Transcript of Warhorn episode

This is my final effort at a transcript of the Feb 26, 2019 podcast “Into the Manosphere”. I would estimate this to be 99% accurate. Enjoy. Or not.

– [Intro blurb]

– [1:30] Today we’re going to be, let’s just get right into it, this is our big episode, Our first episode of 2019. And we thought we’d come out of the  gate with a bang. We’re going to be talking about the manosphere.

– There we go.

– Specifically, we’re going to be talking about one blogger in the wide and fascinating world of the manosphere.

– Okay, but Nathan, what exactly is the Manosphere?

– Let’s find out in a little segment I call Mansplaining the Manosphere.

– [2:03] Hey, everybody. Welcome to Mansplaining the Manosphere. One of our favorite Sound of Sanity segments. Everybody excited?

– Yeah!

– All right, let’s do it. So where are we going to start? The manosphere is a big place. It is a diverse world.

– I know…I know a good place to start. Why don’t we start with The 21 Convention?

– Ben, do you mean The 21 Convention in Orlando this May?

– Nathan, how’d ya know?

– Ben, how could I not know about, and I quote, the world’s ultimate event for fathers, by fathers, the best speakers on Earth for men. Focused on fatherhood, family, and marriage in an anti-masculine age. Seating is limited.

– This is a convention that bills itself as a fatherhood conference.

– Yeah but the cinematic trailer for the conference tells you kinda all you need to know about it.

– [2:53] We see muscle-bound men in sunglasses.

– One dude in a Tesla, two others in a Lamborghini.

– All through the trailer they’re posturing with sunglasses on. They shake hands. They ride a hotel escalator together. It’s really macho. It’s…I mean, it’s gay. Who are these guys in sunglasses that ride the escalator and look really macho?

– and gay.

– So, for starters Rollo Tomassi is one of those guys. Apparently he’s a prolific blogger about manhood and womanhood and how to get women to sleep with you, so a pick-up artist even if he doesn’t want to call himself that. And he’s also a big part of what’s called The Red Pill movement. The godfather of The Red Pill movement, in fact. But we’ll come back to Red Pill in a minute, I think.

– [3:33] Yeah. Because we want to talk about who else there is at this convention. So, for starters you’ve got the renowned (group laughter)

– Renowned what, Ben?

– Yeah. Tell us Ben. Come on. The renowned what?

– Submission domination expert Texas Dom.

– Ah. Texas Dom. Who doesn’t love Texas Dom? He is, folks, an expert on the BDSM lifestyle. That stands for bondage domination submission and masochism, I think or bondage. I don’t know. It stands for …

–  Sadism, masochism.  Yeah.

– [4:08] The kinds of things that fathers need to know about

– Yeah, yeah, yeah. A great guy to speak at a conference for fathers everywhere.

– For fathers, by fathers. They’ve also got some strength training guys, a men’s style expert fashion guy, and a self-described chief patriarch, and all kinds of other manosphere celebrities. So …

– If they wanted a style expert they should have just asked one Jake Mentzel to come to this conference.

– Totally, man.

– If The 21 Conference is representative of the manosphere, then it’s a place where men go to either look for fathers or pretend like they’re fathers?

– Yeah. And then what they find when they find manosphere fathers, insofar as these guys represent it, is they find BDSM guys, they find strength coaches. That sounds great.

– [4:50] All kinds of stuff. Sweet. So if these guys represent the manosphere or even a little part of the manosphere, umm, what exactly is the manosphere?

– All right, time to go back to that Red Pill thing. Let’s define that. That’s a pretty easy way into the manosphere

– Red pill. (voice sound effects) Whoa. Dodge this. This is my impression of the coolest movie from our collective childhood …

– Not fast enough. I know kung fu.

– Yeah, okay. So the Matrix is where the term comes from and I’m guessing that most of our listeners have, let’s be honest, we’ve all seen the Matrix, right?

– Most of us have seen The Matrix, yeah.

– But in case you haven’t seen The Matrix, this is Mansplaining the Manosphere so we’ll mansplain it for you.

– Mainsplaining The Matrix. So, in fact, let’s go to a new segment I call it Mansplaining The Matrix.

– [5:37] Hey everybody. Welcome to Mansplaining The Matrix. I’ve got your host Jake Mentzel right here and he’s going to mansplain The Matrix for you.

– All right. So here’s the deal: You’ve got a big scene where the hero is given a choice between two pills: a red pill and a blue pill.

– Let’s roll the clip actually:

– [5:54] It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

– What truth?

– That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.

– You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland. And I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

– [6:37]

– All right. So, in the Manosphere if you’re going to be like Neo and take the red pill, that means you’re waking up to the harsh ugly reality where women are not, in fact, angelic innocent beings.

– It’s a harsh and ugly reality where women dominate and oppress men. They sleep around as they please with no consequences. They marry and divorce as they please, and the courts support them no matter what.

– Yep. So if you’re accused of rape, if you get taken to the divorce court.  It’s up for you, pal. Because you’re a man.

– Red pill just means you’ve taken the red pill so you see the world the way it is. You wake up to the reality of what the world… and very often that means waking up to the ugliness of feminism, the way that Society is …

– You take the red pill you see, wait a minute, feminism is a destructive force that’s tearing our society apart.

– True enough. What do we think about that? Do we agree with that?

– Absolutely.

– [7:28] That’s true. It’s true. Feminism is tearing the world apart. Feminism is…I  mean we call it heresy. Right. So like we’ve already indicated the manosphere is home to a number of groups that we don’t want to make common cause with though, like pick-up artists for one.

– We also don’t want to make common cause with MGTOW.

– MGTOW! Well, I’m sure all of our listeners know what that is.

– Well, maybe they don’t.

– Ha-ha Ha!. Got you, Ben.

– Curses.

– [7:54] Sorry guys. I’m excited about this episode for some reason. So MGTOW …It’s our first one back. It’s fun! So MGTOW stands for men going their own way. MGTOW in capital letters is how you’ll usually see it on the interwebs and people, guys, men who identify as MGTOW are part of the manosphere but …

– But not pick-up artists.

– And no, in fact, Pick-Up artists kind of hate these guys because they want to indulge in the, you know, sex.

– Sex.

– [8:21] But…but guys in MGTOW are about saying we opt out of marriage, we opt out of raising children, maybe we even opt out of sex, although some of them are okay with using prostitutes, and I’m sorry to be disgusting, but this is really the way it is. Like, these guys have big communities. Their…their big deal is, like, we own our bodies. Kind of like how feminism says women have to…they have an absolute right to their body and the babies in them. Which they have a right to tear apart.

– Right. So, if women are going to have those rights then men should have those rights, too.

– [8:51] Men should have those rights, too and often that translates to why would I sleep with a woman? Like, this is my body and I’m not giving up my right to it.

– Right, right, right. Women are oppressing men in – [?] If you’ve taken the red pill you know that. So they think the best choice they can make is… MGTOW guys think the best choice they can make is just keep away from women, live their lives apart from the entanglements that the fair sex brings.

– Yeah but let’s keep on marching through the manosphere. Another significant part of it is the men’s rights movement or MRM.

– [9:20] Yeah the manosphere is nothing, if not big on acronyms, abbreviations.

– So the men’s Rights Movement, guys. It’s all about making society better for men. Advocating for them in divorce courts and custody battles. Making people aware that fathers and husbands and boys are being mistreated and abused.

– So it’s probably obvious that the men’s rights movement right MRM… this stuff gets so confusing… but if you’re MRM you’re obviously not MGTOW.

– Yeah, right so like we said earlier the manosphere is a big place. I mean I think it’s fair to say from all I’ve seen. If you’re in the manosphere you’ve taken the red pill but then what direction you go after that… It depends.

– [9:53] We haven’t even talked about the Christian versions of all of this stuff. I mean there’s … I uh … we were Twitter friends with some people who said they’ve taken the burgundy pill which is like the red pill only  it’s for Christians. It’s red pill but…but it’s diluted to burgundy. I don’t know but Christians … And there’s the wonderful charming fellows from the domestic discipline movement who are discovering the joys of spanking your wife for her moral improvement. That’s a thing! That’s a thing! But we are not talking about that specifically today. We’re talking about one …. In all the manosphere there’s obviously a lot of moving parts. There’s a lot of ins and outs. There’s people that would disagree, there’s  people that would say this, people that would say that. People, I daresay, that would say the other thing. But we are going to take one, shall we say, representative case, a particular blogger that we’re going to talk about today.

– [10:41] So this guy is from the Christian manosphere.

– And his name is Dalrock.

– Yes, Dalrock. It’s actually divided into two words in his email so I don’t know if we should call him Mister Rock or Dal or just Dalrock. I guess we’ll just call him Dalrock. He grew, just last year, to influence one Benjamin J Salzer. At least you were among his readers, weren’t you, Ben?

– True that. I was.

– And that is how Dalrock was brought to our attention. So we’ve read him some . I’ve read him some. Jake, I don’t think you actually read him for pleasure but you read him for business. Because you knew we were going to do …

– [11:14] For this episode. Yes.

– He has some bothersome elements, we thought, and we wanted to get to the bottom of it.

– Yeah. We should say Dalrock… he’s not a pick-up artist. He’s also not trying to lead Christian men to opt out of marriage or anything dumb like that.

– Yeah. He’s more or less focused on criticizing the church for its failure to oppose feminism actually, which is something that gives us some real sympathy for his cause.

– Yeah …that would be how Dalrock would see himself. I hope this is fair. He sees himself as a faithful defender of men’s headship, of women’s submission. You know, of a Biblical perspective on men and women.

– [11:51] Yeah. So he’s a Bible-believing Christian.

– So I actually contacted Dalrock for an interview and, interesting thing, he would not do an audio interview. Dalrock is a pseudonym. We don’t know who…what his real name is. He says he’s… what? A happily married man married to his sexy wife with his two wonderful kids. That’s what his little byline on his blog says.

– That’s what his byline says.

– In the Fort Worth area of Texas.

– And in the interview he says that he’s been married for more than 20 years.

– [12:16] Yeah. He’s been married for more than 20 years. I actually wanted to get him on the show. I wanted to do an audio interview. I wanted to talk to him on the phone or something along those lines. He turned me down. He was not willing to do that. He’s kind of a private person. So I had to do an email interview which I did over the course of a month or so. I sent him a bunch of questions and Dalrock was kind enough to answer. We talked and argued about some of his answers but I actually didn’t spend a lot of time engaging him too much through email. I just wanted to let him express his point of view.

– [12:47] Yeah. And you can find that whole interview at We’ll be posting it there when this episode drops.

– So before we get into the Dalrock material, maybe we could get a little more perspective on, just, manosphere issues from another source.

– Hmmm. I don’t know, Ben. Where would we go for a little more perspective?

– How about the number one source for conservative podcasting in Sanityville? Our friends at Rapid Fire?

– Ben, that sounds like a great idea. All right, everyone we’ll be right back after a few minutes with our friends at Rapid Fire.

– [13:24] (guitar music, fireworks)

– Greetings, fellow Americans. This is Rapidfire and I’m Stone Huntington.

– And I’m Lance Redford. And Utah, you had your chance at statehood. Now you can  take all your multiple wives and join the USSR for all I care.

– Utah’s already a state and has been for quite some time

– But Lance, I thought Utah stood for Uncharted Territory Always Hostile?

– Well, Chip, don’t you remember when I told you that not everything is an acronym?

– Sure I do, Lance, but I figured that acronym stood for “a clever ruse or never you mind”.

– But, Chip, be reasonable now. Why would acronym stand for anything like that?

– Hold on! You ain’t trying to pull an acronym on me now, is you?

– No, Chip.

– No, Chip. You mean non-operational candy hazelnuts in Pennsylvania?

– No, Chip.

– Nationally obvious communist hit man in Pakistan?

– No, Chip.

– Wait, wait. I got it. Notion of crazy h(….) in possums?

– No, Chip.

– Gentlemen, I insist that you desist.

– Chip, will you desist already, man?

– Yellow eagle survive, Lance.

– What? Oh, that’s an acronym for yes, huh?

– Huh?

– [14:31] Gentlemen, there’s a blight upon our fair land. I’m talking about every single human personage that walks about this fair globe with long hair and a skirt. If you ask me what every woman in this nation needs is a good old-fashioned spanking.

– You … you mean that metaphorically, right? Right, Stone?

–  Metaphorically, Lance, and also literally. And that’s why today I am once again offering all our listeners who donate $50 or more in the next 24 hours a special Rapid Fire spanking paddle. Yes, that’s right. You AmeriCAN have a good marriage.

– Now Stone. Now. (birds screeching?) Now…now we’ve never offered a paddle before …

– Lance, it’s time for the men of this country to take responsibility and give the women what they’re really asking for. Before everything we love and cherish as Americans is devoured by the pink menace.

– [15:24] Well now, Stone, I love and cherish my wife and I just …I just think I prefer not to, you know, abuse her …

– And your wife would prefer to be married to a man.

– Lance, you know I love you, but if I ever saw you raise a hand against Laura ….

– And that’s the point, Chip. Lance doesn’t have to use his hands. Not any more. With the new Rapid Fire paddle you get the finest handcrafted American-made product available, the only marriage counselor you will ever need. Act now, friends, and you’ll get to choose between the Shrew Tamer, the Peacemaker, and Old Betsy.

– Well now, Stone, women….women are complicated creatures …

– Not any more, they’re not, Lance, so maybe it’s time to reclaim some of the old-fashioned ways of reining in the old battle-axe.

– [16:08] But… well sure, Stone, but if you were to, say, read the relevant passages on sex, marriage, and family in Calvin’s Geneva, or William Gouge’s Domesticall Duties wherein the famed Puritan writer asks the question whether it is lawful for husbands to beat their wives, or if you were to, say, examine the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, the first Puritan legal code, you might …

– Lance, do you mean the code which states and, I quote, “Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes from her husband”?

– That’s the very one, Chip. In short, Stone, if you do the research, you’ll see that precious few persons of respectable standing in Western civilization have ever thought it’s okay to have used the old corporal punishment on a wife, except of course a few outliers who …

– [16:43] Lance, you dunderhead! If the men of this country won’t deal with the women of this country, there won’t be a country left with which the men of this country can deal.

– Wow! Stone…. I just… I mean….I…

– Hey, Lance! Why don’t you just tell old Stone that dealing with women in this country don’t mean beating them with sticks?

– Well sure, Chip but, of course … it’s not so…so easy.

– Take you and Laura, Lance. Whenever you want to get through to her, you just talk with her. Why don’t you just give Stone some advice based on your marriage?

– [17:06] Advice from Lance’s marriage.  Chip, corporal punishment is a tool in the toolbox of every authority. Consider jailers. What are electric chairs or stocks for? Consider parents, Chip. They use rods.

– Well, I ain’t never seen Lance try to take Laura to the electric chair and if he did, I fail to see how that would revive their marriage. Because she’d be dead.

– Well, Chip, obviously not every tool is in the tool kit of every Authority, You’re taking my words out of context!

– Stone, are you trying to say that corporal punishment may not be a proper tool in any number of authority-subordinate relationships? That there are in fact nuances in these matters that render invalid the simplistic paradigms of twenty-two-year-olds simply typing away in their mother’s basements and that, just to take an example, even though I am your subordinate, you wouldn’t use corporal punishment on me. Seeing as you like your trachea just where it is.

– [17:53] This nincompoopery will not stand! Lance, get your cousin under control before I dock your pay.

– Well now, Chip, you made some fine points, but there’s some reasons we don’t talk about these kinds of things so openly on the air and …

– Lance, why don’t you get back to straight-up condemning it? It just seems like fetishized violence of a perverted segment of the population.

– Well now, Chip, I just want to defend every American’s freedom to discuss the issue in a respectful way. Bottom line, no pun intended of course, I mean I’d agree with, uh well, Stone’s position but, uh, free speech and all that, you know?  America! Yeehaw! And besides, Chip, there are some women that are, you know, out of control today.

–  Well, that may be, Lance, but there are some men who are out of control today, too.  Like any man who’d want to use our spanking paddles. In fact, I can think of a better use for those paddles. Termite food. In Utah? I’m sure the Soviets would love to have you and your special underwear.

– I can think of something that would make for great termite food. Nancy Pelosi! Yeehaw!


– [18:53] Good old Rapid Fire.

– Oh boy. Hey, those guys had some spanking good points, didn’t they?

– Did they ever. Yes, sir. I… I really love their …. Whoa! What the ….

– Sorry, Ben. It’s the devil advocate alarm.

– The DAA?

– Yes, sir. I’d almost forgotten that was a thing in our little sabbatical. But it sure is. Why don’t you tell us what the DAA signifies, Benjamin?

– Oh fine, Nathan. The DAA means somebody has to play the Devil’s Advocate and argue for the opposite of what we’ve been asserting.

– Sweet! All right guys, who wants to be the Devil’s Advocate?

– (in unison) I do! What? You want to? I wanted to, too. Well. Okay. I guess you can.

– Well, which one of you guys is going to do it?

– Well, I really think Ben and I should play the devil against you, Nathan.

– What?

– Well, you were the one who ran point on the interview with Dalrock so… I think it’s right for you to be the one who’s challenged.

– All right, all right.

– I can take two of you. Why not?

– Fine. fine with me. Alright Jake, my devilish compadre, you want to start us out?

– Sure.

– [20:01] Well, you’re going to have trouble arguing against me though because… we said this is the part of the show where the devil argues against the assertions we’ve been making. I haven’t actually made any assertions about Dalrock. We explained the manosphere. We explained who Dalrock was. We went to a hilarious Rapidfire skit …

– Come on, come on. You have, Nathan. You conducted the interview. Used loaded feminist terms like misogyny in it. You used terms that tipped your hand, you didn’t go into it in good faith, and you’ve been carefully devising a strawman the entire episode. So, do you want to deny that?

– Yeah. I don’t know. I mean I did use terms like misogyny in the interview because I wanted Dalrock to deal with some of that stuff and… I don’t know. Okay. I will admit… I will admit this. When I went into the interview, I was already feeling bothered by Dalrock so I tried to be as even-handed and sort of, I daresay, journalistic as possible, bu-u-u-u-t I also sort of wanted Dalrock to trip up and prove that he was not good because, I sort of thought he probably wasn’t good, although I hadn’t read him enough to really know at the time. So I will admit I went into it with a bias.

– [21:10] All right. So is that all you want to say?

– I do not have great respect for the manosphere. As the producer of the show, that may have crept into the first segment before we went to the Rapidfire skit.

– Maybe.

– Possibly.

– Yeah. It may have also crept into the skit a little which is to beat … all the skit is, is just beating the stuffing out of certain elements of the manosphere.

– Yeah, that’s some scintillating satire there, man. Way to take down all those wife spankers out there. Which is related to the subject we’re talking about, how exactly?

– [21:41] Well, the reason the whole idea of wife spanking came up… It would be …I would love to say that I thought of the idea of wife spanking, but in fact, it came up because Dalrock has a “no discussion of corporal punishment” rule on his blog which, I don’t know guys, like, we have a Warhorn Media Forum in Sanityville, people are welcome to sign up for it, and we…we… we’ve not had to make a rule like “Don’t discuss marital corporal punishment.” You know why? You guys… you guys want to know why?

– Uh Yeah. Tell us.

– I have no idea.

– It’s because nobody in our circle is discussing marital corporal punishment. So, yeah, just a… maybe it’s a minority of Dalrock’s followers, maybe it’s a minority of the people in the manosphere that are into crazy stuff like this, but I think it makes a difference. I mean, if you have to say… if you have to put up a sign at your rally that says “no Nazis allowed”, maybe there’s something wrong with the rhetoric of your rally.

– [22:40] Oh come on, Nathan.

– Yeah. I mean seriously? Dalrock does admit in the interview, you’ll see, dear listener, if you read it, he admits there’s, like, a small minority of his followers that undermine the conversation by turning it to wife spanking.

– Okay? But most of the followers aren’t that way. Dalrock himself is not a wife spanker. He doesn’t talk about it. He doesn’t like people talking about it and so you spent that whole skit beating up a strawman so that you could associate Dalrock with wife beaters, with wife-spankers, and that’s disingenuous.

– (sighing) Okay. All right. All right, fellas, ya got me.

– That doesn’t sound like we got you. (laughter)

– I mean. Okay. That skit… it was a fun skit. We had a blast writing it. Is it…is it a really pointed takedown of Dalrock? No. He would not believe anything that the bad guy in that skit believed. We were just having some fun. Although I do want to emphasize again Dalrock has followers that talk about that kind of stuff.

– [23:38] But it’s not everybody.

– They’re problematic though.

– It’s not everybody.

– Yeah, It’s not everyone. And plus what about Dalrock, what about everything that came before the skit? What about all the facts, the explanation. I mean, come on. You’re biasing things a certain way.

– Yeah. It’s basically the same thing as a sketch, right?

– Yeah, You took kind of a broad movement, the manosphere, which is really big, and then you emphasized the problematic parts of it.

– Like the BDSM guy at the conference for fatherhood?

– [24:08] Yeah, yeah. Exactly. Like that.

–  I mean come on.

– You brought that up… We brought that up and then lumped Dalrock in with those guys.

– I haven’t really lumped D… Guys,…

– No, no, no. listen. The case is that in an episode where we’re going to focus on Dalrock, we decided to explain the manosphere in a way that was all BDSM fathers, and fashionistas, and, you know, stuff like that. It’s…It’s pre-loading the audience to think and feel a certain way about Dalrock by explaining the context that Dalrock is working in, the manosphere, in the worst possible light.

– [24:42] Yeah, there’s a more sympathetic way to present the manosphere if you want to, I mean, if you’re interested, isn’t it worth acknowledging that men have real issues in society today? Would anyone here actually deny that? So we could have focused on it. We could have got into the manosphere that way.

– Yeah. But guys, I think you could really …. I just want to assert the right to generalize about things. I..I don’t know. There’s just not a way to talk about this if we can’t generalize about people and about movements and stuff somewhere so, yes, I will acknowledge Dalrock’s not as bad as the rest. Dalrock might have some good points. There might be good guys within this thing that have some good points. But why don’t you guys actually let me say something about Dalrock? Make a couple of assertions before you assume I’m just going to be disingenuous.

– [25:25] Okay? You know what? I apologize.  I apologize for the whole first part of the … all the true facts (laughter) that we mentioned about the manosphere that are readily available. I’m sorry. We should have left those out. We should have… Okay, I’m being a little snarky here.

– Yeah, that’s…

– but you know what? Can I make some … whatever you want to say about the first part of this episode, can I make some assertions about Dalrock?

– Yes. Tell us about Dalrock.  Make some assertions.

– I, Nathan Albertson, I interviewed Dalrock and he, first of all, I just want to say, he was a very pleasant polite guy. Very nice to talk to. Let’s start there.

– Sure. And where’s the “but”? Because I can hear it coming on.

– Bu-u-u-ut. Yeah, you were right, Ben.

– [26:10] Okay. Let me start 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. Hiding behind his pseudonym.

– Okay, this is where I feel strongly about this. Umm, so I’m going to jump the fence here and agree.

– What?

– Sorry Ben, you’re on your own.

– You’re agreeing with me, the not devil? But you’re supposed to be the devil.

– Yeah. Well, I’m going to take the side of the angels here, apparently.

– Okay.

– Okay. So I want to jump the fence. I want to… I want to… Ben and I have been playing the role of the devil’s advocate here.

– Right.

– Defending Dalrock. Proactively defending Dalrock.

– Right. Before I’d even attacked him.

– Before you’d even attacked him. But now I’m going to jump sides here. I want to…I want to take on this whole pseudonymity thing.

– [27:34] So you are going to fight against Dalrock and we are going to, as the devil’s advocate, defend Dalrock? Okay. Yeah so I’m going to jump fence. I’m going to join Ben. We’re both going to play the devil’s advocate. Very confusing, folks, but I’m going to try and defend, me and Ben are now defending Dalrock’s right to use a pseudonym and Jake, apparently, has some strong feelings to the negative. Oh well. Well, well, well, Jake. What do you have to say about Dalrock using a pseudonym?

– Uh, hiding behind a pseudonym?

– Yes. Hiding behind a pseudonym. You mean like how Alexander Hamilton hid behind a pseudonym? You mean like how John Calvin hid between a pseudonym when he was writing?

– He hid BETWEEN a pseudonym?  (laughter)

– He hid behind a pseudonym. Yeah. In other words, what’s your problem with pseudonyms, Jake? Lots of great people have used pseudonyms. For good reasons.

– Yep. Yep, including many Christians that wrote pseudonymously…

– No example in the Bible. Well the midwives lied to Pharaoh so that’s, I mean, even stronger, maybe, than a pseudonym. Rahab lied to soldiers who were searching for spies in Canaan and God rewarded them. And it’s… then John Calvin resorted to pseudonyms.

– To save his life!

– Jake, there is a real … there is a real SJW Progressive mob that is vicious and nasty and they do destroy people. You ever heard the story of the guy named Brendan Ike? You ever hear the story of a guy named Paige Patterson? You ever read that story that went…,  that made the news a couple, I don’t know how long ago it was, a year or two ago, about the guy who worked for Google. He published an email about the differences between men and women and what happened to him? He got fired. There can be real consequences. There might be some… a good reason to use a pseudonym.

– Yeah. I’m going to pile on, Jake. Is the only way for Dalrock to be faithful to what…to God to put his career on the line and, like, set himself on fire? Lose his job. Fail to support and protect his wife and kids.

– [29:25] Okay. Listen. First of all, it’s not generally that bad out there. The SJW crowd can be vicious and people can lose their jobs. Things like that happen. But Dalrock’s not gonna get killed, he’s not going to lose his life, he’s probably not going to lose his job.

– You don’t know what his job is.

– Yeah. You actually don’t know what he has on the line. At all.

– Okay. Fine. So..look let’s get a principle clear then at least. Are you willing to say John Calvin should never have used a pseudonym at a time when Roman Catholics were looking for him to kill him? Or, say Pascal, who wrote letters under pseudonyms at a time? Once you’ve admitted it’s possible it might be a good idea, we’re just talking about when to do it or not.

– Yeah. So, like, are you going to unequivocally claim that it’s unwise for anyone to ever use a pseudonym?

– [30:10] No. Okay. Fine. I won’t claim that it’s … I won’t unequivocally claim that it’s unwise for anyone to ever use a pseudonym, but I can claim the manosphere is full of pseudonymous guys spouting off things they would never ever say to anyone in real life. So a crowd of rabid followers who like to spout off about those kinds of things. Again to no one they would ever speak to in real life except behind closed doors. And some of them are talking about bondage and seduction and wife spanking and all kinds of gross stuff.

– Yeah, some of them. But those are really easy generalizations to make like we were before we flip-flopped.

– Yeah, yeah, yeah. When Dalrock published one of our… published our interviews, one of his commenters called us “the bleep worshippers at Whorehorn media”. Commenters on his blog are regularly referring to us as things like bleep worshipers and Whorehorn Media. Like, now I’m assuming that what I just  said was bleeped out, but the bleep was on an awful vile word and Dalrock doesn’t discipline this sort of thing on his …it’s his blog, he can do whatever he wants. None of his followers are reprimanded for that sort of thing and so, yeah, it cultivates an atmosphere that’s toxic.

– [31:17]  Well, You’ve got to stop equating Dalrock with the worst of his followers, though.

– Yeah and it’s just, I mean it’s just ad hominem arguments. I mean…okay, so he has some bad followers. Okay, maybe he’s a bad person. Although you don’t actually know that. Yeah. I mean even then it doesn’t follow that his ideas are bad, so why don’t we talk about his actual arguments that he’s making?

– Yeah. For example …. for example, when I asked him about wife spanking, why he had to have a prohibition against it, all that kind of stuff, he said he didn’t believe in it. He said, here’s a quote “We don’t need marital corporal punishment. We need to take away the tools the church and state have put into place to weaken the position of husbands. Divorce, etc We also need to stop blaming men for women’s sins because we are too uncomfortable holding women accountable.”

– [32:04] So. You disagree with that, Jake?

– No, I don’t. He’s right.

– Here’s another quote from Dalrock: “Feminists openly and methodically marched through all of our institutions for decades. Conservative Christians responded to this by simply denying that it was happening. Changing the subject to men no matter how ridiculous. It’s the go-to coping mechanism here.” Do you disagree with that, Jake?

– No. Again, I don’t disagree with that at all. He’s pointing out a real problem.

– [32:25] I mean, I’ve read quite a bit of Dalrock. I would say he does a really good job of pointing out real problems. So, in the Warhorn interview, he went after a book called Every Man’s Marriage.

– Yeah. Let me just quote, this is not by Dalrock, this is by that book, Every Man’s Marriage. Here’s the quote from the book “What I’m trying to say is that the master defines your rights and, remember again, that though we refer to your wife as your master, it’s our shorthand for the fact that becoming one with her essence is actually your god-given master. Why? Because we’re called to oneness and her Essence sets the terms.” That’s the kind of weird stuff that Dalrock is fighting.

– That’s really gross. Yeah.

– [32:58] It is gross and Dalrock works to dismantle stuff like that. I’d say it’s valuable work.

– And it’s all …I mean, it’s a popular book. So it’s all through the evangelical church. It  someone…. It’s good to have someone blogging against it.

– Yeah. Dalrock also says really, here’s another quote from Dalrock, he says really obvious stuff like “For women specifically just as with men I believe that marriage is the blessing God intends for nearly all. One of the cruel things we do to women in this regard is discourage them from seeking a husband when they are young and most attractive.”

– [33:27] That’s the kind of thing that we really appreciate when our senior pastor says here at our church, but not a lot of people will say that.

– Sure. So Dalrock says obvious things. He says things that are good, he says things that need to be said, so tell us again what your problem is with Dalrock?

– Okay, Well, for one thing he lumps me, my pastor Tim Bayly and the stuff we represent at Warhorn with really narrow, to be polite, complementarians like Matt Chandler, and the way that he does that is completely disingenuous. For another thing, I’m not willing to let him off the hook for being pseudonymous and having the followers he has.

– Well, again Jake, nobody is arguing that Dalrock is perfect. What we are arguing is that he’s saying some important things, that those things, in and of themselves, have value whether he does as a guy or not, and that somebody should be saying these things.

– [34:14] Yeah, that’s right. I mean, the church has failed. It’s failed in a lot of ways. It has failed men. Men want to know about what it means to be a man, they want to know about womanhood, they want to know about responsibility and authority. That’s what Dalrock is writing about. And often kind of working through stuff like he’s processing it on his blog. So I don’t know why you’d begrudge him his followers even if they’re not perfect or some of them are … worse.

– I don’t have a problem with people not having perfect followers. I DON’T trust a man who doesn’t have skin in the game.

– He has skin in the game.

– He’s an anonymous internet man who refuses to reveal his identity or ally himself with any institution with any weight or get any single person with any authority to sign off publicly on his work. He has zero names standing behind anything he says and he has skin in the game? Please.

– So you have that kind of skin in the game, huh?.

– [35:02] Uh, yeah. Actually. I’m a pastor. I’m a teacher. And not because I randomly decided I would be. I was ordained by godly men who were part of a church. I work for an institution called Warhorn Media which is a ministry under the authority of elders of a local church. I have suffered for standing up for biblical sexuality specifically. Maybe in small ways, sure, but let me play some audio from a conference we put on when I was a college pastor of our church. We had an event at IU called Sexual by Design. We invited Doug Wilson to come and speak. Listen to what happened:

(Audio of protestors – [led by a woman])

– [35:45] They called in thirty cops for protection. Armed security guards for protection and extra police officers for protection for me, for Doug, for the people who were putting on this event. They were worried. They had us plan our entry and exit routes because they were afraid we were going to be assaulted. I had people going back into my tweets from years before that. Calling me a jihadist because I had quotes on spiritual warfare.

– And, Nathan, when you wrote the article Open Letter to Rey, you had people sending you pictures of beheadings saying they wanted you dead, they thought that you were ugly, they thought you were a misogynist dinosaur, they wanted to see Daisy Ridley bench press you into the sun. I mean we had…we had to completely redesign the security on the back end of our website because of the number of malicious login attempts that we had. People are vicious. We both suffered. Much more Pastor Wilson has. Like you heard in that clip. He was the one up front taking the brunt of things, and Tim Bayly has, too, and here’s Dalrock hiding behind his pseudonym, and he thinks that he can criticize these people who have suffered? Like forget us, forget me and you, but seriously, we’re talking about people who have real skin in the game and he’s over here in his corner criticizing them.

– [36:53] So, look, fine. It’s fair. It’s like an inspiring speech. But are you going to say no one can use a pseudonym?

– All right. Listen. All those people that you guys trotted out as examples. We know they used pseudonyms. Why? Because the truth came out. Why? Because they were always working towards being truthful. And those men had the weight behind them. The  American Revolution wasn’t just one man in a mask fighting Britain by himself, you know, shooting out screeds on his independently published newspaper with …

. Uh, counterpoint Mel Gibson. (laughter)

– It was a group of men together forming a new government. They were working towards something and they knew each other and they knew what was going on. Calvin, he was a pastor in Geneva, he had the city council, he had the church backing everything that he was doing. Where is the institution? Where is the man, the single person, who is willing to lend their name to Dalrock to give him any kind of credibility?

– Okay. So, it still doesn’t mean that Dalrock is not presenting the truth in what he writes.

– [37:46]  – You haven’t actually engaged with his ideas, Jake. In everything you just said, okay fine, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not actually presenting real ideas that are good.

– Yeah. So…You have to take that stuff on its own merit. You can’t be, like, a jerk who can’t handle arguments and has to resort to ad hominem attacks.

– Okay fine. Let’s talk about Dalrock’s ideas. Let’s talk about how he spreads his ideas. Let’s talk about how he interacts with other people’s ideas.

– Well, you know what, Jake?  I think, really, the devil has thoroughly trounced you. So why don’t we just go to a break first?

– Okay. Fine.

– I hear that First Church of Sanityville is having an interesting day today. Why don’t we check in with pastor Kevin and we’ll be right back after this, folks?

– [38:31] With Evan in the hospital and our interim youth pastor in place, things have really settled down at First Church of Sanityville, and the best part of all, there’s no one, absolutely no one, to annoy me.

– Pastor Kevin. It’s your favorite intern, Quentin Seltzer. It’s time to interview youth pastor candidates.

– Oh, Quinton, don’t you knock?

– If I knocked, you might not let me in.

– We already have a youth pastor, Quentin. He may just be an interim guy

– Interim. As in one screw up or two and he’ll be outerim. Hey, I should warn you, Mister Pastor man, this first guy is really cool.

– Just let him in, Q. Uh, Quinton, why is he wearing a mask?

– I told you he was cool.

– Why are you wearing a mask, mister?

– Dark. … Desmond Dark.

– Mr….Mr. Dark?

– Desmond Dark.

– That’s like a vigilante superhero name.

– Yes. Yes, it is. As I’m sure you know, pastor Kevin, Christian ministry is not exactly a conflict-free zone. Every time you speak up, you make yourself a target of the mob.

– The… the mob?

– The mob. Every time you speak up, you make yourself a target of them.

– We were talking about a youth pastor position.

– And how you make yourself a target of the mob.

– I have to protect my family.

– You what?

– I have to protect my family, my wife and or kids mean the world to me. I will protect her and or them at any cost.

– And wearing a mask helps you protect your family?

– The mask gives me freedom you don’t have.

– Oh. Really?

– [40:07] The freedom to speak up for what matters without restraint. Freedom to say the hard things to today’s youth, the freedom to tell them they’d better obey their parents.

– Whoa! You really are a radical.

– I do what I can do.

– Uh, Mr….Mr. Dark…

– Desmond Dark.

– Mr. Dark, I’ve told kids to obey their parents before.

– Did you, pastor? Or did you play the same game that cuckservatives have been playing with our progressive overlords since the whole shell game got thrown to the pigs.

– Who exactly are you?

– I’m just a man trying to do the best he can in a culture that died a long time ago.

– Well, listen, Mr. Dark. What’s your real name?

– Ha-ha-ha. I couldn’t say, Pastor. Like I was telling your boy here. You better be careful before you make yourself vulnerable to people who hate the truth. They’ll tear you and the people you love to pieces. If they get the chance.

– Yeah, well, listen, Mister Dark.

– Desmond Dark. That’s my name.

– How could I hire a man I don’t even know to teach our precious children?

– It’s not about me, pastor. It’s about the truth. The only question you need to ask is, do I teach the truth?

– Well… I mean ….

– if you don’t care about the truth, I’m not your man.

– [41:19] Well, yeah. But how will the kids trust you?

– Look at this mask. This is a mask you can trust.

– But Mister Dark you ….

– Besides they don’t have to trust me. They just have to trust the truth which I’ll be giving them.

– Oh. Okay. I suppose they’ll get to know you as they interact with you on Wednesday nights.

– Interact with me? Heh. heh. Good one, Pastor. I don’t think live interaction is wise given our current cultural climate.

– Well

– I’ll mail a new cassette tape to the office by Tuesday every week.

– Cassette tapes? You can’t be serious, Mr. Dark.

– Yeah. Just upload the audio files to the cloud, baby.

– [41:53] Mr. Dark, I think our parents would prefer a man who was actually, you know, there for the children.

– The truth will be there for the children on a cassette.

– Hold on though. How would the kids just, like, talk with you?

– As we get to know each other better I would probably allow some of the kids to call one of my burner phones sometimes. Little Timmy tells me his problems. I tell him the truth and that number never works again. I disappear into the shadows.

– The shadows?

– The shadows. That’s where I stay. There’ll need to be a large budget allocation for burner phones.

– So awesome!

– [42:27] Yes. Yes, it is.  Very awesome.

– I’m sorry, Mr. Dark, but I’m just not sure what kind of man you really are, and I’m not sure actually how I’d ever find out.

– Questioning my character, questioning whether or not I should be pseudonymous is intellectually bankrupt. A lot of my ideological opponents use those tactics.

– Your…Your who?

– They’re too afraid of the truth … They can’t argue against it. So they spin their wheels attacking the way that I deliver the truth. They want to assassinate my character. And probably my body, too.

– People have tried to kill you?

– Maybe. I can’t confirm or deny, but you know how cuckservatives are.

– Well, I don’t think I could explain to the parents here. So I’m sorry.

– The parents? hahaha The parents are compromised. Forget about them.

– Mr. Dark, look, that’s a luxury I don’t have.

– I think what you mean to say is those parents are your meal ticket.

– [43:23] Yeah, Well Mr. Dark, this has been instructive. It’s been instructive. But I don’t think that FCS is prepared at this time to offer a sensitive youth pastor position to an anonymous masked crank who may or may not be a homeless man.

– That’s where it ends up with you establishment people every time. Ad hominem. If you change your mind, you know how to find me.

– Actually we…we don’t.

– Of course to change your mind you’d have to pay more attention to the truth of the matter than the feelings of the masses.

– I think I need an awesome fake name, too.

– I have lots of good ideas for those.

– We should get together sometime and talk about it.

– Nice try, Quentin Sellout.

– Get out!

– Well, I don’t know, chief executive senior mr. president pastor, I …maybe it really is a lot more about the ideas than the guy.

– Yeah, yeah, just send the next interviewee in, Quentin. Oh no. Another guy in a mask?

– (unintelligible), this is not a mask. I am a robot.


– [44:25] All right, guys. Welcome back from the break. End of Devil’s advocacy. We’re all on the same page here. So let’s talk about Dalrock’s methods, because there’s a larger point we want to make about this guy. You can read the whole interview with Dalrock for yourself. Get the full context. But we’re going to pull a few quotes, talk through how Dalrock does what he does. And what it says about him. To do that, let’s play a little game I call “Who said it?” Matt Chandler. You guys know Matt Chandler, right?

– Oh, he’s famous. He’s the lead pastor of teaching at Village Church in Flower Mound, Texas. He’s the president of the Acts 29 network of churches.

– The very same Matt Chandler. Now Matt Chandler can be, I don’t know, lame, pretty weak sauce about some things, lots of things. But, that being put to the side, let’s play “Who said it?” Matt Chandler, Dalrock, or me, Nathan Alberson? Ben, read the first quote if you will.

– Sure.

– We’re going to read three quotes. One of them was said by Dalrock, one of them was said by Nathan, one of them was said by Pastor Chandler. Go ahead.

– Okay. “If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to kind of coach your wife toward freedom and liberation from your tyranny, our wives should be so well cared for, so nourished, so sowed into and loved, they would say what you are describing is actually tyranny.”

– [45:44] Jake, read that second quote, please.

– “If a husband loves his wife and rules over her well, she will be less likely to be tempted to rebel just the same as if a king loves his subjects and rules over them well, they’ll be less tempted to rebel.”

– And, Ben, read the third quote, please.

– “Wives with good husbands can most easily overcome the temptation we dangle to not respect and submit to them. Likewise for children of good fathers.”

– Hmmm. Those all sound kind of similar but all right who said it, fellas?

– Kaiser Skulzi said them all. It’s a trick.

– Nope!

– Big twist. Nathan really is Dalrock and he’s working with Matt Chandler.

– Nope. Also, gross.

– Okay, okay. Ben. Real answer for your first one.

– The first one is Chandler.

– Second one?

– Nathan.

– Oh, interesting. And third?

– Dalrock.

– I am the meat in this truth sandwich, guys. Delicious!

– Wow. All right but those quotes do all kind of sound the same, especially if you read them with any degree of charity.

– Yeah. You guys would think so. Okay, so in our interview Dalrock characterizes this stuff as follows: “Chandler explains that if a Christian husband fulfills his responsibility to love his wife, she can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion” and again “women can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion if their husbands love them sufficiently” So that’s his characterization of what Chandler is saying.

– And I just can’t believe that. That’s completely dishonest.

– What? Dishonest? Jake, whatever can you mean?

– [47:14] Look, nobody in this room has any great respect for Matt Chandler, okay?

– Nope.

– Right. Correct.

– But, come on, you can accuse Chandler at all kinds of things. You can accuse him of all kinds of things. You can accuse him of not going far enough, you can accuse him of playing strictly to the women of the crowd, you can accuse him of all kinds of things. You can accuse him of not asserting a woman’s own responsibility to resist temptation, but to say that he somehow in this specific quote asserts anything more than a good husband is a good protection against temptation” is just a lie. It’s lying.

– Well. You know,  I’m guessing the Chandler in the rest of the sermon probably doesn’t go far enough. I mean, if I had to guess, I don’t know, nothing on Earth could compel me to bother to actually listen and find out, honestly, but probably he doesn’t.

– Duh. There’s lots of pastors who don’t… they won’t call women moral agents. And these are women who…they’re in sinful rebellion against God, against their husbands, and their pastors are not going to call them out.

– [48:08] Yeah, and we have to deal with those guys in real-life situations all the time.

– So that gives Dalrock license to lie about Matt Chandler. Duh. Right?

– Well, yeah. Ben, as you’ve so eloquently said a couple of times now. Duh. I guess… I guess… I guess it’s okay to lie about Matt Chandler, but Dalrock better not lie about me. I value myself more than I value Matt Chandler. Ergo, I hope Dalrock doesn’t lie about what I said.  Why did you just say uh-oh?

– I hate to say this, my friend, but when you said what you said, that was very similar to what Chandler, and Dalrock, said, and Dalrock responded by saying “women haven’t been called to repent and won’t be, because complementarians insist on changing the subject to men”.

– [48:52] All right. He went on: “In theory someone somewhere will hold women accountable but never complementarians and never today.”

– That’s kind of weird. Nathan, are you a complementarian, and that’s why he’s bringing up complementarians?

– Ben, I don’t think I’ve ever used this word before, but I abominate the thought of being a complementarian.

– All right.

– And does Dalrock actually think that I am? Because, he’s… here’s what I said. This is what he’s responding to when he said the stuff you just read. This is a quote by me. I’m gonna read my own quote. “Of course there are rebellious feminist women out there who are pushing for rebellious feminist agendas. They are culpable. They are wicked. They should be called to repent.”. (group laughter) That’s what I said. Just to be clear, okay?

– [49:39] All right. Okay. And if he had asked us, we could have provided him plenty of examples where just in our own church in just the last couple of months, we’ve done just that. Whether it’s been disciplining women who’ve left their husbands or who cultivated. …

– Jake, it gets weirder, too. He doesn’t… he doesn’t just refuse to deal directly with Nathan. He pivots. He diverts. He goes through a discussion of women in combat that connects to our senior pastor, so “conservative Christians invented a fiction that women weren’t coveting men’s roles and instead men were forcing women to push their way into combat by shirking their responsibility. In all of these cases the sin of women demanding to cross-dress and usurp the roles of men was not addressed”. And then he goes on.  So “see the PCA resolution on the subject Pastor Bayly led”. So, just to be clear, he’s linking … what he’s saying is that’s what our pastor Tim Bayly promotes. This idea that women aren’t culpable for cross-dressing and going into the army.

– [50:40] Which I had just said WOMEN ARE CULPABLE. I said that sentence and then he said, well actually you don’t think that.

– Because in 2002 pastor led a …had his name attached to a PCA resolution document.

– Okay, so in this particular example… I don’t know how we got here. Dalrock pivots us into this discussion of this 2002 report from the PCA that our head pastor Tim Bayly’s name is attached to and Dalrock is leaning on something that was or was not said about cross-dressing in this report. So why don’t we pull some quotes from the report and see what they actually said?

– [51:14] Sure. I’ll quote one: “Clothing is not to confuse but rather to clarify our sexuality. A woman shall not wear a man’s clothing nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” So, just to be clear, that’s that PCA report and it’s quoting a bunch of scriptures.

– Huh. So it’s almost as if the PCA resolution, that he says doesn’t address cross-dressing, addresses cross-dressing specifically. But did the report condemn cross-dressing specifically or just quote scripture that happens to condemn it? Because I don’t know. Can we, like, find some more quotes about this, maybe?

– [51:50] Okay. So they do go on immediately to quote Calvin on the seventh commandment. So “this decree  also commends modesty in general and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. The worst of the heathen poet Juvenal(?) are very true. “What shame can she who wears a helmet show? Her sex deserting.”

– And then there’s this passage from the resolution: “Deuteronomy 22:5 declares that God abhors woman camouflaging herself as a man and vice versa. Thus it is that the church has condemned women warriors. For example, Luther comments on this text:’ A woman shall not bear the weapons of a man nor shall a man wear female clothing.’” It’s almost as if they dealt with women wanting to dress as men and bear the arms of men.

– [52:41] Okay, fine. But did they just marshal quotes from scripture and church history, or did they actually say anything explicit themselves?

– Okay, here’s another quote from them. “We, the undersigned, are convinced that the creation order of sexuality places on men the duty to lay down his life for his wife. Women and men alike must be led to understand and obey this aspect of the biblical doctrine of sexuality. Believing that such will lead to the unity and purity of the church and to the glory of God. Those who deny this duty, whether in word or action, oppose the word of God.”

– Hmmm. What do you think about that, Jake?

– I will tell you what I think about that.

– Excellent.

– [53:19] We can have a conversation about whether or not this PCA document put enough emphasis on the responsibility of women.

– Well, that sounds like a conversation worth having.

– Right. One where Dalrock might even have something good to say, a good point to make. But, since Dalrock is refusing to be honest about this whole thing, it’s a conversation that can’t happen. Not with him.

– [53:38] Yeah. Because… that brings us back to the context of the whole discussion with Dalrock. He was being dishonest about this document, diverting and all of that. Why?

– Because Dalrock hypocritically refuses to give others what he takes for himself.

– Yeah, and it got worse.

– So let’s play another round of “Who said it?” This time we’ll go with Dalrock or Doug Wilson, Dalrock or Doug. First quote, please, Ben.

– “Wives should submit to their husbands in fear and reverence, not because it generates tingles (sexual attraction) but because this is what the Bible tells us. Husbands should see themselves as the head, not because this makes them sexy, but because it is what the Bible tells us”.

– [54:15] Hmm. Okay. Second quote. Jake, why don’t you read that second quote?

– “Nowhere in scripture is the husband commanded to be a head to his wife. This is because he already is the head of his wife by the very nature of marriage.”

– Well, those quotes sound kind of similar. Put me out of my misery, fellas. Who said which, Ben?

– So Dalrock was the first, and Pastor Wilson was the second in his book Reforming Marriage.

– A book that came out in 1995.

– In Reforming Marriage, Doug Wilson’s work on marriage, there is an entire chapter devoted to the idea that headship in marriage is kind of inescapable.

– “A man is the head of his wife, therefore a man ought to love his wife.  A man is the head of his wife and therefore a woman ought to respect her husband period. No matter how they feel about it.”

– [54:56] Right. And then there’s another chapter where Pastor Wilson talks about the biblical imperatives for husbands, for wives, their duties to one another in light of the reality of how God designed marriage.

– And, because it’s all in the context of Federal Headship, Wilson regularly ties this back to the responsibility husbands have as heads of their home before God. He even goes so far as to argue that a husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife.

– So Dalrock takes issue with that in a big way. He calls it dumb. He calls it zany. Here are the direct quotes that he’s referring to of Wilson: “The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife. When husbands undertake the assigned responsibility of loving their wives in such a way that they grow in loveliness, they need to understand that the results will be visible.”

– [55:42]  (Laughter.) So dumb. So zany. (slapstick(?) music) Again, those are the … those are the exact words that Dalrock used so, I don’t know, I think it would be dumb and zany IF I was a person who refused to see ANY nuance in the nature of responsibility, if I refused to see any distinction between, you know, Federal responsibility and personal responsibility.

– Which Dalrock clearly refuses to do.

– Yeah. It seems like for Dalrock responsibility always is personal responsibility, personal blame. He doesn’t understand the biblical doctrine of federal headship and that means he doesn’t understand the fall of Man.

– Yeah. He doesn’t understand that Adam is responsible for the sins of Eve and of the whole world.

– What’s hilarious about this is that Nathan points this out explicitly in the exchange and he references Genesis 3. And then commenters on Dalrock’s site have a field day with it, because they assume that he’s talking about Genesis 2. They say things like yeah typical evangelical blaming Adam for not stopping Eve when the Bible says that Eve was deceived.

– [56:45] Yeah. That’s not Genesis 3. I mean, the Bible says Eve was deceived. She was responsible for her sins. That’s one of the reasons women are not allowed to teach. It also says that when God came to call man or mankind to account, He started with Adam. And then the Bible says that in Adam we all die, NOT in Eve.

– It’s Adam’s sin. Adam is the one who’s responsible.That’s just the Classic doctrine of original sin. And in the same way, Christ’s righteousness covers the sins of His bride, the church. Dalrock refuses to understand the reality here. Which means he can’t understand The Fall or the gospel, not properly.

– But he understands enough, I guess, to accuse Wilson of things, like saying husbands can never tell their wives they ought to submit to them. Why? Well because Wilson is drawing distinctions in the nature of responsibility. He is drawing distinctions in the nature of submission. Okay. So here’s another quote. Dalrock quotes Wilson saying this “The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.” So then Dalrock summarizes that as, husbands must never tell their wives to submit.

– [57:58] Again, for anybody capable of reading there is a problem here. Wilson says true submission is a matter of the heart. It’s not something that husbands have the capacity to enforce. Because husbands can’t change their wives’ hearts. He then uses the biblical passage which explains God’s commands to husbands and says, start there. That’s your first responsibility. Why start there? Because God’s commands to husbands are not contingent on a wife’s response to him. The same is true in reverse. Wilson’s always making this point.

– Yeah. I mean, seriously, Doug… Doug Wilson has been around as long as I remember, and long before that, and he’s been making this point all that time. Doug Wilson always says this. It’s, like, one of his things.

– Yeah, yeah, yeah. But Dalrock is fine to interpret it for us as, husbands must never tell their wives to submit.

– Please. Doug Wilson makes the statement about how men are not able to change their wives’ hearts and Dalrock turns it into an imperative, stating that men must never call their wives to obey God. How disingenuous can you get?

– Yeah. He has the nerve to accuse Doug Wilson of somehow fearing to confront feminists? I mean, you can read the interview. That’s what he accuses him of.

– It’s really dumb. It’s just really dumb. And then he also does the same for our pastor, Tim Bayly.

– And which to quote every movie ever made: This time it’s personal. Guys…this is…I mean… come on … coming after our pastor?

– [59:18] Right. So since we’re talking about the great cowards Doug Wilson & Tim Bayly, let’s talk about …

– Those yellow-belly  cowards Doug Wilson and Tim Bayly. Let’s talk about cowardice. That’s what we should  talk about.

– When he’s giving reasons for his pseudonymity, Dalrock says that questions about his arguments always come down not to truth but to issues of character. Because SJWs, and this is a direct quote, “know they would lose an open debate.”

– Yeah. And he writes “It could be that there are great rebuttals to what I write but we won’t ever know until the topic of conversation changes.”

– (group laughter) It could be. It’s sad that we’ll never know. Here’s one more quote from Dalrock “I’ll add that if you have read my blog you already know that I meticulously link to and quote my sources for what I write, so everything is right there for anyone who is interested to cross-check. In fact, I urge you and your listeners to do so.”

– [1:00:09] Yeah. So let’s talk about that for a minute. Because Dalrock does link and quote sources meticulously. And then he regularly mischaracterizes what he quotes and he gets away with it among his followers. Why? There’s only one real answer. And that’s the fact that he relies on the appearance of honesty to get his work done.

– Yeah, or more accurately, he relies on the laziness of his followers and their desire for validation, like, just somebody please validate me? Yeah. Like, you know, I just picture all of his followers as angry 20-somethings in their mom’s basement or like a 40 or 50 year old guy who just got a divorce and he’s mad and he wants somebody to validate him and tell him he’s right and Dalrock just relies on that because those guys are not going to follow the links.

– So, are you, just to be clear here, are you accusing all of Dalrock followers of being dumb internet trolls?

– [1:00:52] No. I mean, I’m sure there’s a wide variety of people that read Dalrock for all kinds of reasons. I mean, I read Dalrock. You read Dalrock, right? But when he gets away with the kinds of blatant mischaracterization that he gets away with regularly, one does begin to wonder, doesn’t one? So why all this in response to the question of his pseudonymity, Jake?

– Because it’s a diversionary tactic, that’s why. He wants to bluster about it being about the arguments and about truth and he wants to posture himself as the honest one and the victim of character assassination and he wants to control the conversation. By asserting from the top that anyone who questions his character in this process simply just doesn’t have the chops to handle his arguments. That’s all bluster and bravado and it’s a…it’s a… it’s a diversionary tactic that’s dishonest in his argumentation from the top.

– Okay. So how do we respond?

– Okay. First of all, has this guy ever met a real SJW in his life?

– Yeah, I mean…  we’ve met SJWs. Like we alluded to in The Devil’s Advocate segment, Jake, you were talking about it, you know, and I don’t want to be self aggrandizing but Jake and I have both had these public things transpire where large groups of so-called progressives were really, really, really angry at us. I mean, if you google Nathan Alberson Open Letter to Rey you can see people talking about how stupid I am in pretty nasty terms. It still exists …on the Internet.

– [1:02:07] Yeah yeah. Or you can look up that event we were talking about called Sexual by Design at Indiana University. Or, guys, you can just go to the abortion clinic or you can go to, I don’t know, the courthouse, you know. If you don’t live in the kind of city where there are counter-protesters, I’m sorry but we live in one of the most progressive cities in the country, one of the top 5 gay-friendly cities in the country.

If you’re from Texas, like Dalrock said he’s from Texas, Bloomington is the Austin of Indiana. Except it’s more closed and tight than Austin.

– Maybe to Dalrock, to be fair, the SJWs are just this unseen menace that’s really, really, really big in …

– We’re the home of Alfred Kinsey, The Kinsey Institute for Sex.

– So we’ve actually dealt…

– This, this is our life,

– We deal with these people all the time.

– [1:02:54] We have the highest per capita rate of homosexuality outside of the Castro District. Like, there’s just no comparison. We deal with these people in real life all the time. They come into church. They engage … when I was a college pastor,  I would have to engage them interrupting my sermons and fighting with me and arguing with me. Anyhow. My point is no SJW comes at someone like Dalrock thinking “I’ve got to find a way around this guy because I know I’d lose in an open debate. Because I’m really stupid.”

– “I’m a random minion that has to find his way around Conan the Barbarian because he scares me so much he’d just kill me, so I’d better find a way to shoot arrows at him.

– So, are you kidding me? The fact is, anyone who’s actually really engaged with these people, you know that they’re completely confident that they’re going to take you in an open debate. And also they have no idea what an open debate is. They don’t understand the concept because they don’t think about things rationally in the first place, and so they come at you from all over the place and they blather at you all kinds of nonsensical garbage.

– Their sin is one of arrogance. I know that I can’t win an open debate against you so I need to assassinate your character. Please.

– Character assassination is a product of pride in this case. They’re happy to assassinate your character, but it’s not because they think you would lose to you,

– No, no, no.

– Exactly.

– [1:04:11] So we’ve demonstrated that Dalrock has a fundamentally dishonest way of handling arguments and sources. So can we talk about his character?

– Yeah. Let’s talk about his character. What kind of man props himself up as a teacher of men on the nature of masculinity without having the courage to put his name behind what he says? A coward. That’s the kind. The kind of man who would never say to someone’s face what he says on the internet. That’s the kind of man that can’t be trusted. He can’t be examined by Jesus’ rule for teachers. “I’m a Christian teacher of masculinity on the internet.” What’s Jesus’ rule for teachers and false teachers? You will know them by their fruit. You can’t know Dalrock by his fruit because you can’t know anything about him and nobody’s willing to vouch for him. Nobody’s willing to put their name to anything he says. And, if he says that his fruit is in his teaching and in his followers then, fine, go and take a look at the comment threads. That’s all you need to know. And if he says that his teaching on the internet is not exercising authority, he’s not claiming any kind of authority and so that doesn’t subject him to any kind of scrutiny, that’s just a feminist argument. That’s the argument that feminists use all the time. It’s the same argument  they used to have women deacons, for women elders, for women teaching mixed groups. They’re not exercising authority.

– [1:05:19] Jake. Hey, Jake. You ad hominem much?

– Can we talk about ad hominem please?

– You’re the host.

– I am indeed. Knowledge is never divorced from character. Okay? Knowledge is never divorced from character. If I propound an idea, it’s completely legit to ask why and how I am propounding it.

– Ad hominem is a perfectly reasonable form of argument.

– Well, I learned it’s not, because in high school debate class they teach you that it’s a fallacious form of argumentation. So you’re attacking your opponent’s character instead of his ideas and you can’t do that.

– Which is what the idea that ad hominem has come to mean. In maybe the last century or so but actually the idea of ad hominem was codified by our old friend John Locke in his essay Concerning Human Understanding simply as, quote, “to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions.”

– [1:06:10] Right. And Locke, I mean it’s complicated, he thought that was inferior to certain other forms of argument but he never called it a fallacy actually. He never used that word. It’s only his descendants who have decided that ad hominem as a form of argumentation is, ipso facto, a bad thing.

– People like to throw out that term. Oh! You went after his character instead of his ideas. How dare you? Ad hominem.

– But actually, as effective as that might be, the fact is that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump’s ideas are rooted in their character and their character is rooted in their ideas and there is a mature adult way to ask questions about both and to pretend there is not is really immature.

– The Bible is full of ad hominem. Christ went after the Pharisees. I believe He called them white-washed tombs. The Apostle Paul went after the Super apostle. The Galatians, the Corinthians, Elijah was really sarcastic with the prophets of Baal.

– Yeah. And then he killed them.

– He did that, too.

– [1:06:59] If you do your homework you’ll find great thinkers have done a lot of ad hominem. Plato. He did, since we’re talking about philosophers, he did whole dialogues that depicted sophists as morons. The colonists talked about the tyrant King George, and Dalrock himself, the great philosopher, he’s not afraid to call out feminists for the unhappy fruits of their ideas.

– Right. But you ask too many questions about Dalrock, you ask how he presents his ideas, or how his followers behave, both Dalrock and his followers want to say “Stop picking on us. It’s about the ideas.”

– Oh, yes. Yes, it’s about the ideas. And ideas are connected to people and Christ said of teachers you shall know them by their fruit.

– [1:07:40] Right. The notion that ideas exist in this intellectual vacuum where they can be studied like some kind of a museum exhibit just under glass. You go and look at the idea and you look at the other angles of the idea and we’re all standing outside of the idea. Thumbs down.

– Thumbs down.

– All right, guys. I don’t know. Sum it up in in a sentence, Jake.

– Dalrock’s a man who can’t be trusted. You can’t trust his argumentation, you can’t trust his portrayal of his own honesty and integrity, and you can’t trust his character. He hides behind weak arguments and he blusters about, postures himself as some hero of the manosphere. And he would deny that. He would say I’m not posturing, I’m just trafficking in ideas.

– That’s certainly not how his followers treat him. They treat him like a founding father of some kind.

– Well, they call him that.

– Yeah.

– [1:08:27] Yep. He’s bad and I’m just thinking of Psalm 1, you know. Blessed is one who does not walk in the way of a scoffer, a mocker, the wicked. I mean, you can’t engage with people of bad character and not be infected by it. This guy is poison and I don’t care if he’s saying some correct things. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Lots of horrible people have said good things but you do not want to hang out with bad people.

– Yeah. I mean I learned some of my best theology from a serial predator that we based Season 1 of The Ville on.

– Yep. Pastor Stu.

– So there you go. Yeah.

– Yeah. Let’s divorce his character from his teaching. Yeah. See, he’s a good guy after all and he can be trusted. Nope.

– Yeah.

– A man who’s fundamentally dishonest about his character is not somebody that can be trusted to teach good theology. No matter how many good things he says, no matter how God uses him. Judas preached a true gospel. He preached “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand” and he healed people and he cast out demons and then he betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver and went and hung himself.  

– [1:09:36] Paul does say that he’s happy whether it’s for false pretenses or good reasons that the gospel is being preached, even if it’s just being preached so that jerks can stir up trouble for him while he’s in jail.

– Philippians 1

– Yeah, and for every time God uses something said by that foolish man Dalrock, I rejoice, but the bad consequences, the bad fruit’s gonna far outweigh the good fruit. What should happen is Dalrock should SHUT UP and he should give himself to his church. And the people who follow him, who are out on the internet looking to him as a father need to go find a real father figure who can be trusted, who is an honest man, who works hard, and who is not a coward. He doesn’t sit and type on the computer all day … anonymously.

– There aren’t any good churches out there.

– Oh please, as if you’re in the position to judge that. You’re the kind of person who drinks from Dalrock. The church at Corinth with all of its problems, with a man having sex with his father’s wife, was a true church. So find a church. Find some fathers. They’re smarter and wiser than you.

– And if anyone’s wondering, Dalrock’s pastor doesn’t know. I asked him about that. His wife and kids know. His pastor doesn’t know. So stay away from this guy. Right, guys? Don’t read Dalrock. Okay. Thanks for listening, everybody.

– Brandy straight.

– Sure thing, mister.

– Well, what’s the holdup, kid?

– I need to see some ID, sir.

– I…D?

– ID. And you’ll have to take off the mask, of course, so I can verify that it’s really you on the picture.

– I don’t think that’s necessary.

– Yeah. Well, it’s the law.

– ha The law. Is it also the law that you mindlessly repeat what society’s taught you?

– Look mister. I’m going to have to see some ID, okay? That’s how it is in this bar.

– You’re …?… if you don’t understand, son. You’ve got to free your mind.

– Yeah. You’ve got to free your ID from your wallet.

– You’d like to dig into my wallet, wouldn’t you, cuck? You and Uncle Sam both but I’m going to protect my family

– Oh. Well.

– This is a free market society, Chum. You’ve got the supply. I’ve got the demand and now I demand that you supply me with some booze.

– Ali, Is this person bothering you?

– Oh, Radiohead. Yeah, you know what? Why don’t you …get rid of him?

– Who’s the real robot, son? The mindless automaton? Or the robot?

– Your logic does not compute, sir.

– Free your mind, robot.

– Get rid of him, Radiohead.

– Actually, Ali, on second thought what the man says makes sense. It is a matter of supply and demand.

– Radiohead!

– Stop trying to oppress this man with your cowardly tradcon ideology, Ali.

– Radiohead, your circuits must be messed up or something.

– You are throwing your pearls before swine, Mr. Dark. Ali is too afraid of the truth to engage with you.

– Thanks, robot. You’re a good man.

– Radiohead, wait a sec. Oh yeah. There’s the problem. Your obnoxious troll switch is activated. Let me just get that turned off for you.

– I apologize, Ali. I was spouting off nonsense in support of someone who seemed to validate my opinions without thought or reason.

– It happens to the best of us, Radiohead.

– Robot, lots of people think I’m cool. Don’t make strawmen out of them.

– Yes, you are correct. It is difficult to make strawmen out of stick figures.

– I guess we all follow our programming in the end, don’t we, robot?

– Well, maybe instead of just following our programming we could actually be discerning and think for ourselves, examine the ideas, look at the character of the people propounding the ideas, and stuff like that.

– Uh…nope.

– Three words. Ali. Nope. Nope. Nope.

– Oh Radiohead, did your troll switch get flipped again or what?

– Negative, Ali. I was using my mind to think for myself and devise what you humans refer to as a joke.

– Oh. Oh, that’s a funny one, Radiohead.

– (fake laughter)

– That’s actually not funny at all.