In the recent (and evidently ongoing) controversy between Manosophere Red Pill Cult writer Dalrock and Protestant minister and apologist Doug Wilson, it has been enlightening to read the commentaries following each exchange. There is an unbelievable amount of spiritual confusion among the various writers over issues that shouldn't be of any controversy at all.
Whom Pastor Wilson terms the Dalrockians,---though Dalrock actually represents a wider cult and its teachings---should not be taken as spiritual authorities on anything. Their doctrines are deeply Gnostic and anti-Christian. Now in the current controversy, which has to do with Biblical gender roles, the Red Pills make their position clear. Dalrock himself has written that a husband's 'obligation' to love his wife involves neither faith nor the heart. He has also written that the cruel tactics of PUA/Game should be employed by husbands to enforce submission. He has also written that wives must submit even to the will of sinful husbands.
The problem here is that Dalrock and the other Red Pills have taken on the Feminist position of 'gender roles' whereas what the Church actually teaches is Gender Polarity. Feminine submission is a not a negative thing in Christianity---it's part of complimentary system of equals. As Pope John Paul II taught: "Aquinas offers a very simple yet profound truth: we humans, who need fulfillment simply because we are limited, needy, deficient in our very being can find fulfillment only with that which is other than ourselves. And that union can come in only one way: through a very special kind of Love which is based in self-giving."
John Paul's words are completely repugnant to those who fetishize the 'Alpha' male and who define gender relations strictly upon physical sexuality. The 'Dalrockian' position can lead only to abuse: and many of these Red Pills have sunk to such depths of blasphemy that they've begun speaking of White Sharia as Christian social policy. Not only is it a grave error to import Islamic theology into Christianity, the Red Pills' writings on the subject seem to draw heavily on teachings of the Wahhabi and Salafist cults who are considered heretics, or Takfiri, by Islamic religious leaders.
Andrew Anglin, of The Daily Stormer---whom I believed actually coined the 'White Sharia' term wrote a piece recently illustrating the depths to which Dalrockian Theology will sink if drawn to its logical conclusions. Anglin is considered a Christian by these types, yet he praises the vicious murder of Celine Dookrhan, an Indian woman killed in Britain by Arab immigrants for dating an Arab man.
"The men who did it were defending their race, and as extreme and as gross as the act was you have to feel some respect for them." Anglin expounds, "So I'm just going to throw this out there: Imagine if White men cared this much about their own women race-mixing."
Celine Dookrhan, aged 19, was literally butchered by these two thugs. Anglin fantasizes that Christian men should demonstrate the same level of barbarity.
"I'm certainly not implying that White men should be kidnapping White female race-mixers, raping them and chopping them up and shoving them in freezers for f------g Niggers. Although, honestly, I wouldn't feel bad if that happened, it is more than our women would require to get back in line."
Fine Christian stuff, this. No wonder at least three recent infamous murderers were readers of Anglin's blog. Anglin, though, says he doesn't recommend such violence, but does give specific advice to his disciples on "how to shame these whores in public." We'll spare our readers the details; but the point is that a Christian relationship without polarity is not a Biblical relationship at all. It can only lead to abuse---either domestically as Dalrock promotes or socially as Anglin does. Or more likely, both.