Warhorn claims we never set out for a back and forth exchange via email.

Nathan Alberson of Warhorn Media has made some surprising claims in the discussion of his podcast.  When I responded to his description of the podcast with disappointment that he had chosen to avoid focusing on ideas and instead point and shriek, Nathan accused me of doing exactly what he expected me to do:

nathan_cartoonish

One of his readers asked why he made this charge, and asked if there was further history he should know of.  I’m not sure if Nathan’s next comment was in direct response to that question or not, but Nathan then claimed that we never set out to have a back and forth discussion via email:

not_a_debate

What Nathan is saying here simply isn’t true.  Nathan approached me via a comment on the blog some time around the second week of January, explaining that he was with Warhorn Media, the site that Pastory Bayly is on.  He wanted to know how to contact me.  On January 12th I sent him the following email titled “What can I do for you?”:

Dal Rock [redacted]
Jan 12, 2019, 11:12 PM

to nathanalberson
Hi Nathan,

I recieved your message. What can I do for you?

Best Regards,

Dalrock

Nathan replied:

Nathan Alberson [redacted]

Jan 14, 2019, 12:02 PM

to me
Hi,

We’re putting together an episode of our podcast Sound of Sanity on Red Pill, Game, MGTOW, all that good stuff. I wanted to see if you would consent to a phone interview sometime in the near future. I’d like to get as clear an articulation of your views as I can, and present it to the world. The questions would be quite simple (I prefer simple questions that allow for more elaborate answers, as needed):

1. Who are you and why do you talk about the things you talk about?
2. What are the problems facing men today?
3. How do you address these problems on your website and in your writing?
4.. What does a man need to do to live a satisfying and productive life in today’s culture?
5. What does a woman need to do to live a satisfying and productive life in today’s culture?
6. How do these answers relate to God and the Bible?
7. Define red pill. Define game. Define MGTOW. How do these things relate to your work?

Full disclosure: as you probably know, we don’t agree on everything. If I’m not mistaken, you see the work of my pastor and others like him as somehow undercutting the concept of female moral agency. I see your work as needlessly undercutting male responsibility in the name of establishing female moral agency.

The podcast may ultimately reflect these differences, but I’d like to give you a fair chance to say your piece. This won’t be “gotcha journalism.” Actually, in that spirit, I’ll warn you about the potential “gotchas” right now:

I would like to press you a bit on the misogynists that work like yours seems to attract. I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking. I see in your “comments policy” you ask people to refrain from discussing marital corporal punishment. It seems to me that if you have to ask people to refrain from that topic, you may be attracting the wrong sort of people. I’d like to ask you frankly about that and let you answer however you choose.

I hope that sounds amenable to you.

Thanks,

Nathan

I declined Nathan’s offer, and suggested that Rollo might be interested, and also suggested that I might answer his questions in writing.  Here is my full reply to Nathan:

Dal Rock [redacted]

Mon, Jan 14, 3:00 PM

to Nathan
Hi Nathan,

I very much appreciate the spirit that you are engaging with. I will decline, because podcast isn’t my medium. Rollo Tomassi has been asking me to do the same for some time now. Incidentally, he might be open to a joint podcast with you.

With that said, your questions are good. I’m not sure I will have answers that do all of them justice, but if you are interested we might still cover the same material in a written format. If you are interested let me know. We could keep it very simple and I could respond to your questions and comments in your email in a post.

Nathan replied:

Nathan Alberson [redacted]
Mon, Jan 14, 7:58 PM

to me
Yes, I would very much appreciate a response to my questions in written form, in an email or a post or however you see fit. As I said, we will be using them in a podcast.

I’ve expanded the questions a bit since this will be the brunt of our exchange. Thanks in advance!

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 assume Dal Rock is a pseudonym; if I’m being presumptuous there please forgive me.)

2. What are the problems facing men today?

3. How do you address these problems on your website and in your writing?

4. What does a man need to do to live a satisfying and productive life in today’s culture?

5. What does a woman need to do to live a satisfying and productive life in today’s culture?

6. How do these answers relate to God and the Bible?

7. Define red pill, game, and MGTOW. How do these things relate to your work? Or do they? What do people need to understand about them? What label would you give yourself?

8. I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking (or words to that effect). I see in your “comments policy” you ask people to refrain from discussing marital corporal punishment. I have several questions about that. First (just to get it out of the way): do you or any of your more serious followers support marital corporal punishment? Why or why not?

9. Related to question 8, does work like yours attract misogynists? Why or why not? If so, is there anything that can be done to avoid it? If not, is there something an outsider like me isn’t understanding about the people that it does attract? Is it fair for me to ask the spanking question and the misogyny questions right next to each other? Are my biases making me see misogyny (for example, in the wife spanking crowd) where I should see something else? If so, what am I (and others like me) missing?
I hope those questions (particularly 8 and 9) don’t seem leading. I’d like to sincerely understand and present your point of view, even where our camp diverges.

Cordially,

Nathan

I responded proposing that we have a discussion via email which I would then turn into a series of posts and he could use for his podcast.  This would be more work for me than simply writing a series of posts, but I offered  it because I believed that part of what Nathan wanted for the podcast was to have a back and forth exchange.

Dal Rock [redacted]

Jan 15, 2019, 11:34 AM

to Nathan

Yes, I would very much appreciate a response to my questions in written form, in an email or a post or however you see fit. As I said, we will be using them in a podcast.

Lets at least start via email, and if we find it takes too much time we can reconsider and I’ll respond to any remaining items in post form. But this way we get some of the back and forth that I think you are looking for. This should give you good content for your podcast, and I’ll find a way to format/edit it suitable for a blog post (or posts). Larry Kummer and I did something similar back in November, although we only considered sharing the discussion once we were already knee deep.

I’ll grab a question or two at a time and send you a separate email on each. This way we can parallel process the discussion and it should make it (somewhat) less difficult to track by topic. I’ll probably be inconsistent in the timing of my responses due to my schedule, etc. but I’m ok with that (for you as well) so long as you are.

Nathan accepted my proposal:

Nathan Alberson [redacted]
Tue, Jan 15, 11:42 AM

to me
Sounds great. I look forward to your responses. You have my questions, so you can get us started. Thanks again!

As you can see, when Nathan claims we never set out to have a back and forth exchange, this isn’t true.  I proposed exactly that, and he accepted my proposal.  It was only part way into the process that Nathan started pushing back on offering responses, first asking to delay his responses, and eventually stating that he would save all responses for the podcast.  If I had known this upfront I would still have answered his questions, but I would have saved a great deal of time by simply writing my responses as posts.

This morning Nathan sent me the following message advising me that the podcast was now up:

Nathan Alberson

7:29 AM (11 hours ago)

to me
Our podcast came out today: https://simplecast.com/s/793c8cb6

It’s brutal, as you’ll see. But after much thought and prayer, we decided what you’re doing is not just misguided but harmful, and we wanted to inoculate people against it.

I hope you don’t think yourself ill-used. I did ask the questions in good faith, despite what your followers say about me. And then we took a long time to weigh our options and craft a response.

And I hope you consider seriously what we say in the podcast. I hope you stop or radically change your method of operation. I hope you really are the considerate and thoughtful man you present yourself as.

I have my doubts, for the reasons enumerated in the podcast. And because your followers are thoroughly nasty people. The way they treated me in the comments was without charity, dignity, or kindness. Yes, I’m generalizing. And no, I’m not personally offended. But I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously. Not with a rabble like that validating you.

So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

Your followers who validate you are are not really loving you.

I am.

Sincerely,

Nathan

For the record I never expected the podcast to be friendly to my ideas.  I also didn’t expect to win Nathan, Bayly, and the others over in the exchange, although I did my best to answer as persuasively as I could.  But I did expect Nathan to honor the original agreement of a back and forth exchange of ideas via email.  When he backed out of that mid process I continued and tried to frame it as kindly in my posts as I could, but I was disappointed.  I wasn’t going to make an issue out of it, but now that Nathan is stating we never set out to have such an exchange I want to clarify that it is not true.  I also expected Nathan to do as he originally promised:

I’d like to get as clear an articulation of your views as I can, and present it to the world.

The podcast may ultimately reflect these differences, but I’d like to give you a fair chance to say your piece. This won’t be “gotcha journalism.”

I’d like to sincerely understand and present your point of view, even where our camp diverges.

This entry was posted in Nathan Alberson, Pastor Tim Bayly, Warhorn Interview, Warhorn Media. Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to Warhorn claims we never set out for a back and forth exchange via email.

  1. Eidolon says:

    I can’t imagine why Alberson would say “I did ask the questions in good faith, despite what your followers say about me.” He says directly in the podcast that he wasn’t. Transcript, starting at 20:19:

    Other guy: “You have Nathan, you conducted the interview, you used loaded feminist terms like ‘misogyny’ in it, you used terms that tipped your hand, you didn’t go into it in good faith, and you’ve been carefully devising a straw man the entire episode. So, you want to deny that?”

    Alberson: “I don’t know, I mean, I did use terms like ‘misogyny’ in the interview, because I wanted Dalrock to deal with some of that stuff, and…I don’t know, okay, I will admit, I will admit this: when I went into the interview, I was already feeling bothered by Dalrock, so, I tried to be as even-handed and sort of, I daresay, journalistic, as possible. But, I also sort of wanted Dalrock to trip up and prove he was not good, because I sorta thought he probably wasn’t good. Although I hadn’t really read him enough to really know it at the time. So I will admit, I went into it with a bias.”

    Later, making a big thing about Dalrock’s rule against marital corporal punishment discussion, despite Dalrock having explained it at length in his written responses:

    Alberson: “If you have to put up a sign at your rally saying ‘No Nazis Allowed,’ [squeaky] maybe there’s something wrong with the rhetoric of your rally.”

  2. Lexet Blog says:

    An alleged christian ministry caught lying. Wow. Bayly and Nathan have no credibility as men with integrity.

    Dalrock: But this way we get some of the back and forth that I think you are looking for.

    10 minutes later, Nathan says: to me
    Sounds great. I look forward to your responses. You have my questions, so you can get us started. Thanks again!

    I knew it was a set up. They never intended it to be a dialogue, or to treat you fairly. They wanted to knock you out of the picture as an influence on young men. Why? because it would leave a void so they can swoop in and gain influence.

  3. Eidolon says:

    Thanks for going through all this, Dalrock. I thought your responses were excellent and it’s great to have it all in one place.

    I’ll probably start with those posts if I ever need to bring someone up to speed quickly, they make excellent summaries.

  4. Mike says:

    Alberson used “validate” twice in his last email. You couldn’t ask for a more obvious tell.

  5. Micah says:

    You’re a powerhouse, Dalrock.

  6. BillyS says:

    Did they even read your replies? Carrying on about women in the military? Dalrock doesn’t believe in a patriarchy? (I am not certain what Dalrock believes there, but we certainly don’t have one now, so I am not sure exactly what the Pastor and his son are whining about.) No one there has read much here or even the full replies.

    I would not be attracted to Christianity at all if these “men” were my only exposure to it. I am glad my faith is much firmer than they are, but they are very repulsive and definitely wolves in sheep’s clothing, if they even have the right clothing for that.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Perhaps the stress of setting up their own denomination-like-thing has had effects on the Baylys and their employees.

    https://warhornmedia.com/2019/01/29/a-cordial-invitation-to-evangel-presbytery/

    Now there will be what, 7 different Presbyterian churches in the US?

  8. Rollory says:

    “As you can see, when Nathan claims we never set out to have a back and forth exchange, this isn’t true. I proposed exactly that, and he accepted my proposal.”

    This is a blatantly false statement.

    1) “I’d like to get as clear an articulation of your views as I can, and present it to the world. ” There is no mention here of a debate or discussion. He wants you to make statements, which he will convey to his audience.

    2) ” I would very much appreciate a response to my questions in written form, in an email or a post or however you see fit. […] I’ve expanded the questions a bit since this will be the brunt of our exchange.” There is no expectation here of a back and forth. He expects to ask you questions and to get your answers to them, and then he will discuss those answers on his podcast.

    3) Dalrock responds: “With that said, your questions are good. I’m not sure I will have answers that do all of them justice, but if you are interested we might still cover the same material in a written format. If you are interested let me know. We could keep it very simple and I could respond to your questions and comments in your email in a post.” There is no mention here of a back and forth. Dalrock is agreeing to answer Nathan’s questions with no further interaction required.

    4) Dalrock continues with “Lets at least start via email, and if we find it takes too much time we can reconsider and I’ll respond to any remaining items in post form. But this way we get some of the back and forth that I think you are looking for.” Here is the ONLY mention of “back and forth”. Dalrock brings it up as a characterization of the interaction, without specifying any changes to the previously agreed details. Nathan does not specifically address this characterization; since no changes to details were specified, this lack of reaction is normal. At no point in the process has Dalrock suggested or Nathan agreed that there should be any further discussion of any given point once Dalrock has provided Nathan with his answer. Characterizing it as “back and forth” and claiming Nathan is “looking for” such a thing is … well, it’s a maneuver worthy of CNN.

    So: “As you can see, when Nathan claims we never set out to have a back and forth exchange, this isn’t true. ”

    No, Dalrock. It is the precise and whole truth. You cannot change what was clearly agreed to in the text you yourself posted, no matter how much you thought (or wished) you were agreeing to something different.

    “I did expect Nathan to honor the original agreement of a back and forth exchange of ideas via email”

    No, Dalrock. No such agreement exists anywhere in anything you posted. Stop accusing him of dishonesty. He was honest in what he said to you. Arguably wrong in his basic premises regarding the topics discussed, certainly prejudiced against your point of view – but honest.

    Finally, it should be noted that IN THE VERY FIRST EMAIL discussing in detail what he wants to cover, BEFORE Dalrock agreed to anything, he clearly states that he intends to ask about misogyny and corporal punishment. Later on, after Dalrock agreed, Nathan asked exactly what he said he was going to ask. Subsequently characterizing this as a “stopped beating your wife” question is disingenuous at best.

  9. Pingback: Doxxing Dalrock, pt. 2: Warhorn’s Credibility at Stake | The Lexet Blog

  10. Lexet Blog says:

    My take on this is here https://wordpress.com/post/lexetiustitia.wordpress.com/287

    What warhorn did was wrong, and doing it in the name of a ministry was even more wrong.

  11. Lexet Blog says:

    Dalrock wrote an email to Nathan requesting the back and forth, in an email that was mostly about the topic of going back and forth in having a discussion. Literally 10 minutes later, Nathan replied in the affirmative.

    You do not know what you are saying. Pay attention

  12. Lexet Blog says:

    Additionally, I would like to add the following: Nathan claims he thought and prayed about the manner in which Dalrock would be portrayed- in a private email to Dalrock. Then, on the podcast, and in the forum, he admitted to going in with intent, and desiring to portray him in a certain light. Certainly no “thought and prayer” went into a decision made long before the conclusion of the interview.

  13. BeastMode says:

    First time commenter long time reader here.

    Wow, those Warhorn people really are a bunch of dishonest punks. It’s surprising to me how dishonest they are, and it takes a lot to surprise me.

  14. Restless_TradCon says:

    I’m new to Dalrock and am still skeptical of some of his views, so it would have been helpful to have an even handed response in the Warhorn media podcast. I could tell we were off to a bad start when they started using the worst examples from the manosphere, some of which I’ve already seen Dalrock explicitly reject as sinful (PUAs, corporal punishment on the wife). The only thing they said that I thought may hold water is that Dalrock will punch too hard at people and interpret arguments in a worse light than is necessary (they went a good deal further than this). Ironically, they interpreted Dalrock’s work in the worst possible light I can imagine. It seemed like the Warhorn folks kept nearly realizing how disingenuous they were during the devil’s advocate section, but cognitive dissonance won the day. It was also curious to hear them question why anyone would ever remain anon before recounting horror stories of being mobbed by angry feminists. They seemed like nice enough guys, but it was weird to go from reading the email exchange to hearing the podcast. It felt like I was missing pieces of the puzzle as to why Dalrock is so evil. I’d be interested in hearing more about people Dalrock sees in a positive light as good examples. Only Voddie Baucham comes to mind, but I haven’t been here long.

  15. Sue Doe Nim says:

    The constant complaint that Dalrock should post under his real name is what shocks me the most in this whole ordeal. By the end, this complaint has turned into a demand, with Nathan even calling for Dalrock to exit “the business” if he won’t satisfy Nathan’s petulant orders. Apparently in the PCA, only credentialed pastors or those with the approval of one are allowed to give advice or comment on social issues relating to the church. Why non-PCA Christians should abide by such Pharisaical rules is never even considered.

    And “business?” Quite telling. Dalrock isn’t doing this for money or notoriety (obviously). He doesn’t even have a link that accepts donations. There’s only one side of this debate that treats the ministry as a business (in seeming contradiction to Paul’s behavior in Acts 20:33-34), and not surprisingly it’s the one that feels most threatened by the mere existence of opposing viewpoints.

    Nathan, you’ve been caught lying about your intentions. There’s no denying this. Repent of this sin and issue an apology to your brother in Christ.

    Proverbs 12:19

    Truthful lips endure forever,
    But a lying tongue lasts only a moment.

  16. feeriker says:

    An alleged christian ministry caught lying. Wow. Bayly and Nathan have no credibility as men with integrity.

    As I was going to say, churchian poseur frauds gonna be churchian poseur frauds. Definitely nothing surprising here.

    This sort of douchebaggery is what unbelievers see and hear all the time from “mainstream” pastors (usually megachurch televangelist types) and understandably associate it with “Christianity.” Small wonder the hostility and ridicule is all-pervasive.

    Whorehorn Media, like all churchian outlets of its type, is nothing but a stumbling block to the faith.

  17. Lexet Blog says:

    According to Alexa (amazon’s analytics arm for website traffic), Dalrock’s rank for websites is 68,719. Warhorn is 278,694.

    Sending a child into a heavy weight boxing match is an awful idea

  18. drifter says:

    Whoever this ‘Rollory’ is, s/he argues like a child.

    Dalrock states that he’s under the impression that Nathan is looking for a ‘back and forth’; to which Nathan replies “Sounds great…”, offering no objection whatsoever. But he could have.

    With his initial approach, Nathan intentionally came across as if he just wanted to learn. But in his podcast, he exposes himself for the biased fraud that he truly is. But we knew this.

    Still, thanks Dalrock for taking the extra time. You obviously knew what you were getting into, and these posts (and the discussions they generate) will serve well those who truly do want to learn.

  19. Lexet Blog says:

    the majority of Warhorn’s traffic over the last year is due to some recent controversy in the last month. They are trying to ride another wave to increase readership, and then grow a permanent audience.

  20. Brian K says:

    @Rollory: Hi, Nathan!

  21. 7817 says:

    This won’t be “gotcha journalism.”

    I’d like to sincerely understand and present your point of view

    >proceeds to follow the gotcha journalism template to a T

    I hope you don’t think yourself ill-used. I did ask the questions in good faith

    Good faith> what dictionary does the man use

    The way they treated me in the comments was without charity, dignity, or kindness.

    >Dignity, after that “skit” about spanking

    we decided what you’re doing is not just misguided but harmful, and we wanted to inoculate people against it.

    >we decided before we contacted you

    I hope you stop or radically change your method of operation. 

    We are over the target. Bombs away, and keep them coming.

    your followers are thoroughly nasty people. 

    >Stop making fun of me, my wife’s son, and my sweater vest

    I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously.

    Unless Nathan takes you seriously you are not worth being taken seriously. Shades of the NRO crowd again.

    place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. 

    >just did a minutes long skit about spanking, urges you to discipline your followers.

    We’ve got a live one here folks

    Not with a rabble like that validating you.

    Vox Day has Ilk, Dalrock has rabble. Get hooked up with Crypto fashion, make a shirt that says “Rabble Rabble Rabble” at least we could identify each other and you could make some coin off this thing.

    Seriously though, some few commenters here say stuff I think is ridiculous, but I’m not responsible for their words and I’m not the reality police. Apparently your commenters are an asset, because it’s the first thing you are criticized by the Reformed crowd about.

  22. Brian K says:

    Nathan comes off so effeminate. Calling us “nasty.” Hell hath no fury like a soyboy scorned. And that line about being “bothered” by Dalrock. If he’s bothered by Dalrock, what would happen if he was exposed to Terrence Popp or TFM? They’d positively give Nathan the vapors.

  23. Mountain Man says:

    I listened to the podcast this morning. While searching for the podcast in iTunes, I noticed several other of the Warhorn episodes which interested me. After listening to this one, the plan was to go back and check out some of the others. That’s not going to happen now. After listening to this episode, I no longer have any interest in anything they have to say. Many of the commenters here have engaged in excellent critique, so there is no need to restate what others have already said more eloquently than I could. I’ll just share my overall impression after listening to the podcast. The presenters reminded me of a group of teenage boys who are thoroughly convinced that they are both hilarious and insightful, …. while those around, watching their antics, see them more as clueless and embarrassing, but are too polite to tell them so.

  24. “I hope you stop or radically change your method of operation. I hope you really are the considerate and thoughtful man you present yourself as.

    I have my doubts, for the reasons enumerated in the podcast. And because your followers are thoroughly nasty people.”

    This is exactly why the Christian Church in America is emptying out, and effectively devoid of what everyone remembered of men.
    The pews are now filled with weak, cowering, sniveling, effeminates desperately shouting the same kinds of insults as the feminist infiltrators, hoping and praying that young men, single men and married men will keep the blinders on, the chains secured, the cotton in their ears and keep pulling that cart for the morrow.

    But no. The Christian Church will now have to lie in the bed it made. It will have to rely on the whims of women, with their 60 hour work week careers, bastard children, high student and consumer debt-to-income ratios, venereal diseases, zero savings and less than a pittance for the offering plate.
    They will refer to themselves as “Born Again Christians” mind you, every one of them. And declare their neo-virginity to boot.
    I’d wish them good luck with that, but it’s already over.
    They just don’t realize nor accept the fact that they’ve already lost.

  25. Anonymous Reader Rabble says:

    >Stop making fun of me, my wife’s son, and my sweater vest

    kek

  26. Ras al Ghul says:

    you shall know them by their fruits, children of the lie always deceive.

    I would sooner trust a serpent to discipline me, than those wormtongues.

    they should repent but I know they wont, they will eat ashes and drink from a bitter cup.

  27. 7817 says:

    Again Dalrock, your instincts are so much better than mine. I thought this interview was going to be some kind of horrible thing that was going to cause damage some way.

    Instead, I have chuckled all day as a result. Only thing missing was popcorn.

    It sucks that they were liars, but since they were…. best possible outcome I can think of.

  28. Ras al Ghul says:

    7817

    it should be rubble rabble, since we are pieces of the (dal)Rock

  29. Bee says:

    “And because your followers are thoroughly nasty people.”

    Wow, I thought I was a deplorable, but today I find out I am just a plain, old, run of the mill nasty person. What a let down.

  30. Warthog says:

    Dalrock hasn’t actually said anything bad about Bayly in his previous posts. He pointed out two or three inconsistencies in Bayly’s arguments. He didn’t accuse him of heresy, molesting children, being a fraud, being a liar, or any of the standard ad hominem that we see hurled by millennials who never learned how to have a rational discussion.

    Yes, quite a few the comments made here in general are uncharitable – but that isn’t Dalrock. Welcome to the Internet folks.

    Bayly/Warhorn’s response by running this ambush podcast combined with Bayly’s post defending it on their forum is rather ridiculous. Their emotional reaction is way out of proportion to anything Dalrock ever said about them.

    I cannot tell if Bayly is doing this because he is afraid of being linked to Dalrock, or if he is trying to pull a Christopher Hitchens and climb by attacking the coattails of people/speakers with a bigger following than he has. Perhaps it is a bit of both.

    I also find it confusing that Nathan’s angle is to ridicule Dalrock by associating him with extreme positions that Dalrock has repeatedly and explicitly rejected – making Nathan look like a liberal in Presbyterian clothing. But at the same time, Bayly emotionally protests that he has been rebuking women for decades, that the PCA report didn’t go far enough to express his real views. Then he claimed that Dalrock blames women for all problems, which is a nice switcheroo of Dalrock’s Law.

    Is this good cop, bad cop? Alberson plays feminist while Bayly plays patriarchalist? I’m left confused as to what they actually believe over there.

    In the end Alberson decides that Dalrock is a bad man, and even tells him so in email, but totally failed to make any convincing arguments of why he is a bad man, or what Dalrock teaches that is so wrong. But Alberson did manage to imply that Dalrock is a wife-beater, or hangs out with them, and he even managed to use the Nazi analogy. I’m sorry, but Alberson’s future in radio doesn’t look bright to me. The best MSM talking heads are masters of persuasion. Alberson clearly is out of his league, and should consider finding a job that doesn’t require thinking and talking too much.

  31. Bee says:

    Nathan writes, “I hope you stop or radically change your method of operation.”

    Dalrock,

    I and my marriage have been helped by things I have learned here. That means my wife benefited from things I learned here.

  32. tteclod says:

    Again, glad you went along with the farce so we could see it unfold.

    Other commenters suggested this makes Christians look awful: they’re right. This type of Christian is the only type I encounter IRL. They are the reason I quit.

  33. Random Angeleno says:

    So they were trying to take Dalrock down all along. Bad faith on their part.

    But I’m really glad this dialog happened and Warhorn grabbed the opportunity to show their true colors. Hence allowing us to see them for the double crossing frauds they are. St Paul warned us against false teachers. Close enough to the Truth to sound good in places, but very far away where it matters. If you want to see them double down, check out the link to their forum at Sanityville.

    tl;dr: they didn’t look good in this exchange.

    How long before they memory hole everything on their side? If they do, that’s your tell.

  34. Lexet Blog says:

    It always reminds me of the towns people in Sodom who demanded to inspect Lot’s guests

  35. Lexet Blog says:

    Most of Warhorn’s traffic over the past year is over the last 2 months. During that time, there has been a scandal in the SBC, Warhorn is hawking a new denomination, and the PCA is being eviscerated by leftists over the social justice gospel, and revoice (recognition of a “gay” identity in churchian circles). This is how they attract more views

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    And because your followers are thoroughly nasty people.”

    Nasty. Probably Russian, too…

  37. 8 in the Gate says:

    “…despite what your followers say about me.”
    “And because your followers are thoroughly nasty people.”
    “Not with a rabble like that validating you.”

    One thing I have always liked about Dalrock’s site is that it is a place where ideas can be discussed, challenged, defended, corrected, amended, etc. The ideas and premises deposited must carry their own water. It is not a place of sycophants, even though many may agree at times – no one is required to. I didn’t know that I was Dalrock’s “follower”, no matter how nasty and rabble-like I may be. And last time I checked, Dalrock wasn’t setting himself up as Pastor, Elder, Bishop, or Priest.

    Seems like Nathan decided to AMOG and try to pick up fight, but I can’t shake the impression that he’s trying to fight like a woman.

    Nevertheless, this series has been one of the best articulated set of positions that Dalrock has ever written. Thank you, D.

    Still Learning.

    8 in the Gate

  38. Matt says:

    So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

    So Dalrock, I know you’re not Jesus but I can’t help but be both a little amused and angered by the remarkable similarity to Luke 20. It’s almost eerie. Demanding submission, refusing to engage with direct theological questions, the works. Were I you, I’d be pretty encouraged by the comparison.

    One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.” He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?” And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From man,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” So they answered that they did not know where it came from. And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

  39. thumbs up: remarkable similarity to Luke 20.

  40. ray says:

    “So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers.”

    Nobody disciplines me except Christ. I am not a ‘follower’ of Dalrock. I read and comment on his blog, and occasionally disagree. I follow King Jeshua, not Dalrock, not Bayly, and damn sure not you.

    Dalrock is your spiritual elder, but not mine. You and yours chafe under his superior wisdom. Your Smirky Face icon with COOL shades, the pseudo-ferocious countenance in your goofy nerdborg photo . . . boy you are way outta your league. Bursting with arrogance.

    As I noted in the prior thread, this is all about power-seeking professional Christians, enraged that people are paying attention to the truth, rather than their weak, worldly lies. Woe unto you boyo, and to your fellow wolves, you have no authority to discipline actual Christians. But you thirst for it like a tick thirsts for blood.

  41. Scott says:

    Your Smirky Face icon with COOL shades, the pseudo-ferocious countenance in your goofy nerdborg photo . . . boy you are way outta your league. Bursting with arrogance.

    I have to admit. The picture is pretty funny.

  42. Zadok says:

    I found Nathan’s problem: Low-T Men Are Angry and Moody.
    Warhorn’s intellectual arrogance is ugly. Dalrock has been respectful and specific in his criticism of Bayly in the past, and he gets vitriol in return.
    I remember the cognitive dissonance when I first came across this site. The complementarians and their ilk seem to be the Christian vanguard. It was unexpected to come across criticism from the “right”. Because of personal circumstances, I was open to the idea that prevailing churchian ideas about marriage were wrong. The first few months of reading Dalrock’s archives were quite a humbling experience.
    Anyway, these Warhorners have resolved the cogdis using emotion rather than reason. They don’t think it is possible to receive valid criticism from the right, therefore Dalrock must be something vile. Reading some of Bayly’s Women in Combat resolution today reminded me of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism.

  43. Warthog says:

    @dalrock, I hope you are aware that the leftists that run WordPress.com would dox you and censor you in a heartbeat. It is inevitable they will do it. I suggest you take serious steps to protect yourself. Can advise on that.

    I’ve argued for charity in assuming motives going both ways between Warhorn and Dalrock’s motley crew. But the more I think about the way Alberson openly stated his intent to make you look bad, and then denied it, sometimes you just have to judge a tree by its fruit.

    Nothing Dalrock said ever diminished my respect for Tim Bayly. But Bayly and his boys have behaved shamefully with this stunt. He has lost my respect, and the benefit of the doubt. It’s quite discouraging.

  44. Sharkly says:

    I’m glad Nathan mentioned my post at 30:45 to 31:25 of his whining. Made my day!
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/warhorn-interview-male-responsibility-and-female-agency/#comment-303333
    Cunts gonna Cunt! He apparently doesn’t like the word “Cunt”.
    Like it is taking his god’s name in vain. LOL
    The truth hurts sometimes.

  45. Pingback: Warhorn claims we never set out for a back and forth exchange via email. | Reaction Times

  46. Prompt Critical says:

    The authors of the Federalist Papers (and their ideological opponents) wrote under pseudonyms like ROUGH HEWER and EXAMINER and ARISTOCROTIS when arguing the direction our new national government should take. People take issue with anonymity in debate because it makes it harder to appeal to authority (and to threaten the livelihood of wrong-thinkers).

  47. Opus says:

    As Vox says (in the title of his book) SJW’s always lie.

  48. Burner Prime says:

    Red flag should have been when they butter you up and say, “This won’t be gotcha journalism”. That means “100% we are going to crawfish on you and play gotcha.” Every. Single. Time. That is one thing Vox is spot on about.

  49. Jason says:

    This is why I don’t go to church anymore. These people are every bit as bad as the rest of unsaved humanity and yet have the gall to tell you that they love you with God’s love at the same time they a driving the knife into your back.

  50. feministhater says:

    I wouldn’t be anyone if I was wasn’t a thoroughly nasty person! Lol! Didn’t someone tell these men that chicks dig the bad boys?!

    Their insults are like water off a duck’s back. Nothing, empty, hallow, just like their chests. Puffed out with false bravado.

    I have disagreed with Dalrock on countless occasions to the point I bet he’s been rather annoyed with me at times but yet he continues to allow me to speak my mind.

    I think the best part of this blog is how we can argue, disagree, have mini fights and yet, at the end of the day, still consider each other brothers. I wouldn’t have it any other way, Warhorn and Co can go cry in a corner for all I care.

  51. Paul says:

    @Nathan And because your followers are thoroughly nasty people.

    How gracious, kind, dignified, and spoken with charity of you! I’m not sure WWJD.

  52. Paul says:

    Dalrock, if I have to be thankful for only one thing, it has to be your very gracious commenting policy on your blog, allowing arguments to put be put up for scrutiny.

    Compare that with how Warhorn already has closed down its comment section on the Dalrock interview, while allowing Bayly to continue editing.

  53. JRob says:

    My internal debate centered around the usual intended audience for their podcast. Is it the women in their sphere? Is their congregation nothing but more males of their ilk? Their mannerisms, M.O., and delivery is definitely feminine. And SJW.

    As another commenter pointed out, Bayly takes some strong non-PC positions. Is this attack on Mean ol’ Mr. Anonymous and his Merry Band of Misogynistic Miscreants smokescreen to appease the FI around them? Throwing them a bone (heh) and creating another target to focus their anger on somebody else?

  54. feministhater says:

    Mr Anonymous and the Misogynists of the Universe!

  55. feministhater says:

    I have the POWAH!

  56. Hugh Mann says:

    “Warhorn already has closed down its comment section on the Dalrock interview”

    Because there are too many cogent, politely expressed criticisms of Nathan Alberson on the thread, before Pastor Bayley jumps in to derail with all smoke-floats going.

    “We didn’t want to get too far into the weeds of Dalrock’s philosophy. To do that was to risk validating a dishonest and uncharitable man.” (Comments then closed immediately after)

    aka we won’t discuss his ideas because he’s a Bad Man, and that’s all you need to know (and what if there’s any truth in them, where would we be then?)

  57. Il Deplorevolissimo says:

    So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

    Any man who would do a good job with that would take Nathan out and verbally scourge him in front of his entire audience for his conduct here.

  58. Il Deplorevolissimo says:

    @Dalrock,

    Found one interesting bait and switch they pulled here. If you note that they said “of course we condemn women joining the Navy,” the passage from Bayly’s writings they cite says “combat positions.”

    This is typical complementarian motte and bailey because it leads the average reader to think they’re hyper-traditional when in reality they’re just saying “no combat arms MOS for the ladies.”

  59. Paul says:

    @Nathan But I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously. Not with a rabble like that validating you.

    Because a man is defined by his “followers”, not by his arguments, isn’t it?
    You’ve already shown you can’t handle arguments, so what else can you do, right?

  60. Hugh Mann says:

    This comment on Warhorn illustrates how many of us (who had a life before the internet) came to the manosphere – because it enabled us to make sense of past interactions, and showed us how much of what we’d been taught about women and relationships (whether by churches or general culture) was false. I’d already learned by bitter (and sometimes sweet) experience that it wasn’t true, but the manosphere put some kind of theoretical framework there.

    “From a young man onward I tried following conventional Evangelical teaching on how men and women should relate to one another, but things never quite turned out as I was led to expect, and it confused me. When I came across the manosphere a few years ago, some of what I read provided the key for understanding my past interactions in the male-female arena. Picking through the bad baggage, I had finally come across something that made sense of my on-the-ground experience as a man. I think the manosphere has identified some key issues …”

  61. Charles B says:

    A man like Nathan thinking I’m nasty rabble is a nice compliment.

  62. Charles B says:

    I believe that there’s an unaddressed angle of attack here as well.

    Nathan and his flying monkeys seem to believe that as a self professed media outlet they inherit the cultural mantle of the 4th estate. And as such socially Dalrock must bow to their prestige and authority to determine whom and how to Interview. And that further Nathan has no obligations to Dalrock because of his lofty position.

    The bare truth is that the media in Western civilization has as an entity has completely destroyed all moral grounds they might have to claim such a position. Nathan and company may not like that but by calling themselves ‘media’ they do not inherit the mantle of the gate keeper but rather the burden of proving they are not dishonest charlatans like the media as a whole.

    Which of course they failed to do. Which of course they failed to do

  63. squid_hunt says:

    I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking.

    I’m starting to suspect Nathan may have a fetish. He seems really obsessed with the idea of spanking women. It’s also notable that he could have written his article without ever questioning you. His views where made up when he started and nothing you said made any impression on him.

    This guy was definitely playing gotcha. And with the admission that he’s angry that you fingered his pastor, he’s played his hand as far as he can. He’s dishonest and his intent was to “expose” you from the get go. What a dirtbag.

  64. squid_hunt says:

    @7817

    Seriously though, some few commenters here say stuff I think is ridiculous, but I’m not responsible for their words and I’m not the reality police. Apparently your commenters are an asset, because it’s the first thing you are criticized by the Reformed crowd about.

    It is really disturbing how much the concept of open debate and discussion threatens these men. That seems to be one of Dalrock’s strongest affronts, that he doesn’t police the debate. He sets some general rules and people respect them as the house rules. Even if someone gets a little out of line, he doesn’t come down on them, but directs the discussion calmly back in. They’re hysterical in their fear that someone is going to say something vulgar. They’re a pack of women.

  65. Bee says:

    Paul, Hugh Mann,

    “Compare that with how Warhorn already has closed down its comment section on the Dalrock interview, while allowing Bayly to continue editing.”

    To their credit they said they were closing the comments for the evening. They don’t want to stay up all night approving comments. Let’s see if they open it up to more comments this morning.

  66. Junkyard Dawg says:

    I wanted to comment on Nathan’s site, but see from reading the comments that he responds uncharitably to anyone with a pseudonym or who is anonymous. So, I was going to use at least my real first name, but you also have to sign up for an account to comment on his website, and they ask for your name (although it says optional) but they also ask for the name and website of your church (doesn’t say it’s optional). Why? So they can go and tell my pastor that I’m being radicalized by the manosphere?

    The comment by Nathan I wanted to respond to on his site was “We didn’t want to get too far into the weeds of Dalrock’s philosophy. To do that was to risk validating a dishonest and uncharitable man.” I wanted to comment to the effect that if you were to write a critical review of Hitler’s Mein Kampf by discussing the ideas contained in it, that does not mean that you are validating Hitler’s philosophy. (Not at all meaning to equate Dalrock with Hitler, of course, but to counter the silly idea that to discuss an idea is to validate it.)

    As far as anonymity, I would like to know more about you, Dalrock, but not in the sense of where you live, where you work and what your real name is. What I mean is that you have mentioned that you have discussed some of the ideas on your blog with your pastor, and perhaps other people in your church. What I would like to know about is, what happens when you do that, and also, how to do it. What are these conversations like and what is the outcome? I’m interested, because I do talk to people at my church about these things sometimes.

    Another thing I’d like to say is that the men at Warhorn seem to be a product of their times. I grew up in an earlier, pre-Internet era, I suppose when there was less virtue signalling and debates were less polarized (as in today’s political arena). It seems that they do not know how to address an opponent’s arguments and refute them, but resort to name-calling, using talking points, hoping to dox people – and ultimately, I think that the “I use my real name, why don’t you?” is an attempt to claim the moral high ground via virtue signalling, which is more important than the ideas being discussed and entirely the left-leaning mindset. But this is the world they live in, even if they are Christians.

  67. Basedangemon says:

    …after much thought and prayer, we decided what you’re doing is not just misguided but harmful, and we wanted to inoculate people against it.

    So, instead of presenting the matter fairly and exposing their counterpoints to the court of public opinion, as prosecutors, they ascended the bench themselves and banged the gavel. Nathan&bros unilaterally “decided” the case based on nothing but preconceptions, without allowing the arguments against Dalrock (should they exist) to be weighed. Any fair appeal would declare a mistrial at this point.

  68. That’s the odd bit, I’m not even entirely sure what exactly he has a problem with. Seriously, even if he’s wrong, what’s the specific problem?

  69. feeriker says:

    I would not be attracted to Christianity at all if these “men” were my only exposure to it. I am glad my faith is much firmer than they are, but they are very repulsive and definitely wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    The conspiracy theorist within me begins to believe more strongly than ever before that the “church” in the West in general and in the USSA in particular is little more than a Deep State front designed to distract the deplorables away from the truth, the life, and the light. I remember the late, great Joseph Sobran on more than one occasion referring to what he called “the Great National Religion.” It’s a reference to the milquetoasty, flaccid, lifeless, greatly watered down Judeo-Christian pseudo-faith pap that ensures that nobody takes their faith seriously as a central pillar of their life in a way that makes their neighbors or the established centers of power and authority feel uncomfortable or threatened. The emphasis is on “everybody getting along.” It has the practical effect of neutralizing (and neutering) true Christianity and is also why “religion” as TPTB define it faces no serious persecution. It’s only when believers attempt to live and practice the pure (i.e., non-officially sanctioned) version of their faith that they run into trouble.

    Nathan and the soyboys at Whorehorn media serve as an excellent working example of the media “immune system” of the Great National (churchian) Religion, seeking to neutralize badthink that strays from the officially and culturally sanctioned narrative.

  70. thedeti says:

    In looking back on the entire thing, it’s clear the Warhorn folks don’t see one the main problems in Christianity and in the American church right now.

    1) The modern church, church leadership, and the pastorate, is terrified of women. Terrified of confronting them, telling them “no”, telling them what scripture says about men, women, their respective roles, marriage, sex, society, and life, requiring them to adhere to those tenets, and rebuking and correcting them when they fail to heed them.

    Women’s usual threatpoints, which are “give me what i want and don’t offend me, or else I will

    (a) not date you

    (b) not marry you

    (c) not have sex with you

    (d) divorce you and keep your kids away from you and take the cash and prizes due me

    (e) leave the church and take my family and time and tithe money with me, and everyone else will leave too”

    have been extremely effective in today’s modern, complementarian, egalitarian society. And they’ve been extremely effective in bending the modern church to their will. An entire false theology has sprung up in an effort to appease the womenfolk, to make it look like their sins aren’t really sins, and their fleshly faults are in fact virtues.

    2) The modern church, its leadership, and pastorate, will not recognize women’s moral agency and for the most part does not recognize that women sin. The only sins the church believes women commit is lack of self esteem and failing to be true to themselves.

    3) The modern church, its leadership, and pastorate, panders to women and demands that men be more like women. One of Dalrock’s essays on Bayly notes that Bayly exhorts men to be more “emotionally available” . (See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/09/15/sometimes-excellent/ .)

    4) The modern church blames men for women’s sins and rebellion, in large part because it, and its leadership, are terrified of women. See that same “Sometimes excellent” piece in which Dalrock says of Bayly:

    But at the same time, he obviously has a huge and very common blind spot. As nearly everyone else does, he sees the very open feminist rebellion of generations of Christian and non-Christian women and declares that something mysterious has happened to men.

    In the introduction to Daddy Tried: Overcoming the Failures of Fatherhood, Bayly frames the problems of fatherhood as men abandoning their families. While there certainly are some men who are doing this, the much larger social and legal trend is women kicking fathers out of the family, and the remaining fathers living under the ever present threat that the same will happen to them. This is something feminists are very open about, as the goal is to put wives in control*. To twist this around into men abandoning their families is sickening, and a refusal to deal with reality.

    Men are terrified, more justly, of what they have allowed the State to empower women to do. This has been like putting a TNT detonator in a teenager’s hands. This is like entrusting college kids with the nuclear football, or like giving a 16 year old with a 2-day old driver’s license the keys to a $200,000 Lamborghini. And now, women have detonated the TNT, lost the football, and wrapped the Lambo around a telephone pole.

  71. ys says:

    Bayly himself had even posted a comment or two on this blog. He seemed better than most of the complimentarian types in that he rejected the work he had previously done on the CBMW.
    But this is shameful. Further, if these guys were trying to repulse manosphere readers from the church, then, good job!
    Men who are members of faithful churches, such as myself, have admonished those on here (I have tried to not be a jerk about it, but I’m sure I have been sometimes, so sorry) to find a good church and join in, etc. This effort by Warhorn just sabotaged a great deal of that.
    Nice going slick!

  72. “But I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously. Not with a rabble like that validating you.”

    Guys like this constantly try to position themselves as being an authority whose approval must be gained for an idea to be worth hearing.

    “So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers.”

    Funny how a guy who’s terrified of disciplining women wants desperately to at least be able to discipline men.

    Sorry Nathan: not much of anyone respects you at all. Even the people who like what you say don’t *respect* you. They just find you useful.

  73. white says:

    Guys, check out the conversation there.

    Bayly himself just admitted that his PCA resolution about women in combat is written under influence from feminists.

    “Finally, to men of goodwill who are listening, the perpetual refrain of the wicked feminists who almost made up the majority of the committee I served on was “you men want to discipline women in the military!” It was a scare tactic trying to sway the broad middle of the committee. Is it really so hard to understand why the paper didn’t explicitly call for the discipline of women combatants?”

    “Tone deaf and brain dead to the actual practice of leadership these men are.”

  74. Dalrock says:

    @Il Deplorevolissimo

    @Dalrock,

    Found one interesting bait and switch they pulled here. If you note that they said “of course we condemn women joining the Navy,” the passage from Bayly’s writings they cite says “combat positions.”

    This is typical complementarian motte and bailey because it leads the average reader to think they’re hyper-traditional when in reality they’re just saying “no combat arms MOS for the ladies.”

    The whole thing is ugly. We were having a discussion, and Nathan claims he believed I was misrepresenting Bayly and others. I was prodding him to respond to my argument, and he was keeping his grievances hidden as a way to later prove I was acting in bad faith.

    With that said, in the comments at Warhorn Bayly described his exchange with the woman who joined the Navy in the past. He says he told her it was rebellion and sin. I had seen his discussion of what I believe is the same woman in a different post. I didn’t reference it in the exchange because my point wasn’t that Bayly is a bad man, but that focusing on made up sins of men crowded out calling out the real rebellion of women. In the separate post titled Would I support our daughters enlisting in the military… Bayly wrote:

    But that begs the question whether today’s Armed Forces are a place any man, let alone a Christian man, wants his daughters to serve, and I say “no.” I don’t want my own son serving in the military, let alone my daughter. We have a bunch of men in our congregation who are in the military and one officer in the Navy from our congregation who is a woman. We tried to discourage most of these men (and certainly the woman) from enlisting, but they chose to proceed and we’re proud of them and support their work, praying for them when they are deployed and loving them when they get home.

    I’m not saying Bayly didn’t tell her she was sinning, but on a post on the same subject he merely says he discouraged her along with the men from joining, and at the very least left room to interpret that he was proud of what she is doing even though he advised her not to do it. He’s furious with me for not mentioning an exchange he had with this woman in the Navy, yet it wasn’t relevant to my argument and when he wrote about it previously and he left the part out where he told her she was in feminist rebellion.

    But again, all of this would have made an interesting discussion. They could have clarified their position in what was a friendly exchange. But while Warhorn agreed to an exchange and played along like that is what we were having, instead they looked for answers to take offense at so they could cry foul months later.

  75. Hugh Mann says:

    OT, but this piece on ‘millennial burnout’, only one person interviewed but I think she’s not the only one – I’m so glad to have grown up without social media. One of its features is to make schoolkid bullying possible 24/7, but when you’re older there are more subtle effects. I’m sort of sympathetic to this idiot …

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/c384d54a-0116-437f-83e8-ddbca65b6c06

    “our lives are a lot more ‘out there’ for everyone to see with social media. My mum had no one to prove to on a daily basis that she was keeping us alive, and that we had the latest toy or computer game…”

    You could stop trying to prove anything on social media?

    “The idea of what a successful career should look like has also changed for my generation. It used to be about earning a decent salary, but now it feels like we need to do that as well as have a cool, exciting job you’re passionate about. “

    Just because the job interview spec calls for someone “passionate about local authority housing issues” doesn’t mean you actually have to be! These people watch too many films.

    “I overcommit constantly but always manage to make my deadlines with work. The sacrifices are more in my social life…”

    Say “no” occasionally at work. Don’t overcommit. I know, there’s always another bright person (thanks to EU open borders) after your cool, exciting job you’re passionate about. You’re afraid to say no.

    “I’m also doing a lot of reading up on how to manage stress. My go-to is to flare up in an argument with my boyfriend because I’m so on edge…”

    It’s not abusive when a woman does it.

  76. citizen1en1 says:

    “But this way we get some of the back and forth that I think you are looking for.”

    He never acknowledged or agreed to the back and forth. He only agreed to the format. You should have made it an explicit condition, and you should have terminated the process when he proved unwilling to back and forth. You can not assume anything with the left. Ever. They will lawyer up, and we know who’s side the law is on … that is a Sisyphusian task. The warnings turned out to be true, and he is a liar. This was a hit piece from the git-go.

  77. Eidolon says:

    It’s still bugging me that Bayly claims the Chrysostom quote wasn’t about men pushing women into the military.

    Bayly:

    ”You suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed.”

    [quoting me] “Bookending the section with condemnation of men forcing women into the military,”

    Joseph Bayly
    Is it really possible that neither Eidolon nor yourself know that “suffer” literally means means to “tolerate or allow” in this context?

    If you will tell me that you were so ignorant, then I will allow you to continue commenting in Sanityville so long as you use your real name if you are attacking men who have identified themselves by name.

    Otherwise, if you did know the meaning of that word, this is your final warning that such lies as you put above will get you banned the very next time it happens.”

    /Bayly

    I guess calling me stupid is part of that wonderful kindness and charity that we ought to be displaying.

    Anyway, this is incredibly dishonest. Let’s be unreasonably generous here and act as though the quoted section was all they quoted, even though it wasn’t.

    “You suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed.”

    Who is “you”? Who is doing the suffering, and is thus being criticized? It’s not “women,” they are the ones being suffered. The “you” is the leaders who allowed this to happen, that is, the men in power. And of course, since he’s discussing a society a very long time ago, the women had no direct political power, so the decision to have women in the military falls entirely on their heads, just as a man’s decision to buy a house he can’t afford is ultimately on his head, even if he did so because his wife incessantly nagged him for it. He was the ultimate authority and is thus responsible for the decision he made.

    Thus, the statement could be accurately restated as “The men in power should be ashamed, because they have chosen to change the rules to put women into the military, which was wrong.” It is not a condemnation of the women for being in the military, it’s a criticism of the men for putting them there, where they otherwise would not and could not be.

    When you take the lie that preceded the section (that “we” are putting our daughters in combat), and you add this quote to the end, even if you ignore the additional context condemning the men of Corinth, it is perfectly accurate to describe it as “Bookending the section with condemnation of men forcing women into the military.” That is clearly what the quote says, even the smaller part that Bayly pretends was the whole quote.

    Dalrock’s (and my) point was that they cannot discuss an issue where women act wrongly without condemning the men for it. The Chrysostom quote does so rightly, because the men of Corinth had the final say in all political decisions. In modern America, women get 50% of the vote, so it’s dishonest to act as though men have the final say in putting them in combat.

    Women have 50% of the political power, so even if they were being drafted, they would still be significantly at fault for it. But obviously it’s not even that, it’s women demanding to be there when they were disallowed and when allowed, not needed or even wanted.

  78. Christopher Conrad Nystrom says:

    “We tried to discourage most of these men (…) from enlisting” – Wait a minute. Were they not just saying that men not stepping up for the military was a problem, or even a sin, and this failure of men caused the women to have to step up instead?

  79. 7817 says:

    Wait a minute. Were they not just saying that men not stepping up for the military was a problem, or even a sin, and this failure of men caused the women to have to step up instead?

    Right. Self awareness level is not to high over there.

  80. BillyS says:

    Blayly is projecting his own unwillingness to truly confront women in the military when he charges Dalrock with that. Dalrock acknowledges that it is due to the choices of women, but Blayly walks in the fear of woman and won’t even do that.

    Nice pile of hypocrisy there.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    @white

    I read that comment by Bayly yesterday. He’s trying to gloss the fact that the PCA committee he was very much part of had to cave into feminists and blame men for women’s actions, in order to get the resolution passed. Just part of what Bismarck called the “sausage making” of governance. Except that church organizations are supposed to be a little different than the average town council or state legislature, at least in theory.

    That’s arguably what he meant by this statement:

    “Tone deaf and brain dead to the actual practice of leadership these men are.”

    That statement happens to be very arrogant and pride-filled. He has no way of knowing if this is true or false, because Tim Bayly is not a god who can see what all the commenters here have done and are doing. If Tim Bayly claims to be a god of some sort, that is testable…starting with my favorite color…

    It also happens to be a nice encapsulation of what the churches have been doing in the US for 40 – 50 or more years; Bayly and other Boomers were more than willing to give the feministas “just this one time” for time after time after time. Now the average 40 year old churchgoing man with a contentious wife and two children has to deal with the fallout from decades of bad decisions, with no help at all from the likes of Pastor Bayly, either. Because “Federal Head Dad” is responsible for all bad outcomes, but gets zero authority to prevent them, in order to mollify feminists.

    tl;dr
    Bayly surrendered to PCA feminists in order to get a watered-down, blame-the-men, resolution passed. If he’s honest with himself, he knows this. That could be the source of his anger, which has been displaced onto the man who dared to point out that the Emperor is nekkid.

    Shooting the messenger isn’t really a good idea, but it is human nature.

    PS: Blue pill fantasies about women will always lead to bad decisions. That is why The Glasses matter.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Christopher Conrad Nystrom

    “We tried to discourage most of these men (…) from enlisting” – Wait a minute. Were they not just saying that men not stepping up for the military was a problem, or even a sin, and this failure of men caused the women to have to step up instead?

    Right. Even Bayly has to know this isn’t what is happening. Bayly isn’t sinning by discouraging men from joining the military. Nor are the men in his congregation who didn’t serve sinning by not signing up. All of our wars are elective, and we have no shortage of men who are willing to serve. As I put it in my exchange with Nathan:

    …one has nothing to do with the other. Even worse, we don’t have a problem with men being unwilling to work hard in the defense of the country. This implies that Christian men like myself and Pastor Bayly who have never joined the military sinned by not having done so. It is a lie.

  83. Opus says:

    I may perhaps not quite understand these things but as I understood it Protestantism distingushed itself from The Roman Church by not being beholden to the Church Fathers ancient and modern thus every man was – provided he could read – his own Theologian and no one could tell him that he had misinterpreted Scripture or for that matter not found Jesus. I also seem to recall somewhere Jesus or perhaps it was one of the disciples saying that the virtues were Faith, Hope and Charity and that the greatest of those three was the last one. I see little of the latter coming from Nathan Alberson and in view of the earlier part of this paragraph it strikes me as odd that a Protestant should berate a fellow Christian for wrong-think… and after all, all this is, is a little blog with various and varied essays and likewise comments from people who range as far as from scoffers like myself and Boxer (where is Boxer?) to Roman Catholics like Earl (ditto) to Orthodox types like Scott and Nova, Mark (who is of the tribe) and last but not least varieties of Protestant like Jason. Not all by any means are American (or Canadian) although by reason of language those that are not tend to come from the anglo-sphere and not all are of the male sex (such as dear Elspeth and Heidi and Spacetraveller) – yet Alberson who strikes me as Bayly’s bitch has us all down as paid up Nazis – or something of the sort. His approach is hardly were one anxious to come to the faith likely to inspire converts.

  84. cynthia says:

    What I find most fascinating in all of this is how Warhorn seems to think that Dalrock represents the worst of the manosphere. If they really wanted to do a manosphere hit-piece pitched to a Christian audience, why not talk to Roissy over at CH? It’s bizarre that this blog is somehow “too deep down the rabbit hole.”

    Also, this thing about the pastor actively discouraging people in his congregation from joining the military is interesting, and not just because he used it as a shield for accusations of sexism for trying to talk a woman out of enlisting in the Navy. I have a cousin who wants to join the Marines; his pastor is doing everything he can to tell him not to go. In his pastor’s case, it is because he has had a few veterans in his church kill themselves due to PTSD issues, and that colors his view on the service. Does Bayley worry about the same thing? Or are his arguments solely based on some Biblically-based adversion to killing? I’m curious. Personally, I don’t think a pastor who ignores hard realities in favor of building intricate ideological constructs does his congregation any favors; theology is very important, but practicalities are important too.

    I personally don’t think that arguments against women in combat roles need to be based on anything Biblical at all. They can be, but it’s not necessary to even go that far. It is documented reality that women have weaker physiology, break faster, have different stress reactions, behave differently, and all around are not as capable in combat situations. Many military women opposed the decision. Furthermore, even non-combat military life contains unique challenges for women that, IMO, every girl considering enlistment or commissioning should be made very aware of prior to signing on that dotted line. Biblical exhortations against cross-dressing? Sure, we can argue the finer points of theology all day but isn’t it almost more important, from a pragmatic perspective, to point out things like the Marine Corps study that proved women cannot perform the tasks required? A young woman looking to serve in the Navy isn’t likely to be swayed by some finer point of theology, but letting her know that military women have a harder time finding a husband or having children might change her mind. Telling her the community won’t accept it (ie, implying expulsion from the group) would stop it completely.

    This is the entire problem with men like Warhorn and Bayley. It seems like they want to sit around debating minutiae while failing to dish out practical, realistic, and dare I say it, self-interested advice. No woman was ever swayed by ideological purity and logical mastery. We rationalize that crap away in order to do what we want. We seek conformity with the group, and we will do whatever we have to in order to remain and and justify our decision to remain. This is why feminism cannot be tolerated; if it is allowed to be part of the group culture, then women will embrace it in an attempt to remain in that group.

    If they want to reach women in their churches and call them back from the feminist path of self-destruction, they need to appeal to women’s self-interest. That requires a certain degree of directness, however, and a willingness to shame. It also requires constant delegitimization of feminist culture and a refusal to embrace even the most innocuous aspects of it.

    Anyway, it seems like a great disservice to both Dalrock and his readers to characterize those of this comments section as “followers.” I check in on this blog, as well as a dozen others, from time to time. I enjoy our host’s perspective but do not agree with everything he says or every analysis he makes. I’d wager most people who read this blog are the same. Anybody who would parrot back verbatim, as gospel, what they read on one blog in one little corner of the Internet is a fool.

  85. white says:

    @AR
    Indeed. If I’m reading him right, he’s saying that “actual leadership” means letting feminists have a say in the forming of church policy.

  86. Ron says:

    “Your followers who validate you are are not really loving you”

    That statement isn’t just “gay”, it’s creepy pedo gay.

  87. JR says:

    I listened to the podcast. A total disrespectful, hateful hit piece. I apologize for having thought peaceful dialogue is possible with them.

  88. Junkyard Dawg says:

    This entire discussion is interesting, for sure. I don’t like the result of the so-called interview, however it is telling. One of the things I have considered is that there ought to be a saying that goes like “never attempt to debate or have reasonable discussion with millennials, because they don’t know how.”

    What I mean by that is, my generation was probably the last to have anything near a classical education, which also included the idea of discussing and responding to ideas we disagree with, rather than virtue signalling and denouncing. For example, our generation might have still discussed the ideas about politics and society in Plato’s The Republic in a substantive way, but millennials will discuss this book in terms of that it’s about the subjection of women, they were slave owners, it promotes the patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

    I would have expected better from Christians, but these men seem like they are a part of this generation – aside from the high-pitched voices (as someone called them “soy voices,” which is at least as annoying as that other millennial trait, vocal fry) – which is certainly a sign of it.

    So, really, do you think that the guys at Warhorn are capable of even having this discussion? Perhaps the best they can do is what you’ve seen so far, and what you see is what you get.

  89. Junkyard Dawg says:

    … not meaning to take a swipe at all millennials, as I realized not everyone on this forum is in my age group. Perhaps these guys show the worse traits of milliennials without having any of their good traits might be a better thing to say…

  90. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    All of our wars are elective, and we have no shortage of men who are willing to serve.

    In fact, the opposite is true.

    The kind of young men we want to join the military (physically fit, intelligent, self-disciplined, capable of aggression) increasingly no longer see the military as a place in which to earn manly honor. And that’s because of the leftist/feminist/sodomite/tranny subversion of the military that’s been ongoing since before I enlisted 26 years ago.

    That (and their relatively small size) is the reason the Marine Corps has historically had the least trouble attracting recruits.

    One former Marine told me about when he visited the Corps recruiter back around 2001. He sat down, and told the recruiter, “so, what can the Corps do for me?”

    The recruiter replied, “get the fuck out of my office.”

    The prospective recruit left, talked to the other service’s recruiters, then came back to the Marine Corps recruiter.

    The Corps recruiter asked him, “do you know why I kicked you out?”

    The prospective recruit said, “it’s not about what the Corps can do for me, it’s about what I can do for the Corps.”

    The recruiter signed him up.

    You can’t have that kind of attitude with women, sodomites, or trannies. And now that even the Corps has been forcibly converged, they too will degenerate.

  91. 7817 says:

    Well done JR

  92. R says:

    Nathan’s approach seems … let’s see … what are the words … oh yes! Bitchy, Catty, and Emotional. I didn’t listen to the podcast so not sure if there is a lisp.

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bee
    To their credit they said they were closing the comments for the evening. They don’t want to stay up all night approving comments. Let’s see if they open it up to more comments this morning.

    Comments are still closed. Nathan dropped in one more comment and his reply to it, but as of a few minutes ago comments have been closed for 18 hours. I doubt they will be reopened.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    PS:
    As of last night, Tim Bayly had dropped in at least 5 and probably more links into his last comment. All the links were to articles that he had written, this action took place after comments were closed. But today his last comment is still there, with all the links removed. Very interesting to see that kind of dithering.

    Kind of an insecure thing to do. Rather feminine, in fact.

  95. feeriker says:

    I read that comment by Bayly yesterday. He’s trying to gloss the fact that the PCA committee he was very much part of had to cave into feminists and blame men for women’s actions, in order to get the resolution passed.

    Show of hands: how many here believe that “churches,” when conducting corporate business, make it a practice to defer to what Scripture actually says in influencing their decisions to pass or reject specific resolutions?

    Anybody? Back of the room …?

  96. feministhater says:

    I take my hat off to Dalrock for doing this interview even when he knew what the probably outcome would be. He stood by his beliefs and stated them clearly and without deceit. If this is the best they could do to smear him, it has backfired with spectacular results. Bravo!

    But I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously. Not with a rabble like that validating you.

    Haha! Lol! ROTFLMAO! What?! No one cares Nathan… you’re really just not that important. Oh noes! What ever will Dalrock and his Merry Band of Nasty Men do without you taking us seriously? Oh dear! Where are done for now! Run for the hills!

  97. AnonS says:

    @Junkyard Dawg

    I’m a millennial, 4chan calls them 30 year old Boomers.

  98. feministhater says:

    So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

    What business is that Nathan? Being a dupe and a dope as Johntheother would say….

    Nathan… Nathan… listen, WE DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK OR FEEL.. do you get that? Having difficulty understanding?! No comprendo señor Assfuck?

    Dalrock doesn’t do this as a ‘business’…. he isn’t a pastorbator or a Churchian leader like you fucktards, he is one man on a blog doing his own thing, speaking his mind. You have no right to ask what you just did. None, zero, nada. You hold no authority over any man here. None, zero, zilch. You do not hold sway with anything, your opinion is worth less than a dog’s, in fact your opinion of us is worth less than the fly droppings on dog shit after 10 days of sweltering sun.

    You’re nothing. Your futile attempts at trying to bring Dalrock down failed. Shame, I weep for the species.

  99. Patrick says:

    “Tim Bayly had dropped in at least 5 and probably more links into his last comment. All the links were to articles that he had written, this action took place after comments were closed. But today his last comment is still there, with all the links removed.”

    Huh, that’s curious. I went back because I never clicked on that. Today I clicked the link but it goes to a different item dated to 2009 not the material he quotes himself as saying. I wonder if he actually wrote that in 2009. This whole episode is a CYA scenario for them since one of Bayly’s underlings screwed the pooch wrt the settled organization strategy for dealing with Dalrock according to Bayly’s first comment.

  100. Sean says:

    @Opus
    I may perhaps not quite understand these things but as I understood it Protestantism distingushed itself from The Roman Church by not being beholden to the Church Fathers ancient and modern thus every man was – provided he could read – his own Theologian and no one could tell him that he had misinterpreted Scripture or for that matter not found Jesus. I also seem to recall somewhere Jesus or perhaps it was one of the disciples saying that the virtues were Faith, Hope and Charity and that the greatest of those three was the last one.

    Yup, you’re right, you don’t understand these things. Protestantism is the result of indulgences and actually reading the Bible that the RCC has been without nigh on 1000 years. Protestants, especially the Reformed, are totally beholden to the “Church Fathers” and most can quote them. Those same Church Fathers could not be Catholic due to Catholic dogma now that also extends backwards through time.

    What you’re quoting is Paul, I Cor 13:13.

  101. Dalrock says:

    @Patrick

    This whole episode is a CYA scenario for them since one of Bayly’s underlings screwed the pooch wrt the settled organization strategy for dealing with Dalrock according to Bayly’s first comment.

    The wierd thing is his underlings have acknowledged that they were incredibly duplicitous, setting a trap for me while pretending to want to have a good faith discussion. Bayly claims he knew about none of this, and only found out when the podcast hit, despite my posting on it since Feb 1st. It seems strange, but certainly possible. But when he discovers his guys were secretly doing all of this, he’s furious with me, not them. I’m not the one who asked for this, and I’m not the one who acted underhandedly giving Warhorn a bad name. But he doesn’t mind that they acted atrociously, treating a Christian brother terribly. He’s mad at me

    It makes it seem like underhanded conniving is par for the course at Warhorn, just make sure you are doing it in line with the vision of the boss.

  102. Expat Philo says:

    They’re dishonest, but they aren’t even good at it. We know of at least one of their listeners/readers/whatever who has expressed curiosity about Dalrock’s actual thoughts: there are probably many more who haven’t said anything explicitly. Warhorn Media has succeeded only in signaling to their own consumers that there is more to the story. I expect some of them will trickle in over the following months.

    Off Topic: Is anybody in the Idaho/Montana area?

  103. Sean says:

    But I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously. Not with a rabble like that validating you.

    See, Nathan, it’s men like you that we want nothing to do with. When people like you come out with hit pieces like this, we see those that try to subvert us into this false, wimpy, Jesus. “Our church has a rainbow flag!! We love everyone!!! Squeeee!!!!” Most of us evaluate people like you by seeing who you dislike.

    Here’s another kicker: I’m married and Christian partly (and it’s a large part) because of this site. Because I used to see the Christ that “men” like your put out there and saw Jesus the Sissy. It’s some of the Christian commenters here (Hi, Deti!) and Dalrock that helped me find the actual Jesus, sword in hand. It’s those same men that led me to Voddie Baucham and other manly Christian men to listen to and learn from. I’m married because I saw how marriage was actually supposed to be. Not your Tim Keller “let your wife throw tantrums”, not the Piper “I won’t defend her”, not the Steve Camp “never told a woman to submit” types that end up in the divorce rape that you evidently wish to see happen.

    We tried your way as Christians for years and it’s gotten us to divorce rapes, frivorce and a fear of women. No more.

  104. Sean says:

    Off Topic: Is anybody in the Idaho/Montana area?

    I’m a few hours from Idaho. Different country, though.

  105. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    The wierd thing is his underlings have acknowledged that they were incredibly duplicitous, setting a trap for me while pretending to want to have a good faith discussion.

    Proverbs 26:27 Whoever digs a pit will fall into it,
    And he who rolls a stone will have it roll back on him.

  106. Basedangemon says:

    [The bugman] conceals his intellectual cowardice amid ideological rhetoric and Orwellian newspeak. Cogent debate and the search for truth are challenges to his dominance of public discourse, so the bugman must become masterful at distorting arguments in a desperate attempt to portray himself as the well-reasoned and righteous party. Beware of his powerful toolkit, including but not limited to virtue signalling, cries of “hate speech”, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. This all sprouts from his fear of countering the ‘correct’ views of the day. If he simply parrots mainstream commentary, he can be sure of being on the right side of history.

    Adam Winfield, On The Infestation of Small Souled Bugmen

    Sound familiar?

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    Patrick
    This whole episode is a CYA scenario for them since one of Bayly’s underlings screwed the pooch wrt the settled organization strategy for dealing with Dalrock according to Bayly’s first comment.

    Pretty much. The Bayly’s and their employees clearly are not worthy of trust. Anyone reading articles on their site in the future would be prudent to take regular screen shots, in order to keep track of the editing, retconning, and so forth. Too bad, but that’s what I’ve learned in the last 48 hours from them.

  108. 7817 says:

    Here’s the masculine commentary from Warhorn today:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/warhornmedia/status/1100795353958416390?p=v

  109. Anonymous Reader says:

    Expat Philo
    Off Topic: Is anybody in the Idaho/Montana area?

    Scott is, but Montana is a big state all by itself. Adding Idaho makes the area more bigger.

    Say, Doug Wilson is in Moscow, Idaho, does that help?

  110. 7817 says:

    Advice for men today from Warhorn Twitter:

    Warhorn Media 📯
    @warhornmedia

    Men: stop sucking.
    8:30 AM – 27 Feb 2019

  111. Oscar says:

    @ Expat Philo

    Off Topic: Is anybody in the Idaho/Montana area?

    Scott is in Montana. You can read his blog (and probably contact him) here.

    https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/

  112. Linus says:

    “But I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously.”

    A man like you? One who cannot explain why his view is correct and another view incorrect? Whose highest level of intellectual analysis consists of Dalrockman bad? What on earth would be appealing about having a “man like you” take him seriously?

    Further, to say “no matter how reasonably you present yourself, I won’t listen, because some other men, bad men, also like you”, is about the stupidest thing I can imagine a grown man saying. Listen, Jesus, until you quit having publicans and sinners follow you, I am not going to take you seriously. Good grief.

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    @7817

    That “manUP” tweet looks a whole lot like “doubling down”…

    Or was it intended only for internal, Warhorn media staff, but accidentally leaked out?

  114. feeriker says:

    But [Bayly] doesn’t mind that they acted atrociously, treating a Christian brother terribly.

    Were I in your shoes I would have a very hard time seeing him as a brother in Christ after what he has done. It’s to your credit that you can still consider him as such after he has gone out of his way to discredit his Christian bona fides.

  115. gdgm+ says:

    Yeah, this makes Warhorn look very, VERY bad. I’d never heard of them until Dalrock; went to the Warhorn site to have a look earlier on. They are quite deep in their own bubble, and bring up a simple-but-nagging question for me:

    How do they believe they can reveal Christ’s Truth, by lying about those whom they disapprove of?

  116. gdgm+ says:

    Had a comment “eaten” — testing.

  117. Expat Philo says:

    Sean: I expect some distance. Canada and I get along, well, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon–technically.

    AR: Great, maybe I’ll give him a visit. (Is the sarcasm tag necessary?)

    Oscar: Thanks.

  118. feeriker says:

    gdgm+ says:
    February 27, 2019 at 12:29 pm

    Like I said upthread, I sometimes think that these “Christian” media outlets are skinsuit organs of the enemy deliberately designed to undermine the faith.

  119. Basedangemon says:

    Look at all the references to “reasonable[ness]”, “sanity”, etc. in Nathan’s copy, including his podcast name/description, episode description(s), correspondence, and Tweets (assuming “Warhorn Media” is primarily him).

    Seems to me like a man with a pathological need to be thought well of by the “approval” class.

    Apropos of the “SJWs always project” maxim, his “…I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously” line is easily understood in that context.

  120. ray says:

    citizen1en1 —

    ‘“But this way we get some of the back and forth that I think you are looking for.”
    He never acknowledged or agreed to the back and forth. He only agreed to the format.’

    I read the relevant OP sections a couple times, and this also was my take. I think Dalrock assumed there’d be a back and forth, and I think Nathan assumed he’d ask questions of Dalrock, then collate in his podcast. I did not see Nathan specifically agree to a formal exchange method, you comment, then I’ll comment. Dalrock did propose it, and I think then assumed it’d been accepted.

    I’m guessing this was miscommunication; I’m open to correction if I missed something. Having been falsely accused quite frequently, for fun and profit, I’m sensitive to it happening to others. However, this possible miscommunication aside, Nathan showed bad faith consistently in the process, including at outset in a shameful and cowardly attempt to dox, as prep for future attacks. The bad faith shown by Nathan, his associates, and Tim Bayley are inexcusable, and I won’t be letting it slide.

    You people reading this that sincerely want to follow King Jeshua, you better understand what is just ahead in FeMarxist America. You will be persecuted by persons and organizations calling themselves ‘Christian’, and purporting to speak for the King. Yes, the State also will persecute you, and the corporations will persecute you (hello Chase! how you weenies doin’ today?).

    If you don’t want to get hurt, then get out now. There are plenty of places to hide in plain sight, and the false churches top that list. If you continue to defend Father, King, and Scripture, then you are going to be targeted, as some of us already have experienced for quite some time. It is no joke and you are fairly warned.

  121. randallg says:

    I have a feeling of fremdschämen for these guys.
    Fremdschämen is the best word in the world: German for “to feel ashamed about something someone else has done; to be embarrassed because someone else has embarrassed himself (and doesn’t notice)”

  122. I checked out Warhorn Media to get a better idea of where they’re coming from. It’s just a superficial pass so far, but something seemed weird to me.

    They wrote some book called The Grace of Shame: 7 Ways the Church Has Failed to Love Homosexuals

    If you look at the actual content of the book, it actually seems rather orthodox-seeming at a glance. Basically, “Here’s a host of sins related to homosexuality the Church hasn’t been addressing!” And some of them seem on target.

    One part of a review: “4. Though many Christians say that all sins are equal, they do not treat homosexuality like every other sin. Calling homosexuals to repent of physical relations is not enough. They must also repent of patterns of thought and ways of living that betray the sex that God gave them. They must repent of both homosexuality and the identity that it engenders in a person. Repentant homosexuals don’t have a special cross to deal with. Stop treating them like they are oppressed sexual minorities who deserve to be pampered and puffed up about how special their struggle is. ”

    That seems very on target. And since the LGBT lobby is arguably even more omnipresent and powerful than the feminists, the fact that they’re willing to write a book like this seems significant.

    But something still seems off. Part of it framing this as, “The Church is letting gays down! It’s not the LGBT Lobby. It’s you weak conservatives!” A variation on “It’s not the feminists, it’s you weak men!”, maybe.

    Either way, still figuring them out, but that stood out to me.

  123. Patrick says:

    I can search for a block of text from the linked article Bayly provides about domestic violence and the first google result is that linked article. When I do the same for the passage he quotes of himself that he says he wrote in 2009, nothing comes up. Is he just flat out lying?

  124. cshort says:

    @feeriker

    Show of hands: how many here believe that “churches,” when conducting corporate business, make it a practice to defer to what Scripture actually says in influencing their decisions to pass or reject specific resolutions?

    I think we might have seen one of the rare examples of this happening yesterday in the vote at the UMC General Conference Special Session.

  125. Patrick says:

    This whole deal is really bizarre. I guess it’s about what you might expect from a town called “Sanityville.” Like if there was a movie set in a town called “Sanityville” you know something weird is about to happen.

  126. ray says:

    Sean — “Here’s another kicker: I’m married and Christian partly (and it’s a large part) because of this site. Because I used to see the Christ that “men” like your put out there and saw Jesus the Sissy.”

    Yessir. And that’s been happening for many decades now — boys and men are TURNING AWAY FROM FATHER AND JESHUA because of the way these false pastors, these legions of bible-school weaklings, present our God to us. Everywhere I look in the West, the dragon is rising.

    They do not know my Father, they do not know my King, and baby does it show. Professional Christianity turns FAR MORE people away from God than even the FeMarxist State. Sheep look to fakes like Bayleaf and Company, who get all the ‘approved ink’, and when heathens see the proud self-emasculations, the convoluted exegeses, and the narcissistic, legalistic corporate structures, they reject Father and Jeshua both, assuming them to be as duplicitous and cowardly as the men professing Christianity.

    I’m plenty pissed, and if there isn’t uproar in heaven about it now, there will be soon.

  127. Basedangemon says:

    @Secular Blasphemy
    My experience is as limited as yours, but as far as I can tell it’s just nonstop variations of the AMOG theme coming from this group.

    Reports of massive casualties from the front-lines don’t matter to these would-be leaders of men. Just macho chest pounding punctuated by self-congratulatory giggles at their own cleverness. Followed by exhortations to the dry bones of their brothers to live, to the tune of “Men: stop sucking.”

    Air. They mean stop sucking air.

    At least, that’s what I would say if was going to be uncharitable.

  128. Eidolon says:

    There seems to be a very inflated view of what a theology degree is worth among these folks.

    I’m an engineer, so my view is that a degree is a piece of paper that’s spoiled for any good use. If you can’t demonstrate that you can do the thing your degree says you can do effectively, then it doesn’t matter what it is or where it’s from.

    The three yahoos spend their whole tedious podcast tittering and giggling like schoolgirls when they’re not poisoning the well, appealing to authority, or attacking Dalrock with ad hominem. They made no particularly cogent points about anything.

    A pastor is entitled to a pretty high level of respect, within his congregation. If he’s working outside his congregation as a public commentator, I don’t see that he merits that additional respect. None of us look to him as an authority over us, nor have we accepted him for that role.

    Contrast Bayly’s attitude with the Pirate Christian Radio guy, who always says “don’t listen with an open mind, listen with an open Bible.” He tells listeners not to give him the benefit of the doubt, to prove him wrong from the Bible, to double-check everything he says. He has issues with excessive leniency to women too, which I haven’t had time to bother him about, but that’s the attitude that a public commentator should have.

  129. Mountain Man says:

    Opus,

    I may perhaps not quite understand these things but as I understood it Protestantism distinguished itself from The Roman Church by not being beholden to the Church Fathers ancient and modern thus every man was – provided he could read – his own Theologian and no one could tell him that he had misinterpreted Scripture or for that matter not found Jesus.

    I gather from the above that you are Catholic. As a protestant, I may be able to provide some perspective. You are partially correct about the distinction. The problem is that many of the reformers, while rejecting the authority of those above them, nevertheless continued to claim their OWN authority over those in their sphere of influence. This happened with great regularity, and continues to this day. Calvin and Luther broke from Roman authority over their religious belief and practice, but continued to claim their own authority over the beliefs and practices of their parishioners, and even over non-parishioners who just happened to be living in their region. The Church of England broke from Roman authority, but continued to claim authority over everyone living in England. The Pilgrims broke from the tyrannical authority of the Church of England, and then proceeded to exercise their own tyrannical authority in the new world. Tim Bayly is rejecting the authority of the PCA and setting up his own denomination, but is very willing to use his position of authority over those under him, and apparently wants to exercise authority over Dalrock’s blog and us in the comment section, too.

    This happens so regularly that you can’t just chalk it up to the flaws in any individual person. I think it’s more of a flaw in human nature. Really, it’s the effect of the sin nature in everyone. All of us are tempted toward a self-centered morality. We are tempted to think power is bad when it’s being exercised on me, but good when I have the power. Authority is bad when it limits my options, but good when it gives me control over others. Ultimately, it comes down to “What’s good for me is morally good, and what’s bad for me is morally bad.” This approach to morality, of course, leads to hypocrisy and tyranny. If you look, you will see examples all around you, from both the left and the right. I suspect those on this blog are more likely to notice it when it happens on the left. But if you want an example from the right, just look a bit at Roy Moore’s history. He and others were very quick to scream “judicial activism” whenever a ruling came along which frustrated the religious right agenda, but then was very willing to engage in his own judicial activism when it suited him. This is not to get into a left vs, right debate. Most of us here will recognize that women are masters at using self-centered morality. Domestic violence is evil when a man does it to a woman, but perfectly justifiable when a woman does it to a man. Of course, men are not immune to using self-centered morality. My point is simply that all of us are sometimes tempted toward self-centered morality, whether left or right, man or woman, catholic or protestant.

    For most of us, that temptation is held in check by others. I think for any society or community to function well, there have to be embedded expectations of fairness and reciprocity. Most people learn those lesson in the schoolyard when they discover that if they don’t share, no one will want to play with them. But when a person gets elevated to a position of power. it’s easy for them to forget those schoolyard lessons. See Machiavelli’s famous quote about power. All of us need to be careful of using self-centered morality. We also need to be on guard of those around us using it. When we see it, we need to address it, either through gentle correction, not so gentle rebuke, loud and public rebuke, or occasionally even more. Which of those to use is always a judgement call based on the particulars of the situation and the people involved, of course.

    it strikes me as odd that a Protestant should berate a fellow Christian for wrong-think

    The divide between protestants and catholics was not a single event. The protestant reformation happened over many decades, and resulted in a few distinct streams of thought or theology. The three biggest are the Calvinist, Lutheran, and Anabaptist streams. (Anabaptist is not to be confused with present day Baptists. Think Amish and Mennonite) Many years later the Wesleyan stream would have a big influence on Protestantism in America. There are other smaller streams coming out of the reformation, but those are the biggies. Each have different ideas about hierarchy and the role “authority” should play in the life and belief of a Christian. The Calvinist stream is the most authoritarian, and the Anabaptist is probably the least. The authoritarian bent of the Calvinist stream springs directly from John Calvin. Whatever contribution he may have made to systematic theology, in his personal and professional life he was mostly a tyrannical asshole who didn’t tolerate dissent, and that authoritarian impulse continues in Calvinist groups to this day. It’s worth noting that Bayly and his sycophants are Calvinists.

    In modern day America, the Presbyterians and associated offshoots are the most visibly Calvinist, but there are others. “Reformed” is often a code word for Calvinist. “Orthodox” is also sometimes used as a code word for Calvinist, but it’s less common because orthodox has some other meanings within protestantism, and also because of possible confusion with the actual Orthodox church. (Hi Scott)

    All of this is a long-winded way of pointing out that “Protestantism” is not one thing, but many different denominations, traditions, streams of thought, and ideas about authority. It is not homogenous. The only thing which makes a person or group “Protestant” is a rejection of Roman authority.

    I’m not trying to spark yet another Catholic vs. Protestant debate. I’m merely pointing out that the authoritarian impulse so clearly on display in this Warhorn kerfuffle springs directly from their Calvinist DNA.

  130. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mountain Man to Opus
    I gather from the above that you are Catholic

    Opus is a Brit who was raised with some degree of involvement in the Church of England.
    He doesn’t fit into the tidy “Cath / Prot” divide.

  131. AnonS says:

    Truth imposes its own authority on those wanting to find it.

    If you research and find no evidence that any Church father before 6th century considered Mary to have been bodily assumed and evidence that they didn’t believe it. It doesn’t really matter the position of someone ordering you to believe it.

    Most protestant’s claim authority because they are arguing that what they say is true and binding because its true.

    Catholic’s claim authority because they are arguing that what they say is true and binding because a series of men approved of it. That might make sense with Church practices but not truth claims.

  132. Nick says:

    Anyone else notice that the podcast in question is literally THE ONLY podcase they have up on which comments are locked? Lolz, cowards.

  133. Mountain Man says:

    Well said, AnonS.

    Just remember that there are many Protestant groups who also take the Catholic approach to truth.

  134. feministhater says:

    Anyone else notice that the podcast in question is literally THE ONLY podcase they have up on which comments are locked? Lolz, cowards.

    If people we sly they would go and comment on the older podcasts and get them closed too. Have fun with this.

  135. vfm7916 says:

    Well, a week away and look what happens…

    As mentioned above, but filled out completely:

    SJWs always lie.
    SJWs always project.
    SJWs always double down.

    Collorary: Don’t talk to the media.

    A couple of thoughts on all the excellent responses and comments; First, it’s good to see Dalrock state that this outcome was not unforseen. Second, someone noted above that “it’s one thing Vox is right about.” The above items are from Vox, and he’s right about each one. If you’ve taken a negative approach to Vox Day due to perceptions about his body of work you are likely committing the same intellectual errors as Nathan. Dalrock presents compelling and evidenced arguments that don’t try to skew and “interpret” scripture. I suggest that rethinking arguments against Game and prejudices against Vox should be the order of the day because they are correct on so many things, can be used as reliable predictive tools, and are based on far firmer ground than the shifting sands of SJW Complementarians.

    I agree with above comments that Dalrock is over the target. Nathan was honest in that respect. He and his masters seek to “inoculate” the populations in their control (read propagandize) from the dangerous ideas of the red pill.

    That idea alone should give any thinking man of faith in God pause.

  136. Novaseeker says:

    Heretics the lot of them, to be honest.

    The only thing “disingenuous” about this entire episode is the approach taken by Warhorn. Baily is no better — the fruit doesn’t generally fall far from the tree.

    They’ve been caught with the pants unzipped, didn’t like it, and retaliated, while at the same time not actually refuting anything, or saying anything constructive in the least. Tossers at best, heretics for certain.

    Let the dead bury the dead.

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    @vfm7916
    If you’ve taken a negative approach to Vox Day due to perceptions about his body of work you are likely committing the same intellectual errors as Nathan.

    Look at the T-shirt your wife must be wearing.
    Now answer this question: where does POA = POI?

    No one is infallible. Everyone is wrong sometimes.

  138. squid_hunt says:

    @Eidolon

    The three yahoos spend their whole tedious podcast tittering and giggling like schoolgirls when they’re not poisoning the well, appealing to authority, or attacking Dalrock with ad hominem. They made no particularly cogent points about anything.

    Mun-Knee. They’re entertainers. Anyone with a passing familiarity to church epistles could rip their behavior as “men of God” apart. And turns out behavior matters.

  139. Opus says:

    @Mountain Man

    In England things are a little different: we don’t have any Calvinists as we sent them all to America. 90% of the population are default Anglican but Anglicans are Brexit Catholics that is to say they are in every respect bar a couple identical to the Roman Catholics but without any allegiance to Brussels – sorry I mean Rome. Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed. Anglicans are barely Protestant at all even though they hate Roman Catholics even more than they hate the French – which is why every fifth of November we celebrate, by burning effigies of the Pope and anyone else we dislike, freedom from Roman hegemony. My mother was Anglican and she was the first to teach me all about the baby Jesus. I popped into my local Anglican church this very afternoon.

  140. Paul says:

    @Dalrock

    But after much thought and prayer, we decided what you’re doing is not just misguided but harmful, and we wanted to inoculate people against it. [..] I hope you stop or radically change your method of operation. [..] a man like me is not going to take you seriously. Not with a rabble like that validating you. [,,] drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

    No doubt about it, you certainly hit an open nerve with that lot. Now they want to silence you anyway they can: by making you look bad to others, by warning people against you, by trying to make you feel responsible for the commenters on your blog, by trying to give the impression that your arguments need not be taken seriously, and last to let you either just give up, or let yourself be silenced.

    And all without seriously addressing any of your arguments, and from the beginning in bad faith while trying to trick you.

    By doing so they have utterly exposed themselves. We all can see that.

  141. Really, there seems to be some kind of disconnect between Nathan and the rest of Warhorn.

    Warhorn seems to be sincerely attempting to do something truly good and Christian in a sea of disappointments, but makes some missteps.

    But Nathan just comes across poorly here. He reeks of the kind of attitude SJWs have – that whole presumption of authority, the idea that his approval matters (and the lack of it instantly condemns someone), that weird “Give us your RL details” schtick, that fretting worry that just giving Dalrock a platform may expose people to wrongthink and they may end up with scary wrongthink ideas.

    If Nathan is an outlier among that group, it may indicate some of what’s up here.

  142. Cane Caldo says:

    Nathan wrote to Dalrock:

    I hope you don’t think yourself ill-used. I did ask the questions in good faith, despite what your followers say about me. And then we took a long time to weigh our options and craft a response.

    Which is a lie. More troubling is that it sounds exactly like their Pastor Stu from their fictional podcast The Ville. Check out the episodes Endgame 1 and 2. Creepy!

  143. vfm7916 says:

    @AR

    My wife prefers to wear sweaters.

    I must say that you do a beautiful job of committing the exact same errors as Nathan. I can’t add any more to your post. Strawmanning claim of Infalliblity to sidestep “rethinking arguments against”, personal attack pedestalizing female superiority over male, AMOG’ing, implying deplorability due to association, etc.

    Also, POA/POI? Pigs on acid? Point of interest? You shouldn’t try to mix rhetoric with dialectic. It just falls flat. Just call me stupid. It would be far more honest.

  144. Sean says:

    And then we took a long time to weigh our options and craft a response.

    I thought pointing and shrieking just came as reflex.

  145. Hugh Mann says:

    Opus – “Anglicans are barely Protestant at all even though they hate Roman Catholics even more than they hate the French – which is why every fifth of November we celebrate, by burning effigies of the Pope and anyone else we dislike, freedom from Roman hegemony.”

    It’s been a long time since a good English Anglican hated the French and hated Catholics. Guy Fawkes survived so long because it’s fun, and the Lewes processions are just role-playing.

    Old, KJV and Prayer Book Anglicans were pretty Catholic in their forms of worship, unsurprisingly as Henry VIII claimed to be continuing ‘true’ Catholicism.

    The only Anglicans who hate Catholics are the new ‘woke’ Anglicans who hate the lack of women priests and openly gay priests. I detest them far more than I detest the French (who I rather like).

  146. vfm7916 says:

    @Secular

    Keep in mind that Nathan’s podcast is for entertainment of his group. He is not an outlier. Moreover, if he acts this way to an external party he has no direct control or influence over, what’s going to happen to anyone in their group who individually raises these issues?

    This is standard SJW operating procedure. The only mechanism to excise it was just demonstrated by the Methodists.

  147. 7817 says:

    @Secular Blasphemy

    Really, there seems to be some kind of disconnect between Nathan and the rest of Warhorn.

    No, the Warhorn folks are all singing from the same book about this stuff. Nathan is singing a bit louder, but it’s the same song.

    That podcast is a gift. It reveals the opinion of the Warhorn folks towards this information. VFM is right:

    Nathan was honest in that respect. He and his masters seek to “inoculate” the populations in their control (read propagandize) from the dangerous ideas of the red pill.

    I think Bnonn Tennant and Nathan have done us a service here. Notice the tactic they both use of trying to divide Dalrock from his comment section. It’s basically a shit test: abandon your commenters and then we’ll think about showing you some respect.

    I’m sure Dalrock doesn’t agree with all his commenters, and he has had to lay down rules and ban some disruptive ones. However, we all end up speaking for ourselves here as men should do. Our voices are not robotic ones in complete agreement, but the voices of men challenging each other and sharpening each other. Sometimes it is messy, but we are better off for having the freedom to challenge each other as men instead of enforcing groupthink as the left does.

  148. Otto says:

    “Anyone else notice that the podcast in question is literally THE ONLY podcase they have up on which comments are locked? Lolz, cowards.”

    Locked no more. Here is a Dissenter link for the podcast.

    https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin?url=https://warhornmedia.com/2019/02/26/into-the-manosphere/

    Dissenter is Gab’s new comment engine for anything on the web. If someone closes comments, you just create a dissenter link. So far, it looks good.

  149. ray says:

    vfm — “If you’ve taken a negative approach to Vox Day due to perceptions about his body of work you are likely committing the same intellectual errors as Nathan. Dalrock presents compelling and evidenced arguments that don’t try to skew and “interpret” scripture. I suggest that rethinking arguments against Game and prejudices against Vox should be the order of the day because they are correct on so many things, can be used as reliable predictive tools, and are based on far firmer ground than the shifting sands of SJW Complementarians.”

    Game is lame. Nothing has changed, including Teddie Beale and his hate for ‘the Jews’ and oh, that’s right, also ‘blacks’. Sigh. Your great leader.

    ‘Perceptions’ my ass. I reject your suggestion, and reject you. ‘Prejudices against Vox’? LOL! His toadies and shills never miss an opportunity to spread the Holy Word about their Great Dark Lord. Now anybody rejecting Teddie is ‘prejudiced’, eh? Real convenient, you’d make a good SJW.

    I do not hate the Jews, and I do not hate Israel. However, I have many things against the false Jews who have dirtied the name of Judaism, and created their own synagogues (of satan). And indeed, it is these who give platform and power to demagogues like Teddie to spread his malice, under cover of ‘helping men’ and my favorite, ‘being a Christian’. Teddie don’t serve nobody but Teddie.

    Teddie’s many buddies on this page (including Dalrock) properly lean on the words of the apostle Paul, who spoke and wrote clearly and authoritatively concerning the proper role of men and women, husbands and wives. Yet they ignore what Paul said about exactly who is a Jew:

    “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2)

    That means both Christians and Jews ultimately belong to the same church, and to the same God. Most Jews in Israel have yet to be fully convinced about the authority of Christ, but that will change soon.

    In any case, those who trumpet their hate of ‘the Jews’ like Teddie, Roosh, and company, therefore hate Christians as well, at least according to Paul. But doubtless the Supreme Dark Lord’s pronouncements supersede a mere apostle. Paul wasn’t a Great Dark Lord, after all.

  150. Gunner Q says:

    Otto @ February 27, 2019 at 4:45 pm:
    “Locked no more. Here is a Dissenter link for the podcast.”

    Neat idea!

  151. Opus says:

    That was certainly a very interesting comment from Mountain Man (on the subject of authority) indeed it struck me as rather Nietzchean. It may be that the Right are as he says equally prone to authoritarianism but it is I think worse on the Left as the Left are full of their own self-righteousness whereas the Right tend to pragmatism. What saddens me these days and one can see it with Alberson is that it seems impossible to have any form of reasoned discussion with anyone coming to maturity after the millennium for they always resort to ad hominems, appeals to authority and projection – it is not just the first year College students who do this. Boomers get a lot of stick these days but at least we were intellectually curious.

    Novaseeker used the insult ‘tosser’. I thought that was English slang. Presumably not just.

    Lewes, a town previously I would suspect unmentioned in any Manosphere blog. I once attended the Bonfire night at Halland where effigies of then hated politicians and I thought the Bishop of Rome went up in flames but these days one is likely to be arrested for say burning an effigy of a tower block (cardboard boxes with crayoned windows) full of the undocumented. No first Amendment in Lewes.

  152. JF says:

    Long time reader, first time commenter. I actually attended Doug Wilson’s church for a number of years, have read Tim Bayly (and promoted him to others over last couple years, particularly his Grace of Shame book and his teachings on patriarchy) and expected much better from the Warbugle dudes. But I thought things looked fishy after Dalrock posted the gotcha questions about marital discipline. Personal experience plus reading Roissy and others, including this humble blog, have exposed a lot of the weaknesses in the reformed community perspectives on women, dating, and marriage. Would you believe it, as a young man I thought the reformed Victorian Courtship model was the way to go… what a buffoon I was. Dalrock has hit the nail on the head on the issue of chivalry and how pervasive this heresy is in the churches today. The courtship model is just a crazy extension of that.

    But I think we should keep in mind there is a lot of good that Tim Bayly and friends have done. The World We Made series that was largely anecdotes from Tim Bayly (2 seasons) in podcasts was quite informative actually (I skipped the soyboy chatter usually, just listening to Bayly’s storytelling). Listening to them shows a lot of where Bayly is coming from. He is basically a repentant male feminist. He and his wife and their church worked out of a totally converged feminist worldview, back to a basically patriarchal traditional Christian foundation. I think his reactions to all of this shows that there’s still some soft spots in his thinking, but really much of what he points out about the cultural warfare he grew up in and was originally a card carrying member of, is good. One thing that his father pointed out was how long ago the convergence began in the reformed camp. I was astonished to find out how long the gay lesbian tranny agenda has been at work in the reformed churches. It makes so much sense of the snakes in the grass like Tim Keller (hello gay dancing choirboys representing the fallen spirits of their ancestors), and the Revoice conference that shocked so many reformed church members.

    So despite the major failures on the part of these Warbugle dudes, I think there’s a lot of good teaching that Bayly and his brother have been putting out to try to correct their past errors. There definitely seems to be some cross talking without truly engaging going on between people on this blog, and people from Bayly’s community. We all of us have our blind spots. I think Bayly’s church focuses so much on the sexual perversions going on in their community and among those they minister to, that they miss the single men of the church and the divorced men. No one can do all things at once. They’ve made a special study of the needs of the sexually confused, and that is where they are strong.

    Certainly Bayly and his friends are totally wrong about the whole anonymity thing. That’s just a nonsensical way to AMOG as another commenter pointed out. Most of us have jobs, careers, and cannot afford ‘outing’. And as someone pointed out above, even Jesus refused to answer the question on authority without a just reason for it. And Jesus was claiming authority in every action that He did. Dalrock asks good questions, points out inconsistencies, uncovers the foundations of agendas and teachings, and generally is doing the Lord’s work as a layman.

    This claim of needing authority is really a kind of ecclesiastical play. Alberson particularly is judging Dalrock from a priesthood/laity distinction. A good carpenter might have a mistress, that doesn’t make houses he builds fall down. It is true that sins affect all of life, but King David was a murderer and yet he wrote most of the songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. He also cut off 200 foreskins (imagine the ribald jokes during that proceeding) to win a girl as a prize. Definitely not the kind of man Alberson would be associating with, based on what he says in his podcasts and posts. But then David didn’t claim to be a priest, although in a time of necessity he had no problem asking for the holy bread. By what authority did David write his Psalms when he wrestled the bear or the lion? He would have said he wrote those out of his belief in God, not because of any specific authority given to him. Dalrock isn’t writing Scripture or making claims to be inerrant, so why does he need to prove he has someone monitoring him before he writes? Only those ordained have a specific claim to ‘speak God’s word’, as the ministers of God, and thus need to be answerable to others when they go wrong. Alberson needs to stop viewing men of the church as being only allowed to speak when their elders give them permission. That’s definitely not how God designed the church to function. Paul himself had no problem with the men of Berea checking his words, and he was an Apostle.

    To call us followers of Dalrock is just a silly thing to say. Liberal Art education really does mess up how people think about facts, theology, and how to parse arguments, as I’ve witnessed knowing many people from NSA and other reformed liberal arts educational institutions. I have a feeling that Dalrock and Athanasius would get along well. These Warbuglers are taking the approach of the bishops that ostracized or banished those they disagreed with, regardless of the substance of the statements and claims. I hope they come to their senses and calm themselves down, and stop drinking soy milk and having tofu three meals a day. Some red meat and strength training would do them a world of good.

  153. OKRickety says:

    Opus, has seventiesjason made recent contact with you re. his upcoming trip? I think he somewhat recently said he did not have a way to get in touch with you.

  154. SlushFundPuppie says:

    ‘Dear Abby: I’m in love with 2 boys’ and other classics

    DEAR ABBY: If you read the papers as well as write for them, you saw the article about the juge who gave a husband permission to spank his wife when she needed it. All I can say is, “It’s about time.” I was beginning to think the women were taking over the country. If more men turned their wives over their knees and showed them who was boss, society would be in better shape. Spanking should be legalized everywhere. -ONE MAN’S OPINION

    (Nov. 28, 1962)

  155. 7817 & vfm7916,

    Alright, thanks for that perspective. It frames their operation a bit more: “Let’s try to up the ante and retain as much churchianity as possible.”

    ray,

    >Teddie

    >LOL!

    >Sigh

    Good luck with the HIV treatments.

  156. Dalrock,

    Thank you for all the good work that you are doing here. As a result of reading your blog I have learned many useful things about men and women, our contemporary situation, and its historical and literary roots.

  157. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    That man who got into a fight with two women at a Los Angeles hot dog stand has been charged with battery: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dtla-hot-dog-man-punches-women-20190227-story.html

    A 30-year-old Sylmar man who was caught on video punching two women in the face last month at a downtown Los Angeles hot dog stand has been charged with five counts of battery, authorities said.

    City Attorney Mike Feuer’s office on Wednesday said Arka Sangbaran Oroojian was charged Friday and faces up to 30 months in jail and $10,000 in fines.

    Oroojian turned himself in to the Los Angeles Police Department last month as video spread of him punching the two women in the face after they came to the defense of a hot dog vendor Oroojian had been arguing with on Jan. 26 near 6th and Spring streets, police said.

  158. Bottom line Dalrock, you are smarter than he is. Your logic is impeccable and he knows it. To respond to you would be to show the world that he is wrong and you are right and that is a non-starter. So he is forced to obfuscate. You’ve got him. We all know that. He knows that. Everyone who is honest about this knows that. That is the beauty of red pills.

  159. Pingback: Why Warhorn Media’s duplicity matters. | Dalrock

  160. Spike says:

    I haven’t read this in detail Dalrock, but from what I can tell, you’ve been polite and articulate. You haven’t been politically correct, and there lies the problem.

    Nathan is media. And like all media, he is a harlot with no moral center.From what I can tell he has tried two things straight out of the Lefty playbook:
    -Flip the context
    -Tell everyone you attract unsavoury characters

    Flipping the context is the oldest trick Leftists use. Want to portray someone in a bad light? Get their quotes, strip the context and insert your own. They do this with history (yes, BBC, I have you in mind), public figures, politicians and whoever it is they want to destroy.

    Paradoxically, they don’t like it when it happens to them: Tommy Robinson managed to film BBC Panorama host John Sweeney undercover in his documentary ”Panodrama”- which is mandatory watching. Sweeney was exposed as having all of the views he chastises people for: racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist, and having outrageously expensive taste in alcohol that he puts on the public tab. Once confronted Sweeney spluttered in reply : ”That’s out of context!…” (it wasn’t).

    -The second, that you ”attract unsavoury characters” is a charge as old as the New Testament, one of the gripes the Pharisees had about Jesus. Most recently Jordan Peterson was told he was a focal point for the Far Right, for Neo Nazis, for Pepe the Frog flag wavers.

    In our case Dalro0ck, you supposedly attract the same usual suspects above plus Right To Lifers, Christian Fundamentalists, Bible Literalists, Nuclear family advocates, homophobes, as well as the odd assortment of basement dwellers – another well-worn Lefty trope.
    I consider myself in good, not bad, company on this blog and consider most of these slanders a compliment.

  161. Anonymous Read says:

    vfm7916
    My wife prefers to wear sweaters.

    Whoosh. Waaay over your head. Thanks for trying the ride.

    @Secular Blasphemy

    ray has gotten banned from more than one site. He holds grudges, holds them very close.
    But he’s getting better.

  162. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    I think Bnonn Tennant and Nathan have done us a service here. Notice the tactic they both use of trying to divide Dalrock from his comment section. It’s basically a shit test: abandon your commenters and then we’ll think about showing you some respect.

    Still not sure about Bnonn, but regarding Nathan I totally concur. Funny thing, it’s not even a new game. Squint your eyes with The Glasses on and voila, it really is mid-school Mean Girls “Your NOT in OUR club until you DO what we TELL you, them …maybe…” game playing. It is a shit test of the “jump high! Not high enough, jump again! Nope, try again!” variety.

    Nothing complicated or difficult to understand once you shift the smoke out of the way.

    Vox Day’s treatise on SJW’s and how to deal with them applies perfectly. Anyone who doesn’t have copies should buy some, but preferably not from Amazon.

  163. Anonymous Reader says:

    vfm7916
    This is standard SJW operating procedure. The only mechanism to excise it was just demonstrated by the Methodists.

    Yep. Which reminds me of Prop. 8 in California back in 2008. Suddenly black people were The Enemy for a while, along with Mormons. CogDis is no handicap for some people.

    Now we get to see if all the point-and-shriekers who tried to shout down the vote in the United Methodists will really leave and take their toys with them to set up some homosexual-friendly version of Methodism. My guess is they’ll hang around in the UMC and try to intimidate Americans and buy off the Africans. This won’t work, but they’ll try. Perhaps eventually they’ll flounce out the door, find out they can’t afford independence, then maybe link up with the remaining Episcopalians.

    the tl;dr is:
    “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, k?”

  164. A friend says:

    “…drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.”

    Jesus fucking Christ! These “Christians” are indistinguishable from left-wingers.
    To all you American Christians (all 5 of you that are left), stop trying to treat the gangrene and just lop it off. Between these shitbags, and the left-wingers, you and your civilization won’t, and don’t, have a future.

  165. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    I listened to the whole podcast and found it shameful and embarrassing to the church and to devout followers of Christ. After over an hour of their immature scoffing and scorn one of the hosts (Nathan I think) says avoid Dalrock because Psalm one warns against scoffers and scorners. I couldn’t help but thinking about planks and specks; how could one be so blind to their own self. Surely they did not think their podcast was anything but scoffing scorn. There were many such hypocricies on display in that hour plus.

    The podcast could have been named “Dalrock on trial in kangaroo court”. It was a cringeworthy hit piece that avoided substance and instead tried to justify ad hominem as reason. But even in their defense of ad hominem, they got it backwards. Jesus did say to judge a tree by its fruits,(a man by his life and teaching) but they want to judge the fruits by the tree (ideas by the man). They comment that Jesus called the Pharisees white washed tombs, but that was because of their teaching, ie ideas. Jesus found their ideas were what led to them being tombs, thier view of attaining justification by thier self-righteousness was what made them bad, not that self-righteousness was bad because they drank too much or didn’t wash thier hands after urinating. Nathan wanted to discount ideas because he couldn’t doxx Dalrock personally. If he couldn’t inflict personal harm then he didn’t care to discuss ideas. I’m not sure but were not thier skits a way of stating their ideas without having to personally be accountable under the guise of humor as if they were hiding behind outrageous characterizations anonymously? Or were they just being uncharitable and trying to associate Dalrock with lying mischaracterizations, they were after all very concerned with lying.

    They did not begin to discuss the central point on how chivalry is a corruption of God’s design and how the church enables, teaches, and supports it. They would rather make strawnen out of salacious spanking comments or some bdsm advocate than deal with central issues.

    But most troubling was the statement that Dalrock does not understand individualism and federalism and therefore does not know the gospel, that is Christian slander both in the former supposition and in the conclusion. The nature of individual and federal was not asked and quotes from other of Dalrock’s writings were not provided so the assertion is baseless. To then add that Dalrock must not have the Gospel or a false gospel is to strongly infer he is a heretic. If they were going to make such a charge, maybe they should have asked about the gospel and its relationship to husbands and wives before they pressed record.

  166. Emperor Constantine says:

    Nathan says:
    “But I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously. Not with a rabble like that validating you.”

    Given what we know now of Nathan’s character, I take this is a huge compliment to you Dalrock and us boys in the rabble! The simple fact is Nathan is a lightweight. He wouldn’t last on your comment threads for 5 minutes before he was blown out of the water by any number of the sharp commenters here. He knows that. That’s why he went home with his ball and wouldn’t play.

    All he has left is ad hominem.

    And he’s 100% wrong about the “rabble” comment: the intellectual ferment and high intellectual quality of the posts in your blog, especially your own but also Larry K., feeriker, Cane Caldo, and on and on, keeps bringing me back and learning more, every week.

  167. ray says:

    Oscar —

    Thank you.

    I’ve sent folks to Voddie many times. Also Jesse Lee Peterson. They have more cultural latitude than white preachers, so they can come down on the race and gender scams with boot.

    Voddie goes:

    “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war! (Rev. 19:11)

    So then Voddie yells He judges and makes war!! That’s my God. Yeah I got some issues. But that’s all right.

    Heh. The wheat and the chaff, it’s not complicated. Machine works by itself.

  168. Hugh Mann says:

    Opus – ” It may be that the Right are as he says equally prone to authoritarianism but it is I think worse on the Left as the Left are full of their own self-righteousness whereas the Right tend to pragmatism.”

    Most people on the left are irreligious but still have religious instincts from 600 years of Christianity – the saved and the heathen, taboo, casting out of the congregation etc. But because they have no religion these are perverted into secular causes – you stop inviting Brexit (or Trump) -voting friends for dinner, “denying global warming” becomes what “denying the divinity of Christ” was for the Victorians – a mark of the damned or invincibly ignorant.

    On authoritarianism CS Lewis is correct.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  169. Pingback: A few more Warhorn notes. | Dalrock

  170. Emperor Constantine says:

  171. ray says:

    Secular Blasphemy and the Rest of the Vox Toadies —

    None of you answered the Scriptural question I asked. That’s because — like Nathan and the Warhorners — you don’t have any Scriptural understanding or wisdom.

    Team Teddie is just the righty side of the Warhorners. You all pretend you are Christians, and when I point out via the apostle Paul’s words that you cannot Hate The Jews and simultaneously be an actual Christian, you have no answer. That’s because there is no answer.

    Instead, you turn to the same solution the Warhorners do: personal attacks and attempts to delegitimize, without any substantive response whatsoever. You have no more Biblical insight, and no more love of the truth, than your Dork Lord or the Warhorners. You are loyal to him, not to Christ.

    The harboring on this site of people like yourselves degrades the place, as does the association by many here with your Supreme Dork Lord, including the promotion of his works. This is the Achilles Heel here, and it’ll ruin you eventually.

  172. Dale U says:

    @Opus
    comments from people who range as far as from scoffers like myself and Boxer (where is Boxer?) to Roman Catholics like Earl (ditto) to Orthodox types like Scott and Nova, Mark (who is of the tribe) and last but not least varieties of Protestant like Jason.

    Boxer has a WordPress site; can’t find the URL at the moment. From what he wrote there, he apparently decided Dalrock was a liar. He indicated that Dalrock wrote two posts that contained the ideas from a previously-published book, but that Dalrock failed to site the book as a source for the posts. This leads to a charge of plagiarism, which Boxer sees as lying.
    I think it would have been better to simply flat-out ask Dalrock to list the book in question, whether it was a source or not; I do not see a reasonable cause for his accusation of lying.
    But, I have little respect for charges of “plagiarism”, so maybe I am not the right person to judge. At my seminary, using your own work that you did for another class was explicitly included in the definition for plagiarism. I can understand an accusation of “re-using work”, but accusing me of plagiarizing from myself is stupid. Thus my lack of concern for Boxer’s source accusation.
    It is unfortunate Boxer no longer contributes here. I appreciated his knowledge, and, as you indicated, his different perspective added value to our discussions.

    Earl posts there occasionally as well.

  173. Pingback: Hitting a glorified nerve at Patheos | Σ Frame

  174. Pingback: Warhorn’s projection | Dalrock

  175. Pingback: Transcript of the second podcast. | Dalrock

  176. Pingback: Warhorn can’t keep their story straight. | Dalrock

  177. Pingback: Why I’m Suspicious of the “It’s Good To Be A Man” Project | Full Metal Patriarch

Comments are closed.