Warhorn can’t keep their story straight.

liar_tweet
(Link to live tweet, archive.)

As I noted the other day, after I posted the exchange I had with Nathan Alberson where we set the terms of the interview Nathan responded by posting excerpts of the exchange designed to make it appear that we had come to a different agreement (see internet archive for snapshots of the page).  Nathan’s edited version of the exchange leaves out our agreement to have a back and forth exchange, and it leaves out the part where Nathan wrote*:

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

These are critical omissions on his part, because Nathan has persistently claimed that I’ve misrepresented our agreement in these regards. By leaving out carefully selected portions of our agreement Nathan is deceiving his listeners.  Yet at the same time Nathan hasn’t been so bold as to outright accuse me of making up the parts he strategically omitted.  Either way, what he is doing here is deceptive.  Here is Nathan presenting this deception under the guise of setting the record straight in the second podcast (emphasis mine)**:

I’m going to go ahead and read this email, because it’s been the subject of some controversy and some confusion. I’m just going to read this entire email.
Hi, this is an email to Dalrock from me, Nathan Alberson.
Hi, We’re putting together an episode of our podcast Sound of Sanity on Red Pill, Game, MGTOW, all that good stuff. I wanted to see if you would consent to a phone interview sometime in the near future. I’d like to get as clear an articulation of your views as I can, and present it to the world. The questions would be quite simple I prefer simple questions that allow for more elaborate answers, as needed.
And then I listed seven questions. These are the same questions that you can actually see if you read the transcript of our email exchange, who are you, what are the problems facing men today, basic questions about who he was, what he was doing, how his work interacted with the manosphere, and what the manosphere was, which was what the episode was going to be about.

– Yeah, what we were going to be able to do with that hopefully would be to have a couple of audio clips for you guys of someone in the manosphere saying this is what it is, this is what red pill is, this is what mgtow is, this is who I am, this is what I’m concerned about, this is why I do what I do, and then be able to go with that, build off of that, into explaining to you something of this world.

Nathan – Uh, so just to finish the email, I said, after I listed those questions I said full disclosure: as you probably know, we don’t agree on everything. If I’m not mistaken… which, given where we’ve landed on Dalrock now it might sound like I’m being a little soft on him. But I actually didn’t know him that well at the time, and so I was really just wanting to understand his point of views. But I did know that he had said some negative things about my pastor, so here I say quote If I’m not mistaken, you see the work of my pastor and others like him as somehow undercutting the concept of female moral agency. I see your work as needlessly undercutting male responsibility in the name of establishing female moral agency. The podcast may ultimately reflect these differences, but I’d like to give you a fair chance to say your piece. This won’t be “gotcha journalism.” Actually, in that spirit, I’ll warn you about the potential “gotchas” right now: I would like to press you a bit on the misogynists that work like yours seems to attract. I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking. I see in your “comments policy” you ask people to refrain from discussing marital corporal punishment. It seems to me that if you have to ask people to refrain from that topic, you may be attracting the wrong sort of people. I’d like to ask you frankly about that and let you answer however you choose. I hope that sounds amenable to you. Thanks, Nathan

You could, if you pull that quote out of context, “I want to present your views to the world” you could get the idea that we want to do a whole episode on Dalrock and on promoting his views and giving him a chance to speak and use our platform to promote his views.

What Nathan has to know is that if his listeners look at this closely they will see that in fact we didn’t agree to use his original list of seven questions like he claims. In the part of the exchange that he strategically edits out Nathan reworked the list into nine questions. If his readers look at this post for example, they will see where I listed questions 8 and 9. If they look at this post, they will see that Larry Kummer of Fabius Maximus suggested I add a note clarifying why Nathan was referencing question 8 in his reply to my answer to question 9.:

Nathan: “I’ll have some follow-up questions, but I’ll let you answer question 8 first, and then we can hit a few things in more depth as needed.”

You might add a link to the previous post (the answer to his question 8), for people not reading these posts sequentially. They might wonder why you didn’t answer Nathan’s question 8.

Nathan edited his comment referencing question eight out of his presentation of the interview, and in fact omits the question numbers altogether in his version.  But as clever as he was in this regard, he forgot that it wasn’t just the numbering that he changed when he reworked the questions.  He reworked the wording as well.  And while Nathan was careful to leave out the question numbers, he presents the revised wording of his question in his edited version of the interview.  See the bold section in this snapshot from the Warhorn page taken today (archived here):

question9

Note that his wording of the question here can only be found in the parts of the email exchange that he implies never happened.  He was careful to edit out the question numbers, but he forgot that he also changed his wording as we were coming to our agreement on the interview.  Also note that this isn’t an innocent mistake, as the parts of our agreement that he is omitting here show that my characterization of our agreement is in fact correct, and refute his claims about our agreement.

Related:

Note:  Unless something unexpected comes up I plan on this being my final post on the subject.  My readers already see Warhorn’s deception, but I wanted to clearly spell this out for anyone coming across the question in the future before closing it out.

*However, Nathan did make two similar statements in the original email, so even without the third promise it is clear that he did not keep his word.

**Part of Warhorn’s deception here is pretending that my objection was that they didn’t dedicate their entire podcast to presenting my views.  But that isn’t true.  My objection was that in the lead up to the interview Nathan repeatedly told me he wanted to present my views to his audience, even if they also explained why they disagreed.  Yet after the podcast Nathan stated to his readers that their goal was to avoid presenting my views in the podcast.  See his comments here and here. I never expected my views to go unchallenged, I merely expected Nathan to keep his word.

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

56 Responses to Warhorn can’t keep their story straight.

  1. Wraithburn says:

    Since they asked, Nathan is a liar and slanderer.

  2. 7817 says:

    Those guys are in so far over their heads. They are badly in need of some of the information and self – work to which the manosphere provides a map, but they are in denial.

    I think guys like that are a big risk to be zero’d out some day and not have the tools to handle it. They need to read the rational male books.

  3. AnonS says:

    Better posts would be going deeper into federal headship theology with a look into its history and scripture support. That is their main objection of how you can’t possibly be right if you don’t agree with them theologically.

  4. feministhater says:

    I still cannot fathom what they thought they would gain from committing such an act of duplicity. They could have had something productive but instead they were full of spite and deceit.

    They could have decided to take you at face value, debate the merits of your points and point out what they think were your errors or where they perhaps agreed. Instead they decided to shit on such an opportunity because they simply really don’t like you.

    They’re acting like childish teenagers looking for a fight and acting like bullies. One cannot take them seriously.

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    All of this could have been avoided if Nathan had been honest from the very beginning, and/or not changed his mind in the middle of the email sequence. Too bad. The only way out for Nathan is to admit his error and apologize, which is not at all likely to happen.

    Too bad for Warhorn. An pwn – goal is painful.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    AnonS
    Better posts would be going deeper into federal headship theology with a look into its history and scripture support. That is their main objection of how you can’t possibly be right if you don’t agree with them theologically.

    Since this particular theological point appears to be a very minoritarian position within US churches, I’m not sure that would be worth the time and trouble. Plus as several other commenters have noted, men have been attempting some version of the “Warhorn way” for years and it doesn’t work.

    The all too typical 35 year old man who married 5 years ago to a 27 year old woman cannot be helped by them, but he can be harmed. The Average Frustrated Chump with 1 or 2 children whose former carousel-riding till-death-do-us-part is now unhaaaaapy due to her Problem with No Name; that man won’t find anything actionable in their “ManUP! Everything is your responsibility!” jazz hands.

    Theology should in some way have some intersection with reality. When it doesn’t, there is a problem.

  7. Oscar says:

    @ feministhater

    I still cannot fathom what they thought they would gain from committing such an act of duplicity.

    The Warhorners stated the we’re all “too lazy” to follow links to the articles, sermons, etc. that Dalrock criticizes.

    Instead, several of us listened to at least one entire Warhorn podcast, several listened to both, and at least two of Dalrock’s readers transcribed both podcasts, which requires a lot of time and work.

    It looks to me like the Warhorners are actually counting on their own readers and listeners not following the links to Dalrock’s very thorough archives of the whole exchange.

    In other words, it’s a type of projection.

  8. Oscar says:

    Additionally, as I stated before, this whole exchange is an example of what happens when someone thinks he’s punching down, then suddenly discovers – to his horror – that he was actually punching up.

  9. Lexet Blog says:

    It is a growing % of the conservative and traditional (and confessional) Christian church in the states, however.

    I am not particularly interested in the rest of churchianity.

  10. Junkyard Dawg says:

    I’ve read the comments over there on podcast #2. They rudely trash anyone who doesn’t use their full name. While at the same time, anyone who does jump through the hoops they set up, uses their full name, yet disagrees and/or says they’ve received help from the manosphere, they do not accept that this could possibly be true.

    Note also: their lack of “outreach” or compassion to the manosphere community, who they say are embittered and, in effect, enemies of the cross and walking in darkness. Now, any other community of lost souls, they’d probably be fully accommodating and welcoming in order to, if possible, win those souls. (Think: any community that, if you disparaged them they way they trash the deplorables of the manosphere, they’d be accused of racism if it were a specific ethnicity or [name of minority religion or orientation]-phobia in the case of other lifestyles and religions. This, in a roundabout way, proves that men are the last and only group that one may trash with impunity. I doubt they would treat any other group with such disdain.

  11. 7817 says:

    Theology should in some way have some intersection with reality. When it doesn’t, there is a problem.

    That is a great point, and one of the reasons what most theology is not with reading.

    The Bible intersects with reality and is worth reading.

  12. Frank K says:

    OT: This weekend I actually heard during the homily that Eve deceived Adam.

  13. Cindy says:

    These guys are a hot mess. From your email exchange and then Nathan’s behavior, I suspect that he really intended at first to let you have some time to air your views via email, then actually quote you at length and rebut on their show. Unfortunately for Warhorn, Nathan realized he wasn’t actually tall enough for the ride about halfway through the exchange, right about where he said something like “I’ll have to think about this a little longer”. After that, knowing that he had nothing, and possibly saw how convincing your thoughts really are, he checked out mentally and started building a big straw boogeyman out of you for his show. I’ve been very interested in the whole thing, but I’m glad you’re calling it off. Hopefully he can lick his wounds and come back someday and admit what happened so he can move on to become an honest person.

  14. Pingback: Endless Riddance – v5k2c2.com

  15. Wraithburn says:

    No, thank you.— Warhorn Media 📯 (@warhornmedia) March 11, 2019

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Looks like Warhorn wanted to add cowardice to the list as well.

  16. Wraithburn says:

    Tell you what 'pastors', I will give one or both of you a complementary registration to the 21 Convention so you can experience firsthand what it's about. All you gotta do is get yourself there and get a room. What do you say?— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) March 10, 2019

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Hmm, wordpress didn’t include the parent tweet. They were replying to Rollo’s offer of a free ticket to 21 Con.

  17. Oscar says:

    Once again, paraphrasing Pastor Matt Chandler.

    Really, God, here is a great way to gauge how you’re serving, loving, and practicing your headship. If the craftiest serpent in the world showed up in your garden and began to kind of coach Eve toward freedom and liberation from your tyranny, Eve should be so well cared for, so nourished, so sowed into and loved, she would say, “What you’re describing is actually tyranny. I love where I am. I am honored. I am encouraged. My God sacrifices so that I might grow in my gifts. He will oftentimes sacrifices in order to serve me more. My God works tirelessly for me. He pours into my children. He encourages me. All that comes out of his mouth, sans a couple of little times here and there, is him building me up in love.”

    God, here is a good opportunity. If you’re like, “Well, gosh, I don’t think she would say that at all,” then, God, I think you should probably repent and confess to your Eve.

    If God Himself didn’t prevent flawless Eve, in a flawless world, with a flawless husband from becoming dissatisfied and rebelling, what makes anyone think that a fatally flawed husband could possibly prevent his fatally flawed wife, living in a fatally flawed word from becoming dissatisfied and rebelling?

  18. Charles B says:

    It’s amazing that they continue to think That Dalrock and people who question the social narrative are somehow unable to deal with their arguments or ideas while they simultaneously refuse to actually air any of our arguments for fear that they are too powerful and evil.

  19. Charles B says:

    @Oscar, thank you for making that point again. It cannot be repeated too often how anti-Biblical their worldview is, and how fundamentally contrary ot the observed world as well.

  20. ray says:

    Nobody needs Bayley’s Federal Headship nonsense. It’s another Nothingburger breadtrail that’ll end up, inevitably, at Female Good/Male Bad. That’s the point, after all. Don’t be lured into validating it with posts and attention; this is what they desire, even if their baby is criticized.

    These Career Churchians all have to have a gimmick phrase/concept that separates them from the rest of the Career Churchian hustlers. A ticket to ride for their lectures, sermons, conference presentations, book deals, and so on.

    Their their corporate-christian ‘ministries’. They’re lusting to split-off from their old denomination, and create their own busine . . . I mean church. The Fed Headship jive is part of the rationale for that self-promoting scheme.

  21. Oscar says:

    @ Charles B

    @Oscar, thank you for making that point again. It cannot be repeated too often how anti-Biblical their worldview is, and how fundamentally contrary ot the observed world as well.

    Thanks Charles, and you’re welcome, and you’re right. That’s why I keep re-posting that bit. Yes, the regulars here know that fallacy backwards and forwards, but there may be new readers who haven’t had it pointed out to them before.

  22. 7817 says:

    Note also: their lack of “outreach” or compassion to the manosphere community, who they say are embittered and, in effect, enemies of the cross and walking in darkness. Now, any other community of lost souls, they’d probably be fully accommodating and welcoming in order to, if possible, win those souls.

    Exactly, well said. And they wonder why men are walking away from church. If men like Michael Foster really want to reach men, he ought to go radio silent for six months or a year and actually go through and apply the material and data that the manosphere has produced over the last ten years or so. It would require him to actually go into some of the darker parts and truly wrestle with what is there instead of just writing it off as non Christian. At this point Foster still looks to be faking it a bit. From what he says, he really cares about men, so it would be good to see him take the next step.

    I haven’t seen anything from Bnonn that meaningfully distinguishes his attitude from that shown by the Sound of Sanity podcasters.

  23. Sharkly says:

    Better posts would be going deeper into federal headship theology with a look into its history and scripture support.

    Since this particular theological point appears to be a very minoritarian position within US churches, I’m not sure that would be worth the time and trouble. Plus as several other commenters have noted, men have been attempting some version of the “Warhorn way” for years and it doesn’t work.

    It is a growing % of the conservative and traditional (and confessional) Christian church in the states, however.

    Nobody needs Bayley’s Federal Headship nonsense. It’s another Nothingburger breadtrail that’ll end up, inevitably, at Female Good/Male Bad. That’s the point, after all. Don’t be lured into validating it with posts and attention; this is what they desire, even if their baby is criticized.

    I think it is important to stamp this hellfire out, if at all possible. It is like they are doubling down on Feminism, to the point of absurdity. Why not strip this toxic low hanging fruit of theological cuckery, before the ignorant come along and get poisoned by it, because nobody warned them about it?

    We should clearly expose the obvious absurdity of their belief that I individually am somehow responsible for all the evil in my wife’s life because I’m a man, and if every man in the world had always acted infallibly, we would not have arrived at this point. They effectively allow women to blame all their sin on men and live like the devil at the expense of God’s kingdom. While within the confines of their own church they may try to coerce women into some sort of submission, the effect that this sickening doctrine has where it spreads, is just to throw the barn door open for women to live in rebellion and for men only to be blamed for it. Other churches adopt the crappy teaching, but they lack the grandiose cult leader who can keep the women partially in check, by the force of his personality cult.
    Anyhow, after 20 years of marinating in this crappy theology, Nathan’s parents got divorced, and Bayly apparently tried really hard to prevent it, but his own personal doctrines and charisma were powerless to save their marriage even with a 20 year head start.

    Jeremiah 23:22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.

    Bayly & Sons, resultant fruit, due to leaving God’s word, is like Fred Sanford’s, just an earthly “junk empire”. However it is an appealing outpost for those who find their Feminism lacking, and want to double down. We should expose its spiritual barrenness, to save people the eternal loss they will incur running headlong into yet another doctrinal detour on the way to hell.

    Seriously read the verse I quoted above. If their churches teaching was of God, it would work better. All the churches are apostate, and preaching Feminism in one form or another. They are all great whores, not the bride of Christ. We are living in a spiritual dark age. We need to come out from among them, and separate ourselves unto Christ. We need to repent of upending God’s hierarchy, and of being ashamed of His patriarchy. We need to repent for having been deceived. We need to let God be true, and every man a liar. We men need to bear the image and glory of Christ well, and our wives need to be the image of Christ’s church, directly subject in everything, not usurping or pretending at equality.

  24. That Brotha Pedat says:


    Feministhater said:Instead they decided to shit on such an opportunity because they simply really don’t like you.


    This! I try to keep things simple. When he realized you could be neither submitted or grounded and pounded, jumps bad with the slanderous doping accusations.In the words of the classic Brand Nubian jam: “Punks jump up to get beat down

  25. squid_hunt says:

    @Pedat, @7817

    I hate to sound repetitive, but this all comes across as a very feminine reaction.

  26. Pingback: Warhorn can’t keep their story straight. | Reaction Times

  27. The Question says:

    “There are times when a sleeping lion must rouse himself from repose to swat a yapping dog. Such ankle-biters need to learn that it is one thing to throw around malicious accusations, and quite another thing to be faced with a response.” – Quintus Curtius.

  28. That Brotha Pedat says:

    squid_hunt,

    You’re right. I’ve said before that these Warhorn dudes are little bitches.

  29. Chad says:

    The Warhorn podlings use language like: “dalrock’s thoughts are really gross.” Men don’t talk like that. The Podlings talk like women or gay guys.

    Also, someone pointed out, after researching the church website, that their women seem to be feminine and have lots of babies. The funny thing is, these guys attribute that to their own superior headship. Nope. It’s the women competing with each other to be godly gals that’s working in that circle. Never underestimate women’s ability to herd.

    I’ve found the exchange educational. Thanks dalrock.

  30. sipcode says:

    Nathan is a practicing woman: effeminate [and be not effeminate, it keeps bad company 1 Cor 6:9]. As Eve, who knew the truth [for she told the serpent what it was], then deceived herself and then [as Shakespeare said] deceived others, so Nathan ….willingly setting aside the truth.

  31. scrutinising says:

    Federal headship may mean that a man is the most responsible person when the sins of his family are considered, but he is not guilty of a sin he has not actively participated in.

    Adam was not guilty for failing to watch over and guard Eve all the time, but for hearkening to the voice of his wife. If Adam had refused to listen to Eve, would Adam still be responsible for sin coming into the world? That is the logical implication, but Warhorn never states this explicitly.

    Crucially, the sin of Adam was listening to the voice of his wife, not failing to control her. If Adam should have stopped Eve, it implies he should have been watching and controlling her around the clock. In other words, Adam sinned by not having her chained to him. This is where complementarians have to use an extreme idea of male authority they accuse Red Pill men of!

    An over-realised doctrine of federal headship cannot override the plain truth of Scripture, as per Ezekiel 18:20:

    The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

    If the woman sins but the man does not, she will bear her own sin. He is not guilty of her sin unless he participates in it, enables it, covers it, excuses it or fails to decry it strongly.

    A woman is to blame for her own rebellion, independent of men.

    Job was a righteous man but couldn’t stop his wife telling him to curse God and die. Was Job to blame for his rebellious wife? According to the logic that says men are responsible for their wives’ sin, then yes he was! But I don’t think so, from my reading.

    A correct understanding of federal headship sees Adam as bearing chief responsibility over and above Eve. But that’s not the same as saying that if a woman is tempted into feminism, rebellion and adultery, the man is to blame or is morally responsible for her having done so.

  32. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Job was a righteous man but couldn’t stop his wife telling him to curse God and die. Was Job to blame for his rebellious wife?

    Is Christ responsible for the sins of his bride, the church? Feminism is blasphemy and blaming men for women’s sins is a fig leaf that fails to cover their evil. The true tragedy is that women are not being instructed in holiness, are not being told to repent and are being taught to place their guilt of their sins on men instead of on Christ. The result of the extreme “federal-headship” teaching is to mistakenly imput women’s sin to men instead of to Christ (leaving the sinner unjustified) and without repentance.

  33. Daniel Hughes says:

    Keep going man. Glad your sticking with this and keeping the record straight. I’ve never once visited the warhorn website. I have no intention to. Thanks for all your work.

  34. Random Angeleno says:

    Regarding the lack of welcome on their part for men who are hurting: Pope Francis once termed the Church as a field hospital for sinners. Now he has got some serious faults elsewhere and a lot to answer for, but he did get that one right. Jesus ate with the sinners; he told the parables about the prodigal son and about the lost sheep. Which illustrates where our mindsets should be. It is up to each man whether to take the help offered or not, but at least we are open to helping men, especially if they ask for help. As opposed to those holy ones over there.

    One more: as others have noted, Bayly is located in a smallish university city that is 86% white, iirc. In an area that is very conservative. It’s ridiculously easy for him and everyone on his staff to say their names and beliefs in that city. They ought to try that in the Twin Cities. Or in LA County. Heck, let’s try Portland, Oregon or Seattle. They might then understand why some of us who live out there in the wider world might want to keep our affiliations to ourselves. Just maybe.

  35. BillyS says:

    RA,

    Jesus had very low tolerance for His disciples and leaders who failed to be true to His Word. He would not be happy with Warhorn Media based on what is written in chapters 2 and 3 of the Book of Revelation.

  36. thedeti says:

    Billy:

    Those who preach and teach the Word are judged more stringently and strictly. Pastors and teachers are held to tighter account than the rest of us…..

  37. Mitch says:

    @thedeti
    Those who preach and teach the Word are judged more stringently and strictly. Pastors and teachers are held to tighter account than the rest of us…

    True. But maybe Dalrock really IS a pastor who got ousted by the feminists in his church for preaching the truth.

    [D: I am not.]

  38. feeriker says:

    Those who preach and teach the Word are judged more stringently and strictly. Pastors and teachers are held to tighter account than the rest of us…..

    Indeed, which is why I’ve said before that a whole new wing of Hell is under construction in preparation for housing the massive population that wouldn’t otherwise be there if they were sincere in their faith and actually read and headed the Scriptures that they’re clearly ignorant of.

  39. poetentiate says:

    And these people are considered and consider themselves Men of God? More like Agents of Satan

  40. Sharkly says:

    Tucker Carlson says:
    In the end, you get fired, you lose your job. Nobody defends you. Your neighbors avert their gaze as you pull into the driveway. You are ruined. And yet, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how despised and humiliated you may be, there is one thing you can never do — one thing that is absolutely not allowed. You can never acknowledge the comic absurdity of the whole thing. You can never laugh in the face of the mob.

    You must always pretend that the people yelling at you are somehow your moral superiors. You have to assume what they say they are mad about is what they are actually mad about. You have to take them at face value. You must pretend this is a debate about virtue and not about power. Your critics are arguing from principle, and not from partisanship.

    No matter what they take from you in the end, you must continue to pretend that these things are true. You are bad, they are good. The system is on the level.

    But what if we stopped pretending for a minute? What if we acknowledged what’s actually going on?

    One side is deadly serious. They believe that politics is war. They are not interested in abstractions or principles, rules or traditions. They seek power, and they intend to win it with whatever it takes. If that includes getting you fired or silencing you, or threatening your family at home, or throwing you in prison, okay.

    This reminds me a bit of the Whorehorn Media guys coming after Dalrock, because he has “bad fruit”, because some of his commenters have used words they don’t like. Just like Tucker’s enemies squeal about his past comments. Their outrage is phony. Their hate and underhanded tactics are real. If nobody had ever written a triggering word on this site, their “moral outrage” would not be one iota less. The objection is a distracting “Squirrel!”, avoiding addressing Dalrock’s actual arguments. They want to dox Dalrock and destroy him, and that should be rather clear to all but the most oblivious Whorehorn blower.
    While I will make a greater effort to avoid gratuitous use of unnecessary bad language, I actually intend to trigger the apostates, and again I say their outrage is phony.
    Where I work, I hear the F-bomb at least once every couple of minutes, all day, every day. Would Nathan and his ilk fall over dead if they walked into my place of employment, and had to work amongst the men of our world? I’m doubtful, and I doubt they’d shower my coworkers with their phony outrage. They’re just grasping at straws to avoid dealing with the debunking of their own foolish heresies, that Dalrock provided. If it ain’t one thing, it’d be another.

    As to my comment calling them “The cunt-worshippers at Whorehorn Media”, that they specifically mentioned in their first podcast, I fully stand behind it. I think it was appropriate. You can see it below:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/warhorn-interview-male-responsibility-and-female-agency/#comment-303333

    I also defended it a bit more extensively here, explaining why I chose those words:
    https://bnonn.com/its-good-to-be-a-man/#comment-41668

    Anyhow, don’t let their ginned up outrage dissuade you. And Yes, I provoked those false teachers intentionally. If you feel you need to distance yourself from me, and you let them drive a wedge between you and your supporter, I understand, but I think there is next to zero merit to their phony outrage. Bnonn, I believe may have been referring to me, when he said “I’m not really interested in squabbles with Dalrock or his bots.
    I have also put in a good word for you elsewhere, and can provide links if you doubt it.

    James 3:2 for we all make many stumbles; if any one in word doth not stumble, this one [is] a perfect man, able to bridle also the whole body;

    What the fools at Whorehorn Media are contending is, that unless your commenters are all perfect, holier than God Himself, and offend nobody with their words, then your message should be disregarded. Don’t listen to their foolishness for a second. I’m not saying I haven’t said offensive stuff, and that I don’t have room for much improvement. I’m saying, don’t believe their squeals of outrage are genuine. These same cucks probably willingly watch TV and movies. Enough said.

  41. vfm7916 says:

    The rubble, it be bouncing.

    Also note that Nathan will be back with his own “last word” to try to top Dalrock. It may not be immediate, but it will come. Secret Kings always have to have the last word.

  42. Rollory says:

    I am really impressed with how thoroughly you’ve gotten away with this lie.

    Since this is the reiteration post, I’ll reiterate as well:

    1) Dalrock posted the full email exchange between Dalrock and Nathan.
    2) As can be seen in the plain text of the emails, Nathan’s initial request was that he would send Dalrock questions, Dalrock would answer them, and Nathan would discuss Dalrock’s answers on Nathan’s podcast. Dalrock agrees to this, with no qualifications.
    3) At no point does Dalrock suggest a change to this format.
    4) At no point does Nathan suggest a change to this format.
    5) Nathan repeatedly reiterates that he will be asking questions and discussing Dalrock’s answers. Dalrock does not object.
    6) Nathan does exactly what he has said from the start that he would do.
    7) Dalrock announces that the agreement was for a debate and a back-and-forth and Nathan broke the terms. Dalrock provides non-specific multi-paragraph quotes as evidence, none of which contain any agreement to any debate nor any specification of different terms than those originally proposed by Nathan. Breaking out seven questions into nine does not constitute any fundamental change to the terms; the subjects covered by the seven and nine are substantially the same, and the basic format remains that Nathan will ask questions and Dalrock will answer them.
    8) Dalrock, on the strength of vigorous unsupported assertions, announces that Nathan is obviously a liar.
    9) Dalrock’s audience, being incapable of reading plain English, choruses that Dalrock is right and good.

    I covered the first 6 steps in more detail with specific quotations in the original post on this topic. Dalrock has never quoted any agreement to a debate on Nathan’s part because no such agreement exists. He quotes all sorts of other things that do not constitute any such agreement, then asserts that they mean what he wants them to mean. I was not expecting that. I also was not at all expecting step 9. But that’s how it has played out.

    While this whole process has caused me to discover many objections to Dalrock’s ethics and personal traits – regrettably so, as his message on the specific topics of marriage and female behavior is indeed correct – it has also caused me to discover two points on which I admit a singular admiration: he definitely knows his audience, and he knows how to play an audience of suckers.

  43. Dalrock says:

    @Rollory

    7) Dalrock announces that the agreement was for a debate and a back-and-forth and Nathan broke the terms. Dalrock provides non-specific multi-paragraph quotes as evidence, none of which contain any agreement to any debate nor any specification of different terms than those originally proposed by Nathan.

    I posted the full exchange where we negotiated how/if we would engage. I proposed to Nathan that we use email for a back and forth exchange, giving an example as a reference:

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

    Nathan responded to my proposal with agreement:

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

    As I’ve explained, this matters for two reasons. The first is that Nathan later claimed that we never agreed to have a back and forth exchange. The other reason is that he made his “outrage” over something I wrote in one of our early exchanges into the focus of the podcast. I wrote something that Nathan says deeply offended him, but instead of challenging me on it he suddenly went silent, claiming he needed to think about the subject more, only to complain bitterly a month and a half later in the podcast. This would have been effeminate had he done this via email even if we hadn’t agreed to a back and forth. After all, we traded messages for 6 weeks following what Nathan after the fact claims was a traumatic email experience. Men don’t retire to their fainting couch to nurse their grievances when someone they are discussing something with disagrees with them. The lines of communication were open, but Nathan chose to nurse a grievance and lie in wait for his moment to shriek.

    Breaking out seven questions into nine does not constitute any fundamental change to the terms;

    Of course not. But Nathan is making it appear that the exchange where he reworked his list of questions from 7 to 9 (and where we agreed to a back and forth via email) never happened. He is too slippery to outright deny that the latter part of the exchange happened, but he claims both on the 1st podcast page and in the second podcast that the deceptive excerpt he shared was the entire exchange. Then he follows up by saying either he is lying or I am.

  44. Lost Patrol says:

    The email exchange certainly has the look of back and forth. There is a lot of “Nathan replied” and “My reply to Nathan”.

    All quotes from Nathan:

    “I don’t think I have many follow-up questions on this particular email”.

    “I don’t think I have further questions on the topic just yet”.

    “To answer your questions”:

    “I can see that it will take a lot more discussion and shifting through the sources for us to come to any terms on this point”.

    “And then we can circle back around and dig down as we need to”.

    If it walks like a duck…

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Lost Patrol:

    The email exchange certainly has the look of back and forth. There is a lot of “Nathan replied” and “My reply to Nathan”.

    Exactly. Plus note that he suddenly claimed he had to think once he had the bit he wanted to express his outrage in the podcast over (my reference to the PCA resolution). I challenged him to show me where my characterization was wrong, and he replied that he needed to think. Then he went silent for 6 weeks until he feigned outrage that I characterized the PCA resolution in a way that he disagreed with:

    Of course it is to deny the other things. As I pointed out with multiple links, this is what is being done regarding women in the military. I urge you to go check the sources and see what I mean. Bayly’s PCA resolution 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, Joe Carter, Denny Burk and Owen Strachan here. The same is true for the quotes I provided from Doug Phillips’ Vision Forum here. The same is true for the other example I provided by CBMW Executive Director Owen Strachan here. 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.

    [——————————————-Nathan Replied——————————————]

    I can see that it will take a lot more discussion and shifting through the sources for us to come to any terms on this point. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up being the crux of our discussion, and it may be the crux of our eventual podcast on the subject.

    However, it would be helpful to me if we could address the broader spectrum of questions I’ve sent you. And then we can circle back around and dig down as we need to. That would help give me the context I need. As we have the deeper discussions, I want to make sure I understand fully where you’re coming from. Hope that makes sense.

  46. 7817 says:

    It’s a full out gamma invasion. Rollory, same username at least, was banned from vox popoli a while back if memory serves.
    _____
    And Bnonn finally couldn’t take it anymore. Just had to jump into the manosphere thread at sanityville to defend the idea of a wife disciplining her husband, but of course it’s not “punishment” don’t you know…

    Bnonn Tennant
    bnonn
    Sanityville Citizen
    8h
    If your definition of discipline is unique to your “world”, then it should be expected that those outside of your “world” are surprised (and likely confused) by your usage.

    Any time there’s work in recovering something lost, it is surprising and confusing to those who are still stuck in a ditch. If you’re at all familiar with the red pill, that is obvious.

    This use of discipline is by no means idiosyncratic. We still retain it without confusion in the common phrase “self-discipline.” The idea that discipline = punishment is a bizarre neologism.

  47. Pingback: Dalrock (The Neverending Screech) – v5k2c2.com

  48. Gunner Q says:

    7817 @ March 13, 2019 at 10:03 pm:
    “Rollory, same username at least, was banned from vox popoli a while back if memory serves.”

    He complained to Vox Day in December 2017 about a shirt he produced for young women that casually threatened the lives of men who looked at it. “That red dot on your chest means my father is watching you” with a silhouette of a scoped rifle, IIRC. It was obviously insulting to bachelors and he was right to call out Vox Day on it. It was about the time Vox Day and Dalrock split up, too.

    I don’t know if Rollory was banned for it but he’s welcome on my blog.

  49. 7817 says:

    Surely Tim Bayly’s account is managed. This is very strange:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/tbayly/status/1106347592303214592?p=v

    Tim Bayly
    @tbayly
    12h
    I’m great. The pastors who work with me are awesome. They say I’m great. I say they’re awesome. We agree. Better pay attention to us. We’re great and awesome. We’re going places. Someday, you’ll say you knew us when we were just great and awesome. Subscribe to our podcast, idiot!

  50. BillyS says:

    It almost sounds like someone compromised their Twitter account.

  51. Pingback: Authoritative Love, Marital Discipline, and BDSM | Σ Frame

  52. Pingback: Judgy Judges Judging - Derek L. Ramsey

  53. Spike says:

    It’s been often said that ”whoever mentions the Nazis first, loses the argument”.
    In the new Millennium / post 4th wave Feminist world, I think this rule should be changed to something far more tangible:

    “Whoever uses the word ”misogyny” first, loses the argument”.

    Misogyny is supposed to be the hatred of women, presumably because they’re women alone. This would be a position NO ONE on this site, not Dalrock, his commentators or fellow bloggers such as Fabius or Rollo, would ascribe to.

    To know that women instigate the majority of domestic violence is to understand their nature
    To know that women initiate the majority of divorces, no-fault, is to understand their nature.
    To know that women’s increased autonomy has led to poor lifestyle choices is to understand their nature.
    To know that women subject their children to poverty, academic underachievement, promiscuity, prison, runaways, teen pregnancy, alcohol and drug dependence, is to understand their nature.
    To know that women demand, and get, abortion on demand and that demand is currently running at 20% of all pregnancies abortion rate nationwide, 40% in New York and 50% of all pregnancies in black neighbourhoods, is to understand their nature.

    These problems are real. And it is high time to call out the Misogyny straw man when it is used, because it prevents the discussion and acknowledgement of the real problems that face Western society. Nathan Alberson take note.

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    Spike
    It’s been often said that ”whoever mentions the Nazis first, loses the argument”.

    That’s a mangling of Godwin’s law. Suffice to say, few people are around now who ever argued about “gun control” with Mike Godwin. Because in any given argument in the 90’s eventually someone would point out that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was essentially the Nazi gun law of the 1930’s translated to English. Godwin’s law then got expanded across USENET and generalized to “Cite Nazi = lost”.

    “Whoever uses the word ”misogyny” first, loses the argument”.

    This has potential.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    And Bnonn finally couldn’t take it anymore. Just had to jump into the manosphere thread at sanityville to defend the idea of a wife disciplining her husband, but of course it’s not “punishment” don’t you know…

    Reframe it as “the oldest teenager in the house disciplining her father”. See how that flies.

    These boys do love to play with torturing word definitions, that is for sure. Up next, “mutual submission”?

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    Surely Tim Bayly’s account is managed. This is very strange:

    Agree with Billy, it looks hacked. That is the simple explanation.

    An alternative – Bayly’s around 70 years of age. A lot of people over 65 are taking various medications for blood pressure, cholesterol, maybe diabetes, etc. Changes in dosages can noticeably affect someone’s mood, I have seen this in aging relatives within my own extended family.

    Whatever the reason, agree that it is very strange.

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.