, however, I began to notice something that grated on me. Debates in the classroom, whether about socialism or Plato or the Quran, felt highly delicate, as if everyone was afraid of offending everyone else. Rather than “I disagree with so-and-so,” it was more socially acceptable to say “piggybacking on so-and-so’s point,” even if there was a disagreement. When I finally found someone willing to have an extended intellectual debate with me—my problem-set partner for a logic course—I was interested to learn that he was a staff writer at the Stanford Review, the conservative publication on campus. He invited me to a meeting during winter quarter, and, mostly out of curiosity, I decided to attend.
What I saw there was the opposite of what I’d found in my classes: Students were encouraged to disagree with one another. At each meeting, students had to present—and defend—the articles they were working on; then the group would debate three topics, such as how the U.S. should respond to the war in Ukraine and whether Silicon Valley’s relevance was waning. I kept going back to Review meetings, but I didn’t tell many of my friends—I didn’t want to be judged.

Why the eggshell-walking among progressives? (Yes, I've noticed this, too.) I think it is partly because of the compulsive need to be right, and consequently to one-up everyone who differs. Deviations on issues of effective anti-racism, for example, cannot be tolerated. I hunger for the arenas where differences can be argued on their own alleged merits and defects, rather than as reflections of your or my obvious and intolerable defects.

These tendencies have made their way into a number of progressive Quaker communities. If these tendencies toward monopoly-style rightness are not challenged, I see a real danger of decline and an eventual future as small clubs of Quaker specialness rather than genuine churches. If I'm worrying needlessly, please tell me!

As Britain Yearly Meeting's Advices and Queries advise us (under no. 17), "Think it possible that you may be mistaken."

I'm not asserting that these kinds of personalizing of arguments and threats of shunning don't happen among conservatives as well. I particularly think of the theobros.... But I hate to see it among those who claim to defend freedom of speech and thought, and trustworthiness of process, as crucial values for an interdependent community.

Much of MAGA is not conservative in any classical sense.

Becky Ankeny looks at the Beatitudes for their prophetic content.

What can we learn from these beatitudes and the Old Testament sources they derive from? We learn that centering our hearts on God’s character and God’s faithfulness is the place to start. (I’m trying contemplative prayer for this purpose.) It is always right to pray. It is not the last resort; it is the only resort in hopeless times. Prayer is the expression of hope when there is no basis for hope.

Death Bloom: a message of hope for times of transition. Amy Straub prepares to leave Zambia, not knowing what comes next. She reminded me of what it was like to realize we were approaching the end of our time in Russia.

More on powerlessness and prayer from Tricia Gates Brown. Her post reminded me of Anthony Bloom's words here (scroll down to the second quotation).

C. Wess Daniels on the power of the persistent widow—and on translators' choices.

Mike Farley on silence and language. "All of practice comes down to stillness in the end...."

"Needed Time" (Eric Bibb, surely a rerun here! But it's a needed time.)

16 October 2025

"The cult of personality and its consequences"

Above: at Elektrostal's Victory Day celebration, May 9, 2010. (My photo.)

Below: selected pages from Khrushchev's "secret speech," February 26, 1956, as published by the state publishing house for political literature (Gospolitizdat') in 1959. Some of the headings: "Fabricated cases," "Stalin and the War," and "Genocide and Terror." Here's a link to the full text of this version and a link to one of the English-language translations.

Yesterday morning on our public radio station I heard Meghna Chakrabarti open her On Point program with these words:

It would later be called the Secret Speech, but on February 25th, 1956, a cold morning in Moscow, no one knew what to expect. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stood before the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and did the unthinkable.

For a few wild moments, before she went on to explain her reasons for referring to this speech, my memories flashed back five decades to my student years at the Institute for Soviet and East European Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa. In those years, I studied Russian language and literature, Russian history, and the politics of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. The "secret speech" was a landmark event in Soviet history, and I remember being fascinated by the speech itself and the varied commentaries on Khrushchev's motives, what he should have said, what he should not have said, and the uneven progress of the destalinization efforts that followed.

Among our friends in Russia, one retired scientist in particular remembered hearing about the speech the next day, and the quiet celebrations that ensued among her friends.

I remembered reading U.S. ambassador Chip Bohlen's memories of hearing about the speech. (Witness to History: 1929-1969.)

It was two weeks before I heard anything about the secret speech. On March 10, at a reception at the French Embassy for former President Vincent Auriol of France, a rumor circulated that Khrushchev had made a scathing attack on Stalin. The rumor, like many others, was transmitted by Parker, the Moscow correspondent for the London Worker. It seemed evident that the rumor had been planted by Russians who wanted the word out.

Liliana Lungina on the secret speech (episode 12).
Behind her, a photo of her late husband Semyon Lungin.

More recently, I watched the wonderful (and unexpectedly popular) autobiographical television series on author and translator Liliana Lungina and read the book based on that series. (See this post: Ordinary heroes.) About the "secret speech," she told us,

It was not published, but read out in closed sessions. It was only published at the end of the 1980s. The address was intended exclusively for Party members. Nonetheless, everyone who was even slightly literate knew about it.
It dropped like an atom bomb, though much of what Nikita said people already knew. For [Liliana's husband] Sima and me there was absolutely nothing new in his speech, even the hint that Stalin had killed Sergei Kirov. And all the rest of it, too, about the “cult of the personality”—we knew all of that already, of course. Yet even for us, the fact that it had been uttered out loud, officially formulated and acknowledged, changed something. For others, for those who had tried to follow the Party line, it was earth-shattering.

I briefly wondered why Chakrabarti had brought up this event at this particular time. Yesterday's date doesn't match up with an anniversary of the speech. But she soon made the connection clear, and as she did so, my private reminiscences of student years came to a swift close. After talking about the speech and its impact at the time with Nikita Khrushchev's great granddaughter and with historian Wendy Goldman, Chakrabarti asked Goldman,

CHAKRABARTI: ... Okay, so we have invited you on today, Professor Goldman, to talk about what Stalinism actually is and was. Because quite a few historians and thinkers out there have wondered out loud whether the United States right now under Trumpism has anything to learn from Stalinism.
What would be your answer to that?
GOLDMAN: I think that there were certain signposts which were important on the road to terror in the 1930s, and I think these signposts are important for Americans to learn to recognize. So it's not that there's a direct comparison necessarily. And comparisons, I think, as many people have said, can be very easy or facile.
There were certain signposts which were important on the road to terror in the 1930s. ... These signposts are important for Americans to learn.
But in terms of looking at signposts, I think these are important, and I could talk a little bit about what some of them were, if you'd like me to.

They had my attention, though a sort of reflex skepticism came with it. I was familiar with some of the comparisons of the MAGA movement with Volk-and-violence fascism, but, I confess, any sort of linkage with Stalinism hadn't occurred to me. Then I remember what someone in Buzuluk, Russia, told us back in 2008, "Hitler was a kindergartner compared to Stalin," and I kept listening.

Here's a link to the full broadcast and transcript, but these are a few of the points that stood out to me:

A trigger event: In the Stalinist case, one of the triggers was the assassination of Politburo member Sergei Kirov, which led to the notorious trials that eliminated prominent opposition politicians and led to ever-widening purges. Terms such as "terrorists" and "enemies of the people" came into frequent use.

Is it fair to cite the words of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, in this connection? On the Monday after Kirk's death, Miller and vice president Vance made these comments on the episode of the Charlie Kirk show hosted by Vance:

STEPHEN MILLER: The thing about anger is that unfocused anger or blind rage is not a productive emotion.
JD VANCE: Right.
MILLER: But focused anger, righteous anger, directed for a just cause is one of the most important agents of change in human history.
VANCE: Charlie showed that. Amen.
MILLER: And we are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks.

There are several ways that MAGA authoritarianism is on full display now, and one of them is the creation of an internal army that includes ICE, an army under the direct control of the president, an army that does not respect the normal disciplines and safeguards of policing, such as detentions and arrests based on probable cause, carried out with minimal force. Real police officers do not knock people down as ICE and related forces do frequently in full view of camera-toting witnesses. But perhaps the most Stalinist aspect of this whole scene is the preparation of all of us to accept this by repeated use of untruthful and dehumanizing language to describe the "enemies of the people" who deserve such treatment.

The subversion of science: Another of Chakrabarti's guest, historian Paul Josephson, summarized Stalin's support for pseudo-scientific doctrines such as Trofim Lysenko's assertions that living organisms could be trained to adapt to new environments directly, rather than by evolution, to the great advantage of (for example, as he claimed) agriculture. This seemed to be in accord with the Marxist-Leninist vision of the "New Soviet Man." With Stalin's finger on the scales, this wasn't simply a debate among rival geneticists; those who disagreed with Lysenko could find themselves unemployed, even imprisoned, and the agricultural practices based on his principles were disastrous. One of the worst effects was the isolation of Soviet science from the rest of the world during the high period of this doctrine.

Now we have a U.S. administration that seems to be compulsively negative about climate research and non-carbon energy sources, ready to ban certain already-conducted research from appearing on government Web sites, cutting funding to health research it doesn't like, and promoting views on vaccination that are nearly 100% outside scientific consensus.

Stalin in the Kremlin is concerned about
each one of us. Source.

Finally, the cult of personality. Once again, Chakrabarti on the secret speech:

Comrades, Khrushchev said, the cult of the individual acquired such a monstrous size, chiefly because Stalin using all conceivable methods to support the glorification of his own person. End quote.
Khrushchev said, those around Stalin, willingly, quote, used the most dissolute flattery, made Stalin into a Godhead, transforming him into an infallible sage. End quote. They believed Stalin's own description of himself as, quote, the greatest leader. Quote, sublime strategist of all times and nations. Quote, finally, no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens, Khrushchev said.

Fast forward to the present era. Drawing on the On Point transcript:

CHAKRABARTI: Professor Goldman, if I can, I'd like to go back for a moment to the concept of the cult of personality. Because it was so central to Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech after Stalin's death. I think you can argue in the affirmative that there is a, in fact, for probably a decade, there has been a cult of personality built around President Donald Trump.
And it may, Trump, it may be reaching, its apotheosis right now. For example, this summer at a cabinet meeting of the president's chief advisors, this is how all the cabinet members began their remarks. This is from August 26th.
LUTNICK: This is the greatest cabinet working for the greatest president, and I just want to say thank you. I'm having the time of my life.
NOEM: You committed when you ran for president to make America safe again, and today the average family and individual that lives in this country is safer than they've been in years because of what you've done.
WRIGHT: God bless your efforts. God bless your assembly of this team around this table. We're bringing the American dream back.
CHAVEZ-DeREMER: If you all haven't stop by the Department of Labor, Mr. President, I invite you to see your big, beautiful face on a banner in front of the Department of Labor because you are really the transformational president of the American worker.
ROLLINS: I do believe we're in a revolution. 1776 was the first one, 1863 or so with Abraham Lincoln was the second. This is the third, with Donald Trump leading the way.
WITKOFF: And there's only one thing I wish for that Boel Committee finally gets its act together and realizes that you are the single finest candidate since the Nobel Peace, this Nobel Award was ever talked about, to receive that reward.
CHAKRABARTI: All right. In order, that was Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, AG Secretary Brooke Rollins, and Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff.

One final quote from the program, from Wendy Goldman, summing up the stakes while still reminding us that we're not "there" yet, by any means. To ask about the lessons in Stalinism for the USA is not an invitation to alarmism, but to vigilance and compassionate solidarity. I'm eager to hear whether you think Goldman has made a fair case.

I think this is something we need to all, as Americans, pay very close attention to. Folks, there's a playbook here. And when we study history and then when we live through these tumultuous contemporary times, we hear echoes of that history. And those echoes are chilling. So for example, part of the playbook is that certain groups are demonized.
There's a playbook here. ... When we live through these tumultuous contemporary times, we hear echoes of that history.
That happened in the Soviet Union and it's happening here. Here, we're demonizing immigrants, often hardworking people who have been in this country for many years. Some of them may be here illegally. They pay taxes. They do some of the most difficult jobs in the country. Their children go to school.
We have people here who are illegal, whose children are in the military. These groups have been demonized as criminals. And sometimes it's difficult to know what kind of America we're living in. So on the one hand, everything is going normally. And people can say, fascism, this is nothing like fascism, Soviet terror.
This is nothing like Soviet terror. And then at the same time, you can look out the window and see masked men who are armed, who are literally disappearing Americans off the streets of our cities. That's a different America and that's an America that I think we all need to pay attention to. Similarly with the attack on left wing people, this is reclassification of people with dissenting views as domestic terrorists, that is straight out of the playbook of the terror, and these are the kinds of things we really need to pay close attention to.

How ICE may be threatening religious freedom. (Religion News Service.)

The Convocation Unscripted calls out glee over ICE brutality. Here's part of Jemar Tisby's response:

If we're coming back to the "what do we do part," here's a real simple one: re-read the gospels. 'Jemar, why do you say re-read, I've been reading that all of my life.' Yeah, but now we're under a fascist regime, and it might hit different when we re-read the gospels. And in particular, I'm thinking about Matthew 5, of course, Beatitudes. But then, "blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you, because of me.' And then, "Rejoice, and be glad." All of this is abstract, until you are living in persecution, until you are living in oppression.

Enough of Stalin and DJT for today! Just as important in the grand scheme: Beth Woolsey has a foster cat story. (With a nod to our own former street cat who's napping in the top drawer of a file cabinet....)

Dessert: Rick Holmstrom with a nice song whose name I couldn't figure out or find in his discography. (Can you?) If you like it, enjoy the whole set.

09 October 2025

The Restauration arrived today

Source.

The commemorative voyage of the sloop Restauration from Stavanger, Norway, to New York City, ended today, with its docking at Pier 16 a few hours ago.

Luke Maurer and I were present to witness its departure from Stavanger back on July 4, the same date that the original Restauration left Stavanger in 1825, marking the start of the organized immigration of Norwegians to the USA two hundred years ago.

The original ship made it safely to New York Harbor on October 9, 1825, and discharged the 53 people on board, including the baby born during the voyage. However, the ship was seized by the port authorities, and its captain arrested, because the number of passengers had exceeded the maximum allowed for a vessel its size. The end of that story was happy; for reasons that nobody seems to know for sure, the U.S. president, John Quincy Adams, ordered the release of the ship and its captain, and cancellation of the heavy fine that had been imposed. (Here's Henry Cadbury's summary of the story, including Quakers' involvement.)

My first passport.

This commemorative voyage and its safe arrival in New York City are bright spots in the day's news. The history of Norwegian migration is important to me, at least in part because I'm part of that history. My Maurer ancestors seem to have come from Germany via Denmark, with the original Johan Fredrik Maurer arriving in Norway from Denmark around 1840. Some of his descendants are among the million or so Norwegians who emigrated to other countries in the years after the Restauration. Eventually I became one of the Norwegian immigrants to the USA.

It seems to me that the Norwegian and USA organizers of the 1825-2025 Restauration commemorations have conducted themselves with admirable diplomacy. But, in my private opinion, the story of President John Quincy Adams pardoning the captain and restoring the vessel to its owners has special meaning in this MAGA era. Back in 1825, it must have been assumed at the highest levels that immigrants were good news. In our own time, most economists agree.

I admire the strength and courage of those Norwegian pioneers of 1825. They endured a lot in their search for economic opportunity and religious freedom. On the other hand, there definitely were incentives to leave their homeland; the Norway of two centuries ago was one of the poorer countries of Europe, with no hint of the prosperity to come in the mid-20th century, and major restrictions on religious dissidents. Today's immigrants coming to the USA from a variety of places, also propelled by hopes of freedom and opportunity (or just plain survival!), and often ready to endure great risks to get here, are no less admirable. And in view of the USA's stagnating demographics, no less needed.

Benjamin Wittes on U.S. strikes on vessels off Venezuela: "When I say murder here, I am not speaking in hyperbole or using the term in some colloquial sense."

Several Quaker organizations have united to offer us an urgent statement on genocide in the Gaza Strip, and are asking Friends churches, meetings, and other organizations to endorse the statement. Sierra-Cascades Yearly Meeting of Friends did so at our fall gathering this past weekend, even as we followed the first hints of a possible cease-fire.

During the fall gathering, some of us had an opportunity to see this video from B'Tselem on "Our Genocide."

And some words about emergency relief plans for when the cease-fire begins, from the U.N.'s emergency relief coordinator Tom Fletcher.

A simple prayer for dark times: Micah Bales on the Lord's Prayer, its message, and its misuse.

For us, as the church of Jesus Christ, the greatest danger right now is that we fail to see clearly that this government is weaponizing our own Christian tradition against the people. They are quoting the Bible to justify their policies. But this is all a smokescreen. When they mock immigrants and use children as pawns, that’s not the gospel. That’s not “on earth as it is in heaven.”

This is surely a rerun, but this may be my very favorite Albert Collins clip. "Same Old Thing."

02 October 2025

The Bible, MAGA, and a new mission field

The 2020 census counted about 258 million adults in the USA. If about 23% of them were evangelical Protestants, that group number would number about 36 million. And, as surveys indicate, if 80% of those 36 million voted for the current president, that means 20% of them did not. That's 7.2 million evangelical Protestants who dissented one way or another from the majority choice.

Of course these estimates are rough, and there are many other Christian categories not included, but I'm intrigued by that specific minority. It may seem discouragingly small, but it's far from nothing, and as MAGA continues to pursue an aggressive anti-Christian agenda behind its thin Christian facade, might it be growing?

(If these sorts of statistics intrigue you, I recommend this and other research by the Public Religion Research Institute, along with this election study by the Pew Research Center.)

What do I mean by "thin Christian facade"? I certainly don't mean a facade that is inexpensive to produce. You can look no further than Charlie Kirk's organization, Turning Point USA, and its Web site, and its YouTube channel (4.48 million subscribers) for evidence of voluminous content and high-quality production values.

What is missing? I don't see much evidence of whole-life conversion, of putting our loving Creator at the center of one's life and relationships, of "regarding" others as Paul invited us to, of loving enemies, of engaging the principalities and powers spiritually, of remembering the Matthew 25 priorities that Jesus taught, not to mention God's promise that Abraham and his descendants will bless all the nations of the earth, even as they're commanded not to mistreat or oppress foreigners/strangers/immigrants.

The facade is thin because it differs so little from all those blood-and-country mythologies that falsify history, identify danger with "the other," misuse sacred language served with hypnotic music to whip up enthusiasm, and license extreme responses.

One writer, Mitchell Sobieski, has taken the risk of inventorying these scandalous divergences from biblical faith in the form of an open letter from Jesus. (I wouldn't use this device myself, but the inventory itself is important.)

Drew Strait speaks during the Catholic Social Tradition
Conference at the University of Notre Dame in Notre
Dame, Indiana, on March 21, 2025.
(Brian Kaylor/Word&Way); source.

Another helpful commentary comes from Drew Strait, who teaches at the Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary: "How to Challenge MAGA's Biblical Authoritarianism." It's a good presentation, but I'd like to expand on his apparent assumed audience, "progressive ecumenical Christians." It's urgent for some of those 7.2 million evangelicals who aren't sold out to MAGA to participate. Could some of them serve in a new mission field—an outreach to those among the 80% who might be ready, even yearning, to consider genuine good news for all nations?

I appreciated Peter Wehner's recent Atlantic article, "Fully MAGA-fied Christianity."

Politics fills the void left by faith, and it’s doing so in ways that I’ve never quite seen before. For many fundamentalists and evangelicals, politics meets the longing and the needs that aren’t being met by churches and traditional faith communities. If there is something useful that has come of the Trump era, and there’s not much, it is that it has offered a diagnostic CT scan of much of American Christianity. Trump and the MAGA movement capitalized on, and then amplified, the problems facing Christian communities, but they did not create them.

After giving us a gallery of the kinds of personalities filling that void and meeting those needs, Wehner seems, in my own mind, to be addressing the new mission field:

The churches and denominations that are not militantly MAGA but are still overwhelmingly composed of Trump supporters often get less attention than churches and denominations that are hyper-politicized, but they’re also essential to the Trump coalition. So it’s useful to understand the complex dynamic at play in those spaces.
I say complex because, every Sunday, millions of Christians attend churches that are nondenominational and that are affiliated with conservative Protestant denominations. These churches aren’t particularly political, and they are led by pastors who preach thoughtfully on topics such as loving your enemy and turning the other cheek, which Jesus talked about during his Sermon on the Mount; and on verses like this one, found in the Book of Ephesians, written by the Apostle Paul: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”
The great majority of people attending these churches wouldn’t consider those verses to be woke talking points; they would view them as the inerrant word of God. They would earnestly pray that those words would sanctify their life and that they would become more like Jesus. And almost to a person, these congregants would say that Christ is at the center of their life, their “all in all.”
Yet many of them will spend part of the rest of the week, and maybe much of the rest of the week, in the right-wing echo chamber, in the company of conflict entrepreneurs, having their emotions inflamed, feeling the same way toward their enemies as Donald Trump does toward his enemies. And it will all make perfect sense to them.

How might we begin (or, more hopefully, continue) to chisel away at this "perfect sense to them," this immersive correlation of Christ, their "all in all," and Fox News? Judy Maurer wrote recently about the power of narrative and community in offering a better way. To my mind, it's an incomparably better way of experiencing the love and power of Jesus and his community between Sundays, and re-engaging in missions that really could bless the nations. Do you have useful experiences in your own community to overcome this gap between Sunday faith and daily practice?

Can you believe?