Blood Is Not an Oath (Pt3)

On family memory, moral inheritance, and the cost of belonging

This is Part Three of a series that began with a question about participation: what have we lost by becoming spectators to experiences our ancestors once entered with their whole bodies? From there, the question became more personal. Part Two followed my own hunger for belonging through the communities, identities, and belief systems I had tried to make myself at home inside, and eventually toward something I have had to learn the hard way: belonging is not worth very much if I have to disappear in order to keep it.

I ended that essay writing about the ability to remain rooted when someone disagrees with me, to listen without disappearing, and to belong without surrendering conscience. At the time, those words felt like a conclusion drawn from everything I had already lived through.

I did not realize I was about to be tested on them in probably the most intense way possible.

All of this started in January of this year when I ordered an Ancestry DNA kit.

And, of course, after submitting my saliva, I had an absolute panic moment where I immediately regretted handing over my genetic data to who knows what private equity firm that is going to share it with whatever transhumanist agenda is out there.

Too late. The spit was already in the mail.

I also had absolutely no reason to expect the results would rearrange the story I had been told about myself.

My entire life, I understood my ancestry to be largely English, Scottish, and Irish. I grew up surrounded by the visual language that came with it too—green clovers, Irish imagery, fairies, Celtic-looking decorations, all the little symbols that become so ordinary in childhood that you stop noticing they are teaching you something about who you are.

That was simply where I came from. Or at least I thought it was.

So, when the results came back and said 50% Italian, I was absolutely shocked. Flabbergasted. Bewildered. Confused. Quite destabilized.

This meant something much more immediate: the man I had believed was my father could not be my biological father.

The matches made that difficult to deny. I recognized people on my mother’s side, and those relationships appeared exactly where they should.

But the paternal side was something else entirely.

That realization did more than change a percentage on an ancestry report. It made the story of my own origins suddenly unstable. The family line I had assumed was mine biologically wasn’t mine at all. The ancestry I had casually claimed my whole life, the family medical history I had repeated at doctors’ offices, the names and stories I understood as part of my inheritance—half of it had just fallen away in an afternoon.

There had always been a strange story around my conception. In 2016, while drunk, my mother admitted to me that she had felt guilty for all the times she had cheated on my dad while he was in prison. I had grown up hearing some convoluted explanation about being conceived when he was temporarily out because of good behavior, something involving a wedding, maybe a conjugal visit. Honestly, I don’t even know anymore. The timeline never completely made sense, but I never pushed very hard.

My family has always had something of a motto:

The past is the past. Let’s not talk about it.

Well…. DNA apparently did not get that memo.

Suddenly I had questions I had never expected to be asking at this point in my life. Who was my biological father? Who were these Italian people showing up in my matches? What was my actual paternal medical history? Had an entire family existed beside mine this whole time without me knowing it?

And there was another, stranger layer underneath all of that. If ancestry is one of the ways we orient ourselves in the world (through names, stories, land, family memory, inherited symbols) what happens when you discover that half of the map you were given was wrong?

And somewhere underneath the absurdity of that sentence was a much more unsettling question.

Who, then, were my people?

There was something intensely nauseating about reaching my forties and discovering that a foundational fact about my own identity had simply never been true.

My mother, predictably, denied everything at first and acted completely shocked. It took seven months of what I experienced as denial, contradictions, coping, and avoidance before she finally admitted that she had been in a relationship with an Italian man who ran a restaurant called the North Pole. The restaurant just happened to be on the route my mother traveled when she went to visit the man I had believed was my father while he was in prison.

He had gone to prison for dealing cocaine.

I would eventually learn that my newly discovered biological father’s world was also heavily entangled with cocaine.

My mother really knows how to choose them, huh?

The North Pole

Once I finally had his name, a family friend found an entire Facebook group dedicated to him and the North Pole. I started scrolling through years of photographs, stories, memories from old employees, people reminiscing about the restaurant and talking about how much they loved working for him. It sounded like he had built this iconic little world that people genuinely missed. He seemed charismatic and funny and generous. I learned that he died in a car accident in 2010, which meant that by the time I finally discovered who he was, I had already missed any possibility of ever meeting him.

And this is where my imagination started doing something I did not understand at the time.

I started building a family before I actually met one.

There were half-siblings, nieces and nephews, an entire network of people whose DNA overlapped with mine but whose lives had gone on for decades without me. I started thinking, Wow, what if this is it? What if this explains why I have always felt so disconnected from my own family? Maybe I had missed out on this warm, close Italian family I was actually supposed to have. Maybe these were the people who were finally going to understand me. Maybe I would have Christmases I actually looked forward to again. Maybe I would walk into a room full of relatives and experience some strange recognition that had always been missing.

Maybe everything was finally going to make sense.

Well…no. It did not.


Eugenio Zampighi, Happy Family (19th century).

The Family I Invented Before I Met Them

One particularly sad day, when I was feeling incredibly lonely and isolated, I took the gamble and reached out to the woman who managed the Facebook group. I had a suspicion that she was one of my half-sisters.

She responded within about ten minutes.

She told me that she had known about me my entire life. She said she had been waiting and praying to hear from me, and apparently there may even be another half-sister somewhere out there that neither of us knows. Immediately I was getting information that contradicted things my mother had told me, which by that point was hardly surprising.

What did surprise me was how positively she spoke about my mother. She told me how much she had adored her, how happy my mother had made her dad, how she had wanted them to get married. She would have been around fifteen at the time, so I tried to keep in mind that I was hearing the rose-tinted recollection of a teenage girl who had encountered a very specific version of my mother.

Still, it made me feel nauseated.

I have a lifetime of experiences with my mother that bear very little resemblance to the woman being described to me, and I have been estranged from her because of the dysfunction within my family. Sitting there listening to someone speak almost lovingly about her while I was already trying to absorb the fact that she had hidden my biological father from me for forty years felt surreal. But I tried not to immediately judge any of it. Two people can experience the same person very differently. I knew that. I wanted to be open.

Eventually Patrick and I went to meet my half-sister at a river house where she was staying.

When we first arrived, I was impressed. This was a gorgeous property, worth somewhere around two million dollars, and for a moment I was looking around thinking, Wait, is this our family money? Is this her money? What exactly did I just stumble into? I later realized that it belonged to her soon to be ex-husband, but at the time I knew almost nothing about any of these people.

Anyone who knows me also knows that I am hypervigilant as fuck. I walk into a room and notice approximately a thousand things immediately. Body language, tone, smells, identity markers, animals, exits, mess, tension, who seems uncomfortable, who seems too comfortable. I wish I could turn it off, but I cannot.

I had been very communicative about what time we would arrive, so she knew exactly when we were coming. When she opened the door, she looked like she had just gotten out of the pool, wrapped in a towel. Fine. Whatever. It was summer and people swim. But then we spent the next thirty minutes in the kitchen and she kept saying she was going to go change, only to become distracted by another story, then another, then five more.

The house was a disaster. I want to be fair about that because she was going through a divorce and moving out, and people going through a crisis are allowed to have messy houses. The mess by itself was not the issue. It was the totality of everything happening at once. Half-eaten food, trash and cups everywhere. Flies. She was smoking her cigarettes inside. Air conditioning blasting while the windows were open. She was buzzing around the kitchen, constantly adjusting her towel, starting one story and abandoning it halfway through to launch into another. I had brought her flowers and at some point, I found myself wandering around trying to locate something to put them in because she could not stay focused on one thing long enough to deal with them.

I remember being profoundly relieved that my husband had come with me, because I needed another person in the room who could later tell me that I had not imagined how uncomfortable the whole thing felt.

The property itself was one of the nicest places I had been to in a long time. Yet, the energy inside that house was some of the most destabilizing I had experienced in years.

I don’t know what was happening with her psychologically or medically. Patrick wondered afterward whether medication or something else had been involved, and I had my own questions, especially because she later spoke casually about cocaine use. But I cannot diagnose somebody based on spending one afternoon with her and I don’t need to. The observable experience was enough. My nervous system was screaming at me that something was off.

What troubled me even more was how little curiosity I felt coming toward me.

This woman had supposedly known I existed my entire life and had been praying for me to appear. I had just discovered that half of my biological identity was not what I thought it was. I had spent months trying to learn who my father was, discovered he was already dead, and then walked into a house filled with photographs, stories and memories belonging to people whose blood I shared but whose lives I knew absolutely nothing about.

I had an entire fucking life too.

Yet I kept feeling like there was plenty of room for me to absorb her stories, her family history, her understanding of everyone involved, her healing journey, her perspective on my mother and our father, but much less room for me whenever my own interpretation differed from hers.

At one point I tried to offer a different perspective during a conversation and the interaction escalated badly enough that she started yelling and I nearly walked out. Afterward it was brushed away with something along the lines of, That’s just Italians. That’s how we fight.

But I wasn’t raised in this family. I do not have some reservoir of childhood affection that turns being screamed at into charming cultural familiarity. To me, it just felt like being screamed at.

There wasn’t much of an apology or an attempt to understand why the interaction bothered me. That feeling would become important later.


Bittersweet

The most disturbing thing I learned during this period involved our biological father.

I found out that when he was in his thirties, he had sexually exploited a teenage girl. She eventually wrote about the experience in a memoir, and a week or two after meeting my half-sister I got a copy of the book.

I will admit that I skimmed most of it because the author had become a born-again Protestant Christian and there is enough Abrahamic worldview running through the thing to make my eye twitch. But then I reached Chapter Eleven, titled “Bittersweet,” and stopped skimming.

She describes herself at fourteen as a child living with alcoholic parents, receiving very little nurturing or stability at home. My biological father was thirty-four years old, married, and already a father. He entered her world through horses. He helped her ride, bought her things, took her places, fed her, praised her and gave her attention at a time when the adults responsible for her were failing badly.

Then, according to her own account, that relationship became sexual.

Looking back as an adult, she describes recognizing a pattern she could not recognize when she was fourteen: an older man exploiting the vulnerability of a hurting girl. She writes about feeling trapped and confused. She describes being pressured sexually and unable to tell her parents what was happening because her own home was so unstable. At one point she summarizes what remained afterward as “virginity stolen, trust violated.”

That was enough for me.

I remember my half-sister telling me about this and saying, “You know Catholic men, always wanting those virginal women…” I was truly disgusted. I told her how horrific it was, and she said, “Well, we all have good and bad parts in us.” Then came Ram Dass and some New Age copium, as if that could soften what she had just shared with me.

I did not need to spiritualize it. I did not need to search for the hidden blessing. I did not need to tell myself that complicated people contain light and darkness and therefore no moral judgment is ever appropriate. I did not need to forgive a man I had never met simply because half of my DNA came from him.

A thirty-four-year-old man pursuing and sexually exploiting a fourteen-year-old child is abuse.

And that man was my biological father.

This realization was especially disorienting because I had already spent weeks immersed in the Facebook memorial group, where he existed almost entirely through warm collective memory: the funny restaurant owner, the beloved boss, the larger-than-life personality, the guy who made people laugh and created a place they still remembered decades later.

Those memories did not necessarily become lies because I read the memoir.

That is part of what made this harder.

People who do terrible things are rarely terrible every second of every day. A person can be generous to an employee and predatory toward somebody else. He could have made people laugh. He could have been adored by his daughter. He could have created an environment that people genuinely remember with enormous affection.

Human beings are inconvenient like that.

But once I read this woman’s account, another voice entered the family story.

And the prettier memories could no longer be allowed to swallow hers.

That is where I started thinking about memory differently.

A family is partly made out of the stories it agrees to repeat. Certain stories become funny. Certain names become beloved. Certain things are excused, certain things are hidden, and certain things become things “we don’t talk about.” Over time, those repetitions harden into an identity.

I know something about that because I came from a family whose motto was essentially the past is the past.

But the past does not disappear because people become uncomfortable when somebody names it.


Baccio Bandinelli, Laocoön (1520–25)

What My Body Already Knew

There was more information I struggled with during that visit. My half-sister spoke very casually about cocaine and told me that it had been “always snowing at the North Pole,” meaning cocaine was apparently everywhere around the restaurant. I was learning that my biological father had also dealt cocaine, which meant that both men occupying the category of father in my life (the man who raised me and the biological father I had just discovered) had been cocaine dealers.

Again, apparently, my mother had a type.

(Sometimes dark humor is the only way I know how to metabolize information that would otherwise make me want to scream.)

The day after meeting my half-sister, I felt sick. I kept replaying everything. Patrick and I talked about how uncomfortable the visit had been, and he agreed that we should have left much earlier. It seemed like almost every story I had heard contained another piece of information that I wished I had never learned.

Still, I did not want to make a harsh decision too quickly. She was going through a divorce. Finding a biological sibling in middle age was obviously going to be emotionally strange. Maybe I had simply become overloaded. Maybe my hypervigilance was getting ahead of me. Maybe I should give her another chance.

Very shortly after I read the chapter in the memoir, she invited me back to the river house one last time so that I could meet her daughter—my newly discovered niece.

Even though I did not really want to go, I agreed.

And then my body had other plans.

The day before the visit I developed a wicked migraine that continued through the entire day I was supposed to see her. I physically couldn’t endure the long drive and social stimulation.

And staying home gave me something I had not really had since this entire discovery began: enough distance to hear myself think.

As the adrenaline wore off, I had to admit that I did not want this relationship. I did not want to go back to the river house. I did not want birthday parties and photographs and nieces and nephews suddenly being folded into my life because DNA had revealed that technically these people belonged to categories called sister and family.

I did not feel closer. I wanted distance.

Coming to this conclusion hurt because I had wanted this discovery to mean something else entirely. I had let myself imagine that biological family might finally provide some missing form of belonging. Instead, I found myself confronting a question I had already been writing about.

In The Death of the Performed Self, I wrote about transformation as something deeper than simply adopting a new vocabulary or worldview. Real transformation shows up as discernment, self-command, courage, and to stand firmly without requiring everyone around you to reassure you that you are standing in exactly the right place.

Apparently life decided I needed an immediate practical examination.

Because suddenly the thing being offered wasn’t an abstract community or ideology.

It was blood.

Two biological sisters. Nieces and nephews. An Italian lineage. Photographs of a father whose face might contain some clue about mine. An entire family story I had briefly believed could explain why I had spent so much of my life feeling disconnected.

And maintaining access to that fantasy would have required me to begin overriding myself almost immediately.

I would have needed to ignore how uncomfortable I had been. Explain away the yelling. Explain away the instability. Keep reminding myself that she was going through a hard time. Swallow my moral reaction to what I had learned about our father. Keep accepting photos and birthday invitations. Meet the niece. Smile. Try harder. Be open-minded. Do not hurt anybody’s feelings.

Most importantly: do not risk losing belonging.

I know that woman. I know the version of myself who would have done exactly that and called it compassion.

She has existed inside churches, relationships, political communities, spiritual worlds, friendships and my own family. She is very good at learning the correct vocabulary. She can figure out what everyone around her needs her to believe. She can abandon her own perception and call it humility. She can disappear inside belonging and convince herself she has finally been loved.

I have spent years trying to let that performed self die.


Sandro Botticelli, Calumny of Apelles (c. 1495)

When Truth Costs Something

Eventually I sent my half-sister a boundary message.

It took me days to write because I was trying so hard not to be cruel. I told her the experience had been overwhelming and destabilizing. I explained that learning what I had learned about our biological father had deeply disturbed me and that I had struggled with what I perceived as attempts to soften or rationalize his behavior. I told her that I did not want to build a relationship and that I needed distance.

Her response illuminated almost everything my intuition had been trying to tell me since the river house. She sent me nine or ten messages in a flurry.

She told me that she had forgiven our father and framed that forgiveness as part of healing.

Then there was another Ram Dass quote….of fucking course there was a Ram Dass quote.

Her telling me that she had forgiven him would not have bothered me by itself. That is her relationship to her father. She knew him. She loved him. She can make whatever peace with his memory she needs to make. I am not the sovereign authority over her conscience.

But neither is she the sovereign authority over mine.

What bothered me was the way forgiveness became evidence of healing, because suddenly there was an implied hierarchy between us. She had reached the spiritually mature interpretation, while my anger, disgust and refusal to forgive were positioned as something I had yet to work through.

And there it was again: the exact same sensation I had felt in the river house.

I was not merely being offered another way of seeing the situation.

I felt like I was being told which interpretation was the evolved one.

This is why I have become so suspicious of spiritual bypassing. Forgiveness can be meaningful and healing for someone personally, but the word becomes dangerous when it is turned into a moral cudgel. Anger becomes pathology. Disgust becomes evidence that you have not “done the work.” Moral judgment becomes something unenlightened people cling to because they have not yet transcended their ego.

No.

A friend, Torna Braggison, recently wrote about hamingja as a kind of luck or power strengthened through honorable action. One idea from that piece has stayed with me: anger can be a signal that something has crossed a line and needs a response. I don’t think every surge of anger is a flawless instruction. Mine can distort things too. But I also don’t want to treat anger as automatic proof that I am sick, stuck, or failing to heal.

Sometimes something really has violated your moral order. Sometimes disgust is appropriate. Sometimes refusing to forgive someone you never knew is not a wound begging to be healed.

And I absolutely refuse the idea that moral clarity is an illness from which I need to recover.

The conversation escalated after that. I eventually said things harshly. I told her that I had experienced our time together as profoundly unstable, that I had not felt much curiosity from her about my life or what any of this had done to me, and that I felt as though she wanted to control what I was allowed to think, say and feel.

Those words did not arrive serenely after a breathwork session.

I was pissed. I was hurt. I was activated.

Could I have phrased some of it differently once the adrenaline left my body? Absolutely.

But one of the hardest lessons of my life has been learning that regretting the sharpness of a statement does not automatically mean the truth underneath it was wrong.

That distinction matters when you have spent years interpreting every conflict as evidence that you must have failed.

Sometimes a boundary comes out ugly because the gentler versions did not work.

Sometimes your hands shake while you type it.

Sometimes you cry afterward.

Sometimes the truth does not sound enlightened.


The Three Fates, 1558 by Giorgio Ghisi

Ond, Words in the Well, and Blood That Is Not an Oath

This is where Ond has started to become far more than an interesting Heathen concept to me.

Ond is the sacred breath, the vital breath of life. In the Heathen material I have been studying, speech is intimately connected to it because words quite literally ride upon breath. We take something that exists privately within us and breathe it outward into relationship, community and memory.

That idea has been sitting differently with me after this experience.

Truth is very easy when nobody has anything to lose.

Integrity becomes harder when speaking honestly threatens belonging.

It is one thing to sit alone at a desk writing about the importance of remaining rooted. It is another thing to have a newly discovered biological sister standing on the other side of the sentence.

At some point truth has to move from inside the body to outside it.

You have to breathe. Then you have to speak.

There is another Heathen idea I have been thinking about throughout all of this: words placed into the well. Not all words carry equal weight. What we say casually to a stranger is not the same as what we say to family, friends or community. Words spoken within relationships become part of shared memory. They influence reputation, identity, trust, inheritance.

When I think about this now, I cannot stop thinking about that Facebook group.

It was, in its own strange modern form, a well of memory.

Photograph after photograph, story after story, people placing memories of my biological father into a common space. The restaurant everyone loved. The funny boss. The friend. The father. The charismatic guy who made people feel good and created something people missed decades later.

And then I opened a memoir. Another voice entered the well.

A fourteen-year-old girl’s. Her story does not erase everybody else’s.

But neither should their nostalgia erase hers.

That, to me, is where honor becomes different from reputation. Reputation can be built by repeating the most flattering stories. Honor requires making room for what is true even when the truth injures the story we would prefer to preserve.

Torna’s article gave me another way to think about the family part of this. He describes hamingja as something shaped by action and connected outward through family and community, like rings in a web.

“Acting with blatant dishonor is the worst thing you could do to your spiritual self. Not only would you have a lack of spiritual power and potency, it could also take your family generations to rectify your misdeeds causing your descendants to bear your shameful actions through no fault of their own.” —Torna Braggison⁠

What one person does can become part of what the people around them have to carry, and the stories a family repeats help determine what gets passed along. That girl’s account belongs in the web too. So does my choice about whether I help cover it over.

That web also means I cannot simply declare myself separate and walk away untouched. The damage created by dishonorable action is called ohamingja—a negative inheritance that can move through a family and into its descendants. So, I can reject my biological father’s conduct and remain estranged from a mother whose actions I consider deeply dishonorable, but distance does not erase what their choices set in motion. I am still living with consequences I did not choose. The responsibility for what comes next belongs to me. I can live more honorably, tell the truth, keep my word and rebuild my own hamingja rather than passing the same secrecy, chaos and moral cowardice forward.

And this entire experience has made me think about blood differently too.

Blood is not an oath.

DNA can reveal biological relationship, but it cannot manufacture intimacy. It cannot command loyalty. It cannot obligate me to defend somebody I never knew. I share half of my DNA with my biological father, but I do not inherit his degeneracy or his excuses. I do not inherit anyone else’s nostalgia. I do not have to repeat my mother’s secrecy, and I do not inherit my half-sister’s forgiveness.

Biology can tell me where I came from. It cannot decide what I owe.

Kinship, at least in any meaningful sense, still has to be enacted through reciprocity, trust, words, deeds, character and time.

Relationship is something built. Not something detected in saliva.

This may be the greatest gift buried inside what has otherwise been one of the most disturbing years of my life.

For a brief period I really believed discovering my biological family might heal something ancient in me. I imagined the Italian family before I met them. I imagined Christmases with a full house, warmth, a family who had always wanted me, nieces and nephews, people who might somehow recognize me in a way my own family never had.

I am grieving that imagined family now too.

And maybe this is what standing rooted really means—not demanding that reality conform itself to the story I hoped would save me.

When I look backward at the hardest parts of my life now, I can see something I could not see while I was living through them. I know my vulnerabilities better. I know how badly I have wanted belonging. I know how susceptible I have been to charismatic people, authoritative belief systems, communities with one single permitted interpretation, people who speak with such certainty that I begin distrusting my own perception.

I know the seduction of being told, This is what healing looks like.

This is what being good looks like.

This is what being spiritually mature looks like.

This is what a good daughter looks like.

This is what a good Christian looks like.

This is what an enlightened person believes.

I have played that game before. Many times.

And this time, when the same dynamic appeared wearing an entirely different costume, I recognized it.

Not instantly. But sooner. And to me, that is a win.

Standing rooted does not mean I believe I am always right. Hypervigilance, trauma and anger can distort perception. I need people who challenge me, and I need the capacity to admit when evidence shows me that I am wrong. A tree that cannot move at all breaks in the wind. Roots are not rigidity. Roots make movement possible without losing the ground underneath you.

For a long time I thought honor had mostly to do with reputation—whether other people considered you good, whether you behaved properly, whether you were liked.

I understand it differently now.

Honor has something to do with whether your speech and your actions actually belong to the same person. Whether what leaves your mouth remains connected to what you know and believe inside yourself. Whether you can be trusted.

Especially by yourself.

That is why Ond has become such a powerful image for me. Breath originates inside the body and speech rides outward upon it. There should be some continuity between the two. Not perfection. Not impulsively saying every thought that passes through our minds. Not using “I’m just being honest” as permission for cruelty.

Continuity.

I do not want my mouth saying yes while every other part of me is screaming no.

I do not want to write publicly about integrity while living privately through appeasement.

I do not want to talk about truth and honor and then abandon both the moment they threaten to cost me something.

I’m beginning to believe that healing is much less glamorous than I used to think.

It is not pretending everything happens for a reason or turning every horrific thing into a lesson about love.

It is noticing the old pattern sooner. Leaving sooner.

Sending the difficult message.

Crying afterward because you genuinely wished the story had ended differently.

Grieving the family, you imagined without forcing yourself to belong to the family you actually found.

Maybe healing is being able to feel that ancient hunger for belonging rise inside you and still recognize when the price being asked is too high.

Biology can reveal my blood, but it cannot command my conscience.

And I can be more careful about what I place into the well.

These words are significant to me because they are carried on my own breath. They are part of the story I am choosing to leave behind me, and after a lifetime of learning how easily I could give my voice away in exchange for love, safety, certainty or belonging, I want the words I breathe into this world to actually belong to me.

Even when my voice shakes.

Even when telling the prettier story would have been so much easier.


Thank you so much for reading or listening! The audio always includes a few extra nuggets that aren’t in the written version, so give it a listen when you can. I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

Subscribe now

The Ancient Hunger Beneath Modern Life (Pt.1)

The Ancient Hunger Beneath Modern Life (Pt.1)

Taste0ftruth

·

Jul 30

Listen now

The Death of the Performed Self (Pt 2)

The Death of the Performed Self (Pt 2)

Taste0ftruth

·

Aug 18

Listen now

Articles that influenced this series:

Power Through Truth

The Strength in Honor

Mediation, Myth and Mystery

the World of GroovinMeGzz: Is That a Hula-HoOp?? (A story of a hooper…)

Stop Rescuing Christianity

When I first turned to Christianity, I wanted to do it right.

I did not wander casually into church, absorb a few inspirational sermons, call myself a Christian for six months, and wander back out again. I read through a roughly 1,600-page Wayne Grudem systematic theology book for fun, then I read another 600-page theology book. I read the Bible twice in two and a half years. I took Bible-study courses. I went to church. I participated in online study groups. I studied doctrine because I genuinely wanted to understand what (the fuck) I had committed myself to.

So, I find it deeply offensive when people approach me (or leave a comment here on Substack) now as though the reason I reject Christianity must be that I simply have not encountered the right version yet.

“Oh, but Megan, what about early Christianity?”

“But what about the mystical gnostic tradition?”

“But have you considered this alternative interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures?”

“But ancient and medieval Christianity had a strong pagan current.”

“But the division between Abrahamic and pagan cultures isn’t really that clean.”

I know.

I understand the reinterpretation. I reject the substrate.

This is exactly what I have written about in my work on Jesus as a literary construction: modern spirituality seems constitutionally incapable of allowing Jesus (or Christianity itself) to remain historically particular. Jesus is endlessly reinvented as an Aryan, enlightened teacher, universal sage, revolutionary, mystic, some ascended master or cosmic Christ, pagan-adjacent philosopher, psychological archetype, or whatever else is necessary to rescue him from the religious architecture that produced him.

The rough edges are continually sanded away until Christianity becomes something the modern interpreter already wanted to believe.

And frankly, it is not my fault that you are still high on copium.

It is not my fault that you cannot face the reality of the Mosaic distinction. By this I mean what the Egyptologist Jan Assmann identified as a profound transformation in the history of religion: the emergence of a theological distinction between true and false religion. In many ancient polytheistic worlds, foreign gods could be translated, compared, identified with one another, or incorporated into an existing religious landscape without requiring the conclusion that everyone else’s gods were simply unreal. The Mosaic distinction introduces a fundamentally different logic: there is a true God and false gods, legitimate worship and idolatry, revelation and error. Religious difference is no longer merely difference; it become theological falsehood.

It is not my fault that you have not wrestled seriously with histories like The Darkening Age, or with the long destruction, suppression, absorption, and replacement of the classical knowledge and religious worlds that existed before Christian domination. Whatever debates remain over individual episodes or interpretations, the Christianization of the Roman world was not simply a peaceful exchange of ideas in which one spiritual option organically prevailed. Temples were closed and often destroyed, pagan sacrifices were prohibited, traditional cults lost legal and political protection, sacred spaces were appropriated, and older practices were reclassified as superstition, idolatry, or demonic error. Pagan traditions did not merely “blend” with Christianity on equal terms; increasingly, they barely survived within a political and theological order that denied them equal legitimacy.

It is not my fault if the ancient historical spirit (the memory of the Roman people, the pagan peoples, our ancestors) has been lulled to sleep beneath generations of theological and psychological conquering. By that I mean the loss of cultural memory that occurs when the worldview of the victor becomes so normalized that people begin interpreting the defeated traditions through the categories of the religion that displaced them. Gods become “myths,” ancestral rites become “superstitions,” sacred places become curiosities, and Christian reinterpretations are treated as the natural culmination of what came before. After enough generations, conquest no longer feels like conquest because its assumptions have become the background architecture of thought itself. We are still burdened by Abrahamic supremacy through its metaphysical assumptions, its ontological lies and its corrupt theology.

That is why I am not interested in being told that Christianity contained a “strong pagan current,” as though the survival of pagan material somehow dissolves the distinction between the traditions. Cultural absorption is not the same thing as theological continuity, and syncretism under conditions of unequal power is not evidence that the conquered worldview survived intact. Sometimes the pagan residue inside Christianity tells us less about Christianity’s openness than about how extraordinarily difficult Europe’s older religious worlds were to erase.

And I am certainly not obligated to crawl back into the framework because someone has discovered a more mystical way of decorating it.

Of course, history is complex.

Of course, cultures interact.

Of course, Christianity absorbed enormous amounts of pagan philosophy, imagery, customs, sacred geography, ritual, and symbolism.

That does not make Christianity pagan.

And pointing to the pagan material Christianity absorbed after centuries of conquest is not the devastating rebuttal some people seem to imagine it is. In many cases, it proves the opposite: pagan culture was so deeply rooted that it could not simply be erased. It had to be absorbed, renamed, subordinated, and Christianized.

Interaction does not erase difference.

Syncretism does not erase domination.

And complexity is not a solvent that magically dissolves every meaningful distinction.

This endless need to redeem Christianity is precisely what I am exhausted by.

People hear me say, “I reject this framework,” and somehow translate it into, “Please introduce me to a more sophisticated version.”

No.

I have studied the scriptures, the doctrines, the apologetics, and the internal arguments.

Walking away was not an easy feat.

This photograph is my enormous systematic theology book and my Bibles ripped apart and thrown away means something very different to me than it probably does to you. Deconstruction was not an intellectual parlor game. The pain of walking away from the Church was beyond anything I expected. I had physical, visceral responses. I was covered in hives. I gained weight. The psychological torture reached down into my soul at a depth I still struggle to explain.

I had built a world inside that framework.

Then I followed the broken threads of its doctrine until I found my way back out of the Abrahamic framework altogether.

That process cost me something.

So no, I do not appreciate (not even an ounce) when somebody who has not bothered to understand who I am, what I studied, what I believed, or what it cost me to leave decides to waste my fucking time explaining that Christianity is actually much deeper, more mystical, more pagan, more esoteric, or more sophisticated than I realize.

You are not revealing the hidden level of the game to me.

You are reenacting the exact mechanism I am criticizing.

The assumption underneath all of these conversations is that Christianity must remain redeemable. If I reject the obvious form, someone produces the mystical form. If I reject the mystical form, someone produces the historical nuance. If I reject that, someone dissolves the categories altogether: perhaps “Abrahamic” and “pagan” were never really so different.

Anything except allowing the possibility that I understand the tradition and still find its underlying architecture unacceptable.

That is the spiritual hamster wheel.

There must always be another interpretation.

Another layer.

Another secret teaching.

Another version of Jesus.

Another way to salvage the thing you cannot bear to relinquish.

But I have already relinquished it.

My Heathenry does not require me to turn Christianity into disguised paganism so I can make peace with it. I do not want to make peace with my enemies. I do not need Jesus reconstructed as Dionysus, a universal consciousness, or an esoteric solar principle. I do not need the Hebrew scriptures alchemized into some secret perennial wisdom before I am permitted to judge what I actually find there.

And I can study the differences without compulsively collapsing them into some universal spiritual soup.

Perhaps that is what some people find intolerable.

Because once you stop insisting that every tradition secretly teaches the same thing, you have to make judgments. You have to admit that religions contain competing metaphysics, competing moral visions, competing conceptions of humanity, competing relationships to divinity, nature, ancestry, authority, and the sacred.

And then you might have to choose.

I chose.

So, when I tell you that I have no interest in Christianity, and in fact I have a burning blood memory full of hatred for it, believe me the first time.

I do not need the deeper version.

I do not need the mystical version.

I do not need the pagan-friendly version.

I do not need Christianity rescued from Christianity.

I understand the reinterpretation.

I reject the substrate.



Sources and Further Reading

The authors below do not represent a single school of thought, nor do they necessarily agree with every conclusion I draw. Together, however, their work informs my analysis of Jesus as a literary construction, the scriptural formation of biblical narratives, the Mosaic distinction, and the suppression and absorption of Europe’s pre-Christian religious worlds.

Jesus Mythicism and the Literary Construction of Christ

  • Paul-Louis Couchoud, The Creation of Christ: An Outline of the Beginnings of Christianity, translated by C. Bradlaugh Bonner, 2 vols. (London: Watts & Co., 1939).Originally published in two volumes, Couchoud’s work traces the development of Christ from an apocalyptic and prophetic heavenly figure into the increasingly historicized Jesus of the written Gospels. The second volume also contains his essay “The Historicity of Jesus.” These are the two PDF volumes I recently had printed for further study.
  • Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014).
  • Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man—The Case for a Mythical Jesus (Age of Reason Publications, 2009).
  • Robert M. Price, The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (American Atheist Press, 2011).

Biblical Narrative, Myth, and Scriptural Construction

  • Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (Basic Books, 1999). Published in the United States as The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past.
  • Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Basic Books, 2005).

Thompson’s work is especially important to my understanding of biblical characters and messianic narratives as literary products shaped by older Near Eastern traditions, recurring royal motifs, and scriptural patterns. Thompson should not simply be collapsed into the modern Jesus-mythicist movement; his work addresses the literary and mythic construction of biblical figures through a distinct scholarly framework.

Monotheism and the Mosaic Distinction

  • Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Harvard University Press, 1997).
  • Jan Assmann, The Price of Monotheism, translated by Robert Savage (Stanford University Press, 2010).

Assmann’s concept of the Mosaic distinction describes the revolutionary division between true and false religion introduced by biblical monotheism. This distinction altered how religious difference could be understood: other gods and forms of worship were no longer merely foreign or different, but false, illegitimate, idolatrous, or demonic.

Christianization and the Classical World

  • Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World (Macmillan, 2017).

Mystery, Myth & Manipulation

Runes, Religion & the Search for the Sacred

Hey Hey, Welcome back to Taste0ftruth Tuesdays. In today’s episode we are sitting down with Tina K. of The Rune Shack to explore runes, esotericism, and Norse-Germanic spirituality, alongside my own path through New Age spirituality, Christianity, and deconstruction.


For years, I was searching.

I wandered through wellness culture, festival communities, New Age spirituality, psychedelic conversations, evangelical Christianity, and eventually the long road of deconstruction. Every step taught me something. Every community offered language for experiences that often felt deeply meaningful.

But over time, I began to wonder:

How do we know when spirituality is making us more grounded—and when it is simply helping us escape reality?

Modern spirituality often promises awakening, healing, manifestation, higher consciousness, hidden knowledge, or secret wisdom. Sometimes those ideas genuinely encourage reflection and personal growth. Other times, they can become substitutes for the harder work of living honestly, accepting limits, grieving loss, cultivating discipline, and remaining accountable to reality and to other people.

This conversation isn’t a rejection of mystery. Far from it.

I believe human beings need myth, ritual, symbol, beauty, and experiences that remind us life is deeper than material reductionism alone can explain.

The challenge for me has been learning to distinguish between mystery and manipulation.

That distinction is one reason I wanted to invite Tina K. from The Rune Shack onto the podcast. Rather than centering on a single article, this conversation explores a broader landscape of ideas:

  • What is heathen spirituality?
  • What are runes beyond their popular image?
  • What does esotericism actually mean?
  • Why can spiritual authority become dangerous?
  • What makes New Age spirituality appealing and where can it become escapist?
  • Why do so many modern spiritual movements continue to reinterpret Jesus through ideas like the cosmic Christ or Christ consciousness?
  • And perhaps the deepest question of all:

What does real spirituality actually require?

I don’t approach these questions as someone who has everything figured out.

I ask them as someone who has lived inside several different spiritual worlds and has become increasingly interested in discernment rather than certainty.

My hope is to encourage more thoughtful questions about the stories we inherit, the authorities we trust, and the practices that shape our lives.

I hope you’ll join us for the conversation. Please let me know your thoughts.

LINKS mentioned:

My interview I did with Tina Part 1 & the Part 2 (paid)

Rune Shack Radio with Torna Braggison

Tina’s article on Rune Magick in the Sagas

Christianity and the Myth of Saving the West

A historical documentary blended with a personal reckoning and a cultural warning

This one has been sitting with me for a long time.

Six months, maybe more. Notes in the book margins. Tons of screenshots. Quotes stacked in my notes folder. Books half-highlighted and folded pages revisited. Every time I thought I was ready to write it, I wasn’t…

Because this isn’t just about history. It’s about a story we keep repeating with confidence: that Christianity saved the West and what happens when you actually slow down to examine that claim.

The claim that Christianity civilized Europe. Christianity gave us human rights, pluralism, rational inquiry, restraint. And if Western civilization feels unstable today, the prescription is simple— return to Christian moral supremacy.

I find myself increasingly tired of hearing it.

Tired of watching “Judeo-Christian values” invoked as shorthand for liberty. Tired of hearing that our freedoms, our intellectual life, our legal architecture all flow directly from the Bible. Tired of the way paganism is casually used as a synonym for barbarism, ego, domination — while Christianity is cast as the moral counterweight, the conscience that civilizes power.

A recent example sharpened that fatigue. Leighton Woodhouse published an opinion piece in The New York Times titled Donald Trump, Pagan King. The framing was familiar and rhetorically smooth. Paganism was associated with appetite, force, and unchecked authority. Christianity appeared as restraint, humility, moral seriousness. The implication was subtle but unmistakable: whatever is broken in our politics represents a departure from Christian virtue.

The structure of this narrative is ancient. Pagan equals raw power. Christian equals moral discipline.

But that framing rests on an assumption that deserves far more scrutiny than it receives. It assumes that Christianity is the moral software of the West. Before it, there was chaos; after it, civilization.

The deeper I have gone into late antiquity, through Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age, Charles Freeman’s analysis of intellectual narrowing, Ramsay MacMullen’s documentation of coercive conversion, and through primary sources from both Christian and pagan voices— the more that tidy civilizational story begins to unravel.

Because when Christianity gained institutional dominance, what followed was not the natural flowering of pluralism and inquiry. It was very opposite.

And for us to truly understand, we have to begin this story before Christianity held power.


A World Before Monopoly

The Greco-Roman world was not a utopia. It had power structures, that were often violent, and deeply unequal. But it operated within a religious and intellectual framework that functioned very differently from exclusive monotheism.

Roman religion was additive rather than subtractive. One could honor household gods, civic gods, the imperial cult, foreign deities, and philosophical conceptions of the divine without renouncing the others. Orthopraxy mattered more than orthodoxy. What counted was correct ritual performance, not exclusive belief. The pax deorum (the peace with the gods) was maintained through observance, not doctrinal conformity.

Philosophically, multiplicity was the norm. Stoics, Epicureans, Skeptics, and Platonists argued openly about cosmology, ethics, and the nature of reality. Protagoras could admit uncertainty about the gods without being erased from the record. Cicero articulated natural law grounded in reason and universality long before Christianity gained political authority. Debate was public. Rhetorical training was a civic skill. Argument was like oxygen at the time.

Cicero

The Roman legal system developed sophisticated structures of administration and legislation that would profoundly shape Western law. None of this depended on exclusive revelation. It depended on human reasoning operating within a plural environment.

Rome suppressed what it perceived as politically dangerous. It was capable of cruelty. But structurally, it tolerated metaphysical competition. Truth was not framed as singular and jealous in the way later Christian orthodoxy would insist.

Christianity did not enter this world as one more school of thought among many. It entered with a different moral architecture. Not “add Christ to the pantheon.”

But “burn down the rest.”

That distinction is not merely cosmetic. It is foundational to understanding the real history.


The Architecture of Exclusivity

The Hebrew scriptures that Christianity inherited contain a recurring moral posture toward rival worship. Altars are to be broken down. Sacred groves burned. Idols smashed. “You shall have no other gods before me” is not a suggestion of preference; it is a declaration of exclusivity. Rival worship is not seen as a mere mistake; it is corrupting.

When confined to private devotion, this posture functions as identity formation. When fused with state power, it moves from conviction to coercion.

For the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity lacked imperial authority. It survived in the margins of society. The decisive shift came when Christianity aligned with imperial power under Constantine and his successors.

Estimates vary, but many scholars place Christians at roughly ten percent of the empire around the year 300. The exact percentage is debated (ancient demographic modeling is necessarily approximate) but the trajectory is clear. Within a few generations, that minority became the ruling faith. By the end of the fourth century, imperial law assumed Christianity as normative and increasingly treated rival ritual as illegal.

This demographic reversal was not merely theological. It was political.

Once exclusivist theology acquired enforcement capacity, differences in beliefs was no longer merely error. It was threat.

In the 380s and 390s, imperial edicts against non-Christian ritual multiplied. In 399, a Christian emperor issued a decree stating:

“If there should be any temples in the country districts, they shall be torn down without disturbance or tumult. For when they are torn down and removed, the material basis for all superstition will be destroyed.”

The language is bureaucratic. The effect was not.

These edicts provided legal cover for demolition. Bishops lobbied rulers for stricter laws. Congregations became demolition crews. Rival worship was framed as superstition whose material foundation had to be eradicated.

As Ramsay MacMullen demonstrates, once rival belief is conceptualized as spiritually dangerous, compromise becomes morally suspect. In a plural system, rivals are mistaken. In an exclusivist system, rivals are demonic. And demons are not debated. They are expelled.

This is the mechanism. And it becomes visible in stone.


The Destroyers and the Image of Wisdom

Once theology fused with imperial authority, enforcement did not remain theoretical. It moved outward into public space. It moved into cities. It moved into stone.

Catherine Nixey opens The Darkening Age not with doctrine but with an image. The choice is deliberate. Arguments can be abstract. Statues cannot.

The Temple of Athena in Palmyra had stood for centuries. It was not a relic in a museum. It was part of a living civic landscape. Its columns had watched merchants pass through the city, soldiers march under banners, pilgrims move between worlds. Within it stood Athena— goddess of wisdom, of strategic intelligence, of disciplined thought. She represented more than devotion. She embodied the classical inheritance itself: philosophy, rhetoric, ordered reasoning, the cultivation of mind.

When the destroyers arrived, what they attacked was not simply stone.

Nixey describes a man entering the temple with a weapon and striking the back of Athena’s head with such force that the goddess was decapitated. The violence did not stop there. Her nose was sliced off. Her cheeks crushed. Her once composed face mutilated with intention.

And yet her eyes were left intact.

Those eyes still exist.

They look out from a ruined face that once symbolized wisdom.

This was not accidental vandalism. It was theology enacted physically. The old gods were not to be debated, not to be reinterpreted, not to be absorbed into new meaning. They were to be neutralized. Their presence was dangerous. Their very material existence was a threat to salvation.

The word often used for this period is triumph. Christianity triumphed over paganism. But triumph over what? Over multiplicity? Over a world in which philosophical disagreement could exist without annihilation? Over the idea that wisdom might not belong exclusively to one revelation?

The violence at Palmyra was not isolated. Temples across the empire were damaged, repurposed, stripped of ornament, or demolished. Some were converted into churches. Others were dismantled entirely. Sacred spaces that had structured civic and religious life for centuries were rendered spiritually illegitimate almost overnight.

What makes the image of Athena more destabilizing is its repetition.

In 2015, Islamic State militants bulldozed the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud because it was deemed idolatrous. The reconstructed remnants of Athena were attacked again. Beheaded again. An arm sheared off again.

Different century. Different scripture. Different empire.

Same logic. When rival sacred presence is conceptualized as contamination, destruction becomes purification.

This is not about equivalence between traditions. It is about structure. When any Abrahamic framework defines truth as singular, exclusive, and threatened by proximity to rivals, pluralism becomes fragile. Once that framework acquires political power, fragility becomes enforcement.

And enforcement does not stop at statues.


Hypatia and the Enforcement of Certainty

If Athena represents symbolic erasure, Hypatia represents human cost.

Hypatia of Alexandria was not an obscure mystic. She was a philosopher, mathematician, and teacher in a city long known for intellectual life. Alexandria had been home to the great library and to competing schools of thought for centuries. Hypatia occupied a visible position within that tradition.

By the early fifth century, Alexandria was also home to a group known as the parabalani — often translated as “the reckless ones.” Officially devoted to acts of charity, they functioned in practice as muscle for ecclesiastical authority. By some estimates there were hundreds of them in the city. Roman legal documents describe them using the word terror.

Hypatia lived in the same civic space as these enforcers.

Her murder was not random street violence. It occurred within an atmosphere already shaped by escalating Christian authority and shrinking tolerance for rival influence. When exclusivist theology defines truth as singular and civic order as dependent upon that truth, intellectual figures outside that structure become destabilizing.

Hypatia was stripped, beaten, and killed by a mob associated with Christian zeal.

Her death did not mark the beginning of violence. It marked the normalization of it.

Once difference is framed as corruption and corruption as emergency, elimination becomes defensible.

This pattern appears again and again in late antiquity. Pagan philosophers were exiled. Schools were closed. Public debate narrowed. The emperor Justinian would eventually close the philosophical schools of Athens entirely. Inquiry did not vanish overnight, but the atmosphere changed. What had once been competition became suspicion.

And suspicion reshapes a civilization quietly before it reshapes it violently.


Fear as Teacher

One of the most revealing threads in the historical record is not the destruction itself but the emotional atmosphere that made it possible.

Demonology was not marginal superstition. It structured perception. Pagan temples were described as inhabited by malevolent spirits. Sacrifices were not merely mistaken rituals but demonic feasts. The world itself became morally charged terrain.

The Devil Belial before the Gates of Hell, from Das Buch Belial, published in Augsburg, 1473

Christians wrote anxious letters asking whether they could sit in places pagans had sat, use baths used on feast days, drink from wells near deserted temples, eat food that might have been associated with sacrifice. The fear was not symbolic. It was visceral.

Augustine’s response: that it was better to refuse contaminated food with Christian fortitude even if one starved, reveals a hierarchy of values. Survival could be negotiable. Purity could not.

John Chrysostom’s sermons described eternal punishment in sensory detail: rivers of fire, venomous worms, inescapable bonds, exterior darkness. Fear was not incidental rhetoric. It trained the imagination to view error as catastrophe and proximity to rival belief as existential threat.

When fear becomes formative, pluralism becomes psychologically intolerable.

And when that psychology is paired with law, narrowing becomes institutional.


The Disappearance of Thought

The destruction of statues is visible. The destruction of thought is quieter.

One of the most devastating aspects of late antique Christianization was not merely the smashing of temples but the narrowing of what was considered worth preserving.

The ancient Mediterranean world once contained the greatest concentration of written knowledge humanity had yet assembled. The Library of Alexandria, even allowing for scholarly debate about its exact size, symbolized an ambition toward accumulation. Knowledge was not singular. It was expansive. It was contradictory. It was messy.

Scholars selecting and reading scrolls in the Great Library of Alexandria hall

What remains of that intellectual inheritance is fragmentary.

By some estimates, only about one percent of Latin literature survives from antiquity. Entire authors are known only by name. Entire schools of philosophy survive only in hostile summaries written by opponents. Whole lines of speculation disappeared not because they were refuted but because they were not copied.

Copying is survival.

In the late antique world, the people doing the copying increasingly operated within Christian institutions.

And institutions preserve selectively.

“Stay clear of all pagan books!” reads the Apostolic Constitution. The warning is not casual. It reflects a moral anxiety about contamination. Texts are not neutral. They are spiritually charged. Exposure to the wrong argument is dangerous.

Celsus, one of the few pagan critics whose voice survives, accused Christians of discouraging inquiry. He mocked the posture: “Do not ask questions; just believe.” His tone is sharp, even sarcastic, but the anxiety is real. In Greek philosophy, reason was virtue. Inquiry was sacred. Faith, as unexamined assent, was the lowest epistemic posture.

Even Origen, writing within the Christian tradition, conceded the problem with striking bluntness, remarking that “the stupidity of some Christians is heavier than the sand of the sea.” The anti-intellectual reputation of early Christianity was not a later invention. It was noted by contemporaries.

The tragedy of Democritus crystallizes this narrowing.

Democritus — the philosopher often described as the father of atomic theory — wrote extensively across cosmology, mathematics, and ethics. He proposed a universe composed of atoms and void centuries before modern physics. And yet none of his works survive intact.

Not one.

What we know of his thought survives because it was partially preserved inside a single poem, Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura, which itself survived precariously through a single manuscript discovered in a German monastery centuries later.

The physicist Carlo Rovelli has called the total loss of Democritus’s writings “the greatest intellectual tragedy to ensue from the collapse of the old classical civilisation.”

An entire philosophical lineage survived by accident.

That should unsettle anyone who claims Christianity simply “preserved learning.”

Yes, monasteries copied texts. But copying is filtration. Texts deemed dangerous, frivolous, obscene, or spiritually corrupt were less likely to be preserved. When a civilization narrows its moral boundaries, its archive narrows with it.

Charles Freeman, in The Closing of the Western Mind, argues that the most significant shift was not physical destruction but the narrowing of acceptable modes of thought. Public philosophical debate gradually gave way to appeals to authority and revealed certainty. Disputes were settled by councils backed by imperial power. Orthodoxy was defined not by open inquiry but by boundary enforcement.

The world did not stop thinking overnight. But the conditions for free competition of ideas shifted.

And once intellectual diversity contracts, recovery takes centuries.


The Martyr Myth and Moral Insulation

The martyr narrative sits at the emotional center of Christian self-understanding. It does more than preserve memory. It defines identity.

The story is familiar: early Christians were persecuted by a pagan empire. They were imprisoned, tortured, executed for their faith. They endured without retaliation. They did not conquer. They survived.

There is truth in this. The Great Persecution under Diocletian was real and brutal. Scriptures were burned. Churches destroyed. Christians were imprisoned and executed. No serious historian denies that.

What modern scholarship questions is scale and continuity. The most severe empire-wide persecution lasted roughly a decade. Other persecutions were local, sporadic, and uneven across regions. They were not a continuous three-century campaign of systematic eradication.

Martyr literature itself expanded over time. Detailed analysis of saints’ calendars reveals duplication, embellishment, and narrative layering. Some figures appear under multiple names. Some accounts contain anachronisms or miraculous flourishes that complicate their historical reliability.

The historian G. E. M. de Ste. Croix observed that later martyr literature increasingly displayed what he called “a contempt for historicity.”

That line matters. Because it signals a shift: suffering was not only remembered. It was shaped.

And shaped suffering serves a purpose.

Martyrdom of Saint Sebastian is an Italian Renaissance Tempera Painting created by Andrea Mantegna in c.1480.

Once Christianity aligned with imperial authority, the martyr narrative did not recede. It hardened into interpretive insulation. The same tradition that now authorized temple closures and school shuttings still understood itself as historically persecuted.

The story generates moral asymmetry: whatever Christians do can be framed as response, not domination.

And the function of the martyr narrative did not end in late antiquity. In modern apologetics, it often operates as proof. The logic runs like this: the apostles would not have died for something they knew was false; early Christians endured torture rather than recant; therefore, their testimony must be true.

But willingness to suffer proves sincerity, not metaphysical accuracy. People across religions have died for beliefs that contradict one another. Martyrdom establishes conviction. It does not establish truth.

This is why the martyr story is so stabilizing. It allows a movement to wield authority while retaining the self-image ofinnocence. It transforms power into protection and critique into persecution.

When temples were outlawed and philosophical schools shuttered, the tradition exercising authority did not see itself as conqueror. It saw itself as guardian of truth under threat.

If you are always defending truth, enforcement feels righteous.


The Last Pleas for Coexistence

One of the tragedies of this period is that the archive becomes overwhelmingly Christian. The winners preserved their own voices. The losing side survives in fragments.

But some fragments remain.

Libanius, a pagan orator in the fourth century, watched as temples across the empire were damaged, repurposed, or destroyed. His speeches are not the rantings of a fanatic. They are the anxious observations of a man watching his world contract. He describes sacred spaces falling into ruin, rituals forbidden, property seized. He notes opportunists dividing temple lands for personal gain under the cover of piety. What Christian historians later frame as triumph, Libanius experiences as loss.

Then there is Symmachus.

In 382 CE, the Christian emperor Gratian ordered the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Roman Senate House. For centuries, senators had offered ritual observances there before conducting civic business. It was not merely religious decoration; it was part of Rome’s public identity.

Symmachus wrote an appeal for its restoration.

His language is remarkable for its restraint. He does not demand dominance. He does not threaten revolt. He argues for coexistence.

“We look on the same stars,” he writes. “The sky is common. The same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road alone.”

It is difficult to imagine a clearer articulation of pluralism in the ancient world.

He closes not with hostility but with humility: “We offer now prayers, not conflict.”

He lost. The altar was not restored. The plea for multiplicity was overridden by certainty.

This moment matters because it reveals a collision between two moral architectures. One sees truth as approached through many paths. The other sees truth as singular and threatened by rival proximity.

Symmachus represents not pagan decadence but civic pluralism. He is not asking to suppress Christianity. He is asking for coexistence.

The answer he receives is enforcement. The narrowing was not accidental. It was structural.


The Long Return of Pluralism

The narrowing of late antiquity did not permanently extinguish intellectual life. But it did change its conditions. For centuries, inquiry moved within theological boundaries defined by ecclesiastical authority. Councils determined orthodoxy. Deviation could be punished. Philosophical speculation survived, but often cautiously, often cloaked.

What we now call the Enlightenment did not arise as a natural extension of Christian supremacy. It arose within tension — sometimes quiet, sometimes explosive — with religious monopoly.

Beginning in the Renaissance, Europe experienced a gradual rediscovery of classical texts. Manuscripts long buried in monastic libraries re-entered circulation. Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura, preserving echoes of Democritus’s atomism, resurfaced. Greek philosophy was studied not merely as commentary on theology but as intellectual inheritance in its own right.

The recovery of classical thought did not instantly dissolve Christian authority. But it reintroduced plurality into the bloodstream of European intellectual life.

The Enlightenment sharpened that reintroduction.

Thinkers like John Locke articulated natural rights grounded not in revelation but in reason and shared human nature. Locke’s arguments for religious toleration did not emerge from biblical exclusivity; they emerged from a recognition that coercion in matters of belief corrupts both faith and civic peace.

Montesquieu analyzed the separation of powers not as a theological doctrine but as a structural safeguard against concentration of authority. His framework was explicitly concerned with preventing tyranny — whether monarchic or clerical.

These ideas did not descend seamlessly from medieval orthodoxy. They developed alongside, and often in resistance to, religious entanglement with state power.

When we reach the American founding, the tension becomes explicit.

The framers of the Constitution were deeply literate in classical thought. They read Cicero. They read Tacitus. They studied Roman republicanism. They were steeped in Enlightenment political theory. They feared concentrated power, including ecclesiastical power.

The Constitution contains no reference to Jesus Christ. It prohibits religious tests for office. The First Amendment forbids establishment of religion and protects free exercise. This was not a casual omission. It was intentional architecture.

The American experiment was not a biblical republic.

It was a republic designed to prevent religious monopoly.

Thomas Jefferson provides a particularly revealing case. Jefferson famously produced his own edited version of the Gospels, physically cutting out miracles and supernatural elements. The result, often referred to as the Jefferson Bible, retained ethical teachings while discarding divine intervention.

This was not the act of a man seeking to found a theocracy.

It was the act of a man separating moral philosophy from revealed absolutism.

Jefferson’s project reflects a broader Enlightenment impulse: to preserve ethical insight while disentangling it from exclusivist authority.

Roger Olson’s theological scholarship further complicates the claim that Christianity simply “gave us” pluralism. Olson emphasizes that Christianity was never doctrinally uniform in its early centuries. Orthodoxy was consolidated through contest, suppression, and boundary enforcement. The unity later invoked as civilizational foundation was itself the product of narrowing.

The Enlightenment did not grow naturally from that narrowing. It reopened debate.

It reintroduced skepticism as virtue.

It separated church and state not to destroy religion but to protect civic plurality.

If Christianity had already secured pluralism, the Enlightenment would have been unnecessary.

The fact that it was necessary tells us something profound.

Pluralism survived not because exclusivity reigned, but because exclusivity was restrained.


Did Christianity Give Us Human Rights?

At this point, the most common objection surfaces.

Even if there were excesses. Even if there was narrowing. Even if temples fell and texts disappeared. Christianity still gave us the concept of human dignity. Christianity laid the groundwork for human rights.

The claim sounds intuitive because Christian theology does contain a powerful moral idea: humans are made in the image of God. That idea has inspired reformers and abolitionists and activists. It matters.

But the existence of moral language is not the same thing as institutional pluralism.

The Stoics articulated a form of universal human rationality centuries before Christianity held power. Roman law developed ideas of legal personhood and universality that would influence later legal systems. Cicero’s natural law did not depend on revelation.

Christianity contributed to moral discourse. That is true.

But the institutional protection of dissent: the right to disagree publicly, to publish heterodox ideas, to worship differently without legal annihilation… did not emerge during periods of Christian monopoly. Those protections developed when religious authority was structurally limited.

Rights require restraint of power.

And historically, the moments when Christianity was most fused with state authority were not the moments when pluralism expanded.


What This Feels Like From the Inside

What unsettles me most about this history is not simply that it happened. It is that I recognize the mechanism.

I have lived the internal version of it.

Burn the books. Throw away the tarot cards. Remove your new age spirituality material. Avoid contamination of demonic entities. Guard the mind. Monitor the thoughts. Stay pure.

When you inhabit Christianity long enough, the anxiety internalizes. You become your own enforcer. You police your curiosity. You treat rival ideas not as intellectual challenges but as spiritual threats.

When I read about Christians in late antiquity asking whether they could sit where pagans had sat or drink from wells near deserted temples, it was too relatable.

The narrowing does not begin with demolition crews. It begins with fear.

Fear reshapes perception. Fear shrinks curiosity. Fear frames difference as danger.

Scale that fear across institutions and you have late antiquity.

Scale it across a nation and you have something far more consequential.


The Warning

This is why the rhetoric of Christian supremacy unsettles me.

Not because Christianity has contributed nothing to Western civilization. It has shaped art, music, law, charity, moral imagination. That is undeniable.

Much of this period is still narrated as civilizational triumph rather than suppression. As the academic John Pollini notes, “modern scholarship, influenced by a Judeo-Christian cultural bias, has frequently overlooked or downplayed such attacks and even at times sought to present Christian desecration in a positive light.”

But the claim that Christianity saved the West collapses complexity into myth. It erases the plural foundations of Greco-Roman thought. It erases the Enlightenment’s deliberate separation of church and state. It erases the long struggle to restrain religious monopoly.

Reformers like John Calvin did not argue for a secular state. In his Institutes, Calvin insisted that magistrates had a duty to suppress blasphemy and false worship.

Pluralism did not emerge from supremacy.

It survived by limiting it.

When modern commentators frame Christianity as the sole guardian of civilization and paganism as barbaric force, they repeat a frame older than they realize. They invoke a story in which exclusivity is equated with order and multiplicity with chaos.

History suggests something different.

Civilizations are stabilized not by monopoly but by constraint. Not by erasing rivals but by tolerating them. Not by conflating revelation with law but by separating the two.

If we forget that, if we mythologize exclusivity as the foundation of freedom, we risk mistaking that narrowing for renewal.

And that is not a mistake history makes gently.

aaaand that’s all I have for you today folks. If you’ve been here for a while, you know this is what Taste of Truth Tuesdays is about. Not tearing down for sport. Not defending tradition out of reflex. But slowing down long enough to ask: Is the story we’re repeating actually true?

and As always…

Maintain your curiosity.
Embrace skepticism.
And keep tuning in.

Endnotes

  1. Leighton Woodhouse, “Donald Trump, Pagan King,” The New York Times, February 11, 2026.
    (Referenced as an example of contemporary framing of paganism versus Christianity.)
  2. Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).
    Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (New York: Knopf, 2002).
    Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100–400) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).
    See also Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).
  3. On Roman religion as orthopraxic and plural in structure, see:
    Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Religions of Rome, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
    Jörg Rüpke, Religion of the Romans (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007).
  4. Cicero’s articulation of natural law appears in De Re Publica and De Legibus. See:
    Cicero, On the Republic and On the Laws, trans. James E. G. Zetzel (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
  5. On late fourth-century anti-pagan legislation, see:
    Theodosian Code 16.10 (various edicts restricting sacrifice and authorizing temple closures).
    For analysis: Michele Renee Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy (Harvard University Press, 2002).
    Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire.
  6. On the debated scope and frequency of early Christian persecutions:
    Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution (HarperOne, 2013).
    G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy (Oxford University Press, 2006).
    These works challenge the traditional narrative of continuous empire-wide persecution and note embellishment in later martyr literature.
  7. On the parabalani and Hypatia:
    Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book VII.
    Christopher Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997).
    Edward J. Watts, Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher (Oxford University Press, 2017).
    Roman legislation regulating the parabalani appears in Theodosian Code 16.2.42 and related laws.
  8. On the Altar of Victory controversy and Symmachus:
    Symmachus, Relatio 3 (Petition for the Restoration of the Altar of Victory).
    Ambrose of Milan’s response in Epistle 17–18.
    See also: Michele Renee Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy.
  9. On demonology and late antique Christian perceptions of paganism:
    Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom (Blackwell, 1996).
    Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age.
    Brown discusses the moralization of the inner life and late antique anxiety regarding contamination and spiritual danger.
  10. On the survival rate of classical literature:
    It is widely acknowledged among classicists that only a small fraction of ancient literature survives.
    See: Anthony Grafton, The Footnote: A Curious History (Harvard University Press, 1997).
    James J. O’Donnell, Avatars of the Word (Harvard University Press, 1998).
    The exact percentage is debated, but the scale of loss is undisputed.
  11. On Democritus and the loss of his works:
    Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Book IX).
    Carlo Rovelli, Reality Is Not What It Seems (Riverhead Books, 2016), where Rovelli refers to the loss of Democritus as a major intellectual tragedy.
    Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, as the principal ancient source preserving atomist philosophy.
  12. On the closure of pagan philosophical schools under Justinian:
    Procopius, Secret History.
    Edward J. Watts, The Final Pagan Generation (University of California Press, 2015).
  13. On Enlightenment political theory and religious toleration:
    John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689).
    Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748).
  14. On Thomas Jefferson’s edited Bible:
    Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (commonly known as the Jefferson Bible), completed in 1820.
    See also: Edwin Gaustad, Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Eerdmans, 1996).
  15. On early Christian theological diversity and consolidation of orthodoxy:
    Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1999).
    Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford University Press, 2003) (for broader context on early doctrinal diversity).

Projection, Power, and the Pagan Revival

When Belief Becomes Control

This episode isn’t about religion versus religion.
It’s about power, fear, and what happens inside belief systems when conformity becomes more important than honesty.

In this conversation, I’m joined by Sigrin, founder of Universal Pagan Temple.

She’s a practicing Pagan, a witch, a public educator, and someone who speaks openly about leaving Christianity after experiencing fear-based theology, spiritual control, and shame. I want to pause here, because even as an agnostic, when I hear the word witch, my brain still flashes to the cartoon villain version. Green. Ugly. Evil. That image didn’t come from nowhere. It was taught.

One of the things we get into in this conversation is how morality actually functions in Pagan traditions, and how different that framework is from what most people assume.

She describes leaving Christianity not as rebellion, but as self-preservation. And what pushed her out wasn’t God. It was other Christians.

For many people, Christianity isn’t learned from scripture.
It’s learned from other Christians.

The judgment.
The constant monitoring.
The fear of being seen as wrong, dangerous, or spiritually compromised.

In high-control Christian environments, conformity equals safety. Questioning creates anxiety. And the fear of social punishment often becomes stronger than belief itself.

When belonging is conditional, faith turns into survival.


What We Cover in This Conversation:

Paganism Beyond Aesthetics

A lot of people hear “Paganism” and immediately picture vibes, trends, or cosplay. We spend time breaking that assumption apart.

  • Sigrin explains that many beginners jump straight into ritual without actually invoking or dedicating to the divine.
  • She talks about the difference between aesthetic practice and intentional practice.
  • For people who don’t yet feel connected to a specific god or goddess, she offers grounded guidance on how to approach devotion without forcing it.
  • We talk about the transition she experienced moving from Christianity, to atheism, to polytheism.
  • We explore the role of myth, story, and symbolism in spiritual life.
  • She shares her experience of feeling an energy she couldn’t deny, even after rejecting belief entirely.
  • We touch on the wide range of ways Pagans relate to pantheons, including devotional, symbolic, ancestral, and experiential approaches.

The takeaway here isn’t “believe this.”
It’s that Paganism isn’t shallow, trendy, or uniform. It’s relational.


No Holy Book, No Central Authority

One of the most misunderstood aspects of Paganism is the absence of a single text or governing authority.

  • Sigrin references a line she often uses: “If you get 20 witches in a room, you’ll have 40 different beliefs.”
  • We talk about how Pagan traditions don’t operate under enforced doctrine or centralized belief.
  • She brings up the 42 Negative Confessions from ancient Egyptian tradition as an example of ethical self-statements rather than commandments.
  • These function more like reflections on character than laws imposed from above.
  • We compare this to moral storytelling across different myth traditions rather than rigid rule-following.
  • She emphasizes intuition and empathy as core tools for ethical decision-making.
  • I add the role of self-reflection and introspection in systems without external enforcement.

This raises an important question: without a script, responsibility shifts inward.

Why This Can Be Hard After Christianity

We also talk honestly about why this freedom can be uncomfortable, especially for people leaving authoritarian religion.

  • Sigrin notes how difficult it can be to release belief in hell, even after leaving Christianity.
  • Fear doesn’t disappear just because belief changes.
  • When morality was once externally enforced, internal trust has to be rebuilt.
  • Pagan paths often require learning how to sit with uncertainty rather than replacing one authority with another.

This isn’t easier.
It’s quieter.
And it asks more of the individual.

That backdrop matters, because it shapes how Paganism gets misunderstood, misrepresented, and framed as dangerous.


The “Pagan Threat” Narrative

One of the reasons Pagan Threat has gained attention and sparked controversy is not just its content, but whose voice it carries and how it’s framed at the outset.

  • The book was written by Pastor Lucas Miles, a senior director with Turning Point USA Faith and author of other conservative religious critiques. The project is positioned as a warning about what Miles sees as threats to the church and American society. The foreword was written by Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA. His introduction positions the book as urgent for Christians to read.

From there, the book makes a striking claim:

  • It describes Christianity as a religion of freedom, while framing Paganism as operating under a hive mind or collective groupthink.

A key problem is which Paganism the book is actually engaging.

  • The examples Miles focuses on overwhelmingly reflect liberal, online, or activist-adjacent Pagan spaces, particularly those aligned with progressive identity politics.
  • That narrow focus gets treated as representative of Paganism as a whole.
  • Conservative Pagans, reconstructionist traditions, land-based practices, and sovereignty-focused communities are largely ignored.

As a result, “wokeness” becomes a kind of explanatory shortcut.

  • Modern political anxieties get mapped onto Paganism.
  • Gender ideology, progressive activism, and left-leaning culture get blamed on an ancient and diverse spiritual category.
  • Paganism becomes a convenient container for everything the author already opposes.

We also talk openly about political realignment, and why neither of us fits cleanly into the right/left binary anymore. I raise the importance of actually understanding Queer Theory, rather than using “queer” as a vague identity umbrella.

To help visualize this, I reference a chart breaking down five tiers of the far left, which I’ll include here for listeners who want context.

Next, in our conversation, Sigrin explains why the groupthink accusation feels completely inverted to anyone who has actually practiced Paganism.

  • Pagan traditions lack central authority, universal doctrine, or an enforcement mechanism.
  • Diversity of belief isn’t a flaw. It’s a defining feature.
  • Pagan communities often openly disagree, practice differently, and resist uniformity by design.

The “hive mind” label ignores that reality and instead relies on a caricature built from a narrow and selective sample.

 “Trotter and Le Bon concluded that the group mind does not think in the restricted sense of the word. In place of thoughts, it has impulses, habits, and emotions. Lacking an independent mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader. This is one of the most firmly established principles of mass psychology.”  Propaganda by Edward L. Bernays

We contrast this with Christian systems that rely on shared creeds, orthodoxy, and social enforcement to maintain cohesion.

Accusations of groupthink, in that context, often function as projection from environments where conformity is tied to spiritual safety.

In those systems, agreement is often equated with faithfulness and deviation with danger.

Globalism, Centralization, and Historical Irony

We end the conversation by stepping back and looking at the bigger historical picture.

  • The book positions Christianity as the antidote to globalism.
  • At the same time, it advocates coordinated religious unification, political mobilization, and cultural enforcement.
  • That contradiction becomes hard to ignore once you zoom out historically.

Sigrin points out that pre-Christian Pagan worlds were not monolithic.

  • Ancient polytheist societies were highly localized.
  • City-states and regions had their own gods, rituals, myths, and customs.
  • Religious life varied widely from place to place, even within the same broader culture.

I reference The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey, which documents this diversity in detail.

  • Pagan societies weren’t unified under a single doctrine.
  • There was no universal creed to enforce across regions.
  • Difference wasn’t a problem to be solved. It was normal.

Christianity, by contrast, became one of the first truly globalizing religious systems.

  • A single truth claim.
  • A centralized authority structure.
  • A mandate to replace local traditions rather than coexist with them.

That history makes the book’s framing ironic.

  • Paganism gets labeled “globalist,” despite being inherently local and decentralized.
  • Christianity gets framed as anti-globalist, while proposing further consolidation of belief, power, and authority.

What This Is Actually About

This isn’t about attacking Christians as people.
And it’s not about defending Paganism as a brand.

It is a critique of how certain forms of Christianity function when belief hardens into certainty and certainty turns into control.

Fear-based religion and fear-based ideology share the same problem.
They promise safety.
They demand conformity.
And they struggle with humility.

That doesn’t describe every Christian.
But it does describe systems that rely on fear, surveillance, and moral enforcement to survive.

What I appreciate about this conversation is the reminder that spirituality doesn’t have to look like domination, hierarchy, or a battle plan.

It can be rooted. Local. Embodied.

It can ask something of you without erasing you.

And whether someone lands in Paganism, Christianity, or somewhere else entirely, the question isn’t “Which side are you on?”

It’s whether your beliefs make you more honest, more grounded, and more responsible for how you live.

That’s what I hope people sit with after listening.

Ways to Support Universal Pagan Temple 

Every bit of support helps keep the temple lights on, create more free content, and maintain our community altar. Thank you from the bottom of my heart! 

🖤
☕

 Buy me a coffee (one-time support)  
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/UniversalPaganTemple

💝

 Make a direct donation to the temple  
https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=6TMJ4KYHXB36U

🌟

 Become a Patreon/Subscribestar member (monthly perks & exclusive content)  
https://www.patreon.com/universalpagantemple
https://www.subscribestar.com/the-pagan-prepper

📜

 Join our Substack community (articles, rituals & updates)  
https://universalpagantemple.substack.com

🔮

 Book a Rune or Tarot reading (Etsy)  
https://www.etsy.com/shop/RunicGifts

📚

Grab our books on Amazon  
 •Wicca & Magick: Complete Beginner’s Guide  
https://www.amazon.com/Wicca-Magick-Complete-Beginners-Guide-ebook/dp/B019MZN8LQ

* Runes: Healing and Diet by Sigrún and Freya Aswynn
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FP25KH4#averageCustomerReviewsAnchor

• The Egyptian Gods and Goddesses for Beginners  
https://www.amazon.com/Egyptian-Gods-Goddesses-Beginners-Worshiping/dp/1537100092

Even just watching, liking, commenting, and sharing is a huge help!  
Blessed be 

🌀

Ponzinomics & Predatory Business Models

When “Trust the Process” Isn’t What It Seems

A Deep Dive into MLMs with Robert L. FitzPatrick

When I first joined a multi-level marketing company, it felt like destiny. Freedom. Empowerment. Community. So much so that I tattooed “trust the process” on my body as a daily reminder. But the deeper I got, the more I noticed the cracks: emotional manipulation, magical thinking, and an almost religious silencing of doubts.

If you missed last week’s episode here is the deep dive of my own experience.

That’s why I’m thrilled to share this week’s podcast interview with Robert L. FitzPatrick. Robert has been sounding the alarm on MLMs for decades, long before it was common to describe them as cult-like. He’s the author of Ponzinomics: The Untold Story of Multi-Level Marketing, co-author of False Profits, and a respected expert cited by the BBC, The New York Times, and courts alike. For years, he’s been giving people the tools (language, data, and perspective) to recognize MLMs for what they truly are: predatory business models, not opportunities.

Here is the image of the “Airplane Game” we reference in the interview

In this episode, we cover:

  • The Spark: Robert’s first encounter with a scam-like business in the 1980s, which pushed him into decades of research on MLMs and fraud—mirroring the way my own personal MLM experience prompted deep self-examination.
  • Why “Not All MLMs” Is a Myth: The business model itself is designed to funnel money upward, making it impossible for the vast majority to succeed, regardless of the company or product.
  • Puritan Theology & Prosperity: How old ideas linking wealth to virtue evolved into the prosperity gospel, and how MLMs exploit that mindset.
  • Cultural Hooks: From hustle culture to self-improvement mantras and spiritual undertones, MLMs borrow heavily from mainstream culture to recruit and retain followers.
  • Narrative Control: How pre-scripted objections, emotional manipulation, and silencing tactics maintain loyalty and block critical thinking—something I’ve noticed both in MLMs and high-control religious groups.
  • The Hard Numbers: Realistic odds of success are brutal—most recruits lose money, almost all quit within a year, and mandatory purchases like “Healthy Mind and Body” programs or the Isabody Challenge trap participants financially and emotionally.
  • Legality & Political Protection: If MLMs are fundamentally unfair, how are they still legal? And what protects them politically?
  • Beyond the MLM Mindset: MLMs don’t just drain your wallet—they reshape identities, fracture communities, and erode trust in yourself and others.

This conversation is essential for anyone curious about MLMs, whether you’ve been drawn into one, have friends or family involved, or are simply interested in understanding how these systems work under the surface. Robert’s insights give us not just the numbers, but the language and tools to recognize the scam and the courage to break free from it.

Tune in for an eye-opening conversation that goes beyond the hype and digs into the real human cost of MLMs.

Links 

rfitzpatrick@pyramidschemealert.org

www.pyramidschemealert.org

Twitter: @pyramidalert

FB: @ponzinomicsthebook

Further reading: 

•Goodbye FTC 

•Quiz: How Many MLMs Are There? 

•Institutional Support for Multi-Level Marketing in America Is Cracking

Taste0ftruth Tuesdays Previous blogs on MLMs: 

•The MLM Illusion: Selling a Dream or a Trap?

•Why MLMs Exploit Magical Thinking

•Uncover how MLMs and high-control religions exploit narratives to control and isolate you

•Lottery Odds vs MLM: Which Poses a Higher Financial Risk?

Previous Interviews:

Deconstructing Deception: MLMs, Exploitation & Online Influencers

From Serendipity to Scrutiny: The Truth Behind MLMs and Coercive Control

The Dark Side of Manifestation and MLMs

✨Let’s talk Manifestation & MLMs✨

In recent decades, the Law of Attraction has become one of the most influential belief systems in wellness, self-help, and multilevel marketing (MLM) circles. Its premise is seductively simple: your thoughts shape your reality. Think positively, and abundance will flow; dwell on negativity, and you’ll attract misfortune.

We have discussed the pitfalls of Law of attraction in a previous episode, you can find here.

🎙️ Another throwback episode is linked below, where I unpack my journey from wellness fanatic within MLM into a high-control religion. Together, we explore the wild “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline.” 🌿➡️🛑 social media, influencers, and wellness hype quietly nudge people toward extreme ideas, and in this episode, we break down exactly how. 🎧🔥

This modern doctrine of “mind over matter” is often traced to The Secret (2006) by Rhonda Byrne, but its genealogy is much older. It reaches back to New Thought philosophy of the 19th century, where figures like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Phineas Quimby, and later Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science) claimed that divine thought itself was the engine of reality. These Mind Cure and faith healing movements linked spirt and matter together. Disease, poverty, and suffering were seen as products of “wrong or stinking thinking.” Salvation was not just spiritual but cognitive: change your thinking, change your life.

and so again I say: It is shockingly right instead of shockingly wrong of you to be prosperous. Obviously, you cannot be very happy if you are poor and you need not be poor. It is a sin. –Catherine Ponder (The Dynamic Laws of Prosperity)

In fact, it is the search for spiritual healing of the body that led to what is known today as prosperity consciousness or in Christian evangelism, it’s prosperity theology.

That intellectual lineage matters because it shows how the Law of Attraction has always been more than a harmless pep talk. It represents a cosmology of control, one that locates all responsibility (and blame) within the individual mind. As we have discussed many times before, Jonathan Haidt observes in The Righteous Mind, belief systems serve a dual function: they bind communities together and blind them to alternative explanations.

In this sense, the Law of Attraction doesn’t just inspire positive thinking; it narrows. By framing success and failure as purely mental vibrations, it obscures structural realities like economic inequality, physical health and genetic limitations, racism, or corporate exploitation.

And that narrowing is precisely what makes it the perfect handmaiden to MLM culture.


When Positive Thinking Becomes a Business Model

Robert L. FitzPatrick, in False Profits and Ponzinomics, describes MLMs as “endless chain” recruitment schemes. What sustains them isn’t product sales but the constant influx of hopeful recruits. Yet these schemes require something more than numbers: they require belief.

Here, the Law of Attraction becomes the MLM’s best salesman. Distributors are told:

  • Failure isn’t about the structure of the business; it’s about your mindset.
  • Doubt is “negative energy” that will block your success.
  • Quitting is not just a business choice but a moral failing.

In the Amway training program, the “ABCs of Success” are “Attitude, Belief and Commitment.” Attitude was the key which must be guarded. Don’t let anyone steal your attitude. Negative was defined as “whatever influence weakens your belief and commitment in the business” -False Profits

This is where Norman Vincent Peale’s “positive thinking” gospel dovetails with MLM. In his 1948 book Positive Thinking for a Time Like This, Peale popularized the phrase

“Let go and let God. Let Him take over your life and run it. He knows how.”

While originally a call to spiritual surrender, the phrase has since been weaponized in countless contexts from Holiness movements to Alcoholics Anonymous to prosperity preaching. At its worst, it functions as a silencer: don’t question, don’t resist, don’t think critically. Just “let go,” and trust that outcomes (or uplines) will provide.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity has a word for this: prelest. It’s the belief that human beings are so easily deceived that any private sense of spiritual progress — a feeling of clarity, joy, empowerment, even a mystical experience — can’t be trusted on its own. Without humility and the guidance of a spiritual father, you’re told it may just be pride, delusion, or the devil in disguise.

That’s the trap: you can’t trust your own mind, heart, or gut. The only “safe” option is obedience to the system. Which is exactly how MLMs and other high-control groups operate — undermining self-trust to keep you dependent.

Nietzsche would have called this a kind of slave morality, a belief system that encourages resignation to suffering rather than rebellion against unjust structures. The Law of Attraction, framed in this way, doesn’t challenge MLM exploitation; it sanctifies it.

More powerful than any product, charismatic leader, or compensation plan, the MLM mindset materials (the tapes, courses, and “personal development” kits) are the prime tools used to recruit and control distributors. Once you’re in the system, you’re encouraged to buy these materials week after week, keeping you invested emotionally and financially while feeding the company’s bottom line.

I went back through my Facebook to find some goodies for you! 😜This photo says “My energy creates my reality. What I focus on is what I will Manifest.” Here is the original caption so you can hear how brainwashed I was. “💥🙌🏼Belief is a feeling of certainty about something, driven by emotion. Feeling certain means that it feels true to you and therefore it is your reality. 💥🙌🏼 💪🏼 What you focus on you find 💪🏼 👀 You’ve got to believe it, to see it 👀”

Flashback to my first corporate event Aug 2016. My upline purchased my flight basically forcing me to go.

My caption at the time: 🤮

🔥IGNITE YOUR VISION! 🔥
⚡Attended an event that changed my life. Showed me the massive vision of this company.
🤗Join our passionate, growing team of 18-35-year-olds striving for extraordinary lives and ownership of health, dreams, and contributions.
🤩Returning to this LIFE CHANGING event soon! Nashville, TN—let’s learn, grow, and celebrate!

Sounds inspiring, right? Except what they’re really selling is mandatory product purchases, endless hype, and a community that keeps you chasing the next status milestone. That “massive vision” isn’t about your health or dreams—it’s about the company’s bottom line.

Words like passionate, extraordinary, innovators, ownership are carefully chosen psychological nudges, making you feel like life itself is on the line if you’re not on board. And the countdown to the next “life-changing” event? Keeps you spending, attending, and emotionally hooked.

This is exactly what FitzPatrick calls out in Ponzinomics: the sales rep is the best customer. Only a tiny fraction of participants earn anything; the rest are paying to stay inspired.

More flashback images from my cult days….


The Psychological Toll

When these elements collide the New Thought inheritance of “mind over matter,” Peale’s positive thinking, religious community networks and MLM compensation plans… the result is a high-control environment dressed in empowerment language.

The outcomes are rarely empowering:

  • Blame and guilt when inevitable losses occur.
  • Anxiety from the demand to maintain “high vibrations.”
  • Suppression of doubt, lest skepticism be mistaken for weakness.
  • Financial harm disguised as personal failure.

In wellness communities, this logic extends beyond money. If essential oils don’t heal your illness, it’s because your mindset was wrong. If the diet doesn’t work, it’s because you didn’t “believe” enough. Structural realities (biology, medicine, inequality) are flattened into personal responsibility.

As Haidt warns, morality (and by extension ideology) can both bind and blind. The Law of Attraction, when paired with MLM, binds participants into a shared culture of hope and positivity while blinding them to exploitation.


Connecting the Dots: Bodybuilding, Metabolism & Team Isagenix

A couple weeks ago on the podcast, I shared about my bodybuilding years and the metabolic fallout I still live with today. I had forgotten how much of that season was actually entangled with my Isagenix obsession. My upline (the couple who enrolled me) were a part of Team Isagenix®, and I craved the validation of being “seen” as a successful athlete inside that community.

The requirements were brutal: placing in the top three of multiple competitions in a short span of time. So, between May 2017 and October 2018, I crammed in four shows in just 18 months. No off-season. No recovery. Just constant prep cycles. My metabolism never had a chance to stabilize, and I pushed myself past healthy limits. I wrecked my body and I’m still paying the price.

This is why I push back so hard when people insist that success is all about having a “positive enough” attitude to manifest it. My mindset was ironclad. What I lacked the conscious awareness that valued human health over recruitment and body image. That drive wasn’t just about stage lights and trophies. It was about proving my worth to an MLM culture that dangled prestige as the price of belonging. Team Isagenix® made the bar steep, and I was determined to clear it, no matter the cost.

And if you need proof of how deep this “mindset over matter” indoctrination goes, look no further than my old upline…now rebranded as a Manifestation Coach. Picture the classic boss-babe felt hat, paired with a website promising “signature mindset tools for rapid results.” According to her, if fear or doubt was “shrinking your dreams,” this was your moment to “flip it.” She name-drops 8-figure companies, influencers, and visionaries (the usual credibility glitter) while selling memberships, live events, and 7-day challenges.

It’s the same pitch recycled: your struggle isn’t systemic, it’s your mindset. If you’re not living your “life you truly love,” it’s because you haven’t invested enough in flipping the script (with her paid framework, of course). The MLM grind culture just got a new coat of “manifesting” paint.


🧠 Isagenix Programs & Their Psychological Impact

  • Healthy Mind and Body Program: A 60-day “mindset” initiative framed as holistic wellness. In practice, it ties product use to personal development, creating behavioral conditioning and binding members into a sense of shared identity and belonging. 🚩
  • IsaBody Challenge: A 16-week transformation contest requiring regular Isagenix product purchases. Completion comes with swag and vouchers; finalists are paraded as “success stories,” gamifying loyalty and dangling prestige as bait. The grand prize winner earns $25,000 but most participants earn only deeper entanglement. 🚩
  • Team Isagenix: Marketed as a prestige group for elite athletes with current national certifications, offering exclusivity and aspirational branding. This elevates certain members as “proof” of the products’ legitimacy, fueling both loyalty and recruitment. 🚩
  • Product Consumption: Isagenix requires 100 PV every 30 days just to remain “active.” This equates to about $150/month you HAVE to spend. On paper, bonuses and ranks promise unlimited potential. In reality, most associates struggle to recoup even their monthly product costs. Personal development rhetoric and community belonging often eclipse these financial realities, keeping participants cycling through hope, debt, and blame. 🚩

🤮🐦‍🔥 “Transform Your Life with Isagenix | Empowering Wellness and Wealth” 🐦‍🔥 🤮

Watch closely, because this is where the magic happens: the company paints a picture of limitless opportunity, but as Robert L. FitzPatrick lays out in Ponzinomics, the secret is that the sales rep is the best customer. That’s right… the real profits aren’t coming from your vague dreams of financial freedom; they’re coming from the people who are already buying the products and trying to climb the ranks.

The numbers don’t lie. According to Isagenix’s own disclosure: the overall average annual income for associates is $892. Among those who actually earned anything, the average jumps to $3,994. Do the math: $892 ÷ $3,994 ≈ 0.223 — meaning only about 22% of associates earn anything at all. The other 78%? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

And before you start fantasizing about that $3,994, remember: that’s before expenses. Let’s run a realistic scenario based on actual product spend:

  • $150/month on products or promotional materials = $1,800/year → net ≈ $2,194 − $1,800 = $1,194 before other costs.
  • Factor in travel, events, or socials? That $1,194 could easily drop to near zero…or negative.

The point: the so-called “income potential” evaporates fast when you account for the mandatory spending MLMs require. The only thing truly transformed is the company’s bottom line, not yours.

No wonder the comments are turned off.

Apparently, nobody actually crunches the numbers while the marketing spiel promises energy, strength, and vitality as if a shake could fix financial exploitation, metabolic burnout, and guilt-tripping at the same time.

My story is just one case study of how these tactics play out in real lives: I was recruited through trusted connections, emotionally manipulated with promises of transformation, pressured into relentless product use, and left with financial strain and long-lasting health consequences. That’s the “empowerment” MLMs sell and it’s why scrutiny matters.


Cultural Ecosystems That Enable MLMs


MLMs don’t operate in a vacuum. They flourish where belief structures already normalize submission to authority, truth-claims, and tightly networked communities. Evangelicals and the LDS Church provide striking examples: tight-knit congregations, missionary training in persuasion, and a cultural emphasis on self-reliance and communal obligation create fertile ground for recruitment.

Companies like Nu Skin, Young Living, doTERRA, and Melaleuca have disproportionately strong followings in Utah and among Mormon communities. FitzPatrick notes that MLMs thrive where trust networks and shared values make persuasion easier. The kind of environment where aspirational marketing and “prestige” teams can latch onto pre-existing social structures.

In short, it’s not just the products or the promises of positive thinking; it’s where belief, community, and culture all collide… that allows MLMs to hook people and keep them chasing elusive success.


Beyond Magical Thinking

The critique, then, is not of hope or positivity per se, but of weaponized optimism. When mantras like let go and let God or just thinking positive to manifest it are used to shut down discernment, discourage action, or excuse exploitation, they cease to be spiritual tools and become instruments of control.

Nietzsche challenged us to look beyond systems that sanctify passivity, urging instead a confrontation with reality even when it is brutal. FitzPatrick’s work extends this challenge to the world of commerce: if we truly care about empowerment, we must be willing to see how belief systems can be manipulated for profit.

That’s why MLMs and the Law of Attraction deserve scrutiny. Not because they promise too much, but because they redirect responsibility away from unjust structures and onto the very people they exploit.


Coming Up: A Deeper Dive

Next week on the podcast, I’ll be speaking with Robert L. FitzPatrick, author of False Profits and one of the world’s leading experts on MLMs. With decades of research, FitzPatrick has testified in court cases exposing fraudulent MLM schemes and helped unravel the mechanisms behind these multi-billion-dollar operations. He’s seen firsthand how MLMs manipulate culture, co-opt spirituality, and turn belief itself into a product.

Stay tuned. This is a conversation about more than scams, it’s about the machinery of belief, and how it shapes our lives in ways we rarely see.

Taste0ftruth Tuesdays Previous blogs on MLMs: 

•The MLM Illusion: Selling a Dream or a Trap?

•Why MLMs Exploit Magical Thinking

•Uncover how MLMs and high-control religions exploit narratives to control and isolate you

•Lottery Odds vs MLM: Which Poses a Higher Financial Risk?

Previous Interviews:

Deconstructing Deception: MLMs, Exploitation & Online Influencers

From Serendipity to Scrutiny: The Truth Behind MLMs and Coercive Control

References/Suggested Reading

  • Byrne, Rhonda. The Secret. New York: Atria Books, 2006.
  • Eddy, Mary Baker. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Boston: The Christian Science Publishing Society, 1875.
  • Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Edited by Brooks Atkinson. New York: Modern Library, 2000.
  • FitzPatrick, Robert L. False Profits: Seeking Financial and Spiritual Deliverance in Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Schemes. Charlotte, NC: Herald Press, 1997.
  • FitzPatrick, Robert L. Ponzinomics: The Untold Story of Multi-Level Marketing. Charlotte, NC: Skyhorse Publishing, 2020.
  • Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage Books, 2012.
  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Edited by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1989 (originally published 1887).
  • Peale, Norman Vincent. Positive Thinking for a Time Like This. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1948.
  • Quimby, Phineas P. The Quimby Manuscripts. Edited by Horatio W. Dresser. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1921.
  • Wallace, David Foster. “Consider the Lobster.” In Consider the Lobster and Other Essays. New York: Little, Brown, 2005. (Useful on consumer culture critique, if you want a modern edge.)

Tier by Tier: How the Left Radicalizes Its Own

A conversation with Karlyn Borysenko on why understanding the Left’s internal factions matters now more than ever.

Welcome back to Taste Test Thursday—my bonus series (or maybe just another excuse to drop a second episode mid-week 😉)

Prelude to Collapse: The War Within

Anti-ICE riots, open declarations of war, and the revolution you’re not supposed to notice….

Thanks for reading Taste of Truth! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Before we dive into today’s main topic, I have to share something with yall.

Here’s the tea you might have missed: Simone Biles, once the queen of female athleticism, just decided to throw female athletes under the bus. She went scorched-earth on Riley Gaines—a woman who had the nerve to say basic biology matters in sports.

Simone’s stance? Basically, “Step aside, ladies. Men who say they’re women get to play too. Deal with it.”

Yeah, that crushed a lot of dreams. Every young girl who looked up to Simone for grit and talent got served a big, ugly dose of woke betrayal instead.

But wait, the drama didn’t stop there. The comment sections exploded with some of the wildest, most ridiculous takes you’ll ever see:

People claimed things like:

  • “Trans women are actually weaker than cis women,” ignoring every major study, physiology, and real-world athletic results.
  • “You’re just obsessed with genitals,” as if biological reality is some kind of personal fetish.
  • “Stop bullying! Simone Biles was just being inclusive,” even though Simone personally attacked another female athlete and told her to “pick on someone your own size”—which was clearly a jab at men, flipping the narrative.
  • “Only one trans woman has ever medaled in the Olympics, and it was in a team sport,” using tiny sample sizes as “proof” while ignoring decades of male athletic advantage and the ongoing displacement of female athletes.
  • Claims that acknowledging biology is “bigotry” or “hate,” which is a classic deflection to avoid actual debate.

What’s striking is how none of this is about facts or fairness—it’s about protecting an ideology at all costs. That’s the Bulldozer at work: steamrolling science, reason, and women’s rights in the name of feelings and group loyalty.

This isn’t just about sports. It’s a microcosm of a larger, coordinated push to erase distinctions and rewrite reality. The same movement that’s burning flags, tearing down institutions, and pushing radical social change also demands that we deny biology and silence dissent.

If you think this sounds wild, it’s because it is.

And it’s happening everywhere.


In cities like Los Angeles, Austin, and New York, something is boiling over—but you won’t see it clearly if you rely on mainstream media. Violent riots outside ICE offices. Masked agitators throwing bricks and firebombs. American flags burned in the street while chants echo: No borders, no nations, no more deportations.

It’s not just civil unrest—it’s ideological warfare.

The Revolutionary Communists of America recently made it explicit. On their official channels, they didn’t just critique policy—they declared war on the United States. Not metaphorically. Not rhetorically. Literally.

For the radical left, capitalism isn’t just an economic system; it’s the system—the root of all oppression. The force that creates every hierarchy, every disparity, every injustice.

When they say systemic racism, they don’t mean individual prejudice or even discriminatory laws-they mean the entire capitalist structure that, in their view, was built to privilege some and exploit others.

And still, mainstream outlets call it “activism.”

These aren’t fringe events. They’re pressure points in a much larger movement: one that uses radical ideology to attack the very concept of law, order, and national identity. Immigration is just the entry wound. The deeper goal is to dissolve the nation-state, abolish prisons, defund police, and destabilize every Western institution—starting with the family, borders, and biological reality itself.

They want the system to burn.

They just want you to feel guilty for noticing.

This isn’t liberalism. It’s not even progressivism. It’s an ideological virus that blends Marxist collapse fantasies with postmodern identity theory—what some have rightly begun to call Queer Marxism. And it’s spreading, not through military coups or overt revolution, but through activist groups, academic institutions, union politics, and nonprofit networks.

We call it the Bulldozer.

Because it doesn’t just push for justice.

It erases categories, flattens distinctions, and leaves nothing but rubble behind.


🧭 Where This Started For Me

How the modern Left radicalizes through language, identity, and psychological control

Once upon a time, I considered myself a proud progressive. I believed in equality, compassion, and social justice—values I still hold. But over the years, I began to notice a shift: the language of empathy was being used to silence people. The banner of inclusion began to look more like a gatekeeping badge. The people preaching tolerance were often the least tolerant of dissent.

I entered the movement through the doorway of compassion. But I didn’t understand, at the time, that it led to a staircase. A funnel. Tier by tier, the path narrowed—not toward a better world, but toward radicalism. And once inside, the pressure to conform only grew stronger.

Today, much of what passes as “progressive” isn’t about progress at all. It’s about compliance. It’s about scripts. It’s about moral absolutism enforced by social shaming. What began as genuine concern for the marginalized has metastasized into an ideological machine—one that feeds on sincerity, weaponizes pain, and punishes nuance.

That’s why I’m excited to share this conversation with

Karlyn Borysenko, a voice that’s become indispensable in making sense of what’s really happening on the modern Left.

Karlyn is a bold, unapologetic critic of collectivist ideology. An organizational psychologist turned independent journalist, she brings sharp wit and deep psychological insight to her investigations. She’s not just analyzing theory from the outside—she’s been inside the radical inner circles. Through her work on Decode the Left, Karlyn infiltrates socialist and communist meetings, documents activist materials, and translates their coded language into something the average American can understand.

Her work has helped many—including me—see what’s been hiding in plain sight.

In our 30-minute interview, we discuss:

  • Her recent article: Democrats Are Not the Same as Communists. Know the Difference
  • What May Day organizing reveals about the Left’s summer strategy
  • How her infamous “Spy Streams” expose internal tactics and contradictions
  • Her book A Brief History of Racism, and why history matters more than ever now

But before we jump into that conversation, I want to lay a foundation. This post is both a companion and a continuation—an exploration of how well-meaning people get pulled into radical ideologies, how activism gets hijacked, and why naming this process matters.

The Bait: Branding with Virtue

Progressive branding thrives on moral urgency. It co-opts legitimate concerns—racism, sexism, homophobia—and repurposes them as litmus tests. Agree with our solutions or you’re the problem.

I began to question this during the rise of Black Lives Matter. But when I asked reasonable questions about BLM’s funding, its leadership, or its goals, I was told that even asking was racist. It wasn’t enough to be “not racist.” You had to be “anti-racist” in a very specific, approved way.

This wasn’t justice—it was dogma.


The Switch: From Inclusion to Compliance

At the same time, in the wellness and spiritual communities I trusted, I saw the language of healing twist into something coercive. Phrases like “decolonize your practice” and “center marginalized voices” began as invitations—but morphed into rules.

There was no room to push back. Questioning the narrative meant you were part of the problem. Even trauma healing became politicized. The very spaces meant for introspection and healing became echo chambers.

Instead of curiosity, we got shame. Instead of conversation, we got scripts.


The Funnel: Tier by Tier Toward Radicalism

Karlyn Borysenko’s framework Mapping the Modern Left helped make sense of something I had felt but couldn’t articulate: a tiered escalation of ideology.

From empathy to entropy: How ideological movements erase meaning and dissolve reality

The modern Left doesn’t just want change—it wants a revolution.

It isn’t about lifting up the marginalized. It’s about obliterating the boundaries that hold society together—gender, family, biology, even objective truth. In this worldview, distinction itself is oppression.

Gender is violence.
Borders are fascism.
The family is a cage.
Biology is a lie.
Truth is power, and power must be redistributed.

Language becomes fluid. Categories dissolve. Womanhood becomes a costume. Masculinity becomes pathology. Childhood becomes political property. “Liberation” now means detaching people from anything stable or inherited—be it tradition, biology, or even their own identity.

And all of this is done under a banner of inclusion.
This ideological bulldozer doesn’t advertise itself as destruction.
It wears a rainbow sticker and smiles.

But that rainbow is no longer just a symbol of tolerance. It’s become the uniform of a new moral order—one that does not believe in reforming society, but in erasing and rebuilding it from ideological rubble.

To understand how this happens, you need to understand the spectrum of the modern Left—and how it collapses into itself under the weight of its own ideology.

❝ Not all leftists are created equal. ❞
But they’re treated that way—by media, by educators, by corporations, and even by confused voters.

From Tier 1 (corporate Democrats) to Tier 5 (open revolutionary socialists), there is a clear progression:

  • The slogans get more radical.
  • The policies become less about reform and more about control.
  • The language of empathy becomes the weapon of erasure.

By the time you hit Tier 5, “equity” no longer means fairness—it means forced sameness.
“Liberation” no longer means freedom—it means obedience to the ideology.
“Compassion” no longer means understanding—it means submission to the narrative.

This is why it matters to draw clear distinctions between liberals, progressives, socialists, and revolutionaries.
Because the Bulldozer’s first move is to blur all those lines—until every rainbow flag, every DEI committee, every social justice curriculum becomes a Trojan Horse.


The Trojan Horse

Democratic Socialists and the slow march through institutions

Democratic Socialists don’t throw bricks—they shake hands, campaign politely, and quote Bernie Sanders. They reject the optics of violent revolution, but their endgame is the same: the death of capitalism, the toppling of “oppressive systems,” and the remaking of society through collective control.

Instead of storming the gates, they infiltrate. School boards, city councils, union leadership—they operate like ideological missionaries, cloaked in the language of reform. They speak of “economic justice,” “solidarity,” and “participatory democracy.” But behind the rebranded slogans is the same old Marxist blueprint: dismantle private property, weaken law enforcement, and centralize economic power under collectivist principles.

Strategy: Cultural subversion. Institutional capture.
Goal: Dismantle capitalism through political power and social engineering.
How They Show Up: Labor organizing, tenant unions, co-op movements, policy think tanks.

Example

A DSA-backed city council member campaigns on tenant rights and rent control. Once elected, they introduce proposals to defund the police, establish “people’s budgets,” and replace merit-based hiring with DEI quotas. All under the banner of “equity.”

Major Players

  • Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) – boasting over 90,000 members and growing influence in state legislatures.
  • Working Families Party – a political organization that cloaks socialism in populist rhetoric.
  • Jacobin Magazine – the glossy PR firm of soft socialism.
  • People’s Policy Project – crafting white papers that sanitize radical redistribution schemes.

These groups are the useful professionals. The respectable radicals. They are the bridge between normie liberals and revolutionary anarchists. And they often don’t even realize they’re playing that role.


The True Believers

When revolution is the only answer

Then there are the purists—the radicals who reject democratic socialism as too soft, too compromised. These are the revolutionaries who don’t want reform. They want collapse.

To them, every institution—from the police to the family to the very idea of gender—is a pillar of oppression. And those pillars must be burned to the ground.

Violence is not a last resort. It’s a moral imperative. They call it “direct action.” They organize online, use encrypted channels, and treat molotov cocktails like communion.

Strategy: Agitate. Destabilize. Destroy. Rebuild from ideological ashes.
Goal: Overthrow capitalism and traditional Western structures entirely.
How They Show Up: Riots, black bloc formations, propaganda zines, “mutual aid” front groups.

Example

The George Floyd riots were framed as peaceful protests, but cities burned, federal courthouses were firebombed, and police precincts were taken over.

This wasn’t protest. It was trial-run revolution.

Major Players

  • Revolutionary Communists of America – unflinching in their anti-Americanism and pro-collapse rhetoric.
  • Haymarket Books – publishing far-left literature on race, labor, and abolition.
  • Antifa – not a formal group, but a loosely affiliated movement of anarchists who believe violence is speech.
  • CrimethInc. – anarchist media collective advocating sabotage and social revolt.
  • It’s Going Down – a digital hub for anarchist propaganda and riot coordination.
  • Tempest Collective / Firebrand Collective / Pinko Magazine – pushing Marxist, intersectional, and abolitionist agendas under the radar.

These aren’t outliers. They set the moral tone for the entire activist ecosystem. Even mainstream liberals are afraid to publicly denounce them. Why? Because the language of revolution—phrases like “abolish the police” or “disrupt the nuclear family”—has already trickled downstream into the DEI statements of schools, nonprofits, and corporate HR departments.


Death by Distortion

What connects these factions—whether polite socialists or masked anarchists—is not just a hatred of capitalism, but a rejection of distinction itself.

They believe:

  • Truth is power
  • Gender is fiction
  • Biology is oppression
  • Order is violence

In their world, there is no such thing as “woman”—only a fluctuating identity to be claimed or discarded. There is no moral hierarchy—only power struggles between oppressors and the oppressed. There is no reality—only narrative.

And this matters, not just in theory, but in your everyday life:

  • Children are told they were “assigned” a gender.
  • Women’s sports and scholarships are being erased.
  • Therapists fear losing their licenses for affirming biology.
  • Teachers hide “gender transitions” from parents.
  • Pride parades feature kink, nudity, and communist banners.

This is what happens when Queer Theory and Marxist revolution combine: identity becomes a tool, the body becomes political, and all stable truths are dismantled in the name of liberation.

But what’s left after the bulldozer passes through?

Just rubble. Confusion.


A Chilling Parallel: Psychiatry, Eugenics, and Modern Control

We’ve been here before.

In the early 20th century, American psychiatry and genetics embraced eugenics. Under the banner of science and progress, they sterilized alcoholics, the disabled, the poor, and the “unfit.” The roots of Nazi atrocities were inspired, in part, by American policies.

What began as “science” became ideology. And then became tyranny.

Today, we see a similar pattern. Radical identity politics now overrides biological facts. Science is cherry-picked. Individual concerns are dismissed as bigotry. Dissent becomes dangerous.


A Political Religion

The modern Democratic Party doesn’t act like a political party—it functions like a religion.

Belief is required. Doubt is punished. Apostates are shunned.

Masculinity is vilified. Womanhood is politicized. Kids are taught that biology is bigotry. Therapists are scared to speak. Teachers walk on eggshells.

This isn’t about progress. It’s about power.


Real-World Consequences

  • Women’s sports are being erased.
  • Speech is being policed.
  • Gay conservatives are told they don’t count.
  • Pride Month has become a political litmus test.

Even Pride itself has been hijacked—from a movement for freedom into a vehicle for ideological conformity. As journalist Brad Polumbo put it: it’s not enough to be gay anymore—you must also be leftist.


Why I Speak Out

Some people assume I’ve “become conservative.” And maybe I have—at least compared to where I started. But to me, it’s not about labels. It’s about clarity. About being honest.

I still care about compassion, justice, and fairness. But I care about truth too. And truth doesn’t require threats.

I speak out because I’ve seen what ideological manipulation does to good people. I’ve seen friends shrink themselves, walking on eggshells, terrified to be seen as bigots.

I was there once. But I’m not anymore.


🎙️ Now, My Conversation with Karlyn Borysenko

This conversation is an eye-opener—especially if you’re just beginning to question what’s really going on behind the messaging.

Let’s get into it.

SOURCES

A Brief History of Racism – Kindle edition by Borysenko, Karlyn. Politics & Social Sciences

Karlyn Borysenko – YouTube

Democrats Are Not The Same As Communists. Know The Difference.

Her LATEST book! Debunking The Communist Manifesto: An Unapologetic Takedown of Marxist Nonsense – Kindle edition by Borysenko, Karlyn, Marx, Karl, Engels, Friedrich, Moore, Samuel. Politics & Social Sciences

BREAKING: Communist Group Declares War On America

I’m gay, but I’ll pass on Pride Month – Washington Examiner

Decode The Left with Karlyn Borysenko

What Intersectionality Means and Why Racism Means Private Property To The Left

The Deluded Brain: Why Control Feels Safe, Certainty Feels Holy, & Complexity Feels Threatening

Welcome to Taste Test Thursday! You know how online debates often turn into full-blown keyboard wars? People lash out with rage when their beliefs whether political, religious, or social are challenged. But why? What’s behind these intense, emotional responses?

What if it’s not just about bad ideas, but something deeper a brain imbalance? What if our need for certainty and addiction to outrage comes from the way our brains are wired to process the world?

Today we’re diving into the neuroscience behind these defensive reactions. We’ll see how the brain’s wiring for survival influences everything from ideological rigidity to emotional hijacking. We’re setting the stage for something important that we’ll explore this upcoming Tuesday how Complex PTSD and PTSD are NOT the same thing. This is an episode you won’t want to miss, especially if you’ve ever felt stuck in a cycle of intense emotional reactions that you just can’t control.

Let’s review something we’ve discussed before: Amygdala Hijacking. If you remember, the amygdala is a part of our brain that processes emotions like fear and anger. Now, when the amygdala gets triggered especially in stressful or traumatic situations it can completely bypass the more rational prefrontal cortex. This results in what we call an “emotional hijack,” where the brain goes straight into fight-or-flight mode often in situations that don’t actually require that level of reaction.

This kind of response helps explain why some people find comfort in fundamentalism.

“At its most basic, the allure of fundamentalism, whether religious or ideological, liberal or conservative, is that it provides an appealing order to things that are actually disorderly.”
— Peter Mountford The Dismal Science

That line hits at something crucial we have explored many times before: the human brain craves order, especially in the face of chaos. The illusion of control is one of our brain’s favorite coping mechanisms and when we find a system (religious, political, or otherwise) that delivers black-and-white certainty? You get a dopamine hit.

Rigid ideologies offer a tidy framework that feels safe and predictable especially in times of confusion, disillusionment, or personal crisis. That’s not just philosophy. That’s neurology.


When Chaos Was the Norm, Control Becomes a Coping Mechanism

For many of us, rigid beliefs aren’t just intellectual frameworks. They’re emotional survival strategies.

The need for control, the drive for perfection, the desire to be “good enough” to earn love these weren’t just quirks of personality. They were adaptations to childhoods where emotional needs weren’t met. And like many people who grew up in households marked by emotional neglect, those patterns shaped everything: our relationships, our careers, our bodies, and the ideologies we clung to.

Psychologists like Alice Miller and Elan Golomb have long noted how children raised in emotionally unavailable or narcissistic homes often create a false self a version of themselves designed to gain approval and avoid rejection.
It’s a blueprint that gets carried into adulthood, often unconsciously.

That’s why fundamentalist spaces feel so magnetic to people with childhood trauma. They offer:

  • Clear rules instead of emotional chaos
  • “Unconditional” love that’s actually highly conditional
  • A surrogate parent in the form of a deity or ideology that tells you who to be

Religious trauma often echoes family trauma—because it’s a new version of the same wound.


When Identity Is Built on Compliance

When a belief system rewards obedience over curiosity, it recreates the dynamics of an authoritarian household. You’re loved when you perform correctly. You belong when you don’t question. You’re “good” when you conform.

So what happens when you start to deconstruct?

The moment someone questions the “truth,” it’s perceived as a betrayal—not just of doctrine, but of identity and tribe. And that’s when we see:

  • Verbal attacks – Heretic. Traitor. Bigot.
  • Social ostracism – Canceled. Shunned. Ghosted.
  • Online harassment – Dogpiling and moral outrage.
  • Even physical aggression – History is full of examples, from witch hunts to ideological purges.

But this isn’t just about “bad actors.” It’s about brains shaped by fear.

When your childhood taught you that being wrong = being unloved, then someone challenging your beliefs doesn’t just feel uncomfortable it feels unsafe.
Disagreement triggers:

  • Cognitive dissonance – That gut-wrenching anxiety when facts don’t fit your worldview
  • Fear of consequences – Hellfire or public shaming
  • Loss of self – Because the belief was the identity
  • Loss of community – The people who “loved” you might now condemn you

The Brain’s Role in Certainty Addiction

Neuroscience adds another layer here—one that makes ideological rigidity more understandable, even if it’s not excusable.

Dr. Iain McGilchrist, in The Master and His Emissary, outlines how the brain’s left and right hemispheres don’t just process information differently—they perceive reality differently.

❌ Not: “Left brain = logic, Right brain = creativity.”
✅ But: “Left brain = control, categorization, and certainty. Right brain = context, relationship, and meaning.”

In a balanced brain, the right hemisphere leads—it sees the big picture, embraces nuance, and stays grounded in lived reality. The left hemisphere refines, classifies, and helps us act.

But modern culture has flipped the script. We’ve let the left hemisphere hijack our perception, reducing the complex to the manageable, the mysterious to the measurable. In this flipped hierarchy:

  • Ambiguity feels threatening
  • Context gets stripped away
  • Relationship is sacrificed for abstraction
  • And certainty becomes a kind of drug

That’s why ideological possession feels so safe. The left brain loves a clear system, even if it’s oppressive. It would rather be certain and wrong than uncertain and real.

So, when someone questions your belief, it’s not just inconvenient. It shatters the left brain’s illusion of control. And when that illusion is all, you’ve known since childhood, the reaction isn’t just intellectual-it’s existential. a threat.


When Belief Becomes Identity

Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, explains that we don’t arrive at beliefs through pure logic. We have moral intuitions quick, gut-level judgments and then our reasoning brain (usually the left hemisphere) steps in, not to find the truth, but to defend the tribe.

The moment someone questions our “truth,” we don’t hear it as a conversation—we hear it as an attack.

What happens next?

Verbal Attacks:
When someone questions a core belief, the response often isn’t curiosity—it’s insults, belittling, or outright contempt. In faith spaces, that might look like calling someone a heretic. In political spaces, it’s labels like traitor, bigot, or grifter.

Social Ostracism:
Both religious and political groups punish deviation. Doubters are canceled, excommunicated, or ghosted. Deconstruct your faith? You might lose your church community. Question political orthodoxy? You might lose friends—or your job.

Online Harassment:
The algorithm rewards outrage. Post a thoughtful question about a sacred ideology and you’ll get dogpiled. Our moral tastebuds, as Haidt would say, are being hijacked by dopamine-fueled tribalism.

Physical Aggression:
At the extremes, ideological certainty becomes dangerous. From holy wars to revolutions, the ugliest parts of history stem from one belief: we’re right, and they’re evil.


Why We React This Way: The Psychology of Threat

When beliefs are fused with identity, disagreement feels like annihilation. Especially when the community around us reinforces that fusion. Here’s the pattern:

  • Fear of Deviation: Questioning is framed as betrayal either spiritual or social.
  • Cognitive Dissonance: New ideas create discomfort, and doubling down feels safer than rethinking.
  • Fear of Consequences: From hellfire to being canceled, the cost of questioning is high.
  • Identity Threat: When belief equals self-worth, letting go feels like losing yourself.
  • Social Pressure: Communities often reward conformity and punish dissent.

This is where McGilchrist and Haidt align beautifully: one shows how the brain gets hijacked by the need for control, the other shows how morality binds us to our tribe and blinds us to complexity.


Make-Believe, Morality, and the Group

In our episode with Neil Van Leeuwen, author of Religion as Make-Believe, we unpacked another crucial insight: factual beliefs are flexible, but identity-based beliefs aren’t. They don’t require evidence. In fact, falsehoods often serve the group better because they signal loyalty, not logic.

This is why both sides of a political aisle can believe obviously contradictory things because the truth is secondary to belonging. And once we belong, we don’t think critically–we defend instinctively.


The Antidote: Intellectual Humility

The only way out is through a kind of self-aware disruption.

  • Open Dialogue: Spaces where disagreement isn’t punished—but explored.
  • Supportive Community: Groups that allow for doubt, evolution, and honest questioning.
  • Personal Reflection: A willingness to examine the stories we tell ourselves—and why we need them.
  • Interdisciplinary Curiosity: Instead of staying in one thought silo, we pull from neuroscience, sociology, philosophy, and lived experience.

Fundamentalism, at its core, is the elevation of certainty over curiosity. But healing, freedom, and truth? They live on the other side of that certainty.


So, what’s one belief you once clung to tightly only to realize it wasn’t the whole truth?

Let’s talk about it in the comments.

And remember:

Maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in. 🎙️🔒
We’re not here to worship reason or reject it.
We’re here to see more clearly.

Sources:

  1. Dr. Iain McGilchrist – Left and Right Hemisphere Functions
    McGilchrist, Iain. The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. Yale University Press, 2009.
  2. Alice Miller – Emotional Neglect and the False Self
    Miller, Alice. The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self. Basic Books, 1997.
  3. Elan Golomb – Narcissistic Parenting and Emotional Consequences
    Golomb, Elan. Trapped in the Mirror: Adult Children of Narcissists in Their Struggle for Self. William Morrow, 1992.
  1. Neil Van Leeuwen – Religious Trauma and Belief Systems
    Van Leeuwen, Neil. Religion as Make-Believe: The Religious Imagination and the Design of the World. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
  2. Jonathan Haidt – Moral Psychology and Group Loyalty
    Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon Books, 2012.

The Ideological Capture of Mental Health: A Whistleblower’s Story

How ‘Decolonizing Healing’ Became a Weapon of Social Engineering

The other week in our episode, Escaping One Cult, Joining Another? The Trap of Ideological Echo Chambers—When ‘Cult Recovery’ Looks a Lot Like a New Cult, I first introduced this idea: people leave high-control religion thinking they’ve found freedom, only to land in another rigid belief system.

And today, we’re diving even deeper.

Why does this happen?

Because humans are tribal.

Political scientists have long found that our opinions are shaped more by group identity than by rational self-interest. As Jonathan Haidt explains in The Righteous Mind, politics is deeply tribal—we’re hardwired to align with groups, not necessarily because they offer truth, but because they provide belonging.

As I’ve been navigating the deconstruction, ex-Christian, ex-cult communities, I’ve noticed for many, the radical progressive left becomes their new “safe” community, offering a clear moral hierarchy—oppressed vs. oppressor, privileged vs. marginalized. It mirrors what they once found in their faith.

But here’s the problem: the partisan brain, already trained in “us vs. them” thinking, doesn’t become freer—it simply finds a new orthodoxy.

John McWhorter has argued that woke ideology functions like a religion:

  • Instead of original sin, there’s privilege, marking some people as morally compromised from birth.
  • Instead of prayer, there’s public confession of biases and activism as penance.
  • Instead of heaven, there’s a utopia achieved through systemic change.

This framework offers a sense of moral clarity and belonging—but like any fundamentalist movement, it cannot tolerate dissent. As McWhorter warns,

“What we’re seeing isn’t a quest for justice but a demand for unquestioning orthodoxy.”

And that’s why so much of the deconstruction space looks less like healing and more like indoctrination.

“Systemic racism.” “Oppression.” “Intersectionality.”

These words dominate the language of social justice activism, but what do they actually mean? If you take them at face value, you might think they’re about fighting discrimination or ensuring equal opportunity.

But if you really listen—if you really follow the ideology to its core—it all comes back to one thing: capitalism.

For the radical left, capitalism isn’t just an economic system; it’s the system—the root of all oppression. The force that creates every hierarchy, every disparity, every injustice.

When they say systemic racism, they don’t mean individual prejudice or even discriminatory laws—they mean the entire capitalist structure that, in their view, was built to privilege some and exploit others.

And here’s the part that’s honestly exhausting—watching the same deconstruction folks preach about “decolonizing healing” and “Christian nationalism” in the same breath while pushing trauma support for religious survivors—all while being knee-deep in Critical Race Theory.

It’s one thing to acknowledge past harms. But this ideology just piles on more depression and anxiety without offering real solutions.

Let’s get real: this isn’t healing. It’s more of the same toxic division and victimhood—repackaged as activism.

And if you think I’m exaggerating, just listen to this clip from my interview last season with the founder of Tears of Eden, a nonprofit supporting survivor of spiritual abuse:

Katherine Spearing: (Timestamp 4:32)
“Now, like, one of the things that I have committed to—who knows how long it will last—I don’t listen to white men. Like, I don’t listen to white men’s podcasts, I don’t listen to white men on TV, white men sermons, I don’t read white men’s books, and I miss ZERO things by not listening to white men. There is amazing material created by BIPOC, queer-identifying people, women—I miss ZERO things not listening to white men. And we, as a culture—especially in fundamentalist spaces—have platformed white men as voices of authority and trust.”

Now let’s take Nikki G. Speaks, who also works with Tears of Eden. Her book frames Christian nationalism as the root of systemic oppression, defining it in a way that casts anyone with conservative values or moral convictions as complicit. And it’s not just an argument—it’s being packaged as trauma recovery. Just look at how it’s marketed:

“Hearing the same controlling language in our laws that I heard in church feels like a step backward in my healing.” “It’s like my trauma has left the church and entered our government—it’s a reminder of how pervasive these beliefs can be.”

This isn’t about healing—it’s about turning political disagreement into personal trauma. And this is just one example of how therapy spaces are being used to enforce ideology rather than foster true recovery.

Let that sink in.

This is what is being promoted under the guise of “healing.”

This isn’t about liberation. It’s about swapping one dogma for another, one form of control for another. And the worst part?

It’s being fed to people who have already been deeply wounded, offering them more alienation and resentment instead of real recovery.

This is where intersectionality comes in.

Coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in the 1980s, intersectionality originally described how different forms of discrimination—race, gender, class—could compound. But in the hands of modern activists, it’s become something much broader—a blueprint for how capitalism oppresses everyone.

Race? Capitalism’s fault.
Gender? A hierarchy created by capitalism.
Policing? A tool of capitalism to protect property and maintain order.
Disability? Even that, they argue, is socially constructed through a capitalist framework that determines who is “productive” and who isn’t.

The goal isn’t reform—it’s destruction. Private property, free markets, law enforcement, even objective truth itself—everything is viewed as an extension of capitalism’s oppressive grip. And because the U.S. Constitution protects that system, it too is labeled a racist, colonialist document that must be overturned.

This is why, no matter what progress is made, America will always be deemed a racist society by those who see racism and capitalism as inextricably linked. And if you think this sounds extreme, just wait—because the next frontier, Queer Marxism, takes it even further. This emerging ideology argues that capitalism didn’t just create economic classes but created gender itself. That masculinity and femininity aren’t just cultural norms, but capitalist inventions designed to uphold oppression.

The radical goal? Not just to redefine gender—but to abolish it entirely.

Today, I’m joined by someone who saw this ideology take over firsthand.

Suzannah Alexander is the writer behind Diogenes in Exile and a self-described whistleblower. Her journey took a sharp turn when she returned to grad school to pursue a master’s in clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. Instead of a rigorous academic environment, she found a program completely entrenched in Critical Theories—one that didn’t just push radical ideas but actively rejected her Buddhist practice and raised serious ethical concerns about how future therapists were being trained. Believing the curriculum would do more harm than good, she made the difficult decision to leave.

Since then, Suzannah has dedicated herself to investigating and exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way.

Today, we’re pulling back the curtain on what’s really happening in academia and the mental health field—how radical ideologies are shaping the next generation of therapists, and what that means for all of us.

This isn’t just about politics.

This is about the fundamental reshaping of how we think about identity, human nature, and even reality itself.

Buckle up—this conversation is going to challenge some assumptions.

Let’s get into it.


The ‘Shell Game’ of Autonomy vs. Collectivism

In the counseling profession, the ACA (American Counseling Association) Code of Ethics emphasizes autonomy as a fundamental value. Counselors are meant to respect the autonomy of their clients, allowing them to make decisions based on their own needs, values, and beliefs. However, there’s a disturbing contradiction in the way this value is applied.

Suzannah points out a glaring issue: while the ACA Code of Ethics pushes for autonomy on an individual level, the broader agenda within counselor training increasingly prioritizes societal goals—often driven by collectivist ideologies—over the well-being of the individual client. She likens this contradiction to a “shell game,” where one thing (autonomy) is promised, but what you get is something entirely different: an emphasis on societal goals and moral frameworks that favor groupthink over personal decision-making.

From Competence to Conformity: The New Standard for Counselor Training

In Suzannah’s story, she highlights how counseling programs have made a troubling shift from evaluating students based on competence—their ability to effectively help clients—to assessing whether they’re willing to “confess, comply, and conform.” This process, Suzannah describes, is what she terms “ideological purification.”

This ideological purification isn’t about developing professional skill; it’s about enforcing a prescribed set of beliefs. Under the influence of CACREP (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs) standards, students are now pressured to align their personal values and beliefs with certain ideological standards. For Suzannah, this was most evident in how multicultural counseling courses and other required coursework increasingly centered around critical race theory, intersectionality, and social justice activism.

Suzannah asks: How can this ideological shift affect students who resist, and what happens when they’re coerced into aligning with values that aren’t their own?

The danger here is twofold: students who resist this ideological conditioning may find themselves marginalized, pushed out of programs, or forced into an uncomfortable position where they feel pressured to abandon their own beliefs. This, Suzannah argues, creates a chilling atmosphere for anyone who doesn’t conform to the prescribed worldview.

Ideological Purity in Counselor Training: What’s at Stake?

Suzannah’s personal experience with CACREP’s “dispositions” exemplifies the pressure to align personal beliefs with ideological standards. She shares that this led to her being placed on a “Support Plan”—essentially a probationary period where she was expected to prove her ideological compliance. This was compounded by verbal abuse from professors who seemed intent on forcing her to adopt a specific worldview, regardless of her personal or professional integrity.

Suzannah reflects: How did this ideological enforcement affect her professional integrity? The pressure to abandon her personal beliefs and adopt prescribed values made her question whether counseling, a field that should center around helping individuals find their own path, had become more about enforcing conformity than fostering autonomy.

The Impact of Ideological Capture on Effective Therapy

Suzannah’s concerns go beyond her own experience; she warns of the long-term consequences of this ideological capture on the broader counseling profession. As the training process increasingly focuses on ideological purity rather than competence, it undermines the very foundation of therapy—trust, autonomy, and the ability to genuinely help clients.

Suzannah argues that when counselor training programs force students to abandon their personal beliefs, they create a system where the ability to genuinely help clients is compromised. Counselors may find themselves unable to offer support that reflects the true diversity of their clients’ experiences—particularly those who may not share the same ideological framework. This ideological conditioning poses a real threat to the integrity of the counseling profession as a whole.

The Long-Term Consequences: A Dangerous Path

The future of the counseling profession, as Suzannah warns, is in jeopardy if this trend of ideological conformity continues. What once was a field designed to support individuals in navigating their personal struggles is at risk of becoming another ideological tool, where practitioners are forced to conform to an orthodoxy rather than providing true, individualized care.

As Suzannah explains, the core values of counseling—such as autonomy, respect for the individual, and the ability to help clients work through their unique experiences—are being overshadowed by an agenda that prioritizes ideological purity. If this trend continues, it may lead to a future where counselors are more concerned with political correctness than the well-being of their clients.

The Final Question: Is Healing Possible in This New Environment?

Suzannah’s story raises critical questions about the future of counseling and mental health support in an increasingly ideological landscape. How do counselors maintain their professional integrity in a system that demands conformity? How can clients receive true support when the professionals meant to help them are being trained under such an ideological framework?

The answers to these questions will shape the future of mental health care. If the trend of ideological capture continues, it may very well reshape the profession into something unrecognizable—an environment where therapy becomes just another vehicle for ideological control, rather than a space for healing and personal growth.


Have thoughts on this? Join the conversation! If you’ve experienced the impact of ideological conformity in mental health training or therapy, share your story in the comments or send us a message. The more we understand the forces shaping mental health care, the better equipped we are to fight for a future where autonomy and true healing are at the center of care.

Links:

Further Reading