Warhorn responds.

Note:  For context regarding the Warhorn interview see this post.  You can also see the whole series.

Nathan sent me a note this morning letting me know the podcast response is up.  The podcast is titled Into The Manosphere:

Our heroes ventured into the manosphere and maybe went a little too far down the rabbit hole.

Here is the link Nathan provided, but from the link I posted above you can see his posting of the whole exchange*.  I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but from Nathan’s mail and the description of the podcast it appears Warhorn has decided to avoid trying to respond to my arguments and instead point and shriek about me, my readers, and the men’s sphere in general.  This is unfortunate, but not entirely unforeseen.  Since their arguments are indefensible their two options were to concede or change the subject.

Logic isn’t a strong point at Warhorn, and as you may recall when blogger David Gudeman at Brain Legions saw Pastor Bayly’s arguments on marital sex and romantic love he originally thought I had created a straw man.  This was an understandable first take, as Bayly’s argument is so bad it it hard to imagine that he would make it.  After I wrote a post proving that I had correctly stated Bayly’s argument, Gudeman replied:

Thank you for the reply, Dalrock. I will have to read it more carefully to see if I can improve my logic on the issue.

That was on February 10th.  I originally thought Gudeman might respond further, but since over two weeks have passed without further response I now read it as a concession.  Morover, Bayly’s response to the whole thing has been the blogging equivalent to lawyering up and taking the 5th.  Despite having his own media organization, Bayly’s only response has been to thank Gudeman for serving as his defense.

I may write a followup post after listening to the podcast.

Update:  Commenter EL quoted a comment Nathan made on the discussion of the podcast.  Nathan closed his comment with:

To be perfectly clear, however: Dalrock is bad news and we recommend you stay away from him. We seriously considered canning this episode because it might inspire a greater interest in Dalrockian writing and philosophy. If it does, frankly I’ll be sorry we did it.

I can think of no more thorough concession that they have no logical response to my arguments.  On the flip side, I strongly encourage my readers to listen to not only the podcast linked above, but to their regular podcasts and the discussions of each one.

*I asked Nathan to make a correction regarding which reader had shared the Lone Ranger, and he has since made the correction.

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

221 Responses to Warhorn responds.

  1. Anonymous Reader says:

    Into the manosphere is an ironic title. Probably unintentionally so. Because the coastal media, mostly in the Acela corridor, from time will sent out a reporter / reporterette into the deepest and darkest unexplored regions of Flyover Country to report back on the strange natives who live there.

    I don’t recall having ever read one of these “Expedition to the strange land” articles referencing Bloomington, Indiana but it would not be a surprise to run across such a thing. The same goes for Moscow, Idaho, by the way. I wonder how much fun it would be to point the Atlantic or Vox or Vice or some other coastal babblesite at Warhorn Media for an anthropological / down the rabbit hole kind of “Expedition” article? Suddenly the whole point-and-shriek, take words out of context, evade any counter argument game might not be so much fun?

    Well, anyway. It sure looks like Bayly et al aren’t interested in treating others as they wish to be treated. Too bad there isn’t a book they could read that explains the concept…

  2. feeriker says:

    I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but from Nathan’s mail and the description of the podcast it appears Warhorn has decided to avoid trying to respond to my arguments and instead point and shriek about me, my readers, and the men’s sphere in general. This is unfortunate, but not entirely unforeseen.

    I’m shocked … SHOCKED, I tell you!

    In addition to confirming the wisdom of Vox’s counsel to NEVER talk to the media, this episode also serves to demonstrate what an inexcusable waste of precious life hours it is to “debate” people operating en mala fide.

    Dalrock, Nathan owes you some life hours back. What a pathetic little coward.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gudeman at Brain Legions has not posted anything since the “straw man” essay. There could be any number of reasons for this, but there’s nothing new over at his wordpress site, including comments.

    Perhaps he is busy with other things, such as wrangling with Google.

  4. Dalrock says:

    @feeriker

    Dalrock, Nathan owes you some life hours back.

    I disagree. This has been an extremely productive exercise. I can’t make him make himself and Pastor Bayly look good. All I can do is present my own side. That Warhorn failed miserably on their side doesn’t make the exercise a failure to me. Even if they had canned the podcast as Nathan’s comments indicate they seriously considered, their concession would have been evident and I still would have ended up with an excellent opportunity to refute their challenges with the existing series of posts. I wish Warhorn had acquitted themselves better, but my embarrassment for them doesn’t make me wish we had never done the interview.

  5. HAHAHAHAHAHA

    If these guys think Dalrock is down the rabbit hole, they just have no idea. Honestly Dalrock, Cane Caldo, you guys are most basic (in a good sense), balanced men writing on this subject. Nothing crazy or extreme. Shoot, most of what you write is in practice what 90% of all men of all races and creeds believed in 1950 (I know there were some elites running around saying crazy things and passing crazy laws, I’m talking the great mass of humanity).

    Nobody is talking about hurting women, or domineering behavior, or anything crazy or particularly anti or un Biblical as far as I can see. I mean, I genuinely fail to see what the problem is here. You guys just happen to think women are human, capable of virtue and vice just like the rest of us. It’s not a huge deal.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Disagree with feeriker, agree with Dalrock. This series has been very clarifying on a number of issues, and it now provides a collection of essays that focus in on particular issues. I’m sure that it has assisted Dalrock in logically arranging his own thoughts and positions.

    Plus Pastor BJ found the series to be a helpful explanation. I’m pretty sure he’s not the only one.

  7. squid_hunt says:

    Neck. Beards.

    They did a nice job poisoning the watering hole right out of the bag. It’s some weird framing for a guy who has actively taken a position against the worst of the “manosphere”

  8. Jake says:

    Right. This is intolerable to listen to. They sound like aliens. Can barely hear them over the spinning of the bowties. Sound effects? Is this college radio? I’ll let you know if I hear a slide whistle.

  9. O says:

    He did at least publish large parts of your correspondence under the podcast (whether it was selectively edited, only you would know).
    But, I doubt if even 1% of his podcast audience would read that.

  10. BillyS says:

    This is in a rabbit hole? Amazing, simply amazing how ignorant many men can be.

  11. Lexet Blog says:

    Knew it. It’s unfortunate. A ministry called “war horn” run by sniveling cowards

  12. Bart says:

    Big credit to Dalrock for taking this on, even as he realized there was likely very little upside to answering a batttery of wife-beating-type questions where they have the final say on framing and spin. Quite the risk too. Nathan’s almost total lack of engagement on Dalrock’s answers or questions in kind reinforced what this interview would be long before the podcast went live.

    Funny, I don’t remember seeing a post relating Nathan’s language in the original interview request, but I’ll wager it didn’t mention anything about setting up Warhorn podcasters as heroes or that they’d ultimately recommend staying away from Dalrock, lest foolish Christians be led astray by the black seductions of misogyny. In a way, that they almost scrapped the whole interview is the highest praise Dalrock could get, as he evidently didnt produce the radioactive phrases they were hoping for, and Warhorn fears its listeners might well find Dalrock’s answers reasonable and compelling.

    * Question: Does Nathan ever explain why he advises staying away? I read back through the written transcript but didn’t do the podcast.

  13. feministhater says:

    I did get a laugh out of Nathan’s responses to Dalrock. Dalrock would explain himself clearly and concisely, with relevant links to blog posts he did before on the matter. Going above and beyond to unpack the information so that Nathan and colleagues can respond in kind with full understanding.

    Nathan’s response was always the same…. “Hmmm, interesting, have to think about it more…” cringe worthy stuff really.

    They are right on one point though, Dalrock is bad… for them that is. The more interest shown in Dalrock’s blog, the more people read it. They know this. They wanted to shut it down, that’s why the anonymity Dalrock has was of such interest to them.

    I guess what one would call this, is a failed attempt at a hit piece…

  14. feministhater says:

    Perhaps he is busy with other things, such as wrangling with Google.

    Or perhaps the ‘legions’ become lesions…

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    * Question: Does Nathan ever explain why he advises staying away? I read back through the written transcript but didn’t do the podcast.

    Where did you find a written transcript of the podcast?

  16. 7817 says:

    Took some notes while I listened to the podcast:

    Warhorn media and the Sound of Soy.

    This is so cringe. Who would want to follow these men?

    Christian bugmen. God has made our enemies ridiculous.

    Amusing how these guys attack use of pseudonyms and then play a sound clip of angry feminists yelling at Doug Wilson, and talk about how they had to get 30 policemen for protection. Either the self awareness level is zero or they really want us to be known so we can be destroyed.

    The really interesting part of the interview is in the second half, where, after doing what they can to discredit Dalrock in the first part ofnthe interview, they now pull quotes from him and Doug Wilson, among others, in order to promote the idea that we’re all on the same side (but seriously, don’t listen to Dalrock.

    Fascinating tactic because it mirrors what we see so often from a segment of commenters here. Why can’t Dalrock and Wilson just get along, they’re on the same side.

    Can’t speak for Dalrock, but as far as I’m concerned full out feminists are closer to being my allies than these weasels. They pat your back while undercutting you. At least the feminists are open with their hatred. These men try to have it both ways.

    When they said that Dalrock does not understand the fall of man, that was the moment I knew they do not understand the manosphere at all. The term AWALT, properly understood, is essentially a restoration of the understanding that women share in the fall as well as men.

    This brings out the their inner pedant (akchually it’s Genesis 2, not Genesis 3) when one of the main points they should take away from the fall in the context of men and women is that men are tempted, at a basic level to listen to the voice of their wives over the voice of God, and that doing this brings horrible consequences. This is found in Genesis 3:17.

    This is so important that there are several instances in the Bible where a man has legitimate doubts about something his wife brings to him, and every time God independently verifies the information to the husband if it is God’s will. God doea not make his men listen to their women for spiritual counsel. Manoah and his wife follow this pattern, the angel made a secondary visit to confirm everything to him. Joseph was not asked to simply believe Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit, God sent an angel to confirm the information. When Sarah sent Hagar away, Abraham recieved independent confirmation from God that it was what God wanted to happen.

    These guys come across as boys dressed in mens clothes. They want so much to be taken seriously, but they are so triggered by someone criticizing their Pastor, Tim Bayly, that they rush to his defense by attacking one of his critics with ad hominems for roughly an hour.

    When the men I listen to are attacked in a verbal manner (not true danger) like this, honestly it is a good time to sit back and take note of the man’s mettle. Can he defend himself? Will he shrink back or can he handle what is beimg thrown at him?

    Vox Day has been more than capable. Rollo Tomassi likewise, and Dalrock has answered them with a direct challenge that no one has wanted to really take on, found here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/11/06/an-invitation-to-pastor-wilsons-defenders/

    So much projection at the end. They say that Dalrock relies on deception, and that his followers don’t call him on it because they are hungry for validation.

    They use the same criticisms feminists use, how original: that Dalrocks followers are 20 somethings in their mom’s basement, or recently divorced 40 year olds.

    This is highly amusimg. They actually say that Dalrock relies on his readers being to lazy to follow the links in his posts so they won’t discover he is decieving them. On the contrary, what I discovered is that Dalrock is pulling his punches, and that usually his criticisms are very charitable towards the people he is calling out.

    The last 15 or 20 mins are almost pure projection.

    These dorks keep talking about how bad REAL SJW’s have been to them, and never acknowledging the fact that the Christian manosphere is to their right, and almost certainly thereby hated even more than these reformed guys dressed in vests are.

    Direct quote from the podcast:

    Character assassination is a product of pride in this case.

    Self awareness level: 0.

    Big finish, with piano music: Dalrock is a coward.

    Knowledge is never divorced from character.

    They end by endorsing ad hominem as a valid form of argument. Nerd level 9million.

    Ad hominem is perfectly valid rhetoric. It’s not dialectic.

    You can’t engage with people of bad character and not be infected by it.

    This guy is poison and I don’t care if he says some correct things.

    You do not want to hang out with bad people.

    Dalrock man bad.

  17. Warthog says:

    “They end by endorsing ad hominem as a valid form of argument. Nerd level 9million.”

    The Enlightenment made rationality the measure of all things, but failed. Postmodernism has made irrationality a virtue, therefore illogical arguments are valid as long as they feel right. Nathan writes like a feminist, even if he doesn’t realize he is one.

  18. squid_hunt says:

    Spanking?

    These guys are clowns. You literally refuted this position. They could have written this without even talking to you. Unbelievable.

    @Bart
    Telling people to stay away without cause will do more to draw attention through curiousity. These morons aren’t about news or Bible teaching. They’re entertainers in it for the money.

    Either the self awareness level is zero or they really want us to be known so we can be destroyed.

    They zeroed in on that position right out of the box. It really bothered them that Dalrock refused to reveal himself. They were out to slay the dragon.

    This is disgusting. It really is. I’m a little disturbed that men who bill themselves as Christians would act in such a deceptive way. This is fundamental to being a Christian.

  19. Swanny River says:

    FH- re “interesting, I have to think about it more.” That is perfect for a saltless response trying to maintain decorum, or a veneer of respectability.
    Just the same as the elders in church, who not coincidentally hate Trump.

  20. Swanny River says:

    They read about the radical responses preached by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and then use all their strength to fit in. Likewise, their desire to shun Dalrock is the highest punishment in their world.

  21. AnonS says:

    Nathan’s posts:

    Dalrock responded exactly like we knew he would. He lived down to our worst characterization of him. He and his followers are exactly as cartoonish as the sketch character we created to parody them. It would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

    People keep assuming the transcript is of a debate. It is not. We never attempted to address all of Dalrock’s points in the interview. We just wanted him to state his point of view. We responded in the podcast.

    I guess I’ll 2x speed the podcast and try to pull some timestamps.

    Churchian NPC: “Dalrock man bad”

  22. Sharkly says:

    I thought Dalrock’s responses to the questions were excellent. I’d have been far more objectionable to them, if I had been answering. They’d have mocked you even if you were only ever so slightly to the right of them, let alone in disagreement on many things. I think the exchange was illuminating and helpful, and as they say in Hollyweird “there is no such thing as bad publicity”. LOL They realize they’re giving you more visibility to some who have never heard of you before, and it bothers them for good reason. They’ll end up sending you some inquisitive men who will end up finding the truth for themselves, and having their eyes opened to Whorehorn’s cunt-worshipping ways.

    Back in the day, I was frequently interviewed for the local news. They always had a story that they wanted to tell, and they just needed a soundbite or two from an “industry expert” to back up their preconceived story. They’d interview me for an hour to get 15 seconds that they would show. Most all of the time they’d make me look really smart, and make me look like I was saying exactly what they were trying to tell people. Although once they interviewed me and made me look ridiculously silly too. LOL So they can make you look however they want to. And most of the time the question they asked on the news broadcast, was not the same question I was answering in the soundbite. LOL But hey, I should have got an acting credit for participating in the charade that is our news. FWIW the reporting on every news story I have ever been a part of was at least partially inaccurate. I don’t know why I always want to assume the rest of the news must be accurate. LOL
    No doubt Whorehorn Media had their story mostly decided before they ever chose to interview you. You were wise to do it only by writing. They could have run wild with off the cuff comments, then turned into misleading soundbites.

  23. Eidolon says:

    It’s very difficult to a) listen to their way of speaking and b) find any meat between the ads and other fluff. Nathan basically admitted that he was conducting the interview in bad faith. Let me back up and transcribe, 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.”

    So there it is, that’s some good faith argumentation there. Let’s make a ridiculously tenuous link to Nazis, so we can make sure our listeners know that Dalrock BAD.

    I suppose these wimps are Never-Trumpers too. Or are they just straight-up leftists? People like this always seem to think that feminists hating them for not being leftist enough somehow makes them not leftist, even if they display every obvious trait of a leftist.

  24. squid_hunt says:

    @Swanny

    Likewise, their desire to shun Dalrock is the highest punishment in their world.

    Shunning is a distintly female response.

  25. Eidolon says:

    What are the odds they pull the interview down, the same way it happened with Vox Day’s interview a while back? I’d say 50% or so.

    I read that “lived down to our worst characterization” quote quickly and only in looking back at it did I realize it was Alberson talking about Dalrock, not a commenter talking about Alberson. As it has been said, SJWs Always Project.

    Honestly they’re worse than I expected, and I expected bad faith. I at least expected them to criticize Dalrock’s positions. From what I’ve listened to so far they’ve failed to even approach anything he’s said. They’re clearly terrified of addressing any statement he made.

  26. Emperor Constantine says:

    I listened for a bit.

    They ramble, they giggle, there is no logical thread anywhere. It’s like listening to my 16-year-old daughter and her friend talking about the new girl who is “uncool”.

    Peak soy.

    At times it was hard to tell if they were men or women; combined T-levels likely not even detectible in a laboratory.

  27. Emperor Constantine says:

    I listened for a bit.

    They ramble, they giggle, there is no logical thread anywhere. It’s like listening to my 16-year-old daughter and her friend talking about the new girl who is “uncool”. Peak soy.

    At times it was hard to tell if they were men or women; combined T-levels likely not even detectible in a laboratory.

  28. feministhater says:

    Dalrock responded exactly like we knew he would. He lived down to our worst characterization of him. He and his followers are exactly as cartoonish as the sketch character we created to parody them. It would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

    Hilarious! Oh no! What are we going to do? Did we not get their support?! Guess not, let’s back it in chaps… off we go. No more hatemongering anymore, only say nice things about m’lady and Chivalry is right and proper, open doors, pull out chairs, buy those drinks, pay for the dinner and don’t forget to walk her to the front door but whatever you do, dooooooon’t read Dalrock’s blog.

    NOooooooooooooooooo!

  29. Eidolon says:

    Good lord, they’re arguing that no one in the Bible used a pseudonym. Even though Christ Himself avoided having authorities know where he was on various occasions.

    These people are absurd. This is such a BS SJW argument. It’s like saying that pastors in China are illegitimate if they don’t publicly announce themselves, their names, and their credentials to teach Christianity to everyone.

    Who even cares? Vox Day recently debated JF Garrety (don’t remember the correct spelling) about evolution. I have no idea if that’s a real name, and I don’t care if it isn’t. If Dalrock was setting up the Church Latter-Day Dalrockians, who he is might be remotely relevant.

    This is just a lame way of trying to shame an effective, legitimate Christian man into outing himself so he can be silenced. A lot easier than effectively refuting his arguments, I guess, and that way they can hide behind “those darn SJWs, who would’ve thought they’d go after him?”

  30. 7817 says:

    When you first said you were going to do this, I was doubtful. And I think for almost everyone, talking to the media is a bad thing.

    But in this case, the entertainment value, especially at the end, is off the charts. There are several quotes that could be pulled from the podcast and hung about like trophies.

  31. Mitch says:

    Alberson makes a comment right near the end about Dalrock’s pastor doesn’t know who he is. “I talked to him. He doesn’t know.”

    What pastor is Alberson talking about? Has Dalrock ever said who his pastor is?

  32. Gage says:

    I will echo some of the previous comments about the painfully shrill voices of the Warhorn media “men”. I was unable to listen for more than a few minutes before shutting it down.

    I know at this point I shouldn’t be surprised by the duplicity of people wearing the evangelical mantle, but it still blows me away that in the face of very solid and well documented facts from Dalrock, they can still cling so tightly to their indefensible positions and poison the well for others. Throughout the series, Dalrock clearly and succinctly laid out his positions and used scriptures, logic, and history to buttress these positions. It was brilliantly executed. AND STILL these people refuse to see that maybe, just maybe, they might be mistaken in some of their beliefs. I understand that it is difficult to admit it when we make mistakes and no one i know enjoys admitting we believed something that was not true, but why is it that evangelicals (in my experience at least) seem to dig their heels in even deeper than most when confronted with ideas that conflict with their own? Personal growth seems secondary to consistency even when they are consistently wrong.

    Sadly, Warhorn’s response and lack of coherent rebuttals to Dalrock just confirm my long held belief that American christians (and i use that term to mean most americans who claim to be one, whether or not they actually are) as a whole, are the most naive and ignorant people in this country. As a bloc, they seem to utterly lack any kind of discernment whatsoever and try as hard as possible to fit in with everyone around them and avoid standing for Truth because it is offensive in our society. I grew up in church and have found one where i live that is very sound in its teaching. And even in a good church, i find that the members are, as a whole, clueless about the world outside of the churchian bubble and therefore completely and wholly ineffective at recognizing and/or fighting the lies that have permeated modern american church culture.

    I am so grateful for sites like Dalrock that reveal truths that have been distorted and ignored over time. Hard truths at time yes, but truths nonetheless. Thank you Dalrock, keep fighting the good fight and know that you are making a difference.

  33. Eidolon says:

    Wow, they’re so obsessed with Dalrock having the proper credentials and being approved by they right gatekeepers. At least one of them just can’t believe that someone could be right if he won’t get himself approved by someone important.

    They also respect Calvin and are Protestants. Not big on logic, these guys.

  34. Anon says:

    This was an obvious set-up from the get-go. Many of us said so very early on.

    Then again, the existence of manginas like Nathan is useful. They are simply begging for the costs of feminism to be transferred onto them. That is great news for PUAs and the like.

    Women want to have sex with PUAs.
    PUAs want to have sex with women.
    Nathan gets to pay the bills!

    Everybody wins!

  35. The Question says:

    “Good lord, they’re arguing that no one in the Bible used a pseudonym. Even though Christ Himself avoided having authorities know where he was on various occasions.

    These people are absurd. This is such a BS SJW argument. It’s like saying that pastors in China are illegitimate if they don’t publicly announce themselves, their names, and their credentials to teach Christianity to everyone.”

    These people either want to dox Dalrock and have him and his family targeted, or scrutinize his life in order to find something, or just make something up, to avoid discussing the topics raised. Or both.

  36. Mitch says:

    These guys are majorly pissed at Dalrock mostly for going after Doug Wilson and Tim Bayly. Both Bayly and Wilson have taken a lot of flak for the stands they’ve taken against feminism and I do think it is appropriate to give them credit where credit is due. But the podcasters complaining about people getting in their face arguing with them and protesting their appearances is really just making Dalrock’s point. I guess they are just demanding that Dalrock should be willing to take the heat they have or else he is a coward.

    But we cannot forget that Bayly, Wilson and the podcasters all work in church ministry and presumably will not be fired for standing up for reformed Christian doctrine on sexuality. If Dalrock works in the for-profit sector or in any work that does not enjoy the support of conservative Christians, his employment would necessarily be at serious risk. Whether his family is at risk is another question and I would be curious to know the extent of familiarity with Dalrock the SJW community has. If his identity were made public, hypothetically, who would be the first to take a shot at his family?

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Emperor Constantine

    I’m trying to listen to these guys. It’s like being around high school boys who have been socialized to obey the Mean Girls.

    On Wednesday do they wear pink?

  38. Swanny River says:

    Compare Dalrock’s (appropriate imo) response compared with Wayne Grudem’s pleading and multiyear effort with feminists. What was Mr. Grudem thinking by dealing for so long with people of bad faith?

  39. Junkyard Dawg says:

    @Dalrock

    it appears Warhorn has decided to avoid trying to respond to my arguments and instead point and shriek about me, my readers, and the men’s sphere in general

    Dalrock is bad news and we recommend you stay away from him

    Why am I utterly not surprised at the outcome of your discussion with Warhorn media? I saw it coming a mile away, by the various tells in Nathan’s dialog with you that, in effect, told the end from the beginning.

    You don’t seem to mind too much, and may consider it a victory, because you conclude that Nathan had absolutely no arguments to marshal against you, and only could slap you with the “toxic” label.

    Sometimes I wonder about the usefulness of trying to convince others of these ideas who are not going in that direction already, due to the circumstances in their lives. As David said, “before I was afflicted, I went astray.” A lot of men become “red pill” (or whatever you want to call it) due to wake-up calls in their lives (not here meant to be conflated with the term “being woke”) and then begin reaching out for answers. If that is not happening in the lives of those you are trying to reach, it’s not going to be effective, in my own experience and IMHO.

    I do think that your blog is effective, but I also consider that people find their way here on their own, and not through an outreach effort to enlighten others. That being said, I also think that your debating with such characters helps you to sharpen your own ideas and your presentation of them.

  40. Anon says:

    I guess what one would call this, is a failed attempt at a hit piece…

    Cuckservatives don’t really know how to do hit pieces. If they did, Trump would not have won.

    Cuckservatives only exist to concentrate as much loserdom amongst themselves as possible. The left will still see Nathan as the enemy. even as he grovels to just about any fat bluehaired feminist.

  41. 7817 says:

    I would bet money this interview will be pulled. Can anyone capture the audio prior to its being pulled down?

  42. Eidolon says:

    It’s also ironic they want Dalrock to out himself, and then would immediately join the mob hounding him out of his job, or more likely step aside while others do it. They obviously wouldn’t defend him, since he’s such a “bad guy.”

    One thing is that at ~47:00 they assert that Dalrock characterized Chandler’s quote as “Women can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion if their husbands love them sufficiently.”

    Looking back at the interview, Dalrock posed that as a question to Nathan, he did not state that this was an accurate summary of what Chandler said. In the blog post quoting Chandler he also did not characterize the quote that way.

    So they deceptively and dishonestly misquoted Dalrock in a section where they discussed how Dalrock argues deceptively. Projection levels: 100%.

  43. feeriker says:

    I disagree. This has been an extremely productive exercise. I can’t make him make himself and Pastor Bayly look good. All I can do is present my own side. That Warhorn failed miserably on their side doesn’t make the exercise a failure to me.

    Yes, sir, you have a point and I stand corrected. You gave them rope to use as a lifeline to the truth and instead they’ve chosen to hang themselves with it. Their choice, truth’s gain.

  44. Eidolon says:

    Sounds like Bayly wants the interview scrubbed. He also wants to deny involvement in something he admits he was the principle author of, and signed onto. Okay.

    Noting that he wasn’t the only author or that it was a document drawn up by multiple people is all well and good. But why would he write and sign onto something that he didn’t agree with?

    Is that an honest position, “It’s not my fault, I only wrote and signed it, I didn’t entirely agree with it”? Would he accept from Dalrock (or “Mr. Anonymous,” as he calls him for some reason) that “Sure, I wrote and posted that blog post, but I discussed it with some other people and used some of their emails, so it’s unfair to say that it represents my thoughts.”

  45. Cindy says:

    Dalrockian seems to be the new word for “True. Horrifically, life-alteringly true. Run away!!!” You win, Dal. But you knew you would, because truth does win in the end.

  46. Oscar says:

    I listened to the whole podcast, even though we’re all “too lazy to follow links”.

    That was pretty bad. The first time they even attempted to quote anything Dalrock actually wrote was over 30 minutes into the podcast. Before that it all Pick-up Artists, Rollo, some BDSM guy, and some fashionista guy.

    So, poisoning the well.

    The “Devil’s advocate” segment was pretty good, although it still failed to address anything Dalrock actually wrote (if I remember correctly).

    Finally, they got to the point where they addressed a few direct quotes from Dalrock, they claimed those quotes mischaracterized Pastors Chandler, Bayly and Wilson, but never explained how. Their argument was that if you can’t see the mischaracterization, it’s because you’re too dumb to see it.

    Finally, they accused Dalrock of being a coward who refuses to submit to pastoral authority, and refuses to deal with the actual arguments his opponents make.

    So much for my hope that Warhorn would give Dalrock a fair shake. Oh well. That’s what I get for getting my hopes up.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    These guys sure to fuss and whine a lot about anonymity / pseudoanonymity. Extra tasty irony when they play the audio clip of a handful of feministas shrieking at Doug Wilson and (I think) Nathan, in the middle of demanding that Dalrock dox himself.

    There is not much self-awareness on display in this rambling conversation. No mirrors in Bloomington?

  48. Eidolon says:

    I can’t follow this “I have a Christian position about abortion, therefore my approach to marriage is correct in its entirety” way of thinking. Even Alberson admits Dalrock is right about various things; doesn’t that give him the same credentials? Why criticize parts of Dalrock’s approach while accepting the rest but act as though one’s own positions are unassailable because we all agree about some parts of them?

    I do have sympathy for pastors. Leadership is difficult; I know I would be wholly unfit for it. I was too critical of my own pastor at one time, and I regretted it and repented of it, as we are called to approach our elders in church leadership as if they were our own father, with respect and kindness.

    However, when people disseminate false ideas to everyone, it seems to me that they are no longer acting as a pastor and no longer deserve that sort of treatment. Bayly is acting as a public intellectual, and if he’s wrong he ought to be called out for it. And putting out incorrect Christian theology to the public cannot be considered a ministry.

    Besides, Paul called out pastors who were teaching wrongly in the harshest terms. Granted, he was a leader of the church, but he also told the laity to test what they were told against what he had shared with them from God. If it’s incorrect, should the laity not warn each other? If it’s correct, can’t it be demonstrated to be correct?

  49. Junkyard Dawg says:

    I’m listening to the podcast now. Now that I hear the various men on it talking, I realize that I had listened to some of their podcasts before, but stopped listening because of their constant giggling as they were talking, which made it difficult for me to pay attention to the subject matter.

    I don’t know how valuable it would be to get a copy of the audio before it’s taken down. The transcript of Dalrock’s comments are on the website, which can be copied and pasted into a text file, but it is essentially verbatim what Dalrock says here.

    Before getting to Dalrock, they give a brief description of the manosphere (while giggling and attempting to sound like comedians), but it is not very valuable to listen to.

    What you’re dealing with here is men who ascribe to the “seeker-friendly industrial complex” (new term I just learned that I think is entirely appropriate). Nothing greatly valuable here.

  50. 7817 says:

    “No really guys, we’re all on the same side. Why are we fighting?”

    Again, what is interesting about this whole thing is the similarity of the response to criticism from men like Doug Wilson and Tim Bayly, when compared to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson and other conservative leaders. It is eerie. Maybe I am missing something, but it is plain that the “anointed opposition leaders” DETEST being called out by people to their right.

  51. Oscar says:

    Oh yeah, and I’m 22, unmarried, and living in my mother’s basement, even though I’m actually 43, and married, and have nine children. And yes, Oscar is my real name, as anyone who’s ever clicked on it knows.

    But hey, ad hominem is a valid form of debate. Right?

  52. anon says:

    Tasty irony? Did you actually listen to that segment? They were proving their own ‘skin in the game’ during that segment. What you found ironic, they were aware of, and it was exactly the point they were making

  53. feministhater says:

    It is eerie. Maybe I am missing something, but it is plain that the “anointed opposition leaders” DETEST being called out by people to their right.

    Often that are merely token opposition. There to provide a bulwark against a real move to the right. Thus they hate being called out because it calls into question their legitimacy. To a centrist, this is all that matters.

    Just because one is in the center does not mean one is correct, only deluded enough to believe that there is a safe middle ground between two opposing forces.

  54. Eidolon says:

    @7817

    Shapiro or Peterson could write something exactly like what Bayly wrote — “SJWs attack me all the time. I criticize the left all day, every day. Me, not really on the right? Ridiculous.”

    And yet, their only real role is to inexorably move things to the left, the same as the function of Churchians to slowly cede ground so the frog doesn’t jump out of the pot.

    Dalrock accurately reads the actual temperature of the water, and they freak out — “Nobody pay attention to that! It isn’t important! None of the important frogs acknowledge him! He won’t even tell you his real name!”

  55. AnonS says:

    21:55 “I went in wanting to trip up Dalrock and make him look not good… I admit I went in with a bias”

    5 minutes on why Dalrock is fine and they started the podcast with an unfair negative association.

    26:10 “He seems nice but Dalrock refused to talk live.” “yeah, he is disingenuous because he hides behind a pseudonym.”

    Minutes on why it isn’t that bad if you go public, no actual argument made on why it is needed beyond being more polite and trustworthy.

    31:20 “His followers are bad because they use offensive language on an anonymous forum, they would never say this stuff to actual people.”

    31:30 “Lets talk about his actual arguments”
    “We agree with his actual points and he is doing valuable work.”

    33:50: “His problem is that he lumps me and my pastor Tim Baily in with narrow complementarians like Matt Chandler and the way he does that is completely disingenuous. And I won’t let him off for being anonymous.”

    34:40: “I don’t trust the man with no skin the game, doesn’t align with any institution with any weight, or get any single person with any authority to sign off publically on his work. He has no names behind him.”

    “I’m a pastor and teacher because I was ordained and I work at a ministry.”

    36:40: “He’s hiding behind an internet name and thinks he can criticize people that have suffered like us?”

    37:40: “Where is the single man that is willing to lend Dalrock his credibility?” “You haven’t actually engaged with his ideas…”
    “Okay fine, lets talk about Dalrock’s ideas, how he spreads his ideas, how he interacts with other people’s ideas.”

    (what wrong with just doing the first part?)

    42:20: dumb skit about how it doesn’t matter if its true, kids won’t trust you unless you show your face. You can’t trust that something is true unless you can vet the person.
    (wtf is math, logic, and science?)

    You have no names of people living currently in authority behind you? Good thing this guy didn’t have to confront Jesus’ ideas.

    Zero names behind him? How the hell does this guy think that true ideas work?

    Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority.

    They refuse to treat these issues like math or science (where the true just exists), it must fit into a social system where kids and men must submit to a person with proper authority. All theology flows from people and not logic?

    ———————————–

    44:38: “Okay we’re back, lets talk about Dalrock’s methods. Lets talk about how he said stuff and what that says about him.”
    Dumb way to say it but they finally start to address stuff here. Dalrock needs to respond to these points.

    47:15 : Disagree with the point that Matt Chandler said that women will never be tempted to rebel, Dalrock is lying about Matt Chandler.

    48:40: Dalrock is lying to call me and Tim Baily a complementarian.

    51:30 : The actual PCA resolution condemns cross dressing and women warriors and Dalrock complains that it doesn’t and is refusing to be honest.

    55:50 : Dalrock refuses to see difference between federal responsibility and personal responsibility. He doesn’t understand federal headship and so doesn’t understand the fall of man.

    57:40 : “Husbands can’t change the wife’s heart.” “Dalrock is lying by misinterpreting this as ‘husbands never tell your wives to submit'”

    59:10 : “We are upset because he came after our pastors. But they are braver then Dalrock.”

    (They assume Dalrock is not just misinformed but malicious. He relies on the appearance of honesty by quoting but he misinterprets what they are saying.)

    1 hour : “His followers are lazy (for not seeking the actual interpretation of the quotes) and I picture them as angry men in their basement.” (where have we heard that before?)

    1:01 : “Dalrock poisons the well by saying anyone questioning his character can’t handle his agreements.”

    1:03 : We are real brave men. We have demonstrated that Dalrock is fundamentally dishonest in handling quotes and sources. Dalrock is coward and we can’t judge his fruit, so we can dismiss his teaching.

    1:06 : “Ad hominem is fine if done correctly. Ideas are connected to people and can’t be separated from people, he is a mocker and a bad person. He should shut up.”

  56. Oscar says:

    @ Eidolon

    Sounds like Bayly wants the interview scrubbed. He also wants to deny involvement in something he admits he was the principle author of, and signed onto. Okay.

    Noting that he wasn’t the only author or that it was a document drawn up by multiple people is all well and good. But why would he write and sign onto something that he didn’t agree with?

    Is that an honest position, “It’s not my fault, I only wrote and signed it, I didn’t entirely agree with it”?

    You simply misunderstand “federal headship”, you poor, misguided, foolish 22-year-old typing from your mother’s basement.

  57. feministhater says:

    1:06 : “Ad hominem is fine if done correctly. Ideas are connected to people and can’t be separated from people, he is a mocker and a bad person. He should shut up.”

    And then Dalrock talked and talked and talked and talked and talked, ceaselessly and without end; and never shut up, in a million years everyone was still talking about Dalrock, he would never ‘shut up’ not even in death..

  58. Swanny River says:

    Good point FH. I often forget how crucial it is to people in ministry to gauge their effectiveness by their own assessment of whether or not they are in the middle. They seem to associate the center with holiness.

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bloomington is one of the most progressive cities in the country?
    I’m laughing.

  60. squid_hunt says:

    I have to say I do like the Devil’s Advocate segment. I find it bizarre that they can defend Dalrock and then go off on a rant that even though what he is saying and his positions that he takes are right, it’s wrong because I don’t know his name. What I think that implies is that the pseudonym issue is a red herring. These guys resent Dalrock’s teaching. They don’t like it and therefore they want to pull him out in public and destroy him.

  61. Random Angeleno says:

    Even money the Warhorn post along with the accompanying podcast and the thread at Sanityville will all be taken down. They can’t risk that men will follow the links to Dalrock’s work and go over to the dark side as they characterize it.

    I didn’t listen to the podcast but I did peruse the thread at Sanityville: Pastor Bayly’s comment is hilariously dense and ad hominem in nature. If that’s all he has, then let the world be a witness to that.

    Talk about punching right … they’re still kowtowing to the feminists. Let’s now ask Warhorn for an honest critique of Wendy Griffith. A mid-50’s woman who can’t snag a husband telling women how to snag a husband. The irony. I should think that is really low hanging fruit.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    1:05
    Someone (I think Nathan) says “Knowledge is never divorced from character”.

    This is utter nonsense. Newton’s laws of motion have zero moral content, they are true for everyone whether Communist Chekist murdering a Ukranian farmer in the 1920’s or a 70 year old man stopping a home invasion in Anytown USA circa 2019.

    It is the kind of stupidity that SJW’s love to smear around. The guys hold everyone who disagrees with them to a higher standard than they are willing to submit to.

    They are hypocrites.

  63. squid_hunt says:

    @Random

    Thank God they know her name, though.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    1:07

    These guys do not understand what a logical fallacy is, specifically they are clueless about argumentum ad hominem.

  65. 7817 says:

    In this situation, where Tim Bayly is smarting from some criticism, I can just commend him to the counsel of a pastor who admires and supports him, Michael Foster:

    1) Correctability is the single best weapon a man can wield in his battle against effeminacy and for manliness. The iron can’t be made harder apart from the fire and the blacksmith’s blows. So it is with men. The man that spurns correction will remain soft and fragile.

    2)This is why Proverbs repeatedly commends correction as something that produces vitality. For example: 6:23 ‘correction and instruction are the way to life’ 15:31 ‘Whoever heeds life-giving correction will be at home among the wise.’ No correctability means no virility.

    3)How do you become correctable? I’ve found three things especially helpful. First, remember that it’s hard to smell your own breath. You’ve had bad breath before but not realized it. We can only see many of our sins & problems through the eyes of another. Receive their help.

    4)Second, you should always consider the possibility that someone’s offered correction is needed. You’ve been wrong before & you’ll be wrong again. Maybe this is the case now. Maybe not. That’s why all correction deserve some level of consideration.

    5) Third, remember that you lose very little by receiving even an incorrect correction. Men don’t trust defensive men. It’s because defensiveness is an indication that a man is brittle. Men do trust a reflective man. If your critic was wrong, he’ll come to see it in time.

    6) I do think it’s okay to defend yourself. The Apostle Paul vigorously defended his ministry. Men need to be willing to spend time on the anvil but they also have to be willing to be the smithy’s hammer.

  66. AnonS says:

    Tim Bayly
    After putting up three posts and a tweet about Nadia Bolz-Weber and Glorian Steinem, I come to Sanity to see if there are any questions directed to me and find this thread. Which leads me to go to the podcast itself and read the stuff between Nathan and Mr. Anonymous Dalrock. Let me say here that I never knew Mr. Anonymous would be addressed, let alone interviewed on Warhorn, and when I found out I was not pleased. This for a number of reasons I won’t go into here, but not in one iota because I think Mr. Anonymous is right or has drawn blood with his critique of me or what I’ve written. I like good back-and-forth, but not ever anonymously—particularly when for fifteen years I have suffered much for the Name of the Lord Jesus and His Words and know how privileged I am for doing so and how much strength it lends to the work to which all believers are called.

    I am not happy that my ideas were challenged in a way that I can’t retreat to my authority and talk about how great I am. Did I mention how great I am?

    These people won’t know what its like being an INTP / INTJ that doesn’t care about pulling rank.

    But just a couple comments about Mr. Anonymous’s arguments, such as they are. Reports of a General Assembly are all written with an eye to getting the majority to sign on. That Mr. Anonymous is ignorant of this is excusable, but now he knows and needs to stop repeating himself that the report is worded and argued by Tim Bayly. I was its principle author, and I wrote in such a way to win the majority of the committee and to give the report the greatest possibility of being approved, some or all, by the Assembly. Which they did and they did.

    That said, at the same time as I was writing, a student at IU decided to go into the Navy as an officer responsible for nuclear reactors. I loved her and told her she should not do so. We’re still friends and she’s always known I think she was not obeying God in this. Full stop.

    This is just one of many, many examples of my fulfilling my responsibility as husband, father, and pastor to say “no” to women, and rebuke them. That Mr. Anonymous spreads his false accusations otherwise is disgusting to me. False charge after false charge after false charge. Long ago I decided not to answer him, and then I find out Warhorn is providing him a platform, so now I’m having to do what I determined wasn’t worthwhile, or even right.

    One last thing: for fifteen years I’ve been online saying that the only thing the feminists have given men is the right to cry, and Jesus already gave us this right. For fifteen years I’ve also been saying that feminists’ chief gift to women has been removing any moral agency from them, most especially their moral agency in the slaughter of their unborn children. Look at my Warhorn posts the past three days alone and see if it isn’t true that Mr. Anonymous bears false witness against me and us. Look at my tweet yesterday about the stories of unborn children being “ripped apart” by their mothers. Does that sound like a man who denies women moral agency and places all the blame on men?

    Ridiculous.

    And yet.

    It is true that it is man’s responsibility to discipline this rebellion of woman. This is no threat at all to woman’s moral agency, but rather maximizes it. As the Apostle Paul did when he wrote “I do not allow woman to…”

    Signed, Tim Bayly

    So was Dalrock unfair in his attack? Does Tim Bayly actually hold women responsible?

    Dalrock needs to address the points brought up in the podcast and admit if he went too far and address the issue of federal headship and where he stands on it.

  67. Eidolon says:

    If Dalrock were asking people to accept his example, or telling people to follow him and everything will work out, his character and facts about his actual life would be relevant.

    The discussion, however is about a) what the Bible says about various topics, and b) how Bayly’s teaching, among many others, diverges from the Bible’s teaching, and gives a false characterization of what the Bible actually teaches. These have nothing to do with Dalrock’s personal example.

    Paul rejected people’s attempts to use him as an example. He even stated that if anyone, including himself or even angels, contradicted what they had been taught, they shouldn’t listen. You could say he attempted to “Divorce knowledge [of God] from [his own] character.”

  68. Opus says:

    Just as I had predicted: a hit job. As Vox says: never apologise; never explain. I now predict Streisand effect.

  69. Oscar says:

    So, Dalrock is a mocker, and being a mocker is bad. Got it?

    Definition of mock (Entry 1 of 4)
    transitive verb
    1 : to treat with contempt or ridicule

    4a : to imitate (someone or something) closely
    b : to mimic in sport or derision

    Dalrock responded exactly like we knew he would. He lived down to our worst characterization of him. He and his followers are exactly as cartoonish as the sketch character we created to parody them. ~ Nathan

    Definition of parody (Entry 1 of 2)
    1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
    2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

    So, Dalrock’s a mocker, and being a mocker is bad, and Nathan and crew stated that they parodied Dalrock, and parody is a synonym of mockery, but that’s okay, because shut up. Right? Got it? Good.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    If I read Bayly’s text correctly, he is angrily demanding that other men assess him not by his words, not by his actions (PCA resolution) but by his intentions. Which only he really knows…

    That is an emotional, even feminine, method of argumentation.
    Fits in well with the other guys demanding that Dalrock dox himself.

  71. AnonS says:

    Nereus leaves a thoughtful post and his two main points are completely dodged by Bayly.

    Mr. Pseudonymous “Dalrock” quoted you on what you’ve publicly written. He couldn’t know about your private counsel to a woman not to go in the Navy. Have you ever publicly made the biblical case that it is always immoral and sinful for women to serve in the military? Does your church take this position? I would be quite interested to read it.

    -never addressed

    Part of your passionate defense is that you condemn unborn children being ripped apart by their mothers, as you should. Have you ever spoken to the question of appropriate punishment by the State to women who kill their own children?

    Tim Bayly

    “I don’t condemn unborn children being ripped apart. Rather, I condemn women for ripping their unborn children apart. Words matter.”

    – dodged

    “neither of you have actually answered any of his arguments”
    Like I wrote above, this is a longstanding choice. Yet I made an exception above and you still accuse me of not answering his arguments. Please. Just did so, but you want me to keep going down this dead end? We can tell it’s a dead end because, having just done so, I’m accused of it once more. Oh well.

    “Its all just a dead end, stop it!”

    A pastor suffers just as much, or even more, for not being ashamed of Jesus and His words. That some don’t know this is understandable, but embarrassing. I could expand on it at great length, but it would be unseemly. There are times I’ve posted pieces by men under a pen name to save them from certain known dangers. There are times this should be done, as you would agree. Mr. Anonymous though is not a one or two-off contributor. Thus I fulsomely disapprove. The people of God “rejoiced” they were counted worthy to suffer for His Name. So says Scripture.

    “I suffer so much with my full time salary and high status with my local church, not like those weak men from the military committing suicide that Rollo saves.”

  72. Junkyard Dawg says:

    The podcast is downloadable on iTunes, in case anyone wants to have a copy before it is taken down (I don’t see why they would take it down). I only listened to part of it, but really can’t continue because these guys sound like “girls night out.” (You know, the loud snarky conversation over wine.) The constant giggling and clowning make it hard to listen. The entire thing seems generally dishonest and even some of the other men on the show momentarily appear to call Nathan out in his dishonest intentions.

    I really don’t see the point in Dalrock or anyone needing to respond to some of the comments in the podcast, as someone above has said, unless this is something you really like to do, in which case, go right ahead.

    I think of verses like Proverbs 9:12 “if you are wise, you are wise for yourself,” that is, why try to convince anyone of what you believe about these things? It’s kind of like casting pearls befor swine.

    And there’s Proverbs 26:4 “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.” But then again, there’s Proverbs 26:5 “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” Both of these proverbs back-to-back always seemed to be a paradox that was, one one hand, “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.” And on the other hand, something like turning a fool’s assertions around on him to expose his folly.

    Well, it’s going to be interesting to read all the comments here on this and Dalrock’s follow-up.

  73. squid_hunt says:

    Hahahahahaha!!!! Yer not a real man, Dalrock. Time to man up. Holy crap, for all their squirming and bluster, they are exactly what they’ve been painted as. No wonder they don’t like it.

  74. feministhater says:

    These idiots haven’t a clue what genuine mockery is. What Dalrock has been doing isn’t mockery, it’s criticism.

  75. Jake says:

    Wish i had known there was a transcript.

    Only interesting thing was their claim you mischaracterized the pca encyclical (don’t know the protestant term i forgot what they said) and claimed it didn’t abominate cross dressing when it does. It certainly seems to from what they quoted, so maybe worthy of response. A church which has to deal with the question of women deacons every session instead of excommunicating people over it probably has no balls and i don’t feel the need to bother with it.

    The skin in the game is a tailor made argument for your readers and i commend them on their ability to fashion an argument to an audience. That they fail to see why they are allowed to exist in this world and therefore have nothing to fear in terms of disemployment is telling. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. They serve a purpose and the sjw lashback was just enforcing their lane to make sure they knew where they were allowed to be.

    You clearly feel you would pay a price and struggle with providing for your family were you to out yourself. Your justification is clear, the scripture is behind you, and i invite them to kick rocks. They impugn your comment section but provide no examples, something they’d be more than willing to do if they could find some juicy ones. I think that demonstrates the worthiness of that particular argument. I don’t particularly feel like a bad fruit.

    Doug wilson. I could give ashit honestly. I dont think there is a single famous pastor worth his salt alive today. I don’t personally know if he never said men can’t tell their wives to submit but i doubt he ever affirmed that they should. The whole focusing on that they can’t make them submit is a meaningless nonstance and an extremely charitable reader might ignore it as shameful cowardice.

    I actually laughed at the youth pastor sketch, but it doesn’t track to your role. If i was going to succumb to rampant heresy and hire a youth pastor i would wantto know who he is. You should at least know the name of the man who is going to abuse the daughters of your church. Although desmond dark probably wouldn’t have the opportunity to have sex with your daughter, so he ay least has that going for him.

    They call you disingenuous multiple times. I couldn’t think of a more disingenuous way to frame this podcast. They start off with the mgtow and the domination guy at the convention. Then they tip the hat to fairnessto seem reasonable but they’ve already done the damage. This is extremely dishonest.

    As an aside on the domination and spanking thing. I challenge them to throw their Netflix histories up on their site. Dollars to donuts at least two of their wives have watched 50 shades, and i wouldn’t be surprised if all three had. I shouldn’t need to say this, but me knowing their is a dark path here does not mean I’m advocating taking it. This stuff isa perversion in the opposite direction, and perverts don’t live happy lives. But to pretend it doesn’t exist, or is comical, is not the answer.

    One commenter said shunning was distinctly feminine. I disagree. Repeatedly signaling you are shunning something, yes. Shunning is biblical. Kick the dust off your feet and all that. Nothing intrinsically wrong with shunning, and like most biblical things these days, is misunderstood.

    The church argument. “You wouldn’t have all this badthink if you were in a church man. We’d find you an ok looking woman to marry whos tired of the cock caroseul and wants to settle down and be bitter.” In fairness, they seemed to advocate marrying young for woman. But this is what i hear when people tell me to go to church. Always with the appeal to authority. “Dalrock needs someone famous with a lot of degrees to affirmhis teaching!” Ridiculous. “All churches were/are bad but you need to be led astray by a properly ordained minister, not just some schmuck off the street!” Like your ordination means absolute piss compared to the word.

    1. Any organization larger than your average backwater nondemoniational has been subverted. See the pcas struggle every freaking year with debating women deacons. Just excommunicate these people already. There is no debate!

    2. A church needs to affirm a man’s headship or it is subversive and destructive tohis family. Protecting your family being paramount, you should be very careful where you take your family.

    3. Yes absolutely community of believers. Uh huh. I have one. Were we to find an actual body of christ to join we would in a heartbeat. But we have all we need. Where two or more are gathered in my name there i am also. I have an elder in the faith that i listen to and we are like iron sharpening iron in our discussions together. That anyone thinks we need the liturgy of the modern worship service otthe tridentine mass or a cluster of wagging fingers because we reject as foolish all that this world considers wise is comical. Kindly Kick rocks.

    Tl;dr phbbbt

  76. Damn Crackers says:

    I can attest that Bloomington, IN is an oasis of progressivism in Southern Indiana at least. I think these guys are just upset that the Hoosiers haven’t won the Big 10 in a couple of years. And, let’s not forget about their sub-par football team.

  77. Warthog says:

    Bayly got some respectful but frank blowback in the comments. His response was to double down. He conceded that it is actually ok to post under a pseudonymn now and then, but because Dalrock has been doing it for years, he is definitely bad. He seems terribly afraid of being linked to Dalrock or being perceived as agreeing with Dalrock. Dalrock, you are some kind of monster, apparently.

  78. Eidolon says:

    @Warthog

    I think the idea is “They went through the proper gatekeepers (i.e. me) before posting anonymously, so it’s okay. Dalrock didn’t even ask a gatekeeper! Therefore even though most to all of what he said is totally fairly characterized and verifiable, he’s VERY BAD! Don’t ever read unapproved materials or you might start to suffer wrongthink!”

  79. Oscar says:

    That said, at the same time as I was writing, a student at IU decided to go into the Navy as an officer responsible for nuclear reactors. I loved her and told her she should not do so. We’re still friends and she’s always known I think she was not obeying God in this. Full stop. ~ Pastor Bayly

    Great. That doesn’t address the issue Dalrock addressed, though. The issue Dalrock addressed is whether or not Pastor Bayly’s friend felt the need to disobey God because weak men refused to obey God and defend their country in uniform*, or if she disagreed that she was disobeying God, or simply didn’t give a damn that she was disobeying God.

    *I’ve served in the Army for 26 years, and counting. Did Pastor Bayly? Did his son? Did any of the Warhorners? If not, are they weak, cowardly men, guilty of forcing women to serve in their stead?

  80. AnonS says:

    Dalrock should address the points brought up in the podcast and admit if he went too far and address the issue of federal headship and where he stands on it.

    1. Dalrock wrong take on the PCA document.
    Minute 51

    2. Dalrock misquotes people.
    Minute 47, 48, 57

    3. Dalrock doesn’t understand federal vs personal headship and responsibility.
    Minute 55

  81. Eidolon says:

    @AnonS

    As I mentioned above, in #2, they misquote and mischaracterize what Dalrock said about Chandler’s quote, while saying he mischaracterized Chandler and was unfair. It’s hard to take their argument seriously there.

    This is the same thing that always seems to happen, especially with Doug Wilson — Dalrock says something accurate, weenies take exception to the characterization, it’s demonstrated that the characterization is fair, they still say they think it’s mean but have no argument, repeat from the beginning the next time it’s brought up.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    Having endured the whole “kool kidz klub” podcast [1] it is obvious that Dalrock was correct to respond only via email. To submit to the logical fallacies, disingenuousness, mockery, semantic game playing that is evidently stock in trade for these boys in a 3-against-1 format would have been pointless.

    [1] I cannot decide if these boys remind me more of high school Student Government nerds or 22 year old college seniors in the student lounge. They do not sound like actual men with families, jobs and responsibilities, even though they have to be near 30 or older. This is something that I’ve noticed more and more in churches – the Gen X pastors are more like overaged college kidz, not very much like adults. These are the sorts of pastors who would tell Scott that he was doing his counselling all wrong. Yet I seriously doubt any of them have had to deal with an E-4 in the sandbox whose wife was riding the Jody carousel.

    Going by the podcast, these boys are immature, rather childish, hypocrites.

  83. Lost Patrol says:

    I think the important thing here is that the warhorn men have positioned themselves to be approved by the warhorn women. “See? We said he was bad news and his readers are cartoonish.”

    Lift achieved. Good dog. *pats on head*

  84. Warthog says:

    I think the real reason that Warhorn is so dismissive of Dalrock’s deplorable commenters is that many of us use “homeschool bad words”. The rolls of this site have a lot of comments from hurt, angry, men, with not a few who are bitter. The raw emotions and sense of betrayal from having your heart cut out still beating and devoured triumphantly in front of your eyes the woman you loved, definitely come through in the comments. Many of us are trying to make sense of why we did our level best to follow all the moral rules we were taught, but our house burned to the ground anyway.

    I’ve never seen Dalrock encourage bitterness, though. His comments are generally positive and balanced.

    You would think that if Bayly and crew are so burdened to minister to the sodomite “community” to help their hurts and make them feel welcome in their church, it might occur to them that Dalrock has inadvertently found a community of hurt people, too. If they had the same compassion for divorced men that they have for sodomites, they might look at us with a little more charity. But you know, we are anonymous, so we must be bad.

  85. Nathan Bruno says:

    I am surprised by Pastor Bayly’s remarks. He’s angry that they give you a platform, because he doesn’t believe in anonymity. His central argument is that no one can be allowed anonymity.

    Since Pastor Bayly doesn’t like being described as indignant, I am left with “unhinged” after reading that remark he left there two hours ago.

    If he likes a good back and forth, but never anonymously, it’s simple: Pastor Bayly should get off the Internet. If he’s been at it for fifteen years, he knows that anonymous was the default for most of that time.

    It’s the plea of a squish to say that, although he put his name to the report, he doesn’t stand by it, because he needed to win the majority approval. I don’t think he helped his case with that remark.

    The contrast between the public report he put his name to and the rebuke of the IU girl who he told was acting sinfully in private is the difference between the words public and private. It’s why we criticize Catholic Democrats who say they would never *personally* get an abortion, and then vote for *public* funding for abortion.

    I do appreciate that Bayly’s on the record now saying, unlike Wilson, that a man can discipline a woman in rebellion. The questioning of his position has forced him to state something more sensible than the Wilson position that you must bear the responsibility without any authority as husband and man. However, when right-leaning Christians think of his name for a conference speaker, if they see his remarks from two hours ago, they are going to think he lacks the temperament to engage others with ideas.

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    Damn Crackers
    I can attest that Bloomington, IN is an oasis of progressivism in Southern Indiana at least.

    That’s a pretty low bar. If I heard correctly they claim Bloomington to be one of the most progressive cities in the country. So it’s Just Like Portland, Oregon? Or Boulder, Colorado? Or Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina? Or Boston? Or Oberlin, Ohio? Or Austin, Texas?

    C’,mon.

    These guys are playing in the shallow end of the pool and pretending it’s very deep and dangerous, perhaps because they’ve never actually been to someplace like Berkeley.

  87. Asaph says:

    You forgot about the important parts of chivalry.
    Like, raising your wife’s boyfriend’s kid, while your wife is screwing her boyfriend. Or marrying a single mom who works as an escort, and supporting her degenerate lifestyle, etc.

  88. Warthog says:

    “Yet I seriously doubt any of them have had to deal with an E-4 in the sandbox whose wife was riding the Jody carousel.”

    That reminds me of my first counseling case as an officer. Had an E-4 whose girlfriend hadn’t checked in and he thought she was with that bad man who beat her before. He wanted leave to go save her from the bad man. Sounded reasonable to white knight me at the time. But I waited to see what my first sergeant, who was twice my age, had to say.

    He said to the soldier, “Boy, there is something you need to understand about women. If she is with that man, it is because she wants to be with him. You need to stay here and do your job. Getting involved in that will just get you killed.”

    There was some guy in California a few years back calling himself “Doc Love” who wrote a hilarious book called the Dating Dictionary. It was totally red pill, long before that term was coined. One of his entries was “The Bottom Line Factor – look at what women do, not what they say”.

    The blue pill crowd are enslaved by words and unable to look at actions. Words allow them to believe what they want to believe – that this woman is truly good, cares about him, and wants what he wants. Yet, her deeds reveal the heart.

    Tim Bayly has been counseling married couples for twenty or thirty years as their pastor. But, he’s always been a Presbyterian Pastor, which means his congregation is upper middle class, educated, smart. A platoon sergeant or first sergeant learns a lot more about real human nature dealing with enlisted men and their families. My old first sergeant had seen the depravity of women, and he was no fool.

  89. squid_hunt says:

    @Jake
    Shaking the dust off your feet and not looking back is not the same as turning a cold shoulder collectively and punishing someone collectively with your rejection. The snitty turning your nose up and “We’re not your friends any more.”

    The first is a biblical judgment after the word has been preached on a city. I believe it’s holy and it is certainly biblical.

    The second is how women provide social feedback and correction. If men “shun” biblically, it should be with a tribunal and witnesses, accusations, punishment, and a means to restoration. Otherwise they would battle it out and then make up. Women shun and once you’re out, you’re out. It takes abasement and humiliation before they’ll forgive.

  90. Jake says:

    “It has to be written in such a way to get the majority to sign onto it”

    “This isn’t what i truly believe, but i signed it as a leader of an organization”

    What is this nonsense? The truth must be massaged to appease the masses? Wwjd? Repeatedly say you must eat my flesh and drink my blood until he turned a crowd of 5000 into twelve? Without a single what i really mean is too. Sounds like jesus would not be welcome at a general assembly. He might insist we write down the simple truth of the matter and risk driving off heretics and unbelievers.

    This is rank. This is probably the most disgustingly Frank admission of heresy I’ve ever read and it’s all in the spirit of democracy. This is why i despise democracy. The majority is not sacred. The masses are frequently wrong, ignorant, vile filth that should be condemned. If pastor preacher doctor Tim bayly feels that that document is anything butthe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth he should not have signed it. If he feels that he must massage or disguise the truth he should resign. Or drive off the unbelievers.

    I know his answer. I have to stay and try to lead themthe right way. Who else will lead them. Maybe someone worse hurhur. The lack of self awareness.

    Attention pca members: you are being led by a man who doesn’t believe what he says! He holds secret truths that he feels might scare you away! He cares more about your money and his position than your eternal soul! He is worse than the false teacher because he knows the truth, but hides it! Shame on him.

  91. 7817 says:

    You would think that if Bayly and crew are so burdened to minister to the sodomite “community” to help their hurts and make them feel welcome in their church, it might occur to them that Dalrock has inadvertently found a community of hurt people, too.

    Right, we should treat sodomites better than divorced men because….

  92. anon says:

    @Warthog

    “he’s always been a Presbyterian Pastor, his congregation is upper middle class, educated, smart”

    Lol, nice detective work. I’m an American, which means I’m obese, materialistic, and stupid.

  93. Eidolon says:

    Looking at it again, Dalrock did state that Chandler says a woman can’t rebel if her husband takes care of her properly, which is arguably a bit stronger than what Chandler is saying.

    I think the issue is that Dalrock is taking Chandler’s argument forward to its logical conclusion, rather than conveniently leaving wiggle room, which is what Chandler did. If men are responsible for women’s rebellion (of course Chandler leaves a “probably” in there as a smokescreen) then that means they had the ability to prevent or stop it. If their actions are what led to the rebellion, then there were alternate actions they could’ve taken that would’ve prevented it.

    If nothing the husband could’ve done would have prevented the rebellion, then his whole quote is meaningless and nonsensical and would not warrant being said. This would be obvious if you similarly stated that if children were tempted to misbehave, they were not being parented correctly, but is somehow more palatable when presented as wives to husbands.

    Obviously what Chandler is saying amounts to the same thing as what Dalrock said in reality, which is why Chandler makes sure not to be very clear about it. The Warhorn guys just go for the “gotcha” rather than actually examine the accuracy of what Dalrock said, naturally.

  94. Dalrock says:

    @Mitch

    Alberson makes a comment right near the end about Dalrock’s pastor doesn’t know who he is. “I talked to him. He doesn’t know.”

    What pastor is Alberson talking about? Has Dalrock ever said who his pastor is?

    Nathan asked a few “random clarifier” questions, and I didn’t turn those into posts. One was if my pastor knew I blogged as Dalrock. I would have to dig up the email for the exact response but I told him my pastor didn’t know about the blog but that we had had some excellent discussions on the topics.

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    Returning to a comment around 1:05 in the blanket party: “Knowledge is never divorced from character”.

    There’s a deeper issue here that is worth investigating. C.P. Snow’s now nearly forgotten essay The Two Cultures was about the split between science (testable hypothesis) and art (opinion and emotion). Every one of these guys looks to be of the Liberal Arts world, where opinions matter as much as facts – even though they insist they are all about the facts, they are not. As I noted above, Newton’s laws of motion don’t care who is using them, character doesn’t count downrange. Someone working in a utility closet around 220V mains needs to be careful because Power = Volts X Amps no matter who you are, what degrees you have, or where you went to church last weekend.

    It’s that liberal arts subjectivity and groupthink vs. reality that’s possibly underlying much of the turgid confusion Nathan and the kool kidz are swimming around in.

    But wait, I got more. Let’s get a bit deeper, they don’t seem really to be all that interesting in testing their ideas against the literal words of the Bible. Because their boss, Pope Bayly, has said something and that settles it. I have to suspect that if pushed a bit more about, say, wifely rebellion they would suddenly become all about Koine Greek and context and other stuff in order to squid ink out of the situation, lest they be accused of “misogyny” (which they will anyway. Anything other than total, utter capitulation to the whims of women is “misogyny” now. See #MeToo for details).

    Second, I’m not a scholar of the Bible, that’s been shown here multiple times. But if I recall some parts of the old Testament, some people of very questionable character nevertheless are shown to have knowledge or even wisdom. Would Nathan and his fellow club members argue that Solomon’s knowledge doesn’t really count because after all, he was a polygamist and wound up with a whole bargain basement full of strange gods, so…eh…just ignore him — and most of the book of Proverbs?

    Any other OT books that don’t measure up to the Warhorn / Bayly / Nathan standard of “knowledge is never divorced from character” that need to be ignored? How about Hosea and his wife? Man, there’s some serious character flaws at work right there, better just toss the whole thing, because knowledge is never divorced from character and so Hosea’s got nothing for anyone to learn from. Right?

    Right?

    tl;dr
    These guys are not as smart as they think they are. Not nearly as smart.

  96. Jake says:

    @squid_hunt

    I appreciate the distinction, and i agree with everything you said there. But if there is no repentance, you let them know they aren’t welcome around you anymore. That’s shunning. Likewise no longer going into a place and preaching the word. You are shunning. I just was saying its not necessarily feminine or umbiblical

  97. Warthog says:

    “You forgot about the important parts of chivalry… marrying a single mom who works as an escort, and supporting her degenerate lifestyle, etc.”

    I met a politically conservative “Christian” single mom at a alt-right conference two years ago. Hit it off with her. Intense personality attraction, and she was physically a 9.5, former model. Corresponded a few weeks, and God was telling her I’m the one, she said. Then I learned she was making a living through one of those sugar daddy sites in Silicon Valley. Nope! Sorry, outta here….

    Then you have the conservative millennial women like Lauren Southern who represent themselves as alt-right defenders of Western Civilization who wear yoga tights in public and sleep around just like the left. Somehow, I don’t think the alt-right has the answers.

    This is also why redpill and gamers don’t have the answers. They’ve done a great job of identifying the problem! But MGTOW and red pill gamers are only making it worse. Contrary to Roosh V’s theory, you cannot seduce women until you find a good one, because the good one was the one that told you to get lost. And in the path of your gamer journey you contributed to the further moral destruction of every women you seduced, as they did to you.

  98. dragnet says:

    Another key take-home here is that Dalrock’s strategy of confining the debate to writing posts/email was absolutely the right move. These guys were 100 percent not to be trusted and Dalrock was right to smell a rat.

  99. 7817 says:

    Taking things to their logical next steps is a strength of both Dalrock and Vox Day, which is why I respect their critiques.

    Unfortunately for Doug Wilson, this does remove some of the ambiguity naturally present in his arguments.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    It was a surprise to hear Nathan and his kool kidz disssing Matt Chandler, since there doesn’t seem to be that much difference between him and them. They didn’t really articulate those differences, but I’m not particularly motived to find out what they are.

    @AnonS

    I do not claim to understand what “Federal Headship” is, it may or may not be part of “Federal Vision”, but I’m pretty sure it is a concept that is not universal across all churches. Presbyterians may believe in it while, oh, Baptists or Lutherans might not. So it does not strike me as a serious issue for Dalrock to respond to, especially given the way Wilson, Bayly etc. can’t seem to come to grips with actual words in the Bible such as “submission”. Literal words-in-a-line in the Bible should take precedence over church doctrines derived from words in the Bible, and we can’t get celebrity pastors to do that. Yet.

  101. Method Man says:

    These “clinky-clinky bitches!” margarita night cackling girly men are the “manliest” preachers that the apostate PCA has in their ranks – let that sink in.

    They didn’t lay a glove on you D.

  102. Oscar says:

    @ Nathan Bruno

    It’s the plea of a squish to say that, although he put his name to the report, he doesn’t stand by it, because he needed to win the majority approval. I don’t think he helped his case with that remark.

    Oh, Nathan… poor, misguided Nathan. You simply misunderstand federal headship.

  103. AnonS says:

    A specific issue brought against Dalrock. It does seem like Joseph is trying to be serious about it.

    One line in the document goes against Dalrock’s point (but they avoid the issue of the report talking multiple times about not enough men wanting to serve the military).

    Joseph Bayly
    “Precisely.
    Let’s give another example. Dalrock says:

    “Bayly’s PCA resolution 1 blamed men for non existent sins and didn’t confront women’s real sins. The same is true for the examples I provided by John Piper, [etc]… In all of these cases the sin of women demanding to crossdress and usurp the roles of men was not addressed. Making up sins for men absolutely is being used to avoid holding women responsible. If I’m wrong, it should be trivially easy for you to prove it to me since the links are all there. I urge you, please show me where any of these examples state that a woman wanting to go into combat is sinning… I just went through these myself to make sure I hadn’t missed anything the first time around… I reviewed all of them and they are 10 for 10 in blaming men, and 10 for 10 in avoiding the issue of women’s rebellion.”

    Now let’s look at just the first one, since that’s the only one I’ve actually looked at recently:

    In his exposition of the Seventh Commandment, John Calvin speaks of the immodesty of women who clothe themselves as warriors:

    This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true:

    “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show,
    Her sex deserting?” [86]

    Perhaps you don’t get it. Let’s review it again and intensify it.

    Bayly:
    “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?”

    Deuteronomy 22:5 declares that God abhors woman camouflaging herself as a man (and vice versa).

    If men and women exchanging clothing is condemned because such actions explicitly deny one’s sexuality, is it any surprise that womanly armies are loathsome and pathetic?

    The contemporary push to normalize women serving in offensive combat positions is part of a larger ideological movement aggressively seeking to redefine the meaning and purpose of sexuality. Patriarchy is the enemy and any steps taken to vanquish that enemy, even to the point of turning men into women and women into men, is seen to be justified because of the justice of the larger cause. We oppose that movement, not because we are politically conservative, but because the movement is contrary to the express will of God revealed in His Word. This movement is diametrically opposed to the creation order God ordained, but those seeking this deform will continue to pursue it with the greatest fervor, without blushing in the face of its consequences.

    Dalrock about Bayly: “the sin of women demanding to crossdress and usurp the roles of men was not addressed.”

    He’s counting on the fact that people won’t go and read the things he is interacting with, or that their poisonous bitterness will prohibit them from reading with any modicum of objectivity.

  104. squid_hunt says:

    @Anonymous

    Federal headship is the concept that men are ultimately responsible for the outcome of their family. The example they gave was Adam being responsible for all sin in man. Another would be the high priest being required to give a sacrifice for himself, his family, AND the nation prior to entering into the holy of holies.

    However, I think it’s mischaracterizing Dalrock’s position because he is discussing literal responsibility of the individual. From my understanding, they are taking his arguments out of context. Dalrock has never that I’m aware of claimed that men aren’t ultimately responsible. He’s saying that the tools of authority have been stripped away from men and given to their wives.

    It’s a shell game. They talk in circles so you can’t nail down your argument because then they go “Ah, but you missed this!” No. I didn’t. We weren’t talking about that.

  105. Matthew says:

    I’ve read you for a long time, and it’s only recently that I’ve started to grasp what you’re saying due to its nuance. That said, the Warhorn podcast was awful but better than I expected. The dudes did engage with the material from this site, for about 15 minutes.

    Still, they didn’t appear to engage with your basic argument, that men are castigated for the sins of women while women are never actually brought to task for their own actions. They quote a bunch from a PCA statement, which does say that women are acting sinfully, but what I take your criticism to be is that in the actions and words of modern Protestant ministers, they don’t actually carry these statements to their logical conclusion, instead blaming men for women’s failings. Which they did here, too, with their commentary on Genesis 3.

    Their strongest criticism, which they spent about half an hour on, is your pseudonymity. They also attacked you based on your commenters. Both are pretty poor arguments, but do contain some truth. I don’t think being anonymous online is a major character flaw, but they aren’t entirely off base here either.

    But why would anyone want to listen to this podcast, presented like this, on any topic?

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    @squid
    I’m familiar with the words and handwaving around “Federal Headship”, that’s not my issue. Rather, I’m pointing out that it appears to be a doctrine that some churches accept and others do not, therefore it’s really not as important as getting these celeb preachers to quit tapdancing around words like submission that actually appear in the Bible. Literal words. In ink. On a page. Not complicated or nuanced.

    Routinely ignored or explained away with jazz hands and squid ink.

    Frankly, I’ve read any number of pages of words about “Federal Headship” and as far as I can tell it boils down to this: Men have total responsibility for their family but zero authority over their family.

    This is Duluth Protocol approved. This is just 1970’s feminism wrapped up in 1990’s wordy churchyness, IMO.

  107. Daniel says:

    Adam and Christ are the two federal heads of mankind. We sinned in Adam, and in Christ, we are made righteous. There is no such thing in scripture as federal headship of a husband, father or master.

  108. squid_hunt says:

    @Anonymous

    It’s immaterial what churches teach. Churches teach infant baptism and indulgences. It doesn’t make them correct. It matters what the Bible says and Federal Headship as a concept is a biblical doctrine. Which I welcome you to prove means “Men have total responsibility…but zero authority” from what I’ve written, even if written in squid ink.

    The point of my statement was that they’re disingenuously arguing about oranges and Dalrock is talking about apples.

  109. Eidolon says:

    @Daniel

    I would think there’s some level of responsibility to a man for his family. It’s stated that a man whose children aren’t Christians in good standing shouldn’t be a pastor, for example. So it does reflect on a man to some degree.

    I’m not aware of any guilt for the actions of those family members imputed to the man himself, however. As far as I know he would only be responsible for the actions he took or failed to take himself, not the actions his wife or children. Presumably not being a pastor is simply a function of a) appearances not being good, and b) better safe than sorry, since he hasn’t demonstrated a solid ability to lead, not actual guilt on his head for the behavior of others.

    God doesn’t blame Adam for failing to lead Eve properly, for example. He chastises him for listening to his wife instead of to God, i.e. for what he did himself. It seems that Adam is only responsible for the sins that he himself committed, not for those of Eve.

  110. feministhater says:

    But MGTOW and red pill gamers are only making it worse.

    No. MGTOW correctly identifies the problem and reacts by withdrawing. This is YOUR problem, not ours. Don’t blame us for your short comings.

  111. thedeti says:

    I read the comments at Warhorn. I consider the jimmies rustled.

    Tim Bayly, for his part, spends most of his time complaining that Dalrock offers his criticisms anonymously. Instead of responding to the merits, the complaint is “but you won’t show your face/name behind the very meritorious arguments you’ve made. Since you won’t make the statements in public, we will not respond.”

  112. Anonymous Reader says:

    Personal opinion: if I were going to routinely put out audio discussions of serious topics, I would not want to make sounds with my voice like a squeaky dog-chew toy. It sounds juvenile. Like a newby Youth Pastor trying to ingratiate himself with the 15 year olds…

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    squid_hunt
    The point of my statement was that they’re disingenuously arguing about oranges and Dalrock is talking about apples.

    Agreed.

  114. Pingback: Warhorn responds. | Reaction Times

  115. Scott says:

    It’s cute how they try to sound cool by calling Rollo and his group “gay”

  116. The Question says:

    Is anyone surprised that Jesus picked for disciples the modern equivalent a bunch of fishermen from Deadliest Catch, an IRS agent, and an anti-government ethno-nationalist (Simon the Zealot), and not a single man with formal religious training? The religious institutions of his time were just as corrupt as they are now in what they teach. The difference between them and the disciples is that the latter knew that they didn’t know.

  117. Badman says:

    Somewhat O/T but related to other recent posts:

    Last weekend I had a casual date with a gal from my (large) church. Everything seemed to be going well: some IOIs, good teasing, etc. And then I was blindsided: “Moreso than the other women in church, I really consider myself a feminist.” She the proceeded to explain (paraphrasing) that she doesn’t want to waste one more day of her youth and fertility on her future husband than absolutely necessary. Dalrock’s maxim confirmed. Next!

    Having read this blog for over a year, her statement wasn’t too big a surprise, but what she said next continues to bother me. She claimed that she tends to date outside the church (aka badboys) instead of the church guys, which again is no surprise to any of us. But she went on to say that she’s talked with a lot of other single women in the church about it, and they’ve all expressed that there are guys in the church they’d like to date, but basically all of them are already taken. Preselection and hypergamy confirmed.

    It is a very painful pill to swallow that despite all of my work and growth as a man over these last few years, I’m still not in the “top 20%” (interestingly, about 1 in 5 men in my church social group have girlfriends who are in their 20s, which I’d imagine are the men this gal was referring to). A critical self-assessment would put me in the top third of men in this community, but apparently that still isn’t enough. “Game” is likely my weak spot, and probably the leading factor holding me back at this point.

    Dalrock has posted recently about Christian marriage increasingly becoming only for the “elite”, and I clearly see that firsthand in my Christian communities. But perhaps it should be clarified to: “marriage to a Christian women in her peak fertility years is only for the elite.” Marriage prospects for the remaining 80% of men is limited to jaded mid-30s women (one of my best buddies just started dating a woman who’s 36 – over 5 years older than him). And I’ve had numerous 32+ women come onto me, or have her friends try to set her up with me. I have no desire to be with these desperate women, as I would love to have a big family and a young, attractive wife.

    I guess the solution for now is to just keep on working. Keep on lifting. Keep on reading the Bible and leading my church group. Keep on improving in my hobbies. In doing so, I may very well get to the top 20%. Sadly, though, continued self-improvement is only a solution for one man, and does not solve the epidemic of Christian marriage (to youthful women) as being limited to the “elite.”

  118. Eidolon says:

    @AnonS

    I looked at the resolution (assuming it was the “what about women in combat” blog post), and the result seems to be somewhere in the middle. The resolution does quote some pretty solid statements from others, but seems unable to state anything of the kind in its own voice. It condemns women joining the military by implication, but is very softly stated in its own words. The whole tone of it is very strong in its implication that it’s all men’s fault that women are being forced into this situation, which was Dalrock’s issue with it.

    For example, immediately before the passage Bayly quoted, we get this:

    “The problem is not that women become pregnant or bear children; this is the very essence of femininity, as indicated by the name Adam gave his wife: ‘Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.’ Rather, the problem is that we have placed our daughters and sisters in the untenable position of seeking to be killers even as they naturally, and even at the same time, seek to bring forth life.”

    This is a lie. “We” in the sense of “men” or even “the United States” have in no way forced women into military service. Indeed, they were not allowed in at all until they demanded they be allowed in. Those who wrote this resolution knew this, but could not accept it.

    The section quoted by Bayly does address the issue to some extent, and to that extent I think Dalrock was incorrect to state that the issue of female rebellion was not addressed. However he is correct that the issue being raised as a consequence of women demanding to be let into the military was not addressed. The section ends with this quote, indicated to be a good summary of the section, which again blames men:

    “Woman was not made for this, O man, to be prostituted as common. O ye subverters of all decency, who use men, as if they were women, and lead out women to war, as if they were men! This is the work of the devil, to subvert and confound all things, to overleap the boundaries that have been appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God has set to nature. For God assigned to woman the care of the house only, to man the conduct of public affairs. But you reduce the head to the feet, and raise the feet to the head. You suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed.”

    Bookending the section with condemnation of men forcing women into the military, which is not and was not happening, makes it clear that the resolution’s writers do not take the issue of women rebelling and forcing their way into the military seriously, and clearly do not see women being in the military as the fault of women, despite it being completely the fault of women’s envy and demands.

  119. GW says:

    “MGTOW” is an unbiblical reaction to feminism. It is, by definition, selfish and effectively ignores scriptural teaching on church unity (Ephesians) and the superiority of Christ as our savior and as the source of our identity even above that of male/female. The end of Galatians 3 is essentially a reinterpretation of the end of Genesis 1 in light of Jesus coming in the flesh. We were created (physically) as male or female, but we are recreated (spiritually) as Christians.

  120. Charles B says:

    When the only effective argument that a grown man can make is social pressure that his opponent is a thought criminal, it is immensely satisfying to be opposed to him intellectually. Kudos, Dalrock.

    God is with us.

  121. How sad all of this is.

  122. squid_hunt says:

    @Question

    Conversely, when God needed someone to write his commandments, he picked two men with classical educations for their time and highly religious.

  123. PokeSalad says:

    Nathan asked a few “random clarifier” questions, and I didn’t turn those into posts. One was if my pastor knew I blogged as Dalrock. I would have to dig up the email for the exact response but I told him my pastor didn’t know about the blog but that we had had some excellent discussions on the topics.

    Nathan’s response seems to indicate that he found out who your pastor was and talked to him about you. How would he do that?

  124. feministhater says:

    “MGTOW” is an unbiblical reaction to feminism. It is, by definition, selfish and effectively ignores scriptural teaching on church unity (Ephesians) and the superiority of Christ as our savior and as the source of our identity even above that of male/female. The end of Galatians 3 is essentially a reinterpretation of the end of Genesis 1 in light of Jesus coming in the flesh. We were created (physically) as male or female, but we are recreated (spiritually) as Christians.

    Church unity was broken long before MGTOW came about. Tell your ‘christian’ sisters to stop using feminism to browbeat men. MGTOW is long gone from your clutches, you cannot control us through your shame. Want to stop the leeching of men? Stop your insanely entitled bitches within your own walls.

    Women started this, your blame should be on them. MGTOW is a reaction to what was done first, even in the Bible, we are free to choose not to marry. Hard pill for you tradcons to swallow but it’s there.

  125. AnonS says:

    Nereus leaves a barn burner:

    Ben, you mean this PCA report, right?
    http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/aiscwim.html

    The format is easier to read here:
    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2011/10/what-about-women-combat

    You ignore the condemnation of women who serve in the military that the document contains.

    You need to re-read the document, Ben. While it notes that Calvin and Luther forbade women wearing warrior’s garb, the document itself does not anywhere condemn “women who serve in the military”, and the longer document on the PCA website actually devotes a considerable section to stating why they couldn’t do that because it would have the effect of placing all the women in the PCA currently serving in the military under censure.

    Here is what the final conclusion actually says:

    FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF AISCOWIM TO 30TH ASSEMBLY

    Acknowledging that the child in the womb is “a person covered by Divine protection” (Statement on Abortion, Sixth General Assembly); and that women of childbearing age often carry unborn children while remaining unaware of their child’s existence; and that principles of just war require the minimization of the loss of life-particularly innocent civilians; the PCA declares that any policy which intentionally places in harms way as military combatants women who are, or might be, carrying a child in their womb, is a violation of God’s Moral Law. Adopted

    This Assembly declares it to be the biblical duty of man to defend woman and therefore condemns the use of women as military combatants, as well as any conscription of women into the Armed Services of the United States. Adopted

    Therefore be it resolved that the Thirtieth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America adopts the above as pastoral counsel for the good of the members, the officers, and especially the military chaplains of the Presbyterian Church in America. Adopted

    Be it further resolved that the Presbyterian Church in America supports the decision of any of its members to object to, as a matter of conscience, the conscription of women or the use of women as military combatants. Adopted

    TE Steve Leonard
    RE Bentley Rayburn
    TE Tim Bayly RE Keith Stoeber
    TE Peter Lillback
    RE Don Weyburn

    The principle of avoiding “evil surmising” is that we do not presume evil intent in the actions of others if another possibility exists. We presume good faith until proven otherwise. Yes, the document discussed Calvin and Luther’s opinion that women should not even wear the clothes of a warrior. But that did not make it into the conclusion, which is the actual resolution.

    So, no Ben, the PCA resolution does not condemn women in the military. It uses very carefully chosen passive language so as not to blame women for the choice of joining the military. Here are a few examples:

    The dearth of men ready to serve their country in defense of their wives and children is a concern shared by our entire committee.

    Sorry, there has been no such dearth of male volunteers ever in American history, though Vietnam is a little more complicated…

    Rather, the problem is that we have placed our daughters and sisters in the untenable position of seeking to be killers even as they naturally, and even at the same time, seek to bring forth life.

    …in a nation which has decided to use its women as warriors, what is to stop our civil leaders from asking the infirm, the aged, and children also to pick up arms?

    Dalrock’s point was that feminists have forced their way into the military with lawsuits for the past 40 years. They steadily filed lawsuits to force their way into the military academies (1980s), VMI and the Citidel (1990s), Air Force combat aircraft (2000s) and now the infantry (2010s). This had nothing to do with any shortage of male volunteers. And, the court rulings are always in response to feminists suing to demand absolute equality in the military, not men suing to force women to carry an equal burden.

    The PCA resolution condemns men for “the use of women as military combatants” and for “any conscription of women”.

    But, although the report quotes Calvin and Luther who condemned women even wearing a uniform, the resolution never touches the third rail of holding women in the PCA responsible for making the voluntary decision to enlist in the military.

    Dalrock’s point was that after noting all of those things, the report concludes by condemning men for making women serve in combat. The conclusion, which is the binding part of the resolution, completely ignores the moral agency of a woman making the decision to voluntarily join the military.

    As it turns out, Dalrock’s summary of the document’s conclusion was reasonably good, not a sneaky lie as you asserted on the podcast.

    Now, Pastor Bayly has made it clear in his post above that he personally believes that it is sinful for women to choose to enlist in the military. But, the document he signed makes no such binding conclusion. I understand that had the document included that conclusion it never would have been adopted in the increasingly-liberal tending PCA.

    So we can gather that political friction in the PCA prevented the final report from going as far as Pastor Bayly would have preferred. But I’m not sure how Dalrock could have known that without Pastor Bayly stating it as he has here in this forum. After all, Pastor Bayly, did sign his name to it.

    But that is Dalrock’s point. The church has become so politicized that holding women responsible for their moral choices has become the untouchable third rail. Whether it is abortion, or joining the military, we blame men over and over, but precious few words are spent exhorting the women to repent.

    Pastor Bayly asserts:

    Nothing less than “Everything in the world that is wrong is the fault of women” will suffice to silence criticism of such men.

    Dalrock has rejected that. I reject that. I’m not sure what “such men” are, but Dalrocks point is not that women are the source of all evil. It is that the church in the past two generations has steadfastly refused to hold women responsible for their own sins. The church is incapable of telling women, no, it is sinful for you to join the military and dress and fight like a man. It is incapable of saying women should be prosecuted for killing their own children, along with any man that pressures, helps or pays for it.

    Do you have any other lies you wish to expose by “men like me”, Ben? The tone of this discussion, where you presume evil intent in Dalrock, and now me, is highly uncharitable. I would not presume such evil intent from you, but you guys already admitted in the podcast that you had already drawn your conclusions before the conversation even began. So perhaps I should take you guys at your word, that you did not actually have any interest in a real conversation. Your stated goal was to paint Dalrock and those “men like me” as a “caricature”. Indeed you have.

    Pastor Bayly can complain about it, but Dalrock didn’t come to Warhorn asking for an interview. You guys asked for the interview. He responded in good faith. Then you admitted bad faith up front in the actual podcast, and then call us a bunch of nasty names. That does not reflect well on any of the Warhorn team.

  126. Nathan Bruno says:

    I read the PCA statement. He sure seems behind it by the preamble on his website.

    They assert that there are insufficient men willing to go. This is the same military that ran ads promising to pay for your college for single mothers, and that specifically targeted women for recruitment. This is neither here nor there; it is flowery language they use to shame men; there is nothing new under the sun in that approach to seeing if the gullible man will jump in line if you call him “yeller”. They aren’t the school marm; they’re the usual gang of drunks at the bar that want to see you hurt yourself for a laugh.

    Their argument is an induction based on the obligations one has to kin, and that’s where these guys go out of bounds. I have been reading Joshua this week. You know that they killed everyone – male and female, old and young – when they marched through Canaan. Further, when they march through Canaan, they can tell you the ancestry of the city. Those were nations, descended from specific founders, bound together by family bonds.

    America is no longer a nation in the sense of blood and relations; it’s a state based on geography. There is no bond of kinship. Thus, it is a bad inductive step; your relationship to your mother, sister, or daughter is not automatically owed to an anonymous woman who has received citizenship in the US legal system. There’s a courtesy, but that’s not the same thing.

    If you think that there is no distinction of obligation and courtesy, when Jesus assigned the role of the firstborn son to John at the Cross, Jesus did not put this upon every Christian believer. He did not put it on every apostle. There was some special relationship of filial responsibility that was different; Jesus did not assign this to all of His followers, but one specific man, John.

    Paul set a burden on us for familial responsibilities, but he did not make this burden of 1 Timothy 5:8 to apply in service to all women in general, or all female relations of Roman citizens in general.

    The family burden is mutual; there is a real, genuine bond. There’s no bond in America. When the Democrats ran the ad, “We all Belong to the Government”, they were speaking truthfully. We owe foreigners courtesy, but, just like in Herod’s temple, there’s a line between those who are within the family and those who are not, and “American citizen” is not that line.

    They hate the commenters here because there is a real alienation of natural affection in America today, and people here talk about that, especially the wounds from it. If you admit that there’s mass alienation, indeed atomization of the individual, then the dodge that America is a blood-and-relation-based nation falls apart. They hate MGTOWers because they have dropped out of the delusion that America is a blood-and-relation-based nation.

    (As a side note, I don’t agree that Adam’s sin was failing to protect Eve; they use this as their main Scriptural support. Yet, I see in the Hebrew uses enough sense that “with” does not mean standing immediately next to in every single use. Both God’s sentencing and 1 Timothy 2:14 would be really odd in the event that Adam had heard the words of the serpent as well. Further, when Adam “passed the buck”, if he had heard the serpent, why not blame the serpent directly?)

  127. Mountain Man says:

    PokeSalad,

    I heard it differently. Even before Dalrock clarified, when listening to the podcast, I heard Nathan saying “I asked Dalrock whether his pastor knows he is Dalrock, and Dalrock said he pastor didn’t know.” Now perhaps I heard it that way because I have been following the entire Warhorn story from the beginning (here on this blog). Perhaps I simply deduced that if Dalrocks’ identity was unknown to Nathan, then there is no way Nathan would know the identity of Dalrocks’ pastor.

    Not trying to argue, just saying that I originally heard and understood it consistent with how Dalrock later clarified.

  128. PokeSalad says:

    Gotcha. It was confusing to me, thus my question. I misinterpreted Nathan’s statement methinks.

    Thanks.

  129. Charles B says:

    And hoooooooo boy is Rev Bayly *peeved* that you are anonymous. He spent more time yelling about that than making a single cogent point.

  130. feministhater says:

    Pastor Bayly can complain about it, but Dalrock didn’t come to Warhorn asking for an interview. You guys asked for the interview. He responded in good faith. Then you admitted bad faith up front in the actual podcast, and then call us a bunch of nasty names. That does not reflect well on any of the Warhorn team.

    They fucked up. Now they have to own it. Advise would be to repent and apologize for trying to set Dalrock up for a hit job.

    What they did was dishonest and foul.

  131. 7817 says:

    @Eidolon and Nereus

    Thanks for the explanations about the PCA document that Bayly authored. Your explanation clears up the issue rather well.

  132. tteclod says:

    at 4:43 PM Central time, comments were closed at https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/into-the-manosphere/661/39

    pathetic

  133. Anonymous Reader says:

    Not trying to stir up an old and tired conflict here.

    Yah know, the response from these celebrity pastors to the manosphere is remarkably similar to the response of various Popes to the protestors back in Luther and Calvin’s day. Ironic.

    “Humph! What standing do you have to criticize us! How dare you quote the Bible to US! What Authoriteh do you have? Why won’t you respect MAH ATHORITEH? Harumph. HARUMPFH, I say!”.

    Again, not trying to reignite the Prot/Cath fight. Just observing some of my Minimum Daily Requirement of Irony.

  134. 7817 says:

    I think Nereus post over there showed the truth a bit to clearly. It’s hidden now, subject to moderation.

    Interesting that Bayly took the criticism of the church so personally. Of course a person can’t take all the exceptions into account whe speaking of general things; did Paul say Cretans are liars, but except those particular people who weren’t? Of course not, he was speaking in a general manner. Likewise, when “the church” is criticized today it is in a general manner. Bayly is surprisingly thin skinned about this issue.

  135. tteclod says:

    …and, as I’m re-reading the post above, i see Tim Bayly edit his post in a close forum to add links
    4:52 PM Central time

  136. tteclod says:

    …and he’s still adding links to his closed forum. So much for discussion.

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    @7817, Eidolon, Nereus

    With a few changes in wording, that PCA document could have been written by a senior faculty committee at a culturally conservative college. I have sufficient experience with turgid verbiage to sort through and see all the weaseling that attempts to appease all sides. Nothing to add to the analysis already done.

    I do want to point out that this PCA document is the usual TradCon “on this hand, but on the other hand, but then also…” shell game that enables the writers to mollify both the feminists and the few nonfeminists with “Yes, BUT we also said…” and “what we REALLY MEANT was…” jazz hands. It’s just word salad, and it is very typical of the “bold” and “strong” TradCons who constantly are all a out splitting the difference in order to pretend to be all things to all possible sides.

    Pastor Bayly should be embarrassed not only by what he signed onto in his “I don’t agree with this but I’ll sign onto the good part” moment but also the weasel-wording he’s deployed to defend that error. These churchmen sure aren’t very good at admitting a mistake, that’s obvious.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    he’s still adding links to his closed forum.

    So brave…

  139. squid_hunt says:

    @Anonymous

    I’m not sure Pastor Bayly would be embarassed of anything he does. He seems quite impressed with himself. If I was to use a word to define his demeanor on the responses, I would say “umbrage”, which he claims is not the case, no indignation here. These are the men’s club trying to settle down a young whipper snapper with his charming, naive ideology. They look ridiculous. Might as well shake a cane at us.The white knights’ time has come and gone. Men are a whole lot more cynical after watching a couple generations of these jerks pushing anyone with a dissenting opinion out of the church so they had time to schmooze with the fairer sex. They don’t realize they’re about to get dumped on their backsides to make room for the real men they’ve been longing for.

  140. Warthog says:

    Nereus got axed. Saw that coming. It’s funny that in Itunes, this podcast is their most popular ever.

  141. The Question says:

    I think the outcome of the exchange could be summarized as thus:

  142. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    It’s cute how they try to sound cool by calling Rollo and his group “gay”

    Especially since they all sound rather closeted themselves, what with the giggling and doggy-chew-toy squeaks and all.

    Open question for Nathan: Since you obviously have read a lot of Rational Male and therefore know exactly why Rollo started his blog, how many men have you personally talked out of killing themselves? How many men have you personally known who killed themselves over a woman’s actions?

    It’s all fun and games for you boys. Out here in the androsphere real men are hurt real bad and sometimes they take their own lives. That’s reality. Deal with it.

  143. ray says:

    LOL. Tollja.

    Facing Dalrock’s gentle rebukes is nothing compared to what’s in store for the Professional Christians. They’ll get chucked right on top of the synagogue of satan pile.

  144. ray says:

    “Finally, they accused Dalrock of being a coward who refuses to submit to pastoral authority, and refuses to deal with the actual arguments his opponents make.”

    There it is. That’s the crux of this attempted beatdown. Never believe it was about any honest attempt to better themselves, come closer to truth, or please God.

    Neither Dalrock, nor many readers here, will SUBMIT TO THEIR ‘pastoral authority’. And that’s because their ‘authority’ comes from other dorklings like themselves, at their inbred Bubble Bible Colleges and all the rest. Their authority comes from females, no different than corporation officers, college administrators, politicians, or any other modern office.

    In the old days, authority to lead was given by GOD, via His anointing. But here at the end of all things, men and women TAKE authority and anointing unto themselves, and multiply the evil by then anointing and authorizing others, falsely. They silence the mouths of the prophets and seek to intimidate the servants of the LORD.

  145. AnonS says:

    Tim Bayly
    When a daughter enlists in the military for a combat position, the father has placed his daughter there by virtue of allowing her to do so. Same with a wife. Can it really be these men are so oblivious to the way the authority of a father and husband works? We are responsible for our women.

    I guess federal headship is an all purpose pass. Any girl that wants to join the military is her father’s fault, even if she came from a single mother that got artificially inseminated.

    All doors must be opened and any women that is tempted shows that her father is a failure.

  146. AnonS says:

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

    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.”

    Anything women do is the fault of men for allowing them, but we also totally hold them responsible.

  147. Cliffton D. Adams says:

    The Question says:
    February 26, 2019 at 3:32 pm
    Is anyone surprised that Jesus picked for disciples the modern equivalent a bunch of fishermen from Deadliest Catch, an IRS agent, and an anti-government ethno-nationalist (Simon the Zealot), and not a single man with formal religious training? The religious institutions of his time were just as corrupt as they are now in what they teach. The difference between them and the disciples is that the latter knew that they didn’t know.

    And when Christ did finally pick a “professional” (Saul) he struck him blind to humble him first.

  148. feeriker says:

    It’s all fun and games for you boys. Out here in the androsphere real men are hurt real bad and sometimes they take their own lives. That’s reality. Deal with it.

    How would they know what’s going on with “real men?” How many of these Whorehorn clowns would even be able to describe a real man, given that there are none at that organization, nor have any of them ever met one?

  149. Anonymous Reader says:

    @AnonS
    These guys, these boys-acting-like-mean-girls, they really can’t stand the slightest criticism. They love to dish it out, but they can’t take it. Hence the shutdown of comments.

    Quoting the author Ring Lardner is apt right now:

    “Shut up”, he explained.

  150. JRob says:

    attempted beatdown
    Well played sir. Wasn’t even a *real* beatdown. I’ll just leave a snippet of a quote and retire.

    “…I was already feeling bothered by Dalrock…”

  151. dehuah says:

    Their voices a so full of soy it’s hard to listen to.

  152. Pingback: Deconstructing Dalrock – v5k2c2.com

  153. Warthog says:

    Those young men made fools of themselves with that hit job of an interview. Their flippant words and dismissive mischaracterizations will come back to haunt them when they get around to attempting reproduction. Dalrock is gracious enough that he will buy them a beer in heaven, if they can guess who his is. 😀

  154. ray says:

    ’31:20 “His followers are bad because they use offensive language on an anonymous forum, they would never say this stuff to actual people.”’

    I say a lot worse stuff directly to some folks than anything I’ve posted here. All depends what they’re up to.

  155. Anonymous Reader says:

    Badman

    Your “field report” and analysis is well thought out and clearly written. It is too bad that practically no churchgoing man over 40 would be able to make any sense of it, and would scuttle into “ought!” as a denial mechanism. Other men know what you write is true, however, and their numbers grow yearly.

    I urge you to engage your friend with the girl 5 years older than he is, engage him in a positive but clear way: he’s being used. He’s getting set up for some unpleasant years, maybe even failure. There’s a whole lot of reasons why she’s a bad bet for him, starting with fertility. You know the rest, just try to keep reminding him.

    I guess the solution for now is to just keep on working. Keep on lifting. Keep on reading the Bible and leading my church group. Keep on improving in my hobbies. In doing so, I may very well get to the top 20%.

    I cannot know your situation, and I’m probably going to write stuff that you already know and have already tried, but…I gotta try to help with your problem. Just because.

    Look outside your immediate church and social circle (probably you already do but bear with me). I’m not suggesting “missionary dating” Buddhists or agnostics, mind you. But look across the wider space of denominations outside your current church.

    I’ve known culturally / theologically conservative people in denominations such as the Missouri Synod Lutherans who wouldn’t even consider going out with someone who is a Methodist or AOG, because that would be “missionary dating”. That is a mistake, because in my extended family and social circle these marriages have worked. No guarantees, but a man who is strong in his theology will bring a woman into his circle. I’ve seen it in various forms; the person who is strongest in belief brings the other along.

    Bear in mind that you will become more attractive to women as you and they age, so the girl you socialized with recently may come looking for you in a couple of years, when she’s getting closer to being 29.999 years of age. Don’t be surprised when this happens. Don’t let it flatter you either.

    Deep Strength’s blog might just be a good thing for you to read if you are not already doing that.

    Three or four At least five churchgoing women in my social circle have married in the last 5 years via one of the Christian matchmaking sites. It costs you essentially nothing to look, even if you don’t like what you find.

    Sadly, though, continued self-improvement is only a solution for one man, and does not solve the epidemic of Christian marriage (to youthful women) as being limited to the “elite.”

    As long as the church leaders are willfully blind and deaf to what is quite literally all around them, what we have to do is work on this one man / one woman at a time, at the personal level. It’s actually counter culture subversion.

    Ya know, girls love to play games like “secret spy”. Consider seeing if one of the 20-somethings you know is willing to play “secret subversive” with you, for the rest of your lives together. It’s another angle.

  156. Otto says:

    “They assert that there are insufficient men willing to go.”

    Where in hades did this idea come from?

    80% of applicants to the military are turned down–80%. There is no shortage of male applicants. There is a surplus.

    Source: military.com https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/2014/05/14/80-of-military-recruitments-turned-down.html

  157. Nereus says:

    “Neither Dalrock, nor many readers here, will SUBMIT TO THEIR ‘pastoral authority’. And that’s because their ‘authority’ comes from other dorklings like themselves, at their inbred Bubble Bible Colleges and all the rest.”

    I submit to the pastoral authority of my reformed church. Just saying… The commentators here have a wide range of beliefs and opinions. I don’t recall Dalrock speaking against the idea of the church. I gather that his entire purpose of writing this blog is to call the church to consistency. But maybe that’s just me reading my own beliefs into Dalrock. Dalrock admits he has a pastor, which suggests he is a member of a church.

  158. Anon says:

    Scott,

    It’s cute how they try to sound cool by calling Rollo and his group “gay”

    AR,

    Especially since they all sound rather closeted themselves, what with the giggling and doggy-chew-toy squeaks and all.

    Remember that vastly off-base accusations are always projection on the part of the accuser. It is a peculiar quirk of the human mind – what one does not like about oneself gets transmitted in the form of accusations towards others.

    But I disagree with Scott that they are ‘cute’ even in a sarcastic sense. They are downright faggotty.

  159. Nereus says:

    Based on many of his articles, Bayly seems substantially to the right of D. Wilson. He’s openly advocating against women preaching or serving as elders. This might be why his church does not appear to be in the PCA anymore. I am a bit mystified why he has so much venom for Dalrock.

  160. Mountain Man says:

    Just a heads up –
    A couple of more comments just showed up on the Warhorn site. The first a largely cogent, charitable, and on-point critique by someone named Zak, an then Nathan’s somewhat weaselly response. FYI.

  161. tteclod says:

    Dalrock,

    I actually read several of Bayly’s links before he dropped them for a single quoted blog post, which doesn’t really accomplish what he hopes. I’m not sure the other links did, either.

    I’m interested in your take on Bayly’s final comment, here: https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/into-the-manosphere/661/39

    and especially this paragraph,

    “Tone deaf and brain dead to the actual practice of leadership these men are. [Nereus], please do me the kindness of going back to [Dalrock] and talking among yourselves. It wearies me having to respond to your kludginess and deceptions.”

    That’s concealing the correspondence started by his churchmen, under HIS LEADERSHIP, with an anonymous blogger WITH YEARS OF PUBLICATIONS which they could have otherwise ignored (I’m not identifying anything other commentators haven’t already written) and yet he writes as if Nereus is a nuisance, a dullard, and a liar, and that he should slink back to Dalrock’s blog to discuss this further while he (or his son) locks the comments at his own churchmen’s podcast.

    This isn’t just a colossal failure of “optics” but a public failure of LEADERSHIP.

    Bayly lacks is an answer to the question: what do Christians do with these women who reject the authority of Christian scripture? At a bare minimum, it seems to me that Christians would expel such women from communion with the church. Why is this difficult [rhetorical]? As far as I can see, you, Dalrock, didn’t create the infighting, per se, unless Bayly can also be accused of the same “sniping” (his word) which – from my reading – is also his habit. The Warhorn guys not only brought this upon themselves, they brought this down on their pastor in a very public way.

    Bayly earns his income according to his capacity to earn his keep as a pastor. The farther this country (and the world?) descend into depravity, the harder it is for him to make his conservative preacher gig profitable. Many of us hope for a swing of the pendulum back to sanity, and a guy like Bayly is “damned” one way or the other: either he’s too conservative and crashes, or he’s too liberal and eventually reaps a whirlwind. Why did he sign the PCA report regarding women in the military? I wouldn’t, and I’m not Christian. It would be a simple matter for him to plead error: “In the hustle of the moment, preparing the report, I failed to recognize the plain errors. Here’s what I think now, and what I would change.” But he doesn’t do that. He doubles down. Why? I can’t even begin to guess at an answer, but it seems to me that he is struggling to establish that he has not been the man that, you, Dalrock, accuse him of being. Is that a roundabout way of saying, “Dalrock is wrong about my opinion, but right about Christian scripture,” or something else? Seriously, after reading what Bayly wrote in response to Nereus, that’s where I’m left: “Does Bayly agree with Dalrock, or not?” Let me put it another way: what would follow if Bayly were to examine your (Dalrock’s) writing and publish his opinion of your scriptural interpretation? Thumbs up? Thumbs down?

    At the end of it all, Bayly wrote, “I agree with the criticisms of complementarians, as anyone who has read me knows.” So, does that mean that you’re mistaken, Dalrock, or not? Honestly, I’m thoroughly confused. It’s like his employees invited a competing and equivalent brand into his store, and now he’s trying to say everything except, “He’s offering the same opinion as me, but my shop is here in town, while for Dalrock you’ve got to go online.” Knowing that Christianity is predicated (in part) on fellowship, I don’t see the problem, unless he’s worried “Dalrockians” will storm his (electronic) church and demand his time (uncompensated). Again, all he needs to write is, “I can’t answer every comment posted, but I’ll attempt to address some of the questions and accusations as my time allows. Please be patient; it may take a while for me to answer fairly and prudently.”

    Altogether, I’m glad you accepted the invitation from Bayly’s churchmen. It was edifying.

  162. Gunner Q says:

    Would it have killed them to give a transcript of the podcast also? Some of us are still literate. *Gunner Q dons headphones, tunes in.* Nota Bene, I can barely discern between their voices. There may be misattributions.

    5-7min: They rip on Rollo Tomassi and the upcoming 21 Convention. No content… they probably didn’t look past the sales brochures.

    8-9min: MGTOW is discussed. “They think the best choice they can make is keeping away from women.” Accurate. Then they mention a domestic discipline movement… I’ve never heard of it.

    10:45min: Dalrock came to Warhorn’s attention via Ben Sulser. Judging from there being no picture of him, he’s the techie nerd of Warhorn.

    12:00min: Dalrock’s anonymity is first noted. They resorted to an e-mail interview instead of including him on the show.

    13-19min: Commercial. Skip.

    19:45min: Nathan offers to be the devil’s advocate. The choice proves appropriate.

    20:30min: Nathan used the term misogyny in the interview specifically to “make Dalrock deal with some of that stuff. I went into the interview being bothered… wanted Dalrock to trip up and prove that he was not good… although I hadn’t read enough of him… I admit I went into it with a bias. I do not have great respect for the Manosphere.”

    Discussion proceeds to Dalrock banning discussion of “marital corporal punishment”. The ban proves Dalrock is bad because he needs to have a rule like that. “If you have to put up a sign ‘No Nazis’ allowed then maybe there’s something wrong with your rhetoric!”

    Impressively, Jake and Ben both disagree with Nathan’s complaint of that ban… never mind, they just admitted it was a skit.

    24:00-25:30min: “You’re [Nathan] biasing things a certain way. You’re taking a broad movement like the Manosphere, which is really big, and target the problematic parts of it… and lump Dalrock in with those guys.”

    Response: “I want to assert the right to generalize about things. … Can I make some assertions about Dalrock? He was a pleasant and polite guy… let’s start there… BUT.. Dalrock refused to come on the show. He could be talking to us right now. … he published the interview on his blog before we could do this podcast… he got in ahead of us, he controlled the Narrative…”

    An unironic use of the term ‘Narrative’ is an SJW red flag. Dalrock may have dodged a bullet by uploading the raw interview material before Nathan had a chance for “editing”. I already have deep-seated suspicions against Nathan from his pretense of speaking for us commenters when insisting Dalrock should doxx himself.

    26:30min: Jake & Ben respond: “Didn’t you agree to that? Didn’t he post the raw email exchange? Nothing out of context?” “Yeah, it was word-for-word. … This is Dalrock being disingenouous, hiding behind his pseudonym.”

    Pseudonyms are debated. The claim is made that they weren’t used in Scripture. Of course not, most people were illiterate. Brendan Eich, Paige Patterson and James Damore are mentioned as examples of the danger of being doxxed. Jake & Ben support Dalrock using a pseudonym.

    29:15min: Nathan does not.support Dalrock using a pseudonym. “Listen, it’s not generally that bad out there. The SJW God can be vicious and people can lose their jobs but Dalrock is not going to get killed, he’s not going to lose his life, he’s probably not going to lose his job… ”

    “You don’t know what his job is.”

    “Okay, fine. But I can claim the Manosphere is full of people who would never [talk about their disgusting beliefs] to anyone in real life.” Nathan quotes some colorful references to Warhorn by Dalrock commenters, claims Dalrock cultivates a toxic atmosphere by not controlling his followers.

    That’s another SJW red flag, “cultivating a toxic atmosphere” or some variant thereof. “You have failed to thought-control your followers!”

    31:30min: Response to Nathan that Dalrock’s ideas shouldn’t be judged by the quality of his followers. Ben & Jake don’t seem to be as far down the Leftoid rabbit hole as Nathan.

    33:15min: Dalrock seems to have won over Ben & Jake with his comment that “marriage is a blessing that God intends for all”.

    33:45min: Nathan is asked what his problem with Dalrock is. Nathan replies that Dalrock lumps him and Tim Bayly in with narrow complementarians such as Matt Chandler. He then complains, again, that Dalrock insisted on remaining anonymous.

    34:45min: Nathan complains that Dalrock’s anonymity means he doesn’t have skin in the game, meaning no recognized Church authority officially sanctions what he says. Offering himself as a counterexample, “I’m a pastor and a teacher and not because I decided to be. I was ordained by Godly men and work for Warhorn media.”

    Nathan lied. There is no way he got all the way to ordination without deciding to become a pastor.

    35:15min: Nathan talks about his experience at a conference on Biblical masculinity he attended as a college pastor, with Doug Wilson attending, which was attacked by SJWs and required extra security forces. Cry me a river, Nathan. Lots of us went though college, too, and many of us spoke up enough about Christ to wish we had the private security arrangements that you did.

    38:00-44:15 Commercial. Skip. They start up with a “guess who said this quote?” game. It might have worked better in a written format.

    49:15min: Nathan claims to not be a complementarian, self-quoting: “Of course there are rebellious feminist women out there who are pushing for rebellious feminist agendas. When feminists tell me that’s what they’re doing, I believe them. They are culpable, they are wicked, they should be called to repent.” Then he giggles. Probably because feminists never say “I push a rebellious feminist agenda!”

    I don’t like that kind of giggle. There was nothing funny in its context.

    54min: They wrap up discussing where Dalrock goes wrong on a 2002 PCA resolution by Tim Bayly. They either think they found a point on which Dalrock is wrong or are kissing Bayly’s ass. Thus far, they’ve discussed no specific points on which Dalrock is right while giving lip service to him having valid ideas.

    55-57min: Dalrock’s criticism of Wilson is met by Warhorn’s criticism of Dalrock using the word “zany”. All 3 agree that Adam is responsible for Eve’s sin. Said criticism devolves into ad hominem arguments.

    59:30min: Another complaint about Dalrock’s anonymity is entertained. Fun exchange: “Dalrock relies on the appearance of honesty and the laziness of his followers. I picture all his followers as angry twentysomethings in their Mom’s basements or a 40-50yo guy who just got a divorce and is angry and wants somebody to validate him and tell him he’s right.” “So just to be clear, you accuse all of Dalrock’s followers of… being dumb Internet trolls?” “No, I’m sure there’s a wide variety of people who read Dalrock for all kinds of reasons.”

    And then… Nathan complains about Dalrock’s anonymity again. He proxy-attacks Texas for homophobia (I think. He’s not very rational.)

    1:03:00min: The ability to win an open debate is proof that you’re honest. Dalrock is accused of propping himself up as a teacher of men while not submitting to the Biblical standard of judging teachers by the fruit they produce… oh, it’s another complaint about Dalrock’s anonymity.

    It’s also a mischaracterization of Matt. 7:15-16, which refers to prophets specifically. The parable in Luke 13 expands “judge them by their fruit” into a generally applicable command. There is no requirement for teachers to be under Church authority.

    In fact, it’s logically impossible to be a Protestant while believing that God only permits centrally-approved, credentialed teachers. The modern Prot Church exists in a theologically unjustifiable situation in which the laity must be loyal to credentialed clergy while the clergy have zero loyalty to anybody. It must be one or the other. Either everybody is in a hierarchy and you’re Cat/Ortho, or nobodies like Dalrock have equal footing with celebrity pastors and you’re Prot. There is no excuse for a Protestant to dismiss a critic on the grounds of anonymity.

    That’s enough for me. Nathan Alberson is an irredeemable Social Justice termite. Jake & Ben are too Churchian to recognize the dark road Nathan is pushing them down. They think Warhorn is about having a fun time doing “God’s work” even as Nathan seethes in front of them at failing to track down Dalrock’s family.

  163. Eidolon says:

    Alright, let’s dig into this quote from Chrysostom. Let’s back up a bit. This is from a homily about Titus 2:11-14.

    Chrysostom:

    “Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you see how every species of wickedness prevailed? It was a state of gross darkness, and the corruption of all that was right. […] Another, the chief of their philosophers, approves of their [women/virgins] going out to the war, and of their being common, as if he were a pimp and pander to their lusts.

    “Living in malice and envy.” [quoting from Titus 2:11-14]

    For if those who professed philosophy among them made such laws, what shall we say of those who were not philosophers? If such were the maxims of those who wore a long beard, and assumed the grave cloak, what can be said of others? Woman was not made for this, O man, to be prostituted as common. O you subverters of all decency, who use men, as if they were women, and lead out women to war, as if they were men! This is the work of the devil, to subvert and confound all things, to overleap the boundaries that have been appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God has set to nature. For God assigned to woman the care of the house only, to man the conduct of public affairs. But you reduce the head to the feet, and raise the feet to the head. You suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed.

    /Chrysostom

    Alright, so the ones who “suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed” are “those who wore a long beard, and assumed the grave cloak” and “the chief of their [the people Paul was criticizing in Corinthians] philosophers.”

    The people who “suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed” are the chief philosopher (referred to as “he”), and those who wore a long beard and the grave cloak of high office, i.e. the influential leading men of the society.

    This quote is criticizing the powerful men of the society Paul was criticizing in Corinthians for approving of women going to war, and of either literally or figuratively prostituting them — I’m not sure if he’s criticizing them for both things separately, or if he’s equating putting women in the military with prostitution and it’s not literal at all. They are described as “lead[ing] out women to war,” so the women are not the ones wanting to go in this scenario.

    In this time women would only be in the military if the men specifically decided they should, since the women had no direct political power. Thus, Chrysostom is criticizing the leading men for encouraging and/or forcing women to enter the military. This is made clear by the reference to “lead[ing] out women to war” and to pimps and prostitution. Pimps are always men, as far as I’m aware.

    That doesn’t seem any different than how I characterized it. If they had quoted only the last sentence, then maybe you could make the case Bayly made, but they didn’t. The women weren’t prostituting themselves, so the quote is criticizing men for doing bad things to women, just as I said it was. (Of course Chrysostom was correct to do so in the case he was discussing.) With more context, that becomes even more clear.

    But what do I know, I’m so stupid I don’t know what “suffer” means, apparently.

  164. ray says:

    ‘. . . (T)hey fail to see why they are allowed to exist in this world and therefore have nothing to fear in terms of disemployment is telling.’

    Allowed to exist. Ouch the truth do bite.

  165. Pingback: Warhorn claims we never set out for a back and forth exchange via email. | Dalrock

  166. Swanny River says:

    Why the butthurt from Warhorn when they are in the culture’s driver seat? He should listen to Gamaliel in Acts.
    He is a sore winner. He’s got the respectability and cool video equipment. All we have are the stripes of being lashed by the system and the knowledge gained from it.

  167. drifter says:

    Their intent all along was to vilify Dalrock and the regulars at this blog. They failed miserably. And I’d be interested in hearing how much your traffic has increased because of it.

    Is this the best they have to offer? Keep up the good work, Dalrock.

  168. Scott says:

    AR

    Thank you, and I assume the comments about talking real men out of suicide because if the actions of a woman was in reference to my having done so, many times.

    It’s s good point. My heart breaks over the ones that didn’t survive.

  169. Pingback: Internet courage | House Hazelshade

  170. Spike says:

    Consider it an honor, Dalrock: You’ve been reviled and that for the sake of Jesus.
    A reader did earlier in this thread post a link to a pastor who wrote an article telling everyone to stay away from ”the Red Pill” and included you.
    This part is especially telling:
    ”… We seriously considered canning this episode because it might inspire a greater interest in Dalrockian writing and philosophy…”
    In other words, ”we will ”protect” (censor) Dalrock, because he and his responders hold views we consider dangerous. We do not trust you the reader with this information.”
    In short, Dalrock, you are bad news. You are bad news if:

    -You believe the Bible
    -You attend church
    -You think the nuclear family is the best model
    -You prefer to marry and interact with like-minded people*
    -You question Multiculturalism
    -You are familiar with the Quran and the Talmud
    -You are familiar with the appalling health and mortality statistics of abortion, LGBTIQ and single motherhood
    -You think that children should be learning science, technology, mathematics, grammar, language, trades, home keeping and economics, not being indoctrinated with left-liberal LGBTIQ ”tolerance” propaganda.

    Did I miss any?

    *My own marriage is mixed-race. However, it isn’t multi-cultural. It is multi-ethnic, but it has one culture – Christian culture. Churches work in the same manner. “multicultural” societies (a contradiction in terms) do not.

  171. No surprises. Controlled Opposition is controlled opposition. Like his father before him Bayly is controlled opposition. Bayly Sr. was controlled opposition (U)PCUSA in the days when the PCUSA was just about making essential Christian doctrine mere theories, and the beginnings of officially adopted Feminine Imperative and that’s the role they have been delighted to play. Now in the PCA, they are the controlled opposition to Feminism and Globohomo. But make no mistake every thing they do and say furthers the Feminine Imperative and the Globohomo asscention.

  172. They should have at least attempted to make a counterargument to Dalrock’s answers, assertions and position. They did nothing.

    Ad hominem and online character assassination are neither a cogent, nor persuasive argument.

    If Dalrock is “bad news” and so dangerous that one recommend everyone stay away from him and his writings, it seems remarkably lazy and disingenuous not to even partially address or counter the points you disagree with most ardently.

    Yet, they did nothing of the sort. What was their point?

    Really disappointing.

    And sadly it confirms what Dalrock has been saying all along. Conservative Christians have allowed insolent children with dynamite (feminists) to run roughshod all of over God’s house. And then have the temerity to stand there blame this misbehavior on single men who refuse to “man up”, and on “married men” who just don’t get it.

  173. Anonymous Read says:

    @Scott
    You assume correctly.

    Y’all are done with the whiteout, I hope. Do your children have any books by Laura Ingells Wilder, like “Little House on the Prairie”? Seems appropriate.

    Snow ice cream gets old after a while, doesn’t it?

  174. Ras al Ghul says:

    I suspect that Dalrockian writing will out last not only these timid men that hide in the shadow of God, but many of the churches in the west.

  175. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nereus
    Based on many of his articles, Bayly seems substantially to the right of D. Wilson. He’s openly advocating against women preaching or serving as elders. This might be why his church does not appear to be in the PCA anymore.

    His church is apparently in the process of setting up a new denomination-like-thing. Perhaps that is stressful for all concerned in Bloomington.

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

  176. Novaseeker says:

    What a lot of garbage.

    The good news is that Dalrock acquitted himself quite well in the back and forth, and for what it’s worth, everyone, including him, knew this was a set up for the podcast that they eventually did, so it isn’t any surprise. These men are unfortunately very deluded, but that was obvious from the beginning. One can only pray for their conversion, really.

  177. Badman says:

    AR

    Thanks for your response and encouragement.

    I have a very negative perception about online dating, despite hearing the occasional “success story” (which usually involves a mid 30s woman). From everything I can tell, women under 29 on those sites/apps, including Christians, are not serious about marriage at all, and are instead fishing for validation or hookups. If the online scene is no different than my real life interactions, then I don’t see any reason to look there, particularly because the format is naturally unflattering to men.

    At least that’s how things seem to be in my ultraliberal Bigcity. Scott, are you still looking for a neighbor in Montana by chance?

  178. Mitch says:

    @Mountain Man
    I heard Nathan saying “I asked Dalrock whether his pastor knows he is Dalrock, and Dalrock said he pastor didn’t know.”

    Dalrock clarified this when I asked about it so it makes sense. But like @PokeSalad I originally thought Alberson was saying he spoke to Dalrock’s pastor. Given that we both misheard it the same way I think it’s fair to say Alberson was unclear in his statements, which seems par for the course.

  179. Bee says:

    Badman,

    “I have no desire to be with these desperate women, as I would love to have a big family and a young, attractive wife.”

    Kudos to you for wanting to have a big family. That is great, and neglected, way to grow the Church. All the best to you and your search. I will be praying for you.

  180. Scott says:

    Badman-

    Mychael and I met online! And we were in our mid thirties. AND up until that point, the women I met online were much younger than me and were basically a source of an occasional hook up or whatever. Both parties knew right from the start what was going on, so there was no victim.

    As far as Montana, my long term goal-that is, before I am too old–is to attract serious Christians, who aren’t weird but who understand with their eyes wide open what is going on up here and to quietly build what is necessary to save the seeds of civilization for what will be needed after the fire destroys the forest.

  181. Lexet Blog says:

    Warhorn = homies with Doug Wilson. Connect the dots

  182. Lexet Blog says:

    I almost wonder if its covenant theology that makes PCA, Wilson, and others so liberal (even though the reformed baptist camp has many problems).

  183. Sharkly says:

    Gunner Q Thanks for the play by play synopsis, so I didn’t have to listen to more than a minute of it.
    Nathan quotes some colorful references to Warhorn by Dalrock commenters, claims Dalrock cultivates a toxic atmosphere by not controlling his followers.

    I had to listen to that part to see if I made the cut. Woot! Woot! I got a shout out from Alberson starting at 30:45 to 31:25. I’m internet famous again! Apparently he was triggered by my correctly identifying them as “the Cunt-Worshippers at Whorehorn Media”. He especially didn’t like me saying “Cunt”, like I took his god’s name in vain. LOL I was lumped into ‘the worst of Dalrock”s followers’, because I make this place ‘toxic’. LOL Sounds like Nathan creamed his panties over a single comment. Cunts gonna Cunt!

    That made my day 🙂

    Then Nathan whines on his Blog ‘Saint-Evil’:
    Dalrock’s hunger for validation, his lack of ability to fight fairly, his playing to the worst instincts of his crowd––these are all things that would likely be avoided or (at least) minimized, if he had to put his real name to what he wrote, and let it be tempered one way or another by real people in his life.
    Maybe another way of saying it is this: I’m not saying there’s never been a need in any society for Batman or Robin Hood. But generally speaking, I am very suspicious of masked vigilantes without accountability or authority over them.

    I’m posting anonymously under a pseudonym. So do I get to be Batman or Robin?
    God operates mainly under pseudonyms. (I AM, Etc.)
    Revelation 19:11 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. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. … 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

    Lots of pseudonyms, but why won’t that bloody vigilante tell us His name. He needs to be tempered by having some authority over Him. /S
    LOL we’ve all got authority directly over us.
    1 Corinthians 11:3a But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; [Whose got a secret name]

    Oh, I forgot. Alberson means we need his churchian hireling “authoritah!” to castrate the man and make him worship his wife’s cunt-tingles.
    No thanks! Alberson’s gonna Cunt!

  184. feministhater says:

    Anything women do is the fault of men for allowing them, but we also totally hold them responsible.

    Hmm. Hmmmmmmmmm! Just how are men meant to stop women doing something they’re not meant to do? Hmmmmmmmmm. I just can’t put my finger on it.. If a woman is hell bent on doing something against all known verbal rebukes of the father, husband or other men in her life…. just what are men meant to do?

    Lol, I’m all ears…

  185. Scott says:

    Now that I have had time to listen to it a second time, I might make some observations. I thought about peddling this a guest post somewhere, as there are several bloggers who would give me space to do that. But here it goes.

    1. Subjectivity

    One can hardly get through any wall of text or debate or conversation between two people/ideologies today without confronting the problem of western man’s inability to reach consensus about, well,pretty much anything. I have written about this on numerous occasions, but here it rears its ugly head, yet again. Who in the world has time between their wives, their kids, their obligations to their jobs, their church, their stuff, etc to sit down and pour over every word that Dalrock has written, his “characterization” (buzzword) of what others have written, and then with just as much tenacity go back over the rebuttals on what amounts to thousands of pages at this point? America is now (I believe by design) a “nation” of 300 million individual atomized economic consumption units, all plugged into their electronic devices buying, selling, and opining about every damn thing in the world. “Christianity” (which if I squint really hard includes all the various denominations, Orthodoxy and Catholocism) is a microcosm of this phenomenon. And down to the individual level it goes. How many people really give a crap about the “authority” some denominational institution have their pastor? At a certain point, every person must choose to believe whatever it is makes the most sense to them.

    I have chosen in my personal life to use a combination of the personal/ experiential, the aggregate wisdom of the ages, and the data that passes the “walking around outside” test to guide me and how I live my life. After all, what good are opinions about any of this if it has no impact on how your faith manifests itself in the real world?

    2.To the end of point #1, the “fruits” of Dalrocks writings appear to have been pretty obvious.

    I do not know Dalrocks website stats. I have always been small potatoes (The Courtship Pledge, Western Philosophy and Eastern Faith, Morally Contextualized Romance and American Dad) but each of my sites, at the time I decided I had said everything I wanted to say were gaining numbers as long as I wrote material that was interesting and people wanted to read. My “June Cleaver” post (a combined effort with blogger Elspeth–and unfortunately lost to the ether goblins) was at over 600 comments and counting when it crashed. The point is, if you hang around long enough, those daily hits get pretty big. And the impact is immeasurable.

    Alberson writes off Dalrock readers/commenters (“followers”) by placing them into one of two categories. Twenty-something basement dwellers and forties/fifty-something [recent] divorcees who want to be “validated.” He then throws the obligatory comment about how he is sure there is a wide variety of other readers, but clearly doesn’t mean it.

    Everyone reading here knows my story. I was divorced against my will at 29 years old and I tried my heart out FOR YEARS to use the church/blue pill playbook to win my wife back. I was sure she left because of what a horrible example of a Christ-like servant leader I was. It must have been my shortcomings that drove her into the arms of another (married with kids) man! So I went to the elders for guidance. I read all the usual stuff from guys like Stu Webber and the like. I prayed “like she has already come back” until all hours of the night, weeping while I looked at pictures of us together like a teenage girl. I never hit, abused, abandoned, or cheated. I never yelled. I did not abuse any substances. I was a garden variety American Christian husband pedestalizing my wife.

    The church chose to not hold her accountable for any of her stuff.

    I’ve never disclosed this anywhere before, but those dark times were the one and only time I have ever contemplated suicide. Not because I am sick, or was depressed. I ACTUALLY BELIEVED in the permanence of marriage. I was out hunting quail one afternoon by myself and it occurred to me I could just put the barrel of the shotgun in my mouth and that would be the end of this pain. No one would have found me because I have always been a risk taker, and as was my custom, nobody knew where I was. What brought me back is a subject for a different time.

    Fast forward to today, a licensed clinical psychologist who has counselled many soldiers “off the ledge” during my time on active duty, I noticed one thing — the vast majority of those hurting men had their marriages destroyed on the altar of “love” and tingles with some other guy while they dutifully served their country overseas. I was with them when they received their “fuck off I found someone else. Here’s the address to send my money” letters. LOTS OF THEM.

    These were good Christian men with “good girl Christian” wives.

    I came to the Dalrock website under those circumstances (ten years after my divorce) and chose to make a change in my second marriage at great personal risk to her saying “no” to the red pill. The risk paid off and my wife and I, truly reformed horrible people are enjoying our patriarchal marriage–as imperfectly and stupidly we stumble through it. I don’t hate my wife. a number of men have been inspired to pick up the shreds of their destroyed lives and try again from reading our siily farm blog

    Mr Alberson subjectively assess the fruits of Dalrocks writings however he wishes. David Koresh was a “follower of Christ” too.

    3. The format and the snickering/snark was weird

    Its already been commented on but how old are these guys? Maybe I am just out of touch at 47 but they sound like teenagers who are really impressed with some new form of humor they just discovered. Or the way my 6 year old and his little brother make themselves giggle by making fart noises with their mouths. The strange voiced-role play of the youth pastor interview made me cringe. If the point was to discuss the merits of being out in the open (not anonymous) it was lost in the delivery.

    Anyway, there is more to this, and maybe I’ll come back to it. But I have to get out the door and feed my farm.

  186. theShield220 says:

    By the way, Dalrock, were you aware that one of the contributors at Warhorn Media, Andrew Dionne, is the senior pastor of the church where Michael Foster is an Associate Pastor, Trinity PCA?

  187. AnonS says:

    Its already been commented on but how old are these guys? Maybe I am just out of touch at 47 but they sound like teenagers who are really impressed with some new form of humor they just discovered. Or the way my 6 year old and his little brother make themselves giggle by making fart noises with their mouths. The strange voiced-role play of the youth pastor interview made me cringe. If the point was to discuss the merits of being out in the open (not anonymous) it was lost in the delivery.

    These are guys that went straight through seminary earning good boy points by following their leaders. They inject nervous laughter to cover any uncomfortable pause or serious point, classic Gamma.

    4chan has the “30 year old Boomer” meme.

  188. theShield220 says:

    @AnonS
    “Zero names behind him? How the hell does this guy think that true ideas work?”
    I have mentioned Presbyterian arrogance before…this is it. They rightly believe that one’s ideas should be grounded in history, but they use that truth as a club against anyone whose ideas they don’t like.

  189. 7817 says:

    Glad you made it through Scott, glad you’re here

  190. Lost Patrol says:

    I was with them when they received their “fuck off I found someone else. Here’s the address to send my money” letters. LOTS OF THEM.

    One is not at liberty to notice this while on active duty. For the troops that Scott, or someone like him was not there for in time, the story often reduces to “poor woman, her husband killed himself because of the war/PTSD. We should find a way to help her.”

    From time to time a fuss is made over the number of military suicides. This aspect of the problem is not discussed.

  191. JRob says:

    classic Gamma

    Nailed it.

  192. It’s just…clear that they got what they came for. And only what they came for.

    Much of modern Christian apostasy consists of speaking as if lies were true, considering issues in light of that, etc…and then, when pressed, conceding that, well, no, lies are lies, now let’s change the subject. It’s the good ol’ motte and bailey.

    I don’t think this is purposeful. Indeed, so often the problem is that it is not well-thought-through. Which hurts listeners, but the speaker more.

    Too bad.

  193. JR says:

    Some years bag I used to respond frequently at length to Bayly’s blog. I found him quite reasonable and on several occasions he changed his mind when I confronted him. I am no longer willing to make the time to engage heavily, so I have not looked at the details of these interactions between Dalrock, Bayly, Wilson and Walrock. So I am not in a position to say much.
    However, as pointed out by another here. Bayly and Wilson are more friend than foe. Considering the major influences at the PCA (such as Keller) and the SBC, which are turning rapidly into liberal social justice dens; perhaps we ought go easy on those who we have more agreement than not with. Basically, let’s be kinder even to those that are not as kind to us, but still have so much in agreement with.
    From far away this looks like a circular firing squad to me.

  194. AnonS says:

    However, as pointed out by another here. Bayly and Wilson are more friend than foe. Considering the major influences at the PCA (such as Keller) and the SBC, which are turning rapidly into liberal social justice dens; perhaps we ought go easy on those who we have more agreement than not with. Basically, let’s be kinder even to those that are not as kind to us, but still have so much in agreement with.
    From far away this looks like a circular firing squad to me.

    I understand that perspective but I see Dalrock’s approach as one of warning.

    Bayly and Wilson are building a house on quicksand and Dalrock is yelling from the sideline “Stop trying to build a house on quicksand, look at these geology surveys!!”

    The reason why their denominations get more liberal every year is the refusal to confront women, anytime women push for change they double down on yelling at men for being bad fathers and husbands causing this feminist rebellion (because of “federal headship” you see).

    Scripture involving direct punishment for women’s actions – ignore.
    Legal punishment for women getting abortions – ignore.
    Giving solid answers like “women should not be taking male jobs in the military” – ignore.

    Everything they build keeps sinking and they keep having to retreat and rebrand.

    They are Gilligan on the island.

  195. 7817 says:

    So I am not in a position to say much.
    However, as pointed out by another here. Bayly and Wilson are more friend than foe. Considering the major influences at the PCA (such as Keller) and the SBC, which are turning rapidly into liberal social justice dens; perhaps we ought go easy on those who we have more agreement than not with. Basically, let’s be kinder even to those that are not as kind to us, but still have so much in agreement with.

    Listen to their podcast, then come back and let’s discuss kindness, I think there is some really good material in there that will enable us to get the ball rolling on a good discourse about what kindness looks like.

  196. BillyS says:

    From far away this looks like a circular firing squad to me.

    They are not even addressing the issue and just ranting against those here. Those are not allies, they are enemies that are closer.

    They seek to undermine Christianity and society. No allies there.

  197. NCMike says:

    Like many others here I couldn’t even make it half-way through that. They sound like teenage boys who shave with Gillette.

  198. Anonymous Reader says:

    They sound like teenage boys who shave with Gillette.

    Thread winner.

  199. Warthog says:

    I recall something that happened a few years ago. Certain sites that published views that were not pro-zionism were getting flooded with anti-semitic comments. Some investigation into this revealed the culprit – a Jewish young man was posting the vast majority anti-semitic comments. His purpose seems to have been to discredit the sites he did this to.

    I don’t wish to touch the subject of anti-semitism, because that is way off topic here. But, what is on topic is that those who wish to control the narrative, whomever they may be, have been known to pay trolls to post nasty comments in order to discredit the site they don’t want people to read. (And there are feminists aplenty who hate this site.)

    I’ve poked around a number of other blogs that follow or comment on Dalrock, for or against. And one opinion they all seem to agree on is that the comments here are “toxic”. Granted, that’s a liberal buzzword, but I see some truth in it.

    Take for example the Warhorn interview. When Dalrock posted the first set of interview questions, some of the commenters here immediately started calling it “Whorehorn”. I confess I went with it, by referring to the interviewer as a “faggot” though, yeah, he does come across that way, sorry. But that was a below the belt shot.

    My point is that by saying those things, we were front-running Warhorn before they could poison the well. We poisoned the well first.

    The reality is that Bayly and Warhorn are probably the most anti-feminist of the entire churchian right. Flinging nasty names at them before the interview was even finished clearly offended Nathan, and set the tone for him to do a hit job. Though he may have been planning one in the first place. But now he looks kind of justified, because “Dalrock’s commenters!!!”

    I would humbly suggest that we who participate by commenting here should be more careful and control our own speech, because Dalrock is getting tarred by our words, not his. I will be first to admit my own wrong in calling Alberson a “faggot” and I apologize for contributing to the problem.

    And secondly, I think @Dalrock might want to consider the reality that some of the nastiest comments here are probably posted by trolls who wish to discredit what he has to say by posting enough bitter, vitriolic, bile in the comments to create “guilt by association”.

    There is nothing about anti-chivalry or red-pill that justifies or calls for uncivil discourse. It is low class to talk this way, and reminds me of teenage boys in public school.

  200. Warthog says:

    “Basically, let’s be kinder even to those that are not as kind to us, but still have so much in agreement with. From far away this looks like a circular firing squad to me.”

    In political activism the opposite is true. The interest group that wants to win should hammer those closest to them who do not toe the line, and then work down the list. The left has mastered this, but the conservatives just want to be friends. So I think Dalrock is right on to critique errors in Bayly, Wilson, and Chandler. It’s not about kindness.

    That being said, the comment section here loves to hurl names, which is counterproductive. By acting like low class teenagers, we add so much noise to the Dalrock signal that the people he critiques are not going to even listen to what he has to say.

    Commenters here who wish to support Dalrock might start by getting some class.

  201. Basedangemon says:

    I agree with the thrust of your words, @Warthog. All the same, Dalrock already answered this criticism perfectly cogently, as disclosed in his “does work like yours attract misogynists?” posting.

    But let Warhorn not forget that David’s cause was aided by all manner of “worthless and disgruntled men” (see 1st Samuel for details). Over time they were forged into something more respectable, ostensibly, but from the beginning they were low-class rough-and-tumble outcasts, arguably to a man.

    This is not to excuse uncharitable behavior; we’ll all have to answer for every careless word before the judgement seat (though Dalrock should not have to answer for careless words not his own). Let our offenses decrease, that the offense of the cross may increase.

  202. Paul says:

    @WH I would humbly suggest that we who participate by commenting here should be more careful and control our own speech, because Dalrock is getting tarred by our words

    Let’s follow the apostle Paul’s instructions:

    “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Eph 4

  203. 7817 says:

    @Warthog

    Are you concerned?

  204. Sharkly says:

    From far away this looks like a circular firing squad to me.
    Commenters here who wish to support Dalrock might start by getting some class.
    … only what is helpful for building others up

    Look again. I’m firing at this Blayly and his soy-fed sons from the outside. I have no part with this purveyor of false teaching. Dalrock outed his heresy, and now Blayly is most apparently seeking vengeance via his Whorehorn minions, all the while denying it, and trying to appear above the fray, while his minions admit this was a planned hit from its inception. So obviously he was turned to seeking revenge against Dalrock, for Dalrock’s pointing out legitimate error in Blayly’s teaching. Like pastor Michael Foster pointed out, Blayly should be teachable, not belligerent towards those trying to correct his erroneous teaching.
    Blayly, authoring a document that he knows is half wrong, and signing off on it to become policy in his apostate church is just vile! Fucking despicable! He is a thief paid from offerings given to God, to preach and teach the whole counsel of God, instead the coward makes sausage with Satan and the Great Whore, instead of standing up like a man and risking his income to lead the church exactly by the Bible. He’s a fucking hireling and he knows it! The bad-shepherd is just out for revenge because Dalrock offered the cunt-idolater some well reasoned correction. it is straight up tit for tat revenge against legitimate correction of his Satanic Feminism that he put out publicly.

    To be perfectly clear, however: Dalrock is bad news and we recommend you stay away from him.
    I’m with Dalrock on this one. Whorehorn Media has become the devil’s tongue. And is railing against Dalrock’s ministry and God’s truth out of wicked spite. What kind of bullshit is this religious sausage making done in God’s name? Blayly will answer to God for it. Blayly and his soy-fed sons are sucking Satan’s sausage while their church slowly continues to descend into conformity with the ever sinking world, going to hell. I for one am glad Dalrock calls out these hirelings on their false teachings. Dalrock has far more courage in standing up for God’s word than these cunts who like to see their name everywhere. Dalrock is wise to keep his identity hidden from the devil’s sons.
    Grandma used to say: Fools names and fools faces are often seen in public places.

    Grandma wasn’t a fan of graffiti and the vain and narcissistic folks who did it.
    Keeping your name to oneself is no crime. Unless God is a crook?
    Revelation 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

    Dalrock and others are trying to build Blayly back up into a man who preaches the truth. But sometimes that starts with condemnation of his wickedness. God knows my zeal for the truth. God also knows how I have tried to get men here to show respect to each other, men created in God’s image.
    James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
    However I don’t curse Blayly for being a man, I curse him and his ilk for refusing to be men, and instead being an agents of Satan’s false teaching for filthy money! When Blayly “mans up” and repents of his cunt-worshipping ways, he will have my support.

  205. AnonS says:

    Male spaces can include angry venting and insults, especially when society is giving men a raw deal. Many are tired of being told to be “good boys” because that has been used to suppress them their own lives.

  206. Oscar says:

    @ Scott

    Now that I have had time to listen to it a second time…

    Holy crap, dude. I could barely stomach one full listen to all the girly giggling, tittering, and mockery.

  207. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    @ Scott

    Now that I have had time to listen to it a second time…

    Holy crap, dude. I could barely stomach one full listen to all the girly giggling, tittering, and mockery.

    That Montana winter has made Scott even tougher than he was!

    I played a bit of it last night because while I had described their high pitched voices and sophmoric style (from listening to older episodes) to my wife and daughter, you just can’t do it justice describing it. They wanted to hear more than the 30 seconds I promised I would keep it to, so I think we made it somewhere between 5-10 min before they had finally had enough. Both were astounded that these are grown men, and further astounded by the snark opposing divorce rape, men lifting weights, etc. They asked if I could skip to when the podcasters finally got to the point, but from what I’ve read here that would take some real searching.

  208. steve heller says:

    I think the new Dissenter app from Gab is going to make it much harder for people to cut off discussion on their web pages. It lets anyone with a Gab account make comments on an archived copy of any publicly viewable web page. See Dissenter.com for installation and explanation.

  209. squid_hunt says:

    @Steve

    That could be impressively powerful. Is there any link between the archive and the original that would show up in a search engine.

  210. feministhater says:

    That being said, the comment section here loves to hurl names, which is counterproductive. By acting like low class teenagers, we add so much noise to the Dalrock signal that the people he critiques are not going to even listen to what he has to say.

    Commenters here who wish to support Dalrock might start by getting some class.

    Don’t. Just don’t. Stop.

    This is the one place where we can speak our minds. If you don’t like it, leave. Get out.

  211. steve heller says:

    @squid_hunt I don’t know. It’s only been up for three days, I believe.

  212. Dale U says:

    @Scott

    I also considered suicide. Praise be to God for his immense love for us. I am grateful to receive advice from you, among others here.

    Now if we all could just stop hurting other people by disobeying God’s laws, our lives would improve…..

  213. Anon says:

    Don’t. Just don’t. Stop.

    Indeed. This is how cuckservatives lose. Trump succeeded because he fought back without adhering to standards that the other side is not adhering to.

    Warthog,

    I will be first to admit my own wrong in calling Alberson a “faggot” and I apologize for contributing to the problem.

    Problem? You did a good thing. I am delighted that I was not the only one to call him a that word. I intend to do it again (the only requirement is that the usage be humorous, witty, and infrequent).

  214. Scott says:

    Dale U

    The thing about it was, and I did not understand it at the time, that experience made it easier for me to tell the truth to suicidal soldiers 10 years later.

    It wasn’t easier for them to hear it. And the stuff I had to tell them was bordering on civilizational cruelty.

    What are you supposed to say to make it better? The primary mission of a psychologist on the battlefield is to keep them in the fight. They indoctrinate you with that from the minute you arrive in BOLC after graduate school.

    “Sorry man. Your wife back home is banging some ex boyfriend from her high school days. She’s got him shacked up in your apartment, on your bed, petting your dog, watching your tv. I know you are picturing her running through all the positions with him, all the morning and screaming. And all that is probably true. You are not allowed to divert funds to yourself because you’re stil ‘married.’ Your life will be ruined, your bank account cleared out when you get home. But what we really need you to do right now is pick up your rifle and get back in that MRAP. Just don’t kill yourself or whatever.”

  215. Scott says:

    “Because what haaji needs right now is democracy. He needs it good and hard.”

  216. 7817 says:

    @Scott

    And I thought I was cynical. Heh, keep it coming man, it’s good to read. The only hope we have is God, this world is a messed up place.

  217. feministhater says:

    Sheesh Scott… that is some hard hitting truth. I hope your treatment of these men hasn’t taken too much of a toll on you.

    I don’t envy you your work.

  218. JRob says:

    @Scott
    You could blog on this subject on for a decade or so. Happened to me, seen it happen to dozens more. Real time. You omitted “driving the vehicle you’re paying for and insuring around town” from your list.

    The latest just won custody of his children. He came back, Army required he go through “counseling.” The female counselor told him it was his fault because she was lonely. Shame on him for being in combat. Folks out of this sphere don’t understand how common it really is, and the men are destroyed. Terrance Popp went through this. Even if one doesn’t agree with his delivery, his story will give pause.

    Anyhoo, she absconded with the children as she was accustomed to doing whatever she wanted not only without censure but with reward from the court and command. That was the big no no in that particular jurisdiction and his lawyer broke it off in her.

    So, Scott, for what it’s worth, I appreciate your angle on this way more than you know and respect your work. I saw *nothing* but apathy for years from fem-minded military psychs toward these men who did nothing but try to do what they thought was right.

  219. JRob says:

    @Warthog

    This quote of Pastor Bayly’s has been posted:
    Guys are effeminate-we’re all gay.

    I can’t see given *any* context how a pastor can write this in good faith and believe he’s following scripture. So, he pre-approved your comment perhaps.

    I looked for the context here, and unless I’m missing something, there is no way to justify it.

    https://warhornmedia.com/2018/06/11/revoice-and-faithful-pastoral-care-3-is-it-really-about-sex-or-marriage/

    In the church today, it is allee-allee-in-free with every form of sin, but no sin as much as effeminacy. Guys refuse to work. Guys change jobs all the time. Guys play video games in their parents’ basement, refusing to court anyone or leave home. Guys who are married use condoms or get snipped. Guys buy toys they go off and play with on weekends. Guys don’t love their wives or children. Guys aren’t intimate with their wives and children. Guys look at strange flesh and masturbate. Guys primp in front of the mirror. Guys spend their wealth and time primping their hair. Guys work out in the gym, then parade their obviously artificial muscles. Guys are narcissists and avoid responsibility like the plague.

    Guys are effeminate—we’re all gay.

    Why should Revoice men be any different? On the authority of God’s Word, command them to marry and see what sturm and drang you’ll stir up. And if I were a betting man, my money would be on effeminate men who are strictly heterosexual being the first ones to defend gay men saying “no, I refuse to even think about marriage!”

    “The More You Know.”

  220. JRob says:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/11/26/wont-someone-call-out-the-weight-lifters/

    Forgot to give due credit. IMHO I believe this is the root of the vitriol from Harworn and their “Sic ’em!” mentality.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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