Category: trump

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

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

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

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

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

How We Got Here—The Origins of Gender Ideology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genevieve Gluck wrote in Reduxx Magizine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to today’s nightmare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Medical and Scientific Consequences of Erasing Sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

We don’t. Because that’s the point.

The Connection Between Transgenderism and Transhumanism

As the journalist, Stella Morabito, has written:

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

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

This is where things get dark.

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

Think about what the transgender movement pushes:

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

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

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

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

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

Brave New World Revisited: The Synthetic Creation of Culture

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

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

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

The Erasure of Women Illustration by Greg Groesch

Fighting Back Against the Erasure of Women

So what do we do?

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

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

Sources:

Posted on in americanpolitics, 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 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.

Posted on in americanpolitics, challenges, coercivecontrol, cults, deconstruction, freedom, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, misinformation, neuroplasticity, nuance, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, stressresilence, trump, womenssuffrage, worldview

Understanding Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)

Forget your zombie apocalypse fantasies — the real outbreak is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), where rational thinking flies out the window the moment “Orange Man” is mentioned. TDS has become a modern-day fever that sends reasonable minds into a frenzy. If you’ve seen this around you, you’re not alone. But let me just say, I get it! I used to be there. When Trump won in 2016, I cried. I felt the devastation, the outrage, the “what’s happening to our country?!” moment that so many others experienced. I believed the media narratives without question and wore that emotional turmoil like a badge. But then, something clicked. I started researching more carefully, looking into primary sources, seeking out independent media, and asking myself what I was really feeling about the issues rather than just repeating the party line. Over time, I saw the layers of complexity, nuance, and even hypocrisy that I’d never realized before.

Now, let’s take a deeper look at each of the TDS symptoms:

Symptoms of TDS: Diagnosing the Outrage

1. “Fascist! Racist! Sexist!”

If you so much as mention Trump in a positive light, brace yourself for the onslaught: you’re suddenly a fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted conspiracy theorist out to destroy democracy. The irony? This mob is so quick to throw every name in the book that the words have lost all meaning. Their logic: if you disagree, you’re evil. How convenient.

2. Family? Friends? Disposable!

TDS has reached the point where people are cutting off family members over their voting history. Imagine tossing a lifelong friendship because Uncle Joe wore a MAGA hat. For some with TDS, Thanksgiving isn’t a holiday; it’s a battleground. It’s not just about politics anymore — it’s a moral crusade where every dissenting opinion is a betrayal. Call it selective outrage syndrome.

3. Corporate Parrot Mode Activated

When TDS takes over, suddenly the most “anti-establishment” folks turn into the establishment’s biggest fans. They unironically parrot lines from Big Pharma, media conglomerates, tech giants, intelligence agencies, the military-industrial complex, and yes, even the World Economic Forum. In their minds, anything outside these sources? A dangerous conspiracy. “Think for yourself” only applies as long as you’re thinking exactly what they’re thinking.

4. Cancel Culture Gone Wild

Got a book that challenges the status quo? Banned. Statue of a historical figure? Torn down. Art that doesn’t align with the current narrative. Erased. For TDS-ers, history is only as valid as its alignment with their worldview. It’s a never-ending purge of anything that might cause them the slightest discomfort. The new motto? If it offends, it ends.

5. Segregation 2.0

In the wild world of TDS, segregation is back — but now it’s “progressive.” We’re talking division by race, medical status, and whatever category might boost moral superiority. They claim to champion equality, but at every turn, it’s “us versus them.” TDS has transformed inclusivity into a new, hyper-policed form of exclusivity.

6. Piercings, Tattoos, Hair Colors Galore

Extreme individuality, TDS-style: where everyone rebels in exactly the same way. TDS-driven defiance usually manifests in whatever new trend they’re convinced will “stick it to the man”. Just like TDS itself, this uniform has turned rebellion into a team sport. Black masks, blue hair — it’s the official TDS fashion statement. Strut your stuff with the same look as every other anti-establishment warrior on the block. For a movement obsessed with individuality, TDS sure has a strict dress code.

7. “Reproductive Justice” with Selective Amnesia

TDS champions “reproductive rights” but often glosses over the darker history of eugenics behind some early advocates. They’ll celebrate organizations without ever acknowledging where they came from. Bring up Margaret Sanger’s disturbing past, and watch them squirm — or, more likely, accuse you of “attacking reproductive freedom.”

8. Riot, Loot, and Celebrate Criminality (but Take Away the Guns)

TDS folks will tell you that looting and burning buildings are “mostly peaceful.” They cheer on criminality as “expression” but demand that law-abiding citizens be disarmed. In their perfect world, the government holds all the power, while citizens are stripped of their rights. Because nothing says “justice” like leaving the people defenseless.

9. Senile Man Isn’t Senile (and Don’t You Dare Say Otherwise)

Exhibit A of TDS reality distortion: insisting that “Senile Man” is sharp, focused, and totally not slipping. TDS defenders will rationalize every stutter, stumble, and lapse as just “endearing quirks.” They’ve become professional apologists for a guy who can barely string a sentence together without a script.

10. Open Borders Good, Secure Borders Bad

In the TDS worldview, open borders are a humanitarian triumph, and peace negotiations are…dangerous? They cheer escalating tensions and possible war, insisting it’s good for democracy. But God forbid someone suggests security at the borders. That’s “xenophobic” — unless they need walls and fences around their own neighborhoods.

11. MAGA and Russia: The Root of All Evil

To the TDS-affected, MAGA and Russia are the villains of every story. Whatever the issue, it’s their fault. Rising costs, climate disasters, bad sports scores? It’s all “MAGA” or Putin. It’s like a never-ending game of political Mad Libs, where every blank is filled with the same two villains.

12. January 6 is the New 9/11

The narrative: January 6 was on par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11. For TDS followers, a chaotic day at the Capitol has somehow become a world-altering tragedy on par with historic attacks on America. The comparison is absurd, but TDS won’t let it go. Any criticism? Clearly you’re downplaying “the darkest day in history.”

13. Blind Obedience Rebranded as “Saving Democracy”

TDS logic: the only way to “save democracy” is by silencing dissent, canceling opinions, and obeying government orders without question. It’s like a self-contradictory campaign slogan: “Destroy freedom to protect it!” And somehow, they think they’re the enlightened ones.

14. Buzzword Bingo

TDS rhetoric is powered by slogans that sound deep but are emptier than a plastic grocery bag in a windstorm. You’ll hear phrases like “destroy democracy to save it,” “compliance is justice,” and “love wins,” even when they’re trampling over their own definitions. It’s a language of feel-good contradictions — because if it sounds right, who cares if it is right?

TDS Prognosis: From Reason to Rage

Unfortunately, TDS seems to be getting worse, not better. Studies suggest that heavy doses of mainstream media, academic echo chambers, and social media influencers are turning normal folks into a rage-fueled army of identical outrage. And when you throw in teachers’ unions, college admin, and some politicians adding fuel to the fire, it’s no wonder we’re seeing otherwise smart, decent people morph into full-time outrage machines.

In the end, TDS has turned the political landscape into a circus of contradictions, hysterics, and nonsensical slogans. If you’re ready for an apocalypse, you might not need zombies — TDS has already created an army of the enraged, who follow the leader without question, convinced they’re fighting the good fight by shutting down everything they disagree with.

Treatment: A Cure for TDS?

Can you reason with someone deep in TDS? Sometimes it feels impossible, but it’s worth trying. A demoralized person is hard to reach, but most cases of TDS aren’t terminal. Many of those “80 million” Biden voters are reasonable, everyday people who just might be open to a conversation. Looking at the 2024 election landscape, Trump and the GOP have undeniably tapped into a broader, more diverse demographic. Today’s Republican candidates come from various backgrounds, with f igures like Tulsi Gabbard and Vivek Ramaswamy, representing unique perspectives, which is a first for the party on this scale. This diverse mix shows that the party’s focus is evolving—centered not just on identity but on a broader range of ideas​.POLITICO.

Let’s resist the divisive forces that are feeding TDS and bring civility back into the mix.

So, here’s the prescription:

  1. Step Away from MSM: The first step is to lower their dose of mainstream media. It’s like a detox.
  2. Upgrade the Information Diet: Guide them toward new, independent sources of information. Look for voices that don’t just echo the usual talking points.
  3. Watch The Coddling of the American Mind: This documentary challenges the ideas that have cultivated TDS and offers perspective on resilience and openness.
  4. Take a Walk Outside: Nature is good for the soul. Sometimes, the answer is as simple as fresh air, sunshine, and a reminder that the world is bigger than our screens.
  5. Hit the Gym: Physical exercise has been shown to reduce anxiety and improve mental clarity. Plus, it’s hard to hold onto bitterness when you’re in the zone.
  6. And Most Importantly, Laugh: Humor can bridge divides faster than any debate. Remember, we can disagree and still respect each other.

Let’s turn down the heat and work on genuine conversations—who knows, maybe one by one, we can cure TDS for good.

But on the real though, breaking through what’s commonly called Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) requires understanding why these deeply polarizing reactions arise and how to gently engage people in constructive, open-minded discussions. Here are some insightful resources and strategies to help you navigate TDS, improve communication, and potentially help those caught in it see multiple perspectives more clearly.

1. Books on Political Polarization and Media Influence

  • “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff
    This book explores why younger generations are more anxious and polarized, linking it to trends in education, media, and social conditioning. It discusses the impact of overprotection and “safetyism” on mental resilience, which can feed into extreme reactions to political figures like Trump.
  • “Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt
    Haidt’s book explains the moral psychology behind political divides, providing insight into why people demonize others for their beliefs. It’s a resource that encourages empathy and offers tools to understand why certain people feel so strongly about political figures.
  • “Hate, Inc.” by Matt Taibbi
    This book takes a deep dive into how the media creates division, rage, and fear to keep audiences engaged. Taibbi argues that both sides of the political spectrum are manipulated by media tactics, which can lead to knee-jerk reactions and a lack of critical thinking.
  • “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman
    Kahneman’s insights into the psychology of decision-making and biases are incredibly valuable for understanding how snap judgments form. This is essential for recognizing why some people react so viscerally to certain public figures and how they might break out of these biases.

2. Documentaries and Videos

  • “The Social Dilemma”
    This documentary shows how social media platforms amplify outrage and division. It explains how algorithms reward extreme views and reinforce confirmation biases. Viewing this can help someone understand how media exposure may fuel polarized reactions.
  • Interviews and Talks by Jonathan Haidt
    Haidt’s lectures on YouTube about political polarization and moral psychology provide easily digestible explanations for why people become entrenched in their beliefs and hostile toward others. His work emphasizes empathy and understanding, which are key in bridging divides.
  • Interviews with Matt Taibbi on Media Influence
    Journalist Matt Taibbi frequently discusses media’s role in inflaming division and mistrust. Hearing his perspective on how media drives certain narratives can help someone rethink their news consumption.

3. Podcasts and Alternative Media Outlets

  • The Joe Rogan Experience
    Rogan’s podcast often features diverse viewpoints, including from figures who challenge mainstream narratives. Rogan’s open-minded, questioning style can encourage listeners to think independently.
  • Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
    This independent news show is known for covering both left-wing and right-wing perspectives critically, making it valuable for people seeking balanced information. Hosts Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti offer nuanced discussions that don’t fall into mainstream narratives.
  • The Glenn Greenwald Podcast
    Greenwald, a journalist and political commentator, is known for challenging establishment narratives. His independent reporting encourages critical thinking and skepticism, which can help break through one-sided views.

4. Online Resources

  • AllSides.com
    This news aggregator presents articles from the left, center, and right, helping people see how the same story can be framed differently depending on the outlet. Regularly reading across the spectrum can help break the habit of ideological echo chambers.
  • Media Bias/Fact Check
    This site is useful for assessing the political leanings and reliability of different media outlets. People with TDS often trust only certain sources; this tool can provide insight into the biases of those sources, helping individuals diversify their information diet.

5. Therapeutic and Self-Awareness Tools

  • Mindfulness Practices
    Practicing mindfulness or meditation can help people become more self-aware and less reactive, making it easier to engage in rational conversations without emotional bias.
  • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Techniques
    CBT exercises help people examine the roots of their thoughts and emotions. While this isn’t TDS-specific, understanding thought patterns and challenging automatic, often emotional, responses can reduce irrational thinking related to political issues.

6. Constructive Engagement Tips

  • Ask Open-Ended Questions
    Instead of directly challenging someone’s beliefs, ask them questions that make them think deeper: “What made you come to that conclusion?” or “Have you ever looked into other perspectives on this?”
  • Seek Common Ground
    Finding points of agreement before delving into differences can make conversations less confrontational and more constructive.
  • Limit Media Consumption Together
    If you’re close to someone who seems highly affected by TDS, suggest a “news detox” where both of you take a break from mainstream media. Instead, engage in activities like reading books, listening to long-form discussions, or spending time in nature.
  • Use Humor
    Humor can lighten intense topics and make them more approachable. It’s easier to discuss differences when the conversation doesn’t feel like a battle.
  • Encourage Journaling or Writing
    Writing can help people clarify their beliefs and analyze their emotions. It encourages self-reflection, which is helpful for overcoming rigid political opinions.

Breaking the cycle of TDS is more about cultivating open-mindedness, empathy, and critical thinking than directly trying to “change minds.” These resources and strategies can help create a space where productive conversations can happen.

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

Creating Dialogue: Moving Beyond Division in Politics

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

Discovering the “Deconstruction” Community

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

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

Moving Beyond Anger and Righteousness

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

The Value of Autonomy and Discernment

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

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

Real-World Impact of Ideas

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

The Importance of Diverse Voices

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

Building Dialogue Over Division

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

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

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

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

Posted on in americanpolitics, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, freedom, friendship, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, nervous system, neuroplasticity, podcast, politics, progressives, self-help, socialjustice, theology, trump, worldview

Can We Be Friends Despite Deep Moral and Political Differences?

In today’s world, friendships across moral and political divides may feel rare or even impossible. Yet, building these connections is crucial—not only for personal growth but for fostering a more understanding society. Here are some insights on how we can navigate friendships with those who think differently from us.

1. Prioritize Love and Respect

At the core, friendship is about mutual respect and care. This means loving people for who they are, not just for what they believe. We need to honor each other’s freedom to hold different beliefs and embrace their right to express those views. Friendship doesn’t require absolute agreement, but it does ask for compassion and understanding.

2. Don’t Demand Conformity

Friendship shouldn’t come with a contract that mandates agreement on all things. We shouldn’t require others to conform to our beliefs to be friends, and we shouldn’t yield to pressure to abandon our views just to fit in. True friendship allows for genuine individuality and respects each person’s journey and perspectives.

3. Be Open to Being Challenged—and to Challenging

Healthy friendships can—and should—include respectful debates. This means both parties are open to being challenged and not just the ones delivering the challenge. Friendships across ideological lines help us see our own potential blind spots and remind us of our shared humanity, even when we stand on opposing sides.

4. Avoid Manipulation

Good friends don’t manipulate or control the terms of a discussion. They don’t police each other’s language or attempt to steer the debate to “win.” They allow space for differing points of view, even if it means hearing arguments they might strongly disagree with. Friends listen, give feedback, and respect each other’s right to speak freely.

5. Beware of Becoming an Ideologue

If we’re unable to maintain friendships with those who disagree with us, it may be a sign that we’ve become too rigid in our own beliefs. Ideologues view every conversation as a battleground for their opinions rather than an opportunity to learn. Friendships across divides remind us to remain curious and to avoid slipping into dogmatism.

6. Understand Fallibility Beyond Theory

While many of us recognize, at least in theory, that we’re fallible, true humility shows when our beliefs are challenged. Can we accept the possibility that we may be wrong, even on topics that feel core to our identity? Genuine friendship requires this humility and the strength to accept another person’s differing viewpoint, especially when it stirs discomfort in us.

7. Recognize the Difficulty of Questioning Core Beliefs

When our most cherished beliefs are questioned, it’s natural to feel defensive. Yet it’s precisely in these moments that our strength of character is tested. Friendships can push us to reevaluate and deepen our beliefs, encouraging growth rather than pushing us further into echo chambers.

8. Embrace Truth-Seeking Together

True friends are fellow truth-seekers. They recognize their own fallibility and are open to being both the teacher and the student. They know that their own opinions aren’t the ultimate truth and welcome the exchange of ideas as a chance to grow, rather than as a threat to their identity.

9. Keep Political Conversations Civil and Honest

When it comes to political discussions, the words we choose can either bridge gaps or deepen divides. Friends owe each other honest, civil conversations that seek understanding rather than victory. This means resisting the temptation to label or demean each other with polarizing terms like “garbage,” “racist,” “fascist,” or “woke.” Labels like these oversimplify complex views, reducing people to caricatures and shutting down the opportunity for real dialogue. Instead, approach each conversation with a focus on reasons, providing evidence, and respect, valuing your friend’s perspective even if you don’t share it. In doing so, we uphold the true spirit of friendship and foster a more thoughtful, understanding discourse.

These 9 ideas were inspired by Robert P. Georg McCormick Professor.

In a world that seems increasingly divided, friendships that embrace disagreement are more valuable than ever. These friendships allow us to maintain our individuality while deepening our understanding and empathy. So, yes, we can—and should—be friends with those whose beliefs are vastly different from our own. It may be challenging, but the reward is a friendship built on respect, humility, and a shared commitment to growth.

Posted on in Bible, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, conspiracies, deconstruction, faith, historicalfigures, history, holistic health, influencers, JesusChrist, LDSchurch, mental health, mormoninfluencers, nervous system, new age spiritual, newagetojesus, physiology, podcast, progressives, pseudoscience, scripture, socialjustice, socialmedia, spiritualabuse, testimonies, theology, trad wife, trump, womenssuffrage, wordofgod, worldview

Breaking down the Power Play:  Women’s Suffrage, Christian patriarchy, and Trad Wife Propaganda

This week, I’m diving headfirst into the turbulent intersection of women’s suffrage, the resurgence of Christian patriarchy, and the trendy ‘trad wife’ movement. Buckle up as we unravel how these historical battles and modern movements collide, revealing their surprising connections—from the ongoing struggle for gender equality to the modern reinvention of traditional roles. Prepare for a journey through past and present that challenges conventional wisdom and ignites critical conversations.

🎧Listen here!

My Deconstruction Journey

In recent months, I’ve explored how radicalization, conspiracies, and religion have shaped my life. In Episode 5 of my podcast, we tackled the “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline,” but now it’s time to shine a light on the radicalization of the left—a topic often overlooked. Why did I go from progressive circles to mingling with Trump supporters and Christians? This shift was marked by a range of events and trends reflecting broader changes within progressive movements and their impact on American politics and culture.

Black Lives Matter Protests and Social Justice Movements

The murder of George Floyd ignited the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, but what often goes undiscussed is the scrutiny BLM faced over fund management. Allegations of financial mismanagement emerged in 2021, raising questions about how substantial donations were handled. The movement also brought the call to “defund the police” into the spotlight, advocating for reallocating funds to social services and community programs. However, cities like San Francisco, which initially reduced police funding, faced rising crime rates and eventually reinstated funding in 2022, acknowledging that some defunding measures had not achieved their intended outcomes.

Increased Political Activism and the Role of Cancel Culture

The 2020s saw a rise in intersectionality and identity politics, aiming to address overlapping forms of oppression. However, this sometimes led to contentious debates over ideological purity and inclusivity, particularly in online activism. Cancel culture became prominent, with debates over holding public figures accountable for perceived offenses. While some view it as necessary for social justice, others argue it suppresses free speech and stifles constructive dialogue.

Vaccine Hesitancy and the Crunchy-to-Patriarchy Pipeline

My reluctance to receive an experimental vaccine led to severe ostracism, as those hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines often faced dehumanization and cancel culture. This harsh treatment highlighted how cancel culture can suppress nuanced debate and alienate individuals with genuine concerns.

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

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

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

Read the paper here

In a previous episode, we scratched the surface of the Trad Wife and Stay-at-Home Girlfriend Movements. These movements, advocating traditional gender roles, see them as spiritually fulfilling and empowering, rejecting modern feminism while embracing modern cultural influences. We discussed the fear tactics within this online content that manipulates users by promoting apocalyptic scenarios and moral decay. Today, we’re diving deeper into this topic.

Historical Context and Kitchen Design

Before delving into the 19th Amendment, let’s explore the evolution of kitchen design as a reflection of changing gender roles and societal expectations:

  • Post-Civil War to Early 20th Century (1865-1930s): Kitchens transitioned from being managed by enslaved people to paid workers, with labor-saving appliances emerging and the housewife ideal taking shape.
  • Mid-20th Century (1930s-1960s): The post-WWII era emphasized suburban living and reinforced the housewife’s role as a symbol of the American dream, driven by economic prosperity and suburban expansion.
  • 1974 Bill on Women’s Financial Independence: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act granted women the right to open bank accounts and obtain credit cards in their names, a significant step towards financial equality.

Today’s ‘trad wife’ movement glamorizes the mid-century housewife as a personal choice, not a patriarchal trap. But let’s be real—this nostalgic comeback is less about empowerment and more about rolling back feminist progress, cherry-picking conservative values to fit a romanticized narrative. It’s time to call out the toxicity and acknowledge that the nuclear family ideal doesn’t have to be a patriarchal prison.

Connecting Women’s Suffrage and Christian Nationalism

This week marks the anniversary of the 19th Amendment, a milestone for women’s rights. However, despite granting voting rights, many women of color continued to face disenfranchisement. The rise of ideologies challenging this progress, such as Nancy Pearcey’s claim that women’s suffrage was a net loss, reflects a broader trend of dominionism and Christian nationalism. Pearcey’s book, The Toxic War on Masculinity, embraced by right-wing fundamentalist figures, has been criticized for its logical fallacies and misrepresentation of research.

A Critique of Nancy Pearcey’s The Toxic War on Masculinity

Pearcey argues that the expansion of women’s roles and rights has led to a “war on masculinity,” promoting binary gender stereotypes and overlooking intersectional perspectives. Critics point out that Pearcey’s use of John Gottman’s research is misleading. Gottman’s studies indicate that emotionally intelligent husbands succeed in both egalitarian and hierarchical marriages, but Pearcey omits that her argument falls apart when complementarian men abandon hierarchical behaviors, exposing a significant ideological bias in her work.

Contextualizing These Views

These views reflect a broader conversation within conservative Christian circles about gender roles. Figures like Joel Webbon and Doug Wilson argue against women’s suffrage from a theological standpoint, emphasizing traditional gender roles and critiquing the expansion of women’s public and political presence as contrary to biblical principles. The Southern Baptist Convention’s conservative shift and the rise of New Calvinism further illustrate this trend, as these movements emphasize male-led church governance and promote traditional gender roles.

Motivations Behind the Movements

Supporters of traditional values aim to uphold stability and traditional family roles, rejecting modern feminism and valuing a nurturing home environment. Fear tactics are prevalent in online content that merges wellness with extreme ideologies, manipulating users by promoting fear of worldly dangers, apocalyptic scenarios, or spiritual consequences.

Historical Precedents: Satanic Panic and Moral Panics

Movements like the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and ’90s stoked fears of occult influences, leading to widespread moral panic. Similarly, today’s online narratives can exaggerate or fabricate threats to bolster ideological adherence, using fears of societal collapse or moral decay to urge followers towards conservative values.

Personal Reflections: Manipulation and Belonging

I remember the day I was first drawn into evangelical Christianity. It wasn’t through logic or a carefully reasoned argument; it was through the power of a story—a testimony, to be exact. The speaker shared a dramatic tale of transformation, from the depths of despair and darkness into the light of salvation. Her voice trembled with emotion, and tears glistened in her eyes as she described the overwhelming peace and joy she found in Christ. I was captivated. It wasn’t just a story; it was a call, a plea for me to experience the same miraculous change.

The manipulation was subtle but powerful. The emotions stirred within me were intense, almost overwhelming. I felt a sense of urgency, as if my own life depended on making the same decision she had. It was as though I could feel the darkness closing in on me, and the only escape was to step into the light she described so vividly. Fear played a significant role in this manipulation. I was warned of the dire consequences of rejecting this path, of the eternal damnation that awaited those who turned away. This fear was not just for my soul but for my life here and now. I was told that without Jesus, I would continue to live in confusion, loneliness, and despair.

What made it all the more compelling was the promise of belonging. I had always felt somewhat out of place, disconnected from those around me. But here was a community that promised acceptance, a family where I would always belong. The concept of biblical femininity and submission was introduced as a path to fulfillment, as a way to finally fit into a role that had been designed specifically for me by God. I was told that by embracing my role as a submissive wife and mother, I would find true happiness and purpose.

But looking back, I realize how these tactics exploited my vulnerabilities. The emotional manipulation, the fear-based messaging, and the promise of belonging were all tools used to mold me into someone I wasn’t. They weren’t concerned with my true self; they wanted to shape me into their image of the ideal Christian woman—submissive, obedient, and unquestioning.

What’s more disturbing is how these tactics aren’t unique to evangelical Christianity. I’ve since learned that similar strategies are employed in other religions, such as Islam. I’m sure you’re like me, and have heard that it is the fastest growing religion, but have you looked into the pew research into why? There’s a growing pressure on women within some Islamic communities to recruit other women. They shower potential converts with love, bombarding them with messages of acceptance and sisterhood. It’s all designed to draw them in, to make them feel special and chosen. Once they’re in, the pressure to marry and fulfill their role as a wife and mother can be intense. Just as I was drawn into a community that promised to complete me, these women are often led to believe that their worth is tied to their role within the family and the broader religious community.

The parallels are striking. Both exploit the human need for connection and purpose. Both use emotional manipulation and fear to control and convert. And both can lead to a loss of self, where the individual’s identity is subsumed by the demands of the group.

Reflecting on my experience has been painful, but it’s also been empowering. I now see how I was manipulated, how my fears and desires were used against me. And I’m committed to helping others recognize these tactics for what they are—tools of control, not pathways to truth.

Delving into Christian Interpretations of Morals and Values

As we wrap up today’s discussion, let’s delve into the complexities surrounding Christian interpretations of morals and values, particularly through the lens of historical and cultural relativism. Critics of biblical revelation question the reliability and authenticity of the biblical manuscripts, highlighting the human elements that have shaped the text’s transmission and interpretation.

Read more here on why I think Biblical Inerrancy is harmful.

When it comes to contentious issues like abortion, the selective interpretations of scripture used by some pro-life Christians illustrate a broader trend of reconciling faith with personal and societal values. Historically, Christian views on abortion were more diverse and often more permissive, with significant shifts occurring in the 1970s with the rise of the Religious Right.

Reflecting on these issues, Niel Van Lewen pointed out an intriguing observation: the pro-life stance might often function more as a signaling mechanism than a genuine, consistent commitment to protecting life. This dichotomy suggests that pro-life evangelicals might seek to pass laws protecting unborn embryos while avoiding practical measures—like universal daycare—that could significantly reduce the number of abortions.

This illustrates the ethical and scriptural inconsistencies surrounding the pro-life stance. By examining these discrepancies, we gain a clearer understanding of the challenges inherent in reconciling pro-life advocacy with practical, compassionate approaches to supporting life.

The Trad Wife Controversy: Unpacking Traditional Values in Modern Contexts

The discussion around traditional values and gender roles is gaining momentum, and the “trad wife” movement sits at the heart of this debate. One prime example that brings these ideals to light is the Ballerina Farm controversy, a social media phenomenon showcasing a curated version of traditional domestic life. This aligns closely with the trad wife ideals, which have faced criticism for romanticizing a regressive view on gender roles.

The Ballerina Farm Controversy: Empowerment or Regression?

Ballerina Farm presents a vision of traditional domestic life that resonates with many who see it as an empowering choice. However, it also faces criticism for glamorizing roles that are deeply rooted in patriarchal norms. Houseinhabit, a popular commentator, argues that Ballerina Farm isn’t about regression but about choice. She suggests that Hannah Neeleman, the face behind Ballerina Farm, embodies success measured not by corporate titles but by personal contentment and family harmony, grounded in her faith. This perspective emphasizes that true feminism should respect the diverse paths women take, fostering understanding rather than division.

The Patriarchal Norms Behind the Ideal

While Houseinhabit’s perspective is important, it’s crucial to examine the patriarchal underpinnings of such movements. Practices that might seem problematic to outsiders—like Daniel’s rushed engagement and control over Hannah’s education—are often normalized within their cultural context. These actions reflect broader adherence to patriarchal values, including homeschooling with a Christian Mormon syllabus, underscoring a commitment to traditional gender roles.

Mormon Influencers: A New Recruitment Strategy?

Adding another layer to this discussion is the role of Mormon influencers in social media recruitment. Recent research reveals how the LDS Church uses social media to attract new recruits, with influencers, particularly families, promoting Mormonism on platforms like Instagram and YouTube. This strategy leverages the appeal of traditional family values and domestic harmony to attract a broader audience. The Church’s use of influencers as a recruitment tool highlights the appealing aspects of traditional lifestyles while potentially overshadowing the complexities and criticisms associated with these roles.

Media, Tradition, and Patriarchy

This interplay between traditional values and modern media illustrates a broader societal pattern where the presentation of traditional roles can obscure their roots in patriarchal structures. Media portrayals, while sometimes uncomfortable, are not about dehumanizing individuals but about revealing systemic issues. Often, patriarchal norms are defended as personal choices, overlooking the deep societal influences at play. If gender roles were reversed, these issues might become more apparent, prompting a need for more nuanced discussions on how traditional values intersect with contemporary gender dynamics.

My Experience with Patriarchal Ideologies

Critically evaluating such content is essential, as these narratives can have far-reaching implications for personal beliefs and societal attitudes. From my own experience with evangelical Christianity, I was involved in a biblical counseling program that reinforced patriarchal control, severely limiting my autonomy. In one workbook, I was given an excerpt from The Excellent Wife by Martha Peace, which outlined ways a wife should glorify her husband. The expectations included:

  1. Asking your husband about his goals for the week.
  2. Organizing household duties meticulously, prioritizing your husband’s needs over everything else.
  3. Talking about him positively to others, regardless of the truth.

These teachings were not just fringe ideas but central resources within Biblical Counseling, the Southern Baptist Convention, and many non-denominational churches. This ideology, deeply woven into church communities, perpetuates a system where a wife’s identity and value are entirely subdued under her husband’s goals and image.

The Harmful Implications of Patriarchal Ideologies

  1. Idolatry of the Husband: Obeying a husband is equated with obeying God, placing the husband in the position of an idol. This subordinates divine will to a human figure, distorting spiritual faith and leaving no room for a wife’s autonomy or moral agency.
  2. A Warped View of Womanhood: Women are seen as more susceptible to deception, and their rightful place is akin to a ‘slave’ who should expect no recognition. Basic human desires, like wanting to be treated with kindness, are labeled as ‘idolatrous.’
  3. Enabling Abuse: The book glorifies suffering within marriage as a form of righteousness, encouraging women to endure cruelty and manipulation. This traps women in dangerous, often life-threatening, situations by positioning divorce as rebellion and making church discipline the first recourse instead of contacting authorities.
  4. Stigmatizing Mental Health Care: Seeking professional help is equated with a lack of faith, alienating women from essential support systems that could help them navigate emotional and psychological challenges.

These ideas, while well-intentioned, perpetuate a system where the wife’s identity and value are entirely subdued under her husband’s goals and image. The dangerous implications of this ideology are not confined to overtly religious communities. Similar themes of female submission are found in movements rejecting modern egalitarian values in favor of a constructed ideal of natural order, which often masks deeply patriarchal and oppressive beliefs.

The Bigger Picture: Understanding the Trad Wife Trend

The trad wife trend isn’t just a nostalgic yearning for the past; it’s a deliberate effort to reinstate rigid gender roles that diminish women’s rights and freedoms. By critically examining resources like The Excellent Wife and drawing connections to broader social and cultural trends, we can better understand and challenge the insidious nature of this propaganda.

For those still in the church, it’s crucial to stand up against these harmful teachings. From my own experience, gender norms that emphasize tenderness over assertiveness hinder a woman’s ability to address unfair treatment effectively. Women submitting to their husbands is a dangerous ideology. Research shows that conservative, highly religious men are far more likely to perpetrate intimate partner violence. Hypermasculinity is one of the most powerful predictors of men’s likelihood to commit assault, and couples where the husband dominates decision-making processes are more likely to experience lower marital satisfaction.

Liberation and Progress

The liberation of women from oppression is crucial for fostering a more equitable and just society. When women are fully liberated, they can contribute their talents, perspectives, and skills to all aspects of life, including politics, economics, and culture. This liberation not only benefits women individually but also leads to societal progress by dismantling systemic barriers and promoting inclusivity.

Conclusion: Opening the Dialogue

I invite you to join the dialogue about gender, family, and cultural norms. Have you observed or encountered these dynamics? As a collective, we cannot ignore the role of algorithms and social media in amplifying compelling narratives and creating echo chambers. Understanding the motivations behind these movements allows us to engage in meaningful dialogue and advocate for continued advancements in gender equality.

Through my journey of deconstructing abuse within the church, I’ve realized that complementarianism, often presented as a theological stance, is fundamentally patriarchal and a root cause of oppression and abuse. Navigating these dynamics helps us grapple with the complexities of today’s ideological landscapes and invites us to critically evaluate how historical precedents and technological influences continue to shape our beliefs and societal structures.

Thank you for joining me in this exploration of faith, ideology, and societal change. Let’s continue to question, reflect, and engage with the world around us. And as always, maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2024/01/06/a-psychologist-explains-the-dangers-of-the-tradwife-movement/?sh=42f211f79c3b

19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women’s Right to Vote (1920) | National Archives

19th Amendment ‑ Definition, Passage & Summary | HISTORY

Women’s Equality Day: Celebrating the 19th Amendment’s Impact on Reproductive Health and Rights – Center for American Progress

Overview of the Nineteenth Amendment, Women’s Suffrage | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Women’s Suffrage Was a Net… LOSS?! | The New Evangelicals (youtube.com)

https://bethallisonbarr.substack.com/p/maybe-i-agree-with-pearcey-after

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/