Wednesday, September 19, 2018

DALROCK'S CULTISH CONUNDRUM

     Blogger Dalrock---one of the shamans of the Manosphere's 'Game' ideology---encountered recently a problem that cult leaders occasionally face. A new reader of his site, who's apparently sympathetic to the Red Pill but hasn't been sufficiently brainwashed and thus still retains a shred of Reason, asked a good question:

     "I’ve read many of your archived articles, I struggle to understand your actual positions on issues. Because you’re so skilled with pointing out the various errors you see in modern Christian perspectives (such as the errors with complementarianism, courtly love, etc.) I think I understand your alternatives, but I’m never quite sure. In short, you frequently oppose a position but I can rarely figure out what your actual position is. I’m interested in the positive principles and positions that you teach your children."
     Questions like these put hypocrites like Dalrock in a most uncomfortable position. Answering a question like this honestly exposes the weakness of Dalrock's theories; while answering it in too much detail could start a dangerous process of thinking among his disciples. So Dalrock prudently slithers out of it by recommending his recruit to e-mail him for some one-on-one mentoring.
     Nonetheless, Dalrock has to say something lest he appears less than omniscient. So he states:
    "This isn’t a simple question to answer because the Bible and/or the church (if Orthodox or RCC) doesn’t always offer specific scripts we should follow on (for one example) how Christians should court for marriage.  We know that fornication is prohibited, and that if a person burns with passion they should marry and not deny each other sex...
    "Other times the Bible is quite clear on what we should do (for example headship and submission), but because of the corruption we are repulsed by what it clearly tells us we should do.  Either way, the crucial first step is to recognize the corruption both in general and in specific, and root out the specific false teachings we have unknowingly adopted.  As we do this, the specific expressions of non cucked Christianity will vary, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother working to root out the corruption in the first place."
     The first paragraph is factually wrong: we're taught that we are to court those out of mutual love for one another and a shared love of a mutual faith. We become "one flesh" for creating a family to glorify God. Thus marriage is not about 'burning with passion' and forcing each other to have sex. Dalrock's idea of marriage is a strictly carnal and sensual understanding of marriage's purpose. 
      But the second paragraph is where we really come to the heart of the matter. Identifying his own ideology with actual Biblical teachings, he claims that 'corruption' is whatever opposes it. The first and most important thing (to him) is 'to recognize the corruption'. This is obviously cultish. He's basically saying that whatever Church teachings conflict with his Game/Red Pill-based theology should be dismissed categorically as corruption; while whatever Game/Red Pill promotes should be accepted as theologically sound---however much it might conflict with the Church. Why is this so? 
      The short answer is that there's no reason whatsoever why it should be so. The 'corruption' of which Dalrock speaks is a product of his own imagination. The original question posed by his potential convert exposes that fact clearly. As Cardinal Newman once pointed out about cults: those who propose that the Church is in apostasy should explain when this apostasy started. 
      However, this is no issue for these innovators. Dalrock's toady Rollo Tomassi asserts that the Holy Spirit Himself has departed the Church and been replaced by 'The Feminine Imperative." Which imperative, of course, is a figment of Tomassi's own imagination. Christ taught that the Holy Spirit would never leave the Church; and nothing in the Catechism nor any traditional Protestant Articles ever renounced Him in favor of some neo-Wiccan phantasm. 
       The best option, as always, is to trust in Christ and avoid the charlatans. 
  

2 comments:

  1. Good article. His answer is word salad worthy of Krishnamurti or Sai Baba.

    I read a Dalrock article last week - and all the comments - for the first time in many months. Nothing has changed. No one even mentions Trump.

    I did find this today from Roissy:

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/a-prayer-for-president-trump/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or worthy of Baba Booey...

      His commenter seemed to be a honest man; and guys like Dalrock have a hard time with that. I notice that he slipped off for 'a break' shortly afterwards.

      Delete