Category: influencers

Posted on in americandieteticassociation, americanpolitics, beliefs, bigpharma, billionaires, coercivecontrol, commericalcults, cults, deconstruction, dietculture, exchristian, health, holistic health, influencers, informed, manipulation, medicalconsequences, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, misinformation, MLMS, mormoninfluencers, multilevelmarketing, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, pharmaceuticalcompanies, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, resilence, scams, science, self-help, serendipity, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, stress, stressresilence, survivoradvocacy, testimonies, wellness, worldview

Escaping One Cult, Joining Another? The Trap of Ideological Echo Chambers

When ‘Cult Recovery’ Looks a Lot Like a New Cult

I had a lot of different topics in mind for my final solo episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays Season 3. For example, The Stress-Mitochondria Connection: How B vitamins, Taurine and Magnesium Fuel your Energy, A world without religion: Freedom or Fragmentation, How Emotional Trauma contributes to Chronic Pain or the Social Media Dilemma How to Break Free from the Digital Grip… But then, a new development landed right in my lap—one that perfectly encapsulates the concerning trends I’ve been observing in the deconstruction, ex-Christian, anti-MLM, and ex-cult communities.

My friend Brandie, who I had on in Season 2 for the episode From Serendipity to Scrutiny, recently blocked me. And why? Because I simply pushed back and asked questions. We’d had some private conversations in the DMs that had already raised red flags for me, but apparently, even the slightest bit of pushback was enough to get me cut off. This isn’t just about one friendship—it’s about a much bigger pattern I’ve seen unfolding.

The Deconstruction Pipeline: When Leaving a High-Control Group Means Entering Another

One of the biggest ironies in the ExChristian circles is how quickly people flee high-control religious environments only to land in equally dogmatic ideological spaces. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s human nature. As Jonathan Haidt lays out in The Righteous Mind, our reasoning evolved more for argumentation than truth-seeking. We are wired for confirmation bias, and when we leave one belief system, we often replace it with another that feels equally absolute but now appears “rational” or “liberating.”

This is where figures like Steven Hassan and Janja Lalich come in (because this isn’t just about Brandie) self-proclaimed experts on cults who, ironically, exhibit the same control tactics they claim to expose. Hassan, a former Moonie turned cult deprogrammer, has made a career out of helping people escape authoritarian religious systems. But a deeper look at his work reveals an ideological bent (it’s hard to ignore). He frequently frames conservative or traditional religious beliefs as inherently cult-like while giving progressive or leftist movements a pass. He has called Trumpism a cult but is conspicuously silent on the high-control tactics within certain progressive activist spaces. His criteria for what constitute undue influence seem to shift depending on the political context, (BITE model) making his framework less about critical thinking and more about reinforcing his preferred ideological narrative. I did what Hassan won’t: use his own model to break down the mind control tactics of the extreme left.

Janja Lalich follows a similar pattern. A (supposedly) former Marxist-Leninist, she applies her cult analysis primarily to religious and right-wing groups while glossing over the coercive elements in the far-left spaces she once occupied (or still does). Her work is valuable in breaking down how high-demand groups operate, but she, too, appears to have blind spots when it comes to ideological echo chambers outside of the religious sphere. These represent a pattern rather than an isolated incident. Other platforms like (The New Evangelicals, Dr. Pete Enns (The Bible for Normal People), Eve was framed, Jesus Unfollower, Dr. Laura Anderson just to name a few.) highlight control tactics when they appear in traditional or conservative groups but fail to apply the same scrutiny to their own ideological circles.

This selective analysis creates a dangerous illusion: it allows people leaving fundamentalist religious spaces to believe they are now “free thinkers” while unknowingly adopting another rigid belief system. The deconstruction pipeline often leads former evangelicals straight into progressive activism, where purity tests, ideological loyalty, and social shaming operate just as effectively as they did in the church. The language changes: “sin” becomes “problematic,” “heresy” becomes “harmful rhetoric”, but the mechanisms remain the same.

Haidt’s work on moral foundations helps explain this phenomenon. Progressive and conservative worldviews are built on different moral intuitions, but both can be taken to extremes. The key to avoiding ideological capture is intellectual humility—the ability to recognize that no belief system has a monopoly on truth and that reason itself can be weaponized for tribalism.

John Stuart Mill warned of this centuries ago: the greatest threat to truth is not outright censorship but the cultural and social pressures that make certain ideas unspeakable. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind echoes this concern, showing how overprotective thinking and emotional reasoning have created a generation that confuses disagreement with harm.

Franklin O’Kanu’s concept of the “fake intellectual” is particularly relevant here—people who claim to be champions of free thought while aggressively enforcing ideological orthodoxy.

In this episode, through my experience with Brandie, I’ll illustrate how skepticism is selectively applied, and how ‘critical thinking’ communities can become just as dogmatic as the systems they reject. And unlike Hassan or Lalich, my connection with Brandie was personal. And that’s why I felt this warranted an entire podcast episode. Because what happened with her is a microcosm of a larger issue: people leaving high-control spaces only to re-enter new ones. They are convinced that this time, they’ve finally found the “truth.” Spoiler alert: that’s not how truth works.

So, let’s talk about it.

Blocked for Asking Questions

Recently, Brandie posted on Instagram about DARVO—a psychological tactic where abusers Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender to avoid accountability. I agree that MLMs use DARVO. But I wanted to add friendly pushback, that I’ve noticed anti-MLM advocates use similar tactics to silence critics—especially when it comes to questioning the food industry— but she had turned the comments off.

So I went to Substack, wrote a note, tagged her and asked for us to have a discussion. and that’s when she blocked me. Not for being aggressive. Not for being rude. But for questioning her narrative.

So much for open conversation.

DARVO: The Classic Manipulation Tactic

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—a tactic frequently used by abusers, cult leaders, and high-control groups when they’re called out. It flips accountability on its head, making the person asking legitimate questions seem like the aggressor while the actual manipulator plays the victim.

How MLMs Use DARVO

Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) schemes thrive on DARVO because their entire business model is built on deception. Here’s a classic example:

  1. Deny – A distributor is confronted with the fact that 99% of people in MLMs lose money. Instead of addressing the data, they deny it completely:
    “That’s just a myth! I know tons of people making six figures!”
  2. Attack – When pressed further, they go on the offensive, accusing the skeptic of being negative or jealous:
    “Wow, you’re so close-minded. No wonder you’re not successful!”
  3. Reverse Victim and Offender – Finally, they paint themselves as the victim and the questioner as the bully:
    “I’m just a woman trying to build a business and empower others. Why are you trying to tear me down?”

This tactic shuts down meaningful discussion and keeps people trapped in a system that exploits them.

Do you know what else exploits individuals? Fear and propaganda.

I saw this firsthand in a recent conversation with a friend who’s deeply entrenched in leftist ideologies and what I’d call “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” She shared a post warning people to change their bank accounts because of a false claim that Elon Musk’s staff had access to personal financial data. I pointed out that the post was misinformation, but instead of engaging with the facts, the conversation quickly shifted in a way that mirrors the DARVO tactic.

First, she denied that the post could be harmful or misleading. Then, she attacked me for not understanding the larger “fear” that people are feeling in the current political climate. Finally, she reversed the roles, casting herself as the victim of a chaotic world and me as the one creating unnecessary tension by questioning the post.

This is a textbook example of DARVO, a tactic that deflects accountability, shifts blame, and keeps people trapped in fear-driven narratives. It keeps them from having honest, fact-based conversations and prevents any real understanding of what’s going on around them.

How Brandie Used DARVO on Me

Ironically, despite being an anti-MLM advocate, Brandie used the exact same manipulation tactics when I pushed back on some of her positions. This is a woman who criticizes manipulative marketing tactics in MLMs, yet here she was, employing the very same tactics in our discussion. It’s a stark example of how these patterns can be so ingrained that even those who oppose them can fall into using them.

Deny – When I questioned her promotion of dietitians who endorse processed foods like Clif Z Bars (which recently faced a class-action lawsuit for misleading health claims), she refused to acknowledge the legitimate concerns. Instead, she dismissed it by claiming that caring about food ingredients was more stressful for the body than just eating the food itself—a false dichotomy that undermines any nuance in the conversation, especially when she often critiques the same logical fallacy in other contexts.

Attack – Rather than engaging with my points, she made it personal, implying that I was being antagonistic or bad-faith for even questioning her stance.

Reverse Victim and Offender – Finally, when I didn’t back down, she blocked me, flipping the narrative to make it seem like I was the one causing harm simply by asking questions.

When Therapy Becomes Thought Control: The Weaponization of Mental Health

What makes this dynamic even more interesting is that both my friend in Portland and Brandie, an anti-MLM advocate, are therapists. These conversations have all unfolded within a culture that professes to value feelings, emotional well-being, and mental health awareness. More people are going to therapy than ever before, and an increasing number of people are training to become therapists—mostly women. Currently, around 70-80% of psychologists and therapists are female, and those seeking help are also more likely to be female.

The field has increasingly become a vehicle for ideological activism. Dr. Roger McFillin has spoken extensively about this shift, describing how therapy now often reinforces victimhood narratives rather than fostering resilience. Instead of helping clients process experiences and build coping skills, many therapists nudge them toward predetermined ideological conclusions—especially in areas of identity, oppression, and systemic injustice.

This shift has eroded one of psychology’s most fundamental ethical principles: informed consent. Clients, particularly young and vulnerable individuals, are often funneled into ideological frameworks without realizing it. Under the guise of “affirming care” or “social justice-informed therapy,” therapists may subtly guide them toward specific worldviews rather than offering a full range of perspectives. What should be a process of self-discovery instead becomes thought reform, where questioning the prevailing narrative is framed as harmful or regressive.

Therapy is no longer just political—it has become a mechanism of enforcement. We see this in counseling programs that demand ideological conformity from students, in therapists who blur the line between clinical work and activism, and in public figures like Janja Lalich and Steven Hassan, who claim to expose undue influence while engaging in the same tactics. This is ideological gatekeeping disguised as expertise.

Rather than fostering open exploration, the field is increasingly defined by rigid dogma. Questioning the dominant ideology isn’t framed as critical thinking—it’s labeled as resistance, ignorance, or even harm. And when that happens, dissenting voices aren’t debated; they’re erased. If this trend continues, therapy won’t just be a tool for self-improvement. It will be a tool for social control. It already is.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Skepticism

Brandie and the anti-MLM crowd claim to combat misinformation, yet they overlook a significant issue: the influence of Big Food and Big Pharma on public health narratives.

On her social media story and in private conversations, Brandie has defended dietitians who actively promote ultra-processed foods. Some registered dietitians with large platforms endorse products like Hawaiian Punch and Clif Z Bars as acceptable—even healthy—options.

Clif Z Bars, for example, were recently involved in a $12 million class action settlement for falsely marketing their products as “healthy and nutritious.” These bars are 37% added sugar, essentially sugar bombs.

Yet, a dietitian Brandie supports feeds these bars to her young children, publicly calling them a “healthy snack.” Why is this not considered misinformation?

A deeper issue lies in the conflicts of interest within the nutrition field. 95% of the 2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee members had conflicts of interest with the food and pharmaceutical industries. Many had financial ties to corporations like Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, and Dannon. Similarly, a 2023 report by U.S. Right to Know revealed that 65% of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee had high-risk or medium-risk conflicts of interest with industry actors like Novo Nordisk, the National Dairy Council, Eli Lilly, and Weight Watchers International.

Interestingly, both Clif Z Bars and Hawaiian Punch—the two foods mentioned in this discussion—are owned by Mondelēz International, a company that has faced scrutiny over its ties to government-advising scientists and other potential conflicts of interest. This raises an important question: How much of what we’re told by credentialed experts is shaped by corporate influence rather than unbiased science?

These conflicts of interest raise serious concerns about industry influence over public health recommendations. Yet, if you question this, you’re labeled anti-science.

This kind of blind faith in authority is no different from religious dogma. The pursuit of truth should always leave room for debate. This also highlights why blindly trusting “credentialed experts” is insufficient. Degrees and titles don’t guarantee that recommendations are free from corporate influence.

Rather than acknowledge these conflicts, Brandie and her followers discredit those asking valid questions, often accusing them of using the “Just Asking Questions” fallacy.

The “Just Asking Questions” Fallacy

A common tactic used to dismiss skepticism is labeling it as the “Just Asking Questions” (JAQ) fallacy. This fallacy occurs when people imply that merely questioning an issue is a form of misinformation or bad faith argumentation.

Many dietitians and anti-MLM advocates are deeply entrenched in mainstream narratives on topics like vaccine safety, climate change, and pharmaceutical efficacy. When skeptics ask pointed questions about these subjects, they are often accused of using JAQing off—a term that suggests they are sowing doubt without providing counter-evidence. The accusation assumes that asking difficult questions is inherently conspiratorial, rather than a legitimate means of inquiry.

But skepticism is not the same as denialism. Critical thinking demands that we interrogate all claims—especially those made by institutions with financial or ideological incentives. Dismissing questions outright only serves to protect entrenched power structures.

The Counterpoint: Intellectual Humility and the Dogma of Data

While it’s vital to engage critically with the information we’re presented, it’s equally crucial to consider the potential pitfalls of blind adherence to any ideology—whether it’s religious, political, or scientific. In the modern age, science and data have often become the new forms of dogma. The scientific community, which prides itself on skepticism and inquiry, is sometimes treated as an unassailable authority—leaving no room for dissent or alternative perspectives.

The worship of science and data as infallible can feel eerily similar to religious dogma. It demands conformity in the name of progress, dismisses alternative viewpoints, and often shuts down debate—all while asserting that it’s in the name of critical thinking and rationality. In this system, the pursuit of truth can ironically become an exercise in tribalism and intellectual rigidity.

What is critical to recognize is that science and reason themselves are not immune to bias, corruption, or influence. Take, for example, the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, which compromises the integrity of public health policies. This conflict of interest is a significant factor in the mistrust surrounding many mainstream health recommendations, especially when we see how corporate interests shape the outcomes of clinical trials, the approval of drugs, or public health initiatives.

Take the nutrition field, for example. The dietitian mentioned earlier endorses Clif Z Bars for her young children, but if you challenge this, you’re accused of being anti-science or fear-mongering.

Similarly, when figures like RFK Jr. highlight pharmaceutical industry ties to regulatory agencies, critics don’t engage with the data. Instead, they attempt to discredit the person asking the questions.

The Real Issue is Deception from Trusted Intuitions

The real misinformation often stems from corporate-backed institutions. Public trust in physicians and hospitals fell from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024—not due to misinformation, but because people witnessed firsthand the contradictions, shifting narratives, and financial incentives behind public health decisions. Trust is eroded by deception, not by questioning.

RFK Jr. isn’t “sowing doubt” for the sake of it. He’s pointing out documented cases where pharmaceutical companies have manipulated clinical trials, buried adverse data, and exercised significant influence over regulatory bodies. His book The Real Anthony Fauci outlines a heavily researched case against the unchecked power of Big Pharma and its ties to government agencies. If his claims were false, he would face lawsuits, yet his work continues to spark vital discussions.

True skepticism means demanding better science, not blindly trusting authority. The real danger lies in silencing those who ask critical questions.

Big Food and the Shaming of Health Advocates

A recent study has revealed something I find all too familiar: intimidation tactics used by industries like Big Tobacco, ultra-processed food companies, and alcohol sectors to bully and silence researchers, whistleblowers, and anyone challenging their agenda. This tactic—used by Big Food to discredit critics—reminds me of the way people are shamed or bullied for questioning processed foods or advocating for healthier diets. If you’ve ever pointed out the risks of sugary snacks or fast food, you’ve probably been labeled an extremist, a health-obsessed “wellness warrior,” or worse, a “purity culture” advocate. I can’t help but feel this is just another form of gaslighting, where we’re told that it’s worse to worry about the ingredients in our food than it is to consume those ingredients, even if they are known to contribute to chronic health conditions.

Ironically, this kind of manipulation is the same strategy Big Tobacco used for decades to muddy the waters around the health risks of smoking. And now, ultra-processed food companies are doing the same thing—distracting us from the very real, documented consequences of a poor diet.

Why We Need to Trust Ourselves, Not JUST the Experts

What frustrates me is how the anti-MLM community often jumps on wellness advocates who want to clean up their diets for health reasons. While I agree that MLMs are a breeding ground for manipulation, this should not mean we ignore the very real need to question the food industry’s stranglehold on our diets and health. It’s vital to recognize that not all experts have your best interests at heart. Many of the mainstream recommendations we’re told to follow come from organizations or industries with questionable motives—whether it’s Big Pharma, Big Food, or Big Tobacco. These same industries have a long history of misleading the public, and many of their experts are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

Wanting to improve your diet to manage or reverse chronic health conditions shouldn’t be dismissed as obsessive or extreme. It’s a rational, self-preserving choice that empowers you to take control of your health, even when the mainstream narrative tells you otherwise.

Is This Healing or Just Another High-Control Belief System?

Brandie often talks about “cult recovery” and the importance of psychological resilience. But is she really modeling resilience? Because true resilience isn’t about avoiding discomfort—it’s about engaging with it, questioning your own biases, and standing firm in discussions, even when they challenge your worldview.

Instead, she’s teaching people to coddle their minds. To create ideological echo chambers where questioning the “right” experts is heresy. To avoid any perspective that might cause discomfort. If she’s teaching people to avoid discomfort rather than work through it, I’m not sure how that aligns with the principles of ethical psychotherapy.

True healing requires grappling with discomfort, not running from it. When you teach people to shut down their discomfort rather than confront it, you’re not promoting growth—you’re just pushing them into another high-control belief system.

That’s not healing. That’s just another form of control.

And let’s be real—if your response to fair, thoughtful criticism is to shut down the conversation and block people who used to support you, you haven’t actually deconstructed anything. You’ve just built a new echo chamber with different branding.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t just about Brandie. It’s about a larger pattern I see in the deconstruction and anti-MLM communities. Many of them claim to be freeing minds, but in reality, they’re just recruiting people into a different kind of ideological purity test.

The message is clear: You’re allowed to be skeptical, but only in the “approved” ways.

That’s not intellectual freedom. That’s just another cult.

Where Do We Go From Here?

We need real conversations about manipulation and misinformation—whether it comes from MLMs, Big Food, Big Pharma, or influencer dietitians who profit from pushing corporate-backed narratives. It means we need to question everything—without replacing one unquestionable authority with another. And we need to be willing to hold all forms of power accountable, not just the ones that fit neatly into our existing beliefs.

Because if we’re not careful, we’ll escape one high-control group only to fall right into another.

Sources:

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 beforeandafter, beforeandafterphotos, bodyappreciation, bodyimage, dietculture, disorderedeating, exercise, fitness, fitnessjourney, goal setting, health, holistic health, influencers, manipulation, masterthebasics, mental health, mentalhealth, metabolism, mindset, misinformation, multilevelmarketing, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, science, self-help, selfcompassion, socialmedia, stress, stressresilence, transformationphotos, wellness

Beyond the Before-and-After: The Truth About Social Media and Body Image

🎙️ Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays! This week, we’re diving deep into the fascinating and impactful world of body image and social media, guided by two incredible guests who bring evidence-based insights and a passion for accessibility in mental health research.

🧠 First, let me introduce Dr. Hannah Jarman, Ph.D., a trailblazer in psychology whose work sheds light on how we perceive ourselves in the digital age. Alongside her is the brilliant Ms. Claudia Liu, a Ph.D. candidate whose research explores the intersection of social media and body image. These two share a common mission: making complex research not just understandable but applicable in everyday life

Body image—it’s a term we hear often, but what does it really mean? At its core, body image is your perceptions, beliefs, feelings, thoughts, and actions related to your physical appearance. Think of it as your personal relationship with your body. Sounds simple, but in a world shaped by curated social media feeds and fitspiration photos, it’s anything but.

To ground our discussion, we’ll be exploring the four components of body image, starting with Perceptual Body Image—how you see yourself. Here’s the catch: the way you see your body often doesn’t match reality. It’s a perception distorted by negative self-talk and societal pressures. But awareness is the first step. Interrupting that loop of negative talk can help shift your perception toward something healthier.

Next, there’s Affective Body Image, which reflects how you feel about your body—your likes and dislikes. These feelings are deeply influenced by the media we consume, from TV and movies to social media trends like “fitspiration.” Here’s the thing: hating your body is not a prerequisite for change. Dissatisfaction and acceptance can coexist. Making intentional choices about what media you engage with can profoundly impact how you feel about yourself.

Then we have Cognitive Body Image, or the thoughts and beliefs you hold about your body. Ever heard someone say, “I’ll be happy when I hit my goal weight”? It’s a dangerous trap because happiness isn’t tied to a number on the scale. Chasing an external solution for an internal problem often leads to harmful patterns and a cycle of discontent.

2018: My leanest physique post-bodybuilding competitions. I sat here feeling self-conscious, convinced I looked ‘fat.’ It’s wild to look back and realize how much my mind distorted my reality.

When I look back at photos of myself at my leanest—whether it was during my bodybuilding competitions or soon after—I remember how uncomfortable I felt in my body even then. This always reminds me that body image isn’t actually about how your body looks; it’s about your relationship with your body and, ultimately, with yourself.

Finally, Behavioral Body Image—the actions we take based on our perceptions, feelings, and beliefs. When someone struggles with negative body image, they might engage in destructive behaviors like over-exercising, disordered eating, or social withdrawal.

Today, we’ll unpack these components with Dr. Jarman and Ms. Liu and dive into their groundbreaking research on the impact of social media and fitspiration on our body image. We’ll also share actionable tips to help you reshape your relationship with your body and your digital environment.

Get ready for an enlightening and empowering conversation. Let’s go!

Dr. Hannah Jarman, a research fellow at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, who specializes in body image, eating disorders, and the influence of media. Dr. Jarman’s interest in this field began when a young child in her life, around 5 or 6 years old, started expressing distress about her body, saying things like “I’m fat, I need to lose weight.” This was concerning not only because of the child’s age, but also because her family had a history of eating disorders. Recognizing the red flags, Dr. Jarman sought advice from a lecturer specializing in body image, which sparked her passion for research and intervention.

This led to her work on body image interventions in schools and later, a PhD on the impact of social media on adolescent body image and well-being. Dr. Jarman’s work continues to explore the critical intersection between media influence and body dissatisfaction, aiming to identify predictors and create effective prevention strategies for eating disorders.

Claudia, a final-year PhD candidate in Psychology at Melbourne University. Claudia’s research focuses on disordered eating, body image, and digital health—an emerging area in the field. Her passion for this work stems from her own personal experiences with disordered eating and negative body image during her younger years. Growing up in Southeast Asia, where thin ideals were heavily glorified, Claudia internalized these societal pressures, which led to unhealthy behaviors. Fortunately, she overcame these challenges, and this journey inspired her to pursue a PhD, hoping her research can provide insights and support for others facing similar struggles.

I’ve also seen in the data that children as young as 5 are struggling with negative body image, and I can really relate to Claudia’s experience. I, too, have struggled with disordered eating. I’ve enrolled in eating disorder therapy and have been given some of the most extreme programs, like having to eat the same meal plan six times a day for 12 weeks. The strictness of it led to binges, and it was clear that something wasn’t working.

Thank you to all the researchers out there, because while I don’t have a PhD, I did pursue a psychology certification as part of my continuing education for personal trainers. The more I worked with clients, the more I realized the connection between psychology and nutrition. Many of my clients came to me wanting to “lose weight”, but before we could even start thinking about that, we had to address underlying issues like under-eating, yo-yo dieting, and inconsistency. I had to teach them that they had to earn their right to diet, which was a difficult but crucial concept to stress. That’s when I knew I needed to learn more about psychology—it wasn’t just about the physical aspect but the mental and emotional work that had to come first.

Dr. Jarman adds, it’s so ingrained in our society, these ideals and these pressures and dieting. If you think about the people around you, how many—probably the majority, particularly of females, but also a lot of males—struggle with these issues and have unhealthy relationships with food or exercise or whatever it may be. These perfect ideals are supposedly so easy, and they should all be achieving them. But that’s absolutely right.

Men do have the pressure as well, like this big masculine look or the negative term of ‘dad bod.’ Men are also getting objectified or judged. So much of what the fitness industry sells is a psy-op. They’re just trying to sell you the idea that you can control this. It’s like in the religious world, where we have something called the prosperity gospel—‘If you do this, you’ll get God’s blessing.’ Diet culture plays the same tune: ‘If you do this, you’ll get that.’ It’s a deep psychological hook, tapping into our need for control. This need triggers dopamine, which reinforces these behaviors. Whether it’s following rigid fitness plans or religious dogma, it’s the dopamine hit that keeps us hooked. I appreciate you guys getting on here.

A little bit off-mic, season 2 was exploring breaking free from diet culture, body-neutral fitness, and focusing on performance-based goals. While you might see some changes in aesthetics, that’s just a bonus. The real focus is on getting stronger, improving blood markers, or simply walking every day. I’ve learned as a personal trainer that even when clients achieve their weight loss goals, it doesn’t always lead to a better body image or happiness. So, what is body appreciation, and why is it so crucial for mental well-being?

Body Appreciation

Claudia: “Yeah, I can take that one. So, body appreciation is basically a key or core positive body image concept that involves recognizing, valuing, and respecting the body for its functional capacity and its health, rather than how it looks. I know you mentioned that earlier on. So, it’s really about shifting the focus away from aesthetics and towards its functional capacity and functionality. Over the past 10 years, there’s been a surge in research showing that greater body appreciation is associated with a number of psychological outcomes—such as improved self-esteem, better quality of life, and overall emotional and physical well-being. Studies also show that body appreciation encourages people to adopt healthier, more flexible eating patterns, like intuitive eating. For these reasons, it’s been proposed as a potential protective factor against issues like body dissatisfaction, symptoms of disordered eating, and building resilience against societal pressures to fit unrealistic beauty standards. So, that’s kind of my interpretation of body appreciation and why it’s so important.”

Dr. Jarman: “I guess just adding to that briefly as well, I think the focus really is understanding that our bodies are wonderful. They do so much for us, and we get so caught up in how they look and the expectations in that area, that we forget how lucky we are to have a functioning body. OK, maybe you don’t like your arms or think they’re flabby, but you can hug your child or do all these incredible things that we just get so caught up in and forget. It’s about being able to take a step back and really think about and appreciate and value those things.”

You: “And also, I think body appreciation can go a level deeper for those who might be disabled or have lost certain abilities—maybe weren’t born with them, but have lost the ability to move in certain ways. That can be really difficult, because… But you can still find ways to appreciate the small things, like the sun on your skin. Or, maybe you can’t walk or hug your child like you once could, but there are still ways to appreciate the vessel that you dwell in, and that helps you interact with the world. That’s why I like body appreciation. It strips away a lot of those pressures and ideal body standards. And I think for fitness, it really… I don’t know what happened, if it’s always been poison, but wellness culture became so focused on looks. I was raised in the ‘90s—Jessica Simpson was considered fat. That slim, hair-thin ideal was pushed. And now, I’m almost 40—just crazy, that’s what I was raised with. The low-rise jeans…”

Hannah: “They’re back now, maybe just in Australia, but they’re back!”

You: “No, no thanks!” (laughter)

How Social Media Shapes Body Image and Eating Behaviors: Understanding Its Impact on Mental Health and Well-Being

Social media has become a double-edged sword in terms of its influence on our body image and eating behaviors, especially among young women. Dr. Hannah Jarman, a research expert in the field, sheds light on the complexities of this issue, drawing from the latest findings in the field.

Research consistently shows that social media tends to worsen our body image. It often leads to comparisons, where we measure ourselves against the seemingly “perfect” lives and bodies of others. This sense of inadequacy can drive us to want to change our appearance, often through unhealthy means, believing that losing weight or attaining a certain body ideal will bring happiness.

Dr. Jarman explains that while time spent online used to be the primary focus of research, recent studies have shown that the content we engage with plays a more significant role in shaping our mental health. Specifically, appearance-focused content—such as photo edits, filters, and comparison-driven posts—are more harmful than we might realize.

Interestingly, content that is perceived as “inspirational” can also contribute to this negative cycle. Instead of motivating positive behaviors, it can lead to feelings of pressure and shame, pushing individuals further away from the very practices meant to improve their well-being. Instead of encouraging exercise or body appreciation, these idealized portrayals often result in a sense of failure, making it harder to engage in self-care.

So, what can we do to become more aware of the impact social media has on our mental well-being? Dr. Jarman suggests that the first step is reflection. Being mindful of what we follow and consume online is essential. Are the accounts and content we engage with making us feel better or worse about ourselves? By being selective in our media consumption and actively avoiding harmful content, we can better protect our body image and mental health from the negative influences of social media.

Taking Control: How to Curate Your Social Media Feed for Better Body Image and Mental Health

While social media algorithms have a strong influence over the content we see, Dr. Jarman emphasizes that we do have some control over our feeds. The key lies in curating what we consume. If you find yourself comparing or feeling bad about your body after viewing certain content, it’s time to take action. Don’t hesitate to unfollow, hide, or block accounts that negatively affect your mental well-being. Instead, fill your feed with content that lifts you up—whether that’s accounts that make you laugh, reflect your hobbies, or celebrate your personal interests.

Another vital tool in reducing the harm of social media is social media literacy. Dr. Jarman encourages us to critically evaluate what we see: Who is posting this content, and why? Are they promoting a product or idea, and how realistic is what’s being presented? Developing these critical skills can help you navigate the often-misleading nature of social media, empowering you to consume content that truly adds value to your life, rather than contributing to unrealistic standards and comparisons.

By being intentional about what we engage with, we can protect ourselves from the detrimental effects of social media on body image and mental health.

Mindfulness in Social Media Consumption: A Personal Approach to Authenticity

Mindfulness is key when engaging with social media. As Dr. Jarman mentioned, it’s not just about the time we spend online, but how we feel when interacting with certain content. When consuming posts, take a moment to check in with yourself: How do you feel after reading this? Does it leave you feeling inspired, or does it trigger negative comparisons? Recognizing your emotional response is an essential step toward curating a healthier online experience.

Personally, I’ve chosen to operate from a place of transparency. I don’t monetize my content, push affiliate links, or promote products for profit. For me, it’s not about selling anything; it’s about sharing information and offering genuine value. I even make my strength training guide available for free to anyone who asks. Why? Because I want to be seen as an expert, but also as a normal, imperfect human. It’s about finding the balance between encouraging people to be open with their own journeys while demonstrating that vulnerability and authenticity are part of what makes us all human.

Dr. Hannah Jarman emphasizes that while fitspiration content can appear motivating, it may unintentionally harm individuals by focusing on unattainable ideals. She notes that before-and-after images, for instance, can imply that the person in the “before” image is unworthy, while the “after” version suddenly seems perfect. Instead, she suggests shifting the focus to how individuals feel, highlighting personal performance or other non-aesthetic milestones.

In response, I throughout the suggestion of fitness coaches adding cover photos to before-and-after images, which could serve as a “trigger warning” for those scrolling through. This small change could offer viewers the opportunity to engage more thoughtfully, especially if they have a tendency to be triggered by such comparisons.

Dr. Jarman agrees, emphasizing the importance of showcasing the entire journey—ups, downs, and all. She advocates for content that highlights authenticity, as it’s often a longer, non-linear process. By focusing on emotional growth, feelings of self-worth, and overall well-being, the goal shifts away from just numbers and aesthetics, promoting healthier perspectives on body image and wellness.

Claudia shares her personal journey with body image and disordered eating, revealing how following fitness influencers who idealized a specific body type negatively impacted her mental health. She explains how curating her social media feed by unfollowing these influencers and instead following those who emphasize strength and science-based training was transformative. This shift helped her focus on performance and appreciation for her body rather than aesthetics or calorie-burning, leading to a healthier and more sustainable approach to fitness and nutrition.

To wrap up, Dr. Hannah highlights the importance of accessible information and shares a resource for listeners: their social media accounts on Instagram and TikTok, The Well-Being Doctors (@the.well.being.doctors), which focus on making research on wellness and mental health easy to understand and implement. She encourages listeners to follow their content for practical tips and evidence-based guidance.

✨Let’s anchor in this transformative message: Your body is an instrument, not an ornament. Positive body image isn’t believing your body looks good; it’s knowing your body is good, regardless of how it looks. This quote from More Than a Body beautifully captures the essence of what we’ve explored today.

💡 The fitness industry often sets standards based on bodybuilding gurus and extreme aesthetics—standards appraised by critical judges or an audience that values visual perfection. But let’s be honest: the behind-the-scenes reality of preparing for these aesthetic ideals often includes extreme measures—severe dehydration, malnutrition, laxative and stimulant abuse, and emergency-level exhaustion. No legitimate doctor would ever recommend these tactics for health. They’re the opposite of health-promoting.

💪 Instead, let’s focus on experience and benefit, not being ornaments to be admired. Metabolic health, strength, and stamina are far more meaningful indicators of well-being than achieving a “perfect” appearance. When we prioritize function over aesthetics, we open the door to a new, more effective, and empowering way to experience health and fitness.

🚨 At first, the idea of letting go of weight goals or aesthetic ideals might feel like giving up on your body or your health. But the reality is, letting go of these pressures frees you to reconnect with your body in a way that truly serves you.

🌟 Your body is how you live, love, and experience the world. It’s the way you savor delicious food, dance to your favorite songs, feel the rain on your skin, and embrace the people you love. By focusing on what your body can do rather than how it looks, you can deepen your relationship with it and rediscover what health and fitness really mean for you.

🎙️ So, let’s commit to shifting our focus. Set goals rooted in function, experience, and well-being—not in unrealistic aesthetic ideals. Because when you change the way you think about your body, you’ll find the freedom to live more fully in it.

LINKS

Posted on in dietculture, disorderedeating, fitness, fitnessjourney, goal setting, health, holistic health, influencers, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, metabolism, mindset, misinformation, new years resolution, newyeargoals, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, science, self-help, socialmedia, weightloss, wellness

How to AVOID bad fitness advice

Navigating the Sea of Experts

In today’s digital age, it seems like everyone on social media is an “expert” in health, fitness, and nutrition. With so many voices claiming to have the answers, how can you tell what’s actually beneficial, what’s mediocre, and what might harm your progress? Let’s break it down and help you navigate this complex landscape.

Credentials Matter—But Don’t Get Fooled

While it’s important to consider credentials, they don’t guarantee good advice. Registered Dietitians, Certified Nutritionists, and certifications from organizations like ISSA, ACE, NASM, NCSF, AFFA, ACSM, NETA, and more can show that someone has taken the time to learn. However, even those with certifications can spread misinformation. We’ve seen firsthand how regulatory agencies can be captured by outside interests and how lobbying can influence what gets taught.

If you’re considering working with a coach or trainer, don’t hesitate to ask about their credentials. Slide into their DMs or ask in person: What do those letters behind your name mean?

Educated Recommendations: The “Why” and “How”

Your coach or mentor should have a clear understanding of the “WHY” and the “HOW” behind their recommendations. It’s not just about pushing a workout or diet plan—it’s about making sure you understand the reasoning behind every decision.

When they introduce something new to you, it shouldn’t feel like a sales pitch for their latest product. Instead, ask questions to dig deeper:

  • Why am I doing this?
  • How does this work?
  • What’s happening inside my body to promote these changes?
  • How will this help me achieve my goals while keeping me safe and healthy?
  • Can you teach this to me in another way so I firmly understand it?

These questions will not only help you grasp the concept, but they’ll also weed out anyone who can’t explain their reasoning. If they can’t give you a clear answer, it may be time to move on.

The Bottom Line: Trust Your Instincts

If something feels off, triggering, or harmful to you, trust your gut and ask questions. Don’t let flashy marketing, unrealistic promises, or a push to sell products convince you that something is right for you. Your body and health deserve the best, and that means getting information that is clear, evidence-based, and tailored to your needs.

Remember, the best fitness advice comes from someone who can explain, educate, and empower you, not someone who’s just looking to make a sale. Stay curious, stay skeptical, and don’t be afraid to ask the tough questions. Your fitness journey is too important to leave in the hands of someone who can’t back up their advice.

Posted on in bodyappreciation, bodyimage, carbs, challenges, dietculture, digestion, disorderedeating, exercise, fitness, fitnessjourney, goal setting, guthealth, health, holidays, holistic health, hormones, hypothyroidism, industrialinfluence, influencers, masterthebasics, mental health, mentalhealth, metabolism, mindset, nervous system, neuroplasticity, newyeargoals, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, science, self-help, socialmedia, stress, stressresilence, thyroid health, weightloss, wellness

Metabolism Myths: Why Dieting Fails

Let’s dismantle the myths, explore the facts, and learn how to stop fighting against your body and start working with it.

Welcome to Taste of Truth Tuesdays—where we challenge the quick-fix culture, dive deep into the science, and find practical ways to take care of our bodies and minds. Today we’re tackling a hot topic: weight loss—or more accurately, fat loss—and why I preach the mantra: “You’ve got to earn the right to diet.”

Our culture is obsessed with weight loss—seriously, it’s everywhere. It’s in magazine headlines, social media posts, and those cringe-worthy commercials promising “30 pounds in 30 days!”

But here’s the deal: when we talk about weight loss, what most of us really want is fat loss. And that’s a critical distinction. For example, when we discussed in our opening episode about Ozempic, some people using the drug experience muscle loss and lower bone density, increasing the risk of injury—especially for older adults. So, losing “weight” can mean losing muscle, water, or even bone density—not exactly what we’re aiming for, right?

Before diving into dieting strategies, let’s start with the fundamentals: metabolism, daily energy needs, and why chasing fat loss without preparation often backfires.

Understanding Metabolism and Energy Needs

First, to break down the metabolism, let’s chat about your Total Daily Energy Expenditure—TDEE, for short. This is the total amount of energy (aka calories) your body burns in a day. Think of it like your budget: how much energy you’re spending to stay alive, digest food, and live your life.

Here’s what makes up your TDEE:

  • 1. Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR)
    • This is your body’s baseline energy burn—the calories you need just to breathe, pump blood, and stay alive.
    • Body size & muscle matter: More muscle means burning more calories, even when you’re chilling on the couch.
    • Age matters too: As we age, we lose muscle and, unfortunately, burn fewer calories. But guess what? It’s never too late to hit the weights and change that!
  • 2. Thermogenesis
    • This is the heat your body produces to maintain a stable temperature. It also includes the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF)—the energy required to digest, absorb, and store the food you eat. About 10% of the calories you consume go toward this process, proving that even digestion is hard work!
  • 3. Physical Activity
    • This includes both Exercise Activity and Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT)—everyday movements like walking, housework, thinking, carrying groceries, or even fidgeting. NEAT can make up 15% of your TDEE, while intentional exercise typically contributes around 5%. Never underestimate the power of a good walk!

Fat Loss ≠ Weight Loss

Here’s the thing: your body isn’t a spreadsheet. It doesn’t see your calorie deficit and say, “Oh great, let’s burn fat!” Instead, your body adapts to survive. When you cut calories too hard or for too long, your body gets the message: famine alert! It starts conserving energy and prioritizing survival.

The result? You feel tired, your hair starts thinning, your period might disappear, and fat loss grinds to a halt. This is called metabolic adaptation, and it’s a feature—not a bug. Your body’s goal is survival, not helping you fit into your old jeans.

The Metabolic Aftermath – Lessons from The Biggest Loser

Let’s get into the nitty-gritty science of why extreme dieting is a metabolic disaster waiting to happen. Remember the Biggest Loser study we teased in the first episode of this season? Well, buckle up because we’re about to unpack it further.

To recap: contestants on The Biggest Loser followed an intensely restrictive protocol. They ate roughly 1,200 calories per day and worked out like machines—90 minutes of intense exercise six days a week, sometimes up to five or eight hours daily, according to some contestants. Their grocery lists? Approved by their trainers, and dominated by so-called “Franken-foods” like fat-free cheese and energy drinks. The result? Drastic weight loss during the season. But the aftermath tells a much darker story.

The Study: What Happened Post-Show?

In 2015, six years after their stint on the show, researchers revisited the contestants. By then, they’d regained about 70% of the weight they lost—but their metabolisms didn’t bounce back. In fact, their resting metabolic rate (RMR) was still burning 700 fewer calories per day than when they first started the show. That’s 500 calories less than predictive equations would expect based on their regained body weight. This is a huge deal.

Participants also lost 25 pounds of lean mass during the filming of the show. They did regain about 13 pounds of it, but their RMR didn’t increase accordingly. Usually, regaining lean mass helps boost your metabolism, but not for these contestants. Their bodies were still in “conservation mode.”

Why? Because extreme calorie deficits and grueling exercise regimens wreak havoc on your body’s hormonal systems:

  • Leptin, the hormone that signals fullness and regulates energy expenditure, plummeted during the show. After contestants regained weight, leptin levels rebounded, but their RMR didn’t follow suit. Normally, these two rise and fall together, but the link was severed.
  • These metabolic adaptations weren’t just temporary—they lingered years later, showing that the body doesn’t easily forgive extreme restriction.

What Does This Mean for Us?

Many people think fat loss is all about willpower or psychological resilience. But as this study shows, extreme dieting fundamentally changes your physiology. Your body isn’t just sitting idly while you slash calories; it’s actively fighting back to keep you alive. Once that metabolic “check engine” light goes on, calorie restriction becomes far less effective than it was at the start. This is why dieting feels so much harder over time.

The Cost of Chronic Dieting

The Biggest Loser study highlights the long-term consequences of metabolic adaptation, a normal bodily response to extreme or chronic dieting. Here’s what can happen:

  • Disrupted leptin and ghrelin levels, which throw off hunger and satiety cues.
  • Upregulated adrenal activity and downregulated thyroid and reproductive hormones, leading to weight-loss resistance, missed periods, hair loss, and constant coldness.
  • Loss of muscle mass, which lowers your RMR and makes it harder to maintain fat loss.

This is why I preach: You’ve got to EARN THE RIGHT TO DIET!

Coaching Clients Out of the Yo-Yo Cycle

When new clients come to me, fat loss is often their top goal. But most have already been through cycles of yo-yo dieting, binge eating, and sporadic exercise routines. Many are already in a metabolically downregulated state without realizing it.

Instead of diving into another calorie deficit, we work on stabilizing their foundation first.

  • We focus on sustainable habits: consistent workouts, balanced meals, and a healthier relationship with food.
  • We optimize metabolism through resistance training, proper nutrition, and enough recovery.
  • We work on mindset: reframing negative self-talk, building body confidence, and learning to appreciate progress beyond the scale.

Once we’ve mastered these basics, a fat-loss phase—if desired—becomes a healthier, more effective process.

Your Body Isn’t Broken—It’s Adaptable

The takeaway here? Our bodies are designed to survive famines, not crash diets or “shredding for summer.” You can still have aesthetic goals, but you need to respect the incredible adaptability of your metabolism. By avoiding extremes and building metabolic efficiency, you can achieve your goals without wrecking your long-term health.

Let’s dive into the sneaky sneaky metabolic red flags—the subtle, often-overlooked signs that your metabolism is waving a caution flag without setting off obvious alarms. Here are a few that might fly under the radar:

1. Digestive Woes

  • Persistent constipation, bloating, or irregular bowel movements. These can indicate sluggish digestion linked to metabolic slowdown, as the body conserves energy by slowing non-essential functions.
  • Feeling too full or nauseous after small meals, which could signal a dysregulated gut-brain connection from chronic stress or extreme dieting.
  • How you can start addressing this:
    • Support your gut: Add fermented foods like kefir, sauerkraut, or kimchi for probiotics. Pair these with fiber-rich prebiotics (think asparagus, oats, and onions).
      Ease into meals: Practice mindful eating—slow down, chew thoroughly, and avoid distractions to help your digestion catch up.

2. Resting Heart Rate Changes

  • Lower-than-normal resting heart rate (Sudden spikes in heart rate during light activity could mean your body is stressed and overcompensating.
  • How you can start addressing this:
    • Monitor stress: Incorporate daily relaxation practices like deep breathing, yoga, or meditation to keep your nervous system in check.
    • Increase electrolytes: Boost potassium (bananas, avocados) and magnesium (almonds, spinach or supplements) intake for better heart regulation.

3. Skin and Nail Changes

  • Dry, flaky skin or increased sensitivity to cold due to impaired circulation.
  • Vertical ridges or brittleness in nails, signaling nutrient deficiencies like iron or biotin depletion.
  • How you can start addressing this:
    • Prioritize nutrient-dense animal foods: Incorporate foods like beef liver (rich in vitamin A and zinc), pasture-raised egg yolks, and grass-fed butter for skin elasticity and nail strength.
    • Collagen and gelatin: Include bone broth or collagen-rich cuts like oxtail and shanks to support skin, hair, and nails from the inside out.
    • Omega-3s from wild-caught fish: Salmon, mackerel, and sardines are excellent for reducing inflammation and promoting healthy skin.
    • Hydration through broths: Instead of plain water, hydrate with mineral-rich broths or herbal teas to balance electrolytes and nourish your body.

4. Random Muscle Cramps or Twitches

  • Could be a result of electrolyte imbalances from overexercising or undereating.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Balance electrolytes: Add a quality electrolyte supplement, especially if you sweat a lot during workouts.
    • Stretch + magnesium: Use stretches and add magnesium glycinate or citrate before bed to reduce cramps.

5 Brain Fog and Forgetfulness

  • Struggling to focus or experiencing slower mental processing, which can result from inadequate glucose availability or dysregulated cortisol levels.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Fuel your brain: Don’t fear carbs—opt for slow-digesting options like sweet potatoes or quinoa. Pair them with protein and fats for sustained energy.
    • Blood sugar balance: Keep meals consistent in timing and composition (protein + fat + fiber) to avoid crashes.

6. Reduced Appetite

  • Wait, what? Yes! A suppressed appetite after prolonged dieting is a sneaky sign of a dampened leptin response, your body’s way of conserving energy.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Eat smaller, nutrient-dense meals: Focus on foods that pack a punch like eggs, nuts, and Greek yogurt to avoid overwhelming your system.
    • Gentle refeeding: Gradually increase calories, especially from whole, unprocessed sources, to rebuild your body’s trust. (We talk about this further down in the blog!)

7. Waking Up Exhausted

  • Even after a full night’s sleep, waking up feeling like you didn’t rest at all can be due to poor recovery from stress or disrupted sleep stages (thanks, cortisol and ghrelin!).
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Improve sleep hygiene: No screens an hour before bed, a dark room, and consistent bedtime routines can work wonders.
    • Focus on protein at breakfast: A high-protein breakfast (30-40g) stabilizes cortisol and sets you up for better energy.

8. Dull Libido or No Interest in Sex

  • A metabolic system that’s in survival mode often deprioritizes reproduction.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Check hormones: Get labs done to check for imbalances in thyroid, sex hormones, or cortisol.
    • Increase zinc: Shellfish, beef, and pumpkin seeds are great for boosting hormones like testosterone.

9. Random Injuries or Slow Healing

  • Susceptibility to injuries like strains or joint pain, and delayed recovery from workouts or cuts, hinting at insufficient energy and nutrients for repair.
  • How to start addressing this:
    • Focus on anti-inflammatory foods: Fatty fish, berries, and leafy greens can help repair tissue.
    • Scale back intensity: Opt for lighter workouts until your body starts feeling strong again.

These subtle signs don’t scream “your metabolism is broken!”—but together, they can whisper it pretty loudly. 

So, finally, what do I mean when I say, “Earn the right to diet”?

We are now talking strategy. Nutrition isn’t a one-size-fits-all, all-the-time thing. It’s seasonal, just like nature.

  • Maintenance Season: Focus on balance and consistency.
  • Fat Loss Season: Create a calorie deficit strategically and temporarily.
  • Reverse Dieting Season: Slowly increase calories post-diet to avoid rebound weight gain.

This approach, called nutritional periodization, prevents the long-term damage we’ve seen in extreme dieters (ahem, Biggest Loser contestants). Instead of burning out your metabolism, you give your body time to adapt and recover.

Nutritional Periodization: The Real Secret Sauce

Timelines for nutritional periodization will vary depending on the person, but the framework is a progressive process. It involves:

  • Gradually increasing calories to support your metabolism.
  • Shifting fitness priorities from cardio-heavy routines to strength-focused programming that builds muscle and improves body composition.
  • Reviving your mindset to understand that fat loss does not automatically mean a better body image or more happiness.

Now, let’s talk about maintenance—the often-overlooked MVP of this entire process.

The Maintenance Window: The Ultimate Flex

Most people gloss over maintenance because it’s not glamorous. There’s no scale-dropping dopamine hit or big “reveal.” But here’s the truth: maintenance is where the magic happens.

  • It’s where you rebuild your metabolism, so when you eventually do enter a fat loss phase, your body responds the way you want.
  • It’s where you master the “basics” (which, by the way, aren’t easy): meal prep, consistent workouts, and stress management.
  • It’s where you cultivate a relationship with food that isn’t all-or-nothing.

Let me share a story to illustrate this:

The Client Who Wanted It Harder

A client came to me desperate to lose weight. She was frustrated with her stomach area and hated the way her clothes fit. I got it. Her pain was real. Her goals were valid. But as we talked, it became clear there was a bigger picture:

  • She had a shoulder injury that limited her workouts.
  • She struggled with GERD, a digestive issue worsened by stress.
  • She was so busy managing her job that she’d forget to eat or rely on takeout for meals.

She was eating roughly 1,400–1,700 calories a day—barely enough for a toddler, let alone a busy adult who wanted to lose weight. Most fat loss programs will have the client start by cutting 15–20% of their total daily intake– from that would’ve been impossible to sustain and would’ve made her health even worse.

I explained this to her. We needed to focus on foundational habits first:

  • Improving digestion by reducing stress and eating whole, nutrient-dense meals.
  • Packing her own lunches instead of relying on fast food.
  • Building strength in the gym without aggravating her shoulder.

About six weeks in, she hit me with this: “This needs to be harder. If it were harder, I’d be doing it.”

I was floored. She was so used to crash diets and extreme programs that not suffering felt wrong to her. I realized we weren’t aligned in values. I told her:

“There are plenty of coaches who will take your money and throw you into a calorie deficit, but that’s not how I practice. I’m about health first, and I won’t compromise on that.”

Why Maintenance Matters

This is exactly why earning the right to diet is critical. If you can’t master the basics in maintenance—like fueling your body properly, managing stress, and being consistent—then making it harder by cutting calories and ramping up exercise will only set you up for failure.

Maintenance is a big deal because it prepares your body and mind for success when the time comes for a fat-loss phase. It’s not just about burning calories; it’s about building a life you can sustain.

If you’re thinking, “This sounds too slow,” remember:

  1. Your body adapts to chronic dieting as a survival mechanism.
  2. Maintenance isn’t a punishment—it’s freedom.
  3. When done right, fat loss becomes easier, healthier, and more effective later.

IN CLOSING! Health First, Always

To wrap this up, I want you to remember one thing: fat loss can be a goal, but it should never come at the expense of your health. By focusing on metabolism, hormones, and habits first, you’re setting yourself up for sustainable success.

A HOLISTIC REBOOT STRATEGY

  1. Reverse Diet Smartly: If you’ve been in a calorie deficit for too long, increase calories by 50-100 per week, focusing on whole, nutrient-dense foods.
  2. Lower Exercise Volume Temporarily: Shift to resistance training 3-4x per week, and sprinkle in restorative activities like walking or Pilates.
  3. Micronutrient Check: Get a blood test to address any vitamin or mineral deficiencies—common culprits are iron, B12, and vitamin D.
  4. Track Baseline Metrics: Keep an eye on resting heart rate, body temperature (shouldn’t be too low), and energy levels to monitor progress. What is biofeedback and why is it so important?
  5. Patience: You didn’t get here overnight, and reversing these adaptations will take time. Celebrate small wins along the way!

The key is sustainability. Think of this as a long-term investment in metabolic health, not a quick fix.

If you enjoyed this episode, share it with someone who’s caught in the cycle of dieting frustration. Let’s help them break free and find a better way forward.

Posted on in americanpolitics, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, coercivecontrol, cults, deconstruction, faith, freedom, influencers, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, misinformation, moms, podcast, politics, progressives, religion, resilence, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, spiritualabuse, stress, stressresilence, testimonies, theology, trad wife, trump, wellness, womenssuffrage, worldview

1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale: Misplaced Parallels and Liberal Delusion

Breaking Free: A Conversation with Yasmine Mohammed on Radical Islam, Empowerment, and the West’s Blind Spots

After finishing George Orwell’s 1984, I noticed its resurgence in popularity, especially after Trump’s election. Ironically, it’s not the conservative right but the progressive left that increasingly mirrors Orwellian themes. Similarly, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale has become a rallying cry for liberals who claim to be on the brink of a dystopian theocracy. Yet, as Yasmine Muhammad pointed out in this week’s episode, this comparison is not only absurd but deeply insulting to women who live under regimes where Atwood’s fiction is a grim reality.

1984: Rewriting Language and History

The Democratic Party’s obsession with redefining language is straight out of Orwell’s playbook. They tell us biology is bigotry and that there are infinite genders, forcing people to adopt nonsensical pronouns or risk social ostracism. This is not progress—it’s the weaponization of language to control thought, eerily similar to Orwell’s Newspeak.

But it doesn’t stop there. They actively rewrite history by renaming monuments, military bases, and even schools, erasing cultural markers in the name of ideological purity. This is doublespeak in action: the manipulation of truth for political orthodoxy. Orwell’s warning that “orthodoxy is unconsciousness” feels disturbingly apt when observing the modern left.

The Handmaid’s Tale: An Insult to Women Who Actually Suffer

In our conversation, Yasmine highlighted the absurdity of liberal claims that America is The Handmaid’s Tale come to life. Yasmine, who grew up under Islamic theocracy, knows firsthand what it’s like to live in a world where women have no autonomy. These women cannot see a doctor without a male guardian, are forced to cover every inch of their bodies, and are denied basic freedoms like education or the right to drive.

Contrast this with the West, where women have more freedom than any other point in history. Liberal women can run around naked at Pride parades, freely express their sexuality, and redefine what it means to be a woman altogether. And yet, they cry oppression because they are expected to pay for their own birth control or endure debates over abortion limits. 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.

Liberal Orthodoxy: Lost in the Sauce

What’s truly Orwellian is how the left uses its freedom to strip others of theirs. They shout about inclusivity but cancel anyone who disagrees. They claim to fight for justice while weaponizing institutions to enforce ideological conformity. Meanwhile, they are so consumed with their own victim complex that they fail to see how absurd their comparisons to dystopian fiction really are.

Orwell and Atwood warned against unchecked power and ideological extremism. If liberals actually read these books instead of using them as aesthetic props, they might realize they’re mirroring the very authoritarianism they claim to oppose. Instead, they’re lost in the sauce, preaching oppression in a society where they have more freedom than they can handle.

As Yasmine said, “You want to see The Handmaid’s Tale? Try being a woman in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Afghanistan.” The left would do well to remember that before playing the victim in their cosplay dystopia.

Posted on in americanpolitics, biblicalworldview, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, coercivecontrol, cults, deconstruction, influencers, mental health, mentalhealth, newagetojesus, podcast, politics, progressives, religion, resilence, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, spiritualabuse, stress, testimonies, theology, trad wife, trump, worldview

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

Breaking Free: A Conversation with Yasmine Mohammed on Radical Islam, Empowerment, and the West’s Blind Spots

In a world where ideology often blinds us to reality, Yasmine Mohammed’s story is a testament to the power of courage and critical thinking. As a survivor of a forced marriage to an Al-Qaeda operative and author of the groundbreaking book Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam, Yasmine has dedicated her life to advocating for women’s rights and challenging oppressive ideologies. In this blog, we’ll explore her journey, the insights she’s gained, and the challenges of addressing extremism in today’s political and cultural climate.

Why Yasmine Wrote Unveiled

When asked what motivated her to write Unveiled, Yasmine shared that it was born out of a deep desire to shed light on her personal journey and the broader systemic issues that keep women trapped in cycles of oppression. “I wanted to expose the realities of radical Islam and its impact on women, but also to empower others to think critically and challenge these systems,” she explained. For Yasmine, the book is not just a memoir; it’s a call to action, a tool for education, and a beacon of hope for those seeking to break free.

Since its publication five years ago, much has changed. Yasmine reflected on her personal growth and evolving perspectives. “The fight for women’s rights continues, but I’ve also learned to navigate the complexities of cultural relativism and political correctness in the West,” she said. These challenges have only deepened her resolve to speak out.

The Psychological Toll of Leaving Islam

In Unveiled, Yasmine recounts the harrowing experience of escaping her marriage and the lingering fear of her ex-husband, even imagining him in “heaven” (p. 186). These fears aren’t just remnants of her past but a reflection of the psychological toll of leaving Islam. “It’s not just about leaving a religion; it’s about disentangling yourself from a worldview that dictated every aspect of your life,” she said.

Her advice for those leaving strict religious environments? “Be patient with yourself. Fear-based tactics are designed to keep you compliant, but over time, as you rebuild your confidence, those fears begin to fade.” Yasmine emphasized the importance of finding supportive communities and nurturing critical thinking skills to counteract deeply ingrained beliefs.

Challenging Radical Islam and Western Enablers

One of the most provocative aspects of Yasmine’s work is her critique of Western liberals who inadvertently enable radical Islam. “By prioritizing cultural relativism over universal human rights, they’re complicit in perpetuating oppression,” she argued. For women in particular, this dynamic is devastating. “When Western feminists turn a blind eye to practices like forced marriages or honor killings, they’re betraying the very values they claim to uphold.”

What’s the solution? “We need to have honest conversations about the realities of radical Islam without fear of being labeled intolerant. It’s not about vilifying a group; it’s about protecting fundamental human rights,” Yasmine said. She also highlighted the importance of education, both in Muslim-majority countries and in the West, to dismantle misconceptions and foster real change.

Final Thoughts

Looking back on her journey, Yasmine’s advice to those deconstructing a belief system is simple but profound: “You are not alone. There is life beyond fear and isolation, and there are communities and resources ready to support you.” For those seeking to educate themselves on these issues, she cautioned against falling into the trap of political tribalism. “Stay curious, ask questions, and prioritize truth over ideology.”

Yasmine Mohammed’s story is more than a tale of survival; it’s a roadmap for empowerment and a challenge to the complacency that allows radical ideologies to thrive. As we navigate a world increasingly polarized by political and cultural divisions, her insights remind us of the urgency of standing up for universal human rights and fostering critical, open-minded discussions.

Further Reading and Resources

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

Posted on in brainfog, brainhealth, carbs, challenges, chronichealth, coercivecontrol, commericalcults, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, dietculture, fitness, goal setting, guthealth, health, holistic health, influencers, informed, manipulation, masterthebasics, mental health, mentalhealth, metabolism, mindset, misinformation, MLMS, mormoninfluencers, multilevelmarketing, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, progressives, pseudoscience, scams, science, thyroid health, wellness

The Hidden Tactics of Big Food and Big Tobacco

A Christmas Lesson in Gaslighting

As we gather around our holiday tables, indulging in sweet treats and sipping warm drinks, there’s something deeply unsettling happening behind the scenes of what we consume every day. A recent study has revealed something I find all too familiar: intimidation tactics used by industries like Big Tobacco, ultra-processed food companies, and alcohol sectors to bully and silence researchers, whistleblowers, and anyone challenging their agenda.

These industries have a long history of using misinformation, manufactured doubt, and emotional manipulation to protect their profits—and it’s not just limited to public health campaigns. This plays out in everyday conversations, too. It’s a pattern that many of us have experienced firsthand, especially those who advocate for healthier lifestyles and more transparency in what we put in our bodies.

A Christmas Paradox: Big Food’s Gaslighting & the Anti-MLM Pushback

This tactic—used by Big Food to discredit critics—reminds me of the way people are shamed or bullied for questioning processed foods or advocating for healthier diets. If you’ve ever pointed out the risks of sugary snacks or fast food, you’ve probably been labeled an extremist, a health-obsessed “wellness warrior,” or worse, a “purity culture” advocate. I can’t help but feel this is just another form of gaslighting, where we’re told that it’s worse to worry about the ingredients in our food than it is to consume those ingredients, even if they are known to contribute to chronic health conditions.

Ironically, this kind of manipulation is the same strategy Big Tobacco used for decades to muddy the waters around the health risks of smoking. And now, ultra-processed food companies are doing the same thing—distracting us from the very real, documented consequences of a poor diet.

Why We Need to Trust Ourselves, Not the Experts

What frustrates me is how the anti-MLM community often jumps on wellness advocates who want to clean up their diets for health reasons. While I agree that MLMs are a breeding ground for manipulation, this should not mean we ignore the very real need to question the food industry’s stranglehold on our diets and health. It’s vital to recognize that not all experts have your best interests at heart. Many of the mainstream recommendations we’re told to follow come from organizations or industries with questionable motives—whether it’s Big Pharma, Big Food, or Big Tobacco. These same industries have a long history of misleading the public, and many of their experts are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

Wanting to improve your diet to manage or reverse chronic health conditions shouldn’t be dismissed as obsessive or extreme. It’s a rational, self-preserving choice that empowers you to take control of your health, even when the mainstream narrative tells you otherwise.

Unwrapping the Truth This Holiday Season

This holiday season, let’s unwrap a new perspective: critical thinking over consumerism, authenticity over convenience, and self-empowerment over external pressures. It’s time we stop letting industries dictate our health choices and start reclaiming agency in what we put into our bodies.

If you’ve ever been gaslighted for your food choices, or made to feel like you’re ‘too much’ for caring about your health, know you’re not alone. The more we learn about these intimidation tactics, the better equipped we’ll be to call them out.

As we approach the new year, let’s challenge the status quo—questioning not just what’s on our plates, but the motives of the systems that feed us.

Posted on in americanpolitics, Bible, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, cults, deconstruction, faith, freedom, historicalfigures, influencers, JesusChrist, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, misinformation, MLMS, mormoninfluencers, newagetojesus, nuance, nutrition, nutritionalscience, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, religion, scams, science, socialjustice, socialmedia, trad wife, trauma, trump, worldview

Oh, Woke Night: The New Sacred Beliefs of the Left

A Journey from Cults to Cancel Culture

What’s a racist, homophobe, sexist, bigot, or hater?
Apparently, anyone winning an argument with a liberal these days.

This year has been a wild ride. It began with me terrified of Satan, demons, and the Apocalypse, only to be ending it realizing the real danger isn’t hellfire—it’s the dogmas we create here on Earth. I didn’t grow up religious. In fact, I was raised secular, moved to Portland, OR after college, and could give you a TED Talk on progressive ideals. But then the pandemic hit, and somewhere between sourdough starters and doomscrolling, I found myself deep in the throes of fundamentalist Christianity.

That’s right—I started the year in a cult. It took months to deconstruct my faith, peel back the layers of fear-based control, and reimagine spirituality beyond the man-made monotheistic God I was sold. Yet, just as I was catching my breath, I noticed something chilling: the same patterns of zealotry I had fled were alive and well in the secular world.

Wokeness, with its sermons on systemic oppression and sacraments of allyship, has become the new secular religion. It demands unwavering faith, punishes heretics, and offers little room for redemption. And just like the fire-and-brimstone preachers I’d left behind, its most fervent believers seem less interested in dialogue and more intent on moral superiority.

Thought leaders like John McWhorter (Woke Racism), Yasmine Mohammed (Unveiled), and Douglas Murray (The Madness of Crowds) have drawn the same parallels: woke ideology mirrors religious extremism, complete with its own prophets and purges. And as someone who’s lived through both kinds of radicalism, I’m here to tell you—it’s not just unsettling; it’s dangerous.

How woke ideology mirrors religious extremism

In my podcast episode titled Faith Unbound: Navigating the Process of Disentanglement—or rather, Deconversion—I delved into my initial discovery of the Ex-evangelical Christian network. Back in February 2024, it felt like a lifeline, a safe haven for questioning my former religious beliefs. But after 6–7 months of immersion, patterns began to emerge. While the movement has been instrumental for many, I couldn’t ignore the creeping rigidity and tribalism. The hunger for certainty, the need to be on the “right side,” often replaces one dogma with another.

A striking example of this surfaced in Sexvangelicals’ episode How to Do Social Justice This Election Season Without Being a Jackass. They state:

“November’s presidential election offers a stark contrast between two types of government. One is democracy, built on the idea that many people have voices and, ideally, a government that serves a broad population. The other is autocracy, which operates on the belief that only a few have a say. Autocracies, like the 2024 Republican Party, often communicate through tactics such as blame, repression, and fear-mongering. In our latest episode, we discuss common communication strategies used by autocracies and how progressives and pro-democracy voters can avoid responding in ways that reinforce jackassdom.”

My response? “It’s not your enemies, it’s the system.” This narrative reduces a complex political landscape into a simplistic moral battle, with one side as saviors of democracy and the other as agents of autocracy. But this dichotomy misses the bigger picture. Who really shapes policy in America?

A 2014 study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, often dubbed the “Oligarchy Study,” analyzed policy decisions across two decades. It revealed that elites and organized interest groups wield disproportionate influence over government decisions, while the average citizen’s impact is negligible. This stark reality transcends partisan politics and lays bare a systemic issue: power isn’t held by the left or right—it’s concentrated in the hands of those who profit from our division.

By framing every election as a battle for democracy versus tyranny, we’re falling into the trap of distraction. The real question isn’t, “Which side am I on?” but, “Who benefits from keeping me here, fighting, and not looking beyond this binary?”

The claim that the Republican Party represents an autocracy, as made by Sexvangelicals, is not just simplistic—it’s laughably disconnected from reality. To label one political party as authoritarian while ignoring the bipartisan complicity in maintaining an oligarchic system is either naïve or willfully ignorant.

Take the oligarchic nature of U.S. politics. Both major parties have long benefited from the concentration of wealth and power at the top. Consider the case of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose net worth has ballooned through stock trades that suspiciously align with her legislative influence. Or Barack Obama (Barry Soetoro), who went from public servant to multi-millionaire, cashing in on book deals, speaking engagements, and lucrative partnerships with Netflix after leaving office.

Then there’s President Joe Biden. While progressives champion him as a defender of democracy, his record is far from pristine. Most recently, questions surrounding his son Hunter Biden’s international business dealings—spanning over a decade—have drawn scrutiny. Hunter’s alleged tax evasion and unregistered foreign lobbying have raised concerns, yet he continues to receive leniency from the justice system.

This isn’t to excuse Republicans from criticism, but the suggestion that they alone embody authoritarian tendencies is absurd when Democrats have equally reaped the rewards of an oligarchic system. Both parties serve the interests of economic elites and organized lobbyists far more faithfully than they do the average voter.

The Magnet, from Puck, 1911.(Udo J. Keppler / Library of Congress)

The bipartisan reality of the oligarchy dismantles the “democracy versus autocracy” narrative. For instance, the same Gilens and Page study cited earlier reveals that the preferences of the bottom 90% of income earners have statistically no impact on policy outcomes. Meanwhile, corporate donors and lobbying groups continue to hold sway over legislation regardless of which party is in power.

By framing Republicans as the sole villains in this story, Sexvangelicals perpetuates the kind of shallow tribalism that fuels division while leaving the real culprits—wealthy elites and corporate interests—untouched. The truth is that our democracy has been compromised for decades, and it will remain so until both sides of the aisle are held accountable for their role in preserving this oligarchic system.

Instead of directing anger at individuals or parties, we should be asking: How do we break free from a system designed to keep us pointing fingers at each other while those in power profit from the chaos?

From Crunchy Hippie to Conservative Christian Pipeline: My Journey Through the Radicalization Maze

Growing up secular, I’d have laughed at the idea that I would someday align with conservative or religious ideologies. Portland, Oregon, was my playground of progressive ideals—a city where conservatism felt like the root of every societal ill. But life has a way of challenging our convictions. Late in the pandemic, isolated and seeking meaning, I fell into an extreme version of Christianity. What I once dismissed as unthinkable became my new normal—until it wasn’t. Earlier this year, I deconstructed those beliefs, peeling back the layers of what led me there. Read/listen all about HERE!

Now, I can see the flaws and virtues of both worlds, which is why I find the frame of mind in deconstruction spaces puzzling. Many accounts misrepresent or overgeneralize conservatives—the very people they once were or grew up with—and cast the same stones they once had thrown at them.

It reminds me of this quote from the book The Righteous Mind:

“I had escaped from my prior partisan mind-set (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later) and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society. It felt good to be released from partisan anger. And once I was no longer angry, I was no longer committed to reaching the conclusion that righteous anger demands: we are right, they are wrong.”

Deconstructing past beliefs should be about nuance, growth, and intellectual humility—not trading one form of black-and-white thinking for another. When we fail to empathize with others’ moral frameworks, we miss out on a deeper understanding of the human experience.

Many in the ex-evangelical space now lean far left in their political views, where values like care, fairness, and empathy take center stage. Conservative values like loyalty and authority are dismissed or viewed with suspicion, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality.

This cultural shift into victimhood is explored further in The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, who identify three “Great Untruths” that help explain these societal trends:

  • 1) “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker,”
  • 2) “Always trust your feelings,”
  • 3) “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”

These untruths, they argue, contribute to fragility, discourage critical thinking, and promote a tribal mentality—characteristics that are increasingly evident in both the deconstruction space and parts of the progressive left. The focus on emotional responses over rational thought and the growing divide between “us” and “them” only strengthens these dynamics. For a deeper dive into this.

Woke Ideology as a Secular Faith: A Closer Look

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

John McWhorter argues that wokeism functions like a full-fledged religion. It provides a moral framework that mirrors traditional religious beliefs. Instead of concepts like original sin, wokeism offers “privilege,” positioning those with it as morally compromised. In place of rituals like prayer, adherents perform acts like confessing their biases. And, similar to the salvation promised in traditional religions, salvation in wokeism comes through activism and striving for societal change. He warns that its refusal to tolerate dissent turns it into a rigid orthodoxy rather than a genuine quest for justice. For many, including those who’ve deconstructed evangelical faith, this framework hits uncomfortably close to home.

Many of the individuals I met and conversed with who now identify as progressive or left leaning have simply exchanged the evangelical radicalism of their past for their new liberal beliefs. Social justice, in this sense, has become their new End Times—complete with the same apocalyptic fervor. And it’s painfully obvious.

Douglas Murray discusses this analysis further in The Madness of Crowds. He suggests that wokeism often serves as a substitute for religion in today’s secular world. As belief in traditional religions has waned, people have sought meaning elsewhere—and wokeism fills that void. It provides clear rules and a sense of belonging, but in doing so, it also shuts down open debate and nuanced conversation.

The New Authority: From Sky Daddy to State Agencies

A striking similarity between fundamentalist religion and woke ideology is the relentless worship of authority. For those who’ve left behind their “big sky daddy,” that void has been filled by institutions like the CDC, FDA, and government agencies. The pandemic demonstrated how blind faith can easily shift from divine to institutional.

This is where the religion of scientism enters the picture—where reason and science are elevated to the status of ultimate truth. Figures who present themselves as “experts” rely on surface-level expertise and selective data to craft narratives that appear authoritative, yet fail under scrutiny. They become the “fake intellectuals,” as Franklin O’Kanu calls them, feeding the cult of expertise while often lacking real intellectual rigor. In public health, this plays out with the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, which further complicates the narrative of impartiality.

The “revolving door” describes the flow of personnel between agencies like the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry. This cycle blurs the lines between public service and corporate interest, with former regulators influencing policies that benefit the very companies they once oversaw—creating a potential conflict of interest that’s staggering.

In this new system, the scientific establishment becomes the new authority—replacing the monotheistic idea of God with the “god” of reason and data. For those in the deconstruction space, this is a new form of dogma. It stifles curiosity, dismisses dissent, and discourages critical thinking—all in the name of progress. This mirrors the rigid certainty and tribalism found in the religious structures people sought to escape.

Worshipping “science” or blindly trusting clinical trials can be misleading. While clinical trials are seen as vital for medical progress, they are often heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, which funds a vast majority of these trials. This creates a conflict of interest that can skew results and delay critical information about the risks of drugs. Examples like the Vioxx scandal, where a painkiller was marketed despite internal knowledge of its dangers, and the Tamiflu case, where the effectiveness of the drug was overstated, show how corporate interests can shape clinical trial outcomes. Clinical trials, while important, are not always as objective or transparent as they seem.

Empowering Dangerous Systems

Yasmine Mohammed’s Unveiled pushes the conversation even more, explaining how wokeism can actually empower authoritarian regimes. One key point she makes is how Western progressives, in the name of cultural relativism, avoid criticizing radical Islam. This gives a platform to extremist ideologies, which harms vulnerable groups like women and minorities. She argues,

“By shielding oppressive practices from scrutiny, wokeism betrays the very people it claims to protect.”

The binary “oppressor versus oppressed” narrative has become a staple of modern discourse, particularly within the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. This oversimplified lens reduces complex geopolitical and historical realities to a stark dichotomy, fostering a dangerous environment where nuance is lost. It’s unnerving to see college students waving the flag of Palestine while simultaneously undermining U.S. monuments and values, while spreading fear mongering lies about Project 2025, and comparing Trump to Hitler. These contradictions are not only mind-numbing but also deeply troubling, signaling a shift toward ideological extremism that dismisses the complexities of any issue in favor of emotional, binary thinking.

Antisemitism has spiked globally after the October 7 attacks on Israel, but this tragic reality has also fueled the misuse of the term “antisemitism” to suppress valid critiques of Israeli policies. Labeling critics as antisemitic conflates political criticism with hate, shutting down meaningful dialogue essential to addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict’s complexities.

This approach mirrors patterns within woke ideology, where dissent is often silenced in the name of ideological purity. The weaponization of identity politics and accusations hinders nuanced discussions and reinforces systems of power, obstructing pathways to justice and true understanding.

Vivek Ramaswamy, in Woke, Inc., adds another layer to this by discussing how authoritarian regimes like China’s Communist Party (CCP) take advantage of woke rhetoric. According to Ramaswamy, the CCP amplifies America’s internal divisions—often fueled by wokeism—to weaken the West. By focusing on these cultural rifts, China diverts attention from its own human rights abuses, all while strengthening its geopolitical position. This is part of China’s broader geopolitical strategy, which seeks to deflect attention from its authoritarian practices while exploiting divisions in Western societies.

This pattern can be seen as part of a broader effort to exploit the distractions created by cultural conflicts to enhance its influence in global organizations, trade, and international relations. For example, while Western nations debate internal social issues, China continues its expansive Belt and Road Initiative, which increases its influence across developing nations.

Heretics and the Price of Dissent

Religious movements and extreme ideologies, like wokeism, are often defined by their treatment of dissenters or heretics. Woke spaces, much like traditional religious communities, are quick to condemn those who question or criticize. Whether it’s TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) or former progressives like Yasmine Mohammed, those who dissent face severe backlash. This exclusionary behavior creates a stifling environment, not dissimilar to how traditional religions treat apostates. As Douglas Murray puts it, “The hatred reserved for heretics is often more intense than that directed at outsiders.”

But this dynamic is about more than just ideological rigidity—it’s also rooted in human psychology. The human brain is naturally drawn to certainty. When we embrace extreme ideologies, we seek control over our environment, which provides us a sense of stability and security. Research in neuroscience shows that when our beliefs are challenged, we experience discomfort, but defending them can trigger a dopamine response, rewarding us with a sense of control. The brain gets a “hit” from maintaining a sense of certainty, even if it’s at the cost of nuance or rational discussion.

Read more here https://taste0ftruth.com/2024/08/08/the-illusion-of-control-neuroscience-of-fundamentalism-and-diet-culture/

In fact, this need for certainty can become addictive. The human brain often craves certainty in the form of binary thinking—where things are either completely right or completely wrong. This type of thinking is satisfying because it shields us from the cognitive dissonance that arises when faced with complexity or ambiguity. In the case of woke ideology, the call for absolute adherence to certain beliefs or behaviors is not just about social justice—it’s a way to satisfy that neurological need for control. When we feel justified in our beliefs and actions, we receive a dopamine “reward,” reinforcing the behavior.

This addiction to certainty can also be seen in extreme partisanship. The more entrenched we become in one side, the more our brain is rewarded for defending it. It’s why many people in the deconstruction space or on the political left engage in “mental gymnastics”—creating justifications and rationalizations that protect their beliefs. This isn’t just about ideology; it’s about keeping that dopamine reward flowing, keeping the illusion of control intact, and avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty.

The problem is this pattern of thinking isn’t conducive to open dialogue or true critical thinking. The “us vs. them” mentality becomes more pronounced, and the space for nuance, disagreement, and personal growth shrinks. Instead of engaging with opposing views, individuals self-censor or double down on their beliefs, further entrenched in the addictive cycle of ideological purity.

Moving Forward: A Balanced Approach

It’s important to note that this critique isn’t meant to dismiss the noble goals of social justice movements. Addressing inequality and harm in the world is crucial. But when these movements demand absolute loyalty and punish dissent, they lose sight of the very ideals they claim to uphold.

What do you guys think? How do you balance the pursuit of justice with the need for free thought?

As I discuss on my podcast, Taste of Truth Tuesdays, this tension is something I’ll be unpacking in more detail on Season 3 and particularly with Yasmine Mohammed. We’ll explore how wokeism intersects with radical Islam, how authoritarian regimes exploit these divisions, and how we can engage with these ideologies in a way that doesn’t undermine the values of justice, free thought, and humanity.

Join the Conversation

Do you see these religious parallels in woke ideology? Are they helpful in understanding these dynamics, or do they oversimplify the issue?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Comment below, and don’t miss my podcast episode with Yasmine Mohammed dropping 2025 for a deeper dive into these topics! 

Posted on in americanpolitics, Bible, biblicalworldview, christianfaith, coercivecontrol, commericalcults, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, faith, freedom, friendship, industrialinfluence, influencers, JesusChrist, manipulation, mindset, misinformation, nuance, podcast, politics, progressives, science, self-help, sleep, socialjustice, socialmedia, trump, wellness, worldview

Escaping Dogma or Trading It? The Risks of Deconstruction Culture

For many, the term “deconstruction” has come to represent a deeply personal process of questioning inherited beliefs, especially in the context of religion. While there’s no official “deconstruction community,” it has become a popular buzzword online, flourishing in spaces like Instagram, TikTok, and podcasts. (The New Evangelicals, Dr. Pete Enns (The Bible for Normal People), Eve was framed, Jesus Unfollower, Dr. Laura Anderson just to name a few.) These platforms provide room to question everything and dismantle rigid systems of belief—at least in theory.

But what happens when these communities become echo chambers of their own? Instead of fostering true intellectual freedom, the deconstruction movement often serves as a pipeline into new forms of dogma. Rather than encouraging critical thinking, it frequently replicates the same tribalism and groupthink that so many participants are trying to escape.

This is not growth. It’s trading one set of chains for another.

From Evangelicalism to Progressive Extremism

It’s ironic: people leave far-right evangelical Christianity believing they’ve found freedom, only to stumble into another extreme—progressive leftist ideologies. Why does this happen?

To understand this, we need to step back and look at human nature. Political scientists have found that public opinion is shaped far more by group identity than by self-interest. As Jonathan Haidt explains in The Righteous Mind, politics is deeply tribal. We’re hardwired to align with groups, not necessarily because they offer truth, but because they provide belonging.

This tribal impulse is magnified in the context of deconstruction. Many who leave evangelical Christianity are grappling with disillusionment, loss, and a hunger for community. For some, the progressive left offers a sense of safety and a clear moral framework, mirroring what they once found in their faith. The partisan brain, already trained to see the world in “us versus them” terms, naturally clings to another tribe rather than embracing the discomfort of uncertainty.

Research even suggests that extreme partisanship may be addictive. Our brains are rewarded for performing the mental gymnastics that protect us from beliefs we don’t want to confront. This dynamic—coupled with the fear of being ostracized by a new community—creates an environment where dissenting voices are silenced, and ideological purity becomes the new gospel.

Woke Ideology as a Secular Faith: A Closer Look

John McWhorter argues that wokeism functions like a full-fledged religion. It provides a moral framework that mirrors traditional religious beliefs. Instead of concepts like original sin, wokeism offers “privilege,” positioning those with it as morally compromised. In place of rituals like prayer, adherents perform acts like confessing their biases. And, similar to the salvation promised in traditional religions, salvation in wokeism comes through activism and striving for societal change. For McWhorter, this structure offers a sense of moral clarity and purpose, but the movement’s refusal to tolerate dissent makes it dangerous. He suggests, “What we’re seeing isn’t a quest for justice but a demand for unquestioning orthodoxy.”

Keep your eyes 👀out for that blog post, for it will be coming soon, and it will be called “Oh Woke night, The Sacred Beliefs of the Left”

Fragility and the “Three Great Untruths”

The allure of the deconstruction space isn’t just about leaving religion; it’s about embracing a new narrative. But narratives, like dogmas, can distort reality when they’re based on false premises. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explore this in their book The Coddling of the American Mind, identifying three “Great Untruths” that have come to dominate cultural discourse:

  1. “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”
  2. “Always trust your feelings.”
  3. “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”

These untruths encourage fragility, discourage critical thinking, and foster an “us versus them” mentality. They create a world where discomfort is seen as harmful, emotions override evidence, and disagreement is equated with moral failure.

Sound familiar? For anyone who grew up in evangelical circles, these patterns mirror the same rigidity and moral absolutism they left behind. And yet, these same traits are now pervasive in parts of the deconstruction space. This creates an ironic cycle: people flee one form of oppression, only to adopt another, packaged in new language but rooted in the same fear-based thinking.

For a deeper dive into the 3 Untruths check out this post/podcast: How the Quest for Truth Became a New form of Dogma

Reason Isn’t the Savior We Think It Is

One of the most seductive ideas in the deconstruction movement is the belief in reason as the ultimate guide to truth. On the surface, this sounds like an antidote to dogma. But here’s the catch: reason isn’t the unbiased tool we like to imagine.

French cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that reasoning didn’t evolve to help us discover truth. Instead, it evolved for argumentation—to persuade others and protect our own beliefs. This explains why confirmation bias isn’t just a quirk of human psychology; it’s a feature of our argumentative minds.

As individuals, we’re not wired to produce open-minded, truth-seeking reasoning—especially when our identity or reputation is on the line. This is why intellectual and ideological diversity is so important in any truth-seeking community. Without it, reasoning becomes a tool for reinforcing tribal loyalty, not uncovering deeper truths.

The philosopher John Stuart Mill captured this in On Liberty, arguing that free speech and open debate are essential for discovering truth. Mill believed that truth isn’t static or simple; it emerges when differing perspectives clash, forcing ideas to be tested, refined, and strengthened. Worshiping reason as an infallible guide is, in itself, a kind of faith—one as flawed and potentially dangerous as religious dogmatism.

The Rise of the Fake Intellectual

2020 and the pandemic didn’t just disrupt our lives; it disrupted how we think about authority and expertise. Franklin O’Kanu, in his Substack UNORTHODOXY, describes the emergence of a new archetype: the “fake intellectual.”

These individuals position themselves as ultimate authorities, wielding data and studies to validate their perspectives. But often, their arguments lack intellectual rigor. They cherry-pick evidence, appeal to emotion, and create the illusion of expertise without true depth.

In the realm of public health and pharmaceuticals, there’s a well-documented phenomenon known as the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. This term refers to the cyclical movement of personnel between roles as regulators or policymakers and positions within the industries they oversee.

What Is the Revolving Door?

The revolving door concept highlights a pattern where high-ranking officials from organizations such as the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) transition into influential roles within pharmaceutical companies, and vice versa. This fluid movement raises critical questions about the integrity and impartiality of regulatory oversight.

The deconstruction space is fertile ground for this phenomenon. Disillusioned individuals, hungry for guidance, are particularly vulnerable to voices that seem authoritative. But the rise of fake intellectuals doesn’t just mislead; it stifles genuine curiosity and critical thinking, replacing one form of blind faith with another.

A Call for Intellectual Diversity

If the goal of deconstruction is freedom, then it must embrace intellectual diversity. True growth happens when we allow our ideas to be challenged—when we resist the urge to label dissenters as enemies and instead engage with them in good faith.

This is why Mill’s defense of free speech is more important than ever. Truth isn’t found in the safety of ideological purity; it’s forged in the discomfort of debate. Communities that discourage dissent are not liberating—they’re suffocating.

Conclusion: Toward True Freedom

Deconstruction should be a crossroads, not a pipeline. It’s an opportunity to question everything—including the ideologies we’re tempted to adopt in place of the ones we’ve left behind.

To truly grow, we must embrace complexity, engage with opposing perspectives, and remain humble in the face of our own limitations. The path to freedom isn’t about finding the “right” tribe—it’s about stepping beyond tribes altogether and seeking truth with courage, curiosity, and an open mind.