Breaking Free: A Conversation with Yasmine Mohammed on Radical Islam, Empowerment, and the West’s Blind Spots
In a world where ideology often blinds us to reality, Yasmine Mohammed’s story is a testament to the power of courage and critical thinking. As a survivor of a forced marriage to an Al-Qaeda operative and author of the groundbreaking book Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam, Yasmine has dedicated her life to advocating for women’s rights and challenging oppressive ideologies. In this blog, we’ll explore her journey, the insights she’s gained, and the challenges of addressing extremism in today’s political and cultural climate.
Why Yasmine Wrote Unveiled
When asked what motivated her to write Unveiled, Yasmine shared that it was born out of a deep desire to shed light on her personal journey and the broader systemic issues that keep women trapped in cycles of oppression. “I wanted to expose the realities of radical Islam and its impact on women, but also to empower others to think critically and challenge these systems,” she explained. For Yasmine, the book is not just a memoir; it’s a call to action, a tool for education, and a beacon of hope for those seeking to break free.
Since its publication five years ago, much has changed. Yasmine reflected on her personal growth and evolving perspectives. “The fight for women’s rights continues, but I’ve also learned to navigate the complexities of cultural relativism and political correctness in the West,” she said. These challenges have only deepened her resolve to speak out.
The Psychological Toll of Leaving Islam
In Unveiled, Yasmine recounts the harrowing experience of escaping her marriage and the lingering fear of her ex-husband, even imagining him in “heaven” (p. 186). These fears aren’t just remnants of her past but a reflection of the psychological toll of leaving Islam. “It’s not just about leaving a religion; it’s about disentangling yourself from a worldview that dictated every aspect of your life,” she said.
Her advice for those leaving strict religious environments? “Be patient with yourself. Fear-based tactics are designed to keep you compliant, but over time, as you rebuild your confidence, those fears begin to fade.” Yasmine emphasized the importance of finding supportive communities and nurturing critical thinking skills to counteract deeply ingrained beliefs.
Challenging Radical Islam and Western Enablers
One of the most provocative aspects of Yasmine’s work is her critique of Western liberals who inadvertently enable radical Islam. “By prioritizing cultural relativism over universal human rights, they’re complicit in perpetuating oppression,” she argued. For women in particular, this dynamic is devastating. “When Western feminists turn a blind eye to practices like forced marriages or honor killings, they’re betraying the very values they claim to uphold.”
What’s the solution? “We need to have honest conversations about the realities of radical Islam without fear of being labeled intolerant. It’s not about vilifying a group; it’s about protecting fundamental human rights,” Yasmine said. She also highlighted the importance of education, both in Muslim-majority countries and in the West, to dismantle misconceptions and foster real change.
Final Thoughts
Looking back on her journey, Yasmine’s advice to those deconstructing a belief system is simple but profound: “You are not alone. There is life beyond fear and isolation, and there are communities and resources ready to support you.” For those seeking to educate themselves on these issues, she cautioned against falling into the trap of political tribalism. “Stay curious, ask questions, and prioritize truth over ideology.”
Yasmine Mohammed’s story is more than a tale of survival; it’s a roadmap for empowerment and a challenge to the complacency that allows radical ideologies to thrive. As we navigate a world increasingly polarized by political and cultural divisions, her insights remind us of the urgency of standing up for universal human rights and fostering critical, open-minded discussions.
🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram! @taste0ftruth , @megan_mefit , Pinterest! Substack and on X!
What’s a racist, homophobe, sexist, bigot, or hater? Apparently, anyone winning an argument with a liberal these days.
This year has been a wild ride. It began with me terrified of Satan, demons, and the Apocalypse, only to be ending it realizing the real danger isn’t hellfire—it’s the dogmas we create here on Earth. I didn’t grow up religious. In fact, I was raised secular, moved to Portland, OR after college, and could give you a TED Talk on progressive ideals. But then the pandemic hit, and somewhere between sourdough starters and doomscrolling, I found myself deep in the throes of fundamentalist Christianity.
That’s right—I started the year in a cult. It took months to deconstruct my faith, peel back the layers of fear-based control, and reimagine spirituality beyond the man-made monotheistic God I was sold. Yet, just as I was catching my breath, I noticed something chilling: the same patterns of zealotry I had fled were alive and well in the secular world.
Wokeness, with its sermons on systemic oppression and sacraments of allyship, has become the new secular religion. It demands unwavering faith, punishes heretics, and offers little room for redemption. And just like the fire-and-brimstone preachers I’d left behind, its most fervent believers seem less interested in dialogue and more intent on moral superiority.
Thought leaders like John McWhorter (Woke Racism), Yasmine Mohammed (Unveiled), and Douglas Murray (The Madness of Crowds) have drawn the same parallels: woke ideology mirrors religious extremism, complete with its own prophets and purges. And as someone who’s lived through both kinds of radicalism, I’m here to tell you—it’s not just unsettling; it’s dangerous.
How woke ideology mirrors religious extremism
In my podcast episode titled Faith Unbound: Navigating the Process of Disentanglement—or rather, Deconversion—I delved into my initial discovery of the Ex-evangelical Christian network. Back in February 2024, it felt like a lifeline, a safe haven for questioning my former religious beliefs. But after 6–7 months of immersion, patterns began to emerge. While the movement has been instrumental for many, I couldn’t ignore the creeping rigidity and tribalism. The hunger for certainty, the need to be on the “right side,” often replaces one dogma with another.
A striking example of this surfaced in Sexvangelicals’ episode How to Do Social Justice This Election Season Without Being a Jackass. They state:
“November’s presidential election offers a stark contrast between two types of government. One is democracy, built on the idea that many people have voices and, ideally, a government that serves a broad population. The other is autocracy, which operates on the belief that only a few have a say. Autocracies, like the 2024 Republican Party, often communicate through tactics such as blame, repression, and fear-mongering. In our latest episode, we discuss common communication strategies used by autocracies and how progressives and pro-democracy voters can avoid responding in ways that reinforce jackassdom.”
My response? “It’s not your enemies, it’s the system.” This narrative reduces a complex political landscape into a simplistic moral battle, with one side as saviors of democracy and the other as agents of autocracy. But this dichotomy misses the bigger picture. Who really shapes policy in America?
A 2014 study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, often dubbed the “Oligarchy Study,” analyzed policy decisions across two decades. It revealed that elites and organized interest groups wield disproportionate influence over government decisions, while the average citizen’s impact is negligible. This stark reality transcends partisan politics and lays bare a systemic issue: power isn’t held by the left or right—it’s concentrated in the hands of those who profit from our division.
By framing every election as a battle for democracy versus tyranny, we’re falling into the trap of distraction. The real question isn’t, “Which side am I on?” but, “Who benefits from keeping me here, fighting, and not looking beyond this binary?”
The claim that the Republican Party represents an autocracy, as made by Sexvangelicals, is not just simplistic—it’s laughably disconnected from reality. To label one political party as authoritarian while ignoring the bipartisan complicity in maintaining an oligarchic system is either naïve or willfully ignorant.
Take the oligarchic nature of U.S. politics. Both major parties have long benefited from the concentration of wealth and power at the top. Consider the case of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose net worth has ballooned through stock trades that suspiciously align with her legislative influence. Or Barack Obama (Barry Soetoro), who went from public servant to multi-millionaire, cashing in on book deals, speaking engagements, and lucrative partnerships with Netflix after leaving office.
Then there’s President Joe Biden. While progressives champion him as a defender of democracy, his record is far from pristine. Most recently, questions surrounding his son Hunter Biden’s international business dealings—spanning over a decade—have drawn scrutiny. Hunter’s alleged tax evasion and unregistered foreign lobbying have raised concerns, yet he continues to receive leniency from the justice system.
This isn’t to excuse Republicans from criticism, but the suggestion that they alone embody authoritarian tendencies is absurd when Democrats have equally reaped the rewards of an oligarchic system. Both parties serve the interests of economic elites and organized lobbyists far more faithfully than they do the average voter.
The Magnet, from Puck, 1911.(Udo J. Keppler / Library of Congress)
The bipartisan reality of the oligarchy dismantles the “democracy versus autocracy” narrative. For instance, the same Gilens and Page study cited earlier reveals that the preferences of the bottom 90% of income earners have statistically no impact on policy outcomes. Meanwhile, corporate donors and lobbying groups continue to hold sway over legislation regardless of which party is in power.
By framing Republicans as the sole villains in this story, Sexvangelicals perpetuates the kind of shallow tribalism that fuels division while leaving the real culprits—wealthy elites and corporate interests—untouched. The truth is that our democracy has been compromised for decades, and it will remain so until both sides of the aisle are held accountable for their role in preserving this oligarchic system.
Instead of directing anger at individuals or parties, we should be asking: How do we break free from a system designed to keep us pointing fingers at each other while those in power profit from the chaos?
From Crunchy Hippie to Conservative Christian Pipeline: My Journey Through the Radicalization Maze
Growing up secular, I’d have laughed at the idea that I would someday align with conservative or religious ideologies. Portland, Oregon, was my playground of progressive ideals—a city where conservatism felt like the root of every societal ill. But life has a way of challenging our convictions. Late in the pandemic, isolated and seeking meaning, I fell into an extreme version of Christianity. What I once dismissed as unthinkable became my new normal—until it wasn’t. Earlier this year, I deconstructed those beliefs, peeling back the layers of what led me there. Read/listen all about HERE!
Now, I can see the flaws and virtues of both worlds, which is why I find the frame of mind in deconstruction spaces puzzling. Many accounts misrepresent or overgeneralize conservatives—the very people they once were or grew up with—and cast the same stones they once had thrown at them.
It reminds me of this quote from the book The Righteous Mind:
“I had escaped from my prior partisan mind-set (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later) and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society. It felt good to be released from partisan anger. And once I was no longer angry, I was no longer committed to reaching the conclusion that righteous anger demands: we are right, they are wrong.”
Deconstructing past beliefs should be about nuance, growth, and intellectual humility—not trading one form of black-and-white thinking for another. When we fail to empathize with others’ moral frameworks, we miss out on a deeper understanding of the human experience.
Many in the ex-evangelical space now lean far left in their political views, where values like care, fairness, and empathy take center stage. Conservative values like loyalty and authority are dismissed or viewed with suspicion, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality.
This cultural shift into victimhood is explored further in The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, who identify three “Great Untruths” that help explain these societal trends:
1) “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker,”
2) “Always trust your feelings,”
3) “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”
These untruths, they argue, contribute to fragility, discourage critical thinking, and promote a tribal mentality—characteristics that are increasingly evident in both the deconstruction space and parts of the progressive left. The focus on emotional responses over rational thought and the growing divide between “us” and “them” only strengthens these dynamics. For a deeper dive into this.
Woke Ideology as a Secular Faith: A Closer Look
“What we’re seeing isn’t a quest for justice but a demand for unquestioning orthodoxy.”
John McWhorter argues that wokeism functions like a full-fledged religion. It provides a moral framework that mirrors traditional religious beliefs. Instead of concepts like original sin, wokeism offers “privilege,” positioning those with it as morally compromised. In place of rituals like prayer, adherents perform acts like confessing their biases. And, similar to the salvation promised in traditional religions, salvation in wokeism comes through activism and striving for societal change. He warns that its refusal to tolerate dissent turns it into a rigid orthodoxy rather than a genuine quest for justice. For many, including those who’ve deconstructed evangelical faith, this framework hits uncomfortably close to home.
Many of the individuals I met and conversed with who now identify as progressive or left leaning have simply exchanged the evangelical radicalism of their past for their new liberal beliefs. Social justice, in this sense, has become their new End Times—complete with the same apocalyptic fervor. And it’s painfully obvious.
Douglas Murray discusses this analysis further in The Madness of Crowds. He suggests that wokeism often serves as a substitute for religion in today’s secular world. As belief in traditional religions has waned, people have sought meaning elsewhere—and wokeism fills that void. It provides clear rules and a sense of belonging, but in doing so, it also shuts down open debate and nuanced conversation.
The New Authority: From Sky Daddy to State Agencies
A striking similarity between fundamentalist religion and woke ideology is the relentless worship of authority. For those who’ve left behind their “big sky daddy,” that void has been filled by institutions like the CDC, FDA, and government agencies. The pandemic demonstrated how blind faith can easily shift from divine to institutional.
This is where the religion of scientism enters the picture—where reason and science are elevated to the status of ultimate truth. Figures who present themselves as “experts” rely on surface-level expertise and selective data to craft narratives that appear authoritative, yet fail under scrutiny. They become the “fake intellectuals,” as Franklin O’Kanu calls them, feeding the cult of expertise while often lacking real intellectual rigor. In public health, this plays out with the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, which further complicates the narrative of impartiality.
The “revolving door” describes the flow of personnel between agencies like the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry. This cycle blurs the lines between public service and corporate interest, with former regulators influencing policies that benefit the very companies they once oversaw—creating a potential conflict of interest that’s staggering.
In this new system, the scientific establishment becomes the new authority—replacing the monotheistic idea of God with the “god” of reason and data. For those in the deconstruction space, this is a new form of dogma. It stifles curiosity, dismisses dissent, and discourages critical thinking—all in the name of progress. This mirrors the rigid certainty and tribalism found in the religious structures people sought to escape.
Worshipping “science” or blindly trusting clinical trials can be misleading. While clinical trials are seen as vital for medical progress, they are often heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, which funds a vast majority of these trials. This creates a conflict of interest that can skew results and delay critical information about the risks of drugs. Examples like the Vioxx scandal, where a painkiller was marketed despite internal knowledge of its dangers, and the Tamiflu case, where the effectiveness of the drug was overstated, show how corporate interests can shape clinical trial outcomes. Clinical trials, while important, are not always as objective or transparent as they seem.
Empowering Dangerous Systems
Yasmine Mohammed’s Unveiled pushes the conversation even more, explaining how wokeism can actually empower authoritarian regimes. One key point she makes is how Western progressives, in the name of cultural relativism, avoid criticizing radical Islam. This gives a platform to extremist ideologies, which harms vulnerable groups like women and minorities. She argues,
“By shielding oppressive practices from scrutiny, wokeism betrays the very people it claims to protect.”
The binary “oppressor versus oppressed” narrative has become a staple of modern discourse, particularly within the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. This oversimplified lens reduces complex geopolitical and historical realities to a stark dichotomy, fostering a dangerous environment where nuance is lost. It’s unnerving to see college students waving the flag of Palestine while simultaneously undermining U.S. monuments and values, while spreading fear mongering lies about Project 2025, and comparing Trump to Hitler. These contradictions are not only mind-numbing but also deeply troubling, signaling a shift toward ideological extremism that dismisses the complexities of any issue in favor of emotional, binary thinking.
Antisemitism has spiked globally after the October 7 attacks on Israel, but this tragic reality has also fueled the misuse of the term “antisemitism” to suppress valid critiques of Israeli policies. Labeling critics as antisemitic conflates political criticism with hate, shutting down meaningful dialogue essential to addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict’s complexities.
This approach mirrors patterns within woke ideology, where dissent is often silenced in the name of ideological purity. The weaponization of identity politics and accusations hinders nuanced discussions and reinforces systems of power, obstructing pathways to justice and true understanding.
Vivek Ramaswamy, in Woke, Inc., adds another layer to this by discussing how authoritarian regimes like China’s Communist Party (CCP) take advantage of woke rhetoric. According to Ramaswamy, the CCP amplifies America’s internal divisions—often fueled by wokeism—to weaken the West. By focusing on these cultural rifts, China diverts attention from its own human rights abuses, all while strengthening its geopolitical position. This is part of China’s broader geopolitical strategy, which seeks to deflect attention from its authoritarian practices while exploiting divisions in Western societies.
This pattern can be seen as part of a broader effort to exploit the distractions created by cultural conflicts to enhance its influence in global organizations, trade, and international relations. For example, while Western nations debate internal social issues, China continues its expansive Belt and Road Initiative, which increases its influence across developing nations.
Heretics and the Price of Dissent
Religious movements and extreme ideologies, like wokeism, are often defined by their treatment of dissenters or heretics. Woke spaces, much like traditional religious communities, are quick to condemn those who question or criticize. Whether it’s TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) or former progressives like Yasmine Mohammed, those who dissent face severe backlash. This exclusionary behavior creates a stifling environment, not dissimilar to how traditional religions treat apostates. As Douglas Murray puts it, “The hatred reserved for heretics is often more intense than that directed at outsiders.”
But this dynamic is about more than just ideological rigidity—it’s also rooted in human psychology. The human brain is naturally drawn to certainty. When we embrace extreme ideologies, we seek control over our environment, which provides us a sense of stability and security. Research in neuroscience shows that when our beliefs are challenged, we experience discomfort, but defending them can trigger a dopamine response, rewarding us with a sense of control. The brain gets a “hit” from maintaining a sense of certainty, even if it’s at the cost of nuance or rational discussion.
In fact, this need for certainty can become addictive. The human brain often craves certainty in the form of binary thinking—where things are either completely right or completely wrong. This type of thinking is satisfying because it shields us from the cognitive dissonance that arises when faced with complexity or ambiguity. In the case of woke ideology, the call for absolute adherence to certain beliefs or behaviors is not just about social justice—it’s a way to satisfy that neurological need for control. When we feel justified in our beliefs and actions, we receive a dopamine “reward,” reinforcing the behavior.
This addiction to certainty can also be seen in extreme partisanship. The more entrenched we become in one side, the more our brain is rewarded for defending it. It’s why many people in the deconstruction space or on the political left engage in “mental gymnastics”—creating justifications and rationalizations that protect their beliefs. This isn’t just about ideology; it’s about keeping that dopamine reward flowing, keeping the illusion of control intact, and avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty.
The problem is this pattern of thinking isn’t conducive to open dialogue or true critical thinking. The “us vs. them” mentality becomes more pronounced, and the space for nuance, disagreement, and personal growth shrinks. Instead of engaging with opposing views, individuals self-censor or double down on their beliefs, further entrenched in the addictive cycle of ideological purity.
Moving Forward: A Balanced Approach
It’s important to note that this critique isn’t meant to dismiss the noble goals of social justice movements. Addressing inequality and harm in the world is crucial. But when these movements demand absolute loyalty and punish dissent, they lose sight of the very ideals they claim to uphold.
What do you guys think? How do you balance the pursuit of justice with the need for free thought?
Do you see these religious parallels in woke ideology? Are they helpful in understanding these dynamics, or do they oversimplify the issue?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Comment below, and don’t miss my podcast episode with Yasmine Mohammed dropping 2025 for a deeper dive into these topics!
Bonus Episode: Reflections on the Election Cycle – A Message for the Deconstruction Community
Welcome to today’s deep dive into a topic that’s been stirring within me for months. If you’re new here, let me explain the deconstruction space, or the deconstruction community—a movement that’s gaining momentum for those of us disentangling ourselves from rigid, fundamentalist beliefs. This process is supposed to be healing and, ideally, a source of growth, but it’s not without its share of controversy. That’s what we’re here to talk about.
In my podcast episode titled Faith Unbound: Navigating the Process of Disentanglement—or rather, Deconversion after my own journey took a deeper turn—I discussed my initial discovery of this space back in February. At that point, I’d begun to question my former beliefs, and the deconstruction community felt like a safe haven. After 6-7 months in, I’m seeing patterns that are unsettlingly familiar. The community has been valuable, yet I’ve grown concerned as it increasingly mirrors the same kinds of rigidity and tribalism many of us were trying to escape.
My posts and Instagram reels have hinted at this frustration, but I’m here today to pull these thoughts together more fully. Moving away from one dogma only to embrace another feels to me, like a new form of entrapment. The craving for certainty and “the right side” is strong, and without realizing it, we’re swapping one rigid system for another. In this space that’s supposed to champion open-mindedness, judgment and exclusion seem to have replaced curiosity and true critical thought.
It’s a reminder that true growth and change happen only when we’re open to different perspectives—not quick to label those who disagree with us as enemies. As the philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in his 1859 work, On Liberty, Free speech is essential for discovering the truth. He believed true understanding and truth itself emerge only through open debate and free expression. This highlights the complexity of truth, it’s only when differing perspectives clash that ideas are refined and strengthened. Let’s explore how that idea relates to today’s topic.
Setting the Stage: The Political and Psychological Landscape
Before we dig into the deconstruction community, let’s set the stage with something I found really interesting. Back before the 2024 election, journalist Mark Halperin expressed some serious concerns on Tucker Carlson’s podcast (cue the BOOs and HISSS from all the progressives–I hear you!) about what would happen if Trump were to win a second term. He predicted widespread psychological distress, especially among Democrats, which would affect everything from mental health to social interactions. And, wow, did that hit the mark.
Since Trump’s victory, movements like the 4B movement have surged among women on social media, particularly in response to reproductive rights concerns and conservative gender roles. Originating in South Korea, the movement’s name, “4B,” stems from “B,” shorthand for “no” in Korean, symbolizing “No sex, No dating, No marrying men, and No children.” Recently, the movement has sparked a 450% increase in Google searches in the U.S., with many calling it the “4 Nos” or referencing “Lysistrata” for its radical stance against traditional gender expectations. I’ve shared my thoughts on traditional gender expectations in a previous episode.
The Blue Bracelet Movement: Solidarity or Performative Gesture?
Following the 2024 election, white women supporting Kamala Harris have rallied around an unexpected symbol: a blue bracelet. For many, it represents allegiance, a small but visible way to signal “I’m not with them” to women who voted for Trump. But like other quick-fix political symbols, it’s raising questions: Does this bracelet truly contribute to progress, or is it merely performative—a way to sidestep deeper, tougher conversations within their communities?
The trend echoes past symbolic movements like 2017’s “pussy hats,” which aimed to unify and empower but were later criticized for their lack of sustained action. Today, similar critiques have emerged around the bracelet, with critics suggesting it’s more of a comforting gesture for its wearers than a true commitment to change. Some Black activists and allies have pointed out that symbols alone aren’t enough; they want allies willing to challenge and change the beliefs of those around them, including friends and family who may hold differing views.
Could the Blue Bracelet Movement become a lasting emblem of allyship or fade as a passing trend? Its fate rests on whether those wearing it step up to engage in hard conversations and meaningful action.
Misinformation and Its Impact on Abortion Laws
But let’s get back to deconstruction—and something that’s been coming up a lot lately, particularly within that space: misinformation about abortion laws. Here’s the thing: there is no federal abortion ban in place. I repeat, NO federal abortion ban.
The Trump administration’s role in the overturning of Roe v. Wade has sparked fierce debates on both sides, but it’s important to clarify that the administration never stated it aimed to eliminate abortion nationwide. Instead, the ruling simply returned the power to regulate abortion to individual states. Some conservative figures have even used quotes from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to suggest she supported a more gradual, state-based approach. However, Ginsburg critiqued the federal approach, arguing a more state-focused shift could have garnered broader public support for gender equality. Polls consistently show that while many Americans support the legality of abortion, most also favor restrictions—especially in later stages of pregnancy. This nuance, however, often gets lost in campaign rhetoric, which is typically framed in absolute terms to galvanize voter turnout. But as we’ve seen, such messaging has not always yielded the intended results, revealing the complexity of public opinion on this issue.
Yes, the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, but all that did was give states the power to regulate abortion. Some states have restrictions, sure, but no federal law is imposing a nationwide ban. And without a massive shift in Congress and the courts, it’s unlikely that will happen.
I don’t think it will. Trump himself has spoken out against that. His wife has spoken for protecting these in some way, shape or form. We have other folks coming over from the Democratic Party under this Unity Party bracket. I just don’t think that they’re going to force Christian nationalism, and abortion bans across the entire nation. I guess we’ll see.
Then, there’s this idea going around that women won’t be able to access life-saving procedures if they have a miscarriage. This is just false. In fact, most states with abortion restrictions still allow medical treatments for miscarriages, like dilation and curettage (D&C), which are essential to protect a woman’s health. What’s actually being restricted are elective abortions—not necessary procedures.
But here’s where things get really tricky. The spread of these exaggerated claims taps into the emotional centers of our brains. If you remember our previous episodes, we talked about amygdala hijacking—the brain’s response to fear and anxiety. When we hear these alarmist claims, it triggers that fear-based reaction, shutting down our ability to think rationally. Instead of focusing on the facts, we’re just reacting emotionally.
The Dangers of Misinformation
Let’s talk about the danger of this. Misinformation, especially when it involves highly emotional issues like reproductive rights, isn’t just harmless chatter—it’s psychological warfare. It keeps people in a constant state of anxiety, preventing them from thinking rationally. The real issue? People are more likely to believe in the fear-based narrative than to actually check the facts. They’re too busy being triggered emotionally.
This plays directly into the hands of the fearmongers. It becomes easier to control a population if you can make them afraid, right? And what do we see happening? Misguided campaigns around “miscarriage care,” the spread of exaggerated stories, and people feeling like their rights are under direct attack. It’s chaos. And it’s all based on misinformation, yet the ones who are screaming the loudest about misinformation are the very ones spreading it.
Can you already hear the echoes of evangelicalism? This brings me to the concepts of Jonathan Haidt’s the Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion because they apply here. Haidt explains how our moral intuitions drive our beliefs and politics, often dividing us along different moral foundations.
Many folks in the deconstruction space, now lean left, where values like care and fairness are paramount. Meanwhile, conservative values like loyalty and authority are often viewed as suspect, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality that can feel righteous but alienating. Ironically, in striving for freedom and empathy, the deconstruction space sometimes ends up falling into the same black-and-white thinking it critiques.
In tandem, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s book The Coddling of the American Mind offers a useful framework for understanding these shifts, identifying “Three Great Untruths”: 1) “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker,” 2) “Always trust your feelings,” and 3) “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.” These untruths, they argue, create fragility, discourage critical thinking, and foster a tribal mentality—traits that increasingly characterize the deconstruction space and parts of the progressive left.
It’s ironic to me that some people leave evangelical Christianity thinking they’re free, only to stumble into a new form of dogma within the deconstruction space. My experience is different—I didn’t grow up in the church but was recruited during the pandemic. Having lived outside of purity culture, I feel fortunate not to carry that baggage. While I empathize with those navigating their journeys, it’s tough to see them act as critics and bullies. Let’s unpack these dynamics by exploring three key untruths in this space.
1. The Untruth of Fragility: “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”
For many, deconstructing from fundamentalist beliefs took resilience and a willingness to confront discomfort. Yet, in today’s deconstruction space, there’s an emphasis on avoiding ideas seen as “unsafe” or “harmful”—typically anything that deviates from progressive orthodoxy. and I mean, I genuinely felt this way. I think that might be somewhat of a trauma response. I was like, I hate the patriarchy. I must stand up against this. This is harmful. This is dangerous. And there is a lot of data proving that this isn’t true, whether we want to look at the history of the ancient church or just, you know, the research data that I’ve shared in previous episodes but my point–this fragility, reinforced by social media algorithms, cultivates an environment where disagreement feels threatening rather than enriching.
This approach mirrors the fundamentalist rejection of “dangerous” secular ideas, where dissent is demonized. The irony is that what began as a call for open-mindedness has become a kind of brittle certitude, one that isolates rather than connects. Instead of learning resilience, we’re re-teaching fragility, limiting our growth and deepening the ideological chasm.
Protestors outside a Temple of Satan
2. The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: “Always trust your feelings.”
Fundamentalism often equates strong feelings with truth—“If I feel it, it must be right.” In the deconstruction space, there’s a similar emphasis on emotional reasoning. If something feels offensive or unsettling, it’s treated as harmful. This approach is amplified by social media, where outrage and personal offense are rewarded with visibility.
Haidt’s work reminds us that emotions shape our moral judgments but don’t always lead to truth. Reacting purely on feeling closes off critical thinking, creating echo chambers where alternative perspectives are rarely considered. Instead of fostering deeper understanding, emotional reasoning entrenches our biases, fueling judgment rather than curiosity.
3. The Untruth of Us vs. Them: “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”
The most divisive untruth is the idea that the world can be split into “good” and “evil” camps. This is evident in how some in the deconstruction community approach politics and social issues, painting conservatives or moderates as morally inferior. We see a rigid, “with us or against us” mentality, where anyone who questions progressive narratives is labeled “deplorable,” “harmful,” “Trash”, “Nazi” or worse.
Haidt’s research reveals that moral division is natural; we all tend to view those who disagree with us as misguided or even morally flawed. But when we approach every difference as a moral battleground, we close off true dialogue. Coming from a high-Calvinist church—one of the most cult-like, fundamentalist circles you can get into—I know what it’s like to think the rapture is imminent or to believe that if you don’t say all the “right” words exactly, you’ll burn in hell. My journey has taken me from being pro-choice in Portland, OR, having had three abortions myself, to joining an abolitionist movement to outlaw abortion. I haven’t even spoken about the profound pain and regret I carry about this. Yet here I am, reflecting on how divisive our society has become, with so little room for understanding across political lines. In the deconstruction space, you’d expect a shared empathy after leaving behind rigid belief systems, but instead, the culture seems to mirror the very exclusivity and “us vs. them” mentality of evangelical spaces.
Living in Portland, surrounded by ideologies that often pushed the limits of what I felt was morally comfortable, I wrestled with the impacts of various movements. I started to question whether certain messages of empowerment—like third-wave feminism—truly uplift or, instead, encourage behaviors that commodify women’s bodies and promote sexualization from a very young age. And while sex work has become a celebrated concept under the mantra “sex work is real work,” my own painful experiences in that industry make me see things differently. To me, it’s not empowering; it’s the opposite. Instead of championing it, I believe we should work to dismantle the industry.
It’s not just isolated concepts; there’s a broader pattern of glorifying “anything goes” hedonism and dismissing traditional values in the progressive space, which I find deeply troubling. Living in that environment left me with a raw understanding of how damaging these ideologies can be, leaving permanent scars. I grieve over the three abortions I’ve had. I cry because, despite being told it was just “a clump of cells,” I knew it was more than that. Watching the left demand “trust the science” while denying that life begins at conception feels twisted to me.
Moreover, there’s a deep, dark history in the advocacy of reproductive rights that gets glossed over—like the disturbing eugenics past of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger. Are we just going to ignore that?
Since the last election ended with a Trump landslide victory, rather than sparking any self-reflection, this moral absolutism seems to have intensified. The comments sections on many deconstruction accounts reveal the same tribal thinking they claim to oppose. Instead of creating bridges, we see entrenched sides, instead of open-mindedness, we see judgment.
Look, I’ve been there. I was a proud Democrat in the past. I voted for Obama. But now, as an independent, I’m calling it like I see it. Democrats need to take a good hard look at themselves if they want a chance at victory. Blaming the electorate isn’t the answer. You cannot keep denying biology and pretending men. Along in women’s sports, restrooms or prisons. The idea that kids should undergo irreversible changes. It’s misguided and is absolutely out of touch. The open border agenda. It’s hurting American workers, pushing down wages and driving up the cost of housing. When will you start protecting your own people instead of pandering to these extreme policies? Discriminating against whites, Asians and men and the name of countering past wrongs is not only setting us back, but it’s racist in itself. Abandoning merit-based selection is wrecking our economy and opportunities for everyone. I mean, you cannot let people camp, defecate and shoot up in public spaces and expect things to improve. The average voter is seeing all of this and they’re rejecting it. If Democrats want to win again, they need to rethink their approach and get back to reality. Enough is enough.
The Pipeline Problem: How Social Media Radicalizes
This divide is worsened by social media, where algorithms favor outrage and tribalism, pulling people toward extreme ideologies. Just as researchers have observed a “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline,” there’s a similar dynamic at play in progressive spaces, where folks in the deconstruction space are drawn into radical social justice ideologies that feel every bit as dogmatic as evangelicalism.
In this progressive pipeline, identity politics becomes a weapon, and moral purity is enforced through a power/victim binary that discourages complexity and invites fear of being labeled an oppressor. This kind of ideological purity resembles the control and certainty we experienced in evangelicalism, only now with a new political coat of paint.
And this leads me into the horseshoe theory suggests that the far-left and far-right, though seemingly at opposite ends of the spectrum, often mirror each other in attitudes and tactics. This theory, initially presented by French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye, proposes that the extremes of any ideology may end up behaving similarly—both tending toward authoritarianism and totalitarian thought despite their stated differences. Although this theory has its critics, the broader concept of ideological mirroring holds up in our analysis of what’s happening in the deconstruction space. At first, it was all about freedom—breaking away from oppressive systems, rejecting dogma, and embracing openness. But ironically, as people deconstruct their faith, they can fall into a similar trap: from being free thinkers to members of a new ideological cult.
Basically, when you leave fundamentalism without fully deconstructing dogmatic thinking, you risk trading one rigid ideology for another. Without cultivating humility and empathy, we will perpetrate the very same cycles of judgement and exclusion.
The Path Forward: True Openness and Curiosity
What’s the solution here? Jonathan Haidt’s insights remind us that real dialogue begins by understanding the values behind other people’s beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Progress and healing require that we listen beyond the labels, engaging in good faith rather than moral grandstanding. If we are to avoid replicating the very structures we’re deconstructing, we need to make space for differing perspectives and approach them with curiosity.
So, this means you cannot demonize conservatives, you cannot call everyone that voted for Trump a bigot, racist, misogynist. There’s something wrong with that thinking. You have been sold these three untruths. It’s a tired accusation that doesn’t hold up when you look at the numbers. Trump support among white voters did drop from 57% in 2020 to 49% in 2024. But the kicker is his support among black and Latino voters actually went up from 38 to 42%. So, against all odds, Trump is doing something that the Democratic Party has failed to do for decades. He’s making the Republican Party more diverse than has been in 60 years. Let’s cut out the divisive name calling and start acknowledging the reality of his growing appeal across different communities.
Real change happens when we go beyond just labeling others and instead build spaces where critical thought can flourish—even when it’s uncomfortable. This is my message to the deconstruction community and beyond!
It’s simple: stop pretending that we have all the answers. True freedom of thought is not about certainty. It’s about curiosity. It’s about asking the tough questions, not just parroting whatever’s trendy on social media or echoing the louder voices in your ideological group.
We need to do away with the binary thinking that divides us into “good” or “evil,” “us” or “them,” and start embracing true diversity of thought. Only by having those uncomfortable, nuanced conversations will we ever break free from the ideological cults—whether they’re rooted in religion, politics, or even deconstruction itself.
So, as we wrap up today’s episode, remember this: It’s time to get real. Misinformation is everywhere, and sometimes, it’s coming from the very people who claim to be fighting it. Whether it’s the left, the right, or the deconstruction space—don’t get caught up in the hype.
Thanks for tuning in to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Until next time, keep questioning, keep learning, and never, ever stop thinking for yourself.
As we move past the recent election, I’ve been reflecting on what it’s taught me about our culture, politics, and the conversations we have about faith and values. I want to share this reflection, not as a definitive answer, but as a personal journey that might resonate with others.
Discovering the “Deconstruction” Community
When I first started questioning my beliefs, especially within Christianity, I found myself among a group of people known as the “deconstruction community.” Many of these individuals were dealing with anger and disillusionment—much of it directed at political figures like Trump, the MAGA movement, and the perceived traditional values upheld by many evangelicals. They spoke openly about issues like spiritual abuse and cult-like dynamics in religious spaces, which resonated with me as I navigated my own experiences of questioning and stepping away from past beliefs.
But as I spent more time in these spaces, I noticed a paradox. The community had an “us vs. them” mentality that was very similar to the kind they were critiquing within conservative Christianity. The language, often harsh and divisive, didn’t align with the openness and curiosity I’d hoped to find. It seemed that some had merely replaced one set of rigid beliefs with another, creating a new kind of fundamentalism in the process.
Moving Beyond Anger and Righteousness
In these circles, I encountered scholars and advocates who passionately spoke against certain ideologies—sometimes with a level of certainty that left little room for nuance. I can empathize with this; when I began deconstructing, I, too, was filled with anger. I often felt morally superior, eager to “call out” harmful ideologies. But as time passed, I began to see that this anger, while understandable, could also be limiting. It kept me in a space where I saw the world in black and white, where there were “good” people on one side and “bad” on the other. I realized that this wasn’t a mindset I wanted to live in forever.
The Value of Autonomy and Discernment
During this election cycle, I found myself reflecting on the importance of autonomy, critical thinking, and discernment. These are qualities that the deconstruction community often claims to uphold. Yet, at times, it feels as though a different kind of fundamentalism has taken root—one where there’s pressure to align with a specific, “acceptable” narrative. I believe we need to make space for people to question, to think deeply, and to weigh their values without the fear of being shamed or silenced.
For instance, while I see harm in patriarchal structures, I also believe it’s damaging to label every conservative viewpoint as “fascist” or “racist.” These labels are extreme and can create walls instead of bridges. This is especially concerning when public figures or communities use this language to fuel fear rather than to inspire honest dialogue. It’s a reminder of how easy it is to fall into binary thinking, even when we’re trying to escape it.
Real-World Impact of Ideas
The power of ideas, especially those circulated in liberal spaces, has had a tangible impact on my life. Phrases like “sex work is real work” and “it’s just a clump of cells” influenced me in ways that I now wish had been more nuanced. I deeply regret some choices and wish I’d had more support, better information, and a broader perspective at the time. This experience fuels my passion for helping others get a fuller picture as they make decisions, especially those that impact their health, values, and future.
The Importance of Diverse Voices
As I look forward, my hope is to help foster a healthier America where diverse voices and perspectives can coexist. This includes voices that don’t necessarily align with mainstream narratives. Figures like Robert Kennedy Jr., for example, are often labeled “conspiracy theorists” within certain circles, including parts of the deconstruction community. But Kennedy has a message that challenges corporate narratives, and I find it disheartening when people dismiss him without truly engaging with his ideas. This tendency to label and dismiss is something I hope we can move beyond.
Building Dialogue Over Division
In closing, my commitment is to create a space where the priority is truth-seeking, not winning. It’s easy to fall into the trap of quick judgments and polarizing narratives, but real growth comes from dialogue, from listening, and from respecting the humanity in one another—even when we disagree. The recent election has reminded me of the importance of these values.
Let’s keep questioning the narratives, seeking understanding, and holding space for multiple perspectives. After all, this isn’t about “winning” or “losing”—it’s about building a more compassionate, informed society.
Thank you for reading, and let’s keep this conversation going. Let’s choose curiosity over condemnation, dialogue over division, and remember there’s always more to the story.
Welcome to Taste of Truth Tuesdays, where we unravel the strange, the mysterious, and today—the terrifying. This post delves into one of history’s darkest chapters: the witch hunts. We’ll explore how fear, superstition, and control shaped centuries of persecution and how these patterns are still evident in the modern world. Witch hunts aren’t just a thing of the past—they’ve evolved.
The European Witch Hunts – Early Modern Europe
Let’s start in early modern Europe. Scholar Peter Maxwell-Stuart illuminates the rise of demonology, where the fear of magic and the devil became a weapon of control for those in power. Beginning in the 1500s, political and religious leaders manipulated entire populations by tapping into their deep-rooted fears of ‘evil forces.’ The Church, in particular, weaponized these beliefs, positioning itself as the protector against witches—women (and sometimes men) believed to consort with devils or conjure dark forces. As the idea took hold that witches could be behind every famine, illness, or death, this created a perfect storm of paranoia.
Stuart argues that demonology texts—many sanctioned by the Church—fueled mass hysteria, feeding the narrative that witches were not just local troublemakers but cosmic agents of Satan, hell-bent on destroying Christendom. Ordinary people lived in constant fear of betrayal by their neighbors, leading to accusations that could swiftly escalate into brutal trials, with the accused often tortured into confessing their ‘diabolical’ crimes.
To understand how demonology in Europe gained such traction, we need to go back to Augustine of Hippo. We have mentioned him before in previous episodes, whose writings in the 4th and 5th centuries laid the foundation for Christian perceptions of the devil and demons. Augustine’s ideas, especially in City of God, emphasized the constant spiritual warfare between good and evil, casting demons as agents of Satan working tirelessly to undermine God’s plan. He argued that humans were caught in this cosmic battle, susceptible to the devil’s temptations and tricks.
‘Augustine before a group of demons’, from ‘De civitate Dei’ by Augustine, trans. by Raoul de Presles, late 15th Century
Augustine’s Doctrine of Demons
According to Augustine, demons were fallen angels who had rebelled and now sought to deceive and destroy humanity. While Augustine didn’t explicitly discuss witches, his interpretation of demons helped fuel the belief that humans could be manipulated by evil spirits—whether through pacts, possession, or magical practices. This idea later influenced medieval and early modern European demonology.
Augustine’s views on original sin—that humanity is inherently flawed and in need of salvation—also intensified fears that people, especially women (who were seen as ‘weaker’ spiritually), were more vulnerable to the devil’s influence.
SIDE NOTE: We have discussed the theological concept of original sin in previous episodes: Franciscan wisdom navigating spiritual growth and challenges with Carrie Moore, we specifically spun the doctrine of original sin on its head and then also Unpacking Religious Trauma: Navigating the Dynamics of Faith Deconstruction with Doctor Mark Karris.
In the centuries that followed, these ideas were weaponized to justify witch hunts. Augustine’s legacy is evident in how later theologians and demonologists, such as Heinrich Kramer (author of the infamous Malleus Maleficarum), built upon his ideas of demonic interference to condemn witchcraft as a real, existential threat to Christian society.
Maxwell-Stuart reveals that the creation of demonology wasn’t just religious but deeply political. Kings and clergy alike realized they could consolidate power by stoking the flames of fear, casting witches and sorcerers as a common enemy. The trials served a dual purpose: they reinforced the Church’s supremacy over the spiritual realm and gave ruling elites a tool for maintaining social order. Accusing someone of witchcraft was an effective way to silence dissent or settle personal scores.
Fear as a Tool of Control
Fear wasn’t just manufactured by rulers—it was deeply ingrained in the societal, religious, and legal systems of the time. Scholar Sophie Page reveals how beliefs in magic and the supernatural were not fringe ideas but core components of medieval and early modern life. Magic wasn’t merely a mysterious force; it was a pervasive explanation for any calamity. Failed harvests, plagues, or unexplained illnesses were often attributed to witches or the devil, creating a society constantly on edge, where supernatural forces were believed to lurk behind every misfortune.
By embedding these beliefs into legal codes, authorities could target suspected witches or sorcerers under the guise of protecting the community. Page’s work illustrates how rituals once seen as protective or healing gradually became demonized. Harmless folk practices and herbal remedies, used for centuries, began to be recast as witchcraft, especially when things went wrong. People, particularly those in rural areas, were vulnerable to this thinking because religion and superstition were inseparable from daily life.
Partisan scholars have long debated whether Catholics or Protestants were the “real” witch hunters, but they’ve made little headway. One important change in Christian morality, as discussed by John Bossie, occurred between the 14th and 16th centuries. The moral focus shifted from the Seven Deadly Sins—pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth—to the Ten Commandments. This change, influenced by reform movements that shaped the Protestant Reformation, prioritized sins against God over those against the community. Idolatry and the worship of false gods became viewed as the gravest offenses.
This redefinition of witchcraft followed suit. Instead of being seen as harmful actions toward neighbors, witchcraft was now linked directly to devil worship and regarded as serious heresy. Scholars and church leaders began merging various forms of folk magic and healing into this new narrative, suggesting that practitioners were either knowingly or unknowingly making deals with the devil. Confessions of pacts or attendance at “witch gatherings” were shaped to highlight community failings, like envy and resentment. Consequently, educated society began to see witchcraft as a real threat rather than mere superstition. While traditional beliefs about magic still existed, they were overshadowed by fears of violent backlash from reformers.
The Power of Dualistic Thinking
This dualistic thinking, influenced by St. Augustine, gave rise to a semi-Manichean worldview, where the struggle between good and evil became more pronounced. Manichaeism, an ancient belief system, viewed the world as a battleground between equal forces of good and evil. Although orthodox Christianity rejected this dualism, the focus on the devil’s role in everyday life blurred those lines for many people. By emphasizing the devil’s pervasive influence, religious leaders inadvertently created a belief system in which evil seemed as powerful as good.
In this semi-Manichean view, the devil was not just a tempter of individuals but a corrupting force within communities and even within political and religious practices deemed heretical. Fears of devil-worshipping conspiracies became intertwined with anxieties about witchcraft and moral decay. Reformers, particularly in Protestant movements, fueled these fears by branding idolatry, Catholic rituals, and even folk healing as dangerous openings for the devil’s influence. This perspective transformed witchcraft from a local issue into a broader threat against God and society.
The result was a potent mix of dualistic thinking and an intense focus on spiritual warfare. This not only intensified the persecution of supposed witches but also reinforced the obsession with eliminating anything considered “satanic.” The ideological shift redefined witchcraft as a communal danger, turning innocent healing practices into accusations of demonic pacts.
Every village had its own ‘cunning folk’—individuals skilled in healing and folk magic—yet these very people could easily become scapegoats when something went wrong. The legal structures played a vital role in perpetuating this cycle of fear. Church courts, bolstered by theologians and demonologists, were empowered to try individuals accused of witchcraft, and the accusations quickly spiraled into mass hysteria. Trials often relied on tortured confessions, reinforcing the belief that witches and the devil were real and tangible threats to society. This institutionalized paranoia was a perfect storm of religion, fear, and control.
The Rise of Organized Witch Hunts
Beginning in the late 15th century, witch trials escalated into full-blown hunts, particularly after the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum in 1487. This infamous witch-hunting manual, written by Heinrich Kramer and endorsed by the Pope, offered legal and theological justifications for hunting down witches. It encouraged harsh interrogations and set guidelines for identifying witches based on superficial evidence like birthmarks, behaviors, and confessions extracted under torture. The legal system, which had already started to turn against folk healers, now had a codified method for persecuting them.
In regions like Germany, Scotland, and Switzerland, these legal trials turned into widespread witch hunts. Hundreds, even thousands, of individuals—predominantly women—were accused and executed. What’s particularly fascinating is that these witch hunts often peaked during periods of societal or economic instability when fear and uncertainty made people more susceptible to attributing their misfortunes to external, supernatural forces.
By institutionalizing the persecution of witches, rulers and religious leaders could manage social unrest and solidify their authority. The trials often reinforced the power structures by demonstrating that anyone perceived as a threat to societal order—whether through suspected witchcraft or merely social nonconformity—could be eradicated.
Witch Hunts and Gender
The scapegoating of women played a crucial role in these witch hunts. Owen Davies’ work reveals how the demonization of witches intersected with misogyny, turning the hunts into a gendered form of control. Midwives, healers, or outspoken women were more likely to be targeted, reinforcing patriarchal authority. The very skills that had once been valued, such as healing and midwifery, were redefined as dangerous and linked to dark powers.
As witch hunts spread, the legal frameworks across Europe became more refined and institutionalized, creating a climate where fear of witches and demonic possession became the norm. The trials’ obsession with confessions—often coerced under brutal conditions—further fueled public paranoia, as the more people confessed to witchcraft, the more tangible the ‘threat’ seemed.
The Modern Echoes of Witch Hunts
Fast forward to today, and we find that the legacy of witch hunts lingers. The tactics of fear-mongering, scapegoating, and social control can still be observed in modern contexts. Contemporary movements often mirror historical witch hunts, targeting marginalized groups through accusations and public shaming. Just as witch hunts flourished in times of societal uncertainty, modern societies can succumb to similar dynamics.
In the age of social media, legal accusations spread like wildfire, and the court of public opinion often acts faster than the courts themselves. Political enemies are dragged through the mud with allegations that may or may not have a basis in fact.
The case of Michael Jackson serves as a poignant example of how media narratives can distort reality. The beloved pop icon faced multiple allegations of child molestation, with the most notable case occurring in 2005 during a highly publicized trial. Accusers claimed that Jackson had abused them, yet the defense presented compelling counterarguments, including challenges to the credibility of the witnesses and highlighting inconsistencies in their testimonies. After a lengthy trial, Jackson was acquitted of all charges, but the media frenzy surrounding the case fueled public debate and sensationalism, earning him the derogatory nickname “Wacko Jacko.” This smear campaign perpetuated false narratives about his character and actions. Behind the scenes, Jackson was embroiled in a lawsuit against Sony Music, a battle he was reportedly winning at the time of these allegations. Furthermore, his controversial doctor, Conrad Murray, who administered drugs to Jackson, faced serious legal consequences for his role in the singer’s death, including manslaughter charges. The intersection of these legal battles and the media frenzy created a complex narrative that ultimately tarnished Jackson’s legacy, and that’s what truly breaks my heart.
By the time these individuals have the chance to clear their names, their reputations—and often their careers—are already in ruins. Davies’ research shows us that while modern witch hunts don’t involve burning at the stake, they do involve trial by media and mob justice.
And we can’t talk about modern-day witch hunts without bringing the CIA into the conversation. Since its inception, the CIA has been at the heart of international political manipulations—using covert methods to shape public perception, interfere in foreign governments, and even influence elections here in the United States. In the 1960s, the agency coined the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ to discredit anyone who questioned the official narratives surrounding events like the assassination of JFK. Those who didn’t toe the line were labeled as ‘paranoid’ or ‘dangerous.’ It was the modern version of labeling someone a witch—turning them into a social outcast, not to be trusted.
Fast forward to today: we see similar tactics used against whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who challenge the powerful. Think about Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and even political figures targeted by intelligence communities. The second they start exposing uncomfortable truths, they are vilified. Whether through leaks, smear campaigns, or selective legal action, these modern-day ‘witches’ face an onslaught of accusations, designed to discredit them before they can fully tell their story.
In many cases, the evidence behind these accusations is shaky at best. The CIA’s involvement in manipulating public perception goes all the way back to Operation Mockingbird, a secret program to influence media narratives, which showed that controlling information was one of the most powerful tools they had. During the Cold War, the United States engaged in a concerted effort to influence and control media narratives to align with its interests, which involved recruiting journalists and establishing relationships with major media outlets.
Edward Bernays, often referred to as the father of public relations, played a pivotal role in these discussions on media manipulation. Working with several major companies, including Procter & Gamble, General Electric, and the American Tobacco Company, Bernays was instrumental in promoting the cigarette brand Lucky Strike, famously linking it to the women’s liberation movement. His connections extend to notable figures like Sigmund Freud, who was Bernays’ uncle, Freud’s psychoanalytic theories significantly shaped Bernays’ PR strategies. Throughout his career, Bernays leveraged media to influence public perception and political leaders, raising profound questions about the power dynamics of media and its capacity to shape societal narratives. (If you’re intrigued by the intricate interplay of media and propaganda, this is a rabbit hole worth exploring!)
Today, that same fear-mongering tactic is played out on a much larger scale. Accusations, whether of conspiracy, treason, or subversion, become tools to silence anyone questioning the status quo. Just as witches in the past were seen as ‘different’ and thus dangerous, today’s targets are often people who challenge the system.
And while throughout the 1300-1600s, there was no due process for the accused witches, today, we see something similar in the digital realm. There’s no real accountability or fairness in the court of public opinion. All it takes is a viral accusation—a tweet, a blog post, or a video—and the person’s career, family, and mental health can be obliteratedovernight. No evidence required, no trial, no defense.
So, what can we learn from this history? From the witch hunts of early modern Europe to today’s viral accusations and political fearmongering, there’s one key lesson: fear remains one of the most dangerous tools of control. When we allow fear to dictate our actions—whether it’s fear of witches, outsiders, or anyone who doesn’t fit into the mold—we lose sight of reason and humanity.
In closing, I’d like to examine the phenomenon of witch hunts through the lens of amygdala hijacking, a topic we discussed in a previous episode. This term refers to the brain’s immediate response to perceived threats, where the amygdala—the emotional center of the brain—takes control, often resulting in irrational and impulsive actions.
During the witch hunts, communities gripped by fear of the unknown succumbed to a mob mentality whenever someone fell ill or misfortune struck. The amygdala triggered a fight-or-flight response, compelling individuals to find scapegoats, with cunning folk and those deviating from societal norms becoming prime targets. As accusations spiraled, fear dominated decision-making instead of rational thought. Today, we observe similar patterns in how social media can incite panic, leading to modern witch hunts. When fear takes over, reason often fades, resulting in unjust vilification—echoing the dark lessons of history.
As we navigate our modern world, let’s remain vigilant against the echoes of this history, seeking truth and questioning the narratives that shape our beliefs. Fear may be powerful, but curiosity and critical thinking are our greatest allies in maintaining our autonomy and humanity.
Resources:
Briggs, Robin. Witches and Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft. Oxford University Press, 1996.
This book provides a comprehensive exploration of the social dynamics surrounding witch hunts in early modern Europe, highlighting the interplay of fear, community, and cultural beliefs.
Maxwell-Stuart, Peter G.Witchcraft in Europe, 1100-1700: A Sourcebook. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
This sourcebook compiles essential documents related to the history of witchcraft in Europe, providing insights into how fear and persecution were constructed and justified.
Page, Sophie.Magic in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
This book offers an analysis of the cultural and religious practices surrounding magic during the medieval period, emphasizing how these beliefs shaped societal attitudes toward witchcraft.
Bossy, John.Christianity in the West, 1400-1700. Oxford University Press, 1985.
Bossy examines the transformation of Christian morality during the Reformation, providing context for the changing perceptions of witchcraft and heresy.
Davies, Owen.Popular Magic: Cunning Folk in English History. Continuum, 2007.
This work explores the role of cunning folk—those who practiced folk magic—and how their practices were perceived within the broader context of witchcraft accusations.
Baroja, J. C.Witches and Witchcraft. University of California Press, 1990.
Baroja’s work examines the historical and cultural significance of witchcraft, providing insights into the social conditions that fueled witch hunts and the cultural implications of these beliefs.
When you grow up in a high-control environment—whether through religion, a rigid upbringing, or a spiritual path that preaches emotional suppression—it can feel like your natural human emotions are something to be ashamed of. I’ve lived it. In the high-control religion I was a part of, anger wasn’t just frowned upon; it was portrayed as sinful, a sign of personal failure or weakness. Through the lens of ACBC Biblical counseling (Nouthetic Counseling), anger was framed as something to be suppressed, manipulated out of existence with tactics like guilt, shame, and isolation. But here’s the truth: anger, like any other emotion, isn’t inherently wrong. It’s human. And when we lose access to it, we also lose access to parts of ourselves.
Anger, as Aristotle once put it, is a passion. When experienced and expressed for the right reasons and in the right way, it can even be virtuous. Yet, in so many spiritual environments, particularly the ones I encountered, emotions like anger were seen as dangerous, spiritually harmful, or outright sinful. Especially for women, who are often taught to prioritize harmony and remain calm at all costs, anger can become something we’re scared to touch. For men, anger might be more accepted, but vulnerability is not, creating its own emotional imbalance.
What happens when we suppress emotions like anger? We get stuck, often feeling disconnected from our bodies, from our creativity, and from any sense of playfulness. That’s why art and play become essential tools in healing from spiritual and religious trauma. They allow us to access and express emotions that were long buried, giving us the space to feel without fear. Art doesn’t just heal—it empowers. It gives back what was stolen. Let’s unpack why:
Why Art & Play Matter in Healing Trauma
Trauma—especially the kind stemming from spiritual or religious abuse—can leave you feeling stuck, numb, or like a stranger to your own creativity. High-control environments stifle our freedom to express, explore, or simply be. Art and play can feel like reclaiming those parts of us that were silenced, buried under the weight of shame, fear, or guilt.
“Wherever I look, I see the same themes: not being allowed to feel, to say what you feel, to trust your perceptions, to ask for what you need. This is how we remain imprisoned in our pain.” -Alice Miller
Engaging in creative expression—whether it’s painting, dancing, writing, or making music—gives us a way to process emotions that can be difficult, even impossible, to articulate. Trauma lodges itself deep in the body and subconscious, often beyond the reach of words. But through art, we can access those hidden parts and begin to heal them in ways that talking just doesn’t touch. It’s like tapping into a language the body understands.
Play, on the other hand, might feel like a foreign concept if you’ve been conditioned to take life way too seriously, to follow rules without question. But it’s through play that we reconnect with spontaneity, joy, and a sense of safety—things that high-control environments tend to strip away. Play is about reawakening that inner child, the part of you that knows how to explore and create without fear of judgment. It’s about taking back the joy you were told to suppress.
How Art & Play Help in Deconstructing Religious Trauma
When we start unraveling the teachings we once held as truth, it can feel like walking through a minefield. Shame, fear, and guilt are often deeply embedded in the narratives we were fed. Art becomes a tool for rebellion, a way to question, challenge, and rewrite those beliefs. By creating, we aren’t just making things; we’re making space for new perspectives. We’re loosening the grip that old doctrines had on us.
In high-control environments, the idea of play is usually dismissed as frivolous or even sinful. Reclaiming that sense of play is like finding a key to unlock the parts of yourself that were shut away. Playfulness, whether it’s dancing with wild abandon, hula hooping (yes, circus arts shoutout!), or exploring new hobbies, gives you back a sense of agency. It’s a way to create space for curiosity again, to embrace wonder without the burden of fear or shame. Think of it as giving yourself permission to live without someone else’s narrative hanging over you.
Scientific Backing for Creative Therapies
The science backs this up, too. Numerous studies have shown that creative therapies—like art, dance, and even movement-based play—can significantly reduce symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression. They work by helping the brain rewire itself through neuroplasticity. When you engage in creative activities, you’re not just distracting yourself—you’re helping your brain form new, healthier connections. You’re building resilience, reprogramming the way your brain responds to trauma.
Art and play ignite parts of the brain that foster emotional regulation and healing. This is where trauma lives, after all—deep within the nervous system. But creativity taps into a different part of the brain than verbal communication does, allowing survivors of trauma to express and release emotions they may not even know they’re holding onto.
By embracing art and play, you’re not just finding a distraction from your pain—you’re giving yourself a way to heal, to reclaim parts of yourself that were taken, and to reconnect with joy, creativity, and freedom. The beauty of it all? There’s no right or wrong way to do it. You’re creating your path forward. So, grab that paintbrush, dance it out, or pick up that pen and let your soul speak.
Resources for Healing Through Art and Play
Books:
“Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors” by Janina Fisher This book dives into how trauma fragments a person’s sense of self, especially those recovering from spiritual abuse or high-control environments. Fisher provides practical tools, like body-based therapies and creative expressions, to help reintegrate those fragmented parts into a cohesive whole.
“Trauma and Recovery” by Judith Herman Herman’s work is a cornerstone in understanding trauma and its long-term effects. She emphasizes the importance of survivors reclaiming their voices, and how creative expression—whether through writing, painting, or dance—plays a critical role in their recovery journey.
“The Creative Cure” by Jacob Nordby Nordby explores how reconnecting with creativity can reignite your sense of self and joy. Especially for those who’ve had their emotional expression controlled or diminished by strict belief systems, this book offers a roadmap to reclaiming a more authentic, free version of yourself through creativity.
“Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving” by Pete Walker This book focuses on healing the long-term effects of complex PTSD, which many individuals from high-control religious backgrounds experience. Walker highlights how therapeutic outlets like art, journaling, and other forms of play help survivors process their trauma and begin to thrive again.
“Art Therapy Sourcebook” by Cathy Malchiodi Malchiodi is a pioneer in the field of art therapy. This book is a practical guide for anyone looking to explore art as a form of emotional expression and healing, especially in the context of trauma recovery. It offers hands-on approaches for integrating creative expression into your healing process.
Articles & Journals:
American Art Therapy Association This site offers numerous research studies on the effectiveness of art therapy in healing trauma, especially for those recovering from spiritual abuse or restrictive environments. It provides a well-rounded view of the therapeutic benefits of engaging in creative arts.
International Journal of Play Therapy A comprehensive journal that highlights the healing potential of play therapy for trauma survivors. It explores how play can foster emotional resilience and repair, allowing individuals to reconnect with parts of themselves that were silenced or controlled.
“Creative Arts Therapies and Trauma: Scope and Impact” A review that outlines how various forms of creative expression—like music, drama, and visual arts—help trauma survivors heal. This article explains how these therapies leverage the brain’s neuroplasticity to create new, healthier emotional patterns.
Pat Ogden – Sensorimotor Psychotherapy Ogden’s work is at the intersection of movement and trauma recovery. She focuses on how trauma manifests in the body and uses techniques like creative movement and body-based therapies to help people heal from deep emotional wounds. Her book “Trauma and the Body” is a great resource for understanding this approach.
Peter Levine – Somatic Experiencing Levine is renowned for his work on trauma recovery through the body. His book “Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma” offers insights into how movement and body-based expression can help survivors release trauma and regain a sense of safety and control.
Podcasts & Websites:
Sounds True – Insights at the Edge Podcast Hosted by Tami Simon, this podcast often features interviews with leading experts in trauma and healing. Guests like Peter Levine and Pat Ogden discuss the importance of integrating creative practices like art and movement into trauma recovery.
Healing Arts Radio (Online Radio Show) Focused on art therapy and trauma healing, this show features episodes on creative therapies and personal stories of recovery through art. It’s an inspiring resource for understanding how play and art can transform emotional wounds into creative empowerment.
Institute for Creative Mindfulness This site provides resources and courses on expressive arts therapies for trauma survivors. It emphasizes how art and movement therapies foster resilience and healing by tapping into emotional expression and body awareness.
Navigating the waters of community can feel like a tightrope walk, especially for those of us who’ve been through the storm of spiritual abuse. This week on Taste of Truth Tuesdays, I’m excited to welcome a guest who dives deep into the concept of “Group Mind”—the idea that a collective can elevate individual voices, creating a harmonious collaboration. While this concept sounds beautiful on the surface, having walked the line between healthy and toxic communities myself, I can’t help but question: What happens when “Group Mind” becomes a vessel for manipulation rather than a source of strength?
The Allure of Community
Let’s face it: we all crave connection. From childhood friendships to spiritual gatherings, our lives are woven into a fabric of social interactions. In healthy communities, each thread—each individual—contributes to the larger tapestry. Group Mind can be empowering when everyone contributes their unique strengths. Think of a brainstorming session, where different ideas build on each other to create something innovative. But in controlling groups, individuality is suppressed, and members are pressured to conform, stifling creativity and critical thinking.
The Double-Edged Sword of Group Mind
Our guest shares their experience in an improv class, where the idea of Group Mind became both a revelation and a source of anxiety. It’s fascinating how the language of community can feel welcoming yet be weaponized against those who seek authenticity. This mirrors the complexities of modern social dynamics, especially in the age of social media, where radicalization can happen at lightning speed.
In Episode 5 of my podcast, we tackled the “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline,” but now it’s time to shine a light on the radicalization of the left—a topic often overlooked. Why did I go from progressive circles to mingling with Trump supporters and Christians? This shift was marked by a range of events and trends reflecting broader changes within progressive movements and their impact on American politics and culture.
The Irony of the Deconstruction Space
As I navigated the deconstruction space, I noticed something ironic: when the deconstruction movement defines a cult and unintentionally describes their own playbook, the irony is hard to miss. Many who now identify as progressive or left leaning have simply swapped one form of fundamentalism for another. They may have shed their evangelical past, but the same dogmatic, ‘us vs. them’ tactics remain. It’s like they never fully untangled themselves from the rigid mindset they claim to oppose.
Social justice has become their new ‘End Times,’ and the tribalism is painfully obvious. Conformity, consequences for stepping out of line, leaders who set the narrative… sound familiar? 🙃
🔍 “It’s not your enemies, it’s the system.” We often fall into the trap of seeing our political landscape as a battle between two sides—one fighting for democracy, the other autocracy. But this binary thinking misses the larger issue: who really has power in shaping policies? Research, like the 2014 study by Gilens and Page, reveals that economic elites and organized interest groups wield far more influence over government decisions than the average citizen or voter. This isn’t about a single party; it’s about a systemic challenge that transcends partisan lines. 🧠
Instead of feeding into divisive narratives, maybe it’s time to ask: Who benefits from keeping us divided? 🤔 Progressive politics can impose control using a power/victim binary that’s reductive and lacks nuance, leveraging the fear of being labeled an oppressor as a tool for compliance. Reflecting on my journey of deconstruction and exploring progressive spaces, I’ve noticed a concerning trend: the lack of nuance and the prevalence of an ‘us vs. them’ mentality.
Even within progressive Christianity, there’s pressure to conform to certain social norms and ethical behaviors. Disagreement is often met with resistance, and group identity politics can dominate discussions. As I listened to a friend lecture me about the systems of whiteness and how white people are part of the problem, I couldn’t help but feel a visceral response in my body. Wasn’t she aware of how she was marginalizing voices that do not align with CRT principles and fostering division rather than unity?
It’s one thing to leave behind a belief system, but if you’re still using the same control tactics, are you really free? Or are you just in another form of groupthink? Many who now identify as progressive or left-leaning have simply swapped one form of radicalism for another.
In navigating my journey, I’ve discovered that while community can be a source of strength, it can also be stifling. Let’s strive for more open dialogue where diverse perspectives are valued.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
Seeking Authentic Community
This brings us back to the concept of Group Mind. While it has the potential to uplift and unite, we must critically assess the communities we choose to engage with. Are they empowering our individuality, or are they reinforcing a new set of dogmas?
As we explore these themes in this week’s podcast episode, I invite you to reflect on your own experiences with community—whether online or offline. Are you in a space that nurtures your authentic self, or have you found yourself caught in another web of control? Let’s challenge ourselves to seek genuine connections that celebrate our uniqueness, rather than merely conforming to the expectations of a collective.
Navigating Community Dynamics
One critical takeaway from my own experiences and the stories shared by others is the importance of asking ourselves the right questions. When evaluating any community—whether it’s a religious group, a social circle, or even an improv class—we should reflect on whether we’re being encouraged to grow into our full selves or if we’re being pressured to shrink into submission.
Key Questions to Consider:
Am I celebrated for my unique contributions, or do I feel like a cog in the machine?
Is my voice heard and valued, or am I met with silence (or worse) when I express dissent?
Does this community expand my horizons, or does it confine me to a narrow worldview?
The Importance of Individuality
One of the most powerful realizations is that a thriving community doesn’t demand the extinction of individualism; it nourishes it. Just as the author of the guest post observed in an improv competition, the true beauty of collaboration lies in the ability of individuals to bring their full selves to the table, enhancing the group dynamic rather than diminishing it.
In my journey, I’ve learned that safe communities are those that not only say, “Yes!” to your ideas but also invite you to share more, to dig deeper, and to embrace the weirdness that makes you unique. They celebrate individuality as an essential ingredient for collective success, transforming “Group Mind” from a potential source of control into a powerful tool for creativity and support.
The Path to Healing
For those of us recovering from spiritual abuse, the journey to find a healthy community can feel daunting. It requires us to sift through the rubble of past experiences, recognizing patterns that once suffocated our voices. But it also offers a chance for healing, a space where we can reclaim our identities and forge connections based on respect and authenticity.
Ultimately, the quest for community is about more than just belonging; it’s about finding spaces where we can be our true selves. It’s about navigating the complexities of connection with our eyes wide open, ready to discern the difference between a supportive group and one that seeks to control.
Conclusion
As we move through life, let’s remember that community can be a double-edged sword. For some of us, especially those healing from trauma or navigating complex PTSD, the journey may be best supported by solitary pursuits—like books, pets, and podcasts—before stepping into the vibrant chaos of group dynamics. We must be vigilant in recognizing when connection serves us and when it threatens to silence our individuality. Here’s to seeking out those communities that empower us, uplift us, and invite us to shine our light—together.
🎙️ Welcome Back! Join me as I chat with Katherine Spearing, MA, CTRC — founder of Tears of Eden 🌸, a nonprofit supporting survivors of spiritual abuse, and former host of the groundbreaking Uncertain podcast 🎧. Katherine is also the host of Trauma & Pop Culture, a Certified Trauma Recovery Practitioner 🧠, and an expert in helping those who have survived cults, high-control environments, and sexual abuse 💔. She even offers specialized trauma-informed career coaching 💼!
In this episode, we discuss: 💡 The most impactful themes from Uncertain — including her powerful episode with Dr. Laura Anderson on anger 😡 and the concept of second-wave fundamentalism. 🎭 How creative arts therapies are aiding survivors of sexual abuse in their healing journey, and how these methods differ from traditional therapy 🎨. 🛑 Managing the emotional weight of working with spiritual abuse survivors and Katherine’s personal journey to avoid burnout 🧘♀️. 👩🎤 Challenging traditional gender roles in Christianity — how they’ve shaped perceptions of women’s worth and agency, and steps for creating more inclusive spaces 🚺. 🛡️ Building healthy community dynamics to protect against spiritual abuse while fostering authentic, supportive connections 🌱. 🔥 A sneak peek into Katherine’s upcoming book on spiritual abuse, including why the church is so obsessed with sex 💭.
Tune in now for an insightful conversation on healing, resilience, and challenging the status quo! 🗣️✨
Don’t miss out on Katherine’s wisdom and unique perspective. 🎧
🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram! @taste0ftruth or Pinterest!
Nostalgia has always been a powerful psychological force, often serving as a coping mechanism during times of uncertainty or rapid change. In recent years, its resurgence could be linked to various social and cultural factors, including economic instability, political polarization, and the overwhelming pace of technological advancements. However, nostalgia isn’t just about reminiscing; it’s a complex emotional response that plays a significant role in our psychological well-being.
The Psychology of Nostalgia: Comfort in Uncertainty
Nostalgia was once viewed as a negative emotion, associated with homesickness or a longing for the past. However, modern psychology recognizes it as a complex, bittersweet experience that can foster a sense of continuity, meaning, and identity. Nostalgia tends to emerge more during periods of transition or distress, offering comfort by reconnecting individuals with a perceived “better” or simpler time.
Nostalgia serves as a mental protective mechanism. Through a process known as “rose-colored retrospection,” people tend to recall the past in a more favorable light than it might have actually been. This selective memory process can result in an idealized version of the “good ol’ days,” where negative aspects are minimized or forgotten, and positive experiences are amplified.
Nostalgia as a Tool for Emotional Regulation
Interestingly, nostalgia isn’t just a passive experience; it can be consciously invoked to regulate emotions. When people deliberately recall positive memories, they can stabilize their mood, reduce anxiety, and increase a sense of control over their current situation. This is because the past, as we remember it, is fixed and unchangeable, offering a sense of predictability and safety that contrasts with the unpredictability of the future.
Nostalgia also acts as a psychological anchor during times of upheaval or change. By tapping into nostalgic memories, individuals can create a mental environment that feels familiar and safe, reducing the anxiety that comes from unpredictability. This sense of predictability is particularly comforting during periods of rapid change, as it provides a mental sanctuary in a chaotic world.
The Trad Wife Movement: Nostalgia as Identity Anchoring
The rise of the Trad wife movement—a trend where women embrace traditional gender roles and domesticity—can be understood as a form of nostalgia-driven identity anchoring. In a world that often feels chaotic and uncertain, many women (and men) find comfort in returning to what they perceive as a more stable, moral, and ordered past.
For some, adopting the Trad wife lifestyle is a way to reconnect with what they believe to be a more “authentic” version of femininity or womanhood. This version is often based on an idealized image of the past that emphasizes domestic skills, submissiveness, and clear gender roles. By embracing these ideals, individuals may feel that they are preserving a core part of their identity that they believe has been lost or undermined by modern society.
The Dangers of Nostalgia-Driven Resistance
While nostalgia can provide comfort and continuity, it can also serve as a form of resistance against social progress. The Trad wife movement often emerges in response to the perceived erosion of traditional values due to feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other social changes. In this context, nostalgia becomes a way to resist or reject modernity by clinging to a past that is seen as morally superior or more “natural.”
This selective use of nostalgia can reinforce regressive social norms and create tension between those who long for the past and those who advocate for continued social change. By idealizing a past that may never have truly existed as we remember it, the Trad wife movement and similar trends risk promoting an illusion that can hinder progress and inclusivity.
Conclusion: Navigating Nostalgia with Awareness
Nostalgia is far more than mere longing for the past. It’s a sophisticated psychological tool that individuals can harness to enhance their well-being, regulate their emotions, and maintain a sense of control. However, it’s important to approach nostalgia with a critical eye, recognizing that the past may not have been as perfect as we remember it.
The Trad wife movement, driven by nostalgia, may offer comfort in a rapidly changing world, but it also risks perpetuating outdated and harmful gender roles. By understanding the psychology behind nostalgia, we can better navigate its influence in our lives and make more informed choices about how we engage with the past—and the future.
Want to learn more about the complex interplay between nostalgia and modern social movements like the Trad wife trend? Tune into this week’s episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays where we dive deep into this topic. https://youtu.be/15kgRldlqoY?si=L_uToPjGIQTf_kIl
This week, I’m diving headfirst into the turbulent intersection of women’s suffrage, the resurgence of Christian patriarchy, and the trendy ‘trad wife’ movement. Buckle up as we unravel how these historical battles and modern movements collide, revealing their surprising connections—from the ongoing struggle for gender equality to the modern reinvention of traditional roles. Prepare for a journey through past and present that challenges conventional wisdom and ignites critical conversations.
🎧Listen here!
My Deconstruction Journey
In recent months, I’ve explored how radicalization, conspiracies, and religion have shaped my life. In Episode 5 of my podcast, we tackled the “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline,” but now it’s time to shine a light on the radicalization of the left—a topic often overlooked. Why did I go from progressive circles to mingling with Trump supporters and Christians? This shift was marked by a range of events and trends reflecting broader changes within progressive movements and their impact on American politics and culture.
Black Lives Matter Protests and Social Justice Movements
The murder of George Floyd ignited the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, but what often goes undiscussed is the scrutiny BLM faced over fund management. Allegations of financial mismanagement emerged in 2021, raising questions about how substantial donations were handled. The movement also brought the call to “defund the police” into the spotlight, advocating for reallocating funds to social services and community programs. However, cities like San Francisco, which initially reduced police funding, faced rising crime rates and eventually reinstated funding in 2022, acknowledging that some defunding measures had not achieved their intended outcomes.
Increased Political Activism and the Role of Cancel Culture
The 2020s saw a rise in intersectionality and identity politics, aiming to address overlapping forms of oppression. However, this sometimes led to contentious debates over ideological purity and inclusivity, particularly in online activism. Cancel culture became prominent, with debates over holding public figures accountable for perceived offenses. While some view it as necessary for social justice, others argue it suppresses free speech and stifles constructive dialogue.
Vaccine Hesitancy and the Crunchy-to-Patriarchy Pipeline
My reluctance to receive an experimental vaccine led to severe ostracism, as those hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines often faced dehumanization and cancel culture. This harsh treatment highlighted how cancel culture can suppress nuanced debate and alienate individuals with genuine concerns.
Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a prominent figure in vaccinology, and some of his colleagues recently published an article that has drawn significant attention. The article acknowledges that vaccines are not as thoroughly studied as previously claimed, particularly in terms of safety, both before and after they are licensed. This has raised concerns among critics, who argue that for decades, the public was assured that vaccines underwent rigorous safety testing.
Key points from the article include the admission that prelicensure clinical trials often have limited sample sizes and short follow-up periods, which may not fully capture long-term safety data. Additionally, there are currently no dedicated resources for post-authorization safety studies, relying instead on annual appropriations approved by Congress. This lack of resources for ongoing safety monitoring has been criticized as inadequate, particularly given the widespread use of vaccines.
This revelation has been met with strong reactions, especially from those who have long questioned the rigor of vaccine safety studies. They argue that these acknowledgments confirm their concerns that vaccine safety has not been as thoroughly investigated as it should be.
In a previous episode, we scratched the surface of the Trad Wife and Stay-at-Home Girlfriend Movements. These movements, advocating traditional gender roles, see them as spiritually fulfilling and empowering, rejecting modern feminism while embracing modern cultural influences. We discussed the fear tactics within this online content that manipulates users by promoting apocalyptic scenarios and moral decay. Today, we’re diving deeper into this topic.
Historical Context and Kitchen Design
Before delving into the 19th Amendment, let’s explore the evolution of kitchen design as a reflection of changing gender roles and societal expectations:
Post-Civil War to Early 20th Century (1865-1930s): Kitchens transitioned from being managed by enslaved people to paid workers, with labor-saving appliances emerging and the housewife ideal taking shape.
Mid-20th Century (1930s-1960s): The post-WWII era emphasized suburban living and reinforced the housewife’s role as a symbol of the American dream, driven by economic prosperity and suburban expansion.
1974 Bill on Women’s Financial Independence: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act granted women the right to open bank accounts and obtain credit cards in their names, a significant step towards financial equality.
Today’s ‘trad wife’ movement glamorizes the mid-century housewife as a personal choice, not a patriarchal trap. But let’s be real—this nostalgic comeback is less about empowerment and more about rolling back feminist progress, cherry-picking conservative values to fit a romanticized narrative. It’s time to call out the toxicity and acknowledge that the nuclear family ideal doesn’t have to be a patriarchal prison.
Connecting Women’s Suffrage and Christian Nationalism
This week marks the anniversary of the 19th Amendment, a milestone for women’s rights. However, despite granting voting rights, many women of color continued to face disenfranchisement. The rise of ideologies challenging this progress, such as Nancy Pearcey’s claim that women’s suffrage was a net loss, reflects a broader trend of dominionism and Christian nationalism. Pearcey’s book, The Toxic War on Masculinity, embraced by right-wing fundamentalist figures, has been criticized for its logical fallacies and misrepresentation of research.
A Critique of Nancy Pearcey’s The Toxic War on Masculinity
Pearcey argues that the expansion of women’s roles and rights has led to a “war on masculinity,” promoting binary gender stereotypes and overlooking intersectional perspectives. Critics point out that Pearcey’s use of John Gottman’s research is misleading. Gottman’s studies indicate that emotionally intelligent husbands succeed in both egalitarian and hierarchical marriages, but Pearcey omits that her argument falls apart when complementarian men abandon hierarchical behaviors, exposing a significant ideological bias in her work.
Contextualizing These Views
These views reflect a broader conversation within conservative Christian circles about gender roles. Figures like Joel Webbon and Doug Wilson argue against women’s suffrage from a theological standpoint, emphasizing traditional gender roles and critiquing the expansion of women’s public and political presence as contrary to biblical principles. The Southern Baptist Convention’s conservative shift and the rise of New Calvinism further illustrate this trend, as these movements emphasize male-led church governance and promote traditional gender roles.
Motivations Behind the Movements
Supporters of traditional values aim to uphold stability and traditional family roles, rejecting modern feminism and valuing a nurturing home environment. Fear tactics are prevalent in online content that merges wellness with extreme ideologies, manipulating users by promoting fear of worldly dangers, apocalyptic scenarios, or spiritual consequences.
Historical Precedents: Satanic Panic and Moral Panics
Movements like the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and ’90s stoked fears of occult influences, leading to widespread moral panic. Similarly, today’s online narratives can exaggerate or fabricate threats to bolster ideological adherence, using fears of societal collapse or moral decay to urge followers towards conservative values.
Personal Reflections: Manipulation and Belonging
I remember the day I was first drawn into evangelical Christianity. It wasn’t through logic or a carefully reasoned argument; it was through the power of a story—a testimony, to be exact. The speaker shared a dramatic tale of transformation, from the depths of despair and darkness into the light of salvation. Her voice trembled with emotion, and tears glistened in her eyes as she described the overwhelming peace and joy she found in Christ. I was captivated. It wasn’t just a story; it was a call, a plea for me to experience the same miraculous change.
The manipulation was subtle but powerful. The emotions stirred within me were intense, almost overwhelming. I felt a sense of urgency, as if my own life depended on making the same decision she had. It was as though I could feel the darkness closing in on me, and the only escape was to step into the light she described so vividly. Fear played a significant role in this manipulation. I was warned of the dire consequences of rejecting this path, of the eternal damnation that awaited those who turned away. This fear was not just for my soul but for my life here and now. I was told that without Jesus, I would continue to live in confusion, loneliness, and despair.
What made it all the more compelling was the promise of belonging. I had always felt somewhat out of place, disconnected from those around me. But here was a community that promised acceptance, a family where I would always belong. The concept of biblical femininity and submission was introduced as a path to fulfillment, as a way to finally fit into a role that had been designed specifically for me by God. I was told that by embracing my role as a submissive wife and mother, I would find true happiness and purpose.
But looking back, I realize how these tactics exploited my vulnerabilities. The emotional manipulation, the fear-based messaging, and the promise of belonging were all tools used to mold me into someone I wasn’t. They weren’t concerned with my true self; they wanted to shape me into their image of the ideal Christian woman—submissive, obedient, and unquestioning.
What’s more disturbing is how these tactics aren’t unique to evangelical Christianity. I’ve since learned that similar strategies are employed in other religions, such as Islam. I’m sure you’re like me, and have heard that it is the fastest growing religion, but have you looked into the pew research into why? There’s a growing pressure on women within some Islamic communities to recruit other women. They shower potential converts with love, bombarding them with messages of acceptance and sisterhood. It’s all designed to draw them in, to make them feel special and chosen. Once they’re in, the pressure to marry and fulfill their role as a wife and mother can be intense. Just as I was drawn into a community that promised to complete me, these women are often led to believe that their worth is tied to their role within the family and the broader religious community.
The parallels are striking. Both exploit the human need for connection and purpose. Both use emotional manipulation and fear to control and convert. And both can lead to a loss of self, where the individual’s identity is subsumed by the demands of the group.
Reflecting on my experience has been painful, but it’s also been empowering. I now see how I was manipulated, how my fears and desires were used against me. And I’m committed to helping others recognize these tactics for what they are—tools of control, not pathways to truth.
Delving into Christian Interpretations of Morals and Values
As we wrap up today’s discussion, let’s delve into the complexities surrounding Christian interpretations of morals and values, particularly through the lens of historical and cultural relativism. Critics of biblical revelation question the reliability and authenticity of the biblical manuscripts, highlighting the human elements that have shaped the text’s transmission and interpretation.
When it comes to contentious issues like abortion, the selective interpretations of scripture used by some pro-life Christians illustrate a broader trend of reconciling faith with personal and societal values. Historically, Christian views on abortion were more diverse and often more permissive, with significant shifts occurring in the 1970s with the rise of the Religious Right.
Reflecting on these issues, Niel Van Lewen pointed out an intriguing observation: the pro-life stance might often function more as a signaling mechanism than a genuine, consistent commitment to protecting life. This dichotomy suggests that pro-life evangelicals might seek to pass laws protecting unborn embryos while avoiding practical measures—like universal daycare—that could significantly reduce the number of abortions.
This illustrates the ethical and scriptural inconsistencies surrounding the pro-life stance. By examining these discrepancies, we gain a clearer understanding of the challenges inherent in reconciling pro-life advocacy with practical, compassionate approaches to supporting life.
The Trad Wife Controversy: Unpacking Traditional Values in Modern Contexts
The discussion around traditional values and gender roles is gaining momentum, and the “trad wife” movement sits at the heart of this debate. One prime example that brings these ideals to light is the Ballerina Farm controversy, a social media phenomenon showcasing a curated version of traditional domestic life. This aligns closely with the trad wife ideals, which have faced criticism for romanticizing a regressive view on gender roles.
The Ballerina Farm Controversy: Empowerment or Regression?
Ballerina Farm presents a vision of traditional domestic life that resonates with many who see it as an empowering choice. However, it also faces criticism for glamorizing roles that are deeply rooted in patriarchal norms. Houseinhabit, a popular commentator, argues that Ballerina Farm isn’t about regression but about choice. She suggests that Hannah Neeleman, the face behind Ballerina Farm, embodies success measured not by corporate titles but by personal contentment and family harmony, grounded in her faith. This perspective emphasizes that true feminism should respect the diverse paths women take, fostering understanding rather than division.
The Patriarchal Norms Behind the Ideal
While Houseinhabit’s perspective is important, it’s crucial to examine the patriarchal underpinnings of such movements. Practices that might seem problematic to outsiders—like Daniel’s rushed engagement and control over Hannah’s education—are often normalized within their cultural context. These actions reflect broader adherence to patriarchal values, including homeschooling with a Christian Mormon syllabus, underscoring a commitment to traditional gender roles.
Mormon Influencers: A New Recruitment Strategy?
Adding another layer to this discussion is the role of Mormon influencers in social media recruitment. Recent research reveals how the LDS Church uses social media to attract new recruits, with influencers, particularly families, promoting Mormonism on platforms like Instagram and YouTube. This strategy leverages the appeal of traditional family values and domestic harmony to attract a broader audience. The Church’s use of influencers as a recruitment tool highlights the appealing aspects of traditional lifestyles while potentially overshadowing the complexities and criticisms associated with these roles.
Media, Tradition, and Patriarchy
This interplay between traditional values and modern media illustrates a broader societal pattern where the presentation of traditional roles can obscure their roots in patriarchal structures. Media portrayals, while sometimes uncomfortable, are not about dehumanizing individuals but about revealing systemic issues. Often, patriarchal norms are defended as personal choices, overlooking the deep societal influences at play. If gender roles were reversed, these issues might become more apparent, prompting a need for more nuanced discussions on how traditional values intersect with contemporary gender dynamics.
My Experience with Patriarchal Ideologies
Critically evaluating such content is essential, as these narratives can have far-reaching implications for personal beliefs and societal attitudes. From my own experience with evangelical Christianity, I was involved in a biblical counseling program that reinforced patriarchal control, severely limiting my autonomy. In one workbook, I was given an excerpt from The Excellent Wife by Martha Peace, which outlined ways a wife should glorify her husband. The expectations included:
Asking your husband about his goals for the week.
Organizing household duties meticulously, prioritizing your husband’s needs over everything else.
Talking about him positively to others, regardless of the truth.
These teachings were not just fringe ideas but central resources within Biblical Counseling, the Southern Baptist Convention, and many non-denominational churches. This ideology, deeply woven into church communities, perpetuates a system where a wife’s identity and value are entirely subdued under her husband’s goals and image.
The Harmful Implications of Patriarchal Ideologies
Idolatry of the Husband: Obeying a husband is equated with obeying God, placing the husband in the position of an idol. This subordinates divine will to a human figure, distorting spiritual faith and leaving no room for a wife’s autonomy or moral agency.
A Warped View of Womanhood: Women are seen as more susceptible to deception, and their rightful place is akin to a ‘slave’ who should expect no recognition. Basic human desires, like wanting to be treated with kindness, are labeled as ‘idolatrous.’
Enabling Abuse: The book glorifies suffering within marriage as a form of righteousness, encouraging women to endure cruelty and manipulation. This traps women in dangerous, often life-threatening, situations by positioning divorce as rebellion and making church discipline the first recourse instead of contacting authorities.
Stigmatizing Mental Health Care: Seeking professional help is equated with a lack of faith, alienating women from essential support systems that could help them navigate emotional and psychological challenges.
These ideas, while well-intentioned, perpetuate a system where the wife’s identity and value are entirely subdued under her husband’s goals and image. The dangerous implications of this ideology are not confined to overtly religious communities. Similar themes of female submission are found in movements rejecting modern egalitarian values in favor of a constructed ideal of natural order, which often masks deeply patriarchal and oppressive beliefs.
The Bigger Picture: Understanding the Trad Wife Trend
The trad wife trend isn’t just a nostalgic yearning for the past; it’s a deliberate effort to reinstate rigid gender roles that diminish women’s rights and freedoms. By critically examining resources like The Excellent Wife and drawing connections to broader social and cultural trends, we can better understand and challenge the insidious nature of this propaganda.
For those still in the church, it’s crucial to stand up against these harmful teachings. From my own experience, gender norms that emphasize tenderness over assertiveness hinder a woman’s ability to address unfair treatment effectively. Women submitting to their husbands is a dangerous ideology. Research shows that conservative, highly religious men are far more likely to perpetrate intimate partner violence. Hypermasculinity is one of the most powerful predictors of men’s likelihood to commit assault, and couples where the husband dominates decision-making processes are more likely to experience lower marital satisfaction.
Liberation and Progress
The liberation of women from oppression is crucial for fostering a more equitable and just society. When women are fully liberated, they can contribute their talents, perspectives, and skills to all aspects of life, including politics, economics, and culture. This liberation not only benefits women individually but also leads to societal progress by dismantling systemic barriers and promoting inclusivity.
Conclusion: Opening the Dialogue
I invite you to join the dialogue about gender, family, and cultural norms. Have you observed or encountered these dynamics? As a collective, we cannot ignore the role of algorithms and social media in amplifying compelling narratives and creating echo chambers. Understanding the motivations behind these movements allows us to engage in meaningful dialogue and advocate for continued advancements in gender equality.
Through my journey of deconstructing abuse within the church, I’ve realized that complementarianism, often presented as a theological stance, is fundamentally patriarchal and a root cause of oppression and abuse. Navigating these dynamics helps us grapple with the complexities of today’s ideological landscapes and invites us to critically evaluate how historical precedents and technological influences continue to shape our beliefs and societal structures.
Thank you for joining me in this exploration of faith, ideology, and societal change. Let’s continue to question, reflect, and engage with the world around us. And as always, maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in.
Taste0ftruth Tuesdays 