Authoritarian rebels

New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:

1 Like

Is there room for a lesser magistrate to resist the mandates, or would that also be a rebellion?

Dear Michael, it’s always possible and often right for subordinates to appeal to the higher authority, and this whether those subordinates are themselves authorities over someone below. Every authority recognizes the court of appeal above him and judges with that appellate court firmly in mind.

But there’s a huge difference between a lesser magistrate appealing and a lesser magistrate railing, fomenting rebellion among those under him against those over him. He better have an ironclad argument, and the arguments for railing against face masks are anything but ironclad, as every reasonable person knows.

If they forbid churches worshipping while keeping casinos open, gentlemen, start your engines. If they forbid singing in worship, maybe gentlemen start your engines.

But what this post is trying to point out is the hypocrisy of their arguments and actions on full display in their demand for honor and submission to the husband and father in the home not matched by any spirit of honoring and submission to the authority of elders and governors.



So I discovered Warhorn Media through the Tech Reformation Slack channel, listened to all The Ville episodes, and ended up subscribing to your blog in my RSS reader. Recently, I have been encouraged and stimulated by your writings on COVID and related topics. It really does feel like an island of sanity in a world gone nuts. So thank you for this post. I have much more to say when I have more time, and you may see my comments on old posts, now that I’ve discovered this discourse. God bless


Welcome. We look forward to it.

Perhaps the most cogent argument against masks is that COVID is not particularly deadly and mitigation is costly and onerous. But what’s missing from that discussion is a clear delineation of what constitutes a deadly plague and what doesn’t. Churches practiced social distancing and masks during the 1918 flu pandemic which may have been ten times more deadly. Ultimately, like so much politics, it boils down to personal preference. It’s a perfect test case for submission to authority.


There’s no question that lockdowns are costly and onerous. But masks are one of the least onerous infection prevention measures possible, down there with washing your hands. A reusable mask costs less than a trip to Starbucks. Am I missing something?

According to the official numbers, this is already the worst epidemic in living memory (in terms of percentage of the US population dying). Even if you assume that Covid deaths are overcounted by 10%, it will become worse than the 1957-58 Asian Flu later this week at around 195,000 deaths.

Moreover, Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu are faits accomplis, but we are still in the midst of Covid. Numbers at a national level are moving in a positive direction, but another wave (or two or three) is by no means impossible.


I was not arguing against masks, merely pointing out a deficiency in an argument against them. What’s missing is the definition of the line between deadly pandemic and severe flu. If that were part of the debate, perhaps there would be clearer reasoning on who has the authority to make and enforce such a definition. In other words, it should not be up to personal preference.