Alex Jones sucks, and everyone knows it.

Enough with your golden calves!

It happens slowly, then all at once. One day, your uncle is just another guy who watches the evening news, and the next, he’s parroting talking points about how democracy is under attack—except the real threat isn’t coming from where he thinks it is. Maybe your mom starts sending you “just something to think about” links that trace back to sources you’ve never heard of, or your grandpa, once the kindest man you knew, suddenly believes the country is being invaded.

How did we get here?

For many in rural America, it started with something as simple as local news. The Cassville Democrat and the Barry County Advertiser have been serving the community for a long time. They covered local politics, high school sports, and small-town events—things that actually mattered to the people living there. But then, little by little, these independent sources of news disappeared or got swallowed up by larger conglomerates. (Don’t let that happen to your local trusted news.)

That’s where Sinclair Broadcast Group comes in. While Sinclair may not own your small-town newspaper, it does control a staggering number of local television stations across the country. And with that control comes a playbook: mandatory “must-run” segments pushing a certain agenda, seamlessly blended into what used to be trusted local news. These segments don’t look like opinion pieces or commercials—they’re presented as hard facts, as if they were just another report about the weather or the latest town hall meeting.

And people believe it.

They believe it because it’s coming from the same anchor they’ve watched for years. They trust it because it doesn’t feel like national news; it feels like the same station that used to warn them about upcoming road work or feature their kid’s baseball game. But behind the scenes, it’s not small-town journalism anymore—it’s a well-oiled propaganda machine, one that has turned countless living rooms into echo chambers for fear, division, and misinformation.

This is how entire families slide down the “Foxhole.” It starts with a shift in tone, a creeping sense of urgency, an increasing disdain for “mainstream media” that somehow never includes the massive corporations shaping their worldview. Soon, family dinners turn into arguments about “fake news,” and loved ones become unrecognizable, swallowed by paranoia and rhetoric designed to keep them afraid.

So, when did your family fall down the Foxhole? And more importantly—how do you get them out?

Polarized News and the “Divide and Conquer” Strategy

News was once considered a public good—something that kept people informed and held the powerful accountable. But when news becomes polarized, it stops serving that role and starts becoming a weapon. Instead of bringing people together through shared facts, it turns them against each other with conflicting narratives.

This isn’t an accident. It’s a classic divide and conquer strategy. By polarizing the media, those in power ensure that the public is too busy fighting each other to challenge the real sources of corruption and inequality.

1. How Polarized News Creates Two Realities

When news outlets cater to ideological extremes, they create entirely different versions of reality for their audiences. A single event—an election, a protest, a crisis—can be reported in ways that are so radically different that people no longer share a common understanding of what happened.

• On one side, news may frame an issue as a threat to democracy and call for action.
• On the other, the same issue is presented as a fight against tyranny, with the other side as the enemy.

This leads to a public that is not just divided, but unable to agree on basic facts—which is exactly what makes divide-and-conquer tactics so effective.

2. Distracting the Public from Real Power Struggles

In an ideal world, people would unite around shared interests—fair wages, healthcare, corruption reform. But when the media is polarized, those in power don’t have to worry about that. Instead of focusing on who’s actually making decisions that hurt them, people are kept distracted by endless culture wars and manufactured outrage.

• The wealthy keep getting wealthier, while people argue about ideological purity.
• Corporate power grows unchecked, while the public fights over which news channel to trust.
• Real injustices go unchallenged because people are too busy seeing each other as the enemy.

This is divide and conquer at its finest—turn people against each other so they don’t turn against you.

3. The Role of Corporate Media in Keeping Us Divided

Polarized news isn’t just a political problem—it’s a business model. Outrage drives engagement, and media companies profit when people stay angry and afraid. Instead of presenting balanced perspectives, they double down on fear-based reporting that keeps people locked into their side’s worldview.

The result? A public that isn’t just divided, but actively trained to hate the other side.

• Compromise becomes impossible. If the other side is evil, why negotiate?
• Echo chambers replace real debate. People only seek information that reinforces their beliefs.
• Trust in institutions collapses. If everything is biased, why believe anything at all?

At this point, it doesn’t even matter who’s right—because the real winners are the ones at the top, who never have to worry about accountability when people are too busy fighting each other.

4. Breaking the Cycle

If we want to push back against this strategy, we have to recognize how it works. That means:

• Prioritizing facts over ideology—seeking multiple perspectives, even when they challenge our views.
• Holding media accountable—understanding how corporate ownership shapes narratives.
• Focusing on systemic issues—demanding real change instead of getting lost in culture war distractions.

A divided public is an easily controlled public. The more we fight each other, the less we fight for change. And that’s exactly what those in power are counting on.

How Reagan Made the News Less Credible

There was a time when news wasn’t designed to entertain—it was meant to inform. The evening news was considered a public service, something broadcasters did because they had a duty to the public, not because it was profitable. But then came Reagan.

Ronald Reagan’s administration fundamentally reshaped the media landscape, turning news from a watchdog of democracy into a corporate product driven by ratings, ideology, and profit. The ripple effects of his policies are still felt today, from the rise of partisan propaganda to the collapse of trust in journalism.

1. Killing the Fairness Doctrine: The Birth of Partisan News

Before 1987, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that broadcasters covered controversial topics with multiple perspectives. It wasn’t perfect, but it kept radio and TV news from becoming a one-sided echo chamber.

Reagan’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed the rule, claiming it violated free speech. The result? Conservative talk radio exploded, with figures like Rush Limbaugh turning political news into a spectacle of outrage. Later, networks like Fox News built their entire brand on one-sided reporting without any obligation to offer counterpoints.

2. Deregulation and Corporate Takeover of News

Reagan’s belief in “free markets” extended to the media, leading to massive deregulation that allowed corporations to buy up local stations and newspapers. His policies encouraged the consolidation of media ownership, meaning fewer companies controlled more of the information people saw.

Fast forward to today, and just a handful of corporations own nearly all media outlets in the U.S. This shift turned newsrooms into profit-driven businesses, where ratings mattered more than facts, and fear-based, sensationalist coverage kept viewers glued to the screen.

3. The Rise of Propaganda Disguised as News

Reagan didn’t just deregulate the media—he also pushed the idea that mainstream news was biased against conservatives. By constantly attacking traditional outlets and uplifting right-wing alternatives, he planted the seeds of distrust in journalism.

Today, we see the results: millions of Americans no longer believe in facts unless they come from their preferred, ideologically aligned media. Sinclair Broadcast Group, for example, forces local news anchors across the country to read scripted conservative talking points, blending propaganda seamlessly into hometown news.

4. Turning News into a Profit-Driven Business

Before Reagan, network news wasn’t expected to turn a profit. It was a public service, something TV networks did because it was important. But deregulation changed that, making news divisions compete for ad revenue just like entertainment shows.

That shift led to the rise of sensationalism, fear-mongering, and infotainment—because nothing gets ratings like crime stories, political outrage, and endless speculation about the latest scandal. Serious investigative journalism took a backseat to the 24-hour news cycle, where keeping people glued to their screens mattered more than informing them.

Reagan’s Legacy: A Broken News System

Thanks to Reagan, today’s news landscape is filled with partisan silos, billionaire-controlled media empires, and a public that no longer knows who—or what—to trust. Misinformation spreads faster than real journalism, and for many, “news” is whatever reinforces their existing beliefs.

Reagan’s policies didn’t just change how we consume media—they broke the very foundation of credible journalism, and we’re still paying the price.

Bodily Autonomy: The Foundation of Freedom

At its core, bodily autonomy is the foundation of personal freedom. Without the right to control our own bodies, every other freedom becomes meaningless. It is the principle that no one—neither the government, nor a religious institution, nor another individual—can force us to use our bodies in ways we do not consent to.

Yet, when it comes to pregnancy, this right has been systematically eroded. The Supreme Court originally upheld abortion rights in Roe v. Wade because of fetal viability, recognizing that before a fetus could survive outside the womb, it was entirely dependent on the pregnant person’s body. The Court ruled that a government could not force someone to remain pregnant against their will, just as it could not compel anyone to donate an organ or undergo a medical procedure to save another life.

Now, with Roe overturned, this fundamental freedom has been shattered, and the government has granted itself the power to override bodily autonomy—something it does in few other cases.

---

1. Bodily Autonomy and the Right to Choose Life-Saving Medical Care

The inconsistency in how the law treats bodily autonomy is glaring. When it comes to life-saving medical interventions, individuals (even children) are often given the right to refuse treatment, even if it leads to their death.

• Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood Transfusions – Many Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions based on religious beliefs, even when it means they will die. Courts have occasionally intervened on behalf of young children, but in many cases, the right to bodily autonomy allows adults—and even some minors—to refuse life-saving treatment.
• End-of-Life Decisions – Patients with terminal illnesses can refuse medical intervention, even if it means they will die sooner. Some states allow physician-assisted death, further reinforcing the idea that individuals have the right to control their own medical decisions.
• Organ and Tissue Donation – The law does not allow the government to force someone to donate an organ, even if it would save another person’s life. A person can die waiting for a kidney, but no law forces someone else to give up theirs—even after death.

These precedents make one thing clear: bodily autonomy has historically been considered more important than saving another person’s life. Yet, when it comes to pregnancy, that standard is abandoned.

---

2. The Double Standard on Pregnancy and Bodily Autonomy

If a living, breathing person cannot be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, or an organ to save another, why should a pregnant person be forced to use their entire body for nine months to sustain a fetus?

The fetus, before viability, cannot survive without the pregnant person’s body—just like a person with kidney failure cannot survive without a donor. But instead of respecting bodily autonomy, abortion bans force one person to sacrifice their body for another’s survival, even against their will.

This is a dangerous precedent. If the government can override bodily autonomy in pregnancy, what stops it from doing so in other medical situations?

• Could mandatory organ donation become legal?
• Could the state force life-saving treatments on people who refuse them, even for religious reasons?
• Could a person’s bodily choices be overridden whenever the government decides that another life takes priority?

Without bodily autonomy, freedom is an illusion.

---

3. Freedom Means Control Over Our Own Bodies

For all the rhetoric about “freedom,” true liberty starts with the right to control what happens to our own bodies. This right applies to every person, in every situation—not just the ones that fit a political or religious agenda.

• If a child can refuse a blood transfusion on religious grounds, a person should be able to refuse pregnancy.
• If a person can reject a life-saving organ transplant, a person should be able to reject forced birth.
• If the government cannot force you to give up your kidney to save someone else, it should not be able to force you to remain pregnant.

Without bodily autonomy, people are reduced to objects, valued only for what their bodies can provide to others—whether that’s labor, reproduction, or survival. That is not freedom. That is control.

---

4. Why Viability Still Matters

The Supreme Court originally used viability as the key dividing line in Roe v. Wade because it recognized that before viability, the fetus could not survive without the pregnant person’s body. At this stage, the rights of the pregnant person should take priority, just as the rights of any living, autonomous person do in every other medical case.

Overturning Roe destroyed this principle and set a precedent that bodily autonomy is conditional—that the government can, in fact, force a person to sacrifice their body against their will. This logic is not just about pregnancy. It opens the door for broader medical coercion, allowing the state to dictate what people must do with their bodies in other scenarios.

And if history has taught us anything, once a government takes away bodily autonomy from one group, it won’t stop there.

---

5. Bodily Autonomy Is the Line We Cannot Cross

This fight isn’t just about abortion. It’s about whether we have the right to control our own bodies, or whether the government can take that right away whenever it sees fit.

Every law that restricts bodily autonomy is a step toward authoritarian control. Whether it’s forced pregnancy, forced medical procedures, or forced end-of-life decisions, the message is clear: your body does not belong to you.

The question we must ask is: if bodily autonomy is not an absolute right, then who gets to decide when it applies? Because once we accept that the government can take that power away, there is no limit to how much control it can claim.

How Polarized Systems Use Religion to Exploit the “Other”

Polarized media and power structures don’t just rely on misinformation and division—they also weaponize religion to justify oppression and control. Throughout history, authoritarian movements and corporate interests have used religious belief to turn communities against marginalized people, keeping them divided and compliant while those in power profit.

This is a deliberate strategy, not an accident. By using religious rhetoric to frame “outsiders” as threats to morality and social order, these systems exploit faith to manipulate fear, justify discrimination, and maintain control.

---

1. Creating Enemies to Maintain Power

Religion can be a source of community and hope—but in polarized systems, it is often twisted into a weapon to create enemies. Politicians and media figures use religious language to turn LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, racial minorities, and other marginalized groups into villains, claiming they are corrupting society.

• LGBTQ+ people are framed as a threat to “traditional family values.”
• Immigrants are painted as dangerous outsiders who don’t respect the dominant faith.
• Women’s rights activists are demonized as “anti-family” or “anti-God.”

This isn’t about faith—it’s about manufacturing enemies to distract from real injustices, like corporate exploitation and government failures. Instead of questioning why wages are low or why billionaires control the economy, people are led to believe the real danger is their queer neighbor, the woman demanding reproductive rights, or the immigrant family down the street.

---

2. Exploiting Fear of Social Change

Powerful institutions use religious fear-mongering to convince people that any progress is an attack on their beliefs. This is how they turn ordinary people against their own best interests.

• Expanding healthcare? It’s framed as “socialism” and an attack on religious freedom.”
• LGBTQ+ protections? Spun as “forcing Christians to accept sin.”
• Racial justice? Rebranded as “Marxism” or “destroying heritage.”

By positioning progress as an attack on faith, these systems weaponize religious identity to keep people loyal to politicians and corporations who do not care about them.

---

3. Turning Religion Into a Political Weapon

When religion is politicized, faith becomes loyalty to a party rather than personal beliefs. Leaders claim that their political agenda is the will of God, and questioning them becomes heresy.

• In the U.S., the Religious Right was built through a political alliance between evangelical leaders and conservative politicians. Instead of focusing on poverty, corruption, or injustice (core issues in many religious teachings), they focused on abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and “traditional values” as a way to consolidate political power.
• This created a system where religion and nationalism became fused—to be a good American (or any other nationality), you had to be part of a specific religious ideology. Anyone outside of it was a threat.

The result? Faith is no longer about spirituality—it’s about political obedience.

---

4. Justifying Economic and Social Exploitation

Religion is also used to convince marginalized people to accept oppression rather than challenge it.

• The wealthy weaponize scripture to tell poor people that suffering is noble, that “God rewards the faithful,” and that challenging authority is sinful.
• Oppressive policies are defended with religious rhetoric, teaching people that inequality is natural and rebellion is unholy.
• People are encouraged to “pray and wait for better days” rather than demand systemic change.

This is a powerful tool for maintaining class divisions—convincing struggling communities that their suffering is not only acceptable but divinely ordained.

---

5. Breaking the Cycle of Religious Manipulation

Faith should be a source of compassion, justice, and personal growth—not a tool of control. To resist this exploitation, we must:

• Recognize when religion is being used as a political tool rather than a source of personal belief.
• Challenge narratives that justify oppression, even when they are cloaked in religious language.
• Uplift faith leaders who focus on justice, equity, and inclusion, rather than those who align with political agendas.
• Encourage critical thinking within faith communities, rather than blind obedience to leaders who push division.

Religion has always been powerful—but when it is hijacked by systems designed to exploit, it stops being about faith and starts being about control. The question is, will we let them get away with it?

---

Compassion vs. Manufactured Hatred: The Moral Divide

Compassion vs. Manufactured Hatred: The Moral Divide

Compassion is the foundation of human connection. It is what allows us to see one another as people first—before politics, before belief systems, before identity. It is the ability to recognize suffering and respond with care rather than cruelty. True compassion requires courage. It asks us to lean into discomfort, to challenge our biases, and to extend empathy even when it is difficult.

But in many religious and political spaces, compassion is being replaced with something far more insidious: manufactured hatred. Instead of faith being used to uplift, some preachers and leaders weaponize religion to turn communities against “the other.” They teach their congregations that LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, different faiths, and marginalized groups are not just different—but dangerous.

This isn’t about theological differences. This is about control. It is about turning faith into a weapon, dividing people against each other while consolidating power. It is the replacement of love with fear—because fear is easier to manipulate.

---

1. The True Message of Compassion

Most religious traditions, including Christianity, center their teachings on love, kindness, and care for the vulnerable. Faith, at its best, is meant to inspire people to act justly, to uplift those who are struggling, and to extend grace even to those we do not understand.

The core of these teachings is simple:

• All people have inherent worth.
• Caring for those in need is not optional—it is a moral duty.
• Love is more powerful than fear.

Jesus, for example, did not side with the powerful or the wealthy. He sat with outcasts, healed the sick, and defended the oppressed. His words were clear:

“Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:31)
“Whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)

There was no footnote that said, “unless they are different from you.”

And yet, in direct contradiction to these teachings, many modern religious leaders are pushing fear over love, cruelty over kindness, and exclusion over acceptance.

---

2. When Religion Is Used to Justify Hate

Some preachers have abandoned the message of love in favor of power, control, and division. Instead of using their influence to unite people, they actively fuel hostility. Instead of challenging injustice, they become the architects of it.

This is how it plays out in real time:

• Demonizing LGBTQ+ people, treating their existence as a threat rather than a part of the human experience.
• Portraying immigrants and refugees as invaders, rather than recognizing the moral duty to welcome the stranger.
• Framing racial justice as an attack on faith, rather than acknowledging historical and ongoing oppression.
• Encouraging persecution of those with different beliefs, instead of fostering dialogue and understanding.

This is not faith. This is manipulation.

When a preacher tells their congregation that LGBTQ+ people are destroying society, or that immigrants are ruining their way of life, they aren’t preaching the gospel. They are scapegoating—manufacturing an enemy so their followers stay loyal and afraid.

And what happens when people are constantly told that “the other” is evil? Hate crimes increase. Civil rights are rolled back. People begin to see their neighbors as enemies instead of fellow human beings.

This is not righteousness. This is radicalization.

---

3. Why Do They Do It? The Power of Fear and Division

Religious leaders and political figures who spread hate aren’t doing it because they are spiritually enlightened—they are doing it because it is profitable and powerful.

• Fear keeps people loyal. If someone believes their way of life is under attack, they will cling to the authority figures who claim to protect them.
• Hate is easier than compassion. Understanding people takes effort. It is far easier to reject than to engage.
• Divided communities are easier to control. If people are too busy fighting each other, they won’t question the power structures exploiting them.

This is divide and conquer, disguised as faith. It is a tactic used throughout history, whether by governments, churches, or corporations, to keep power in the hands of the few. When people are told to fear their neighbors, they forget to look up and question who is really benefiting from their division.

---

4. Compassion Is the Harder, Braver Choice

Compassion is difficult because it requires us to listen, reflect, and challenge the easy narratives we are given. It requires us to:

• Stand up for those who are mistreated, even when it is unpopular.
• Question narratives that frame entire groups as “dangerous,” rather than accepting them at face value.
• Choose understanding over fear, even when rejection feels easier.

Compassion does not mean agreeing with everyone. It does not mean erasing personal beliefs. It means recognizing that people—before their labels, their politics, their identities—are still people.

And yet, many preachers are doing the exact opposite. They are teaching their congregations not just to disagree, but to hate. They are using their pulpits, their power, and their influence to convince people that their neighbors are enemies.

That is not morality. That is manipulation.

---

5. Reclaiming Faith from Those Who Twist It

If religion is to mean anything, it must be a force for good—not a tool of oppression. That means:

• Rejecting leaders who use faith to justify cruelty. A message rooted in hate is not a message of truth.
• Prioritizing kindness over dogma. No belief system should be used as a weapon against others.
• Recognizing that faith should inspire justice, not justify discrimination.

Compassion is a choice. Hatred is a habit that is taught.

So the real question is this: who do we choose to listen to?

The voices that call us to love—or the ones that tell us to fear?

---

When a Select Few Control Education, Identity, and Truth

Cassville, Missouri is a quiet town tucked into the Ozark hills—but like many rural communities across the U.S., it holds within it a sobering example of how public education can be shaped, distorted, and controlled by the few. In the Cassville R-IV School District, decisions about curriculum, discipline, and student experience are not made through open dialogue or democratic engagement. They’re made by a small circle of people—those with deep religious ties, long-standing political power, and an unwavering commitment to preserving their version of tradition.

In 2022, Cassville drew national headlines for reinstating corporal punishment. School officials defended the decision as a return to “discipline,” but it signaled something deeper: a desire to double down on control. In Cassville, education isn’t just about reading, writing, and critical thinking—it’s about obedience. It’s about ensuring the next generation doesn’t stray from the narrow values of those in charge.

And nowhere is that more evident than in the way history is taught—and erased.

Students in Cassville grow up learning about the Civil War in a way that obscures its true causes. Slavery is mentioned, perhaps, but often reframed as a footnote to “states’ rights.” What’s left out is the core truth: slavery was an economic engine built on free labor. For centuries, Black people were stolen, exploited, and denied humanity so that white landowners could profit. That brutal reality—the foundation of American wealth—is quietly omitted, replaced with vague language and neutral tones. By sanitizing the past, those in power protect a worldview that refuses to reckon with injustice.

The same erasure extends to civil rights. Students may hear the names Martin Luther King Jr. or Rosa Parks, but not Malcolm X or Bayard Rustin. They may read a few paragraphs about the Civil Rights Act, but not about COINTELPRO, state-sanctioned violence, or the generational impact of redlining. And LGBTQ+ people? Often completely invisible. If mentioned at all, it’s through a lens of caution, controversy, or silence. This absence isn’t neutral—it sends a message. It tells queer and trans students that their lives don’t belong in the story of this country.

Now imagine what would happen if the U.S. Department of Education were dismantled—a very real possibility being proposed by some national political figures.

Without federal oversight, school districts like Cassville would be empowered to rewrite curriculum without consequence. They could remove slavery’s economic context, reframe civil rights as a past-tense inconvenience, and ban any mention of LGBTQ+ people entirely. Students would no longer have the protection of Title IX, federal civil rights laws, or national curriculum standards. Teachers who dare to tell the truth could be fired. Books that acknowledge complexity could be pulled from shelves. And children would be left with a version of history and identity that reflects only the ideology of those in charge.

But this goes beyond textbooks.

The deeper issue lies in the way dominant religious ideologies in the Ozarks shape the entire structure of power. In towns like Cassville, churches don’t just influence belief systems—they shape the very fabric of public life. They determine what’s considered acceptable, who gets to lead, and how families—and children—are expected to live.

At the center of this worldview is a rigid hierarchy: heterosexual, cisgender, Christian marriages where men lead, women submit, and children obey. These roles are not presented as choices—they’re presented as divine design. Anything outside of that is not just discouraged; it’s demonized.

This isn’t just pressure—it’s coercion. Young people are not given space to explore their identities, question their beliefs, or imagine alternative paths. Instead, they’re taught that acceptance is conditional: it depends on their ability to conform to a narrow mold. Queer and trans kids quickly learn that being their full selves could mean rejection from family, church, or school. Silence becomes a survival tactic.

There is no real consent under this system. Children are not asked who they are or what they need. They are told. And when their identities fall outside of the hierarchy—when they don’t feel safe using a certain bathroom, or when they’re punished for not dressing according to gendered expectations—they’re not just disciplined. They’re erased.

When a school system mirrors this religious and social structure—when it rewards compliance and punishes difference—education stops being a tool of liberation. It becomes a tool of control. It teaches children not how to think, but how to submit.

Cassville may seem like an isolated town, but it offers a critical warning. When power over education is concentrated in the hands of a few—especially those driven by rigid ideology—truth becomes malleable, diversity becomes dangerous, and young people lose their right to become who they truly are.

If the federal protections that prevent this kind of abuse are removed, towns like Cassville will not be outliers. They’ll become the blueprint.

When Virginity Equals Holiness: The Sexual Health Consequences of Purity Teachings

In many conservative Christian contexts, virginity is more than a personal value—it becomes a symbol of spiritual purity, a moral currency, and a defining feature of a woman’s worth. This framing is not just ideological; it is deeply embodied. It shapes how women relate to their own bodies, how they engage in relationships, and how they experience sex—if they are even allowed to experience it on their own terms at all.

The idea that virginity equals holiness has a long and complex history, but its most pervasive modern form is what’s often referred to as purity culture. Promoted heavily in evangelical Christian communities throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, purity culture championed abstinence-until-marriage, modesty, and a rigid sexual ethic centered almost exclusively on women’s behavior. In this framework, women were responsible not only for their own moral standing but also for the purity of the men around them. Their bodies became objects of temptation, their sexuality something to guard, and their worth something that could be permanently lost.

These teachings have consequences—ones that go far beyond religious belief. They create fractures in identity, distort a woman’s ability to consent, and contribute to long-term health issues, both psychological and physical.

Women raised in these systems often internalize a form of psychological splitting. On one side is the “good girl”—modest, obedient, and pure. On the other is the sexual self—curious, embodied, desiring, and therefore dangerous. To be holy, they must disown the parts of themselves that are naturally sexual, sensate, or expressive. This kind of dissociation can be deeply disorienting and leaves many women feeling alienated from their own bodies.

Research supports this. A 2017 study by Thomas et al. found that sexual shame correlated with lower sexual self-concept and reduced sexual satisfaction in women raised in religious purity cultures. These women were more likely to view their sexual desires as morally wrong and less likely to feel comfortable expressing themselves in intimate relationships.
Thomas et al., 2017 – “Purity culture, sexual shame, and identity”

Because sex is framed as something a woman gives rather than something she chooses, purity culture also undermines the development of healthy consent. Many women are taught to say no until marriage—not because they want to, but because they have to in order to remain “good.” Then, once married, they’re expected to say yes—again, not necessarily because they want to, but because it is now their obligation.

This lack of practice in recognizing and expressing sexual boundaries has a measurable impact. A study by Runkel et al. found that women with strong religious convictions reported significantly lower levels of sexual assertiveness and higher levels of sexual anxiety. The absence of sexual agency leaves women vulnerable—not just to unwanted sex, but to confusion, guilt, and shame in situations where they should feel empowered.
Runkel et al., 2008 – “Religiosity, sexual guilt, and women’s sexual assertiveness”

Physically, the body carries the burden of this fear and suppression. Anorgasmia (the inability to reach orgasm), dyspareunia (pain during intercourse), and vaginismus (involuntary muscle tightening that prevents penetration) are disproportionately reported among women raised in sexually repressive environments. In these cases, the body reacts to sex not with openness or relaxation, but with tension and discomfort—responses that often originate from years of shame-based conditioning.

A study by Fahs (2010) exploring the experiences of women from conservative and sexually restrictive upbringings found that many struggled with basic arousal and experienced significant sexual dysfunction well into adulthood. Their bodies were conditioned to fear what they were never taught to understand.
Fahs, 2010 – “Sexual dysfunction in women from sexually restrictive backgrounds”

And when purity teachings are combined with abstinence-only sex education—common in many religious communities—there are additional risks. Without accurate information about contraception or STI prevention, women are more likely to experience unplanned pregnancies and contract sexually transmitted infections. This is not speculation; data shows that states and districts emphasizing abstinence-only education have higher teen pregnancy and STI rates than those offering comprehensive sex education.
Santelli et al., 2017 – “Abstinence-only education and adolescent health”

None of this is to say that choosing abstinence is inherently harmful. The issue lies in what is required, what is shamed, and what is withheld. When sexual development is stunted by fear, silence, and misinformation, it leads to fractured relationships with the self and with others. When worth is tied to virginity, women are left with fewer tools to advocate for their health, their pleasure, or their safety.

It is possible to untangle these teachings. It is possible to unlearn the shame, reconnect with the body, and reclaim the right to sexual selfhood. That process looks different for everyone—it may involve therapy, education, embodied practices, or simply giving oneself permission to explore pleasure without guilt.

What’s clear is this: women deserve better than a framework that equates their worth with their sexual history. Sexual health is not just about avoiding disease or dysfunction—it’s about autonomy, connection, agency, and joy.

And every woman is worthy of all of it.

The Price of Purity: How the Virgin Mary Ideal Harms Women and Queer Bodies

The idealization of Mary as a virgin is more than a theological detail—it’s a cultural narrative with far-reaching consequences. When virginity is treated as a moral or spiritual ideal, especially through Mary, it reinforces the notion that a woman’s worth is tied to her sexual inactivity. This teaches generations of women and girls that holiness requires bodily denial, and that sexuality—especially outside of heterosexual marriage—is something to be ashamed of. It splits womanhood into a false binary: pure like Mary, or fallen like the so-called “promiscuous” woman, often represented by Mary Magdalene.

This framing not only promotes shame and silence around sex, but also upholds systems of patriarchy where women’s bodies are controlled and defined by others. It erases agency, reinforces gendered power dynamics, and damages queer and trans people whose existence challenges rigid purity-based roles. Glorifying Mary’s virginity sends a clear message: to be loved by God, you must be untouched, unquestioning, and above all, obedient. That’s not holiness—it’s control. And it harms everyone.

To the pastors and priests of Cassville—William Hodgson, Donnie Spears, Wes Stewart, Jason Mackey, Jeff Fugitt, James Weaver, Rich Cummings, Russell Bishop, Brad and Carissa Hudson:

You don’t get to wrap yourselves in righteousness while standing on the bones of the people you’ve silenced. You don’t get to moralize about sexuality when your institutions literally budget for sexual violence. You buy insurance policies that cover sexual abuse of children. Let that sink in. You prepare for it—not to prevent it, but to protect yourselves when it happens.

That’s not Christ-like. That’s criminal.

You endorse abuse every time you defend the system instead of the survivor. Every time you preach submission to authority knowing that authority has a long, bloody history of using people, breaking people, raping people—especially children, especially women, especially queer and trans people.

You promote purity culture while ignoring the rot inside your own walls. You call yourselves men and women of God while enabling coverups, shaming victims, and grooming entire congregations into silence.

This isn’t just about “a few bad apples.” It’s about a system designed to protect the abuser over the abused—and you’ve bought into it wholesale.

You are not holy. You are complicit.

And until you tear down the golden calf you’re still worshiping—your image, your control, your carefully curated innocence—you have no business preaching to anyone about sin.

We see you. And we will not be silent.

Foreign Influence

Russia’s approach to disseminating propaganda in the United States has undergone significant transformations from the end of the Cold War to the present digital era. This evolution reflects a shift from traditional espionage to sophisticated cyber operations that exploit data breaches and leverage social media platforms to influence public opinion and destabilize democratic institutions.

The 1990s: Post-Cold War Realignment

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia faced a diminished global influence. The KGB was restructured into the FSB, and many former operatives transitioned into roles within politics, media, and business. During this period, Russia observed the West’s adept use of media and technology to shape public opinion, laying the groundwork for future strategies in information warfare.

The 2000s: Emergence of Cyber Capabilities

With Vladimir Putin’s ascent to power in 2000, there was a concerted effort to restore Russia’s global standing. This included significant investments in state-controlled media outlets like RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, which were designed to present Russian perspectives to international audiences. Concurrently, Russia began developing cyber capabilities, exemplified by the 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, signaling the advent of coordinated digital warfare tactics.

The 2010s: Data Breaches and Social Media Manipulation

The proliferation of social media platforms and the occurrence of major data breaches provided new avenues for Russian propaganda efforts.

Exploitation of Data Breaches

In 2014, the cybersecurity firm McAfee reported a significant data breach exposing approximately 3 billion personal information records. Such breaches have been exploited by malicious actors to gather sensitive data, which can be used to craft targeted disinformation campaigns. While McAfee itself was not implicated in facilitating Russian activities, the incident underscores the broader vulnerabilities in data security that can be leveraged for propaganda purposes.

Social Media as a Propaganda Tool

During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Russian entities, notably the Internet Research Agency (IRA), orchestrated extensive disinformation campaigns on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. These operations involved creating fake personas and disseminating divisive content aimed at influencing voter behavior and exacerbating societal tensions. Investigations revealed that Russian operatives utilized stolen personal data to micro-target individuals with tailored propaganda, illustrating the intersection of data breaches and information warfare.

The 2020s: Advanced Disinformation Tactics

In recent years, Russian propaganda efforts have become increasingly sophisticated, incorporating advanced technologies and adapting to new media landscapes.

AI-Generated Content and Deepfakes

The use of artificial intelligence has enabled the creation of deepfake videos and realistic synthetic media, making it more challenging to discern authentic content from manipulated information. This technology has been employed to fabricate statements and actions of public figures, further complicating the information environment.

Operation Doppelgänger

Unveiled in 2022, Operation Doppelgänger exemplifies the modern evolution of Russian disinformation tactics. This campaign involved creating counterfeit websites that mimicked legitimate news outlets, disseminating false narratives to undermine support for Ukraine and sow discord among Western allies. The operation’s reach extended across multiple countries, highlighting the transnational nature of contemporary information warfare.

Conclusion

From the aftermath of the Berlin Wall’s fall to the present day, Russia’s strategies for distributing propaganda in the U.S. have evolved from conventional media manipulation to complex cyber and social media operations. By exploiting data breaches and leveraging the pervasive reach of social media, Russian entities have adeptly adapted to the digital age, posing ongoing challenges to information integrity and democratic processes.

Articles & Reports

Time Magazine. (2017, May 18). Inside Russia’s social media war on America. https://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/

Wired. (2020, June 16). The Russian disinfo operation you never heard about. https://www.wired.com/story/russia-secondary-infektion-disinformation/

Le Monde. (2024, September 5). US announces measures to combat Russian interference ahead of presidential election. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/09/05/us-announces-measures-to-combat-russian-interference-ahead-of-presidential-election_6724891_4.html

Webpages (Wikipedia and Company Blogs)

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 7, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Doppelganger (disinformation campaign). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 7, 2025, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelganger_(disinformation_campaign)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelganger_(disinformation_campaign)

McAfee. (2021, October 25). Data breach exposes 3 billion personal information records. McAfee Blog. https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/security-news/data-breach-exposes-3-billion-personal-information-records/

McAfee. (2023, October 26). The state of the scamiverse: Deepfakes, romance cons, and the rise of AI. McAfee Blog. https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/internet-security/state-of-the-scamiverse/

The Tangled Web: Donald Trump and Russia’s Long Game

From business dealings in Moscow to one of the most scrutinized presidential terms in U.S. history, the relationship between Donald Trump and Russia is a story of ambition, interference, and enduring controversy. What began as real estate dreams turned into a global political saga involving election interference, disinformation, and public trust in democracy.

Early Business Interests: Trump’s Eyes on Moscow

Donald Trump’s interest in Russia dates back to the late 1980s, when he began exploring potential real estate projects in Moscow. Over the next few decades, Trump and his associates pursued several business ventures involving Russian investors.

In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. remarked, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” a quote that would later raise eyebrows during the 2016 election investigations.

Russian Interference in the 2016 Election

According to a 2017 report by U.S. intelligence agencies, Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to undermine Hillary Clinton and support Trump’s candidacy. These operations involved:

• Hacking and releasing emails from the Democratic National Committee.
• Deploying bots and troll farms to spread propaganda via Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
• Creating fake grassroots pages on both sides of the political spectrum to sow division.

The U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment found this campaign to be “sweeping and systematic”
(Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2017).

The Trump Campaign’s Russia Ties

Investigations uncovered over 100 contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian-linked individuals. Among the most notable:

• The Trump Tower Meeting (2016): A Russian lawyer met with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort offering “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
• Michael Flynn: Trump’s first national security adviser discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador before Trump took office—then lied to the FBI about it.

These revelations fueled suspicions that the campaign may have been open to foreign influence, even if it didn’t actively conspire.

The Mueller Report: What Did It Say?

In 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate the extent of Russia’s interference and any potential coordination with the Trump campaign.

The 448-page Mueller Report concluded that:

• Russia interfered in the election “in a sweeping and systematic fashion.”
• There was insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
• Trump may have obstructed justice in multiple instances, but Mueller deferred charging him, leaving the matter to Congress.

(Mueller, 2019)

Trump’s Deference to Putin

Throughout his presidency, Trump took an unusually soft stance toward Vladimir Putin:

• At the 2018 Helsinki Summit, Trump publicly sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies regarding election interference.
• He routinely downplayed Russian involvement and called the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt.”

Even after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Trump described Putin as “savvy,” raising concerns about his ongoing alignment with Russian interests.

The Larger Picture: Propaganda and Influence

The Trump-Russia relationship cannot be separated from the broader Russian propaganda machine. During Trump’s presidency, Russian media often portrayed him as a stabilizing force for U.S.-Russia relations, while social media operations amplified American division. This convergence of political messaging and psychological operations follows a larger pattern—Russia sees internal conflict in the U.S. as a foreign policy win.

Final Thoughts

The Trump-Russia saga isn’t just about one man or one campaign. It’s about how data, media, and trust were weaponized to erode democracy from within. Whether or not Trump “colluded” with Russia, his presidency undeniably benefited Russian interests—and his actions challenged the very systems meant to defend U.S. sovereignty.

References

Mueller, R. S. (2019). Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2017). Assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent US elections. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Time. (2017, May 18). Inside Russia’s Social Media War on America. https://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/

Wired. (2020, June 16). The Russian Disinfo Operation You Never Heard About. https://www.wired.com/story/russia-secondary-infektion-disinformation/

Le Monde. (2024, September 5). US announces measures to combat Russian interference ahead of presidential election. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/09/05/us-announces-measures-to-combat-russian-interference-ahead-of-presidential-election_6724891_4.html

America at a Crossroads: What Today’s Targeting of Trans People and Immigrants Tells Us About Authoritarian Drift

In the past decade, American politics has taken a sharp and dangerous turn. While the United States is not Nazi Germany, some of the same ingredients that gave rise to fascism—scapegoating of vulnerable groups, the erosion of democratic norms, state violence, and a public desensitized to cruelty—are increasingly present in American life.

Today, we see this not in abstract terms but in concrete policies and rhetoric. Transgender people, especially youth, are being stripped of access to healthcare. Immigrants, especially from Central America, are being deported into violence or death. Donald Trump and far-right politicians have openly promised to expand these efforts, calling for mass deportations, retributive justice, and the use of the military to suppress dissent. It would be a mistake to assume we’re immune to history simply because it happened somewhere else.

The mass deportation of immigrants—many of them long-time U.S. residents—has already begun. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, asylum seekers from Latin America have been turned away, locked in detention centers, or deported into life-threatening conditions. In particular, deportations to El Salvador have sent individuals back to a country with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, where gang control and political instability make survival uncertain. Human Rights Watch and other international monitors have documented cases of deportees being murdered upon arrival, especially those marked as former gang members or LGBTQ+ individuals. Yet policies like Title 42, expanded during COVID and later dismantled, were used to quickly expel asylum seekers without due process—a tactic chillingly reminiscent of authoritarian systems that prioritize perceived security over human rights.

At the same time, the campaign against transgender Americans has intensified. Over the past few years, state legislatures across the U.S. have proposed and passed laws to ban or severely restrict access to gender-affirming care for minors, despite overwhelming support from major medical associations. In many states, doctors and parents who support trans youth face the threat of criminal penalties, loss of licensure, or child welfare investigations. This isn’t policy driven by science—it’s driven by the desire to erase a population from public life, to shame and control those who don’t conform to rigid gender norms. The comparison to early fascist regimes is not rhetorical. In Nazi Germany, LGBTQ+ people—especially trans people and gay men—were among the first to be targeted, arrested, and killed. The groundwork for that violence was laid through propaganda, scapegoating, and the law.

The targeting doesn’t stop at healthcare. During the Trump administration, transgender Americans were banned from serving openly in the U.S. military, despite years of successful integration. This was done under the guise of “readiness” and “cost”—language eerily similar to that used by authoritarian regimes to justify purging perceived “undesirables” from positions of responsibility. What it actually did was institutionalize discrimination and signal that transgender people are second-class citizens, unworthy of full participation in national life.

And yet the damage doesn’t stop at civil rights—it also creates a growing national security risk. What often goes unspoken is how shame, stigma, and exclusion create vulnerabilities that adversaries can exploit. In the world of intelligence, it is a long-established fact that the most easily compromised people are not those with unusual identities—but those forced to hide them. When trans people, immigrants, or queer Americans with security clearances are told they must live in fear or secrecy, we create exactly the kind of psychological isolation and resentment that hostile foreign actors seek to exploit. America’s adversaries—Russia, China, and others—have long studied how to target disaffected insiders. They look for people betrayed by their country, forced into silence, and abandoned by the institutions they once served.

This is not just Cold War history. It is current practice. Today, trans military veterans, queer intelligence analysts, and naturalized citizens with high-level clearances may find themselves excluded from service, unable to find work, or publicly vilified—despite still carrying institutional knowledge, experience, and sometimes access. Every time our country treats people like a threat instead of an asset, we make it easier for actual threats to get through.

We are building the conditions for exploitation. Not because trans people or immigrants are dangerous—but because shame is. Shame creates secrets. And secrets create soft targets.

These patterns are not isolated—they are connected. Fascism rarely arrives overnight. It creeps in through laws that marginalize, rhetoric that inflames, and institutions that fail to intervene. When politicians refer to immigrants as “poison” or transgender people as “groomers,” they are not just insulting—they are softening the public to accept further repression. The criminalization of trans identities, the militarization of immigration policy, and the normalization of political violence (such as January 6th) show that the line between democracy and authoritarianism is thinner than many Americans realize.

This is not a partisan warning. It is a historical one. Germany in the 1930s was a democracy too—until it wasn’t. Hitler rose to power legally, through elections and emergency decrees. He weaponized fear of the other. He dismantled rights piecemeal. He made people believe cruelty was strength, and compassion was weakness. That kind of transformation doesn’t begin with mass killings. It begins with who gets to be treated as fully human under the law.

Today, trans children are being told they don’t belong. Immigrants are being expelled to their deaths. And the machinery of state is being used not to protect them, but to punish them. That is not just political regression. That is moral failure—and it is the kind of failure that has precedents we ignore at our own peril.

---

APA-Formatted References

American Medical Association. (2021). AMA reaffirms support for transgender youth receiving gender-affirming care. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-reaffirms-support-transgender-youth-receiving-gender-affirming

Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World Report. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world

Human Rights Watch. (2020). Deported to Danger: United States Deportation Policies Expose Salvadorans to Death and Abuse. https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/02/05/deported-danger/united-states-deportation-policies-expose-salvadorans-death-and

Paxton, R. O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. Vintage.

Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books.

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2024). Extremist File: Proud Boys. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys

U.S. Department of Defense. (2021). DoD Instruction on Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2556087/dod-instruction-on-service-by-transgender-persons/