Does Rod Dreher simply invent his anonymous readers?

I for one think he does, the most recent being here and here. The reason these particular narratives ring hollow to me (not that they each could not occur independently on their own, saying the same thing) is that each of their factual narratives reads like one of Dreher's oblique, elliptical, passive-aggressive pseudo-intellectual aesthetic-moral ramblings but now made incarnate, inevitably producing the same wooden result as a Tom Clancy attempt at a female character or a romantic scene.

By externatizing the narrative and rendering it "factual", even if anecdodatal, Dreher sock-puppets himself, in the process creating a three dimensional reality in which his thought vapors now live (ostensibly) fully rich and realized lives. For example, a reader writes to tell me

Our endemic Southern Gothic culture of early childhood sibling incest here in the West Feliciana Parish area, though never, ever spoken of in polite company, probably has much to do with sibling conflicts that erupt later in life around here and can never really be adequately explained.

There's at least one fairly obvious reason that otherwise credulous readers can be led to be made complicit in legitimizing what might otherwise be a wholly fictitious post: their ego's need to comment on whatever its content is and to see their comment in print.

If I as a wholly reactive commenter on a Rod Dreher post decides, "Bullsh*t! This is obviously fake, and I'm having no part of it", I now have to wait until Dreher makes another post before I can see the scintillating wisdom of my comment in print. Besides, he won't publish any comment that outright claims he's inventing content out of whole cloth to facilitate his own job. So maybe I'll just ignore that little voice in my head and go ahead and comment anyway as if the post were legit. Really, what harm could it do? And that way, I can eat the offered treats right out of his hand. And he might even pet me.

Of course, realize I'm not taking a hard and fast stand on any of this, I'm just throwing these various issues out there for you readers to discuss among yourselves, among them, what is Dreher's objective record when it comes to veracity? Is there a baseline of evidence that should compel me to give him the benefit of the doubt, even when something doesn't ring true?