Category: history

Posted on in americanpolitics, beautystandards, beliefs, Bible, biblicalworldview, bodyimage, capitalism, challenges, childcare, children'srights, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, churchharm, civilrights, coercivecontrol, deconstruction, exchristian, faith, freedom, friendship, genderideology, historicalfigures, history, medicalconsequences, mental health, misinformation, nuance, podcast, politics, progressiveleft, progressives, radicalfeminism, religion, sexindustry, sexwork, socialjustice, theology, trump, womenssuffrage, worldview

The Real Handmaid’s Tale Isn’t in America

Between Liberation and Collapse: Why We Need to Talk About the Middle Path

Welcome back to Taste Test Thursdays, where we explore health, culture, belief, and everything in between. I’m your host, Megan Leigh and today, we’re asking a question that’s bound to make someone uncomfortable:

What if the very institutions we tore down as oppressive… were also protecting us?

We live in a time of extremes. On one side, you’ve got Quiverfull-style fundamentalists preaching hyper-fertility and wifely submission like it’s the only antidote to modern decay. On the other, we’ve got a postmodern buffet of “do what you want, gender is a vibe, all structures are violence.”

And if you’re like me—having navigated the high-control religion pipeline but also come out the other side—you might be wondering…

“Wait… does anyone believe in guardrails anymore?”

Because spoiler: freedom without form becomes chaos. And chaos isn’t empowering. It’s destabilizing.

I truly believe that structure and boundaries can actually serve a purpose—especially when it comes to sex, gender, and human flourishing.

This isn’t a call to go backward. It’s a call to pause, zoom out, and ask: what’s been lost in our so-called progress? Let’s dig in.

The Panic Playbook

This past summer, the media went full apocalyptic. You couldn’t scroll, stream, or tune in without hearing it: Christian nationalism is taking over. Project 2025 is a fascist manifesto. Trump is a theocratic threat to democracy itself. The narrative was everywhere—breathless Substacks, viral TikToks, and cable news countdowns to Gilead.

But while progressives were busy hallucinating handmaids and framing every Republican vote as the end of America, they were also helping cover up the biggest political scandal since Watergate: Biden’s cognitive decline.

This blog isn’t a right-wing defense or a leftist takedown. It’s a wake-up call. Because authoritarian creep doesn’t wear just one team’s jersey. If we’re serious about resisting tyranny, we need to stop fearmongering about theocracy and start interrogating the power grabs happening under our own banners—especially the ones cloaked in compassion, inclusion, and “equity.”

Not All “Christian Nationalism” Is the Same—Let’s Break It Down

The term “nationalism” gets thrown around a lot, but it actually has different meanings:

🔸 1. The Theocratic Extreme
This is the version everyone fears—and with good reason.

  • Belief: Government should follow biblical law.
  • Goal: A Christian theocracy where dissent is treated as rebellion.
  • Associated with: Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, and groups hostile to pluralism.
    📍 Reality: This is fringe. Most evangelicals don’t support this, but it’s the go-to boogeyman in media and deconstruction circles.

🔸 2. Civic or Cultural Nationalism
More common, less scary.

  • Belief: Shared culture—language, customs, even religion—can create unity.
  • Goal: Strong national identity and cohesion, not exclusion.
  • Seen in: France’s secularism, Japan’s cultural pride, and even Fourth of July BBQs.
    📍 Reality: This is where most “Christian nationalists” actually land. They believe in the U.S.’s Christian roots and want to preserve those values—not enforce a theocracy.

🔸 3. Patriotism (Often Mislabeled as Nationalism)
Here’s where it gets absurd.

  • Belief: Loving your country and its traditions.
  • Goal: A moral, thriving republic.
    📍 Reality: Critics lump this in with extremism to discredit conservatives, centrists, or people of faith.

Why It Matters

Lumping everyone—from flag-waving moderates to dominionist hardliners—into one “Christian nationalist” category fuels moral panic. It shuts down real dialogue and replaces nuance with hysteria.

You can:

✅ Love your country
✅ Value strong families
✅ Want morality in public life

…without wanting a theocracy.

Let’s Define the Terms Critics Confuse:

  • Dominionism: A fringe movement pushing for Christian control of civic life. Exists, but not mainstream.
  • Quiverfull: Ultra-niche belief in having as many kids as possible for religious reasons. Rare and extreme.
  • Christian Nationalism: Belief that the U.S. has a Christian identity that should shape culture and law. Vague, often misapplied.

And What It Isn’t:

  • Pro-natalism: A global concern over falling birth rates—not just a religious thing.
  • Conservative Feminism: Belief in empowerment through family and tradition. Dismissing it as brainwashing is anti-feminist.
  • Family Values: Often demonized, but for many, it just means prioritizing marriage, kids, and legacy.

Not all traditionalism is fascism.
Not all progressivism is liberation.
Let’s keep the conversation honest.

Hillary’s “Handmaid” Moment

Hilary Clinton🎧 “Well, first of all, don’t be a handmaiden to the patriarchy. Which kind of eliminates every woman on the other side of the aisle, except for very few. First, we have to get there, and it is obviously so much harder than it should be. So, if a woman runs who I think would be a good president, as I thought Kamala Harris would be, and as I knew I would be, I will support that woman.”

This quote from Hillary Clinton caused predictable outrage—but what’s more disturbing than the clip is the sentiment behind it.

In one breath, she managed to dismiss millions of women—mothers, caretakers, homemakers, conservative politicians, religious traditionalists—as unwitting slaves to male domination. Clinton doesn’t leave room for the idea that a woman might freely choose to prioritize home, faith, or family—not because she’s brainwashed, but because she’s pragmatic, thoughtful, and in tune with her own values.

To Clinton, there’s one legitimate type of woman in politics: the woman who governs like Hillary Clinton.

This framework—that conservative, traditional, or religious women are “handmaidens”—isn’t new. It’s a familiar talking point in progressive circles. And lately, it’s been weaponized even more boldly, as Clinton revealed in another recent statement:

“…blatant effort to basically send a message, most exemplified by Vance and Musk and others, that, you know, what we really need from you women are more children. And what that really means is you should go back to doing what you were born to do, which is to produce more children. So this is another performance about concerns they allegedly have for family life. Return to the family, the nuclear family. Return to being a Christian nation. Return to, you know, producing a lot of children, which is sort of odd because the people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants and they want to deport them, so none of this adds up.”

This is where modern feminism loses its plot. If liberation only counts when women make certain kinds of choices, it’s not about freedom then.

The Pro-Natalism Panic—and the Projection Problem

🎧 “Although the Quiverfull formal life isn’t necessarily being preached, many of the underlying theological and practical assumptions are elevated… and now, you know, they’re in the White House.”
– Emily Hunter McGowin, guest on In the Church Library podcast with Kelsey Kramer McGinnis and Marissa Franks Burt

There’s a subtle but dangerous trend happening in the deconstruction space: lumping all traditional Christian views of family into the Quiverfull/Dominionist bucket.

In a recent episode of In the Church Library, the hosts and guest reflected on the rise of pro-natalist ideas and Christian influence in politics. Marissa asks whether the ideology behind the Quiverfull movement might be getting a new rebrand—and Emily responds with what sounds like a chilling observation: echoes of that movement are now in the White House.

But let’s pause.

❗ The Quiverfull movement is real—but it’s fringe. It’s not representative of all evangelicals, conservatives, or even Christian pro-family thinking.

Yet increasingly, any policy or belief that values marriage, child-rearing, or generational stability gets painted with that same extremist brush. This is where projection replaces analysis.

Take J.D. Vance, often scapegoated in these conversations. He’s frequently accused of trying to turn America into Gilead—even though he has three children, supports working-class families, and hasn’t once called for a theocracy. His concern? America’s birthrate is in freefall.

That’s not theocracy. That’s math.

Pro-natalism isn’t about forcing women to give birth. It’s about grappling with a demographic time bomb. Countries like South Korea, Hungary, and Italy are facing societal collapse because too few people are having children. This isn’t moral panic—it’s math.

Even secular thinkers are sounding the alarm:

Lyman Stone, an economist and demographer, emphasizes: “Lower fertility rates are harbingers of lower economic growth, less innovation, less entrepreneurship, a weakened global position, any number of factors… But for me, the thing I worry about most is just disappointment. That is a society where most people grow old alone with little family around them, even though they wanted a family.”

Paul Morland, a British demographer, warns: “We’ve never seen anything like this kind of population decline before. The Black Death wiped out perhaps a third of Europe, but we’ve never seen an inverted population pyramid like the one we have today. I can’t see a way out of this beyond the supposedly crazy notion that people should try to have more kids.”

We have to be able to separate structure from subjugation. There’s a world of difference between saying “families matter” and forcing women into barefoot-and-pregnant obedience.

When we flatten every traditional idea into a fundamentalist threat, we not only lose clarity—we alienate people who are genuinely seeking meaning, stability, and community in a fragmented culture.

If we want to be intellectually honest, we must distinguish:

  • Extremism vs. Order
  • Oppression vs. Structure
  • Religious Tyranny vs. Social Cohesion

And we should probably stop pretending that every road leads to the Handmaid’s Tale.

Protective Powers: What Louise Perry and Joan Brumberg Reveal About Institutions

Let’s talk about The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry. Perry is a secular feminist. She’s not nostalgic for 1950s housewife culture—but she is asking: what did we actually get from the sexual revolution?

Here’s her mic-drop:

“The new sexual culture didn’t liberate women. It just asked them to participate in their own objectification with a smile.”

We built an entire culture around the idea that as long as it’s consensual, it’s empowering. But Perry argues that consent—without wisdom, without boundaries, without institutional protection—leaves women wide open to harm.

She points to:

  • Porn culture
  • Casual hookups
  • The normalization of sexual aggression and coercion in dating

These aren’t signs of liberation—they’re signs of a society that privatized female suffering and told us to smile through it.

Perry doesn’t say “go full tradwife.” But she does say maybe marriage, sexual restraint, and even modesty functioned as protective constraints—not just patriarchal tools of oppression.

We traded one form of pressure (be pure, stay home) for another (be hot, work hard, never need a man). Neither version asked what women actually want.

Now flip over to The Body Project by Joan Jacobs Brumberg. This one blew my mind.

She traces how, a century ago, girls were taught to cultivate inner character: honesty, kindness, self-control.

By the late 20th century? That inner moral development had been replaced by bodily self-surveillance: thigh gaps, clear skin, flat stomachs. Girls now focus on looking good, not being good.

She writes:

“The body has become the primary expression of self for teenage girls.”

Think about that. We went from teaching virtue to teaching girls how to market themselves. We told them they were free—and then handed them Instagram and said, “Good luck.”

So again, maybe some of those “oppressive” structures were also serving as cultural scaffolding. Not perfect. Not painless. But they gave young people—especially girls—a script that wasn’t just: “Be hot, be available, and don’t catch feelings.”

Brumberg isn’t saying go back to corsets and courtship. But she is saying we’ve lost our moral imagination. We gave up teaching self-restraint and purpose and replaced it with branding. With body projects. And now we wonder why depression and anxiety are through the roof??

We dive deeper into these subjects in these two podcasts:

From Diary Entries to Digital Screens: How Beauty Ideals and Sexualization Have Transformed Over Time
Consent Isn’t Enough: The Harsh Truth About “Sex Work”

Why the Fear Feels Real—And Why It’s Still Misguided

Look, I get it.

If you’ve escaped religious trauma, purity culture, or spiritual abuse, the sight of a political figure talking about motherhood as a virtue can feel like a threat. Your nervous system registers it as a return to oppression. The media confirms your panic. And suddenly, a call for demographic survival starts sounding like a demand for forced birth.

But your trauma doesn’t make every policy that triggers you authoritarian. It just means you need to slow down and check the data.

Because ironically, the real threats to bodily autonomy and family structure? They might not be coming from traditionalists at all.

🏛 The Progressive Power Grab You’re Not Supposed to Question

Another frustrating comment made by Kelsey Kramer McGinnis in a recent podcast was the need to “decenter nuclear families” and the dismissal of concerns about an “attack on nuclear families” as mere panic. But here’s the thing—this fear isn’t fabricated. It’s not fringe. It’s rooted in observable cultural trends and policy shifts. You can’t just wave it away with smug academic detachment.

Whether you support the traditional family structure or not, the erosion of it has real consequences—especially for children, social stability, and intergenerational resilience. Calling that out isn’t fearmongering. It’s an invitation to discuss the stakes honestly.

Let’s set the record straight: The desire to shape culture, laws, and education systems is not the sole domain of religious conservatives. Dominionist Christians aren’t the only ones with blueprints for a theocratic society. Progressive activists also seek to remake the world in their image—one institution at a time.

This isn’t a right-wing “whataboutism.” It’s an honest observation about how ideological movements—regardless of political lean—operate when they gain influence.

Let’s take a look at what this looks like on both ends of the spectrum:

🏛 Dominionism (Far-Right Christian Nationalism)

Core Belief: Christians are mandated by God to bring every area of life—government, education, business—under biblical authority.

Tactics:

  • Homeschool curricula promoting biblical literalism and creationism.
  • Campaigns for Christian prayer in public schools or Ten Commandments monuments in courthouses.
  • Promoting the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and must return to those roots.
  • Electing openly Christian lawmakers with the explicit goal of reshaping law and public policy to reflect “biblical values.”
  • Supporting the Quiverfull movement, which encourages large families to “outbreed the left” and raise up “arrows for God’s army.”

📘 Progressive Institutional Capture (Far-Left Activism)

Core Belief: Society must be dismantled and rebuilt to eliminate systemic oppression, centering race, gender, and identity as primary moral lenses.

Tactics:

  • Embedding DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) frameworks into public schools, universities, and corporate policy.
  • Redefining gender and sex in school curricula while often sidelining parental input or community values.
  • Elevating “lived experience” over objective standards in hiring, curriculum design, and academic research.
  • Weaponizing social media and institutional policies to punish dissenting views (labeling them as “harmful,” “unsafe,” or “hateful”).
  • Using activist lingo to obscure government overreach (“gender-affirming care” vs. irreversible medical intervention for minors).

🔄 Shared Behaviors: The Race to Capture Institutions

Despite their stark differences in values, both dominionists and far-left activists behave in eerily similar ways:

  • They seek cultural dominance through schools, law, media, and public policy.
  • They view their moral framework as not just legitimate but necessary for a just society.
  • They suppress dissent by pathologizing disagreement—branding critics as “anti-Christian,” “bigoted,” “transphobic,” “groomers,” or “domestic extremists.”

The battleground is no longer just the ballot box. It’s the school board meeting. The state legislature. The HR department. The university curriculum. The TikTok algorithm.

Colorado’s HB25-1312 — The “Kelly Loving Act”

Signed in May 2025, this law expands protections for transgender individuals. Fine on the surface. But here’s the fine print:

  • It redefines coercive control to include misgendering and deadnaming.
  • In custody cases, a parent who refuses to affirm a child’s gender identity could now be framed as abusive—even if that child is a minor in the midst of rapid-onset gender dysphoria.

Is it protecting kids? Or is it using identity to override parental rights?

Washington State’s HB 1296

This bill guts the Parents’ Bill of Rights (which was approved by voters via Initiative 2081). It:

  • Eliminates mandatory parental access to children’s health records (including mental health).
  • Enshrines gender identity and sexual orientation in a new “Student Bill of Rights.”
  • Allows state-level monitoring of school boards that don’t comply.

And the cherry on top? It was passed with an emergency clause so it would take effect immediately, bypassing normal legislative scrutiny.

This isn’t some abstract culture war. These are real laws, passed in real states, stripping real parents of their authority.

A Marxist Framework Masquerading as Compassion

Some of these changes echo critical theory more than constitutional liberty.

Historically, Marxist and Maoist ideologies viewed the family unit as an oppressive structure that needed dismantling. Parental authority was often seen as an extension of capitalist control. In its place? State-affirmed loyalty, reeducation, and ideological uniformity.

Now, it’s not happening with red stars and gulags—it’s happening through rainbow flags and DEI seminars. But the power dynamics are the same:

The family becomes secondary to the state.
Dissent becomes dangerous.
Disagreement becomes “violence.”

This is how authoritarianism creeps in—wrapped in the language of safety and inclusion.

What Real Theocracy Looks Like

If you need a reality check, read Yasmine Mohammed’s Unveiled. Raised in a fundamentalist Muslim home, where women had no autonomy, no basic rights, and no freedom. She was forced into hijab at age 9, married off to an al-Qaeda operative, and beaten for asking questions. Women cannot see a doctor without a male guardian, they are forced to cover every inch of their bodies and are denied access to education and even the right to drive. That’s theocracy. That is TRUE oppression.

Now contrast that with the freedom that women enjoy in the West today. In modern America, women have more rights and freedoms than at any point in history. Women can run around naked at Pride parades, express their sexuality however they choose, and redefine what it means to be a woman altogether. The very idea of a “dystopia” here is laughable when we consider the actual freedom women in the West enjoy.

Yet, despite these freedoms, many liberal women still cry oppression. They whine about having to pay for their student loans, birth control or endure debates over abortion restrictions. This level of cognitive dissonance—claiming victimhood while living in unprecedented freedom—is a slap in the face to women who actually suffer under real patriarchal oppression.

What’s even more Orwellian is how the left, in its quest for inclusivity and justice, is actively stripping others of their freedoms. They preach about fighting for freedom of speech while canceling anyone who disagrees with them. They claim to be champions of equality while weaponizing institutions to enforce ideological conformity.

Bottom line: If you think Elon Musk tweeting about birth rates is the same as what Yasmine went through? You’ve lost perspective.

To revisit my conversation with Yasmine:

Women, Terror, and Freedom: How the West Enables Radical Ideologies

Fear Isn’t Feminism

If your feminism can’t handle dissent, it was never liberation—it was just a prettier cage.

We have to stop mistaking fear for wisdom. We have to stop confusing criticism with violence. And we absolutely must stop handing our power over to ideologies that infantilize us in the name of compassion.

Let’s be clear: Gilead isn’t coming. But if we’re not careful, something just as destructive might.

A world where parents are powerless.
Where biology is negotiable but ideology is law.
Where compliance is the only virtue, and questions are a crime.

The Courage to Be Honest

What I’m suggesting isn’t fashionable. It doesn’t fit neatly in a progressive or conservative box. But I’m tired of those boxes.

I’ve lived in Portland’s secular utopia and inside a high-control religious environment. I’ve seen how each side distorts truth in the name of “freedom” or “righteousness.”

But what if true liberation is found in the tension between the two?

The most revolutionary thing we can do today is refuse to become an extremist.

Not because we’re afraid.
Not because we’re fence-sitters.
But because we believe there’s a better way—one that honors the past without being imprisoned by it and faces the future with clear eyes and moral courage.

Maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in. 🎙️🔒

— Megan Leigh

📚 Source List for Blog Post

1. Hillary Clinton Quotes

  • Quote 1 (on being a “handmaiden to the patriarchy”):
    [Reference: “Defending Democracy” podcast with historian Heather Cox Richardson, May 2024]
    No official transcript published — you’re using a direct audio clip for this one.
  • Quote 2 (on pro-natalism and immigration):
    [Source: Same podcast — “Defending Democracy” with Heather Cox Richardson, 2024]
    Partial reference via The Independent article

2. Louise Perry

3. Mary Harrington

4. Demographer Paul Morland

5. Lyman Stone

6. Dominionism & Quiverfull Movement

7. Recent Legislation Affecting Parental Rights

Posted on in americandieteticassociation, bigfood, bigpharma, biology, brainfog, brainhealth, calories, carbs, chronichealth, diet, dietculture, digestion, disorderedeating, ellenGwhite, farming, fatloss, fitness, fitnessjourney, guthealth, health, history, holistic health, hormones, industrialinfluence, influencers, metabolism, nuance, nutrition, nutritionadvice, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, science, weightloss, wellness

Move More, Eat Less? The Lie That Won’t Die

The Fatal Flaws of Calories In Calories Out and the Metabolism Model That Could Change Everything

Alright, let’s talk about the four most useless words in the history of weight loss advice: ‘Just eat less, move more.’ You’ve heard it, I’ve heard it, and if this phrase actually worked the way people think it does, we wouldn’t have skyrocketing rates of obesity, metabolic dysfunction, and entire industries built around yo-yo dieting. But here’s the kicker—it sounds logical. Simple math, right? Calories in, calories out. Except the human body is not a bank account; it’s a biological orchestra, and the way we process energy is more like a symphony than a spreadsheet.

We’ve already tackled the oversimplified calorie-counting dogma in our Science Dogma episode, and we’ve explored how perception alone—like believing a milkshake is ‘indulgent’—can literally alter our hormonal response. That’s not woo-woo, that’s science. But today, we’re going deeper. Because beyond the CICO model, beyond the calorie obsession, there’s a much bigger, messier, and more fascinating reality about metabolism, obesity, and why diet advice keeps failing people.

And I know what some of you might be thinking—‘But Megan, are you saying calories don’t matter?’ No. I’m saying they don’t tell the whole story. The way we eat, when we eat, why we eat, our hormones, stress levels, metabolic adaptations, even our past dieting history—all of it plays into how our body responds to food.

So as we close out Season 3 of Taste of Truth Tuesday, I want to leave you with something foundational. Not another diet trend. Not another oversimplified soundbite. But a real, nuanced conversation about what actually influences metabolism, weight loss, and why some of the most popular strategies—like keto, intermittent fasting, and calorie counting—work for some people but absolutely wreck others.

And here’s the disclaimer—I’m not an advocate for low-carb dieting in general, especially as someone who’s recovered from disordered eating. But my guest today? He eats low-carb and keto. And here’s what I respect—he’s not dogmatic about it. He understands that the real answer to health and weight loss isn’t found in any one-size-fits-all approach. It’s about bio-individuality.

So grab your coffee, take a deep breath, and get ready to rethink everything you thought you knew about metabolism. Let’s do this.

The calorie, as a unit of measurement, has a fascinating history that ties directly into the calories in, calories out (CICO) debate. While many assume the calorie has always been the standard for measuring food energy, its adoption in nutrition is relatively recent and shaped by shifts in scientific understanding, industry influence, and public health narratives.

The Origin of the Calorie

The concept of the calorie originated in physics, not nutrition. In the early 19th century, Nicolas Clément, a French chemist, introduced the term calorie as a measure of heat energy. By the late 1800s, scientists like Wilbur Olin Atwater adapted this concept to human metabolism, conducting bomb calorimeter experiments to determine how much energy food provided when burned. Atwater’s Physiological Fuel Values established the foundation for modern caloric values assigned to macronutrients (fat = 9 kcal/g, carbohydrates and protein = 4 kcal/g, alcohol = 7 kcal/g).

The Rise of Caloric Nutrition

By the early 20th century, calories became central to dietary guidelines, especially in public health efforts to address malnutrition. During both World Wars, governments used calorie counts to ration food efficiently. However, as food abundance grew, the focus shifted from ensuring sufficient calorie intake to preventing excess, paving the way for weight-focused dietary interventions.

CICO and the Simplification of Weight Loss

The calories in, calories out model became dominant in the mid-20th century, driven by research showing that weight loss or gain depended on energy balance. The First Law of Thermodynamics—energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed—was applied to human metabolism, reinforcing the idea that a calorie surplus leads to weight gain and a deficit to weight loss.

This framework became the foundation of mainstream diet advice, but it often overlooked complexities such as:

  • Hormonal influences (e.g., insulin, leptin, ghrelin)
  • Metabolic adaptation (how bodies adjust to calorie deficits)
  • The thermic effect of food (protein takes more energy to digest than fat or carbs)
  • Gut microbiome effects on calorie absorption
  • Psychological and behavioral aspects of eating

Criticism and the Evolution of the Debate

By the late 20th century, challenges to strict CICO thinking emerged. Researchers in endocrinology and metabolism, such as Dr. Robert Lustig and Dr. David Ludwig, highlighted that not all calories affect the body in the same way—insulin regulation, macronutrient composition, and food quality play crucial roles.

Low-carb and ketogenic diet advocates argued that carbohydrate restriction, not just calorie restriction, was key to weight management due to its impact on insulin and fat storage.

I personally think, it’s not just carbs or calories doing this. There are at least 42 factors that impact blood sugar and metabolism. This is something I’ve worked to educate my audience on for years. Carbs are just one piece of the puzzle. Stress, sleep, gut microbiome, meal timing, inflammation, hormonal balance—all of these influence the body’s metabolic “terrain.”

Where Are We Now?

Today, the calorie remains a useful measure, but the conversation has expanded beyond simple energy balance. Researchers acknowledge that while calories matter, factors like food quality, hormonal responses, and individual metabolic differences significantly impact how the body processes energy. The debate now leans toward a more nuanced view.

Now, let’s talk about why this matters.

Today, I’m joined by Adam Kosloff, an author and researcher who isn’t afraid to challenge conventional wisdom—especially when it comes to obesity and metabolism. A Substack post of his, A Righteous Assault on the Absolute Worst Idea in the History of Science, takes a sledgehammer to the dominant ‘calories in, calories out’ model, aka Move More, Eat Less? The Lie That Won’t Die, arguing that our understanding of fat storage is fundamentally broken. Instead, he presents a revolutionary new framework—the Farmer Model—that redefines how we think about metabolism, obesity, and weight loss.

For years, the dominant narrative around weight loss has been depressingly simple: “move more, eat less.” This slogan has been drilled into us by dietitians, doctors, and fitness gurus as if it were an unshakable law of physics. But if it were that simple, why has metabolic disease skyrocketed despite more people tracking their calories and increasing exercise?

Adam challenges the traditional CICO (calories in, calories out) model, not just by saying it’s wrong, but by arguing it is catastrophically misleading. His Farmer Model reframes obesity and metabolic dysfunction as a landscape issue rather than a simple calorie balance equation.

Think of your metabolism like farmland. The most obvious disruptor might be “acid rain”—high-carb, sweet, ultra-processed foods that erode the topsoil, flood the land, and cause metabolic damage (fat storage, inflammation, insulin spikes). But not all disruptions look like a storm.

Sometimes, the changes are more insidious. Maybe those daily lattes weren’t a flood but a subtle shift in the terrain, like over-fertilizing a field. Too much of a good thing, whether dairy proteins or artificial sweeteners, can nudge the metabolic landscape in a way that leads to dysfunction over time.

And here’s the kicker: It’s not just carbs or calories doing this. There are at least 42 factors that impact blood sugar and metabolism. This is something I’ve worked to educate my audience on for years. Carbs are just one piece of the puzzle. Stress, sleep, gut microbiome, meal timing, inflammation, hormonal balance—all of these influence the body’s metabolic “terrain.”

Adam’s latest Substack post, 10 Smackdowns That Lay Waste to CICO, was an absolute banger. The line “Gaze upon these arguments, ye mighty gym bros, and despair…” had me cackling. But beyond the sass, the research was rock solid. In our conversation, we break down some of the most devastating smackdowns against CICO and discuss which ones tend to make the most die-hard calorie counters short-circuit.

The takeaway? The “move more, eat less” doctrine is outdated and incomplete. It’s time for a more sophisticated conversation about metabolism that acknowledges the complexity of the human body rather than reducing it to a basic math equation.

LINKS

Science or Stagnation? The Risk of Unquestioned Paradigms – The first episode we challenged calories in, calories out (CICO) & mention Germ theory vs Terrain theory

The Farmer vs. The Banker

10 Smackdowns that lay waste to CICO

3 Times I Gained Weight on Keto

Gary Taubes Substack articles

Emotional Hijacks & Nutritional Hacks: Unveiling the🧠Amygdala’s Secrets ⁠

The Dissolution of the Nutrition Science Initiative

Obesity and Starvation Found Together

The Influence of Religious Movements on Nutrition

Why Challenging Beliefs Feels Like a Personal Attack—And Why It Shouldn’t

The Biggest Loser Study-The metabolic consequences of extreme dieting & the weight gain rebound effect

Posted on in AI, americanpolitics, beautystandards, beliefs, bigpharma, billionaires, biology, bodyimage, challenges, children'srights, civilrights, coercivecontrol, cults, deconstruction, genderideology, health, historicalfigures, history, hormones, industrialinfluence, influencers, manipulation, medicalconsequences, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, misinformation, nuance, pharmaceuticalcompanies, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, scams, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, technology, transhumanism, trump, wellness

From ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’: The Ideological Capture of Biology and the War on Reality

Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Today, we’re diving into a topic I’ve wanted to explore for a while now. Earlier this month, I came across a writer on Substack who posted something that really struck me. In his piece, he used dehumanizing language ‘assigned female at birth’. While his intention may have been to be inclusive, I found it to be exclusive and downright misogynistic.

It reminded me of back in 2021, I had a few people reach out to me on Instagram, pointing out that we had shifted from using the term ‘women’ to ‘AFAB’—’assigned female at birth.’ My gut reaction was intense—what the hell is going on here? It also reminds me of when I was living in Portland, I was constantly stressed, seeking external validation, and lacked the courage to speak up against gender ideology around 2013-2015. Little did I know, it would eventually take over the world.

Now, we’re going to dive into the consequences of transgenderism and its impact on children. And here’s the thing: I’m no longer afraid of being canceled or ridiculed. Honestly, I’ve already lost all my friends. But at this point, I’ve come to appreciate who I am, and standing for truth in today’s world has never been more important. It’s worth every consequence.

How We Got Here—The Origins of Gender Ideology

To understand how we went from recognizing biological sex as reality to debating whether we can even say the word “women” in medical journals, we have to look at where gender ideology came from.

This whole mess started with psychologist John Money in the 1950s. He was one of the first people to separate “gender” from “sex,” arguing that gender was a social construct, independent of biology. Expanding on John Money’s experiments is crucial because they expose the disturbing origins of gender ideology. Money, a psychologist and sexologist, was instrumental in pushing the idea that gender identity is entirely socially constructed, separate from biological sex. However, his most infamous experiment—the case of David Reimer—reveals the dark and unethical foundation of this belief system.

David Reimer was born male, alongside his identical twin brother, Brian. After a botched circumcision, Money convinced his parents to raise David as a girl, “Brenda,” after undergoing surgery and hormone treatments. Money believed this would prove that gender identity was purely a matter of socialization. However, David never truly identified as female. He struggled with severe psychological distress, eventually rejecting the imposed identity in his teenage years and transitioning back to male. His twin brother Brian also suffered severe emotional distress, and both tragically died by suicide in their 30s—a devastating consequence of Money’s reckless experiment.

The nature vs. nurture debate is at the heart of this issue. Money’s work attempted to prove that nurture—socialization and upbringing—could completely override biological sex. Yet, the failure of the Reimer case demonstrated the opposite: biology plays an undeniable role in identity and development. Attempts to force individuals into gender identities that contradict their biology often lead to severe psychological distress.

While John Money championed the idea that gender was purely a social construct, his ideological opponent, Dr. Milton Diamond, spent decades proving otherwise. Diamond, a biologist and sexologist, conducted extensive research showing that biological sex has an innate influence on identity. He exposed the flaws in Money’s work, particularly the David Reimer case, and argued that forcing an identity contrary to one’s biology leads to immense suffering. Diamond’s work underscored the importance of acknowledging biological sex while still allowing for individual gender expression—a stance completely at odds with today’s gender ideology, which seeks to erase biological realities altogether.

Intersex conditions are often misused as a justification for erasing sex-based distinctions. While intersex individuals exist, they make up a small fraction of the population and do not negate the binary nature of human sexual reproduction. Most intersex conditions result in variations of male or female biology, not a third sex. Using intersex as a reason to eliminate sex-based language ultimately harms both intersex and non-intersex individuals by denying the reality of biological differences.

Beyond David Reimer’s case, Money’s broader work was filled with moral controversies. His therapy sessions with young children were highly controversial and ethically disturbing by today’s standards. He conducted what he called “sexual rehearsal therapy,” which involved encouraging children to engage in sexual activities with their parents or siblings as a form of treatment for various psychological issues.

These sessions were intended to help children overcome sexual anxieties or developmental disorders, but they often crossed serious ethical boundaries and caused significant harm to the children involved. The lack of informed consent, the inappropriate nature of the activities, and the potential for long-term psychological damage have led to widespread criticism of Money’s methods.

Despite this, Money’s ideas laid the foundation for modern gender ideology. His theories, though discredited by cases like David Reimer’s, were absorbed into academia and later expanded upon by activists. The result? A cultural shift where subjective identity is prioritized over biological reality, and dissent is often met with backlash.

Understanding the origins of gender ideology is crucial because it reveals the shaky foundation upon which these ideas were built. Science, ethics, and real-world consequences all point to the same conclusion: biology matters, and attempts to erase it come at a significant human cost.

His theories were later expanded by Judith Butler in the ‘90s, who pushed the idea that gender is performative and entirely detached from biology. This philosophy has now morphed into the idea that sex itself is a “social construct.”

The Trans Flag’s Creator: A Window into Gender Ideology’s Evolution

Monica Helms, born Robert Hogge, designed the trans🏳️‍⚧️ pride flag in 1999.

Genevieve Gluck wrote in Reduxx Magizine:

According to researcher Dr. Sarah Goode, CEO of StopSO (Specialist Treatment Organization for the Prevention of Sexual Offending), pedophiles who organize online have developed their own culture, language, and symbols. One common symbol used in pedophile forums incorporates the colors baby blue, pink and white. In her lecture, ‘Hidden Knowledge: What We Ought to Know About Pedophiles,’ Dr. Goode shows a slide of the image, and says, “The pink half represents ‘girl lovers’ and the blue half represents ‘boy lovers.’”

The color code system appears to predate the initial design of the transgender flag and can be traced back to at least as early as 1997, according to online pro-pedophile forums.

Areas in Europe that advertise child trafficking to pedophile sex tourists have used the color code: “blue curtains mean a boy child prostitute and pink curtains a girl.”

It is unclear whether Helms was aware of this correlation at the time, but when discussing the symbolism behind the trans flag in an interview in 2017, Helms stated that blue represented young boys and pink represented young girls.

Whatever the case may be, his personal history and writings reveal disturbing patterns that echo the unsettling dynamics of gender ideology we’ve seen in figures like Dr. John Money. Helms, who now identifies as a woman, has long been involved in controversial and fetishistic behaviors, even writing “forced feminization” and erotic short stories. His writings include disturbing themes, such as the sexualization of minors, notably in a short story where a man marries a young girl who ages slowly, reflecting a disturbing fantasy that came to him in a dream.

In his memoir, More Than Just a Flag, Helms describes his “bigender” identity, as an “enlightened” being who floats between multiple identities, switching from male to female, sometimes simultaneously, or in an instant. He recalls times of experimentation, especially as an adult, where he would wear clothing inappropriate for his age and faced consequences for doing so at work.

Adding a deeply unsettling layer to the conversation, Helms, who was 70 at the time in 2022, made headlines by claiming to have changed his age to 25. Given the logic behind these transformations, this age shift sparked a viral conversation, with some commenters pointing out that his partner, Darlene Darlington Wagner, would now be “just 16 years old.” This raises questions about how fluid identity could extend beyond gender and into age.

As gender ideology increasingly became intertwined with political movements, it found its way into the mainstream, especially within the Democratic Party. Initially, intellectual discussions around gender began with French philosophers whose ideas about the body, power, and identity influenced later iterations of gender theory. But these complex theories have since been stripped of their nuance and rebranded into a political dogma that now dominates much of the left-leaning discourse.

The Democratic Party, which once championed civil rights and social justice, now finds itself navigating a fine line between advocating for freedom and accommodating forces that seek to change the very definition of identity itself. But at what cost? The more corporate interests and industries gain traction in shaping these ideologies, the more the left’s original values of anti-corporate resistance become a distant memory.

Which brings us to today’s nightmare.

From Fringe Theory to Political Dogma—How Gender Ideology Took Over the Democratic Party

How did academic theorizing become an institutionalized belief system within mainstream politics, particularly in the Democratic Party? This transformation happened through several key developments:

  1. The Rise of Queer Theory in Academia – Universities became breeding grounds for gender ideology throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Gender studies departments, influenced by postmodernist philosophy, framed gender as entirely fluid, rejecting biological sex distinctions. As students trained in these theories graduated and took positions in media, education, and activism, they carried these ideas into broader society.
  2. Institutional Capture and Activism – Activist organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began pushing gender ideology into corporate policies, legal frameworks, and public schools. Their influence, combined with the rapid spread of social media, helped mainstream these concepts far beyond the academic world.
  3. Legal and Policy Shifts – Under the Obama administration, gender ideology gained political traction, particularly through Title IX reinterpretations that mandated schools to accommodate self-declared gender identities. This was further expanded under the Biden administration, with policies requiring federally funded institutions to adopt gender-affirming policies in sports, healthcare, and education. Let’s talk about the hilarious double standards around the billionaires funding the LGBT movement. We’ve all seen the left melting down over the influence of billionaires—except, of course, when those billionaires are funding agendas they support. An article from First Things calls out some of the big names behind the LGBT movement, and guess what? It’s showcases this massive contradiction.
  4. Big Tech and Media Reinforcement – Social media platforms, major news outlets, and entertainment industries began actively promoting gender ideology while censoring dissenting views. This created a cultural environment where questioning gender ideology was framed as hateful or bigoted, further entrenching it within left-wing politics.
  5. The Redefinition of Civil Rights – Transgender identity was increasingly framed as the next major civil rights frontier, equating sex-based protections with racial and disability rights. This shifted the Democratic Party’s platform to fully embrace gender ideology, making skepticism or critique politically unacceptable within mainstream liberal discourse.

The Shift from ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’—Erasing Women for Ideology

So why has the term “women” been replaced with “AFAB” (Assigned Female At Birth)? The justification is that saying “women” is “exclusionary” to trans-identified females. But in reality, it’s deeply misogynistic.

Jennifer Bilek, in her Dispatches from the 11th Hour essays, has done incredible work exposing how gender ideology isn’t some organic civil rights movement—it’s a well-funded social engineering project backed by billionaires and biotech companies. She points out that this linguistic shift isn’t just about “inclusion.” It’s about destabilizing categories of sex for the benefit of corporate and medical industries.

When you erase the words “women” or “woman,” you erase women’s ability to advocate for their needs. You make it harder to talk about female-specific health issues. And you make it easier for policies to prioritize ideology over science.

The Medical and Scientific Consequences of Erasing Sex

This isn’t just an abstract cultural issue. It has real, dangerous consequences for medicine and science.

Historically, women have been excluded from medical research—for decades, studies were conducted almost exclusively on male subjects, and the results were assumed to apply to women. The problem? Women are not small men. We have different hormonal cycles, different metabolic rates, and different responses to medications.

Here are just a few examples of how ignoring biological sex in medicine harms women:

  • Heart disease: Women’s symptoms are different from men’s, and because most research was done on men, women are more likely to be misdiagnosed.
  • ACL injuries: Women are at a significantly higher risk due to differences in hip structure and ligament laxity, yet training protocols are still modeled on male athletes.
  • Medication dosages: Women metabolize drugs differently, but dosages are often tested on male bodies, leading to overdoses or ineffective treatments for women.

In 2016, the NIH finally mandated that women be included in medical research, a huge step forward. But now, under gender ideology, we’re reversing that progress by saying we can’t acknowledge sex at all.

If we replace “women’s health” with “AFAB health,” how do we effectively study and treat female-specific conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, or pregnancy-related complications?

We don’t. Because that’s the point.

The Connection Between Transgenderism and Transhumanism

As the journalist, Stella Morabito, has written:

“Transgenderism is a vehicle for state power and censorship.”

It is tyranny dressed up in the clothes of what has become the carcass of the progressive left and it seeks absolute power and control over humanity and nature.

This is where things get dark.

Jennifer Bilek and other researchers have pointed out how gender ideology is just one arm of a larger movement: transhumanism—the belief that humanity should merge with technology, that our bodies are “obsolete,” and that we should ultimately move beyond biology altogether.

Think about what the transgender movement pushes:

  • The idea that our bodies are wrong and need to be medically altered
  • A reliance on synthetic hormones for life
  • The normalization of body modification to fit identity over reality

Now zoom out: Who benefits from this ideology? Pharmaceutical companies. The same billionaires pushing trans activism are also deeply invested in AI, biotech, and synthetic biology.

Oligarchs on both the political right like Peter Thiel and on the left like Jeff Bezos. JD Vance is the co-founder of Narya Capital and invested in Amplied Bio which has announced a strategic partnership RNAV8 to support MRNA therapeutic developers. Even MAHA’s hero RFK Jr has invested in Crispr technology. Financially disclosers released in Jan 2025 reveal he holds invested in Crispr therapeutics which specialists in gene editing technologies, as well as Dragon Fly Therapeutics which focuses on immunotherapies. So, despite his history of expressing concerns against gene-editing therapy. He did state he would divest from these companies if confirmed secretary of HHS. So, Mr. Secretary, we are keeping eyes on you. 👀

I haven’t even mentioned of Elon Musk with NeuraLink and who knows what else that guy has planned. I am a big fan of DODGE and the exposure of the corruption, YET I definitely keep a skeptical eye on him as well.

The goal is not just to let people “live as their authentic selves.” The goal is to dissolve sex-based reality entirely, making people dependent on medical interventions for life. This isn’t liberation—it’s medical enslavement.

Brave New World Revisited: The Synthetic Creation of Culture

Earlier this year I read Huxley’s Brave New World, and it didn’t read as fiction, it read as he had a crystal ball into the future. In his dystopia, human reproduction was industrialized, the family unit was obsolete, and people were engineered for compliance under the guise of “progress.” Sound familiar? The push for synthetic reproduction, the erasure of sex-based identity, and the growing narrative that biology itself is a problem all mirror Huxley’s warning.

Jennifer Bilek exposes how transhumanism is the real endgame. The same corporate interests promoting gender ideology are also pioneering artificial wombs, genetically modified embryos, and bioengineered organ harvesting. This is a world where human beings are no longer conceived but manufactured. Where the natural, biological family is replaced by state-sanctioned, lab-grown “life.”

Huxley warned us about a future where people would love their servitude—where the loss of freedom would be reframed as liberation. That future is unfolding now. The question is: Are we resisting dehumanization, or are we embracing it under a new name?

The Erasure of Women Illustration by Greg Groesch

Fighting Back Against the Erasure of Women

So what do we do?

  1. Refuse to comply with ideological language. Women are women—not AFABs.
  2. Call out the erasure of sex in medicine and policy. We must advocate for sex-based language in healthcare.
  3. Expose the billionaires funding this movement. This is not grassroots activism—it’s top-down social engineering.

The fight to protect reality isn’t just about ideology. It’s about protecting women, safeguarding science, and ensuring future generations don’t grow up in a world where “female” is a forbidden word.

Sources:

Posted on in americanpolitics, beliefs, Bible, biblicalworldview, christianfaith, coercivecontrol, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, exchristian, faith, historicalfigures, history, manipulation, misinformation, nervous system, neuroplasticity, nuance, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, religion, resilence, self-help, selfcompassion, socialmedia, stress, stressresilence, theology, worldview

Reclaiming Critical Thinking in an Age of Narrative Warfare

How Media Manipulation and Pseudo-Intellectualism Are Undermining Independent Thought

In today’s episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays, I sit down with Franklin O’Kanu, also known as The Alchemik Pharmacist, to unpack one of the most pressing issues of our time: the erosion of critical thinking. Franklin, founder of Unorthodoxy, brings a unique perspective that bridges science, spirituality, and philosophy. Together, we explore how media narratives, pseudo-intellectualism, and societal conditioning have trained people to ignore their inner “Divine BS meter” and simply accept what they’re told.

The Death of Critical Thinking

As Franklin points out, we’ve lost the ability to thoughtfully absorb and analyze information. The past few years have conditioned individuals to disregard anything that doesn’t align with mainstream sources, experts, or consensus. Instead of engaging with information critically, many have been taught to dismiss it outright. The result? A culture that values conformity over curiosity and blind acceptance over intellectual rigor.

We discuss how this shift has been accelerated by media bombardment, especially during the pandemic. The New York Times even published an article on critical thinking, but instead of encouraging intellectual engagement, it suggested that questioning mainstream narratives is dangerous. This is narrative warfare at its finest—manipulating public perception to ensure that only “approved” ideas are given legitimacy.

The Power of Narratives: How Ideological Echo Chambers Shape Reality

Franklin O’Kanu often cites James Corbett’s work on media’s role in shaping public perception as a major inspiration behind his Substack. Corbett’s central thesis is simple: narratives build realities—and whoever controls the dominant narrative controls public thought. Nowhere is this clearer than in the nihilistic messaging that dominates left-leaning social media platforms like Meta. The idea that humans are an irredeemable blight on the planet has been mainstreamed, despite evidence to the contrary.

This same unquestioning adherence to an ideological narrative played out during the pandemic with phrases like “Trust the science” and “Don’t do your own research.” I explored this trend in my Substack, particularly through the lens of so-called ‘cult expert’ Steven Hassan. Hassan built his career exposing ideological manipulation, branding himself as the foremost authority on cult mind control. But here’s the irony: while he calls out high-control religious groups, he seems completely blind to the cult-like tactics within his own political ideology.

Information Control: Censoring ‘Dangerous’ Ideas

Hassan’s BITE model—which stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control—is designed to help people recognize manipulation.

In cults, leaders dictate what information followers can access. The extreme left does the same.

  • Censorship of Opposing Views – Deplatforming, banning books, firing professors—if an idea threatens the ideology, it’s labeled “harmful” and shut down.
  • Historical Revisionism – Complex events are reframed to fit simplistic oppression narratives, ignoring inconvenient facts.
  • Selective Science – Only research that supports the ideology gets funding and visibility. Studies on biological sex differences, IQ variations, or alternative climate models? Silenced or retracted—not because they’re disproven, but because they’re inconvenient.
  • Discouraging Exposure to Counterarguments – Followers are taught that listening to the other side is “platforming hate” or “giving oxygen to fascism.”

This is exactly what happened when Franklin challenged the mainstream climate change narrative. The moment he questioned NetZero policies, he wasn’t just hit with the usual accusations: “climate denier,” “science denier,” and the ever-expanding list of ideological insults meant to discredit rather than debate, but he was blocked. This is how bad ideas survive—by shutting down the people who challenge them.

Franklin warns that if you’re not careful, these narratives can take you down a dark rabbit hole built on lies. Once an ideological framework is built around selective truth, it becomes a self-reinforcing system—one that punishes dissent and rewards conformity. And once you let someone else dictate what information is “safe” for you to consume, you’re already in the first stages of ideological capture.

The Rise of the Fake Intellectual

Platforms like Facebook/Instagram/YouTube have perfected the illusion of intellectual discourse while actively suppressing opposing voices. This has led to what Franklin calls the fake intellectual—individuals or organizations that present themselves as champions of knowledge but ultimately serve to shut down real dialogue.

Fake intellectuals don’t invite discussion; they police it. They rely on appeals to authority, groupthink, and censorship to maintain an illusion of correctness. True intellectualism, on the other hand, is rooted in curiosity, openness, and the willingness to engage with challenging perspectives.

Reclaiming Intellectual Integrity

One of the most powerful insights from our discussion is the role belief plays in shaping our world. Franklin warns that when we accept narratives without scrutiny, we risk being deceived. This applies across industries—medicine, science, finance, and even religion. These systems function because people believe in them, often without verifying their claims. But if we fail to question these narratives, we become passive participants in a game where only a select few control the rules.

So, how do we resist narrative warfare and reclaim critical thinking? Franklin suggests:

  • Cultivating intellectual humility—being open to the possibility that we might be wrong.
  • Recognizing media manipulation—understanding how information is curated to shape public perception.
  • Engaging with diverse perspectives—actively seeking out voices that challenge our beliefs.
  • Trusting our own discernment—developing the confidence to think independently instead of outsourcing our opinions to authority figures.

Franklin expands on this in his writings, particularly in his two articles, How to See the World and How to Train Your Mind. As he puts it, “We all have these voices in our heads. Philosophy is really just understanding the reality of the world, and there’s a principle in philosophy—keep things as simple as possible.” He breaks it down like this:

  • You are a soul. That’s the foundation. If every child grew up knowing this, it would change the way we see ourselves.
  • You have a body. Your body exists to experience the physical reality of the world.
  • You have a mind. Your mind is an information processor that collects input from your senses. But it also generates thoughts—sometimes helpful, sometimes misleading.

Franklin uses a simple example: Is my craving for ice cream coming from my body, my mind, or my soul? That question highlights the need to discern where our impulses originate. He extends this concept to online interactions: How many thoughts do we have just from seeing something online? How many narratives do we construct before our soul even has a chance to process reality?

Online spaces, Franklin argues, give rise to what he calls the “inner troll.”🧌 He connects this to the spiritual concept of demons—forces that seek to provoke, enrage, and divide. “Think about the term ‘troll,’” he says. “What is that, really? It’s an inner demon that gets let loose online. The internet makes it easy for our worst instincts to take over.”

So, what’s the antidote? Franklin emphasizes the importance of the pause. Before reacting to something online, before getting swept into outrage, take a step back. Ask: What is happening here? What am I feeling? Is this a real threat, or is my mind generating a reaction?

“It’s extremely hard to do online,” Franklin admits. “But when we practice stepping back, we can respond more humanely—more divinely. That’s the key to reclaiming critical thinking in a world that thrives on emotional manipulation.”

The digital age bombards us with narratives designed to capture our attention, manipulate our emotions, and direct our beliefs. But we are not powerless.

On an episode last season, we discussed a concept I learned from Dr. Greg Karris—something he calls narcissistic rage in fundamentalist ideologies. It helped me understand why people react so viscerally when their beliefs are challenged. My friend Jay described a similar idea as emotional hijacks, tying it to the amygdala’s response. This concept also appears in Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Daniel Goleman and is expanded upon in Pete Walker’s Complex PTSD.

When the amygdala gets triggered—exactly what Franklin was describing—we have to learn to recognize the physical sensations that come with it. Elevated heart rate. Sweaty palms. That’s your body sounding the alarm. But in that moment, your prefrontal cortex—the part responsible for logic and rational thinking—is offline. Your biology is overriding your soul’s intention. And that’s why taking a step back is so crucial.

The best way to get your higher reasoning back online? Create space. Pause. Let the emotional surge settle before you engage. As simple as it sounds, it’s one of the hardest things to do. But in a world where reactionary thinking is the default, practicing this skill is an act of rebellion—and a path to reclaiming our intellectual and emotional sovereignty.

Next, Franklin and I dive into a pressing issue: The Coddling of the Mind in society—a theme I’ve explored numerous times on the podcast and in my blogs. Franklin brings up a fascinating point, saying, “One thing that’s happened with COVID, though it started before, is the softening of humanity. We’ve become so soft that you can’t say anything anymore. And what that’s done is pushed away true intellectual rigor. We used to be able to sit and share ideas, but now we’re obsessed with safe spaces. And this started on college campuses.”

Franklin’s observation taps into a broader cultural shift that has eroded the foundations of intellectual engagement. In the past, people could engage in discussions where the goal wasn’t necessarily to convince others, but to explore ideas, challenge assumptions, and learn. The push for safe spaces—often an attempt to shield individuals from discomfort or offense—has inadvertently led to the silencing of open debate. In this environment, people have become more focused on avoiding offense than on confronting difficult ideas or engaging in intellectual rigor. This dynamic, Franklin argues, has stripped away the very essence of what it means to debate, discuss, and learn.

This idea echoes themes explored in Gad Saad’s The Parasitic Mind, where Saad delves into how certain ideologies undermine intellectual diversity and critical thinking. Franklin builds on this, urging that true intellectual growth comes from understanding where someone is coming from, even if their views differ from your own. “Learn what happened to individuals to understand how they arrived at their conclusions,” he says. “Remove personal bias and avoid attacks. Only then can you critique the point effectively, offering counterpoints that strengthen both arguments and allow experiences from both sides to shine.” This approach, Franklin explains, fosters a more nuanced understanding of each other’s perspectives, allowing both sides to learn and grow rather than simply entrenched in opposing views.

This fragility encourages echo chambers and groupthink, where dissent is silenced, and alternative perspectives are rejected outright. Ironically, in the pursuit of empathy, freedom, and inclusivity, movements like deconstruction can end up mirroring the same intellectual and moral rigidity they sought to escape.

I could continue typing out the entire conversation, or you could just listen. 🙂

In an age where the appearance of truth is often prioritized over truth itself, our ability to think critically is more important than ever. This episode is an invitation to break free from intellectual complacency and reclaim the power of questioning.

Article mentioned in the interview:

Posted on in beautystandards, beforeandafter, beforeandafterphotos, beliefs, bodyappreciation, bodyimage, challenges, cultoffitness, cults, dietculture, disorderedeating, fitness, fitnessjourney, fitspiration, goal setting, health, history, hormones, industrialinfluence, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, mindset, misinformation, musclegrowth, nervous system, neuroplasticity, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, progressives, self-help, selfcompassion, socialmediainfluence, stress, transformationphotos, weightloss, wellness, worldview

From Diary Entries to Digital Screens: How Beauty Ideals and Sexualization Have Transformed Over Time

Over the past year, we’ve explored a web of interconnected topics—religious extremism, theology, the role of social media in radicalization, and most recently, body image and the impact of fitspiration.

These discussions aren’t isolated; they all trace back to a common thread—how external influences shape our beliefs, behaviors, and sense of identity. Today, we’re diving deeper into that connection, looking at how beauty standards, social media, and the normalization of self-objectification are part of a larger cultural shift.

The Evolution of Body Image: From Calorie Counting to the Cult of Fitness

Our cultural obsession with body modification isn’t new—it’s just evolved.

In The Body Project, historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg explores the history of American girls and how today women have more freedom and choice than ever before, but many of us begin a pattern of negative self-image, beauty obsession and dieting as early as five or six. Brumberg states:

“All throughout history, adolescent self-consciousness is quite persistent, but it’s level is raised or lowered, like the water level in a pool, by the cultural and social setting.”

For instance, in the late 19th century, girls might have been particularly conscious of their hands and feet due to the fashion and modesty standards of the time, as well as the emphasis on delicate and proper presentation. Additionally, the ideal feminine silhouette of the time, with tightly laced corsets and voluminous skirts, might have made girls more conscious of their waists and overall body shape.

So, while in modern day times, we may cringe at the confinements of what the Victorian society and wearing the corset did to women, but I’d like to argue that in 2025 body angst is driven by much more sinister forces. Today, commercial interests utilize marketing strategies that result in enormous amounts of profit for the manufactures of cosmetic, surgery, hair products and of course diet foods.

The reality that American girls now center their lives around their bodies is neither coincidental nor trivial: it reflects historical shifts that are just now being comprehended.

15th November 1926: Film star, Mae Murray (1889 – 1965) making herself up in a mirror in the lid of her make-up box.

Brumberg examines how the modern fixation on weight began in the early 20th century. Historically, the surge of explicit “girl talk” about body and sexuality is a relatively recent American phenomenon. As the language surrounding sex and the body has evolved, so too have the body projects of different generations of American girls. By the 1920s, girls began writing about their efforts to develop sexual allure through clothing and cosmetics, and for the first time, they experimented with “slimming”—a new body project tied to the scientific discovery of the calorie. The dieters and sexual players of the 1920s were generally girls in middle to late adolescence, finishing high school or heading off to college and jobs in the business world—unlike today, where such concerns often affect younger children and teenagers.

By the 1970s and 1980s, body control became about more than just being thin; it evolved into sculpting the ideal physique. This shift gave rise to what we now recognize as the cult of fitness—a movement that reframed body control as discipline and self-mastery. The rise of bodybuilding, aerobics, and the emerging diet industry all played a role in selling the idea that, with enough effort, anyone could build their “dream body.”

The Role of Genetics in Muscle Growth: What Fitness Culture Gets Wrong

But science tells a different story. While training and nutrition matter, genetics play a massive role in muscle development, strength, and even fat distribution. A study published in Communications Biology (2020) found that an individual’s ability to build muscle and strength is 50-80% genetic (Pei et al., 2020).

This means that two people following the exact same training program and nutrition plan will not achieve the same results—because their genetic blueprint largely determines their potential for muscle growth, recovery speed, tendon strength, and even motivation to train.

Yet, fitness culture—including myself as a personal trainer for nearly 20 years—rarely acknowledges this, pushing the narrative that extreme discipline alone is the key to achieving a certain look. This myth is not only misleading but also damaging, leading many people to believe that if they just worked harder, ate “cleaner,” or followed the right influencer’s workout, they could look like a fitness model.

How Genetics Impact Strength and Muscle Development

  1. Muscle Fiber Composition: The Fast-Twitch vs. Slow-Twitch Factor
    • People with a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers (Type II) have a genetic advantage in strength and hypertrophy (muscle growth). These fibers respond better to resistance training and grow larger than slow-twitch (Type I) fibers, which are more endurance-focused.
    • Some individuals are naturally fast-twitch dominant, making it easier for them to build muscle. Others are slow-twitch dominant, meaning they may struggle with size gains but excel in endurance sports like long-distance running (Timmons et al., 2010).
  2. Myostatin: The Genetic “Muscle Growth Brake”
    • Myostatin is a protein that regulates muscle growth by preventing muscles from getting too large.
    • People with lower levels of myostatin (due to genetic mutations) have an easier time building muscle naturally. Some bodybuilders and elite athletes are born with myostatin deficiencies, giving them an unfair advantage (Lee & McPherron, 2001).
  3. Testosterone and Hormonal Variability
    • Testosterone is a major driver of muscle protein synthesis, and its levels vary wildly among individuals.
    • Some people naturally produce more free testosterone (the biologically active form), which enhances muscle recovery, strength, and hypertrophy.
    • Women generally have 10-20 times lower testosterone levels than men, making significant muscle gains much harder without pharmacological assistance (i.e., steroids) (Kraemer et al., 1998).
  4. Bone Structure and Muscle Insertions: The Aesthetic Factor
    • Ever wonder why some people seem to have a “naturally sculpted” look even before they start training?
    • Bone structure (such as clavicle length, rib cage width, and hip-to-waist ratio) dictates how muscle mass is distributed.
    • Muscle insertion points vary genetically, meaning some people have longer muscle bellies, which create fuller-looking muscles, while others have shorter insertions, making certain muscles appear smaller or less defined no matter how much they train (Abe et al., 2016).

The Dangerous Myth of “Hard Work = Guaranteed Results”

Fitness influencers, personal trainers, and the entire “no excuses” culture have sold the idea that discipline alone determines success. And yes—training consistency and proper nutrition absolutely matter. But they will never override genetic limitations.

This myth leads to:

  • Unrealistic Expectations: People blame themselves when they don’t achieve Instagram-worthy physiques, despite training and eating “perfectly.”
  • Overtraining & Injury: Chasing unrealistic body standards leads many to overtrain, ignore recovery, and develop chronic injuries.
  • Disordered Eating & Supplement Abuse: Some resort to extreme dieting, excessive protein intake, or even performance-enhancing drugs to push past genetic limits.

The Industry’s Selective Silence on Genetics

Why does fitness culture ignore genetics? Simple: it doesn’t sell. If people accepted that their muscle-building potential was largely predetermined, the billion-dollar fitness industry wouldn’t be able to push:

  • Expensive training programs promising “X body in X weeks.”
  • Supplement stacks claiming to “maximize muscle growth.”
  • The illusion that buying a program from a shredded influencer will make you look like them.

Ironically, many of the biggest names in fitness—especially those with extreme physiques—are genetically gifted (and often enhanced by PEDs). Yet, they claim their results come solely from “hard work and dedication,” keeping their followers trapped in a cycle of unrealistic expectations and self-blame.

After nearly 20 years as a personal trainer, I wish I had been more honest about genetics with my clients. Fitness is absolutely a combination of training, nutrition, recovery, and mindset—but genetics are the foundation that determines what’s possible.

Let’s stop pretending everyone can achieve the same results through sheer willpower. Fitness should be about maximizing your individual potential—not chasing an impossible ideal. Focusing on body neutral fitness and strength training gave me tangible, measurable improvements, but it also made me realize how much misinformation circulates in mainstream fitness spaces, particularly in the fitspiration content flooding social media.

Fitspiration: The Reinvention of Beauty Standards

A 2023 study in Computers in Human Behavior compared the effects of fit ideal vs. non-fit ideal body types in fitspiration imagery. The findings? Exposure to fitspiration content significantly increases body dissatisfaction, especially in women who already struggle with self-image. This isn’t surprising—social media’s curated highlight reels create a distorted sense of what’s achievable. And just like 90s diet culture failed to acknowledge genetic differences in weight, today’s fitness culture largely ignores the reality that strength and muscle growth are heavily influenced by genetics.

But the impact of fitspiration goes beyond body image. The same mechanisms that fuel fitness obsession—comparison, idealization, and self-objectification—are also at play in the broader cultural shift toward hypersexualization.

Fitspiration and Self-Objectification: The Internalized Gaze

Self-objectification occurs when a person sees themselves through the eyes of others, measuring their worth by how they look rather than who they are. And nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in fitspiration culture.

John Berger describes this process perfectly in Ways of Seeing:

“A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself… From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman.”

Fitspiration content encourages this exact split identity—one part of a woman is the observer, constantly assessing whether she looks toned, lean, or strong enough. The other part is the observed, existing only as a reflection of an idealized body type. It’s no longer just about fitness; it’s about performing fitness for an audience.

And the consequences are severe:

  • Chronic body surveillance leads to increased anxiety, depression, and disordered eating (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
  • Instead of focusing on how movement feels, women focus on how their bodies appear while exercising.
  • The line between fitness and sexualization blurs, reinforcing the idea that a woman’s body is only valuable when it is desirable to others.

In this way, fitspiration isn’t just a rebranded version of diet culture—it’s also a pipeline to broader cultural hypersexualization, where the body is constantly on display, measured, and objectified. And this feeds directly into an even deeper issue: the normalization of pornography and the sex industry, where women’s bodies are not just idealized but commodified.

By promoting self-objectification as empowerment, fitspiration culture primes women to see themselves as both the product and the consumer, caught in an endless cycle of external validation. And the most insidious part? It’s framed as self-improvement—when in reality, it’s just another system designed to keep women watching themselves instead of living fully.

The Connection Between Fitspiration, Porn Culture, and Self-Objectification

The way women are impacted by pornography—and by extension, the sex industry—is something far too many people overlook. The statistics are staggering:

  • The top three porn sites receive a combined 134,491 visits per minute.
  • Most pornographic videos contain some form of aggression or violence, particularly toward women. A 2020 meta-analysis found that 88% of pornographic scenes contain physical aggression (slapping, choking, hair-pulling) and 49% contain verbal aggression, with women overwhelmingly being the targets (Bridges et al., 2010).
  • Most young people are exposed to pornography between the ages of 11 and 13, with some studies reporting an even earlier age for boys (Wright et al., 2021).
  • A 2020 study found that 91.5% of men and 60.2% of women had watched porn in the past month (Solano, Eaton, & O’Leary, 2020).

How This Connects to Fitspiration and Porn Culture

At first glance, fitspiration (or “fitspo”) might seem like it has nothing to do with pornography or the sex industry. After all, isn’t fitness about health and strength? But when we look closer, the connections become clear.

  1. Both fitspiration and porn culture promote self-objectification.
    Fitspiration culture tells women that their worth is tied to their body’s appearance—specifically, whether they have a lean, sculpted, and sexually desirable physique. This reinforces self-objectification, where women begin viewing their bodies primarily as objects to be judged rather than lived-in, experienced, and valued beyond aesthetics.

Remember our study in Computers in Human Behavior (2023) found that exposure to fitspiration imagery leads to increased body dissatisfaction and self-objectification, particularly among women who already struggle with body image….Similarly, pornography fuels external validation as a primary measure of self-worth.

Women in both fitspo and porn culture are expected to conform to an idealized version of femininity that is both hypersexualized and carefully curated for male consumption.

  1. Both industries capitalize on the illusion of empowerment.
    One of the biggest arguments in favor of fitspiration and porn is that they “empower” women. But empowerment, in its truest sense, involves autonomy, agency, and self-determination—not just adhering to societal beauty standards under the guise of “strength” or “choice.”
  • Fitspiration content often presents extreme dieting, excessive exercise, and body sculpting as forms of self-discipline and self-improvement, even when they veer into disordered behaviors.
  • The porn industry promotes the idea that sex work is a path to empowerment, despite overwhelming evidence of the harm it causes to those involved. Research on women in the porn industry has found high rates of PTSD, substance abuse, and coercion (Farley et al., 2003).

The same narrative that tells women they must be “empowered” by fitspiration also tells them they must be “empowered” by commodifying their bodies through sex work. The reality is that both industries profit from women internalizing external standards of worth rather than defining it for themselves.

  1. The rise of OnlyFans and the blending of fitness and sex work.
    Social media has blurred the lines between fitness influencers and the sex industry in a way that previous generations didn’t experience. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and OnlyFans have created a new category of influencers who monetize their appearance—whether through fitness content, sexually suggestive photos, or outright pornography.
  • Some fitness influencers now have OnlyFans accounts, where they claim to be selling fitness content but also offer sexually explicit material.
  • The normalization of “soft porn” in fitness spaces (suggestive poses, hypersexualized workout attire) conditions women to see their fitness journey as something that must be publicly displayed and validated by others.
  • Many young women have turned to selling “spicy content” on OnlyFans as a form of income, believing it to be harmless self-expression—only to later experience the psychological and social fallout.

This isn’t just theoretical. A growing body of research shows that women who engage in sexualized self-presentation online report higher levels of self-objectification, body dissatisfaction, and lower self-esteem (Boursier et al., 2020).

The Psychological Toll: What Happens When Women Internalize These Messages?

Self-objectification doesn’t just impact body image—it affects mental health, cognitive performance, and even physical performance. Studies have found that women who are primed to focus on their appearance:

  • Perform worse on cognitive tasks (Fredrickson et al., 1998).
  • Experience greater body shame and anxiety (Moradi & Huang, 2008).
  • Are less likely to engage in activities that prioritize function over appearance (Roberts & Gettman, 2004).

And this has real-world consequences. Women who internalize self-objectification are more likely to experience:

  • Higher rates of depression and anxiety
  • Greater susceptibility to eating disorders
  • Lower confidence in their physical abilities

Reframing the Narrative: What’s the Alternative?

Recognizing these patterns is the first step in breaking free from them. If fitspiration, porn culture, and social media all push the message that women must shape themselves into externally validated objects, then the antidote is reclaiming agency over our bodies—not as things to be looked at, but as tools for living, experiencing, and creating.

  • Strength training should be about what your body can do, not how it looks.
  • Health and fitness should prioritize function over pain.
  • Challenge Beauty Norms & External Validation. Who benefits from women being consumed by their appearance? The more we recognize these influences, the easier it is to resist them.
  • Women should be encouraged to pursue movement, sport, and physical strength without the added layer of performative sexuality.

Joan Jacobs Brumberg’s The Body Project reinforced for me how unprepared young women have been for the level of sexualization and exploitation in our culture—something that has only worsened with social media. The way sex work is framed as “empowerment” in some circles ignores the long-term harm it inflicts, and I’ve seen that firsthand.

I can’t wait to discuss this more with my friend Sloane Wilson, a survivor advocate with Exodus Cry, on my podcast later this season. Her insights into the realities of the sex industry and the dangers of normalizing self-objectification are incredibly important for this conversation.

Posted on in americanpolitics, Bible, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, coercivecontrol, commericalcults, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, faith, freedom, history, influencers, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, misinformation, nervous system, nuance, podcast, politics, progressives, resilence, science, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, stress, stressresilence, theology, trad wife, wellness, worldview

Beyond the Echo Chamber: How the Quest for Truth Became a New form of Dogma

Bonus Episode: Reflections on the Election Cycle – A Message for the Deconstruction Community

Welcome to today’s deep dive into a topic that’s been stirring within me for months. If you’re new here, let me explain the deconstruction space, or the deconstruction community—a movement that’s gaining momentum for those of us disentangling ourselves from rigid, fundamentalist beliefs. This process is supposed to be healing and, ideally, a source of growth, but it’s not without its share of controversy. That’s what we’re here to talk about.

In my podcast episode titled Faith Unbound: Navigating the Process of Disentanglement—or rather, Deconversion after my own journey took a deeper turn—I discussed my initial discovery of this space back in February. At that point, I’d begun to question my former beliefs, and the deconstruction community felt like a safe haven. After 6-7 months in, I’m seeing patterns that are unsettlingly familiar. The community has been valuable, yet I’ve grown concerned as it increasingly mirrors the same kinds of rigidity and tribalism many of us were trying to escape.

My posts and Instagram reels have hinted at this frustration, but I’m here today to pull these thoughts together more fully. Moving away from one dogma only to embrace another feels to me, like a new form of entrapment. The craving for certainty and “the right side” is strong, and without realizing it, we’re swapping one rigid system for another. In this space that’s supposed to champion open-mindedness, judgment and exclusion seem to have replaced curiosity and true critical thought.

It’s a reminder that true growth and change happen only when we’re open to different perspectives—not quick to label those who disagree with us as enemies. As the philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in his 1859 work, On Liberty, Free speech is essential for discovering the truth. He believed true understanding and truth itself emerge only through open debate and free expression. This highlights the complexity of truth, it’s only when differing perspectives clash that ideas are refined and strengthened. Let’s explore how that idea relates to today’s topic.

Setting the Stage: The Political and Psychological Landscape

Before we dig into the deconstruction community, let’s set the stage with something I found really interesting. Back before the 2024 election, journalist Mark Halperin expressed some serious concerns on Tucker Carlson’s podcast (cue the BOOs and HISSS from all the progressives–I hear you!) about what would happen if Trump were to win a second term. He predicted widespread psychological distress, especially among Democrats, which would affect everything from mental health to social interactions. And, wow, did that hit the mark.

Since Trump’s victory, movements like the 4B movement have surged among women on social media, particularly in response to reproductive rights concerns and conservative gender roles. Originating in South Korea, the movement’s name, “4B,” stems from “B,” shorthand for “no” in Korean, symbolizing “No sex, No dating, No marrying men, and No children.” Recently, the movement has sparked a 450% increase in Google searches in the U.S., with many calling it the “4 Nos” or referencing “Lysistrata” for its radical stance against traditional gender expectations. I’ve shared my thoughts on traditional gender expectations in a previous episode.

The Blue Bracelet Movement: Solidarity or Performative Gesture?

Following the 2024 election, white women supporting Kamala Harris have rallied around an unexpected symbol: a blue bracelet. For many, it represents allegiance, a small but visible way to signal “I’m not with them” to women who voted for Trump. But like other quick-fix political symbols, it’s raising questions: Does this bracelet truly contribute to progress, or is it merely performative—a way to sidestep deeper, tougher conversations within their communities?

The trend echoes past symbolic movements like 2017’s “pussy hats,” which aimed to unify and empower but were later criticized for their lack of sustained action. Today, similar critiques have emerged around the bracelet, with critics suggesting it’s more of a comforting gesture for its wearers than a true commitment to change. Some Black activists and allies have pointed out that symbols alone aren’t enough; they want allies willing to challenge and change the beliefs of those around them, including friends and family who may hold differing views.

Could the Blue Bracelet Movement become a lasting emblem of allyship or fade as a passing trend? Its fate rests on whether those wearing it step up to engage in hard conversations and meaningful action.

Misinformation and Its Impact on Abortion Laws

But let’s get back to deconstruction—and something that’s been coming up a lot lately, particularly within that space: misinformation about abortion laws. Here’s the thing: there is no federal abortion ban in place. I repeat, NO federal abortion ban.

The Trump administration’s role in the overturning of Roe v. Wade has sparked fierce debates on both sides, but it’s important to clarify that the administration never stated it aimed to eliminate abortion nationwide. Instead, the ruling simply returned the power to regulate abortion to individual states. Some conservative figures have even used quotes from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to suggest she supported a more gradual, state-based approach. However, Ginsburg critiqued the federal approach, arguing a more state-focused shift could have garnered broader public support for gender equality. Polls consistently show that while many Americans support the legality of abortion, most also favor restrictions—especially in later stages of pregnancy. This nuance, however, often gets lost in campaign rhetoric, which is typically framed in absolute terms to galvanize voter turnout. But as we’ve seen, such messaging has not always yielded the intended results, revealing the complexity of public opinion on this issue.

Yes, the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, but all that did was give states the power to regulate abortion. Some states have restrictions, sure, but no federal law is imposing a nationwide ban. And without a massive shift in Congress and the courts, it’s unlikely that will happen.

I don’t think it will. Trump himself has spoken out against that. His wife has spoken for protecting these in some way, shape or form. We have other folks coming over from the Democratic Party under this Unity Party bracket. I just don’t think that they’re going to force Christian nationalism, and abortion bans across the entire nation. I guess we’ll see.

Then, there’s this idea going around that women won’t be able to access life-saving procedures if they have a miscarriage. This is just false. In fact, most states with abortion restrictions still allow medical treatments for miscarriages, like dilation and curettage (D&C), which are essential to protect a woman’s health. What’s actually being restricted are elective abortions—not necessary procedures.

But here’s where things get really tricky. The spread of these exaggerated claims taps into the emotional centers of our brains. If you remember our previous episodes, we talked about amygdala hijacking—the brain’s response to fear and anxiety. When we hear these alarmist claims, it triggers that fear-based reaction, shutting down our ability to think rationally. Instead of focusing on the facts, we’re just reacting emotionally.

The Dangers of Misinformation

Let’s talk about the danger of this. Misinformation, especially when it involves highly emotional issues like reproductive rights, isn’t just harmless chatter—it’s psychological warfare. It keeps people in a constant state of anxiety, preventing them from thinking rationally. The real issue? People are more likely to believe in the fear-based narrative than to actually check the facts. They’re too busy being triggered emotionally.

This plays directly into the hands of the fearmongers. It becomes easier to control a population if you can make them afraid, right? And what do we see happening? Misguided campaigns around “miscarriage care,” the spread of exaggerated stories, and people feeling like their rights are under direct attack. It’s chaos. And it’s all based on misinformation, yet the ones who are screaming the loudest about misinformation are the very ones spreading it.

Can you already hear the echoes of evangelicalism? This brings me to the concepts of Jonathan Haidt’s the Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion because they apply here. Haidt explains how our moral intuitions drive our beliefs and politics, often dividing us along different moral foundations.

Many folks in the deconstruction space, now lean left, where values like care and fairness are paramount. Meanwhile, conservative values like loyalty and authority are often viewed as suspect, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality that can feel righteous but alienating. Ironically, in striving for freedom and empathy, the deconstruction space sometimes ends up falling into the same black-and-white thinking it critiques.

In tandem, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s book The Coddling of the American Mind offers a useful framework for understanding these shifts, identifying “Three Great Untruths”: 1) “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker,” 2) “Always trust your feelings,” and 3) “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.” These untruths, they argue, create fragility, discourage critical thinking, and foster a tribal mentality—traits that increasingly characterize the deconstruction space and parts of the progressive left.

It’s ironic to me that some people leave evangelical Christianity thinking they’re free, only to stumble into a new form of dogma within the deconstruction space. My experience is different—I didn’t grow up in the church but was recruited during the pandemic. Having lived outside of purity culture, I feel fortunate not to carry that baggage. While I empathize with those navigating their journeys, it’s tough to see them act as critics and bullies. Let’s unpack these dynamics by exploring three key untruths in this space.

1. The Untruth of Fragility: “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”

For many, deconstructing from fundamentalist beliefs took resilience and a willingness to confront discomfort. Yet, in today’s deconstruction space, there’s an emphasis on avoiding ideas seen as “unsafe” or “harmful”—typically anything that deviates from progressive orthodoxy. and I mean, I genuinely felt this way. I think that might be somewhat of a trauma response. I was like, I hate the patriarchy. I must stand up against this. This is harmful. This is dangerous. And there is a lot of data proving that this isn’t true, whether we want to look at the history of the ancient church or just, you know, the research data that I’ve shared in previous episodes but my point–this fragility, reinforced by social media algorithms, cultivates an environment where disagreement feels threatening rather than enriching.

This approach mirrors the fundamentalist rejection of “dangerous” secular ideas, where dissent is demonized. The irony is that what began as a call for open-mindedness has become a kind of brittle certitude, one that isolates rather than connects. Instead of learning resilience, we’re re-teaching fragility, limiting our growth and deepening the ideological chasm.

Protestors outside a Temple of Satan

2. The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: “Always trust your feelings.”

Fundamentalism often equates strong feelings with truth—“If I feel it, it must be right.” In the deconstruction space, there’s a similar emphasis on emotional reasoning. If something feels offensive or unsettling, it’s treated as harmful. This approach is amplified by social media, where outrage and personal offense are rewarded with visibility.

Haidt’s work reminds us that emotions shape our moral judgments but don’t always lead to truth. Reacting purely on feeling closes off critical thinking, creating echo chambers where alternative perspectives are rarely considered. Instead of fostering deeper understanding, emotional reasoning entrenches our biases, fueling judgment rather than curiosity.

3. The Untruth of Us vs. Them: “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”

The most divisive untruth is the idea that the world can be split into “good” and “evil” camps. This is evident in how some in the deconstruction community approach politics and social issues, painting conservatives or moderates as morally inferior. We see a rigid, “with us or against us” mentality, where anyone who questions progressive narratives is labeled “deplorable,” “harmful,” “Trash”, “Nazi” or worse.

Haidt’s research reveals that moral division is natural; we all tend to view those who disagree with us as misguided or even morally flawed. But when we approach every difference as a moral battleground, we close off true dialogue. Coming from a high-Calvinist church—one of the most cult-like, fundamentalist circles you can get into—I know what it’s like to think the rapture is imminent or to believe that if you don’t say all the “right” words exactly, you’ll burn in hell. My journey has taken me from being pro-choice in Portland, OR, having had three abortions myself, to joining an abolitionist movement to outlaw abortion. I haven’t even spoken about the profound pain and regret I carry about this. Yet here I am, reflecting on how divisive our society has become, with so little room for understanding across political lines. In the deconstruction space, you’d expect a shared empathy after leaving behind rigid belief systems, but instead, the culture seems to mirror the very exclusivity and “us vs. them” mentality of evangelical spaces.

Living in Portland, surrounded by ideologies that often pushed the limits of what I felt was morally comfortable, I wrestled with the impacts of various movements. I started to question whether certain messages of empowerment—like third-wave feminism—truly uplift or, instead, encourage behaviors that commodify women’s bodies and promote sexualization from a very young age. And while sex work has become a celebrated concept under the mantra “sex work is real work,” my own painful experiences in that industry make me see things differently. To me, it’s not empowering; it’s the opposite. Instead of championing it, I believe we should work to dismantle the industry.

It’s not just isolated concepts; there’s a broader pattern of glorifying “anything goes” hedonism and dismissing traditional values in the progressive space, which I find deeply troubling. Living in that environment left me with a raw understanding of how damaging these ideologies can be, leaving permanent scars. I grieve over the three abortions I’ve had. I cry because, despite being told it was just “a clump of cells,” I knew it was more than that. Watching the left demand “trust the science” while denying that life begins at conception feels twisted to me.

Moreover, there’s a deep, dark history in the advocacy of reproductive rights that gets glossed over—like the disturbing eugenics past of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger. Are we just going to ignore that?

Since the last election ended with a Trump landslide victory, rather than sparking any self-reflection, this moral absolutism seems to have intensified. The comments sections on many deconstruction accounts reveal the same tribal thinking they claim to oppose. Instead of creating bridges, we see entrenched sides, instead of open-mindedness, we see judgment.

 Look, I’ve been there. I was a proud Democrat in the past. I voted for Obama. But now, as an independent, I’m calling it like I see it. Democrats need to take a good hard look at themselves if they want a chance at victory. Blaming the electorate isn’t the answer. You cannot keep denying biology and pretending men. Along in women’s sports, restrooms or prisons. The idea that kids should undergo irreversible changes. It’s misguided and is absolutely out of touch. The open border agenda. It’s hurting American workers, pushing down wages and driving up the cost of housing. When will you start protecting your own people instead of pandering to these extreme policies? Discriminating against whites, Asians and men and the name of countering past wrongs is not only setting us back, but it’s racist in itself. Abandoning merit-based selection is wrecking our economy and opportunities for everyone. I mean, you cannot let people camp, defecate and shoot up in public spaces and expect things to improve. The average voter is seeing all of this and they’re rejecting it. If Democrats want to win again, they need to rethink their approach and get back to reality. Enough is enough.

The Pipeline Problem: How Social Media Radicalizes

This divide is worsened by social media, where algorithms favor outrage and tribalism, pulling people toward extreme ideologies. Just as researchers have observed a “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline,” there’s a similar dynamic at play in progressive spaces, where folks in the deconstruction space are drawn into radical social justice ideologies that feel every bit as dogmatic as evangelicalism.

In this progressive pipeline, identity politics becomes a weapon, and moral purity is enforced through a power/victim binary that discourages complexity and invites fear of being labeled an oppressor. This kind of ideological purity resembles the control and certainty we experienced in evangelicalism, only now with a new political coat of paint.


And this leads me into the horseshoe theory suggests that the far-left and far-right, though seemingly at opposite ends of the spectrum, often mirror each other in attitudes and tactics. This theory, initially presented by French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye, proposes that the extremes of any ideology may end up behaving similarly—both tending toward authoritarianism and totalitarian thought despite their stated differences. Although this theory has its critics, the broader concept of ideological mirroring holds up in our analysis of what’s happening in the deconstruction space. At first, it was all about freedom—breaking away from oppressive systems, rejecting dogma, and embracing openness. But ironically, as people deconstruct their faith, they can fall into a similar trap: from being free thinkers to members of a new ideological cult.

Basically, when you leave fundamentalism without fully deconstructing dogmatic thinking, you risk trading one rigid ideology for another. Without cultivating humility and empathy, we will perpetrate the very same cycles of judgement and exclusion.

The Path Forward: True Openness and Curiosity

What’s the solution here? Jonathan Haidt’s insights remind us that real dialogue begins by understanding the values behind other people’s beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Progress and healing require that we listen beyond the labels, engaging in good faith rather than moral grandstanding. If we are to avoid replicating the very structures we’re deconstructing, we need to make space for differing perspectives and approach them with curiosity.

So, this means you cannot demonize conservatives, you cannot call everyone that voted for Trump a bigot, racist, misogynist. There’s something wrong with that thinking. You have been sold these three untruths. It’s a tired accusation that doesn’t hold up when you look at the numbers. Trump support among white voters did drop from 57% in 2020 to 49% in 2024. But the kicker is his support among black and Latino voters actually went up from 38 to 42%. So, against all odds, Trump is doing something that the Democratic Party has failed to do for decades. He’s making the Republican Party more diverse than has been in 60 years. Let’s cut out the divisive name calling and start acknowledging the reality of his growing appeal across different communities.


Real change happens when we go beyond just labeling others and instead build spaces where critical thought can flourish—even when it’s uncomfortable. This is my message to the deconstruction community and beyond!

It’s simple: stop pretending that we have all the answers. True freedom of thought is not about certainty. It’s about curiosity. It’s about asking the tough questions, not just parroting whatever’s trendy on social media or echoing the louder voices in your ideological group.

We need to do away with the binary thinking that divides us into “good” or “evil,” “us” or “them,” and start embracing true diversity of thought. Only by having those uncomfortable, nuanced conversations will we ever break free from the ideological cults—whether they’re rooted in religion, politics, or even deconstruction itself.

So, as we wrap up today’s episode, remember this: It’s time to get real. Misinformation is everywhere, and sometimes, it’s coming from the very people who claim to be fighting it. Whether it’s the left, the right, or the deconstruction space—don’t get caught up in the hype.

Thanks for tuning in to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Until next time, keep questioning, keep learning, and never, ever stop thinking for yourself.

Posted on in americanpolitics, Bible, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, coercivecontrol, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, faith, history, influencers, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, misinformation, nervous system, nutrition, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, socialjustice, socialmedia, stress, theology, trump, womenssuffrage, worldview

Creating Dialogue: Moving Beyond Division in Politics

As we move past the recent election, I’ve been reflecting on what it’s taught me about our culture, politics, and the conversations we have about faith and values. I want to share this reflection, not as a definitive answer, but as a personal journey that might resonate with others.

Discovering the “Deconstruction” Community

When I first started questioning my beliefs, especially within Christianity, I found myself among a group of people known as the “deconstruction community.” Many of these individuals were dealing with anger and disillusionment—much of it directed at political figures like Trump, the MAGA movement, and the perceived traditional values upheld by many evangelicals. They spoke openly about issues like spiritual abuse and cult-like dynamics in religious spaces, which resonated with me as I navigated my own experiences of questioning and stepping away from past beliefs.

But as I spent more time in these spaces, I noticed a paradox. The community had an “us vs. them” mentality that was very similar to the kind they were critiquing within conservative Christianity. The language, often harsh and divisive, didn’t align with the openness and curiosity I’d hoped to find. It seemed that some had merely replaced one set of rigid beliefs with another, creating a new kind of fundamentalism in the process.

Moving Beyond Anger and Righteousness

In these circles, I encountered scholars and advocates who passionately spoke against certain ideologies—sometimes with a level of certainty that left little room for nuance. I can empathize with this; when I began deconstructing, I, too, was filled with anger. I often felt morally superior, eager to “call out” harmful ideologies. But as time passed, I began to see that this anger, while understandable, could also be limiting. It kept me in a space where I saw the world in black and white, where there were “good” people on one side and “bad” on the other. I realized that this wasn’t a mindset I wanted to live in forever.

The Value of Autonomy and Discernment

During this election cycle, I found myself reflecting on the importance of autonomy, critical thinking, and discernment. These are qualities that the deconstruction community often claims to uphold. Yet, at times, it feels as though a different kind of fundamentalism has taken root—one where there’s pressure to align with a specific, “acceptable” narrative. I believe we need to make space for people to question, to think deeply, and to weigh their values without the fear of being shamed or silenced.

For instance, while I see harm in patriarchal structures, I also believe it’s damaging to label every conservative viewpoint as “fascist” or “racist.” These labels are extreme and can create walls instead of bridges. This is especially concerning when public figures or communities use this language to fuel fear rather than to inspire honest dialogue. It’s a reminder of how easy it is to fall into binary thinking, even when we’re trying to escape it.

Real-World Impact of Ideas

The power of ideas, especially those circulated in liberal spaces, has had a tangible impact on my life. Phrases like “sex work is real work” and “it’s just a clump of cells” influenced me in ways that I now wish had been more nuanced. I deeply regret some choices and wish I’d had more support, better information, and a broader perspective at the time. This experience fuels my passion for helping others get a fuller picture as they make decisions, especially those that impact their health, values, and future.

The Importance of Diverse Voices

As I look forward, my hope is to help foster a healthier America where diverse voices and perspectives can coexist. This includes voices that don’t necessarily align with mainstream narratives. Figures like Robert Kennedy Jr., for example, are often labeled “conspiracy theorists” within certain circles, including parts of the deconstruction community. But Kennedy has a message that challenges corporate narratives, and I find it disheartening when people dismiss him without truly engaging with his ideas. This tendency to label and dismiss is something I hope we can move beyond.

Building Dialogue Over Division

In closing, my commitment is to create a space where the priority is truth-seeking, not winning. It’s easy to fall into the trap of quick judgments and polarizing narratives, but real growth comes from dialogue, from listening, and from respecting the humanity in one another—even when we disagree. The recent election has reminded me of the importance of these values.

Let’s keep questioning the narratives, seeking understanding, and holding space for multiple perspectives. After all, this isn’t about “winning” or “losing”—it’s about building a more compassionate, informed society.

Thank you for reading, and let’s keep this conversation going. Let’s choose curiosity over condemnation, dialogue over division, and remember there’s always more to the story.

#drlauraanderson #traumarecoverycenter #politics #deconstruction #deconstructingfaith #peteenns #cultlike #election2024 #polarization #lessonslearned #divisivenarratives #democracyinretrograde #emilyamick #democratic #democracy #harris #trump2024 #maha #rfjk #newevangelicals #exvangelicals

Posted on in Bible, biblicalworldview, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, coercivecontrol, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, faith, historicalfigures, history, manipulation, mentalhealth, new age spiritual, podcast, socialjustice, spiritualabuse, testimonies, theology, wordofgod, worldview

Understanding the Evolution of Witch Hunts

Welcome to Taste of Truth Tuesdays, where we unravel the strange, the mysterious, and today—the terrifying. This post delves into one of history’s darkest chapters: the witch hunts. We’ll explore how fear, superstition, and control shaped centuries of persecution and how these patterns are still evident in the modern world. Witch hunts aren’t just a thing of the past—they’ve evolved.

The European Witch Hunts – Early Modern Europe

Let’s start in early modern Europe. Scholar Peter Maxwell-Stuart illuminates the rise of demonology, where the fear of magic and the devil became a weapon of control for those in power. Beginning in the 1500s, political and religious leaders manipulated entire populations by tapping into their deep-rooted fears of ‘evil forces.’ The Church, in particular, weaponized these beliefs, positioning itself as the protector against witches—women (and sometimes men) believed to consort with devils or conjure dark forces. As the idea took hold that witches could be behind every famine, illness, or death, this created a perfect storm of paranoia.

Stuart argues that demonology texts—many sanctioned by the Church—fueled mass hysteria, feeding the narrative that witches were not just local troublemakers but cosmic agents of Satan, hell-bent on destroying Christendom. Ordinary people lived in constant fear of betrayal by their neighbors, leading to accusations that could swiftly escalate into brutal trials, with the accused often tortured into confessing their ‘diabolical’ crimes.

To understand how demonology in Europe gained such traction, we need to go back to Augustine of Hippo. We have mentioned him before in previous episodes, whose writings in the 4th and 5th centuries laid the foundation for Christian perceptions of the devil and demons. Augustine’s ideas, especially in City of God, emphasized the constant spiritual warfare between good and evil, casting demons as agents of Satan working tirelessly to undermine God’s plan. He argued that humans were caught in this cosmic battle, susceptible to the devil’s temptations and tricks.

‘Augustine before a group of demons’, from ‘De civitate Dei’ by Augustine, trans. by Raoul de Presles, late 15th Century

Augustine’s Doctrine of Demons

According to Augustine, demons were fallen angels who had rebelled and now sought to deceive and destroy humanity. While Augustine didn’t explicitly discuss witches, his interpretation of demons helped fuel the belief that humans could be manipulated by evil spirits—whether through pacts, possession, or magical practices. This idea later influenced medieval and early modern European demonology.

Augustine’s views on original sin—that humanity is inherently flawed and in need of salvation—also intensified fears that people, especially women (who were seen as ‘weaker’ spiritually), were more vulnerable to the devil’s influence.

SIDE NOTE: We have discussed the theological concept of original sin in previous episodes: Franciscan wisdom navigating spiritual growth and challenges with Carrie Moore, we specifically spun the doctrine of original sin on its head and then also Unpacking Religious Trauma: Navigating the Dynamics of Faith Deconstruction with Doctor Mark Karris.

In the centuries that followed, these ideas were weaponized to justify witch hunts. Augustine’s legacy is evident in how later theologians and demonologists, such as Heinrich Kramer (author of the infamous Malleus Maleficarum), built upon his ideas of demonic interference to condemn witchcraft as a real, existential threat to Christian society.

Maxwell-Stuart reveals that the creation of demonology wasn’t just religious but deeply political. Kings and clergy alike realized they could consolidate power by stoking the flames of fear, casting witches and sorcerers as a common enemy. The trials served a dual purpose: they reinforced the Church’s supremacy over the spiritual realm and gave ruling elites a tool for maintaining social order. Accusing someone of witchcraft was an effective way to silence dissent or settle personal scores.

Fear as a Tool of Control

Fear wasn’t just manufactured by rulers—it was deeply ingrained in the societal, religious, and legal systems of the time. Scholar Sophie Page reveals how beliefs in magic and the supernatural were not fringe ideas but core components of medieval and early modern life. Magic wasn’t merely a mysterious force; it was a pervasive explanation for any calamity. Failed harvests, plagues, or unexplained illnesses were often attributed to witches or the devil, creating a society constantly on edge, where supernatural forces were believed to lurk behind every misfortune.

By embedding these beliefs into legal codes, authorities could target suspected witches or sorcerers under the guise of protecting the community. Page’s work illustrates how rituals once seen as protective or healing gradually became demonized. Harmless folk practices and herbal remedies, used for centuries, began to be recast as witchcraft, especially when things went wrong. People, particularly those in rural areas, were vulnerable to this thinking because religion and superstition were inseparable from daily life.

Partisan scholars have long debated whether Catholics or Protestants were the “real” witch hunters, but they’ve made little headway. One important change in Christian morality, as discussed by John Bossie, occurred between the 14th and 16th centuries. The moral focus shifted from the Seven Deadly Sins—pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth—to the Ten Commandments. This change, influenced by reform movements that shaped the Protestant Reformation, prioritized sins against God over those against the community. Idolatry and the worship of false gods became viewed as the gravest offenses.

This redefinition of witchcraft followed suit. Instead of being seen as harmful actions toward neighbors, witchcraft was now linked directly to devil worship and regarded as serious heresy. Scholars and church leaders began merging various forms of folk magic and healing into this new narrative, suggesting that practitioners were either knowingly or unknowingly making deals with the devil. Confessions of pacts or attendance at “witch gatherings” were shaped to highlight community failings, like envy and resentment. Consequently, educated society began to see witchcraft as a real threat rather than mere superstition. While traditional beliefs about magic still existed, they were overshadowed by fears of violent backlash from reformers.

The Power of Dualistic Thinking

This dualistic thinking, influenced by St. Augustine, gave rise to a semi-Manichean worldview, where the struggle between good and evil became more pronounced. Manichaeism, an ancient belief system, viewed the world as a battleground between equal forces of good and evil. Although orthodox Christianity rejected this dualism, the focus on the devil’s role in everyday life blurred those lines for many people. By emphasizing the devil’s pervasive influence, religious leaders inadvertently created a belief system in which evil seemed as powerful as good.

In this semi-Manichean view, the devil was not just a tempter of individuals but a corrupting force within communities and even within political and religious practices deemed heretical. Fears of devil-worshipping conspiracies became intertwined with anxieties about witchcraft and moral decay. Reformers, particularly in Protestant movements, fueled these fears by branding idolatry, Catholic rituals, and even folk healing as dangerous openings for the devil’s influence. This perspective transformed witchcraft from a local issue into a broader threat against God and society.

The result was a potent mix of dualistic thinking and an intense focus on spiritual warfare. This not only intensified the persecution of supposed witches but also reinforced the obsession with eliminating anything considered “satanic.” The ideological shift redefined witchcraft as a communal danger, turning innocent healing practices into accusations of demonic pacts.

Every village had its own ‘cunning folk’—individuals skilled in healing and folk magic—yet these very people could easily become scapegoats when something went wrong. The legal structures played a vital role in perpetuating this cycle of fear. Church courts, bolstered by theologians and demonologists, were empowered to try individuals accused of witchcraft, and the accusations quickly spiraled into mass hysteria. Trials often relied on tortured confessions, reinforcing the belief that witches and the devil were real and tangible threats to society. This institutionalized paranoia was a perfect storm of religion, fear, and control.

The Rise of Organized Witch Hunts

Beginning in the late 15th century, witch trials escalated into full-blown hunts, particularly after the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum in 1487. This infamous witch-hunting manual, written by Heinrich Kramer and endorsed by the Pope, offered legal and theological justifications for hunting down witches. It encouraged harsh interrogations and set guidelines for identifying witches based on superficial evidence like birthmarks, behaviors, and confessions extracted under torture. The legal system, which had already started to turn against folk healers, now had a codified method for persecuting them.

In regions like Germany, Scotland, and Switzerland, these legal trials turned into widespread witch hunts. Hundreds, even thousands, of individuals—predominantly women—were accused and executed. What’s particularly fascinating is that these witch hunts often peaked during periods of societal or economic instability when fear and uncertainty made people more susceptible to attributing their misfortunes to external, supernatural forces.

By institutionalizing the persecution of witches, rulers and religious leaders could manage social unrest and solidify their authority. The trials often reinforced the power structures by demonstrating that anyone perceived as a threat to societal order—whether through suspected witchcraft or merely social nonconformity—could be eradicated.

Witch Hunts and Gender

The scapegoating of women played a crucial role in these witch hunts. Owen Davies’ work reveals how the demonization of witches intersected with misogyny, turning the hunts into a gendered form of control. Midwives, healers, or outspoken women were more likely to be targeted, reinforcing patriarchal authority. The very skills that had once been valued, such as healing and midwifery, were redefined as dangerous and linked to dark powers.

As witch hunts spread, the legal frameworks across Europe became more refined and institutionalized, creating a climate where fear of witches and demonic possession became the norm. The trials’ obsession with confessions—often coerced under brutal conditions—further fueled public paranoia, as the more people confessed to witchcraft, the more tangible the ‘threat’ seemed.

The Modern Echoes of Witch Hunts

Fast forward to today, and we find that the legacy of witch hunts lingers. The tactics of fear-mongering, scapegoating, and social control can still be observed in modern contexts. Contemporary movements often mirror historical witch hunts, targeting marginalized groups through accusations and public shaming. Just as witch hunts flourished in times of societal uncertainty, modern societies can succumb to similar dynamics.

In the age of social media, legal accusations spread like wildfire, and the court of public opinion often acts faster than the courts themselves. Political enemies are dragged through the mud with allegations that may or may not have a basis in fact.

The case of Michael Jackson serves as a poignant example of how media narratives can distort reality. The beloved pop icon faced multiple allegations of child molestation, with the most notable case occurring in 2005 during a highly publicized trial. Accusers claimed that Jackson had abused them, yet the defense presented compelling counterarguments, including challenges to the credibility of the witnesses and highlighting inconsistencies in their testimonies. After a lengthy trial, Jackson was acquitted of all charges, but the media frenzy surrounding the case fueled public debate and sensationalism, earning him the derogatory nickname “Wacko Jacko.” This smear campaign perpetuated false narratives about his character and actions. Behind the scenes, Jackson was embroiled in a lawsuit against Sony Music, a battle he was reportedly winning at the time of these allegations. Furthermore, his controversial doctor, Conrad Murray, who administered drugs to Jackson, faced serious legal consequences for his role in the singer’s death, including manslaughter charges. The intersection of these legal battles and the media frenzy created a complex narrative that ultimately tarnished Jackson’s legacy, and that’s what truly breaks my heart.

By the time these individuals have the chance to clear their names, their reputations—and often their careers—are already in ruins. Davies’ research shows us that while modern witch hunts don’t involve burning at the stake, they do involve trial by media and mob justice.

And we can’t talk about modern-day witch hunts without bringing the CIA into the conversation. Since its inception, the CIA has been at the heart of international political manipulations—using covert methods to shape public perception, interfere in foreign governments, and even influence elections here in the United States. In the 1960s, the agency coined the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ to discredit anyone who questioned the official narratives surrounding events like the assassination of JFK. Those who didn’t toe the line were labeled as ‘paranoid’ or ‘dangerous.’ It was the modern version of labeling someone a witch—turning them into a social outcast, not to be trusted.

Fast forward to today: we see similar tactics used against whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who challenge the powerful. Think about Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and even political figures targeted by intelligence communities. The second they start exposing uncomfortable truths, they are vilified. Whether through leaks, smear campaigns, or selective legal action, these modern-day ‘witches’ face an onslaught of accusations, designed to discredit them before they can fully tell their story.

In many cases, the evidence behind these accusations is shaky at best. The CIA’s involvement in manipulating public perception goes all the way back to Operation Mockingbird, a secret program to influence media narratives, which showed that controlling information was one of the most powerful tools they had. During the Cold War, the United States engaged in a concerted effort to influence and control media narratives to align with its interests, which involved recruiting journalists and establishing relationships with major media outlets.

Edward Bernays, often referred to as the father of public relations, played a pivotal role in these discussions on media manipulation. Working with several major companies, including Procter & Gamble, General Electric, and the American Tobacco Company, Bernays was instrumental in promoting the cigarette brand Lucky Strike, famously linking it to the women’s liberation movement. His connections extend to notable figures like Sigmund Freud, who was Bernays’ uncle, Freud’s psychoanalytic theories significantly shaped Bernays’ PR strategies. Throughout his career, Bernays leveraged media to influence public perception and political leaders, raising profound questions about the power dynamics of media and its capacity to shape societal narratives. (If you’re intrigued by the intricate interplay of media and propaganda, this is a rabbit hole worth exploring!)

Today, that same fear-mongering tactic is played out on a much larger scale. Accusations, whether of conspiracy, treason, or subversion, become tools to silence anyone questioning the status quo. Just as witches in the past were seen as ‘different’ and thus dangerous, today’s targets are often people who challenge the system.

And while throughout the 1300-1600s, there was no due process for the accused witches, today, we see something similar in the digital realm. There’s no real accountability or fairness in the court of public opinion. All it takes is a viral accusation—a tweet, a blog post, or a video—and the person’s career, family, and mental health can be obliterated overnight. No evidence required, no trial, no defense.

So, what can we learn from this history? From the witch hunts of early modern Europe to today’s viral accusations and political fearmongering, there’s one key lesson: fear remains one of the most dangerous tools of control. When we allow fear to dictate our actions—whether it’s fear of witches, outsiders, or anyone who doesn’t fit into the mold—we lose sight of reason and humanity.

In closing, I’d like to examine the phenomenon of witch hunts through the lens of amygdala hijacking, a topic we discussed in a previous episode. This term refers to the brain’s immediate response to perceived threats, where the amygdala—the emotional center of the brain—takes control, often resulting in irrational and impulsive actions.

During the witch hunts, communities gripped by fear of the unknown succumbed to a mob mentality whenever someone fell ill or misfortune struck. The amygdala triggered a fight-or-flight response, compelling individuals to find scapegoats, with cunning folk and those deviating from societal norms becoming prime targets. As accusations spiraled, fear dominated decision-making instead of rational thought. Today, we observe similar patterns in how social media can incite panic, leading to modern witch hunts. When fear takes over, reason often fades, resulting in unjust vilification—echoing the dark lessons of history.

As we navigate our modern world, let’s remain vigilant against the echoes of this history, seeking truth and questioning the narratives that shape our beliefs. Fear may be powerful, but curiosity and critical thinking are our greatest allies in maintaining our autonomy and humanity.

Resources:

Briggs, Robin. Witches and Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft. Oxford University Press, 1996.

  • This book provides a comprehensive exploration of the social dynamics surrounding witch hunts in early modern Europe, highlighting the interplay of fear, community, and cultural beliefs.

Maxwell-Stuart, Peter G.Witchcraft in Europe, 1100-1700: A Sourcebook. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

  • This sourcebook compiles essential documents related to the history of witchcraft in Europe, providing insights into how fear and persecution were constructed and justified.

Page, Sophie.Magic in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

  • This book offers an analysis of the cultural and religious practices surrounding magic during the medieval period, emphasizing how these beliefs shaped societal attitudes toward witchcraft.

Bossy, John.Christianity in the West, 1400-1700. Oxford University Press, 1985.

  • Bossy examines the transformation of Christian morality during the Reformation, providing context for the changing perceptions of witchcraft and heresy.

Davies, Owen. Popular Magic: Cunning Folk in English History. Continuum, 2007.

  • This work explores the role of cunning folk—those who practiced folk magic—and how their practices were perceived within the broader context of witchcraft accusations.

Baroja, J. C. Witches and Witchcraft. University of California Press, 1990.

  • Baroja’s work examines the historical and cultural significance of witchcraft, providing insights into the social conditions that fueled witch hunts and the cultural implications of these beliefs.

The first use of the term “conspiracy theory” is much earlier — and more interesting — than historians have thought.

Posted on in Bible, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, coercivecontrol, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, faith, historicalfigures, history, holistic health, hormones, JesusChrist, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, nervous system, neuroplasticity, podcast, progressives, scripture, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, spiritualabuse, testimonies, theology, trad wife, wellness, wordofgod

From Burnout to Breakthrough:  Healing, Art, and Resilience with Katherine Spearing

🎙️ Welcome Back! Join me as I chat with Katherine Spearing, MA, CTRC — founder of Tears of Eden 🌸, a nonprofit supporting survivors of spiritual abuse, and former host of the groundbreaking Uncertain podcast 🎧. Katherine is also the host of Trauma & Pop Culture, a Certified Trauma Recovery Practitioner 🧠, and an expert in helping those who have survived cults, high-control environments, and sexual abuse 💔. She even offers specialized trauma-informed career coaching 💼!

In this episode, we discuss: 💡 The most impactful themes from Uncertain — including her powerful episode with Dr. Laura Anderson on anger 😡 and the concept of second-wave fundamentalism. 🎭 How creative arts therapies are aiding survivors of sexual abuse in their healing journey, and how these methods differ from traditional therapy 🎨. 🛑 Managing the emotional weight of working with spiritual abuse survivors and Katherine’s personal journey to avoid burnout 🧘‍♀️. 👩‍🎤 Challenging traditional gender roles in Christianity — how they’ve shaped perceptions of women’s worth and agency, and steps for creating more inclusive spaces 🚺. 🛡️ Building healthy community dynamics to protect against spiritual abuse while fostering authentic, supportive connections 🌱. 🔥 A sneak peek into Katherine’s upcoming book on spiritual abuse, including why the church is so obsessed with sex 💭.

Tune in now for an insightful conversation on healing, resilience, and challenging the status quo! 🗣️✨

Don’t miss out on Katherine’s wisdom and unique perspective. 🎧

Tears of Eden podcast episode we mentioned

Blog — Katherine Spearing

Tears of Eden: Supporting survivors of Spiritual Abuse and Religious Trauma

🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram!⁠⁠⁠ @taste0ftruth⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠ Pinterest! ⁠⁠ ⁠ 

Posted on in americandieteticassociation, brainhealth, chronichealth, coercivecontrol, conspiracies, deconstruction, historicalfigures, history, holistic health, hormones, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, moms, nervous system, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, resilence, scams, self-help, thyroid health, wellness

Well Considered: Mastering Informed Consent in Medicine

Take Control of Your Health Decisions: A Deep Dive with Just the Inserts

This week on Taste of Truth Tuesdays, we’re excited to welcome a special guest— the founder of Just the Inserts 🩺💊—as we explore her groundbreaking new book, Well Considered: A Handbook for Making Informed Medical Decisions. In this episode, we tackle one of the most vital topics in healthcare today: informed consent.

Here’s a preview of what we’ll be unpacking:

✨ What Inspired Well Considered?

What was the catalyst for creating this essential handbook? We’ll dive into the pivotal moment that led to its conception. Whether it was a personal experience or witnessing the confusion around medical decisions, you’ll hear the full backstory straight from the source.

📝 What is Informed Consent and Why Is It a Game-Changer?

Informed consent is more than a checkbox—it’s about having the knowledge and confidence to make the best choices for your health. We break down the meaning of informed consent and explore why it’s crucial for every patient to understand their options before saying ‘yes’ to a treatment.

📜 Are Inserts Just for Legal Reasons?

Some critics claim Just the Inserts causes unnecessary alarm by drawing too much attention to drug inserts. We take on these criticisms and discuss why inserts are far more than just legal protections for pharmaceutical companies. Get ready to hear why being fully informed isn’t about fear—it’s about empowerment.

💡 Feeling Rushed by Healthcare Providers? Here’s How to Stand Your Ground

Ever felt pressured by a doctor to make a snap decision? You’re not alone. We’ll share practical advice on how to slow down the conversation, ask the right questions, and ensure your voice is heard—without being rushed into treatments or medications.

💉 The Vaccine Debate: Individual Choice vs. Public Health

Vaccines are a hot topic, sparking debates about individual rights versus collective health. We’ll explore how to navigate this complex issue, finding balance between personal autonomy and the greater good when it comes to medical interventions like vaccines.

Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a prominent figure in vaccinology, and some of his colleagues recently published an article that has drawn significant attention. The article acknowledges that vaccines are not as thoroughly studied as previously claimed, particularly in terms of safety, both before and after they are licensed. This has raised concerns among critics, who argue that for decades, the public was assured that vaccines underwent rigorous safety testing.

Key points from the article include the admission that prelicensure clinical trials often have limited sample sizes and short follow-up periods, which may not fully capture long-term safety data. Additionally, there are currently no dedicated resources for post-authorization safety studies, relying instead on annual appropriations approved by Congress. This lack of resources for ongoing safety monitoring has been criticized as inadequate, particularly given the widespread use of vaccines.

This revelation has been met with strong reactions, especially from those who have long questioned the rigor of vaccine safety studies. They argue that these acknowledgments confirm their concerns that vaccine safety has not been as thoroughly investigated as it should be.

Read the paper here

🧠 Get the Right Info: Making Confident Prescription Decisions

Not all medical advice is created equal, and it can be tough to know if your doctor is offering the best treatment options for you. We’ll share strategies for ensuring you get the most accurate, unbiased information when making choices about prescription medications.

✔️ 3 Actionable Tips to Start Making Informed Choices Today

We’ll wrap up the episode with three practical, actionable tips to empower you to start making more informed medical decisions—whether you’re picking up a prescription or heading in for a routine check-up.

Search products

Learn how to read an insert!

Women’s fitness clothing alternatives

This week’s conversation is all about reclaiming control over your health decisions. Tune in for an eye-opening discussion that’ll give you the tools you need to ask better questions, challenge the status quo, and take a more active role in your medical care.

Don’t miss this powerful episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays! 🎙️

#InformedConsent #MedicalDecisions #HealthcareEmpowerment #WellConsidered