~ archived since 2018 ~

Warhorn’s projection

March 4, 2019

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. 🙂


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:

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:
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:

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.




TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the blog Dalrock.

Dalrock archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Warhorn’s projection
Author Dalrock
Date March 4, 2019 6:33 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Blog Dalrock
Archive Link
Original Link
Red Pill terms in post
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter