Warhorn interview: Who am I and why do I blog?

For context see this post.  You can also see the whole series.  Nathan’s comments are in blockquotes and my responses are in normal typeface:

Nathan’s question:

1. Who are you and why do you talk about the things you talk about? How did you get into it? Why do you chose to do it pseudonymously?

I’ll tackle the last part first. Social justice warriors are in the process of consolidating their victory in the culture wars. One of their favorite tactics is to swarm anyone who disagrees with them and try to destroy them personally, since they know they would lose an open debate. I assume this is obvious with all of the examples we have seen, but if you aren’t already familiar with this Brendan Eich and Paige Patterson would be examples you could look into.

I’ve seen arguments that when faced with social justice warrior silencing tactics Christians should either shut up (as nearly all Christians have done) or volunteer for the punishment/harassment SJW swarms stand ready to mete out to dissenters. For example, fellow Christian blogger Bnonn recently tweeted:

I disagree. I see writing pseudonymously as a prudent measure to help protect my family from evil. I’ll take it a step further and return the question; do you think it is critical for the sake of the culture war for me to expose my family to SJW assault? I won’t put my family at risk to show Bnonn I’m a “real man”, but if there is a serious argument as to why I should put my family at (greater) risk I’d love to hear it. I’ll add that if you have read my blog you already know that I meticulously link to and quote my sources for what I write, so everything is right there for anyone who is interested to cross check. In fact, I urge you and your listeners to do so.

One of the interesting facets of the discussion is that I challenge other writers to defend what they write. As a general rule, the “other side” responds by refusing to defend their writing and challenging me to defend what others (commenters, etc) write, or explain who I am that I would ask another to defend their ideas. It could be that there are great rebuttals to what I write, but we won’t ever know until the topic of conversation changes. I’ll go into this in more detail on other questions, but I think this is relevant here.

As for the remainder of the question, I’m a happily married (over 20 years) father of two, and I started blogging because of my passion about marriage. My passion is twofold.

1) I strongly believe that marriage is truly beautiful. Marriage has been under attack for decades, and most conservatives, including conservative Christians are in denial here (more on this in later answers). I grieve for young people who won’t have the opportunity for something so beautiful, something my wife and I enjoy, because previous generations stood by in denial as it was under assault. Even in cases where marriages technically exist, much violence has been deliberately done to transform the reality of marriage away from its beautiful design.

2) Children deserve the benefits of an intact family. Our cultural abandonment of marriage as the primary family structure is causing immeasurable pain to children. I’m astounded by the apathy I experience daily on this topic. Whenever anyone asks me why I care, my first thought is “why don’t you”?

I’ll stop here and let you get a word in edgewise, and if more comes to mind I’ll also add it as a reply.

Nathan’s reply:

I’m not sure what to think about your arguments for remaining pseudonymous. I understand your desire to protect your family and I don’t think there’s anything innately manly about offering yourself or your family for punishment by the mob.

It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life—what sort of man you are, how you practice what you preach, and what authority you speak from. These are not insignificant question, and they’re not inappropriate to ask. Jesus and the Apostle Paul was never afraid to engage in “ad hominem.” Who a person is does matter. Not just their arguments taken in the abstract. That being said, I’m not sure I disagree with your choice. I just question it. However, I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking it through.

Look forward to your answers to the next questions!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Bnonn, Nathan Alberson, Social Justice Warriors, Warhorn Interview, Warhorn Media. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to Warhorn interview: Who am I and why do I blog?

  1. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    “It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life…”

    When the message is offensive attack the messenger. Truth is truth no matter the spokesman. Stand firm Dalrock don’t take the dare to be doxed it is a distraction for the dissemination of divine doctrine.

  2. The Church is in the process of going underground. Would any of these arguments that are anti-anonymity work in China, Burma, or Saudi Arabia? The attacks are real, the deplatfoming and doxxing is real. Pray and know that going into the public spaces openly is something God is calling you to and not man.

    I’m trying to think of a significant Godly figure in the Bible that didn’t obscure their identity at some point. Jesus, Paul, David, and Moses all hid.

    Above ground fellowship is becoming a thing of the past. Recognize brothers who understand this.

  3. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books For Cucks) says:

    Not my job to play advocate or step on the exchange, but a couple thoughts on the anonymity issue:

    It’s easy for bystander to exhort someone else to take all the heat for you, as a duty to “society” or “the party” or “social justice” or “for Jesus”, sort of Let’s You And Them Fight where you lean in with your chin exposed so they can throw the first punch. Look what happened to Athol Kay and his “Married Man Sex Life” site. He himself didn’t get doxxed, of course, he was out in the open. But the SJW’s got his wife fired from her public health job via anonymous accusations about her supposed complicity in a horrible website that exhorted men to be dominant and therefore abusive! Though the accusers couched it in terms of “advocating for rape” and “misogyny”.

    Far too many employers blanch at this sort of thing, and act without looking into it, even if it has nothing to do with the spouse’s job, or your job. They don’t want t he “problem” of employing someone whose household is doing something “problematic.”

    (Of course if you are stupid enough to post something controversial from your work computer, where what you do belongs to your boss, then what you do indeed IS his problem, as what you say could be attributed to him or to his company policy, and he is entitled to act on it).

    Also you have what I call the “4chan” boys, who do this sort of thing for the lulz. That concept may be impossible to comprehend for a good-hearted pastor or apologist – why would someone be mean just for laughs? Because They Can? Yes – that’s the reason – because they can.

    I have always conducted everything I do online (including rude jokes to friends, etc.) by this rule: If I am doxxed, can I bear to have whatever I’ve said read back to me on a witness stand? And be asked if I have to own it? The answer all these years later is still “yes”, and it is a good rule to follow. Where my answer is always going to be “yeah I said it. What’s your point?”

  4. Nick Mgtow says:

    I’m impatient for the next!

  5. Paul says:

    Ask anyone who questions the choice to use online anonymity if they think Christians in so-called underground churches under heavy persecutions should openly expose themselves.

    Case in point: Asia Bibi.

  6. feministhater says:

    Why didn’t he include a response to your thoughts on marriage? Strange to go straight for the anonymity angle.

    Strikes me as odd anyway. I’m weary of these people. We don’t live in a time for open displays.

    They want to be able to judge you. It’s never the message, merely the messenger that interests them. If you cannot silence the message, silence the messenger.

    Don’t fall for the ruse.

  7. white says:

    Yet another case of Conservatives and Churchians working in tandem with SJWs/Progressives. In this case, the Conservative is helping by urging you to out yourself.

    I think his response says a lot because you mentioned a lot of things:

    1) SJW tactics
    2) Why choose to remain anonymous
    3) Conservatives’ blind spots and self-delusion
    4) Common blind spots and self-delusions we all might have
    5) Your passions and why you do what you do, as well as how it affects future generations

    That’s a lot of points for him to consider. His response:

    “But why won’t you out yourself???”

  8. 7817 says:

    It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life

    “It’s to bad we have to argue your points based on their merits instead of being able to disqualify you based on something totally unrelated. And if we can’t get you to shut up that way, we can’t sic the SJW’s on you to destroy your life for telling the truth. How disappointing!”

  9. Damn Crackers says:

    Ask him if he’s ever heard about the concept of “doxing.”

    Also, many Christian authors wrote under pen names or attributed their work to others, such as Pseudo-Dionysius. Guess what the “Pseudo” in his name means!

  10. Gunner Q says:

    “It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life…”

    That’s bullshit, Nathan. As a Dalrock reader myself, I could not care less who he really is. His ideas stand on their own merit. You do not represent me.

  11. Jesus and Paul also hid themselves at various times. Right there in the Bible as I recall.

  12. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Trying to be consistent with Nathan’s reply leads me to this soul crushing line of thinking.

    Think about how much more good could have been accomplished if the family of Corrie Ten Boom had not remained anonymous. The ethics of the holocaust were not fairly discussed because the opponents never revealed their identity to the SS. If she were a “real” christian she would have not hide her light under a bushel. And Luther hiding as if dead in Wartburg translating the New Testament into German. If only he had just come out and debated the issue with some thesis maybe 95 or so then things would have been better.

    This line of thought portrays itself as a bellow of bravery, but is cowardice wrapped in clothes destitute of virtue. Being on target is a far cry from being the target.

  13. 7817 says:

    Blogging anonymously is actually courageous. There’s always the chance you could be doxxed, so it’s safer to shut up altogether…

    And it’s amazing how completely things have gone south. Even those ostensibly “very conservative” christians now interview like cnn.

    In the words of Vox Day: all we need is 12. Good to be reminded of that sometimes when we look at the moral devastation around us.

  14. thedeti says:

    Fred Flange:

    So that’s what has happened to Athol Kay. I didn’t know people attacked him and got his wife fired from her job. As I remember, her working was one of the reasons Athol could quit his nursing job and go full time into “life coaching” and “relationship coaching”. And a quick online court records search shows Athol and Jennifer’s home was foreclosed upon. Meaning the Kays couldn’t make the house payment, probably because his wife lost her job. So they are either paying rent or have been evicted.

    The SJWs are in a cleanup mopup operation. Let’s remember here that during pre-Revolutionary times, many writers and thinkers of the day, Ben Franklin chief among them, wrote using pseudonyms. Franklin himself had more than one pseudonym (and was also a notorious womanizer).

  15. goFigure says:

    “what authority you speak from”)
    This is the part that bugs me.

    Having read Dalrock’s site for about 3 years. I have never seen him claim authority besides having eyes that read and a brain that thinks. He has never indicated that he was “called” by god to start a religion or church.

    (If I am wrong, please correct me)

    [D: You are correct.]

  16. info says:

    @white
    ”Yet another case of Conservatives and Churchians working in tandem with SJWs/Progressives. ”

    2 sides of the same coin?
    https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2011/11/feminist-in-every-social-conservative.html

    Also the corruption of Chivalry as we now know it shows they they work synergistically together. Chivalry is why so many women get away with murder:

    https://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Chivalry%20Justice

    “Cuckservatives” are those men who endorse and carry out this injustice. This wickedness.

  17. thedeti says:

    It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life—what sort of man you are, how you practice what you preach, and what authority you speak from. These are not insignificant question, and they’re not inappropriate to ask. Jesus and the Apostle Paul was never afraid to engage in “ad hominem.” Who a person is does matter. Not just their arguments taken in the abstract. That being said, I’m not sure I disagree with your choice. I just question it. However, I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking it through.

    It does trouble me that I can’t find out your name, so that I can then use details from your life to attack you personally. I want to be able to find your employer so i can tell them all about the things you write that i don’t like. I don’t like what you write and therefore you need to be silenced and brought to heel. Being critical of Christian women means you hate them. Disagreeing with me means you hate women. Disagreeing with Christian women means you’re a misogynist. Refusing to toe the mainstream Christian zeitgeist/false theology line means you hate women and you’re not a real Christian. And I am entitled to find out your true identity so that I can then dox you and silence you and help send you to a virtual gulag.

    I want to find out if you walk out what you preach because then i can hang my hat on one leeeeetle inconsistency, one flaw, and say “see! SEE!! He’s a hypocrite! Because Dalrock is not absolutely flawlessly perfect in every way imaginable, he is not to be believed!” I want to find out what authority you speak from, because you saying “Scripture” is not sufficient. “Scripture” is not a sufficient authority from which to draw conclusions about all this. You’re not sufficiently relying on the false theology of the times, and therefore any authority you claim is suspect.

  18. info says:

    His notion of bravery is running unarmed at a pride of Lions whilst stark naked and screaming off the top of his lungs

  19. thedeti says:

    What authority you speak from

    It’s quite telling that Nathan is unable to discern that the authority Dalrock relies upon is Scripture.

  20. goFigure says:

    I see that my comment can be taken at least two drastically different ways. So let me clarify.

    I think it is wrong for them to try to attack/quesison Dalrock’s authority when you he has not claimed any.

  21. info says:

    Voxday’s book. ”SJW’s always lie” is good guidebook.

  22. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life — what sort of man you are, how you practice what you preach, and what authority you speak from.

    Dalrock does not claim any “authority.” He’s not running for public office here. He’s not applying to be pastor of anyone’s church. So whether he “practices what he preaches” is irrelevant.

    These are not insignificant question, and they’re not inappropriate to ask.

    Forget about “insignificant” or “inappropriate.” Who Dalrock is is irrelevant. That’s the magic word.

    Who a person is does matter. Not just their arguments taken in the abstract.

    Only if that person is seeking authority over others. Dalrock isn’t. He might be a tranny prostitute sitting in a Nigerian jail with spare time on his hands. It would be irrelevant because it wouldn’t lessen the accuracy of his arguments one wit.

    Jesus and the Apostles weren’t anonymous. But Jesus claimed authority.

    However, there is a long history of important works being written anonymously. The Federalist Papers were written anonymously. Samizdat writers were anonymous in the old Soviet Union.

    If you seek authority, who are are matters.

    If you seek only to spread ideas, who you are is irrelevant.

  23. Anonymous Reader says:

    If I have my info correct, Pastor Bayly and the little Warhorn operation are located in Bloomingtion, Indiana.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Bloomington,_Indiana

    This is a town of 80,000 in a rural, agricultural region. The state university is there, but it is not exactly a hotbed of SJW’s. As with Moscow Idaho and Pullman, Washington it’s a long way from the urban SJW centers to “there”, so while there are surely some around it isn’t like Georgetown in DC or SF State, etc.

    Therefore it is more likely that these initial questions are posed from inside a church-world bubble, rather than as some nefarious scheme to get Dalrock to dox himself. Churchgoing people can be quite insulated from the larger world if their vision is blurry, because they don’t have a pair of The Glasses and cannot really see what is in front of them. Have we not all had this experience? Something as basic as “In the US, 70% of divorces are filed by women” is astounding to many culturally conservative, churchgoing people – especially those over 45 – 50 years of age. Because that doesn’t happen in their world, it’s dumbfounding to them, and in my experience the initial response is “what? No! It can’t be that bad!” followed by an attempt to blame men…because they don’t know anything about women beyond “They’re Wonderful!”.

    Suggestion: let’s wait and see how the question / answer sequence proceeds before drawing any conclusion.

  24. GW says:

    @goFigure

    It’s typical PCA-speak. An overly hierarchical, quasi-Catholic understanding of the church.

    Of course Dalrock isn’t “leading” any church. He’s offering his thoughts regarding social issues in the church and broader culture. You don’t need any deemed “authority” to give your opinion.

  25. Wraithburn says:

    I first read Dalrock’s work because I wanted to know what he said. I followed the logic and knew it made sense, there was no need to know the personal identity of the message bearer. In fact, that would get in the way, with all of the “life examining” that Nathan hints at. Never mind thinking through what was said on its merits, just check if you like the person.

    That type of thinking, the Who/Whom implied by it is very womanly. Are you one of the anointed ones in the high school clique? No? Then shut up and learn your place.

  26. thedeti says:

    AnonReader:

    You’re not necessarily wrong. But SJWs read Warhorn and other little Christian ministries. Even the big Christian ministries bow to public pressure from outside. So SJWs and other hostiles read every word they put out. Opposing bloggers work hard to find out who they are. I’m sure Dave Futrelle is doing that. Janet Bloomfield/Judgy Bitch hung it up last month because SJW flying monkeys attack and threaten her children. HER CHILDREN.

    So, I’m not too afraid of going out on this limb.

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, the church people that I work with and know socially are clueless about SJW attacks; they would have no idea who JudgyBitch or David Futrelle or TrigglyPuff or any of the others are. They read “Christianity Today” – some online – and one or two bloggers at TGC plus USA Today and their local paper. That’s pretty much it. Oh, and whatever shows up in their FaceBook. So they are being treated to “mushroom management” and don’t really know it.

    The church bubble is real and it’s pretty thick. The irony is, all these people consider themselves “well informed” because they view Fox News.

    It is possible that Nathan of Warhorn is in this category. Partly brainwashed, ignorant of the wider world, and living in a bubble. I need more facts to have any opinion.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Deti

    The doxxing of Athol Kay’s wife was some years back. It didn’t help that Athol had gone full “life coach” at the time, and handed over admin of the MMSL comments to his wife. Because women admin comments differently than men do ($usan Wal$h and Sheila G, for example) the comments section became close to useless, with women advising married men on “what to do”. The banhammer came out more and more.

    Doxxing as a tactic to silence dissent has become a real tool for the flying monkeys of SJW-dom, but a lot of average, normal people have no idea because they’ve never actually seen the process from start to finish. The Twitter-media pileon on the Covington teenagers was actually a big surprise to some people I know, for example. They were surprised, along the “I’ve never heard of such a thing! Why would they do that? I knew the media was biased, but…” level. Seriously.

  29. “He who is without sin can cast the first stone”

    This is how the left has undercut religion. Anyone, who stands for something, will be shown to be sinful and a hypocrite. Your identity is necessary.

  30. 7817 says:

    @AR

    Being naive has become a sought after virtue in a fair number of churches. If they don’t understand doxxing risks as a result of their being naive, that is not our fault.

    Niceness as a virtue often means the goal is to be naive.

  31. Lexet Blog says:

    Reminds me of the townspeople of Sodom. “Who are they, bring them out here.”

    It’s easy to be a pastor in a group of likeminded people (who fund you). It’s hard being private or public sector and maintaining the same beliefs.

  32. Lexet Blog says:

    Right??

  33. Lexet Blog says:

    Amen

  34. Lexet Blog says:

    There are many times when Christ or the apostles left towns or hostile situations (see John and his epistles). They weren’t actively sending letters with their faces to nonbelievers, but would periodically go to them.

    The difference is that the internet is constantly broadcasting to everyone, not limited forums and audiences.

  35. white says:

    @7817

    Indeed but they don’t respect other peoples’ decision to not be naive. They demand you be naive as they are. In this case, Nathan goes a step further and zeroes in onto this issue, and this issue only, right after Dalrock brought up a lot of other points all leading the interviewer into his main body of work. It’s hard to think Nathan’s intentions to understand Dalrock’s position is genuine now. Why would an interviewer, honest and eager to understand another person’s opinion, skip over every other point brought up like Nathan did?

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    Being naive has become a sought after virtue in a fair number of churches.
    Niceness as a virtue often means the goal is to be naive.

    So “be as wise as doves”, because it’s nice? That is clarifying. Thanks.

  37. Damn Crackers says:

    As a commentator who did his Ph.D. work in Bloomington, I can attest that it is a big mix of conservative and liberal thought.

  38. Opus says:

    Prenez garde! The first thing Nathan tries to do is to get you to out yourself. Not impressed.

    There has in literature been a long history of pseudonymous writings (and even if I recall correctly from at least one American President – Adams?) and there have been many persecutions of those whose identity became known. I am glad you mention Eich which is why I consistently refuse to pay a single cent to Firefox. As for Jesus, as a friend once said to me ‘you are not Jesus C’ – it does raise the bar a bit high and a more sarcastic person would say Jesus ended up being literally crucified. I might add that even though anonymous on a now defunct blog I was hounded and bullied indeed the abuse travelled over to an entirely different blog and had my identity been known God knows what damage might have been done to me. We live in a time of some exceptionally vicious and self-righteous individuals. No not impressed at all.

  39. tteclod says:

    Regarding your decision to be anonymous…

    I made a similar anonymity decision early in my blogging career mostly as a result of internet/BBS culture in the 80’s and 90’s. While I do occasionally publish opinions with my customary name, in hindsight, developing the habit of using a pseudonym appears to have been wise. For example, I am confident that my published opinions opposing “gay marriage” would prohibit my employment with most private corporations. Now that I am self-employed, that opinion would also effectively terminate business relationships with clients who aren’t willing to risk the revelation that they hired a consultant who opposes “gay marriage.” Even with that opinion concealed, I know that I have lost business and employment opportunities over the years after my political opinions became known – those “political opinions” being not much more than the usual “conservative” boilerplate.

    Even though I am an American man who is not Christian, I am encouraged by your pro-marriage, pro-family blog. If there were one argument for revealing your identity, it would be to convince others that Christians are real and not a fabrication of hypocrites hoping to lure opponents into publishing “hate speech.”

  40. OKRickety says:

    Nathan said: “It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life—what sort of man you are, how you practice what you preach, and what authority you speak from.”

    I am going to presume that this Nathan is Nathan Alberson. While I do not think it is unreasonable for him to ask for some background on Dalrock, I would like to know how Nathan thinks knowing this information would allow one to practically vet Dalrock, especially the area of “practicing what he preaches”. As some here have pointed out, the bigger question is whether Dalrock’s blog is true to Christian teaching.

    Turning it around, how do I find out that information about Nathan? After all, he does podcasts and blogs. I wonder about Nathan’s true character, but even if I knew exactly where he lived, who he is related to, and where he attends church, it would still be a very superficial examination of his life.

    The other information I quickly gleaned is that he is likely about twenty years younger than Dalrock, and is recently engaged and likely not yet married. It will be interesting to see if he presumes he knows more about marriage than Dalrock, and it amuses me somewhat to think that he will likely soon find out that he doesn’t yet really know what sort of woman his fiancée truly is.

  41. The Question says:

    People obsess over online anonymity for a variety of reasons, but it always comes down to avoiding the arguments made by the person who utilizes it. If you’re attacking the argument, you don’t care who is making it. The fixation on their identity is a pretty obvious telltale sign that you’re looking for ways to shut them up.

  42. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: More good news for blue collar men.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/appalachias-approaching-energy-boom

    Mention “cracker plant” in most parts of the country and people think you are making a Nabisco product, but the cracker plant in Beaver County is all about a molecular “cracking,” in which extreme heat “cracks” ethane molecules to form new ones that will eventually produce more than a million metric tons of polyethylene, a type of plastic used in all kinds of common household products.
    ….
    The gas found here in the Appalachian region of Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, and West Virginia is low cost and “wet,” meaning it carries highly valued natural gas liquids, or NGLs. When separated and refined, it can become different fuels, such as fertilizer or propane.

    The project has already created 1,000 new jobs and is expected to top out at 6,000 during the construction and preparation phases over the next decade before the plant is fully operational. The plant itself is expected to employ more than 600 people permanently, a mix of labor, engineers, and chemists, with Shell analysts predicting it will provide work for two to three times that number in its supply chain.
    …..
    Traditionally, Appalachia is thought of as coal country. Coal created steady jobs, many of them dangerous, to the people who lived here and kept the heat and lights on for most of the country for generations.

    But new production methods, such as hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, have changed the regional energy picture and now allow extraction of vast amounts of natural gas from the region’s shale formations. Many sons and daughters of coal miners, and former miners themselves, are finding safer, well-paying energy jobs in the shale industry.

    Central High School in Waynesburg, Pa., just south of here in Greene County, has developed a student certification curriculum in the shale industry that has high school seniors walking off stage in their graduation gowns and into jobs paying salaries that can start at $70,000 a year.

    As we all know, the Appalachian region is one of the hardest hit by the economic changes of the last few decades. It would be great to see more of this.

  43. ray says:

    “It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life—what sort of man you are, how you practice what you preach, and what authority you speak from.”

    Uh huh. I’m sure it does ‘trouble’ him all right.

    I’ve seen this tactic used over and over during the past decades. Typically it’s employed by ‘Christian’ women attempting to take-down a lone dissenting male who has dared to resist their commands and leadings.

    People use this Let’s Examine Your Life scam as a way of easily and quickly de-platforming those dissenting from ingrained biases — especially biases supporting female supremacy in American society, and in American churches. Such folk must be taken down, lest the truth infect others.

    Since we all have many faults and sins in our lives, volunteering to open oneself up to scrutiny by the Perfect Scrutinizers is a guarantee of ruin. Every single one of us is vulnerable to that ruin, and thus it’s merely a matter of focusing on the immediate target (instantly, Dalrock), calling out the (horrible! horrible! horrible!) sin(s) inevitably found in the target’s life, and proceeding to destroy the individual and often others nearby, including family.

    The same people will then point to THEIR favorite pastor — with women, almost always it’s some Celebrity Preacher with national name-recognition — as the model and authority all should cleave-to. Unmentioned is that THEIR choice just happens to share beliefs and agendas with the attacking group/person. Dalrock (or anybody else preaching uncomfy truth) thus is safely dismissed as the (horrible! etc.) sinner that he is, and the Compliant Preacher conveniently is left as the only ‘authorized’ voice, his life remaining un-sorted-through by the Perfect Scrutinizers. I’ve seen ‘Christian’ women play this manipulative game over and over.

    NEVER give your personal info to any of these predatory doxers. Especially if they call themselves Christians. Tell them to evaluate you on your presented works, as you evaluate them. NEVER fall for their moralistic pressure ruses; their purpose is not to improve you, but to elevate and entrench themselves, and their own agendas.

  44. Sean says:

    This is why Vox Day advocates not talking to the media at all. It’s right there with talking to the police: nothing good can come out of it. Although posting the entire exchange is a good way to defend oneself, why put yourself through the wringer for their benefit?

    I really don’t see the upside to continuing to interact with him. “Since you’ve decided that you don’t want to interact on the merits of what I have to say and would rather I just dox myself instead, we’re done.”

  45. vfm7916 says:

    @thedeti

    The desire for a “leader” in so many people, which is something I think this Nathan also yearns for, is one of the weaknesses that has to be overcome in 4GW. A “leader” can be isolated, character assassinated, deplatformed, etc. and their SJW opponents will use this as a moral weapon against those who are like minded.
    Since 4GW success relies on having a higher moral ground to fight from it follows that a “No Leader” or “Everyone is a Leader” operating pattern is required. Anonymous bloggers fill part of this need. Also note that moral in this context would be pure unadulterated scripture, not the converged churchian interpretations.
    This is one of the reasons so many “conservatives” fail to conserve anything. Anyone who tries to create a following as un-approved opposition is swarmed. Approved opposition voices that are not deplatformed should be recognized for what they are: wolves in sheep’s clothing.
    This is why Dalrock should never expose himself, especially as he’s going to get more and more attention.

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock makes reference to Brandon Eich, and that’s a good point to expand upon.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Brendan_Eich

    He co-founded Mozilla which created a couple of browsers (Camino, Firefox) and the Thunderbird email tool. In 2008 he donated money to support Proposition 8 in California to prohibit homosexual marriage. Prop 8 passed, however a homosexual judge struck it down and then retired.

    It was interesting to watch the bigotry that erupted in California after Prop. 8 passed, in particular the spectacle of “Progressives” public hatred not just of religious people (Mormons in particular) but also black people – black people voted for Prop. 8 in significant numbers.

    In later 2008 and into 2009 the “Progressives” in California obtained the public list of donors to Prop. 8 and went on a little rampage against them: people lost their jobs, owners of restaurants found themselves boycotted, and so forth.

    Eich was ousted from the organization he co-founded, because the snowflakes just couldn’t bear to breath the same air as a hateful, homophobic bigot. I repeat, he was kicked out of his own organization because of his politics outside of Mozilla.

    Eich has since moved on to oversee the creation of a new browser, Brave, which has extremely strong privacy settings.

    Mozilla’s Firefox continues to bloat with more “features”.

    Eich is an obvious example of doxxing by the SJW’s

    PS: Ask the church goers you know what browser they use. Generally it will be whatever came with their system, but a few use Firefox. They have no idea who Eich is or what happened to him, either. But as viewers of Fox News and readers of USA Today, they are well informed…

  47. American says:

    Nathan is making false assertions. Jesus sometimes hid his identity on many occasions for important reasons, the most important being to survive long enough to complete God’s soteriological mission to humanity. Another has to do with working to ensure both a positive reputation and accuracy of events in which Jesus determined who he empowered to spread information about him and his ministry and who he did not empower.

    In scripture we sometimes read that Jesus forbid demons to say who he is; sometimes Jesus healed people and instructed them not to tell anyone; Jesus told his disciples that he was the Messiah and that they should keep it secret for the time-being; Jesus made himself invisible and walked through an angry crowd attempting to murder him; Jesus spoke in parables; etc… There are very practical and important reasons why Jesus did these things.

    Nathan should already know this (even if perhaps not the reasons for it) as anyone who wishes to be taken seriously must do their due diligence and investigate the assertions they are preparing to make. But Nathan never did that. Rather, Nathan simply made patently false assertions about Jesus. Nathan, if you’re going to make assertions about what Jesus did or did not do: take the time to read the Bible and see what Jesus did or did not do. That’s why you ended up on the opposite side of the truth.

  48. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    In later 2008 and into 2009 the “Progressives” in California obtained the public list of donors to Prop. 8 and went on a little rampage against them: people lost their jobs, owners of restaurants found themselves boycotted, and so forth.

    A good reason to support the growth crypto currency. I don’t use crypto yet, but I hear that Monero is very good on privacy.

    Eich has since moved on to oversee the creation of a new browser, Brave, which has extremely strong privacy settings.

    Better than Tor?

  49. The Question says:

    From Dalrock’s previous post on the interview: “A few weeks ago Nathan Alberson reached out asking if I would be willing to join his podcast Sound of Sanity for an interview. I declined the request to join the podcast, but offered instead to do an interview via email.”

    This was a wise decision.

  50. American says:

    It’s perhaps a good time to introduce Open Doors ministry here so readers can learn more about the biblical and practical reasons why members of the underground church (areas where Christians are severely persecuted and murdered) don’t publicly announce their identities everywhere they go as they engage in Christian activities. https://opendoorsyouth.org/the-problem/

  51. The Question says:

    @ Red Pill Latecomer

    You can use Tor through Brave browser, though it has some limitations.

  52. BillyS says:

    Video is becoming more important, but it is much harder to be anonymous in video. You can use computer-generated speech as some do, but that is very rough and not the best approach.

    I want to start making some elearning stuff, but I have to decide if I want to fully expose myself if I do so. That is a tough jump, but would be much more effective in teaching for many.

  53. Iowa Slim says:

    “It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life—what sort of man you are, how you practice what you preach, and what authority you speak from…”

    Dalrock, the only thing your anonymity denies me is a chance to be distracted by side issues that are none of my business. You address important matters that interest me. The writer’s reason and lucidity of expression are at or above a certain level. If the reader’s rational apparatus is a match, appeals to authority are irrelevant. If the young man quizzing you is “troubled” by this, I hope there’s a growth spurt in his future.

    The need for you to protect your identity says more about the currently deranged social environment than it does about you or your work. Well-played.

  54. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    That people want to dox Dalrock indicates that his fame and influence are spreading.

  55. DeepThought says:

    Nathan is trying to put you and your family in the cross hairs instead of dealing with your argument.

    Block the fool.

  56. BaboonTycoon says:

    I actually somewhat agree with Warhorn in the sense that I do think there are some things I could learn from Dalrock if he were to share examples from his own life. However, I do not see why he would have to reveal personally identifiable information in sharing examples to make a point. The fact that Warhorn insinuates that he should reveals his disingenuousness.

  57. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Congresswoman Ilhan Omar: It’s discrimination if you don’t let men compete in women’s weightlifting: https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/07/ilhan-omar-discrimination-dont-let-men-compete-womens-weightlifting/

    Omar wants to ensure that men (who “identify” as females) can compete against actual women in sports. And it’s not just any sport. She’s talking about weightlifting, specifically the ban on males imposed by USA Powerlifting, preventing one of her new constituents from competing against the ladies. And to sweeten the deal, she wants her buddy Keith Ellison to investigate the matter.

  58. Pingback: Warhorn interview: Who am I and why do I blog? | Reaction Times

  59. Gunner Q says:

    Anonymous Reader @ 10:01 am:
    “Because that doesn’t happen in their world, it’s dumbfounding to them, and in my experience the initial response is “what? No! It can’t be that bad!” followed by an attempt to blame men…because they don’t know anything about women beyond “They’re Wonderful!”.”

    The first asking got a pass. Hello, can you introduce yourself? is a standard interview question. What shouldn’t get a pass is Nathan insisting while talking as our representative to Dalrock.

    That’s a classic SJW tactic, posing as the spokesman/agent for a third party without their permission or even knowledge. It gives authority without responsibility.

    Hence my unkind comment to Nathan that he doesn’t get to complain that Dalrock is doing “your readers” a disservice.

    Nathan: “That being said, I’m not sure I disagree with your choice. I just question it. However, I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking it through.”

    Start thinking it through, what will happen if Antifa or BLM finds out one of us lives next door. Even my dental hygienist went on an anti-Trump rant the last time I had my teeth cleaned. I doubt she would have done something stupid while scraping my gums had she known I was to the right of Trump but I didn’t doxx myself to find out.

  60. Chuck B says:

    Does Nathan believe Christians under persecution should identify themselves to the authorities preemptively? If not, he can have no real objection to Dalrock’s reasons.

  61. Chuck B says:

    @Gunner Q, yup. And I live in a really red area and am still mad careful, because I hold so many ideas that are crimethink even to mention.

  62. Major Styles says:

    Bnonn sounds like the kind of man that will rage over abuses in the Catholic Church, yet will turn a blind eye to rabbis sucking the blood out of baby genitals (see Mitzvah B’Peh).

  63. freebird says:

    “It does trouble me that you are denying your readers the chance to examine your life”

    Not up for an inquistion/witch hunt complete with hanging before a fair trial?
    Thats not how “real men” act.

    Step up and take your beating,scapegoat for life non-person!

  64. freebird says:

    Jesus and the Apostle Paul was never afraid to engage in “ad hominem.”

    That is a lie.
    No negotiations with terrorists.
    (curse words not written,see I’m pure as the driven snow)

  65. freebird says:

    Why should anyone be shielded from identifying themselves?
    Only a person engaged in doing no good, or a crime would want to remain anonymous.
    Like those women claiming rape.

  66. ray says:

    https://warhornmedia.com/author/nalberson/

    There’s young Nathan and ooooh babies he looks purty mean! Lock up them dotters!

    Intense, problem-glassed WarHorn Nathan terrifies the enemies of Christ, especially homophobes, misogynists, and renegade bloggers who arrogate to themselves Scriptural understanding outside of the permissions and supervisions of Warhorn Media. Apostates! Blasphemers!!

    Nathan has him the WarHorn of God and he’s a’coming after Dalrock and those other pesky bloggers who sadly (maddeningly) are beginning to get the attention of Christians, instead of WarHorn Media and its affiliates, break-out groups, pastor’s colleges, books for sale, donate page, and related enterprises. For God.

    Lessee here first book I come across on the Book Page is ‘The Grace of Shame: 7 ways the Church Has Failed to Love Homosexuals’. By ‘The Warhorn Editors’.

    Okee met Dokee and they decided to trade names, had a baby named Yeeikes.

    Yeah no subtlety, rejected the podcast offer (selective editing) so the ‘interview’ begins not with anything substantive, but with a shame-call for the interviewee to dox himself. Ole WarHorn Nathan hitched-up his Problem Glasses and went right for the kill shot.

    Dear Nathan and the entire (rather large) Warhorn Team: King Jeshua’s annunciates already are on the planet and no, you ain’t them. You are not ready for war (fierce countenance inclusive) against even your own women, much less the hosts and legions of Lucifer.

    Why don’t you boys ‘n girls go practice some new Praise Songs or something, and leave the hard and painful preparations for Christ’s Millennium to the spiritual grown-ups. Notice the lack of a ? there.

  67. cynthia says:

    These people hate anonymity because it means all arguments must be based on merit alone; how well you defend your ideas, how cogently you can explain them. It’s easier to attack a person than a concept. They want to know you so they can dismiss you on a personal level. They want to use some little inconsistency in your life to rid themselves of that creeping uncertainty that maybe they’re wrong.

  68. Pingback: The Stopped Clock – v5k2c2.com

  69. Yeah Dalrock WHY WON’T YOU EXPOSE YOURSELF TO THE INTERNET MOBS??? HUH?? Explain yourself, and let me put you under my microscope so I can explain to others what kind of man you really are!

  70. JustRae says:

    “We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world. ”

    Staying anonymous is good.

  71. MK Riker says:

    I definitely agree with all the push back here, but there’s nothing wrong with a contentious interviewer, and Dalrock’s handling him well.

    Also, it’s great to get that bit out of the way from the get-go, since I’m sure many of his listeners would respond with the same non-argument.

    I’m more excited that you are able to get more exposure to the issues we all care about, and I can’t wait for the next installment.

  72. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:

    RE Brendan Eich: And all he did was give money. It was just a donation of money. He didn’t say anything. He didn’t make controversial statements. He just wrote a check. That was it.

  73. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    SJWs ignore that Martin Luther King Jr’s life was far from morally pristine.

  74. linuswinters says:

    They can’t play the “who/whom” game unless they know who, that’s why they lie about needing to know your identity before they can examine your ideas and arguments.

  75. elspeth says:

    Even if you revealed your identity, that wouldn’t suddenly make it possible for readers to examine and thus rightly judge your life.

    Plenty of people (including pastors and priests) deceive the people who “know” them best about the true nature of their lives for decades.

  76. ray says:

    OT —

    “Yet on Thursday, the White House is revealing a new women’s empowerment program that aims to improve economic security for 50 million women around the world by 2025, drawing on funds from USAID, the agency whose budget Trump has targeted. The champion of the program is Ivanka Trump, senior adviser and first daughter.”

    http://fortune.com/2019/02/07/ivanka-trump-women-program-usaid/

    First the Left backstabs ya, then the Right backstabs ya. At least they’re cooperating.

    Donald’s admin was compromised before he even took office. U.S. male taxpayers to pay for the ’empowerment’ and ‘economic security’ of ‘women around the world’.

    Dokee remarried Okee and they had another baby, name of Amerka. It was poisoned in the cradle.

  77. Sammy G says:

    An interviewer should not opine during an interview. The purpose of an interview is to question the interviewee in order to elicit thoughts from him that have not previously been disclosed. An interview should not be the place for the interviewer to pronounce his opinions on any subject matter, unless the interviewee directly questions the interviewer. It is narcissistic for the interviewer to move the spotlight to himself. If this man wants to pronounce his opinion, he ought to do so apart from the interview itself.

  78. PokeSalad says:

    and what authority you speak from.

    Now it happened…that the chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders, confronted Him and spoke to Him, saying, “Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?”

  79. Awakening Evangelical says:

    Hi Dalrock, I’ve just come across your blog, and I appreciate your perspectives because it is difficult for me (raised in a blue pill evangelical environment) to reconcile Redpill theory with my faith. Do you think you could write your views on how redpill Christians should engage with issues of premarital sex and/or becoming involved with non-Christian girls?

    I know the issue’s been done to death on the Christian Redpill subreddit, but I do think Rollo is right to argue that plate theory is the basis for a guy to develop self-confidence and the qualities that could make him a successful husband (even if also has potential to be warped). It just seems like an unbiblical solution, so it would be great to hear your thoughts on what men in their early 20s can do in the current sexual economy so they can build themselves while their SMP grows.

  80. PokeSalad says:

    Ol’ Problem-Glasses Nate is out to doxx, not be serious. Tell him to get lost.

  81. Lost Patrol says:

    Tell him to get lost.

    Too early Poke. Greenhorn meets veteran promises to entertain as well as inform.

  82. Spike says:

    Is D Bnonn Tennant his real name?

    As I said yesterday, Dalrock: Remain anonymous. SJWs have proved themselves as completely untrustworthy custodians of good faith and fairness in arguments. If they went after Tucker Carlson’s home with his wife there, they will go after yours.
    The Police? Well, as Dalrymple is fond of saying: “the average citizen has more to fear from the Police than criminals do”.
    Regarding why you do this, probably also why we’re all here: I had a female boss who once told me I ”was obsessed by marriage”. I retorted by saying, ”Yes – because I have a child who wants to marry and have a family of his own when he’s a man. And I want that family to remain intact and not fly apart at the whim of a feminist..”
    Marriage has been given to us by God, and it is therefore good. Masculinity and all of it’s aspects, including our sex drives – have been given to us by God and are therefore good.
    The wreckage of both marriage and masculinity comes from the Evil One, who intends turning the Earth into a disaster zone and blaming God for it. We have to ensure it doesn’t happen on our shift.

  83. Jake says:

    You are a married father of two for twenty years. What’s so bucking hard about that? What more do i need examine? Even if you were a heinous hypocrite who slobbed about in your mom’s basement it makes nothing you say any less true. As for B-Non there is a good bible verse.

    But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

    1 Timothy 5:8

    Obviously you are not anti fragile and so must protect your identity so you can continue to provide for the members of your household. Moreso it is for no man to judge but you whether you should reveal yourself. The early church met in secret. Jesus on more than one occasion either hid his identity or the Spirit confused his pursuers.

    If his face was so well known why did the pharisees feel the need to have judas identify him?

    B-Non is a false prophet, most likely controlled opposition. Paul urged the circumcisers to emasculate themselves. I would urge the ones urging people to martyr themselves to jump off a building. I say this with full knowledge of what i say.

  84. Kevin says:

    Remain anonymous. I don’t see what is gained exposing your family. Maybe you are a secret crypto-commie queer who gets off on trolling us all mercilessly but it would not change the solid and interesting arguments and ideas you frequently present. No one is perfect, you are not our pastor, your weaknesses and shortcomings can stay between you, family, God, and your pastor.

  85. 7817 says:

    Even if you revealed your identity, that wouldn’t suddenly make it possible for readers to examine and thus rightly judge your life.

    Exactly.

  86. Omnipitron says:

    I agree with the consensus of staying anonymous, it can be more dangerous to your family than one thinks. I don’t know if anyone here is aware but Judgybitch just recently signed off due to this very reason. Apparently, her eldest daughter was being regularly harassed by some dude due to what JB was doing regarding Men’s Rights. Her younger daughter was also catching heat as well. Dalrock, what you had said about keeping you and your family safe is nowhere near an exaggeration.

    For him to continue asking you to out yourself is very revealing. I agree with Cynthia, there are no good intentions behind what he is asking. I can guarantee you that he isn’t reflecting on the situation and asking himself WHY you feel you need to remain anonymous. Why would a man who has a factual based, positive stance on Christian men, women and spiritual teachings on marriage who has garnered a large following (and you obviously know that this fact bothers them to no end) wish to remain anonymous? To ask the question is to answer it. People stating hateful statements about men and foolish lies about women and marriage receive little to no consequences in the real world so what does that say about their position? They won’t lose their jobs or have their families threatened so they don’t need to be anonymous. The fact that you do should be ringing alarm bells considering the stance that you take.

    Keep fighting the good fight, the fact that they see you as a threat means that you are doing the right thing. Please stay safe during this time.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti
    RE Brendan Eich: And all he did was give money. It was just a donation of money. He didn’t say anything. He didn’t make controversial statements. He just wrote a check. That was it.

    Yeah, and he wasn’t the only one. I should have written better: the ‘Progressives’ in California used the donation list to the Prop. 8 organization as an “enemies list”, and many who were on it such as Eich were targets of hate campaigns. All they did was write a check to a completely legitimate political campaign, i.e. they participated in the election process with their money. Just like we were all taught in high school.

    For daring to oppose homosexual marriage via the political process many people including Eich were targeted by the “Progressives” as enemies – jobs were lost, reputations smeared, etc. For the “thoughtcrime” of writing a check to a political cause.

    That’s where doxxing could lead 10 years ago. That’s why it matters even more now.

  88. Cliff says:

    You mean that Dalrock’s real name isn’t Dale Rockhammer?

  89. Yeah now it’s like he’s trying to goad you. You have to wonder about some “conservatives” and even some self-proclaimed “Christians” making such goads/dares. Does he know just how many people have been destroyed by doing as he does, in times past? Is he truly immune? Why would he be? And does he not know how many people were destroyed in an earlier era for speaking up, their work ruined, their careers ruined, their families ruined? Does he know their names? God does of course but that’s not the point. How dare he tell others what risks they can take? There are many who wish they’d never gone public, and know they could have done just as much good anonymously.

    I like how he thinks people get to scrutinize the life of anyone who takes a public stand that way–it’s like he’s inviting you to do it just so you’ll get exposed.

    This is not an era where you should trust people on the Internet.

  90. drifter says:

    I’m not sure what to think about your arguments for remaining pseudonymous…That being said, I’m not sure I disagree with your choice. I just question it. However, I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking it through.
    That’s a bullshit JBP response.

    Don’t trust him.

  91. Swanny River says:

    The unanimous response here is unusual, but I am fully in agreement. How discouraging that Nathan went there and said the crap about knowing Dalrock. I’m decent at coming up with charitable reasons for positions I disagree with, but I don’t think with the above commenter that said this might be due to being in a bubble. Maybe, but very unlikely.
    The American church is doomed and that guy is a great example of why. Let’s hope Nathan redeems himself later.

  92. Frank K says:

    Congresswoman Ilhan Omar: It’s discrimination if you don’t let men compete in women’s weightlifting

    She claims that it’s a myth that men are stronger than women. Hmmm …let’s look at the numbers:
    World records:

    Men who weigh 56 kg or less:
    Snatch: 128 kg
    Clean and Jerk: 170 kg
    Total: 307 kg

    Now let’s look at the women:

    Women under 75 kg:
    Snatch: 125 Kg
    Clean and Jerk: 153kg
    Total: 274 kg

    Only women who weigh more than 75 (165 lbs) kg can lift more than men who weigh 56 kg (123 lbs). These women weigh up to 300 lbs and they lift about the same as men who weigh a mere 136 lbs.

    Yeah, they’re just as strong as men.

  93. Gershom says:

    “That being said, I’m not sure I disagree with your choice. I just question it.”

    Mealy mouthed flabby nothingness. I do not respect this man.

  94. illuvitus says:

    “Children deserve the benefits of an intact family. Our cultural abandonment of marriage as the primary family structure is causing immeasurable pain to children. I’m astounded by the apathy I experience daily on this topic. Whenever anyone asks me why I care, my first thought is “why don’t you”?”

    I’ve brought up the importance of an intact family before and have been swarmed by angry single mothers (all of them Christians, of course) who tell me how hurtful it is to suggest that children do best with a mother and a father.

    Giving women advice is a form of “hating women” as it turns out. Who knew?

  95. This guy knows Jesus traveled with thousands of companions, some might have heard about a great healer they didn’t actually know which one in the crowd was Jesus. You were anonymous in any city you hadn’t been to unless someone followed you there. Jesus even told his disciples to tell no one he was the messiah. I’m pretty sure that’s to be anonymous. Tennant is fucking clueless.

  96. dysgenic says:

    Funny, I recently decided it that its time to change my message board handle. I wouldn’t dream of revealing my identity if I had a widely read blog like you….

    But the subject matter does present an opportunity for segue into a subject that I’ve been pondering for awhile. It’s somewhat off topic, but hopefully worth considering:

    As widely read as this blog is and those like it, how is it that we haven’t seen anonymous posts from Judges, police, media, et al? I’m sure some of these people are Christians. Are they so fearful to not even be willing to post anonymously to a blog like this?

  97. info says:

    @illuvitus

    ”I’ve brought up the importance of an intact family before and have been swarmed by angry single mothers (all of them Christians, of course)”

    Even though he fails in many cases. But this is spot on.

  98. feeriker says:

    Does Nathan believe Christians under persecution should identify themselves to the authorities preemptively?

    It would surprise me not at all to discover that he advocated that course of action, but, typical churchian that he is, he would come up with some rationalization for why he should remain anonymous.

    Based on the initial exchange, I also concur with those who doubt that anything productive will come of this series, as Nathan, like most churchian ideologues, does not appear to want to dialog with Dalrock in good faith. Also concur that Dalrock MUST continue to remain anonymous.

  99. ys says:

    I agree with all others. I value my anonymity. I won’t even say what state I live in, what I do for a living or how many kids I have. Not worth it.
    I am rarely this cyncial, but I agree with PokeSalad. I think Nathan wants to doxx Dalrock and that’s it. I want to read the Q&A on Warhorn. When I see it, I may have been wrong. Until then, I think this is a doxxing attempt, for the simple reason that no one could be so stupid as to wonder why Dalrock remains anonymous. What a foolish question.

  100. Frank K says:

    This guy knows Jesus traveled with thousands of companions, some might have heard about a great healer they didn’t actually know which one in the crowd was Jesus.

    A very good point. There were no TV shows, magazines or newspapers with pictures back then. It’s probably why the Sanhedrin bribed Judas to identify Jesus and betray him.

  101. Sharkly says:

    Of course Dalrock isn’t “leading” any church.

    “Wherever we go, that’s where the party’s at.”
    Sorry to disagree, but, I’ve declared this virtual place to be my “church”. At least when I’m here! Wherever you have men of God gathering in Christian fellowship you have ‘the church’. You can’t un-church it, while I’m here dishing out the fellowship free of charge. The Apostle Paul believed in the virtual church. Here’s a verse:
    1 Corinthians 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

    Yeah Baby! an anonymous “underground” virtual church. Where Christ’s word is exalted. And order is kept by men. Sometimes order is kept by Dalrock as moderator, and sometimes it is men like feministhater, a man after my own heart:
    Oh fuck off ya cunt! … Your reasoning was plainly, batshit insane and I called you out on it. Get fucked!
    While not typical churchian lingo, women are able to understand him. They get off their pedestal.

    My life is like a vapor. My body is a temporary tabernacle of the Holy Spirit. Bricks and mortar and a parking lot can’t vouch for any churches’ spiritual legitimacy. Ye are the light of the world. Not your darkened building with the illuminated cross at night.
    Anyhow, Bnonn doesn’t get my realization that this is a church.
    On the other end of the scale, many red pill Christians have abandoned meeting together for online community. “This is my church,” one deceived fellow recently commented on Dalrock’s blog. But it is not. Assembling together is an embodied experience, because God made us embodied creatures. You cannot break bread on a blog. You cannot share the right hand of fellowship on a forum. You cannot greet contributors with a holy kiss, nor pray together by lifting holy hands.

    Bnonn says it ain’t a church unless he gets a kiss from me. LOL We need to pray for him. You can lift your holy hands as you do, if you feel so led.
    church does not have to be an embodied experience:
    John 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, …
    23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    I don’t see the requirement for embodied handshakes, Jesus was way ahead of Bnonn & Smokey the Magnificent on the church being in spirit and in truth. If we share God’s truth and share His Holy Spirit, wherever we go, we are the church, even when we go online to do it.

    Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
    If Jesus Christ is here with us, that’s good enough for me. Pardon and forget my crassness, but remember God’s promise to be here among us as we fellowship together as Christ’s Church. Amen!

  102. Scott says:

    I’ve brought up the importance of an intact family before and have been swarmed by angry single mothers (all of them Christians, of course) who tell me how hurtful it is to suggest that children do best with a mother and a father.

    Having this conversation several times now has been one of the most eye-opening experiences into why virtue signalling is so useless.

    You can put it in the most sterile, degrees of personal separation, non-judgmental, sugar-coated way:

    “I am sure you are a fantastic mother. You clearly love your boys and want what’s best for them. You may be the most effective, hardest working. devout Christian mother on the planet. But the fact is, the most powerful predictor of success on ANY dimension you choose–mental health, wealth, future relationships/bonding, career, education, etc is whether or not the child was born to a married mom and dad who stayed together. This doesn’t mean you are a horrible person. But your boys have had a enormous weight tied around their necks for survival and you will have to work double hard to provide them with some kind of surrogate.”

    And you will get:

    “Well I’m not a statistic. My sons are great, and everyone knows it you big bad man. Are you saying I am a shitty mom?”

    In particular, try having that conversation on social media.

  103. Heidi says:

    @Scott: Now, see, if you’d said that to my widowed mom, she wouldn’t have jumped all over you. She probably would have cried and said, “Things would be better if [my father] were here.” She knows that not having both parents around is a huge disadvantage, and guess what? My brother had a lot of issues that probably wouldn’t have been so bad if my dad were around. Those who are single parents not by choice know how undesirable this situation is, because they needn’t rationalize to themselves their poor choices.

  104. elspeth says:

    @ heidi:

    When my father was widowed with 5 children aged 12 through a newborn infant there was, I was told (I have no memory being the aforementioned infant), a veritable swarm of well-meaning women from our church attempting to set him up and telling him how important it was that he find a wife to be a mother to his children.

    So you make a good point.

  105. Bee says:

    Several people have mentioned Brendan Eich and how he was unjustly fired by Firefox. You can support Brendan by using his new browser, Brave. I use it and I like it.

    https://brave.com/download/

  106. thedeti says:

    Info:

    The content in the video is good. The delivery is a wee bit too Mark Driscoll for me.

  107. Lost Patrol says:

    Who a person is does matter.

    I have seen many Christians go so far down this route that ideas no longer need to stand on merit. “John Piper, Tim Keller, D.A. Carson, fill-in-the-blank, said it – so that’s good enough for me.”

  108. Novaseeker says:

    (Of course if you are stupid enough to post something controversial from your work computer, where what you do belongs to your boss, then what you do indeed IS his problem, as what you say could be attributed to him or to his company policy, and he is entitled to act on it).

    Just quoting this for emphasis.

    Folks, please, please, PLEASE, do not read and/or post to these kinds of websites from a work-owned computer or over work-owned internet connection. You can and will be discovered eventually and you will be fired. Almost all workplaces today contain many people who would find Dalrock and the discussions here to be per se creating a hostile work environment, including many HR staff. Just don’t do it. If you really have to look at it during your working hours, use the browser on your phone and do not use the work internet (yes, that means pay for wireless data). It’s really not worth the risk to do otherwise.

  109. mgtowhorseman says:

    Do my words and ideas stand on their own merits?

    Or not?

    That is all anyone needs to know about me.

  110. Eduardo the Magnificent says:

    Smokey the Magnificent

    I’m going to have to change my name

  111. Junkyard Dawg says:

    I don’t need to know who Dalrock is. I’ve been reading this blog for at least five years now. This is one of the few blogs that I follow the discussion in the comments, reading all 200 comments or more. I don’t need to see pictures of his life, farm, ranch, back yard, kids, etc., such as the blog, American Dad, which I admittedly liked, but what’s different about this blog is that, except for the occasional video or picture posted, it’s 100% text. As far as it being like a church for men, I can only wish that the Bible study I go to had discussions like this. I’m also considering some of the comments here about the possibility that the true church may need to go underground and that Jesus and many other people hid themselves during troubled times. It was Jesus’s brothers who said (in John chapter 7), “if you do these things, show yourself to the world,” and their motives were not good for saying it.

  112. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    I have seen many Christians go so far down this route that ideas no longer need to stand on merit. “John Piper, Tim Keller, D.A. Carson, fill-in-the-blank, said it – so that’s good enough for me.”

    Hey now, I thought only the Roman Catholics had a Pope…or two…sometimes three…am I confused?

  113. Efraim Yawitz says:

    Dalrock,

    Please make yourself MORE anonymous, quickly!

    The world is full of people who want to destroy anything good, for no reason at all, or to increase their own power. All they know is destruction. Shield yourself from them as much as possible!

  114. J. Bleeker says:

    114 comments. tl;dr all of them. I would like say in regards to a pseudonym, that the Book of Ecclesiastes is authored by “the teacher.” It is tradition that says it was Solomon, but there is no evidence to support this. So if a pseudonym is good enough for an author of one of the books of the Bible, why not a blogger?

  115. JT says:

    Just a reminder that Eich wasn’t fired from Firefox, he stepped down. Yes he was probably pressured to do so, and that’s bad.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.