Doxxing Dalrock, pt. 2: Warhorn’s Credibility at Stake

Warhorn Media is a reformed protestant ministry, and I am at liberty to call them out for their evil: bearing false witness. I call on the men at Warhorn to admit their sin, apologize, repent, and to fire Nathan Alberson. Your ministry is an embarrassment.

I wrote a post earlier this month about how the interview was a set up. Today, Dalrock published the following post, revealing some problems with the interview post podcast release.

Nathan wrote the following words about the interview:

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.

That is absolutely pathetic for a ministry claiming to Christian. They deliberately started out to destroy a person, under the guise of being journalistic. Not only that, but from a ministry that claims this:

It’s time for the Church of Jesus Christ to wake up and lead. To call the world to repentance. For Christian men to act like Christian men, and Christian women to act like Christian women. Ordinary Christians need to be equipped to live ordinary Christian lives in an anti-ordinary world.

Nathan Alberson’s own words

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.

Elsewhere, Nathan wrote this:

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 [because they set out to discredit him]. We just wanted him to state his point of view. We responded in the podcast.

The truth is a bit different, however. At 11:34 AM on 1/15/19, Dalrock wrote

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.

Ten minutes later, at 11:42 AM on 1/15/19, Nathan Alberson responded:

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

Not only did Nathan lie about the nature of the interaction, he lied about the motives of his interview. Remember what I wrote in the beginning, where Nathan said Dalrock “lived down to our worst characterization of him”? 

Well, before Nathan wrote those words, he emailed Dalrock the following:

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

I don’t think much prayer and thought was given, when the outcome was decided before you set out (which you admitted to).  Contrary to Nathan’s own words about his motives, he then says

I did ask the questions in good faith, despite what your followers say about me.

 

Nathan had the stones to request Dalrock do the following:

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

My advice to Nathan

  • Produce any evidence you have that may contradict Dalrock’s narrative. If it is not sufficient, or if you do not, do the following
  • Repent for your malicious motives
  • repent for deliberately lying about the nature of your interaction
  • repent for lying about the purpose of the contact with Dalrock
  • Admit you are a liar
  • Apologize to Dalrock
  • Step down from ministry

If you do not do the following, you have no integrity, are not qualified to be in ministry, and remain in unrepentant sin.

Jude 1:10.

 

21 thoughts on “Doxxing Dalrock, pt. 2: Warhorn’s Credibility at Stake

      1. Didnt realize the entire sentence was a link.

        The OP there is garbage, and doesnt present an argument.

        The counter to Dalrock hinges on his name, and nothing else. No counter argument to be made.

        As per harassing behavior, I dont see him as the guilty party here. You dont get to throw a stone at someone, and then bitch when they throw back. Warhorn honed in when Dalrock went after their friend Doug Wilson.

        Any argument that Dalrock and co are all gay from guys who defend Matt Chandler is pretty dang ironic

        Like

      2. As an aside, do you have trouble seeing links in posted comments? My initial comment clearly has a link on the words “been had”. I can see the link when the comment loads. I wouldn’t make accusations without backing it up with evidence/argument (as you have done in your post regarding Warhorn).

        Like

      3. Could not see hyperlinks in comments from the platform I am using. It is very annoying.

        I used Warhorn’s own words, according to their emails. If the emails are wrong, they need to counter them with their own evidence, and I would reconsider. but their public comments online are irrefutable.

        They said one thing publicly, and another thing in private.

        So I would absolutely disagree with the fact that I dont have evidence, when I clearly used their words to make an argument against them.

        Like

      4. “The OP there is garbage, and doesnt present an argument. “

        Wow, this must be the most difficult point I have ever tried to make. My link is to my comment in the comment section, not to the OP. My comment begins “As a rational person” if you want to search for it. Not sure why the link isn’t working.

        My comment is very specific. It does not argue for or against Warhorn’s behavior. It only argues that Dalrock misrepresented (i.e. lied) about the situation. If you’d like, I can repost the comment here.

        Like

    1. Manipulating the situation: I cant read his mind, but I don’t see (by his emails), Dalrock trying to manipulate the situation. He sent a short email requesting a back and forth, and then went into detail describing a previous time he went back and forth with a fellow blogger. Moments later, Nathan responded to that in the affirmative. I went into that in some detail, stating the date and time of the message.

      If this were a contract negotiation, the terms of the contract would be Dalrocks. His responses were contingent upon his terms, which he requested after some back and forth, to which Nathan agreed to.

      Could it be miscommunication? Sure. In a contract setting, it would be considered clear.

      For Dalrock to do a live interview, he would have had to reveal his identity. That would put his career at stake, and his identity. I have written about this topic numerous times before, and quite frankly, when the focus of a conversation is on the identity, and not the argument, I believe there is a nefarious motive (on part of the ones trying to reveal the other). It also shows how disconnected pastors are from reality.

      I wont reveal my personal opinions as to what line of work Dalrock is in, but I dont see him as being a person who creates opinions on the fly. He gets an idea, focuses on it, and reflects on it for long periods of time. (I could be completely wrong on that point).

      Warhorn’s emails to Dalrock reflect a different tone than the post interview comments said by Nathan, and written by Nathan, on his own site. He admitted he wanted to expose Dalrock “for what he was.”

      Bayly is now out there on record saying the interview was conducted without his permission, and against his wishes. That is revealing on many levels. Ill let you think about why.

      Like

      1. Lexet,

        As I stated on the comment at the link, my concern is not with addressing Warhorn’s faults. Warhorn may very well have done wrong. However, it would be improper for me to speak against them at this time without building a case based on the evidence, so I won’t do so. You’ve done so, and much of your complaint is about them. I’m not contesting those claims at this time. However, I have taken the time to point out Dalrock’s dishonesty. Since you remain unconvinced, please allow me to emphasize the point. You said:

        “In a contract setting, it would be considered clear.”

        If Dalrock were your client, sure. If you were Warhorn’s representation, then no it would not be clear at all. And if Dalrock were your client, you should not prevail, at least in any state where the terms of the contract would hinge on, say, such precise grammatical intricacies like the Oxford Comma. Consider this one, very important clause of the contract (which you bolded in your quote):

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

        The contract would hinge on the word some. Warhorn agreed to some back and forth. Some. Not all. Some. It was to be limited. And indeed it was limited (see below). Warhorn did exactly what they agreed upon. Both you and Dalrock interpreted this to mean a full-scale debate, but this is not what it says in the actual terms of the contract. I don’t care what he intended to say, I only care about what he did say.

        But let’s grant that it was intended to be a back and forth discussion. What was the purpose of said discussion in Dalrock’s own words?

        “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). “

        Content for the podcast. Even Dalrock acknowledges that the purpose of the interview was for Warhorn to gather whatever content it needed for the podcast. And you know what? They did exactly that. They engaged in enough back-and-forth to gather the information that they wanted for the podcast. They even had information left over to spare, which they posted on their site in its entirety, even though they were under no obligation to do so.

        Despite all this, perhaps you think this is persuasive:

        “Larry Kummer and I did something similar back in November…”

        In terms of contract language, “something similar” is quite ambiguous. If you encouraged your clients to put those kinds of terms in their contracts, you would not be doing your job. It’s all well and good that they “did something similar.” Yet even so, that is exactly what happened. Dalrock and Nathan’s responses are both posted on Dalrock’s blog, just as they agreed upon, in a similar manner.

        In their agreement, Warhorn said the following:

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

        This confirms the expectation that it was an interview, not a debate. It was explicitly called an interview for the purposes of providing material for their podcast. There was no ambiguity. Dalrock is not excused for failing to understand the contract. Notice the second and third sentences there. Warhorn agreed so that Dalrock could give his responses to their interview questions. Sure, there was some back and forth, as agreed, but that is not the primary purpose of an interview.

        Now we get to what you said about the quotes above:

        “The truth is a bit different, however. At 11:34 AM on 1/15/19, Dalrock wrote…[…]…Not only did Nathan lie about the nature of the interaction”

        This is a misrepresentation on your part. Nathan agreed to what I listed above and what both parties agreed upon was what was delivered. This was not a lie about the nature of their interaction, it was accurate. Dalrock explicitly called this a lie as well. Calling something a lie that is not a lie is itself a lie if you know it is untrue. Presumably you read the quoted email interaction mistakenly and did not know your conclusion was untrue.

        Derek

        Like

      2. should Dalrock, and others, clarify the following in the future: “Is this interview to malign my character, etc. …”

        Like

      3. Lexet,

        Having dealt with Dalrock’s lie, let’s consider your other points.

        “Manipulating the situation: I cant read his mind, but I don’t see (by his emails), Dalrock trying to manipulate the situation. He sent a short email requesting a back and forth, and then went into detail describing a previous time he went back and forth with a fellow blogger. Moments later, Nathan responded to that in the affirmative.”

        As for manipulating, Dalrock engages in censorship and narrative control. I’ve laid out my case for that elsewhere. If you don’t see it, that’s fine. It’s my opinion, not the word of God. We can agree to disagree on that.

        I think there is a more fundamental issue here. This is an interview (click me). These are inherently one-sided from a content and power perspective. They are also prone to error and misunderstanding. I’ve given a number of media interviews, so I know of what I speak. In the case of a hostile interaction, these limitations are amplified even more. Dalrock’s behavior indicates that he has never been interviewed before. He attempted to turn the interview process into a debate so he could control the narrative on his own website. The Warhorn podcast made this point. I made the same point before the podcast was released. Dalrock’s behaviors and expectations were unreasonable and not clearly communicated.

        “For Dalrock to do a live interview, he would have had to reveal his identity. That would put his career at stake, and his identity.”

        I’m aware of your thoughts on this matter, but it’s a red-herring and a false dilemma. Dalrock could have and should have said no to the interview entirely, not just the live interview. There was no way an email interview was going to turn out well for Dalrock. His best chance was to do it live or else not do it at all.

        “He admitted he wanted to expose Dalrock “for what he was.”

        No, that’s not precisely what he said. Let me quote it.

        “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.”

        He thought that Dalrock was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, to borrow a phrase. He wasn’t sure, so he was hoping that the hypothetical wolf would shed his sheep’s clothing and expose himself for the person he really was. If you think someone is evil but don’t have the conclusive evidence, you would of course want him to slip up and expose himself for who he was. Evil should be exposed to the light. This doesn’t mean you want them to be evil, you just want to know if they are evil. That is what is happening here. Now, you don’t think Dalrock is evil, so you conclude that it was a hit piece, but that’s not justified logically. Your OP argument, which rests on this premise, is thus logically unsound.

        “should Dalrock, and others, clarify the following in the future: “Is this interview to malign my character, etc. …”

        They should assume that it will take place and prepare accordingly. If they can’t take the risk, they should not consent to an interview. If you are sent out as sheep to the wolves, you must be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves. The anonymous should understand this instinctively.

        As I said above, every interview is going to misrepresent you. It doesn’t even have to be malicious. You will have no recourse. If you want to avoid that, be wise and don’t give an interview. Interviews are like forbidden fruit. You think

        All that said, I’m not excusing Warhorn’s behavior. If you or Dalrock wants to criticize them for ad hominem or other issues, go for it. There is plenty of content in that podcast to complain about without resorting to these, at best, ambiguous claims.

        Derek

        Like

      4. I wrote part 1 for a reason. The most I can say is that assumptions were made about the character of dalrocks interviewers.

        In this instance, I don’t see manipulation on dalrocks part.

        On another point- Nathan addresses dalrocks numerous articles on chivalry by making light of his theory, while claiming he views it as “ok” because “it’s about opening doors”.

        Nathan is an ignorant man. It doesn’t take much time on their site to see that

        Like

  1. Well, looking at this a year or so later, my conclusion is that Dalrock continued his overall downward slide in my estimation, and the Warhorn crew, who I knew nothing about, presented plenty of reasons to put themselves considerably lower than Dalrock in my estimation. Overall, it was a lose-lose series of events.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting view.

      I think Dalrock just posted less.

      Also, one can only speak so much on certain topics.

      Warhorn isn’t a threat anymore. But there are some groups trying to become de facto leaders of the movement for personal gain.

      One faux ministry is attempting it and 21 convention did a massive pivot to appeal to tradcon elements while disavowing others.

      There is no leader of the red pill.

      There is no anointed head of Christian red pill.

      All efforts to take it over and monetize it should be met with skepticism.

      Like

      1. It was purely coincidental, although I had noticed the drop in Dalrock’s posting frequency, so it was not a complete surprise to see he is ceasing blogging. I have mixed thoughts on that. The blog was helpful to me when I found it after my divorce, but the relevance and quality of the content steadily decreased over the five or so years I read and commented. I do hope the blog remains publicly available, both for those who would benefit from the good stuff, and also as a historical record.

        Like

      2. I’m disappointed in him stopping. He was starting to close in on a lot of the rot in modern Protestantism. I would say warhorn was just the beginning.

        No follow through though. Not sure if he ever realized why those “conservative” Christian ministries were problematic

        Like

Leave a Reply

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