Healing After Religious Abuse: A Conversation with Connie A. Baker
Religious abuse can leave deep scars—ones that don’t just fade with time but require intentional healing. In this week’s conversation, I sat down with Connie A. Baker, author of Traumatized by Religious Abuse, for an honest and heartfelt discussion about the journey of healing from spiritual trauma. Connie shares her own experiences, the painful realities of the “second wound,” and how survivors can reclaim their emotional autonomy after years of manipulation and control.
Why Healing Can’t Be Rushed
One of the most profound takeaways from our conversation was the reminder that healing isn’t something to bulldoze through. Connie calls herself a “recovering bulldozer,” always pushing to move forward as quickly as possible. But in trauma recovery, speed can be counterproductive. She embraces the mantra, slow is steady, and steady is fast. For survivors, learning to slow down and allow healing to unfold naturally is essential. Trying to rush past the pain often leads to setbacks, while true recovery requires patience, self-compassion, and time.
The Second Wound: Betrayal After Speaking Out
Connie describes how only 25% of the damage she endured came from the abuse itself—the remaining 75% came from the judgment, rejection, and betrayal she faced when she spoke out. This “second wound” is a devastating reality for many survivors who expect support but instead encounter disbelief, gaslighting, or outright hostility.
I resonated deeply with this. When I began speaking about my own experiences within the church, I was met with accusations of backsliding, manipulation, and spiritual rebellion. Survivors already carry the weight of their trauma, and the added burden of social ostracization can feel insurmountable.
So how do we heal from this betrayal? Connie shares practical steps, including:
Finding safe, validating spaces where your story is heard and honored.
Understanding that others’ disbelief or discomfort does not negate your truth.
Developing strong boundaries to protect yourself from further harm.
Naming Abuse and Embracing Spectrum Thinking
One of the most insidious aspects of religious abuse is the difficulty of naming it. Many survivors downplay their experiences, believing that if they weren’t physically harmed, it “wasn’t that bad.” But Connie emphasizes that minimizing abuse hinders healing.
Abuse exists on a spectrum—from coercive control and emotional manipulation to outright physical harm. Recognizing where an experience falls on that spectrum is crucial for understanding the impact and taking steps toward recovery. This applies beyond religion too—cults, MLMs, and even rigid ideological movements can exhibit the same coercive tactics found in high-control religious environments.
Developing spectrum thinking—moving away from rigid “all or nothing” perspectives—allows survivors to see the full picture. Instead of thinking, “I was never physically hurt, so it wasn’t abuse,” they can acknowledge, “This environment manipulated me, eroded my self-trust, and controlled my emotions. That was harmful.”
Reclaiming Emotional Autonomy
Spiritual abuse often hinges on emotional suppression. Survivors are told that negative emotions—anger, sadness, fear—are sinful or a sign of weak faith. Verses like “Rejoice in the Lord always” and “Be anxious for nothing” are weaponized to shame people into emotional denial.
But emotions provide vital information. Anger tells us when our boundaries have been crossed. Sadness signals loss and the need for healing. Anxiety can be a survival mechanism. Connie reminds us that full wisdom comes from embracing the entire spectrum of human emotions.
Learning to trust yourself again after years of emotional control is no small feat. Some practical steps include:
Allowing yourself to feel emotions without labeling them as good or bad.
Recognizing when religious conditioning is silencing your true feelings.
Using anger constructively—to set boundaries rather than self-destruct.
Wrestling with Worldview: From Spiritual to Materialist and Back Again
Many survivors of religious abuse go through a radical shift in their worldview. Some reject spirituality entirely, embracing a materialist perspective where only the tangible world is real. Others swing to the opposite extreme, seeking comfort in rigid new belief systems.
Connie highlights that this spectrum—from deeply spiritual to strictly materialist—is something many survivors navigate as they attempt to make sense of their experiences. Some turn to hedonism—“Eat, drink, and be merry”—while others find meaning in service, activism, or intellectual pursuits. What matters most isn’t where someone lands on the spectrum but rather the process of wrestling with meaning, truth, and autonomy after religious trauma.
Final Thoughts
Healing from religious abuse is not linear. It’s messy, painful, and often isolating. But as Connie’s journey shows, it’s possible. By embracing the full range of emotions, setting firm boundaries, and recognizing abuse for what it is, survivors can reclaim their autonomy and rebuild a life of freedom and self-trust.
If you’re in the midst of this journey, know that you are not alone. Whether you’re deconstructing, reconstructing, or simply trying to make sense of it all, your experiences are valid. And healing—real, lasting healing—is possible.
What part of this conversation resonated most with you? Drop a comment and let’s keep the discussion going.
And as always: Maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in! 🎙️🔒
How Media Manipulation and Pseudo-Intellectualism Are Undermining Independent Thought
In today’s episode of Taste of Truth Tuesdays, I sit down with Franklin O’Kanu, also known as The Alchemik Pharmacist, to unpack one of the most pressing issues of our time: the erosion of critical thinking. Franklin, founder of Unorthodoxy, brings a unique perspective that bridges science, spirituality, and philosophy. Together, we explore how media narratives, pseudo-intellectualism, and societal conditioning have trained people to ignore their inner “Divine BS meter” and simply accept what they’re told.
The Death of Critical Thinking
As Franklin points out, we’ve lost the ability to thoughtfully absorb and analyze information. The past few years have conditioned individuals to disregard anything that doesn’t align with mainstream sources, experts, or consensus. Instead of engaging with information critically, many have been taught to dismiss it outright. The result? A culture that values conformity over curiosity and blind acceptance over intellectual rigor.
We discuss how this shift has been accelerated by media bombardment, especially during the pandemic. The New York Times even published an article on critical thinking, but instead of encouraging intellectual engagement, it suggested that questioning mainstream narratives is dangerous. This is narrative warfare at its finest—manipulating public perception to ensure that only “approved” ideas are given legitimacy.
The Power of Narratives: How Ideological Echo Chambers Shape Reality
Franklin O’Kanu often cites James Corbett’s work on media’s role in shaping public perception as a major inspiration behind his Substack. Corbett’s central thesis is simple: narratives build realities—and whoever controls the dominant narrative controls public thought. Nowhere is this clearer than in the nihilistic messaging that dominates left-leaning social media platforms like Meta. The idea that humans are an irredeemable blight on the planet has been mainstreamed, despite evidence to the contrary.
This same unquestioning adherence to an ideological narrative played out during the pandemic with phrases like “Trust the science” and “Don’t do your own research.”I explored this trend in my Substack, particularly through the lens of so-called ‘cult expert’ Steven Hassan. Hassan built his career exposing ideological manipulation, branding himself as the foremost authority on cult mind control. But here’s the irony: while he calls out high-control religious groups, he seems completely blind to the cult-like tactics within his own political ideology.
Information Control: Censoring ‘Dangerous’ Ideas
Hassan’s BITE model—which stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control—is designed to help people recognize manipulation.
In cults, leaders dictate what information followers can access. The extreme left does the same.
Censorship of Opposing Views – Deplatforming, banning books, firing professors—if an idea threatens the ideology, it’s labeled “harmful” and shut down.
Historical Revisionism – Complex events are reframed to fit simplistic oppression narratives, ignoring inconvenient facts.
Selective Science – Only research that supports the ideology gets funding and visibility. Studies on biological sex differences, IQ variations, or alternative climate models? Silenced or retracted—not because they’re disproven, but because they’re inconvenient.
Discouraging Exposure to Counterarguments – Followers are taught that listening to the other side is “platforming hate” or “giving oxygen to fascism.”
This is exactly what happened when Franklin challenged the mainstream climate change narrative. The moment he questioned NetZero policies, he wasn’t just hit with the usual accusations: “climate denier,” “science denier,” and the ever-expanding list of ideological insults meant to discredit rather than debate, but he was blocked. This is how bad ideas survive—by shutting down the people who challenge them.
Franklin warns that if you’re not careful, these narratives can take you down a dark rabbit hole built on lies. Once an ideological framework is built around selective truth, it becomes a self-reinforcing system—one that punishes dissent and rewards conformity. And once you let someone else dictate what information is “safe” for you to consume, you’re already in the first stages of ideological capture.
The Rise of the Fake Intellectual
Platforms like Facebook/Instagram/YouTube have perfected the illusion of intellectual discourse while actively suppressing opposing voices. This has led to what Franklin calls the fake intellectual—individuals or organizations that present themselves as champions of knowledge but ultimately serve to shut down real dialogue.
Fake intellectuals don’t invite discussion; they police it. They rely on appeals to authority, groupthink, and censorship to maintain an illusion of correctness. True intellectualism, on the other hand, is rooted in curiosity, openness, and the willingness to engage with challenging perspectives.
Reclaiming Intellectual Integrity
One of the most powerful insights from our discussion is the role belief plays in shaping our world. Franklin warns that when we accept narratives without scrutiny, we risk being deceived. This applies across industries—medicine, science, finance, and even religion. These systems function because people believe in them, often without verifying their claims. But if we fail to question these narratives, we become passive participants in a game where only a select few control the rules.
So, how do we resist narrative warfare and reclaim critical thinking? Franklin suggests:
Cultivating intellectual humility—being open to the possibility that we might be wrong.
Recognizing media manipulation—understanding how information is curated to shape public perception.
Engaging with diverse perspectives—actively seeking out voices that challenge our beliefs.
Trusting our own discernment—developing the confidence to think independently instead of outsourcing our opinions to authority figures.
Franklin expands on this in his writings, particularly in his two articles, How to See the World and How to Train Your Mind. As he puts it, “We all have these voices in our heads. Philosophy is really just understanding the reality of the world, and there’s a principle in philosophy—keep things as simple as possible.” He breaks it down like this:
You are a soul. That’s the foundation. If every child grew up knowing this, it would change the way we see ourselves.
You have a body. Your body exists to experience the physical reality of the world.
You have a mind. Your mind is an information processor that collects input from your senses. But it also generates thoughts—sometimes helpful, sometimes misleading.
Franklin uses a simple example: Is my craving for ice cream coming from my body, my mind, or my soul? That question highlights the need to discern where our impulses originate. He extends this concept to online interactions: How many thoughts do we have just from seeing something online? How many narratives do we construct before our soul even has a chance to process reality?
Online spaces, Franklin argues, give rise to what he calls the “inner troll.”🧌 He connects this to the spiritual concept of demons—forces that seek to provoke, enrage, and divide. “Think about the term ‘troll,’” he says. “What is that, really? It’s an inner demon that gets let loose online. The internet makes it easy for our worst instincts to take over.”
So, what’s the antidote? Franklin emphasizes the importance of the pause. Before reacting to something online, before getting swept into outrage, take a step back. Ask: What is happening here? What am I feeling? Is this a real threat, or is my mind generating a reaction?
“It’s extremely hard to do online,” Franklin admits. “But when we practice stepping back, we can respond more humanely—more divinely. That’s the key to reclaiming critical thinking in a world that thrives on emotional manipulation.”
The digital age bombards us with narratives designed to capture our attention, manipulate our emotions, and direct our beliefs. But we are not powerless.
On an episode last season, we discussed a concept I learned from Dr. Greg Karris—something he calls narcissistic rage in fundamentalist ideologies.It helped me understand why people react so viscerally when their beliefs are challenged. My friend Jay described a similar idea as emotional hijacks, tying it to the amygdala’s response. This concept also appears in Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Daniel Goleman and is expanded upon in Pete Walker’s Complex PTSD.
When the amygdala gets triggered—exactly what Franklin was describing—we have to learn to recognize the physical sensations that come with it. Elevated heart rate. Sweaty palms. That’s your body sounding the alarm. But in that moment, your prefrontal cortex—the part responsible for logic and rational thinking—is offline. Your biology is overriding your soul’s intention. And that’s why taking a step back is so crucial.
The best way to get your higher reasoning back online? Create space. Pause. Let the emotional surge settle before you engage. As simple as it sounds, it’s one of the hardest things to do. But in a world where reactionary thinking is the default, practicing this skill is an act of rebellion—and a path to reclaiming our intellectual and emotional sovereignty.
Next, Franklin and I dive into a pressing issue: The Coddling of the Mind in society—a theme I’ve explored numerous times on the podcast and in my blogs. Franklin brings up a fascinating point, saying, “One thing that’s happened with COVID, though it started before, is the softening of humanity. We’ve become so soft that you can’t say anything anymore. And what that’s done is pushed away true intellectual rigor. We used to be able to sit and share ideas, but now we’re obsessed with safe spaces. And this started on college campuses.”
Franklin’s observation taps into a broader cultural shift that has eroded the foundations of intellectual engagement. In the past, people could engage in discussions where the goal wasn’t necessarily to convince others, but to explore ideas, challenge assumptions, and learn. The push for safe spaces—often an attempt to shield individuals from discomfort or offense—has inadvertently led to the silencing of open debate. In this environment, people have become more focused on avoiding offense than on confronting difficult ideas or engaging in intellectual rigor. This dynamic, Franklin argues, has stripped away the very essence of what it means to debate, discuss, and learn.
This idea echoes themes explored in Gad Saad’s The Parasitic Mind, where Saad delves into how certain ideologies undermine intellectual diversity and critical thinking. Franklin builds on this, urging that true intellectual growth comes from understanding where someone is coming from, even if their views differ from your own. “Learn what happened to individuals to understand how they arrived at their conclusions,” he says. “Remove personal bias and avoid attacks. Only then can you critique the point effectively, offering counterpoints that strengthen both arguments and allow experiences from both sides to shine.” This approach, Franklin explains, fosters a more nuanced understanding of each other’s perspectives, allowing both sides to learn and grow rather than simply entrenched in opposing views.
This fragility encourages echo chambers and groupthink, where dissent is silenced, and alternative perspectives are rejected outright. Ironically, in the pursuit of empathy, freedom, and inclusivity, movements like deconstruction can end up mirroring the same intellectual and moral rigidity they sought to escape.
I could continue typing out the entire conversation, or you could just listen. 🙂
In an age where the appearance of truth is often prioritized over truth itself, our ability to think critically is more important than ever. This episode is an invitation to break free from intellectual complacency and reclaim the power of questioning.
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.
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:
“What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”
“Always trust your feelings.”
“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.
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.
Bonus Episode: Reflections on the Election Cycle – A Message for the Deconstruction Community
Welcome to today’s deep dive into a topic that’s been stirring within me for months. If you’re new here, let me explain the deconstruction space, or the deconstruction community—a movement that’s gaining momentum for those of us disentangling ourselves from rigid, fundamentalist beliefs. This process is supposed to be healing and, ideally, a source of growth, but it’s not without its share of controversy. That’s what we’re here to talk about.
In my podcast episode titled Faith Unbound: Navigating the Process of Disentanglement—or rather, Deconversion after my own journey took a deeper turn—I discussed my initial discovery of this space back in February. At that point, I’d begun to question my former beliefs, and the deconstruction community felt like a safe haven. After 6-7 months in, I’m seeing patterns that are unsettlingly familiar. The community has been valuable, yet I’ve grown concerned as it increasingly mirrors the same kinds of rigidity and tribalism many of us were trying to escape.
My posts and Instagram reels have hinted at this frustration, but I’m here today to pull these thoughts together more fully. Moving away from one dogma only to embrace another feels to me, like a new form of entrapment. The craving for certainty and “the right side” is strong, and without realizing it, we’re swapping one rigid system for another. In this space that’s supposed to champion open-mindedness, judgment and exclusion seem to have replaced curiosity and true critical thought.
It’s a reminder that true growth and change happen only when we’re open to different perspectives—not quick to label those who disagree with us as enemies. As the philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in his 1859 work, On Liberty, Free speech is essential for discovering the truth. He believed true understanding and truth itself emerge only through open debate and free expression. This highlights the complexity of truth, it’s only when differing perspectives clash that ideas are refined and strengthened. Let’s explore how that idea relates to today’s topic.
Setting the Stage: The Political and Psychological Landscape
Before we dig into the deconstruction community, let’s set the stage with something I found really interesting. Back before the 2024 election, journalist Mark Halperin expressed some serious concerns on Tucker Carlson’s podcast (cue the BOOs and HISSS from all the progressives–I hear you!) about what would happen if Trump were to win a second term. He predicted widespread psychological distress, especially among Democrats, which would affect everything from mental health to social interactions. And, wow, did that hit the mark.
Since Trump’s victory, movements like the 4B movement have surged among women on social media, particularly in response to reproductive rights concerns and conservative gender roles. Originating in South Korea, the movement’s name, “4B,” stems from “B,” shorthand for “no” in Korean, symbolizing “No sex, No dating, No marrying men, and No children.” Recently, the movement has sparked a 450% increase in Google searches in the U.S., with many calling it the “4 Nos” or referencing “Lysistrata” for its radical stance against traditional gender expectations. I’ve shared my thoughts on traditional gender expectations in a previous episode.
The Blue Bracelet Movement: Solidarity or Performative Gesture?
Following the 2024 election, white women supporting Kamala Harris have rallied around an unexpected symbol: a blue bracelet. For many, it represents allegiance, a small but visible way to signal “I’m not with them” to women who voted for Trump. But like other quick-fix political symbols, it’s raising questions: Does this bracelet truly contribute to progress, or is it merely performative—a way to sidestep deeper, tougher conversations within their communities?
The trend echoes past symbolic movements like 2017’s “pussy hats,” which aimed to unify and empower but were later criticized for their lack of sustained action. Today, similar critiques have emerged around the bracelet, with critics suggesting it’s more of a comforting gesture for its wearers than a true commitment to change. Some Black activists and allies have pointed out that symbols alone aren’t enough; they want allies willing to challenge and change the beliefs of those around them, including friends and family who may hold differing views.
Could the Blue Bracelet Movement become a lasting emblem of allyship or fade as a passing trend? Its fate rests on whether those wearing it step up to engage in hard conversations and meaningful action.
Misinformation and Its Impact on Abortion Laws
But let’s get back to deconstruction—and something that’s been coming up a lot lately, particularly within that space: misinformation about abortion laws. Here’s the thing: there is no federal abortion ban in place. I repeat, NO federal abortion ban.
The Trump administration’s role in the overturning of Roe v. Wade has sparked fierce debates on both sides, but it’s important to clarify that the administration never stated it aimed to eliminate abortion nationwide. Instead, the ruling simply returned the power to regulate abortion to individual states. Some conservative figures have even used quotes from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to suggest she supported a more gradual, state-based approach. However, Ginsburg critiqued the federal approach, arguing a more state-focused shift could have garnered broader public support for gender equality. Polls consistently show that while many Americans support the legality of abortion, most also favor restrictions—especially in later stages of pregnancy. This nuance, however, often gets lost in campaign rhetoric, which is typically framed in absolute terms to galvanize voter turnout. But as we’ve seen, such messaging has not always yielded the intended results, revealing the complexity of public opinion on this issue.
Yes, the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, but all that did was give states the power to regulate abortion. Some states have restrictions, sure, but no federal law is imposing a nationwide ban. And without a massive shift in Congress and the courts, it’s unlikely that will happen.
I don’t think it will. Trump himself has spoken out against that. His wife has spoken for protecting these in some way, shape or form. We have other folks coming over from the Democratic Party under this Unity Party bracket. I just don’t think that they’re going to force Christian nationalism, and abortion bans across the entire nation. I guess we’ll see.
Then, there’s this idea going around that women won’t be able to access life-saving procedures if they have a miscarriage. This is just false. In fact, most states with abortion restrictions still allow medical treatments for miscarriages, like dilation and curettage (D&C), which are essential to protect a woman’s health. What’s actually being restricted are elective abortions—not necessary procedures.
But here’s where things get really tricky. The spread of these exaggerated claims taps into the emotional centers of our brains. If you remember our previous episodes, we talked about amygdala hijacking—the brain’s response to fear and anxiety. When we hear these alarmist claims, it triggers that fear-based reaction, shutting down our ability to think rationally. Instead of focusing on the facts, we’re just reacting emotionally.
The Dangers of Misinformation
Let’s talk about the danger of this. Misinformation, especially when it involves highly emotional issues like reproductive rights, isn’t just harmless chatter—it’s psychological warfare. It keeps people in a constant state of anxiety, preventing them from thinking rationally. The real issue? People are more likely to believe in the fear-based narrative than to actually check the facts. They’re too busy being triggered emotionally.
This plays directly into the hands of the fearmongers. It becomes easier to control a population if you can make them afraid, right? And what do we see happening? Misguided campaigns around “miscarriage care,” the spread of exaggerated stories, and people feeling like their rights are under direct attack. It’s chaos. And it’s all based on misinformation, yet the ones who are screaming the loudest about misinformation are the very ones spreading it.
Can you already hear the echoes of evangelicalism? This brings me to the concepts of Jonathan Haidt’s the Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion because they apply here. Haidt explains how our moral intuitions drive our beliefs and politics, often dividing us along different moral foundations.
Many folks in the deconstruction space, now lean left, where values like care and fairness are paramount. Meanwhile, conservative values like loyalty and authority are often viewed as suspect, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality that can feel righteous but alienating. Ironically, in striving for freedom and empathy, the deconstruction space sometimes ends up falling into the same black-and-white thinking it critiques.
In tandem, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s book The Coddling of the American Mind offers a useful framework for understanding these shifts, identifying “Three Great Untruths”: 1) “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker,” 2) “Always trust your feelings,” and 3) “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.” These untruths, they argue, create fragility, discourage critical thinking, and foster a tribal mentality—traits that increasingly characterize the deconstruction space and parts of the progressive left.
It’s ironic to me that some people leave evangelical Christianity thinking they’re free, only to stumble into a new form of dogma within the deconstruction space. My experience is different—I didn’t grow up in the church but was recruited during the pandemic. Having lived outside of purity culture, I feel fortunate not to carry that baggage. While I empathize with those navigating their journeys, it’s tough to see them act as critics and bullies. Let’s unpack these dynamics by exploring three key untruths in this space.
1. The Untruth of Fragility: “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”
For many, deconstructing from fundamentalist beliefs took resilience and a willingness to confront discomfort. Yet, in today’s deconstruction space, there’s an emphasis on avoiding ideas seen as “unsafe” or “harmful”—typically anything that deviates from progressive orthodoxy. and I mean, I genuinely felt this way. I think that might be somewhat of a trauma response. I was like, I hate the patriarchy. I must stand up against this. This is harmful. This is dangerous. And there is a lot of data proving that this isn’t true, whether we want to look at the history of the ancient church or just, you know, the research data that I’ve shared in previous episodes but my point–this fragility, reinforced by social media algorithms, cultivates an environment where disagreement feels threatening rather than enriching.
This approach mirrors the fundamentalist rejection of “dangerous” secular ideas, where dissent is demonized. The irony is that what began as a call for open-mindedness has become a kind of brittle certitude, one that isolates rather than connects. Instead of learning resilience, we’re re-teaching fragility, limiting our growth and deepening the ideological chasm.
Protestors outside a Temple of Satan
2. The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: “Always trust your feelings.”
Fundamentalism often equates strong feelings with truth—“If I feel it, it must be right.” In the deconstruction space, there’s a similar emphasis on emotional reasoning. If something feels offensive or unsettling, it’s treated as harmful. This approach is amplified by social media, where outrage and personal offense are rewarded with visibility.
Haidt’s work reminds us that emotions shape our moral judgments but don’t always lead to truth. Reacting purely on feeling closes off critical thinking, creating echo chambers where alternative perspectives are rarely considered. Instead of fostering deeper understanding, emotional reasoning entrenches our biases, fueling judgment rather than curiosity.
3. The Untruth of Us vs. Them: “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”
The most divisive untruth is the idea that the world can be split into “good” and “evil” camps. This is evident in how some in the deconstruction community approach politics and social issues, painting conservatives or moderates as morally inferior. We see a rigid, “with us or against us” mentality, where anyone who questions progressive narratives is labeled “deplorable,” “harmful,” “Trash”, “Nazi” or worse.
Haidt’s research reveals that moral division is natural; we all tend to view those who disagree with us as misguided or even morally flawed. But when we approach every difference as a moral battleground, we close off true dialogue. Coming from a high-Calvinist church—one of the most cult-like, fundamentalist circles you can get into—I know what it’s like to think the rapture is imminent or to believe that if you don’t say all the “right” words exactly, you’ll burn in hell. My journey has taken me from being pro-choice in Portland, OR, having had three abortions myself, to joining an abolitionist movement to outlaw abortion. I haven’t even spoken about the profound pain and regret I carry about this. Yet here I am, reflecting on how divisive our society has become, with so little room for understanding across political lines. In the deconstruction space, you’d expect a shared empathy after leaving behind rigid belief systems, but instead, the culture seems to mirror the very exclusivity and “us vs. them” mentality of evangelical spaces.
Living in Portland, surrounded by ideologies that often pushed the limits of what I felt was morally comfortable, I wrestled with the impacts of various movements. I started to question whether certain messages of empowerment—like third-wave feminism—truly uplift or, instead, encourage behaviors that commodify women’s bodies and promote sexualization from a very young age. And while sex work has become a celebrated concept under the mantra “sex work is real work,” my own painful experiences in that industry make me see things differently. To me, it’s not empowering; it’s the opposite. Instead of championing it, I believe we should work to dismantle the industry.
It’s not just isolated concepts; there’s a broader pattern of glorifying “anything goes” hedonism and dismissing traditional values in the progressive space, which I find deeply troubling. Living in that environment left me with a raw understanding of how damaging these ideologies can be, leaving permanent scars. I grieve over the three abortions I’ve had. I cry because, despite being told it was just “a clump of cells,” I knew it was more than that. Watching the left demand “trust the science” while denying that life begins at conception feels twisted to me.
Moreover, there’s a deep, dark history in the advocacy of reproductive rights that gets glossed over—like the disturbing eugenics past of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger. Are we just going to ignore that?
Since the last election ended with a Trump landslide victory, rather than sparking any self-reflection, this moral absolutism seems to have intensified. The comments sections on many deconstruction accounts reveal the same tribal thinking they claim to oppose. Instead of creating bridges, we see entrenched sides, instead of open-mindedness, we see judgment.
Look, I’ve been there. I was a proud Democrat in the past. I voted for Obama. But now, as an independent, I’m calling it like I see it. Democrats need to take a good hard look at themselves if they want a chance at victory. Blaming the electorate isn’t the answer. You cannot keep denying biology and pretending men. Along in women’s sports, restrooms or prisons. The idea that kids should undergo irreversible changes. It’s misguided and is absolutely out of touch. The open border agenda. It’s hurting American workers, pushing down wages and driving up the cost of housing. When will you start protecting your own people instead of pandering to these extreme policies? Discriminating against whites, Asians and men and the name of countering past wrongs is not only setting us back, but it’s racist in itself. Abandoning merit-based selection is wrecking our economy and opportunities for everyone. I mean, you cannot let people camp, defecate and shoot up in public spaces and expect things to improve. The average voter is seeing all of this and they’re rejecting it. If Democrats want to win again, they need to rethink their approach and get back to reality. Enough is enough.
The Pipeline Problem: How Social Media Radicalizes
This divide is worsened by social media, where algorithms favor outrage and tribalism, pulling people toward extreme ideologies. Just as researchers have observed a “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline,” there’s a similar dynamic at play in progressive spaces, where folks in the deconstruction space are drawn into radical social justice ideologies that feel every bit as dogmatic as evangelicalism.
In this progressive pipeline, identity politics becomes a weapon, and moral purity is enforced through a power/victim binary that discourages complexity and invites fear of being labeled an oppressor. This kind of ideological purity resembles the control and certainty we experienced in evangelicalism, only now with a new political coat of paint.
And this leads me into the horseshoe theory suggests that the far-left and far-right, though seemingly at opposite ends of the spectrum, often mirror each other in attitudes and tactics. This theory, initially presented by French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye, proposes that the extremes of any ideology may end up behaving similarly—both tending toward authoritarianism and totalitarian thought despite their stated differences. Although this theory has its critics, the broader concept of ideological mirroring holds up in our analysis of what’s happening in the deconstruction space. At first, it was all about freedom—breaking away from oppressive systems, rejecting dogma, and embracing openness. But ironically, as people deconstruct their faith, they can fall into a similar trap: from being free thinkers to members of a new ideological cult.
Basically, when you leave fundamentalism without fully deconstructing dogmatic thinking, you risk trading one rigid ideology for another. Without cultivating humility and empathy, we will perpetrate the very same cycles of judgement and exclusion.
The Path Forward: True Openness and Curiosity
What’s the solution here? Jonathan Haidt’s insights remind us that real dialogue begins by understanding the values behind other people’s beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Progress and healing require that we listen beyond the labels, engaging in good faith rather than moral grandstanding. If we are to avoid replicating the very structures we’re deconstructing, we need to make space for differing perspectives and approach them with curiosity.
So, this means you cannot demonize conservatives, you cannot call everyone that voted for Trump a bigot, racist, misogynist. There’s something wrong with that thinking. You have been sold these three untruths. It’s a tired accusation that doesn’t hold up when you look at the numbers. Trump support among white voters did drop from 57% in 2020 to 49% in 2024. But the kicker is his support among black and Latino voters actually went up from 38 to 42%. So, against all odds, Trump is doing something that the Democratic Party has failed to do for decades. He’s making the Republican Party more diverse than has been in 60 years. Let’s cut out the divisive name calling and start acknowledging the reality of his growing appeal across different communities.
Real change happens when we go beyond just labeling others and instead build spaces where critical thought can flourish—even when it’s uncomfortable. This is my message to the deconstruction community and beyond!
It’s simple: stop pretending that we have all the answers. True freedom of thought is not about certainty. It’s about curiosity. It’s about asking the tough questions, not just parroting whatever’s trendy on social media or echoing the louder voices in your ideological group.
We need to do away with the binary thinking that divides us into “good” or “evil,” “us” or “them,” and start embracing true diversity of thought. Only by having those uncomfortable, nuanced conversations will we ever break free from the ideological cults—whether they’re rooted in religion, politics, or even deconstruction itself.
So, as we wrap up today’s episode, remember this: It’s time to get real. Misinformation is everywhere, and sometimes, it’s coming from the very people who claim to be fighting it. Whether it’s the left, the right, or the deconstruction space—don’t get caught up in the hype.
Thanks for tuning in to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Until next time, keep questioning, keep learning, and never, ever stop thinking for yourself.
As we move past the recent election, I’ve been reflecting on what it’s taught me about our culture, politics, and the conversations we have about faith and values. I want to share this reflection, not as a definitive answer, but as a personal journey that might resonate with others.
Discovering the “Deconstruction” Community
When I first started questioning my beliefs, especially within Christianity, I found myself among a group of people known as the “deconstruction community.” Many of these individuals were dealing with anger and disillusionment—much of it directed at political figures like Trump, the MAGA movement, and the perceived traditional values upheld by many evangelicals. They spoke openly about issues like spiritual abuse and cult-like dynamics in religious spaces, which resonated with me as I navigated my own experiences of questioning and stepping away from past beliefs.
But as I spent more time in these spaces, I noticed a paradox. The community had an “us vs. them” mentality that was very similar to the kind they were critiquing within conservative Christianity. The language, often harsh and divisive, didn’t align with the openness and curiosity I’d hoped to find. It seemed that some had merely replaced one set of rigid beliefs with another, creating a new kind of fundamentalism in the process.
Moving Beyond Anger and Righteousness
In these circles, I encountered scholars and advocates who passionately spoke against certain ideologies—sometimes with a level of certainty that left little room for nuance. I can empathize with this; when I began deconstructing, I, too, was filled with anger. I often felt morally superior, eager to “call out” harmful ideologies. But as time passed, I began to see that this anger, while understandable, could also be limiting. It kept me in a space where I saw the world in black and white, where there were “good” people on one side and “bad” on the other. I realized that this wasn’t a mindset I wanted to live in forever.
The Value of Autonomy and Discernment
During this election cycle, I found myself reflecting on the importance of autonomy, critical thinking, and discernment. These are qualities that the deconstruction community often claims to uphold. Yet, at times, it feels as though a different kind of fundamentalism has taken root—one where there’s pressure to align with a specific, “acceptable” narrative. I believe we need to make space for people to question, to think deeply, and to weigh their values without the fear of being shamed or silenced.
For instance, while I see harm in patriarchal structures, I also believe it’s damaging to label every conservative viewpoint as “fascist” or “racist.” These labels are extreme and can create walls instead of bridges. This is especially concerning when public figures or communities use this language to fuel fear rather than to inspire honest dialogue. It’s a reminder of how easy it is to fall into binary thinking, even when we’re trying to escape it.
Real-World Impact of Ideas
The power of ideas, especially those circulated in liberal spaces, has had a tangible impact on my life. Phrases like “sex work is real work” and “it’s just a clump of cells” influenced me in ways that I now wish had been more nuanced. I deeply regret some choices and wish I’d had more support, better information, and a broader perspective at the time. This experience fuels my passion for helping others get a fuller picture as they make decisions, especially those that impact their health, values, and future.
The Importance of Diverse Voices
As I look forward, my hope is to help foster a healthier America where diverse voices and perspectives can coexist. This includes voices that don’t necessarily align with mainstream narratives. Figures like Robert Kennedy Jr., for example, are often labeled “conspiracy theorists” within certain circles, including parts of the deconstruction community. But Kennedy has a message that challenges corporate narratives, and I find it disheartening when people dismiss him without truly engaging with his ideas. This tendency to label and dismiss is something I hope we can move beyond.
Building Dialogue Over Division
In closing, my commitment is to create a space where the priority is truth-seeking, not winning. It’s easy to fall into the trap of quick judgments and polarizing narratives, but real growth comes from dialogue, from listening, and from respecting the humanity in one another—even when we disagree. The recent election has reminded me of the importance of these values.
Let’s keep questioning the narratives, seeking understanding, and holding space for multiple perspectives. After all, this isn’t about “winning” or “losing”—it’s about building a more compassionate, informed society.
Thank you for reading, and let’s keep this conversation going. Let’s choose curiosity over condemnation, dialogue over division, and remember there’s always more to the story.
Welcome to Taste of Truth Tuesdays, where we unravel the strange, the mysterious, and today—the terrifying. This post delves into one of history’s darkest chapters: the witch hunts. We’ll explore how fear, superstition, and control shaped centuries of persecution and how these patterns are still evident in the modern world. Witch hunts aren’t just a thing of the past—they’ve evolved.
The European Witch Hunts – Early Modern Europe
Let’s start in early modern Europe. Scholar Peter Maxwell-Stuart illuminates the rise of demonology, where the fear of magic and the devil became a weapon of control for those in power. Beginning in the 1500s, political and religious leaders manipulated entire populations by tapping into their deep-rooted fears of ‘evil forces.’ The Church, in particular, weaponized these beliefs, positioning itself as the protector against witches—women (and sometimes men) believed to consort with devils or conjure dark forces. As the idea took hold that witches could be behind every famine, illness, or death, this created a perfect storm of paranoia.
Stuart argues that demonology texts—many sanctioned by the Church—fueled mass hysteria, feeding the narrative that witches were not just local troublemakers but cosmic agents of Satan, hell-bent on destroying Christendom. Ordinary people lived in constant fear of betrayal by their neighbors, leading to accusations that could swiftly escalate into brutal trials, with the accused often tortured into confessing their ‘diabolical’ crimes.
To understand how demonology in Europe gained such traction, we need to go back to Augustine of Hippo. We have mentioned him before in previous episodes, whose writings in the 4th and 5th centuries laid the foundation for Christian perceptions of the devil and demons. Augustine’s ideas, especially in City of God, emphasized the constant spiritual warfare between good and evil, casting demons as agents of Satan working tirelessly to undermine God’s plan. He argued that humans were caught in this cosmic battle, susceptible to the devil’s temptations and tricks.
‘Augustine before a group of demons’, from ‘De civitate Dei’ by Augustine, trans. by Raoul de Presles, late 15th Century
Augustine’s Doctrine of Demons
According to Augustine, demons were fallen angels who had rebelled and now sought to deceive and destroy humanity. While Augustine didn’t explicitly discuss witches, his interpretation of demons helped fuel the belief that humans could be manipulated by evil spirits—whether through pacts, possession, or magical practices. This idea later influenced medieval and early modern European demonology.
Augustine’s views on original sin—that humanity is inherently flawed and in need of salvation—also intensified fears that people, especially women (who were seen as ‘weaker’ spiritually), were more vulnerable to the devil’s influence.
SIDE NOTE: We have discussed the theological concept of original sin in previous episodes: Franciscan wisdom navigating spiritual growth and challenges with Carrie Moore, we specifically spun the doctrine of original sin on its head and then also Unpacking Religious Trauma: Navigating the Dynamics of Faith Deconstruction with Doctor Mark Karris.
In the centuries that followed, these ideas were weaponized to justify witch hunts. Augustine’s legacy is evident in how later theologians and demonologists, such as Heinrich Kramer (author of the infamous Malleus Maleficarum), built upon his ideas of demonic interference to condemn witchcraft as a real, existential threat to Christian society.
Maxwell-Stuart reveals that the creation of demonology wasn’t just religious but deeply political. Kings and clergy alike realized they could consolidate power by stoking the flames of fear, casting witches and sorcerers as a common enemy. The trials served a dual purpose: they reinforced the Church’s supremacy over the spiritual realm and gave ruling elites a tool for maintaining social order. Accusing someone of witchcraft was an effective way to silence dissent or settle personal scores.
Fear as a Tool of Control
Fear wasn’t just manufactured by rulers—it was deeply ingrained in the societal, religious, and legal systems of the time. Scholar Sophie Page reveals how beliefs in magic and the supernatural were not fringe ideas but core components of medieval and early modern life. Magic wasn’t merely a mysterious force; it was a pervasive explanation for any calamity. Failed harvests, plagues, or unexplained illnesses were often attributed to witches or the devil, creating a society constantly on edge, where supernatural forces were believed to lurk behind every misfortune.
By embedding these beliefs into legal codes, authorities could target suspected witches or sorcerers under the guise of protecting the community. Page’s work illustrates how rituals once seen as protective or healing gradually became demonized. Harmless folk practices and herbal remedies, used for centuries, began to be recast as witchcraft, especially when things went wrong. People, particularly those in rural areas, were vulnerable to this thinking because religion and superstition were inseparable from daily life.
Partisan scholars have long debated whether Catholics or Protestants were the “real” witch hunters, but they’ve made little headway. One important change in Christian morality, as discussed by John Bossie, occurred between the 14th and 16th centuries. The moral focus shifted from the Seven Deadly Sins—pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth—to the Ten Commandments. This change, influenced by reform movements that shaped the Protestant Reformation, prioritized sins against God over those against the community. Idolatry and the worship of false gods became viewed as the gravest offenses.
This redefinition of witchcraft followed suit. Instead of being seen as harmful actions toward neighbors, witchcraft was now linked directly to devil worship and regarded as serious heresy. Scholars and church leaders began merging various forms of folk magic and healing into this new narrative, suggesting that practitioners were either knowingly or unknowingly making deals with the devil. Confessions of pacts or attendance at “witch gatherings” were shaped to highlight community failings, like envy and resentment. Consequently, educated society began to see witchcraft as a real threat rather than mere superstition. While traditional beliefs about magic still existed, they were overshadowed by fears of violent backlash from reformers.
The Power of Dualistic Thinking
This dualistic thinking, influenced by St. Augustine, gave rise to a semi-Manichean worldview, where the struggle between good and evil became more pronounced. Manichaeism, an ancient belief system, viewed the world as a battleground between equal forces of good and evil. Although orthodox Christianity rejected this dualism, the focus on the devil’s role in everyday life blurred those lines for many people. By emphasizing the devil’s pervasive influence, religious leaders inadvertently created a belief system in which evil seemed as powerful as good.
In this semi-Manichean view, the devil was not just a tempter of individuals but a corrupting force within communities and even within political and religious practices deemed heretical. Fears of devil-worshipping conspiracies became intertwined with anxieties about witchcraft and moral decay. Reformers, particularly in Protestant movements, fueled these fears by branding idolatry, Catholic rituals, and even folk healing as dangerous openings for the devil’s influence. This perspective transformed witchcraft from a local issue into a broader threat against God and society.
The result was a potent mix of dualistic thinking and an intense focus on spiritual warfare. This not only intensified the persecution of supposed witches but also reinforced the obsession with eliminating anything considered “satanic.” The ideological shift redefined witchcraft as a communal danger, turning innocent healing practices into accusations of demonic pacts.
Every village had its own ‘cunning folk’—individuals skilled in healing and folk magic—yet these very people could easily become scapegoats when something went wrong. The legal structures played a vital role in perpetuating this cycle of fear. Church courts, bolstered by theologians and demonologists, were empowered to try individuals accused of witchcraft, and the accusations quickly spiraled into mass hysteria. Trials often relied on tortured confessions, reinforcing the belief that witches and the devil were real and tangible threats to society. This institutionalized paranoia was a perfect storm of religion, fear, and control.
The Rise of Organized Witch Hunts
Beginning in the late 15th century, witch trials escalated into full-blown hunts, particularly after the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum in 1487. This infamous witch-hunting manual, written by Heinrich Kramer and endorsed by the Pope, offered legal and theological justifications for hunting down witches. It encouraged harsh interrogations and set guidelines for identifying witches based on superficial evidence like birthmarks, behaviors, and confessions extracted under torture. The legal system, which had already started to turn against folk healers, now had a codified method for persecuting them.
In regions like Germany, Scotland, and Switzerland, these legal trials turned into widespread witch hunts. Hundreds, even thousands, of individuals—predominantly women—were accused and executed. What’s particularly fascinating is that these witch hunts often peaked during periods of societal or economic instability when fear and uncertainty made people more susceptible to attributing their misfortunes to external, supernatural forces.
By institutionalizing the persecution of witches, rulers and religious leaders could manage social unrest and solidify their authority. The trials often reinforced the power structures by demonstrating that anyone perceived as a threat to societal order—whether through suspected witchcraft or merely social nonconformity—could be eradicated.
Witch Hunts and Gender
The scapegoating of women played a crucial role in these witch hunts. Owen Davies’ work reveals how the demonization of witches intersected with misogyny, turning the hunts into a gendered form of control. Midwives, healers, or outspoken women were more likely to be targeted, reinforcing patriarchal authority. The very skills that had once been valued, such as healing and midwifery, were redefined as dangerous and linked to dark powers.
As witch hunts spread, the legal frameworks across Europe became more refined and institutionalized, creating a climate where fear of witches and demonic possession became the norm. The trials’ obsession with confessions—often coerced under brutal conditions—further fueled public paranoia, as the more people confessed to witchcraft, the more tangible the ‘threat’ seemed.
The Modern Echoes of Witch Hunts
Fast forward to today, and we find that the legacy of witch hunts lingers. The tactics of fear-mongering, scapegoating, and social control can still be observed in modern contexts. Contemporary movements often mirror historical witch hunts, targeting marginalized groups through accusations and public shaming. Just as witch hunts flourished in times of societal uncertainty, modern societies can succumb to similar dynamics.
In the age of social media, legal accusations spread like wildfire, and the court of public opinion often acts faster than the courts themselves. Political enemies are dragged through the mud with allegations that may or may not have a basis in fact.
The case of Michael Jackson serves as a poignant example of how media narratives can distort reality. The beloved pop icon faced multiple allegations of child molestation, with the most notable case occurring in 2005 during a highly publicized trial. Accusers claimed that Jackson had abused them, yet the defense presented compelling counterarguments, including challenges to the credibility of the witnesses and highlighting inconsistencies in their testimonies. After a lengthy trial, Jackson was acquitted of all charges, but the media frenzy surrounding the case fueled public debate and sensationalism, earning him the derogatory nickname “Wacko Jacko.” This smear campaign perpetuated false narratives about his character and actions. Behind the scenes, Jackson was embroiled in a lawsuit against Sony Music, a battle he was reportedly winning at the time of these allegations. Furthermore, his controversial doctor, Conrad Murray, who administered drugs to Jackson, faced serious legal consequences for his role in the singer’s death, including manslaughter charges. The intersection of these legal battles and the media frenzy created a complex narrative that ultimately tarnished Jackson’s legacy, and that’s what truly breaks my heart.
By the time these individuals have the chance to clear their names, their reputations—and often their careers—are already in ruins. Davies’ research shows us that while modern witch hunts don’t involve burning at the stake, they do involve trial by media and mob justice.
And we can’t talk about modern-day witch hunts without bringing the CIA into the conversation. Since its inception, the CIA has been at the heart of international political manipulations—using covert methods to shape public perception, interfere in foreign governments, and even influence elections here in the United States. In the 1960s, the agency coined the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ to discredit anyone who questioned the official narratives surrounding events like the assassination of JFK. Those who didn’t toe the line were labeled as ‘paranoid’ or ‘dangerous.’ It was the modern version of labeling someone a witch—turning them into a social outcast, not to be trusted.
Fast forward to today: we see similar tactics used against whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who challenge the powerful. Think about Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and even political figures targeted by intelligence communities. The second they start exposing uncomfortable truths, they are vilified. Whether through leaks, smear campaigns, or selective legal action, these modern-day ‘witches’ face an onslaught of accusations, designed to discredit them before they can fully tell their story.
In many cases, the evidence behind these accusations is shaky at best. The CIA’s involvement in manipulating public perception goes all the way back to Operation Mockingbird, a secret program to influence media narratives, which showed that controlling information was one of the most powerful tools they had. During the Cold War, the United States engaged in a concerted effort to influence and control media narratives to align with its interests, which involved recruiting journalists and establishing relationships with major media outlets.
Edward Bernays, often referred to as the father of public relations, played a pivotal role in these discussions on media manipulation. Working with several major companies, including Procter & Gamble, General Electric, and the American Tobacco Company, Bernays was instrumental in promoting the cigarette brand Lucky Strike, famously linking it to the women’s liberation movement. His connections extend to notable figures like Sigmund Freud, who was Bernays’ uncle, Freud’s psychoanalytic theories significantly shaped Bernays’ PR strategies. Throughout his career, Bernays leveraged media to influence public perception and political leaders, raising profound questions about the power dynamics of media and its capacity to shape societal narratives. (If you’re intrigued by the intricate interplay of media and propaganda, this is a rabbit hole worth exploring!)
Today, that same fear-mongering tactic is played out on a much larger scale. Accusations, whether of conspiracy, treason, or subversion, become tools to silence anyone questioning the status quo. Just as witches in the past were seen as ‘different’ and thus dangerous, today’s targets are often people who challenge the system.
And while throughout the 1300-1600s, there was no due process for the accused witches, today, we see something similar in the digital realm. There’s no real accountability or fairness in the court of public opinion. All it takes is a viral accusation—a tweet, a blog post, or a video—and the person’s career, family, and mental health can be obliteratedovernight. No evidence required, no trial, no defense.
So, what can we learn from this history? From the witch hunts of early modern Europe to today’s viral accusations and political fearmongering, there’s one key lesson: fear remains one of the most dangerous tools of control. When we allow fear to dictate our actions—whether it’s fear of witches, outsiders, or anyone who doesn’t fit into the mold—we lose sight of reason and humanity.
In closing, I’d like to examine the phenomenon of witch hunts through the lens of amygdala hijacking, a topic we discussed in a previous episode. This term refers to the brain’s immediate response to perceived threats, where the amygdala—the emotional center of the brain—takes control, often resulting in irrational and impulsive actions.
During the witch hunts, communities gripped by fear of the unknown succumbed to a mob mentality whenever someone fell ill or misfortune struck. The amygdala triggered a fight-or-flight response, compelling individuals to find scapegoats, with cunning folk and those deviating from societal norms becoming prime targets. As accusations spiraled, fear dominated decision-making instead of rational thought. Today, we observe similar patterns in how social media can incite panic, leading to modern witch hunts. When fear takes over, reason often fades, resulting in unjust vilification—echoing the dark lessons of history.
As we navigate our modern world, let’s remain vigilant against the echoes of this history, seeking truth and questioning the narratives that shape our beliefs. Fear may be powerful, but curiosity and critical thinking are our greatest allies in maintaining our autonomy and humanity.
Resources:
Briggs, Robin. Witches and Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft. Oxford University Press, 1996.
This book provides a comprehensive exploration of the social dynamics surrounding witch hunts in early modern Europe, highlighting the interplay of fear, community, and cultural beliefs.
Maxwell-Stuart, Peter G.Witchcraft in Europe, 1100-1700: A Sourcebook. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
This sourcebook compiles essential documents related to the history of witchcraft in Europe, providing insights into how fear and persecution were constructed and justified.
Page, Sophie.Magic in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
This book offers an analysis of the cultural and religious practices surrounding magic during the medieval period, emphasizing how these beliefs shaped societal attitudes toward witchcraft.
Bossy, John.Christianity in the West, 1400-1700. Oxford University Press, 1985.
Bossy examines the transformation of Christian morality during the Reformation, providing context for the changing perceptions of witchcraft and heresy.
Davies, Owen.Popular Magic: Cunning Folk in English History. Continuum, 2007.
This work explores the role of cunning folk—those who practiced folk magic—and how their practices were perceived within the broader context of witchcraft accusations.
Baroja, J. C.Witches and Witchcraft. University of California Press, 1990.
Baroja’s work examines the historical and cultural significance of witchcraft, providing insights into the social conditions that fueled witch hunts and the cultural implications of these beliefs.
Navigating the waters of community can feel like a tightrope walk, especially for those of us who’ve been through the storm of spiritual abuse. This week on Taste of Truth Tuesdays, I’m excited to welcome a guest who dives deep into the concept of “Group Mind”—the idea that a collective can elevate individual voices, creating a harmonious collaboration. While this concept sounds beautiful on the surface, having walked the line between healthy and toxic communities myself, I can’t help but question: What happens when “Group Mind” becomes a vessel for manipulation rather than a source of strength?
The Allure of Community
Let’s face it: we all crave connection. From childhood friendships to spiritual gatherings, our lives are woven into a fabric of social interactions. In healthy communities, each thread—each individual—contributes to the larger tapestry. Group Mind can be empowering when everyone contributes their unique strengths. Think of a brainstorming session, where different ideas build on each other to create something innovative. But in controlling groups, individuality is suppressed, and members are pressured to conform, stifling creativity and critical thinking.
The Double-Edged Sword of Group Mind
Our guest shares their experience in an improv class, where the idea of Group Mind became both a revelation and a source of anxiety. It’s fascinating how the language of community can feel welcoming yet be weaponized against those who seek authenticity. This mirrors the complexities of modern social dynamics, especially in the age of social media, where radicalization can happen at lightning speed.
In Episode 5 of my podcast, we tackled the “crunchy hippie to alt-right pipeline,” but now it’s time to shine a light on the radicalization of the left—a topic often overlooked. Why did I go from progressive circles to mingling with Trump supporters and Christians? This shift was marked by a range of events and trends reflecting broader changes within progressive movements and their impact on American politics and culture.
The Irony of the Deconstruction Space
As I navigated the deconstruction space, I noticed something ironic: when the deconstruction movement defines a cult and unintentionally describes their own playbook, the irony is hard to miss. Many who now identify as progressive or left leaning have simply swapped one form of fundamentalism for another. They may have shed their evangelical past, but the same dogmatic, ‘us vs. them’ tactics remain. It’s like they never fully untangled themselves from the rigid mindset they claim to oppose.
Social justice has become their new ‘End Times,’ and the tribalism is painfully obvious. Conformity, consequences for stepping out of line, leaders who set the narrative… sound familiar? 🙃
🔍 “It’s not your enemies, it’s the system.” We often fall into the trap of seeing our political landscape as a battle between two sides—one fighting for democracy, the other autocracy. But this binary thinking misses the larger issue: who really has power in shaping policies? Research, like the 2014 study by Gilens and Page, reveals that economic elites and organized interest groups wield far more influence over government decisions than the average citizen or voter. This isn’t about a single party; it’s about a systemic challenge that transcends partisan lines. 🧠
Instead of feeding into divisive narratives, maybe it’s time to ask: Who benefits from keeping us divided? 🤔 Progressive politics can impose control using a power/victim binary that’s reductive and lacks nuance, leveraging the fear of being labeled an oppressor as a tool for compliance. Reflecting on my journey of deconstruction and exploring progressive spaces, I’ve noticed a concerning trend: the lack of nuance and the prevalence of an ‘us vs. them’ mentality.
Even within progressive Christianity, there’s pressure to conform to certain social norms and ethical behaviors. Disagreement is often met with resistance, and group identity politics can dominate discussions. As I listened to a friend lecture me about the systems of whiteness and how white people are part of the problem, I couldn’t help but feel a visceral response in my body. Wasn’t she aware of how she was marginalizing voices that do not align with CRT principles and fostering division rather than unity?
It’s one thing to leave behind a belief system, but if you’re still using the same control tactics, are you really free? Or are you just in another form of groupthink? Many who now identify as progressive or left-leaning have simply swapped one form of radicalism for another.
In navigating my journey, I’ve discovered that while community can be a source of strength, it can also be stifling. Let’s strive for more open dialogue where diverse perspectives are valued.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
Seeking Authentic Community
This brings us back to the concept of Group Mind. While it has the potential to uplift and unite, we must critically assess the communities we choose to engage with. Are they empowering our individuality, or are they reinforcing a new set of dogmas?
As we explore these themes in this week’s podcast episode, I invite you to reflect on your own experiences with community—whether online or offline. Are you in a space that nurtures your authentic self, or have you found yourself caught in another web of control? Let’s challenge ourselves to seek genuine connections that celebrate our uniqueness, rather than merely conforming to the expectations of a collective.
Navigating Community Dynamics
One critical takeaway from my own experiences and the stories shared by others is the importance of asking ourselves the right questions. When evaluating any community—whether it’s a religious group, a social circle, or even an improv class—we should reflect on whether we’re being encouraged to grow into our full selves or if we’re being pressured to shrink into submission.
Key Questions to Consider:
Am I celebrated for my unique contributions, or do I feel like a cog in the machine?
Is my voice heard and valued, or am I met with silence (or worse) when I express dissent?
Does this community expand my horizons, or does it confine me to a narrow worldview?
The Importance of Individuality
One of the most powerful realizations is that a thriving community doesn’t demand the extinction of individualism; it nourishes it. Just as the author of the guest post observed in an improv competition, the true beauty of collaboration lies in the ability of individuals to bring their full selves to the table, enhancing the group dynamic rather than diminishing it.
In my journey, I’ve learned that safe communities are those that not only say, “Yes!” to your ideas but also invite you to share more, to dig deeper, and to embrace the weirdness that makes you unique. They celebrate individuality as an essential ingredient for collective success, transforming “Group Mind” from a potential source of control into a powerful tool for creativity and support.
The Path to Healing
For those of us recovering from spiritual abuse, the journey to find a healthy community can feel daunting. It requires us to sift through the rubble of past experiences, recognizing patterns that once suffocated our voices. But it also offers a chance for healing, a space where we can reclaim our identities and forge connections based on respect and authenticity.
Ultimately, the quest for community is about more than just belonging; it’s about finding spaces where we can be our true selves. It’s about navigating the complexities of connection with our eyes wide open, ready to discern the difference between a supportive group and one that seeks to control.
Conclusion
As we move through life, let’s remember that community can be a double-edged sword. For some of us, especially those healing from trauma or navigating complex PTSD, the journey may be best supported by solitary pursuits—like books, pets, and podcasts—before stepping into the vibrant chaos of group dynamics. We must be vigilant in recognizing when connection serves us and when it threatens to silence our individuality. Here’s to seeking out those communities that empower us, uplift us, and invite us to shine our light—together.
🎙️ Welcome Back! Join me as I chat with Katherine Spearing, MA, CTRC — founder of Tears of Eden 🌸, a nonprofit supporting survivors of spiritual abuse, and former host of the groundbreaking Uncertain podcast 🎧. Katherine is also the host of Trauma & Pop Culture, a Certified Trauma Recovery Practitioner 🧠, and an expert in helping those who have survived cults, high-control environments, and sexual abuse 💔. She even offers specialized trauma-informed career coaching 💼!
In this episode, we discuss: 💡 The most impactful themes from Uncertain — including her powerful episode with Dr. Laura Anderson on anger 😡 and the concept of second-wave fundamentalism. 🎭 How creative arts therapies are aiding survivors of sexual abuse in their healing journey, and how these methods differ from traditional therapy 🎨. 🛑 Managing the emotional weight of working with spiritual abuse survivors and Katherine’s personal journey to avoid burnout 🧘♀️. 👩🎤 Challenging traditional gender roles in Christianity — how they’ve shaped perceptions of women’s worth and agency, and steps for creating more inclusive spaces 🚺. 🛡️ Building healthy community dynamics to protect against spiritual abuse while fostering authentic, supportive connections 🌱. 🔥 A sneak peek into Katherine’s upcoming book on spiritual abuse, including why the church is so obsessed with sex 💭.
Tune in now for an insightful conversation on healing, resilience, and challenging the status quo! 🗣️✨
Don’t miss out on Katherine’s wisdom and unique perspective. 🎧
🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram! @taste0ftruth or Pinterest!
At the beginning of my journey into multi-level marketing (MLM), I felt an overwhelming sense of serendipity. Like many others, I was drawn into the promise of freedom, financial independence, and the power of owning my own business. That initial excitement felt so right, I even got a “trust the process” tattoo to anchor myself in the belief that I was on the right path. But the deeper I delved into this world, the more I realized the complexities and underlying control tactics that defined it.
Reflecting on my early days in the MLM space, I can’t help but think of how magical the thinking felt. I truly believed I was guided into the opportunity. But as time went on, the inconsistencies, emotional manipulation, and exploitative nature became impossible to ignore. It’s been a journey of grieving that magical thinking—something I now understand as part of a coercive, controlling system designed to keep me chasing an illusion.
Brandie, my guest on this episode, shares a similar experience. As a mother, writer, speaker, and advocate, she’s been at the forefront of exposing MLMs as commercial cults, wellness scams, and even legalized labor trafficking. She has spoken extensively about how her journey, which started with serendipity, eventually led her to scrutinize MLMs more critically. Her insights reflect the emotional complexity many face when disentangling from these organizations.
Here are some key aspects of our conversation:
The Magical Thinking Trap: Both Brandie and I felt an initial sense of serendipity, which was reinforced by the community and mentors telling us to “trust the process.” This belief system is intentionally nurtured in MLMs to keep participants emotionally invested.
Leveraging Credentials: We discussed how MLMs often leverage the credentials and influence of professionals like doctors, nutritionists, and influencers to give the illusion of legitimacy. Brandie emphasized how this tactic makes MLM pitches more persuasive, especially to vulnerable individuals seeking validation.
The “Mother” Angle: Brandie shared how MLMs often target mothers, using manipulative language that preys on their desire for financial freedom and the ability to work from home while caring for their families. The messaging can be so powerful that mothers internalize guilt and blame when they don’t succeed, despite the system being rigged against them.
Unpaid Labor and Emotional Manipulation: We delved into how MLMs strategically manipulate participants into performing unpaid labor, like attending large-group-awareness trainings or MLM conferences, under the guise that these events will lead to success. This creates a cycle of emotional dependency on the MLM structure.
Coercive Control Beyond the Home: Brandie highlighted the growing movement to criminalize coercive control, not just in domestic environments but also in online groups and commercial cults, including MLMs. Canada’s Bill C-332 and California’s SB 1141 are steps toward addressing this kind of manipulation in non-physical forms.
Misleading Social Media Practices: MLMs are notorious for using social media posts to bait others into joining, often hiding the true nature of the opportunity behind attractive lifestyle imagery and vague promises of success.
Paid Certifications as Funnels: Another tactic we discussed is the use of paid certifications and courses as entry points to recruit others into MLMs or similar for-profit groups, disguising recruitment as personal development.
Power Dynamics and Influence: Brandie warned about individuals in positions of power, like pastors or healthcare professionals, who pitch MLM opportunities using their influence, creating a dangerous overlap between authority and exploitation.
Bait-and-Switch in Non-Profits: Some MLMs use non-profit organizations as fronts to recruit members, exploiting charitable intentions for financial gain.
Brandie’s Substackrecently covered how Canada’s Bill C-332 and California’s SB 1141 aim to combat coercive control. These laws recognize that coercion doesn’t always result in physical harm but can have long-lasting emotional and psychological effects. Extending these protections to online and commercial environments, like MLMs, is a crucial step toward addressing the hidden abuse happening in plain sight.
MLM Compensation Plans
For those unfamiliar with how MLMs work, here’s a breakdown of their typical compensation plans, which all hinge on recruitment:
Binary: You recruit two people, who recruit two more, forming a pyramid. You earn based on the sales and recruits of those beneath you.
Unilevel: You can recruit as many people as possible, with everyone directly under you. You earn a percentage of sales from your downline.
Forced Matrix: There’s a limit to how many people you can recruit directly, so recruits are placed under others in your team, further embedding the hierarchical structure.
Although MLMs claim that participants can make money from sales alone, true financial gain only comes from recruiting others. Companies avoid pyramid scheme accusations by paying bonuses on downline commissions rather than direct recruitment. Still, this setup exploits participants, most of whom will never see a living wage.
MLM Profitability
Studies and reports paint a grim picture for those involved in MLMs:
FTC Report: According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), approximately 99% of MLM participants end up losing money.
Profit Sources: Success in MLMs often hinges on recruiting new participants rather than selling products to consumers, which creates a structure where the majority are positioned at the bottom, struggling to make a profit.
When it comes to making a profit, the comparison between lottery odds and MLM (multi-level marketing) success rates reveals a stark reality: both paths are fraught with significant financial risk, but MLMs typically offer even lower chances of profitability.
If you’re evaluating an MLM opportunity, watch out for:
Deceptive earnings claims
Manipulative recruitment tactics disguised as “personal development”
High-pressure tactics to attend unpaid events
Cult-like devotion to leadership or the company itself
As Brandie and I peeled back the layers, it became clear that MLMs are not just financial traps—they are systems of coercive control designed to exploit both financially and emotionally. With legal movements like Bill C-332 gaining traction, there’s hope that MLMs and similar organizations will finally face the scrutiny they deserve.
Grieving the magical thinking days has been bittersweet. In some ways, it was easier to believe in the serendipity, but now, stepping into a space of scrutiny offers greater growth and clarity. In that sense, the journey may be more challenging, but it’s also far more rewarding.
How MLMs and high-control religions exploit narratives to control and isolate
As we have discussed in a previous blog post, in both MLM companies and high-control religions, sophisticated methods of narrative control and emotional manipulation are used to maintain adherence and deflect objections. These organizations craft carefully curated stories of success, empowerment, and belonging, reinforcing a strong sense of group identity while discouraging critical thinking. Objections are met with pre-scripted narratives designed to dismiss doubts and isolate dissenters, creating environments where questioning becomes taboo.
By understanding the parallels between these two worlds, we can begin to recognize the underlying tactics used to manipulate emotions and maintain control. Whether it’s an MLM promising financial freedom or a religious group offering spiritual salvation, the emotional hooks are the same: they both rely on your commitment to their carefully constructed reality. Breaking free means reclaiming your own narrative, embracing skepticism, and fostering critical thought in the face of pressure to conform.
🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to edify & encourage others! To do so: leave a 5⭐️ review and send it to a friend! Thank you for listening! I’d love to hear from you, find me on Instagram! @taste0ftruth or Pinterest!
Here are some of the best resources for learning more about commercial cults and anti-MLM movements:
Books:
Ponzinomics: The Untold Story of Multi-Level Marketing by Robert L. FitzPatrick – This book provides a thorough exploration of MLMs and their business structures, helping readers understand how they operate like legal pyramid schemes.
Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism by Amanda Montell – Analyzes how cults (including MLMs) use language and manipulation techniques to maintain control over their members.
Duped: Compulsive Consumers and the Culture of Shame by Ron Jonson – While not MLM-specific, this book delves into how we’re manipulated by industries that exploit our insecurities.
Websites & Blogs:
Truth In Advertising (TINA.org) – A watchdog organization that exposes deceptive marketing practices, including MLM earnings claims and false advertising.
MLMTruth.org – A resource dedicated to educating the public on the dangers and tactics of MLMs, providing reports and analysis on popular companies.
The Anti-MLM Coalition – This coalition provides insight, resources, and stories from those who’ve escaped MLMs, along with analysis of companies and their harmful practices.
YouTube Channels:
The Anti-MLM Coalition – A YouTube channel that breaks down how MLMs operate, featuring stories from former MLM participants and experts in cult dynamics.
Savannah Marie – A former MLM participant who creates in-depth critiques and investigative videos on popular MLM schemes.
The Recovering Hunbot – Focuses on exposing the emotional manipulation and false promises made by MLM companies.
Hannah Alonzo-Hosts commentary-style videos relating to multi-level marketing companies, scams, cults, and influencer/social media culture.
Podcasts:
The Dream – A highly-rated podcast that dives deep into the world of MLMs, offering an in-depth investigation into the industry’s history and practices.
Life After MLM – Hosted by Roberta Blevins, this podcast features interviews with former MLM participants, exploring the mental and financial impacts of MLMs.
Opportunity Cost-Hosted by a past guest, Jill, and is about multi-level marketing, each episode she covers inner workings, origins, nuances, and tries to answer the question: Is this the opportunity of a lifetime? Or the illusion of one?
Conferences & Activist Groups:
The Anti-MLM Conference – A yearly event that gathers MLM critics, industry experts, and scholars to discuss deceptive practices in MLMs and their broader social impacts.
Multi-Level Marketing Conference (MLM Conference) – A scholarly conference that brings together academics, legal experts, and former MLM participants to discuss MLMs from a critical perspective.
Pyramid Scheme Alert – Run by Robert FitzPatrick, a pioneer in anti-MLM activism, this organization focuses on educating the public about the dangers of pyramid schemes and MLMs.
These resources provide a wide range of perspectives on commercial cults and MLMs, making them essential for those looking to understand and dismantle the harmful structures behind these organizations.
Taste0ftruth Tuesdays 