Tag: dogma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, let’s talk about it.

Blocked for Asking Questions

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

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

So much for open conversation.

DARVO: The Classic Manipulation Tactic

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

How MLMs Use DARVO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Brandie Used DARVO on Me

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

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

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

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

When Therapy Becomes Thought Control: The Weaponization of Mental Health

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

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

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

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

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

The Hypocrisy of Selective Skepticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Just Asking Questions” Fallacy

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

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

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

The Counterpoint: Intellectual Humility and the Dogma of Data

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Issue is Deception from Trusted Intuitions

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

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

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

Big Food and the Shaming of Health Advocates

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

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

Why We Need to Trust Ourselves, Not JUST the Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bigger Picture

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

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

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

Where Do We Go From Here?

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

How We Got Here—The Origins of Gender Ideology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genevieve Gluck wrote in Reduxx Magizine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to today’s nightmare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Medical and Scientific Consequences of Erasing Sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

We don’t. Because that’s the point.

The Connection Between Transgenderism and Transhumanism

As the journalist, Stella Morabito, has written:

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

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

This is where things get dark.

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

Think about what the transgender movement pushes:

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

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

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

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

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

Brave New World Revisited: The Synthetic Creation of Culture

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

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

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

The Erasure of Women Illustration by Greg Groesch

Fighting Back Against the Erasure of Women

So what do we do?

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

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

Sources:

Posted on in americanpolitics, beliefs, biblicalworldview, commericalcults, conspiracies, cultoffitness, cults, deconstruction, dietculture, exchristian, faith, fitness, freedom, manipulation, mental health, misinformation, podcast, politics, progressives, religion, scripture, self-help, selfcompassion, socialmedia, spiritualabuse, testimonies, theology, wellness, wordofgod, worldview

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

From religion to politics, why deeply held beliefs trigger defensiveness, outrage, and even hostility—and how we can foster better conversations.

We all have seen how the internet seems to bring out everyone’s inner troll. 🧌

The moment a deeply held belief—whether religious or political—is questioned, people lash out with hostility, aggression, or outright rage. Why does this happen? Why do some people react as if their very identity is under attack?

This past summer, we sat down with Dr. Mark Gregory Karris to explore religious trauma, belief deconstruction, and the psychological grip of fundamentalist ideology.

This season on Taste of Truth, we have been expanding the conversation—because this isn’t just about religion. Political ideologies, social movements, and even scientific debates can trigger the same defensive responses.

Fundamentalist thinking—whether in religion or politics—creates a fear-driven, us-vs-them mentality.

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

This hits at something crucial that I’ve written about numerous times before: the human brain craves order, even in the face of chaos. The illusion of control is a powerful psychological driver, and our brains reward it with dopamine. Fundamentalist thinking offers a structured, black-and-white framework that feels safe and predictable, making it incredibly appealing—especially in times of uncertainty. It’s why people cling even harder to rigid beliefs when they feel threatened. Whether in faith or politics, the need for certainty can override openness to new information, leading to the defensive reactions we see when those beliefs are questioned.

The moment someone questions the “truth,” it’s perceived as an existential threat, triggering anxiety, cognitive dissonance, and sometimes outright hostility.

Take a look at the patterns:

  • Verbal Attacks: When someone questions a core belief, the response can be insults, shouting, or belittling. For example, in religious circles, someone questioning doctrine might be labeled a heretic, while in political spaces, dissenters might be called traitors or bigots.
  • Social Ostracism: In both fundamentalist religious and political groups, those who challenge the status quo risk being shunned, excommunicated, or “canceled.” A former churchgoer who deconstructs their faith may be cut off from their community, just as someone who questions ideological orthodoxy in politics might lose social standing, friendships, or even career opportunities.
  • Online Harassment: Social media amplifies these reactions. Question a sacred political narrative? Expect dogpiling. Challenge a religious doctrine? Brace yourself for moral outrage. The internet rewards ideological purity and punishes deviation.
  • Physical Aggression: In extreme cases, questioning or challenging deeply held beliefs can escalate to threats or violence. History is littered with examples—holy wars, political purges, ideological revolutions—all stemming from the belief that certain ideas must be defended at any cost.

This isn’t just about bad behavior—it’s about psychology. When beliefs become intertwined with identity, disagreement feels like a personal attack. Fundamentalist teachings—whether religious or ideological—reinforce this by instilling fear of deviation:

  1. Fear of Deviation – Straying from the accepted belief system is framed as dangerous, whether it’s framed as spiritual damnation or societal collapse.
  2. Cognitive Dissonance – Encountering opposing viewpoints creates internal discomfort, making people double down rather than reconsider.
  3. Fear of Consequences – Whether it’s eternal hellfire or being cast out by one’s political tribe, the cost of questioning is framed as too high.
  4. Identity Threat – When beliefs define self-worth, changing one’s mind feels like losing a part of oneself.
  5. Social Pressure – Communities reinforce conformity, and breaking from the group’s ideology invites punishment.

When Morality Binds and Blinds

In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt explains how moral systems don’t just guide our sense of right and wrong—they also bind us to our tribes and blind us to opposing perspectives. Morality evolved not just to help individuals make ethical choices but to reinforce group cohesion. When we share a moral framework with others, it strengthens social bonds and builds trust. But there’s a cost: once we’re deeply embedded in a moral community—whether religious, political, or ideological—we stop seeing outside perspectives clearly.

This is why people react with such hostility when their beliefs are challenged. They aren’t just defending a set of ideas; they’re defending their sense of identity, belonging, and moral righteousness. A challenge to the belief feels like a challenge to the self—and to the entire group they’re part of.

This also explains why fundamentalist thinking isn’t confined to religion. Political movements, activist groups, and even secular ideologies can exhibit the same rigid certainty, group loyalty, and hostility toward outsiders. The more a belief system becomes tied to identity, the more resistant it is to change—and the more aggressive the response when it’s questioned.

The antidote? Intellectual humility. The ability to recognize that our beliefs, no matter how deeply held, might be flawed. That truth-seeking requires engaging with discomfort. That real conversations happen not when we dig in our heels but when we’re willing to ask, What if I’m wrong?

These dynamics explain why deconstruction—whether of faith or political ideology—often leads to intense backlash. It also reminds me of our conversation with Neil Van Leeuwen, author of Religion as Make-Believe. He pointed out that factual beliefs thrive on evidence, but religious and ideological beliefs function differently. When a belief becomes part of group identity, truth often takes a backseat. In fact, sometimes falsehoods serve the group better because they reinforce belonging.

To close down the conversation, let’s talk about healthy communities—whether religious, political, or social—embrace intellectual humility. Here’s what that looks like:

  • Open Dialogue: Encouraging respectful conversations where differing perspectives are explored rather than attacked.
  • Supportive Community: Allowing for questions, doubts, and evolving beliefs without fear of punishment.
  • Personal Reflection: Cultivating a mindset that prioritizes growth over ideological purity.
  • Interdisciplinary Engagement: Seeking insights from multiple fields rather than reinforcing an echo chamber.

By recognizing these patterns, we can navigate our own beliefs with more self-awareness and engage in discussions that foster curiosity rather than hostility. The question isn’t whether we hold tightly to certain beliefs—it’s whether we’re willing to interrogate why.

So, what’s one belief you’ve held onto tightly that you later questioned?

Let’s talk about it in the comments.

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

Escaping Dogma or Trading It? The Risks of Deconstruction Culture

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

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

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

From Evangelicalism to Progressive Extremism

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

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

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

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

Woke Ideology as a Secular Faith: A Closer Look

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

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

Fragility and the “Three Great Untruths”

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

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

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

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

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

Reason Isn’t the Savior We Think It Is

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

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

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

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

The Rise of the Fake Intellectual

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

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

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

What Is the Revolving Door?

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

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

A Call for Intellectual Diversity

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

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

Conclusion: Toward True Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setting the Stage: The Political and Psychological Landscape

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

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

The Blue Bracelet Movement: Solidarity or Performative Gesture?

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

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

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

Misinformation and Its Impact on Abortion Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dangers of Misinformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protestors outside a Temple of Satan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pipeline Problem: How Social Media Radicalizes

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

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


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

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

The Path Forward: True Openness and Curiosity

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Can We Be Friends Despite Deep Moral and Political Differences?

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

1. Prioritize Love and Respect

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

2. Don’t Demand Conformity

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

3. Be Open to Being Challenged—and to Challenging

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

4. Avoid Manipulation

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

5. Beware of Becoming an Ideologue

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

6. Understand Fallibility Beyond Theory

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

7. Recognize the Difficulty of Questioning Core Beliefs

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

8. Embrace Truth-Seeking Together

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

9. Keep Political Conversations Civil and Honest

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

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

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

Posted on in Bible, biblicalworldview, christianfaith, christianpatriarchy, chronichealth, coercivecontrol, commericalcults, conspiracies, cults, deconstruction, faith, influencers, manipulation, mental health, mentalhealth, mindset, podcast, progressives, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, spiritualabuse, stress, stressresilence, testimonies, theology, womenssuffrage, wordofgod, worldview

Understanding the Group Mind: A Double-Edged Sword

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.

Posted on in Bible, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, deconstruction, evolution, faith, fitness, holistic health, mental health, nervous system, new age spiritual, new years resolution, nutrition, physiology, podcast, scripture, self-help, spiritualabuse, testimonies, theology, Uncategorized, wordofgod, worldview

The Illusion of Control: Neuroscience of Fundamentalism and Diet Culture

Welcome back Wellness Warriors, and truth seekers!

As we have been discussing all of Season 2, Fundamentalist thinking doesn’t just reside in religious circles—it also permeates wellness and healing spaces. Just as high-control religions exploit human vulnerability, so does diet culture.

I’ve had my share of blindly following extreme health regimens recommended by practitioners, ignoring my own discomfort along the way. It became clear that fundamentalism can crop up in various aspects of life, and part of healing is about recognizing and addressing these tendencies within us.

We have discussed how high control religion and diet culture both capitalize on the brain’s tendency to interpret things in a binary black-and-white manner by presenting clear-cut rules, guidelines, and belief systems that simplify complex issues into easy-to-follow directives.

In this post, we’ll exploring deeper into how the brain’s craving for control and the dopamine boost it triggers can explain why people may transition into high-control environments or swing from one extreme to another. Such as moving from a loose, permissive belief system to a strict, rule-bound one, or from an unrestricted eating pattern to a rigid diet.

The Illusion of Control and Dopamine

The concept of the “illusion of control” ties deeply into our brain’s reward system, particularly through dopamine, a neurotransmitter crucial for motivation and learning. When individuals believe they have control over situations, even when that control is illusory, their brains can release dopamine. This release can provide a rewarding feeling, reinforcing the behavior or belief that leads to this sense of control.

The brain’s craving for control plays a crucial role in how individuals respond to structured systems, be it in religion, diet culture, or Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) schemes. When we encounter a belief system or set of teachings that offers clear, structured guidance, it triggers a sense of control, even if that control is illusory. This perceived control is neurologically rewarding because it leads to the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with motivation and the reinforcement of behaviors of control over one’s body and health, triggering dopamine release and creating a feedback loop that encourages continued adherence. Similarly, religious fundamentalism often offers clear-cut guidelines on how to live, providing the same sense of security and control, thus reinforcing the behavior.

This perspective not only sheds light on why people might gravitate towards fundamentalism or diet culture but also opens up a discussion on the broader implications of how our brains can be influenced by the promise of control, even when that control is more perceived than real.

What Causes the Illusion of Control

The illusion of control is driven by several factors and provides psychological benefits.

In health and wellness, people often adhere to strict diets or exercise routines, believing they control their weight or fitness, even though genetics and other factors also play a role. This illusion of control can be comforting and encourage adherence.

Similarly, in religion, individuals may follow rigid rules or rituals, thinking they control their spiritual outcomes or moral status, which provides a sense of security and boosts self-esteem.

When did the concept of the illusion of control originate?

The concept, first described by psychologist Ellen Langer in 1975, was initially seen as a way to maintain self-esteem by attributing success to oneself and distancing from failure. Recent research suggests it results from misjudged causality, where people’s sense of control is distorted by their actions rather than actual influence.

Fundamentalism and Structured Belief Systems

Fundamentalism, with its rigid doctrines and absolute truths, can offer a powerful sense of control, especially for those who have previously encountered ambiguity or lack of structure. These rules provide a clear framework for living, reducing the anxiety that comes with uncertainty, and delivering a dopamine-driven sense of reward that reinforces their commitment to the system. This appeal to control can be understood through several key aspects:

1. Structure and Certainty

Fundamentalism provides a clear and structured framework for understanding the world and one’s place within it. This structured approach often includes strict rules, definitive answers, and a well-defined moral code. For individuals who have experienced the fluidity and unpredictability of hyper-charismatic or New Age movements, the stability offered by fundamentalist systems can be particularly attractive.

In fundamentalist belief systems, every aspect of life is often governed by established doctrines. This comprehensive structure can reduce the anxiety associated with uncertainty and ambiguity, offering a predictable environment where individuals feel they know the correct course of action. This sense of predictability can be a significant source of comfort, as it replaces the confusion and complexity of previous experiences with clear-cut answers.

2. The Illusion of Control and Dopamine

The dopamine-driven reward system plays a crucial role in why fundamentalism is appealing. When individuals adhere to the strict rules and guidelines of fundamentalism, their brain releases dopamine, providing a sense of satisfaction and reinforcement. This dopamine release occurs because the rigid structure of fundamentalism offers a perceived sense of control over one’s life and environment.

This sense of control, even if illusory, can be neurologically rewarding. The anticipation and experience of control lead to the release of dopamine, which reinforces the behavior and belief that adherence to fundamentalist teachings is beneficial. Over time, this feedback loop strengthens individuals’ commitment to the belief system, as the dopamine-driven rewards make the structured environment feel more gratifying and secure.

3. Regaining a Sense of Agency

For those coming from less structured or more ambiguous belief systems, fundamentalism can represent a way to regain a sense of agency and direction. After experiencing a lack of clarity or guidance, individuals may find the definitive answers and rules provided by fundamentalism to be reassuring. The shift towards a more structured belief system can be seen as an effort to reassert control over one’s life and decisions.

Fundamentalism’s clear boundaries and absolute truths provide a stark contrast to the uncertainty that may have characterized previous experiences. This transition can be particularly appealing for individuals seeking to regain stability and predictability. The rigid nature of fundamentalism offers a form of control that feels tangible and dependable, even if it is ultimately based on a set of beliefs rather than empirical evidence.

4. Community and Belonging

Fundamentalist communities often emphasize conformity and collective adherence to their doctrines. This communal aspect can further reinforce the illusion of control by providing social validation and support. Being part of a group that shares the same rigid beliefs can enhance the sense of belonging and reinforce the perceived control individuals feel.

The social reinforcement within fundamentalist groups contributes to the illusion of control by making individuals feel supported and validated in their adherence to the teachings. This communal validation can strengthen their commitment to the belief system, as the positive feedback from the group further activates the brain’s reward system.

5. Cognitive Dissonance and Commitment

Once individuals have invested significant time and energy into a fundamentalist belief system, cognitive dissonance can make it challenging to question or abandon their beliefs. The discrepancy between their initial expectations and any potential contradictions or failures within the system can lead them to double down on their commitment.

The illusion of control provided by fundamentalism makes it psychologically difficult to admit that the system may not offer the promised stability or certainty. This cognitive dissonance drives individuals to reinforce their adherence to the system, as admitting any flaws would undermine the very control and certainty they sought to obtain.

The Illusion of Control in Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) Schemes

Similarly to fundamentalist belief systems, MLMs leverage the illusion of control by presenting themselves as opportunities for individuals to take charge of their own success. Participants are led to believe that their efforts directly determine their earnings and advancement within the company. This illusion can be highly appealing, giving people a sense that their hard work and decisions will lead to tangible rewards.

The prospect of achieving success and the belief that one’s actions are under their control can trigger dopamine release in the brain. When individuals see small successes or receive positive feedback, it reinforces their belief in their ability to control their destiny, making them more likely to continue participating despite setbacks.

MLMs often provide structured guidelines, training, and motivational materials that create a sense of control. Participants are given specific strategies to follow, which can make them feel like they have a roadmap to success. This structure reinforces the illusion that they are in control of their outcomes, even when success largely depends on recruitment and team performance.

MLMs frequently emphasize personal responsibility and self-improvement. They promote the idea that success is a result of individual effort and perseverance, subtly shifting blame for any failures onto the individual rather than the system itself. This reinforces the illusion of control by making participants believe that if they follow the system closely enough, they will succeed.

The social aspect of MLMs, including group meetings, motivational events, and social media communities, can amplify the illusion of control. Participants often see others achieving success and feel motivated by their peers, which can strengthen their belief in their own ability to control their outcomes.

Once individuals have invested time, money, and effort into an MLM, the illusion of control can make it difficult for them to step away. The cognitive dissonance created by the gap between their expectations and reality can lead them to double down on their commitment, further reinforcing their belief in their control over their situation.

The Role of Power in the Illusion of Control

Powerful individuals—including CEOs, politicians, religious leaders, and MLM leaders—often overestimate their control over events beyond their expertise. This inflated sense of control can lead to hubris, risky decisions, and an all-or-nothing approach. For example, a wellness guru who believes they can control all aspects of health through strict regimens may push extreme diets or unproven supplements, driven by the illusion of control. Similarly, a religious leader might impose rigid doctrines, believing they can control or influence every aspect of followers’ lives. This overconfidence and all-or-nothing mindset can result in extreme actions and decisions, as seen when individuals adopt overly restrictive health practices or dogmatic religious rules, ultimately leading them to lose touch with reality.

Appeal to Vulnerable Groups

Studies suggest that no one is immune to the illusion of control—under certain circumstances. Research shows that those who are personally involved in actions are among those most likely to overestimate their influence on the outcome. In addition, the behavior of pathological gamblers is driven by the belief that they can beat the odds of what is demonstrably determined purely by chance.

There are people known to be at low risk of susceptibility to illusory control: those who are depressed. Numerous studies show that depressed people are virtually invulnerable to the illusion of control. They have been found to have less distorted views than the non-depressed across a wide array of perceptions and judgments‑a state of mind that has been labeled depressive realism. They are more likely to see the futility of taking action to influence outcomes. When vulnerable individuals meet a group that offers definitive answers provides the certainty and structure these individuals crave, making them more likely to adopt and adhere to the teachings.

Effects of the Illusion of Control

A sense of control is an adaptive trait linked to better health outcomes, including reduced risk of mortality and diseases, improved physical and cognitive function, and higher life satisfaction. It promotes positive behaviors like exercise and good sleep and enhances optimism and a sense of purpose.

However, the illusion of control can also lead to magical thinking, poor decision-making, and risky behaviors such as gambling, as it may encourage unrealistic beliefs and prevent thorough analysis of situations.

In Summary

Reflect on how the illusion of control might be influencing their own choices and beliefs. Consider whether a sense of control is driving your decisions in areas like health, religion, or business ventures. Understanding this psychological mechanism can empower you to make more informed choices and break free from patterns that may not truly serve your well-being. Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments or join the conversation on our social media channels to explore these ideas further.

Plus, join us this week on the podcast, as we talk with @mburtwrites a talented author and advocate in children’s literature, about faith, parenting styles, and mental wellness. Share your thoughts or join the conversation—let’s explore the impact of the illusion of control together! 💭

🎧here

RESOURCES:

Books:

  1. “The Illusion of Control: Why We Overestimate Our Ability to Control Events” by Ellen J. Langer
    • A foundational text by the psychologist who first described the illusion of control.
  2. “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman
    • This book delves into various cognitive biases and heuristics, including the illusion of control.
  3. “The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business” by Charles Duhigg
    • Explores how habits form and the role of dopamine in reinforcing behaviors.
  4. “The Dopamine Diet: The Complete Guide to Lose Weight, Boost Your Energy, and Live a Happier Life by Rebalancing Your Brain Chemistry” by Neil W. Dhingra
    • Focuses on how diet impacts dopamine levels and overall well-being.

Articles and Papers:

  1. “Illusion of Control” | Psychology Today
    • An overview of the illusion of control and its psychological underpinnings. Read here
  2. “The Truth About Dopamine and Your Brain” | Psychology Today
    • Explains dopamine’s role in motivation and reinforcement. Read here
  3. “Biology of Motivation, Dopamine, and Brain Circuits That Mediate Pleasure” | SpringerLink
    • A scientific paper detailing dopamine’s role in motivation and reward. Read here
  4. “The Illusion of Control in the Financial Markets” by E. J. Langer
    • Examines how the illusion of control affects decision-making in financial contexts. Read here

Online Resources:

  1. TED Talks
    • Search for TED Talks on cognitive biases and the role of dopamine for accessible explanations and examples.
  2. Coursera and edX
    • Look for courses on psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral economics that cover these topics in depth.
  3. YouTube Channels
    • Channels like CrashCourse and Khan Academy often have videos on psychology and neuroscience that touch on related concepts.

These resources should provide a comprehensive understanding of how the illusion of control and dopamine influence behavior across different contexts.

Posted on in Bible, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, deconstruction, faith, newagetojesus, podcast, Uncategorized, wordofgod, worldview, worship music

Unveiling Evangelicalism: From High-Control Practices to Spiritual Trauma

Challenging the Narrow View: Understanding Spiritual Trauma Beyond the IBLP

In the deconstruction space, there’s a troubling tendency to focus exclusively on extreme cases of spiritual abuse, such as those from the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP). While it’s crucial to address and understand these severe experiences, it’s equally important to recognize that spiritual and religious trauma can manifest in many forms beyond such high-profile examples.

The roots of evangelical Christianity are deeply entwined with guilt, fear, coercion, and deception, a legacy that can permeate all levels of faith practice. This issue isn’t confined to one group or doctrine; rather, it echoes through the broader history of evangelicalism, including the violent and tumultuous period of the Protestant Reformation.

Guilt and Fear: Evangelical teachings often emphasize human sinfulness and the need for constant repentance, creating an environment where guilt and fear become central. The pressure to meet unattainable moral standards can lead to chronic anxiety and self-doubt. Believers may struggle with feelings of inadequacy and unworthiness, which can erode self-esteem and lead to long-term psychological trauma.

Coercion: Many evangelical doctrines employ coercive tactics to ensure conformity and compliance. This can include manipulating believers through promises of divine favor or threats of divine punishment. Such coercion often pressures individuals into adhering to strict beliefs and behaviors, stifling personal autonomy and fostering a sense of control and manipulation.

Deception: The evangelical tradition can sometimes perpetuate deceptive teachings, presenting religious doctrines in a way that omits or distorts critical truths. This can include selective scriptural interpretations or misleading teachings about the nature of God and salvation. When individuals later confront these deceptions, they may experience profound disillusionment and betrayal, further contributing to their trauma.

Historical Context: The Protestant Reformation, a pivotal event in evangelical history, was marked by violent conflict and intense upheaval. The brutality and extremism of this period set a precedent for how religious movements can become entangled in aggression and intolerance. This historical backdrop adds another layer to understanding how evangelical Christianity, in its various forms, can inflict spiritual harm.

By acknowledging this broader context, we can better address the diverse experiences of trauma within the Christian faith and work towards healing that encompasses all who have been affected.

⛓️Evangelicalism is the opposite of freedom. ⛓️

A high-control religion is a religious group that exercises significant control over its members’ lives, including their beliefs, behaviors, relationships, and access to information.

Evangelical Christianity often exerts high levels of control over its members by demanding strict adherence to its interpretations of the Bible.

Members may be expected to attend multiple church services and small group meetings each week, adhere to moral codes regarding sexuality, substance use, and entertainment, and prioritize church activities over other aspects of life.

The lie of penal substitutionary atonement theory, original sin, fear of hell and eternal damnation is frequently used to enforce compliance and discourage questioning.

Evangelical communities may also encourage social isolation from non-believers, creating an insular environment where dissenting views are discouraged and conformity is enforced.

These practices and teachings illustrate how Christianity, particularly in its more conservative and fundamentalist forms, exhibits the characteristics of a high-control religion.

#exvangelical#exchristian#exvangelicals#highcontrol#cult#cultawareness#indoctrination#brainwashing#dogma#protestant#reformedtheology#reformed#christianity

Posted on in Bible, biblicalworldview, challenges, christianfaith, deconstruction, faith, fitness, goal setting, holistic health, mental health, nervous system, nutrition, physiology, podcast, scripture, spiritualabuse, worldview

Beyond Dogma: Wellness & Religion’s Striking Parallels

Welcome back to Taste0ftruth Tuesdays Wellness Warriors and truth seekers!

Listen here 🎧

Fundamentalist thinking doesn’t just reside in religious circles—it also permeates wellness and healing spaces. Just as high-control religions exploit human vulnerability, so does diet culture.

I’ve had my share of blindly following extreme health regimens recommended by practitioners, ignoring my own discomfort along the way. It became clear that fundamentalism can crop up in various aspects of life, and part of healing is about recognizing and addressing these tendencies within us.

High control religion and diet culture both capitalize on the brain’s tendency to interpret things in a binary black-and-white manner by presenting clear-cut rules, guidelines, and belief systems that simplify complex issues into easy-to-follow directives.

Clear Rules and Regulations:

  • High Control Religion: Provides rigid doctrines, moral codes, and commandments that delineate right from wrong, good from evil, and righteous from sinful.
  • Diet Culture: Promotes strict dietary regimes, cleanses, and “good” vs. “bad” foods, categorizing eating behaviors as virtuous or detrimental.

In both of these contexts, this black-and-white thinking oversimplifies complex issues related to spirituality and health, offering a sense of clarity and control in exchange for individual autonomy and critical thinking. 

I used to be fixated on healing, always chasing the next fix. When I later dove into a high-control religion, this perpetual quest for self-improvement morphed into the religious ritual of sanctification—an equally exhausting endeavor.

Healing should be about presence, connection, and truly living—not an endless pursuit of perfection.

Have you noticed this shift in your own or others’ healing journeys?

Here are some examples of fundamentalist thinking and behaviors found in both high-control religions and wellness/healing spaces:

AspectHigh-Control ReligionWellness Spaces
Strict Rules and RegulationsRigid doctrines and moral codes with severe consequencesStrict dietary regimes or detox plans with inflexible guidelines, labeling deviations as harmful or sinful
Authority FiguresCentralized figures with unquestionable teachingsGurus or practitioners whose advice is taken as absolute truth
Us vs. Them MentalityClear divisions between the “righteous” and “sinful” outsidersLabeling foods, behaviors, or people as “clean” or “toxic,” fostering an in-group/out-group mentality
Fear-Based TacticsFear of damnation or punishment to maintain controlInstilling fear of illness or toxins to enforce adherence to wellness practices
Exclusive Truth ClaimsBelief that their interpretation of faith is the only truthClaiming their diet or lifestyle is the only path to true health and well-being
Shame and GuiltUsing shame and guilt to enforce complianceShaming individuals for not adhering to specific diets or wellness protocols
Community PressureIntense pressure to conform within the communitySocial pressure to adhere to specific wellness practices, with fear of ostracism for non-compliance
Promised RewardsPromises of spiritual rewards or salvation for adherencePromises of optimal health or purity through strict adherence to wellness practices
Fundamentalist thinking and behaviors found in both

    Seeking Clarity during Stress

    Gravitating towards fundamentalism after experiencing hyper-charismatic or new age movements can seem understandable. The strict rules and structure provide a perceived sense of safety. Particularly during times of stress and uncertainty, we can gravitate towards the need for a sense of control & structure. However, this rigidity and extreme control often lead to increased trauma over time.

    As I deconstruct from the Christian faith, I am re-evaluating beliefs, questioning long-held doctrines, and confronting the challenges faced within spiritually abusive environments. 

    Fundamentalism’s rigid adherence to traditional beliefs and practices can create significant challenges, fostering environments that can stifle personal freedom, promote division, and sometimes lead to conflict and violence. We also see intolerance towards individuals or groups who hold different beliefs or lifestyles, leading to discrimination, ostracism, or even violence towards perceived “outsiders” or “heretics.”

    This is due to the dogmatism, this fundamentalist ideology tends to promote rigid, inflexible interpretations of religious or ideological principles, discouraging questioning or exploration of ANY alternative viewpoints.

    Fundamentalists are often resistant to change and innovation within religious doctrine or practice, viewing such developments as departures from true faith.

    I recently shared a post on Instagram, 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.

    Please review this blog for more information and resources: Understanding Fundamentalism: Rigid Beliefs, Division, and Psychological Impact I am hoping these resources provide comprehensive insights into the dangers of fundamentalism, illustrating its potential to foster intolerance, social division, and conflict

    Understanding these parallels helps us recognize and challenge fundamentalist thinking in all areas of life, promoting a more balanced and critical approach to wellness and healing, and JUST EXISTING!

    Let’s move away from the dualistic thinking and judgment that these ideologies promote, and instead, embrace a more holistic and compassionate path forward.

    That’s all I have for you today folks! Thanks again for listening/reading. Next week, we will continue the conversation breaking from Diet Culture and for future episodes:

    •Dr. Mark Gregory Karris, author of The Diabiological Trinity Healing Religious Trauma from a Wrathful God, Tormenting Hell & a Sinful Self, Religious Refugees: (De)Constructing Toward Spiritual and Emotional Healing and more
    •@neilyvanneily is a philosopher and cognitive scientist known for his work in the intersection of religion, cognition, and culture. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University. We will be discussing his new book- “Religion as Make-Believe,” which offers a thought-provoking analysis of the nature of religious belief and its role in human societies.

    •@mburtwrites To discuss Biblical Counseling & a little bit of the evolution of Christian parenting, along with Kelsey McGinnis, they offer a comprehensive exploration of the historical, cultural, ideological, political, and social factors that have influenced Christian parenting over time.

    @carielmoore to discuss Franciscan theology: which focuses on simplicity, poverty, and love for all. Inspired by Saint Francis, it’s about imitating Christ and caring for the marginalized. 🌿 she also explores parenting through the lens of spirituality, theology, and childhood liberation ✨

    and MORE! Until then, maintain your curiosity, embrace skepticism, and keep tuning in! 🎙️🔒

    Have a great week!

    🙏 Please help this podcast reach a larger audience in hope to 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!