THREAD: "Polarity Coach" @ZakRoedde is running a cult based on Dr. Robert J. Lifton's "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform" (Taken from the book 'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism') /1
1. Milieu Control - Roedde manages a private Facebook group that is pretty strictly moderated for dissenting voices. I lurked in there for a week or so and was summarily banned for criticizing continual use of terms like "beta male". facebook.com/groups/masculi… /2
2. Mystical manipulation - "men should be masculine and women should be feminine (read: cishet). Any disruption is "depolarizing" and somehow disruptive, i.e., if the man doesn't lead or the woman doesn't "submit". Roedde will coach you for $150 or you could buy his books. /3
3. The demand for purity - The ideology of only "masculine" men and "feminine" women as an over-simplified dichotomy. Based on what I found on Roedde's profile, the goal is polarization (masculine vs. feminine) within their polarization (ideology vs. the world). /4
4. Confession - The group mentioned above is a place where adherents to this ideology are "free to ask questions" but genuinely seem to be seeking approval from other members rather than asking advice. (See attached posts) /5
5. Sacred Science - I've pretty much covered this one in points above. This group feels they have the answer to the "perfect" relationship. My experiences with the group as well as one of its members reveals the prohibition of any dissent. (cont'd...) /6
(cont'd) from Roedde's LinkedIn: "I take them into the future that I am working to create. A future where a man and woman both command equal respect and CHOOSE to give each other their best gifts based on their innate masculine or feminine programming." /7 linkedin.com/in/zak-roedde-…
6. Loading the Language - The dichotomy between masculine and feminine are used to describe EVERY personality trait, i.e., "...men are meant to be strong and grounded masculine leaders, and women are meant to be free and emotionally expressive feminine supporters." /8
7. Doctrine over person - In my interactions with folk in this space, I was met with an inordinate amount of hostility for even questioning something adjacent to a post. You can see what the indoctrination looks like in the 2nd photo in the previous tweet. /9
8. Dispensing of existence - I'll just quote from Roedde's LinkedIn: "I am looking for clients who are truly dedicated to getting this area of their life handled. Clients who don't want to settle for a 'good enough' relationship and a 'good enough' version of themselves." /10
I'd suggest you investigate this for yourself if you're curious. There is some seriously deranged stuff that goes on in the FB group. Roedde also has a YouTube channel where he stores his "knowledge" (of which he has no verifiable credentials for). /11 youtube.com/channel/UCSNj1…
For background, I was curious more than anything. I'd had some interesting interactions with a member/adherent. Since I didn't understand a word of what was being taught, I dove in and lurked around for a while. As an #enby I was offended, as a feminist I was appalled. /12
There is no place for this kind of antiquated thinking. Essentializing a gender binary is not only smooth-brain thinking, it also flies in the face of the current thought and understanding of gender as a social construct. /13
Worst of all, from what I can gather, this is all spear-headed by cis men. I only mention this because their ideology is based on men being the leader and women eschewing any trait they consider "masculine" (which I think they stole from Tony Robbins... ew) /14
So, in summary, while their numbers may be small, their ideology is toxic and antiquated. The leadership has no qualification and their "group" meets all the criteria, based on my experience, to be considered a #cult. be on the lookout. Protect your friends and yourselves. /15
I found philosophy later in my Christian life. I found its approach and abuse in greater Christendon in the realm of apologetics to be insufficient.
That's why I can read Nietzsche's "Parable of the Madnan" and read it as lament; not at all how it is read by non-theists.
While I understand the often touted line "If God does not exist, all is permissible/lawful," (depending on translations) the spirit of the phrase is scattered all around Dostoevsky's "The Brother's Karamazov." Admittedly, I've never read it.
But I cannot help but sense pain in the madman's speech: "How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun?"
"A lot of religious Christians talk about, 'The Good News is you can be happy, you can be fulfilled, you can have the answers.' And I'm saying, 'The Gospel is: life is shit and you don't have the answers and that's good news.' (cont'd)
'And people will go, "That's not good news! That's terrible news!" No, that's great news. You embrace your brokenness, you embrace your anxiety and unknowing and you will find yourself happier..." (cont'd)
The more you think you can know stuff, the more you will hate to be around people who think differently, the more afraid you will be of different ideas. (cont'd)
Recent events involving my family, again, voluntelling me to intervene with a cousin who is struggling with depression and other unresolved issues. For the first time, it made me really angry and I wasn't sure why at first. I have been digging into that for a while now [1]
I started thinking about it today in light of a paper I'm writing for class. I unearthed some memories that had long since been forgotten or suppressed (I never know these days). But I realized I have a lot of resentment over how my mental health was treated vs. my siblings. [2]
Technically, being the "oldest" in my family, I was the experiment kid and none of my three parents were really equipped to deal with my disposition. I can remember being depressed, not sleeping, and sitting in front of a computer for hours on end. [3]
"Backsliding is a sin. Doubt is a sin. Questioning is a sin. The only proper relationship is submission to those above you... " /1 (Quote cont'd in thread)
"... the abandonment of critical thought and the mouthing of religious jargon that is morally charged and instantly identifies believers as part of the same hermetic community." /2 (cont'd)
"The psychiatrist, Robert J. Lifton, describes this heavily-loaded language, the words and phrases that allow believers to speak in code, as 'thought-terminating cliches.'" /3
I either say the Bible is true and hand this person a “win” or I say the Bible is wrong. Hello, Euthyphro. What this question assumes is that I share the same interpretation as they. Because I believe a woman can (and should) preach in church, I must be anti-Bible.
Here’s where the fun begins: I am a seminary student and I take the Bible very seriously. Nowhere in scripture does it say a woman cannot preach that is not preempted by a societal or ecclesiological issue. It’s giving Paul pre-eminence over Jesus and ignoring all context.
🧵1) I don't know if my view is appreciated or puzzling to the professor and students in my seminar course on the conquest narratives. It's been enlightening in some ways because it has started to prove my theory that there is a hermeneutic for those who are #ActuallyAutistic
🧵2) I have been quite appreciative of the voices I have connected with, especially here on Twitter (@robertjmonson, @JoLuehmann, etc) that have expanded the space of interpretation I take into consideration when approaching the biblical text.
🧵3) While one cannot be wholly objective about a text (Hermeneutics 101), it has helped me develop a stronger empathy for "interpretations from the edge," minority and philosophical interpretations. Admittedly, this also stems from my own baggage with Evangelicalism.