Warhorn’s projection

As Larry Kummer has noted, the Warhorn podcast is a blatant example of projection. Note that after I called Nathan out for misrepresenting our agreement, Nathan has now added part of our initial email exchange to the page with the podcast.  However, Nathan has selectively edited the messages so that it looks like we agreed to have an email interview without agreeing to a back and forth.  However, because he left out an important segment of the exchange, it looks like we agreed to use his first set of seven questions instead of the revised set of 9 questions we agreed to.  But Nathan was too clever by half, because while he masks part of his deception he still leaves enough to prove that he ultimately went back on his word:

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

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

After the podcast was published Nathan wrote that if somehow he managed to inadvertently keep his word to me, he would regret doing so:

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.

He later reiterated that his intent was not to keep his original promises to me:

We didn’t want to get too far into the weeds of Dalrock’s philosophy. To do that was to risk validating a dishonest and uncharitable man.

And while he hides the part of the exchange where I proposed a back and forth via email and he agreed, the nature of the medium and the fact that we were having a very polite back and forth when he claims I caused such great offense is enough to prove that Nathan had every opportunity to challenge me when (as he claims) he thought I was misrepresenting his pastor.  Even with his omission of that part of the agreement, it is clear that Warhorn manufactured a crisis so they could exploit it a month later. They were disingenuous so they could accuse me of being disingenuous.

In omitting whole segments of our mail thread defining the terms of the proposed exchange, Nathan is clearly counting on his readers not noticing the discrepancy between the questions he claims I was answering and the ones I actually answered.  Fortunately I published all of my responses including the question numbers before they put out the podcast, so my readers already knew we were using a set of 9, not as Nathan makes it appear his initial set of 7.  Also, note from OKRickety’s transcript that the Warhorn men agreed on the podcast that I had accurately published the exchanges (emphasis mine):

[26:10] – Okay. Let me get started here. Dalrock also refused to actually come on the show and do like a real argument where we could address the …. like Dalrock could be talking to us right now. He could be discussing these things with us in real-time, but he preferred instead to do an email interview which he published on his blog. This was before we had a chance to do this podcast so he got in ahead of us. He controlled the narrative with his followers.

– Well I mean didn’t you agree to that ahead of the interview?

and didn’t he also publish the straight e-mail exchange with no alterations? Like, he didn’t take anything out of context. He didn’t remove anything. He didn’t change anything to make himself look better. It was pretty much word-for-word?

– Yeah. It was word-for-word. I mean you just got what he said to you unchanged.

[26:51] – Okay here’s the point I want to make about Dalrock. This is actually part of a larger pattern with Dalrock of being disingenuous with the way he argues…

Nathan implies that I pulled a fast one by publishing the interviews before they published the podcast.  I acknowledge that I did want to get them out first, partly on the outside chance that the men of Pastor Tim Bayly’s Clearnote Church turned out to be deceitful.  As it turns out I was wise to do so.  However, I only published the exchanges (his questions and my answers) after asking for and receiving Nathan’s permission to do so.  Here is our full exchange on the topic in an email chain titled “Questions yet unanswered”:

Nathan Alberson [redacted]

Jan 21, 2019, 2:29 PM

to me

I appreciate what you’ve given me so far. I’m discussing it with my team (of two other men, I’m not pretending to lead an army), and we’re working on our response, some of which will come in podcast form. For my own benefit as well as yours, I believe these are the questions that you have not yet answered. 4-6 are somewhat implicit in what you’ve given me, but it would be nice to have the explicit versions. And no journalist worth his salt could let you get away without speaking to 8-9. 🙂

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

9. Related to question 8, does work like yours attract misogynists? Why or why not? If so, is there anything that can be done to avoid it? If not, is there something an outsider like me isn’t understanding about the people that it does attract? Is it fair for me to ask the spanking question and the misogyny questions right next to each other? Are my biases making me see misogyny (for example, in the wife spanking crowd) where I should see something else? If so, what am I (and others like me) missing?

I responded:

Dal Rock [redacted]

Jan 21, 2019, 11:00 PM

to Nathan
I agree that these are the remaining questions. I intend to cover them in two mails, one for 4-6 and another for 8-9. I’m not sure exactly when I’ll get to them but my plan is this week.

Also, I finished up the post I mentioned that I in the works on the label I’m adopting: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/call-me-unchivalrous/

Nathan replied:

Nathan Alberson [redacted]

Jan 22, 2019, 7:23 AM

to me
I saw that and read it. Very helpful. Inspired me to do some more research on chivalry myself.

I replied:

Dal Rock [redacted]

Jan 22, 2019, 1:19 PM

to Nathan
Excellent! I should warn you that it it pretty sick stuff.

On January 31st I sent Nathan another mail (as a response to the same thread) asking Nathan several questions in preparation to start posting on the interview:

Dal Rock [redacted]

Jan 31, 2019, 9:29 AM

to Nathan
While we are finalizing any followup questions/comments you have I want to let my readers know this is coming and we are wrapping it up. With this in mind:

  1. How do you want me to refer to you.  Do you want me to give your full name first, and then subsiquently refer to you as Nathan?
  2. What link would you like me to use to your podcast.
  3. Is Pastor Tim Bayly your pastor?
  4. Is there anything else you want me to tell my readers about you?

Nathan replied:

Nathan Alberson

Feb 1, 2019, 11:36 AM

to me
1. Nathan is fine. I’m the creative director of Warhorn Media, a media ministry of Clearnote Church, Bloomington, In.
2. iTunes link is fine: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/sound-of-sanity/id1270775226?mt=2
3. Yes, he is.
4. Sound of Sanity is a podcast combining discussion, satire, and storytelling to examine where we are as a culture today and remind Christians we’re the sane ones, not them.

I responded to Nathan:

Dal Rock [redacted]

Feb 1, 2019, 3:41 PM

to Nathan
Thanks. I’ve put a teaser post up: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/02/01/coming-soon-interview-with-warhorn-media/

Nathan replied:

Nathan Alberson

Feb 1, 2019, 4:04 PM

to me
Awesome, thanks! I may not have the final follow questions until Monday. I want to see if my other teammates have anything they want to contribute. I appreciate everything so far!

I replied a week later, asking if there were any topics I could start to roll out as posts:

Dal Rock [redacted]

Feb 6, 2019, 7:27 AM

to Nathan
Hi Nathan,

Are there any topics that I can start sharing with my readers? Are you considering any followup questions for “who am I and why do I blog”, for example? If not, I’ll post that one while we finish up on the rest.

Nathan replied giving me the green light to roll all of them out:

Nathan Alberson

Feb 6, 2019, 4:49 PM

to me
You can share whatever you like with your readers. Our next response will come in the form of the podcast, which should hopefully drop sometime this month (you’ll have more info when I do). I’m sure there will be things you will want to respond to in that, and there may be need for more email conversation then (not just for my sake, but for yours, in case you want to have things to share with your readers).

But I think I have what I need for now in order to craft a more comprehensive reply to you in audio form.

I replied letting Nathan know I was going to start rolling the posts out.  This is the last message in the email chain:

Dal Rock [redacted]

Feb 7, 2019, 8:32 AM

to Nathan
Thanks. I’ll roll them out one at a time probably starting today. But I’ll probably intersperse them with other topics so it could take a while to do them all.

 

 

 

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

48 Responses to Warhorn’s projection

  1. 7817 says:

    With Christians like this, who needs SJW’s?

    I hope this will put to rest once for all the idea that Wilson and Bayly are really saying the same things as the unchivalrous christians, and working towards the same goals.

  2. The Question says:

    Remind me again what it is SJWs do?

    That’s right; always lie, always project, and always double down.

    Every. Single. Time.

  3. squid_hunt says:

    The email exchange would probably be a good study in deceptive writing techniques from journalists. He oozes insincerity.

  4. vfm7916 says:

    @The Question

    It’s like someone wrote books about it! With flowcharts! And how to fight such attacks!

    It may even be…predictable!

  5. 7817 says:

    You want to talk about projection from Warhorn? From today:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/warhornmedia/status/1102630198237900800?p=v

    This is gamma folks. Passive aggressive tweets, posturing. Nathan was dishonest from the start.

  6. Hugh Mann says:

    Enough already! I don’t think you have anything to prove about Mr Alberson that he hasn’t admitted to himself. Let us lift our minds to higher things and let him pass like the idle wind, which we respect not.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    @781
    I do not have a Twitter account nor do I want one. If I did, though…

    As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly. — Proverbs 26:11

  8. Anon says:

    If leftist ideas are so great, you would think that leftists would not need to selectively edit the words of their opponents, or outright try to silence them.

    Even Nathan Alberson knows that his views cannot succeed on merit in a free exchange of ideas.

  9. OKRickety says:

    Beth Moore tweeted: “I’m telling you right now, most women aren’t looking for Superman. We want Supperman.”

    Bnonn tweeted: “… Beth Moore should get in the kitchen and make me a sammich.”

  10. feeriker says:

    Beth Moore: “I’m telling you right now, most women aren’t looking for Superman. We want Supperman.”

    “Supperman?” As in a “kitchen bitch?”

    That makes perfect sense coming from a churchiofeminista like Moore.

  11. Mountain Man says:

    I agree with Hugh. We have spent more than enough time on this topic. It’s very clear who was duplicitous, and it wasn’t you. However, there is a point beyond which self-justification (even when honestly presenting facts) actually undercuts the moral high ground upon which you stand. Hate to say it, but I think we are in that territory now. Maybe it’s time to let it go.

  12. Spike says:

    The Weasel Press. It seems to be a disease of sorts. It seems unfortunately too that Christian commitment is not a vaccination against the Weasel Press.
    Nathan isn’t very bright. He would have known that since you agreed to a written exchange, Dalrock, there would be records of it easily uploaded and the deception exposed.

    He also is ignorant of very recent history: Tommy Robinson, knowing that the Weasel Press always uses selective editing, carries with him his own cameras and microphones to record the whole interview. he then does a ”reverse hit piece” – just as you have done here, on the Weasel Press. I have seen him do it to al Jazeera, and of course most recently he successfully dropped an absolute bombshell on John Sweeney and the BBC.

    Journalists need to be very aware: They are now very highly distrusted. The public no longer blindly accepts what they say at face value, and Christian journalists in particular need to pin their ears back and decide whose side they are on: the world’s, or God’s.

  13. Dalrock says:

    @Mountain Man

    I agree with Hugh. We have spent more than enough time on this topic. It’s very clear who was duplicitous, and it wasn’t you. However, there is a point beyond which self-justification (even when honestly presenting facts) actually undercuts the moral high ground upon which you stand. Hate to say it, but I think we are in that territory now. Maybe it’s time to let it go.

    Cowboy up and deal with it. I’m going to set the record straight and then move on. Feel free to read something more entertaining in the meantime.

  14. Oscar says:

    @ Spike

    Nathan isn’t very bright. He would have known that since you agreed to a written exchange, Dalrock, there would be records of it easily uploaded and the deception exposed.

    Like I stated on a different thread; Warhorn’s response is an example of what happens when someone initially thinks he’s punching down, then discovers – to his horror – that he was punching up.

  15. Scott says:

    I went to a PCA church for a couple of weeks while traveling for work.

    All the husbands looked like the undead in Tevas and cargo shorts.

  16. Cindy says:

    Bnonn tweeted: “… Beth Moore should get in the kitchen and make me a sammich.”

    Where I come from, that’s a marriage proposal. He should be careful.

  17. Pingback: Warhorn’s projection | Reaction Times

  18. Mountain Man says:

    Sorry, Dalrock. I didn’t mean any offense. It’s your blog, and you are free to play the Warhorn dustup any way you wish. My apologies.

  19. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Mountain Man. My apologies for being so terse. I’m probably as tired of the subject as you are. But this is the time to air out the lies, and my own blog is the best place I have to set the record straight.

  20. Random Angeleno says:

    Need to reintroduce an oldie but goodie bit of advice for Nathan:
    First rule of holes, stop digging!

    @Mountain Man: one of Vox Day’s guidelines for handling attacks from SJW’s is to hit back twice as hard. Pastor Bayly doesn’t strike me as an SJW, but Nathan certainly exhibits the characteristics of one. Dalrock has been more gentle about it than I might have been but he is doing in his own way what needs to be done.

    @Cindy: lol!

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Random Angeleno

    Pastor Bayly doesn’t strike me as an SJW, but Nathan certainly exhibits the characteristics of one.

    Nathan strikes me as Snidely Whiplash, with the passive Bayly playing the role of Penelope Pitstop.

    Heyeeelp! Heyeeelp!

  22. vfm7916 says:

    @Dalrock

    Make the rubble bounce.

  23. info says:

    @7817
    They are the same people. One pretends to be Christian. The other is either apostates or without the pretence of being one of Christ’s

  24. Random Angeleno says:

    @Dalrock: well played, sir

  25. Micah says:

    Reckon we all oughta take screenshots of all these webpages, in case they try to pull a Hillary?

  26. PokeSalad says:

    All the husbands looked like the undead in Tevas and cargo shorts.

    “I see dead people.”

  27. Eidolon says:

    It’s funny how they quoted the section about how complementarians will definitely call out some woman, somewhere, someday, but never today, and yet they go on to do the exact same thing.

    The PCA document was the same — passive language, quoting other people, strongly implying that they disapprove, but talking a lot about how it’s probably men’s fault, and then ending with “it’s totally probably bad but let’s not do anything.”

    But some SJWs yelled at them, so they must be right about everything. Does that mean Vox Day is right about everything? I’m pretty sure SJWs hate him a lot more.

  28. BillyS says:

    OT: I only watched the first part of this video, but she makes some very good points, surprisingly. Her comment about women holding all the cards is dead on, unfortunately for our society.

  29. BillyS says:

    Oops, Here is the video:

  30. Eidolon says:

    By the way, thanks a lot, OKRickety, that was yeoman’s work you did. I couldn’t get through much of that stuff.

    I kept skipping and skipping to try to find actual content, but I couldn’t seem to find anything in all the sound effects and skits and such. Much easier to read the transcript quickly and not nearly as painful.

  31. BillyS says:

    Not sure if you can see that link Dalrock. The link loads fine for me, but WordPress seems to be choking here.

  32. Minesweeper says:

    @BillyS, post the link again with spaces, I will see if I can get it to work.

  33. Minesweeper says:

    @BillyS,try again with your link with spaces, my last comment, didnt make it either.

  34. OKRickety says:

    Thanks, Eidolon. I’m not sure why I decided to do it. It was painful to listen to it the first time, and I listened to it far too many times (because, once I started, I wanted to do it well). I regret it now, but I do have a much greater appreciation for transcriptionists as a result.

  35. Spike says:

    Scott says:
    March 4, 2019 at 5:26 pm
    I went to a PCA church for a couple of weeks while traveling for work.
    All the husbands looked like the undead in Tevas and cargo shorts.

    Scott: is this ”Christian husband chic” now?

    It’s summer weather in Australia, and my fellow male churchgoers are wearing the same. I refuse: Good shirt, long new trousers and boots.
    You need to have some respect, because it is church. It’s not that hard and it’s not that uncomfortable since it is only a relatively short morning service.

  36. See this video by Bettina Arndt posted upthread by BillS. It is off-topic, as he noted – but it is well worth watching in full. She is brilliant and knowledgeable, but clueless — unaware she is giving the most brutal possible warning to men about marriage today.

    “Today’s sex starved husbands.”

  37. ray says:

    Scott — “All the husbands looked like the undead in Tevas and cargo shorts.”

    Why would the spirit visit their churches? To get depressed?

  38. 7817 says:

    SJW’s always lie.

    SJW’s always project.

    SJW’s always DOUBLE DOWN: https://warhornmedia.com/2019/03/05/gluttons-for-punishment-manosphere-2/

  39. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    Thanks, Eidolon. I’m not sure why I decided to do it. It was painful to listen to it the first time, and I listened to it far too many times (because, once I started, I wanted to do it well). I regret it now, but I do have a much greater appreciation for transcriptionists as a result.

    I’ll add my thanks as well. It really is a lot of work.

    If anyone wants to take one for the team like OKRickety did, as 7817 notes above there is a new podcast out. It looks like it is another full hour.

  40. Scott says:

    At the time I visited the PCA church, Mychael and I were a “deacon” and an “elder” in the PC-USA church in Georgia

    PCA was heralded as the “conservative” alternative to the PC-USA so I thought I would check it out.

    Interestingly, the PC-USA church was much more formal (attire worn by everyone was business dress) and high church liturgical which I liked.

    The PCA church was very free form devotional style and dressed down.

    Neither were right for us.

  41. drifter says:

    Last week our heroes attempted to take on the manosphere and a blogger named Dalrock. They may have confused some people. This episode is the antidote. It also explains better why Dalrock is poison.

    That would be an acknowledgement of failure at their first attempt. Looks like they want a do-over.

  42. Sharkly says:

    Dalrock,
    Keep exposing their lies.
    They are liars, like their father the devil. False teachers.
    By their deeds we will know them.

    They tried to discredit your ministry. You’ve got to fight that, and discredit the liars.

    It reminds me of an incident where a nude model and a photographer hid in the closet of Billy Graham’s hotel room in France. When Billy Graham entered the room the model popped out and ran over to him, and the photographer started snapping pictures for the French press. However the incident ended when the Reverend Graham, a large man, punched the photographer in the face and ripped the film out of his camera. No pictures ever got developed or published. You have to protect your ministry sometimes.

    My Parents knew Billy Graham, and almost named me after him.

  43. BillyS says:

    Looks like it is working now OKR.

    I am surprised that YouTube is referring useful things to me now Larry…!

  44. Warthog says:

    “Sanityville” is quite hilarious. Bayly demands that Nereus “sign your name. now.” Two of his commenters pile on to say how cowardly it is that Nereus doesn’t sign his name. Then Nereus replies to them, whose profiles both say they work in software, something to the effect that “Why don’t you take a position on Biblical male headship, and then we will call your HR department and see what they think about it. We all know how fair minded software companies are these days.”

    The commenter who called Nereus a “coward” immediately deleted his comment. LOL!!!

  45. 7817 says:

    Seven days ago I told Nereus “This is your only warning, and given your interaction with identified men, you may not comment further without using your real name.” Yes, he has identified himself to me, but he has refused to do what I required. Sadly I did not see these numerous comments until just now. As of now, I’ve suspended his account. J. Bayly

    So instead of deal with the arguments they delete the man’s account.

    Are these the kind of men you want to follow? Men who demand you risk your families bread in order back up what you say?

    Either we are telling the truth or not.

    Is the book of Hebrews God’s Word? Do we know for sure wrote it?

    Should we bet our kids breakfast that we can win debate points with Warhorn? This is what they’re asking us to do. Men lose their jobs for this kind of stuff now, but I never thought Warhorn would be on the side of the people figuring out who to fire.

  46. Sharkly says:

    Men lose their jobs for this kind of stuff now, but I never thought Warhorn would be on the side of the people figuring out who to fire.
    Dalrock tipped us off that they are liars and false teachers. And we know that is of the devil. What more do you need to know about the unrepentant cunt-worshippers at Whorehorn Media?

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

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

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.