Takahashi put 19 volunteers inside an fMRI scanner and told them stories about fictional people. Some of these fictional people had better jobs, more money, and more success than the volunteers. Others were described as average. Then Takahashi told the volunteers that these fictional people had experienced misfortune. They lost the job. The money disappeared. The success collapsed.

Two things happened inside the brain.

When the volunteers read about someone who was more successful than they were, the anterior cingulate cortex activated. That is the same brain region that processes physical pain. Envy, at the neurological level, is not a thought. It is a wound. The brain processes it the same way it processes being hit.

Then, when the volunteers read about that same successful person losing everything, the ventral striatum activated. That is the brain’s reward center. The same region that lights up for food, sex, and drugs. Watching an envied person fail produced the same neurological signature as a reward.

And the correlation was direct. The volunteers who showed the strongest envy response in phase one showed the strongest pleasure response in phase two. The deeper the wound of comparison, the greater the joy at watching the other person fall.

The German word for this is schadenfreude. Pleasure derived from another person’s suffering.

Takahashi’s study proved that schadenfreude is not a character flaw. It is a neurological event. The brain is processing real pain from social comparison and then processing real pleasure when that comparison is eliminated by the other person’s destruction. It is not metaphorical. It is measurable. It lights up on a scan.

Subscribe now

Who Feels It the Most

In 2011, psychologist Wilco van Dijk at Leiden University in the Netherlands ran two studies that answered the question Takahashi’s research left open. Takahashi showed that envy predicts schadenfreude. Van Dijk wanted to know what predicts the envy.

The answer was self-esteem.

Van Dijk found that people with low self-esteem experienced significantly more schadenfreude when watching a high achiever fail. The mechanism was straightforward. People with low self-esteem feel more threatened by someone who has accomplished more than they have. That threat is what produces the envy. And the envy is what produces the pleasure when the high achiever falls.

Van Dijk tested this further by giving some participants a self-affirmation exercise before exposing them to the same scenarios. When people with low self-esteem were given an opportunity to affirm their own value first, the schadenfreude decreased. The pleasure at watching someone else fail was reduced because the underlying wound, the feeling that they were not enough, had been temporarily treated.

This finding reframes the entire mechanism. Schadenfreude is not about hating successful people. It is about hating yourself. The envy is a symptom of inadequacy. The pleasure at someone else’s suffering is the only relief available to a person who cannot generate self-worth from their own life. Watching someone who has more lose it is, for a person with low self-esteem, the closest thing to winning they have ever experienced.

Subscribe now

Why Envy Turns Political

Takahashi was studying individuals. He was not studying political movements. But the mechanism he identified does not stop at the individual level. It scales.

Consider what happens when millions of people share the same wound. Millions of people who feel like the world passed them by. Who expected more from their lives and did not get it. Who look at people with education, careers, mobility, and cultural influence and feel the anterior cingulate cortex fire every single time.

That is not a policy grievance. That is chronic neurological pain caused by social comparison. And the only thing that relieves it is watching the people who trigger it suffer.

This is why the political behavior of the American right makes no sense when you evaluate it as policy and makes perfect sense when you evaluate it as schadenfreude.

They do not vote for candidates who will improve their lives. They vote for candidates who will damage the lives of people they envy. They do not support policies that raise their wages, protect their healthcare, or fund their children’s education. They support policies that humiliate immigrants, punish cities, defund universities, and hurt the people they believe look down on them.

The ventral striatum does not care about policy outcomes. It cares about reward. And watching someone you envy lose something is, neurologically, a reward.

Subscribe now

The Platform of Suffering

This is not an accusation. It is a description of the operating system.

A family gets deported and the crowd cheers. The cheering is not about border security. If it were about border security, they would support comprehensive immigration reform, which has been available and rejected repeatedly. The cheering is about watching someone who had something lose it. That is the ventral striatum firing. That is schadenfreude.

A protester gets beaten or arrested and the response is “they should have complied.” That response is not legal analysis. It is pleasure disguised as principle. The pleasure comes from watching someone who challenged the hierarchy get punished. That is the reward circuit activating.

A journalist gets humiliated on live television and the crowd goes wild. Not because the journalist was wrong. Because the journalist represents a class of people, educated, credentialed, culturally influential, that triggers chronic envy in the audience. The humiliation is the relief. The humiliation is the drug.

Every one of these reactions follows Takahashi’s pattern exactly. A person who feels pain from social comparison experiences pleasure when the object of that comparison is diminished. The target does not need to have done anything wrong. They just need to be perceived as having more. And the more they lose, the better it feels.

Subscribe now

Why Nothing Gets Better

This is the part that should concern everyone, including the people inside the movement.

Schadenfreude is neurologically real. It produces genuine pleasure. But it does not produce progress. Watching someone else fail does not improve your life. It does not raise your income. It does not fix your marriage. It does not give your children better schools. It delivers a neurological reward and then it is gone. And the underlying pain, the envy, the inadequacy, the sense that your life did not turn out the way it was supposed to, is still there when the pleasure fades.

This is why the rallies never end. This is why the targets keep rotating. This is why the movement needs a constant supply of new enemies to humiliate. The reward is temporary. The pain is permanent. And a political movement built on schadenfreude rather than policy will always need another hit.

They do not want healthcare. They want to watch you lose yours. They do not want higher wages. They want to watch your wages drop. They do not want a better country. They want a country where the people they envy have less.

That is not a political platform. That is addiction. And like every addiction, it requires an escalating dose to produce the same effect. The deportations get bigger. The cruelty gets louder. The enemies get broader. Because the tolerance builds and last month’s suffering is not enough to get the same high.

Takahashi’s study was 19 volunteers in a lab in Chiba. What we are watching now is what happens when that same mechanism is industrialized, weaponized, and deployed as a national political strategy. Millions of people self-medicating chronic envy with the suffering of others, calling it patriotism, and wondering why nothing in their lives ever actually improves.

It will not improve. Schadenfreude does not build anything. It just burns down what someone else built and calls the fire a victory.

Share

Sources

Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When Your Gain Is My Pain and Your Pain Is My Gain: Neural Correlates of Envy and Schadenfreude. Science, 323(5916), 937-939.

van Dijk, W. W., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Wesseling, Y. M. (2011). Self-Esteem, Self-Affirmation, and Schadenfreude. Emotion, 11(6), 1445-1449.

Smith, R. H., Powell, C. A. J., Combs, D. J. Y., & Schurtz, D. R. (2009). Exploring the When and Why of Schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 530-546.

So the leader does something that looks irrational from the outside but is perfectly logical from the inside. He stops hiring for competence. He hires for desperation.

Political scientists call this negative selection. The term dates back to observations of Hitler’s inner circle, where Albert Speer noted that the most powerful positions were deliberately filled with the most incompetent men available. Not because Hitler lacked access to talent. Because talent was a threat. Incompetence was safety.

The concept was formalized by economists Georgy Egorov at Northwestern University and Konstantin Sonin at the University of Chicago in a paper called “Dictators and Their Viziers.” Their model demonstrated what historians had observed for centuries. Authoritarian leaders face a loyalty-competence tradeoff. The more competent a subordinate is, the more capable they are of betrayal. The more incompetent they are, the more dependent they remain on the leader. Weak leaders, especially those who feel their grip on power slipping, will always sacrifice competence for loyalty because loyalty is the only thing keeping them alive.

Egorov and Sonin found something else. The tradeoff gets worse over time. A leader who comes to power surrounded by capable people will, as he becomes more insecure, systematically replace them with weaker ones. The regime becomes less effective with every replacement. But the leader does not care about effectiveness. He cares about survival. And a mediocre loyalist who owes everything to the leader is safer than a brilliant operator who could function without him.

Subscribe now

How Negative Selection Works in Practice

The mechanism is straightforward once you see it. The leader identifies people who are compromised, disgraced, indebted, or otherwise unable to function outside his protection. He elevates them. He gives them titles, power, and authority they could never have earned on merit. And in doing so, he manufactures a dependency so complete that betrayal becomes structurally impossible.

A person who earned their position through competence can walk away. They have a reputation. They have credentials. They have options. A person who was given their position as a lifeline has none of that. If the leader falls, they fall. Their survival is fused to his survival. That fusion is the point.

This is not a side effect of poor hiring. It is the strategy. The leader does not want people who can leave. He wants people who cannot.

Consider the composition of Trump’s cabinet and inner circle. A disgraced television host overseeing the military. A man implicated in an FBI sting running border enforcement. A nominee who admitted in court that a parasitic worm consumed part of his brain, placed in charge of public health. These are not appointments that make sense if the goal is effective governance. They make perfect sense if the goal is total loyalty manufactured through total dependency.

Each of these people arrived compromised. Each of them was given authority they could never have obtained through normal channels. And each of them now exists in a position where the only thing standing between them and complete professional annihilation is the continued power of the man who elevated them.

Subscribe now

The Ratchet

Negative selection does not stop at hiring. It deepens over time through a mechanism that functions like a ratchet. Every line a subordinate crosses on behalf of the leader pushes them further from any possible exit.

Illegal deportations. Defiance of federal court orders. Participation in coverups. Each act adds another layer of complicity. Each layer makes the subordinate more dependent on the leader’s continued power because the leader’s continued power is the only thing preventing accountability.

This is the difference between loyalty earned and loyalty manufactured. Earned loyalty comes from shared values and mutual respect. It can survive disagreement. Manufactured loyalty comes from shared exposure. It cannot survive the leader’s fall because the leader’s fall triggers the subordinate’s prosecution.

Egorov and Sonin’s model predicts exactly this dynamic. As the leader becomes more insecure, he demands greater demonstrations of loyalty. Those demonstrations take the form of increasingly compromising acts. Each act binds the subordinate more tightly to the regime. And the subordinate, now unable to leave without facing consequences, becomes more extreme in their public defense of the leader. Not because they believe in him. Because they have no other option.

This is why the defenses get more absurd over time. This is why cabinet members say things on camera that contradict what they said six months earlier. This is why people who once had independent reputations now sound like hostages reading prepared statements. They are not defending a policy. They are defending themselves. Because if this administration ends, the investigations begin. And every one of them knows it.

Subscribe now

Why It Looks Like Incompetence

From the outside, negative selection looks like stupidity. Why would anyone put unqualified people in charge of the most powerful institutions in the world? The question assumes the goal is governance. It is not. The goal is control.

A qualified person running the Department of Defense might make independent decisions based on their expertise. An unqualified person running the Department of Defense will call the White House before making any decision at all. The incompetence is not a bug. It is the mechanism of control. Every decision that has to go through the leader is another decision the leader controls. And every decision the subordinate makes that later proves disastrous is another piece of leverage the leader holds.

This is what Egorov and Sonin’s research describes as the terminal phase of the loyalty-competence tradeoff. The regime becomes less and less capable of governing effectively. Decisions get worse. Outcomes deteriorate. Public trust erodes. But the leader’s personal grip on power remains intact because every person in the hierarchy owes their position to him and cannot survive without him.

The regime is not failing because the leader made bad hiring decisions. The regime is failing because it was designed to serve the leader, not the country. And a system designed to serve one person at the expense of institutional competence will always produce exactly the outcomes we are watching right now.

Subscribe now

The Endgame

Every regime built on negative selection faces the same terminal problem. The leader cannot be replaced from within because everyone around him was selected specifically for their inability to replace him. And the regime cannot adapt to changing circumstances because adaptation requires competence that was deliberately excluded from the system.

The hierarchy holds as long as the leader holds. The moment the leader weakens, there is no institutional capacity underneath to sustain anything. No bench. No succession plan. No competent deputy waiting in the wings. Just a collection of compromised people whose only skill was loyalty to a single person.

When that person is gone, they scatter. Not because they were never loyal. But because the loyalty was never about belief. It was about survival. And survival, once the umbrella collapses, means getting as far from the wreckage as possible.

That is negative selection carried to its logical conclusion. A system that prioritizes one man’s power over everything else will, eventually, have nothing else left.

Share

Sources

Egorov, G. & Sonin, K. (2011). Dictators and Their Viziers: Endogenizing the Loyalty-Competence Trade-Off. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(5), 903-930.

Speer, A. (1970). Inside the Third Reich. Macmillan.

Haber, S. (2006). Authoritarian Government. In B. Weingast & D. Wittman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford University Press.

You produce the document, the footage, the record, and it slides off them as if it were the lie. That reaction looks insane from the outside. It is not insane.

It is the predictable end state of a life spent inside copies, and a French thinker described the whole machine more than forty years before it finished assembling itself in America.

The Map Becomes the Territory

In 1981, the philosopher Jean Baudrillard published a book called Simulacra and Simulation, one of the most influential accounts ever written of what happens to a mind soaked in manufactured images.

His argument was that modern culture had begun producing copies of things that no longer had an original. A copy of a copy of a copy, each one referring only to the last, until the real thing it once pointed at was gone and no one noticed the absence. He called the result hyperreality. A condition in which the simulation feels more real, more vivid, more trustworthy than the reality it replaced.

The mechanism is simpler than the vocabulary. When the fake version of a thing becomes more familiar to you than the real version, the fake version quietly becomes your standard for what is real. Not through a decision. Through repetition.

You do not choose the counterfeit over the genuine article. You simply never meet the genuine article, so the counterfeit is all you have to measure by. Show such a person the real thing later and it will feel wrong to them, off, suspicious, because it fails to match the only reference they own.

That is the trap.

Once the copy sets the standard, reality itself starts to look like the fraud.

Subscribe now

A Lifetime of Rehearsals

Now hold that lens up to what the American right consumes, and the picture arranges itself with uncomfortable neatness.

Consider the entertainment. Professional wrestling is combat with the consequences surgically removed. The blows land without landing, the blood is real but the fight is not, and no one is ever truly accountable for anything because nothing that happens was ever permitted to matter. It is conflict rehearsed as spectacle, and it trains the viewer to enjoy the shape of a struggle while feeling none of its weight.

Consider the news. Fox, Newsmax, and the outlets orbiting them do not deliver the events of the world through a conservative lens. They deliver a product engineered to confirm, to soothe, to tell the audience that its existing feelings were correct all along. Actual journalism reports what occurred whether or not it flatters you. This is the opposite service. It reports how you already wished to feel and dresses it as the day’s events.

Consider the faith, and here it must be said plainly rather than politely. The version of religion at work is one that supplies the costume of morality while excusing its owner from the hard part. The pews get filled on Sunday, and the actual labor of examining and changing one’s conduct gets skipped.

Because the performance of virtue has been substituted for the practice of it. It is another rehearsal standing in for the real thing.

Consider the idols. They worship Donald Trump, not the man who lost fortunes and bankrupted casinos, but the character an editing bay assembled for a reality program, the decisive tycoon who never existed off the soundstage. They worship Andrew Tate, whose own attorneys, defending him in the Romanian proceedings, argued that the fleet of supercars was rented and the empire was a marketing act, a performance staged for the camera. In both cases the devotion attaches not to a real accomplishment but to a character, because the character is frictionless and the truth is not.

Subscribe now

Why Evidence Turns to Ash

String those together and the reason facts fail comes into focus. Fake combat, fake reporting, fake devotion, fake tycoons, fake hard men. A person raised on that full diet does not merely develop a taste for the counterfeit.

The counterfeit becomes the ruler against which everything else is measured, and reality, arriving late and unfamiliar, cannot pass the test. Your evidence fails not because it is weak but because it issues from the very realm these consumers were trained to distrust.

The simulation feels authentic because it is familiar. Reality feels like the deception, precisely because it contradicts the only world they know by heart.

That is hyperreality doing exactly what Baudrillard said it would. The copy does not sit beside the original arguing for attention.

It devours the original and takes its place, and the person living inside the copy loses the equipment needed to tell that anything was ever swapped.

Subscribe now

The Replacement

This is the part worth carrying out of the essay, because it corrects a strategic error the opposition makes constantly. The movement did not persuade millions of people to abandon reality through some feat of argument. Argument was never involved. It handed them a replacement for reality, built over decades, delivered through everything they watched and cheered and prayed to, and a replacement does not have to defeat the original in a debate. It only has to arrive first and stay longer. By the time the truth shows up to make its case, the seat is already taken.

Which points to the only response with any hope of working, and it is not the one most of Trump’s critics reach for. You will not dislodge a simulation by pelting it with facts, because the facts are read as the intrusion and the simulation as the home. What erodes a counterfeit is contact with the real thing often enough that it stops feeling foreign. That is slow, unglamorous, person-by-person work. It is also the only force that has ever pulled anyone back out.

Share

If you can like, comment and subscribe to my YouTube I’d be grateful.

Sources:

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Éditions Galilée, 1981. English translation, University of Michigan Press, 1994.
“Andrew Tate’s lawyers argued his lavious lifestyle was partly performance.” Reporting on the Romanian trafficking proceedings, 2024.

The assumption is wrong. And the proof comes from a field nobody thought to consult. The study of professional wrestling.

The Word That Explains Everything

In 2022, political scientist David Moon at the University of Bath published a peer-reviewed paper in Political Studies Review with a title that sounds like a joke and functions as a thesis. Can pro wrestling help us understand Donald Trump. Moon’s answer is yes, and it lands harder than the dupe theory because it does the reverse of what the dupe theory does. It grants the voter total knowledge, and then explains why that makes the situation worse rather than better.

The key is a word wrestling has used for a century. Kayfabe. It is the industry’s term for the shared agreement to treat a staged show as real while it is happening. The feud is scripted. The blows are pulled. The winner was settled in a production meeting before either man walked to the ring. Every person in the building knows this. They roar anyway. And that roar is not the sound of people being deceived. It is the sound of people who know exactly what they are watching and have decided the knowledge does not matter.

Subscribe now

The Smart Fan

The instinct is to assume the crowd simply is not clever enough to see the strings. Moon dismantles that. Modern fans are what the business calls smart. They follow the backstage contract disputes, the booking decisions, the politics of who gets pushed and who gets buried. They know the machinery better than the casual viewer ever will. And they still mark out, which is the fan’s own phrase for surrendering to a moment as if it were real while knowing full well that it is not.

This is the piece outsiders miss. Knowing the show is fake and cheering anyway is not the fan failing at skepticism. It is the fan succeeding at fandom. The pleasure was never located in believing the thing was real. The pleasure was located in the performance, and the performance is enjoyed most fully by the person who understands precisely how it is made. That, Moon argues, is how a cynical electorate engages with Trump. Not as marks who swallowed a con, but as a knowing audience that bought a ticket to a show it understands completely.

The Heel

Wrestling runs on a villain, and the villain has a name. The heel. The strongest heels in the history of the business share one strange shape. They are dominant and aggrieved at the same time. They brag without limit, then complain without shame. They cheat to win, then insist the only reason they had to cheat is that the whole system was rigged against them. They humiliate everyone in reach, then weep victim the instant anyone hits back.

The audience holds both halves of that contradiction at once and feels no strain, because the form spent decades teaching them how. Trump stepped into the role without a seam. The most powerful man on earth who is also, to hear him tell it, the most persecuted man in American history. The billionaire who is somehow the ultimate outsider. His crowd carries both pictures with no friction because the psychological wiring was already installed, laid down by years in front of the screen. It would be a mistake to hand him credit as some master builder for this. He did not invent kayfabe and he did not construct the audience. The form was a century in the making and a slice of the public arrived already fluent, already aching for a heel to cheer. His one move was to stand in the ring and be the villain they came to see.

Subscribe now

Why Facts Bounce Off

This is why the fact-check fails, and it fails for a reason more fundamental than stubbornness. When you correct a broken promise, you believe you are ending the match by exposing that the punches were staged. But the crowd knew the punches were staged before you arrived. You are explaining the trick to people who paid to watch the trick performed. The lie was never a defect they overlooked. It was the product on the marquee. You are attempting a policy debate with someone who is watching a wrestling show, and the scoreboard you keep pointing at is the one thing in the building nobody in the seats came to see.

The House They Burned Down

Here is where the framework stops being clever and starts being grim. A wrestling fan swept up in the performance goes home when the lights come up. The arena is not their house. The storyline does not reach their kid’s classroom or their father’s pension or the price of eggs on the way home.

Trump’s audience does not get that separation, and this is the difference that should haunt anyone who reaches for the wrestling comparison and then stops at the fun part. Their jobs are real. Their children’s schools are real. Their parents’ Social Security is real. Their premiums, their mortgage rates, their grocery bills are all real, and all of it sits inside the very story they are cheering. The same crowd that knows the feud is staged treats the wreckage as if it were staged too, applauding a plot twist that is in fact the roof coming down on their own heads. They set fire to the house, then pulled a chair into the rubble to watch it burn on television, and called it a good show.

Subscribe now

That is not stupidity. It is something more specific and more troubling. It is the wholesale swap of emotional entertainment for rational self-interest, run so deep that the person doing it can no longer feel the difference between a story and their own life.

What It Means for the Rest of Us

The lesson is not that these voters are stupid or lost, and the fatalistic reading is both cruel and useless. The lesson is that you cannot fact your way out of a performance. As long as politics is consumed as a show, the result does not register and only the spectacle does, and every corrected figure you offer sails straight past the part of them that is watching.

The work, then, is not to win the argument inside the ring. The ring is rigged, and everyone in the stands already knows it, and pointing at the rigging only confirms what they came to enjoy. The work is to get people out of their seats altogether. To make them stop watching politics as wrestling and start seeing it as the machinery that decides whether their own lives get better or worse. That is a far harder task than any debunk. It is also the only one that has ever moved anybody.

Share

Sources:

Moon, D. S. “Kayfabe, Smartdom and Marking Out: Can Pro-Wrestling Help Us Understand Donald Trump?” Political Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 2022, pp. 47-61.
Moon, D. S. “Sad but true: Donald Trump really did wrestle his way into the White House.” The Guardian, 2024.

The Peoples Temple. Heaven’s Gate. The Branch Davidians. Aum Shinrikyo. The Rajneeshees. NXIVM. Every single one. The leaders told their followers this movement was different. That this time it was real.

That this community would last forever. It never does.

The psychological research on why cults collapse is remarkably consistent. Five mechanisms appear across decades of scholarship from entirely different fields. Communications theory, psychiatry, social psychology, cognitive science, and sociology. None of these researchers were studying the same thing. But they all found the same pattern. Cults do not die because the members get smarter. Cults die because the structure holding them together stops working.

Subscribe now

The World Inside the Screen

George Gerbner spent decades running the Cultural Indicators Project at the University of Pennsylvania, tracking how violence was portrayed across thousands of television programs and measuring what happened to the people who consumed large quantities of it. His finding was that heavy viewers did not just absorb content. They absorbed a worldview. People watching more than three hours of television per day significantly overestimated their chances of being victimized by crime, significantly overestimated the amount of violence in their communities, and were significantly less likely to trust other people. Gerbner called it Mean World Syndrome. The screen was not reflecting reality. It was replacing it.

Gerbner was studying network television in the 1970s and 1980s. He could not have predicted that an entire political movement would one day be built on the same mechanism, running at ten times the dosage. Fox News viewers are not consuming three hours a day. Many are consuming eight. The world being constructed inside their heads is not just slightly more dangerous than reality. It is unrecognizable from reality. Caravans. Invasions. Cities on fire. Crime spiraling out of control. None of it matches the data. Violent crime has been declining for decades. But the data does not matter when the feeling has been installed at the neurological level through years of repetition. You cannot fact-check a feeling. And that is what makes Mean World Syndrome so effective as a political tool. It does not persuade. It conditions.

Subscribe now

The Wall Nobody Sees

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton published Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism in 1961 after spending years interviewing American prisoners of war and Chinese citizens who had been through state-run reeducation programs. He identified eight criteria of thought reform, and the first was the one that made everything else possible. He called it milieu control.

Milieu control is not about telling someone what to think. It is about controlling what information they have access to. You build an information environment so complete and so sealed that the person inside it has no contact with any contradicting reality. You do not need to win an argument if the other side of the argument never reaches the listener. The wall does the work for you.

Lifton found that milieu control does not feel like control to the person experiencing it. It feels like clarity. The world outside the wall sounds confusing and contradictory. The world inside the wall is simple. There are good people and bad people. There is one source of truth and everything else is lying to you. The simplicity is the trap. Once the wall is up, the person inside it does not experience themselves as cut off from reality. They experience everyone else as cut off from reality.

Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, and Truth Social function as a milieu control system at industrial scale. Millions of Americans consume their information from a single ideological ecosystem that does not share facts, sources, or even basic narratives with any other news environment. The wall was built so slowly over so many years that the people inside it never noticed it going up. They think they are informed. They think everyone else is brainwashed. That inversion is exactly what Lifton described sixty years ago.

Subscribe now

The Prophecy Problem

Leon Festinger infiltrated a doomsday cult in 1954 to study what would happen when the group’s prophecy failed. The leader, Dorothy Martin, had told her followers that a flood would destroy the world on December 21st and that a UFO would arrive to rescue the faithful. Some members sold their homes. Others quit their jobs. They gave up everything to be ready.

December 21st came and went. No flood. No UFO. Festinger expected the group to dissolve. Instead, the most committed members became more devoted. They called newspapers. They recruited strangers. They preached harder than ever.

Festinger called the mechanism cognitive dissonance. The human brain cannot hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. “I gave up everything for this” and “this was a lie” cannot coexist. One has to go. For the members who had sacrificed the least, the lie was easy to release. They walked away. For the members who had sacrificed everything, admitting the lie meant admitting they had destroyed their own lives for nothing. That admission is psychologically unsurvivable for most people. So instead of releasing the belief, they grip it harder. The investment becomes the proof. I gave up everything, therefore it must be real. Because the alternative is unbearable.

This is the engine that keeps political cults alive long past the point where the evidence should have killed them. Every broken promise that should weaken loyalty actually strengthens it among the most committed, because those are the people who have sacrificed the most. They have lost relationships. They have alienated family members. They have staked their identity on this being real. Admitting it was a lie does not just cost them a political opinion. It costs them their entire sense of self.

Subscribe now

The Identity Trap

Henri Tajfel’s minimal group experiments in the 1970s demonstrated something unsettling about how human beings relate to groups. He took complete strangers, assigned them to arbitrary categories with no shared history or common interest, and watched what happened. Within minutes, participants were favoring their own group members and discriminating against the other group. No conflict was necessary. No real difference existed. The mere act of categorization was enough to trigger loyalty and hostility.

Tajfel called it social identity theory. People do not just join groups. They become the group. The group answers the question “who am I?” which means leaving the group is not a change of opinion. It is a loss of identity.

This is why cult members stay long after the evidence turns against them. The cost of leaving is not intellectual. It is existential. Who am I if I am not part of this? Who are my friends? Who do I talk to? What do I believe? For many people inside a political cult, the movement is the only community they have. The rallies, the group chats, the shared language, the shared enemies. That social infrastructure is real even when the ideology underneath it is fraudulent. And walking away from it means walking into a void with no identity waiting on the other side.

Tajfel also found that groups fracture when the loyalty tests become impossible to pass. When the leader starts attacking members of the inner circle. When the people who built the movement get called traitors for asking a question. When belonging requires you to defend things that violate your own sense of reality. The fracture does not happen all at once. People do not make announcements. They just quietly disappear. They stop posting. They stop showing up. They let the hat collect dust in a closet. The exit is silent because the cost of a public exit is social annihilation.

Subscribe now

The Show That Cannot Last

Max Weber identified three forms of authority: traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic. The first two are stable. They are built into institutions and survive the individuals who occupy them. Charismatic authority is different. It depends entirely on one person’s ability to perform as extraordinary. The moment the leader weakens, ages, stumbles, or fails publicly, the authority evaporates.

Weber called the inevitable transformation the routinization of charisma. Every movement built on a single personality faces the same crisis. The leader cannot perform forever. And when the performance degrades, there is no institutional structure underneath to hold the movement together. It collapses under its own weight. Charisma cannot be transferred. It cannot be inherited. It cannot be taught. There is no successor because the entire architecture was built on one person’s ability to command a room.

This is the structural vulnerability that no amount of loyalty can fix. The movement has no second act. No bench. No institutional DNA that survives the founder. When the show ends, there is nothing behind the curtain.

Subscribe now

The Pattern

Five researchers. Five different fields. Five different decades. One pattern.

A media ecosystem builds a false reality inside the viewer’s mind. An information wall seals them inside it. Broken promises strengthen commitment among the most invested because the cost of admitting failure is too high. Group identity traps members in a community they cannot leave without losing themselves. And the entire structure depends on one person’s charisma, which is the most unstable form of authority that exists.

Every cult in history has followed this arc. The structure holds until it does not. The leader performs until he cannot. The promises fail until the cost of denial exceeds the cost of admission. And then it ends. Sometimes slowly. Sometimes all at once. But always.

The only variable is damage. How much gets destroyed before the structure collapses is the only question that remains unanswered. And that question is not academic. It is being answered right now, in real time, at the scale of an entire country.

Share

We’ve got Merch Everyone - Check it out here

I really like how these items turned out.

Sources

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on Media Effects (pp. 17-40). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. W. W. Norton & Company.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World. University of Minnesota Press.

Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and Groups in Social Psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(2), 183-190.

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans. A. M. Henderson & Talcott Parsons. The Free Press.

What Is Locus of Control?

Julian B. Rotter was a clinical psychologist at Ohio State University. In 1954, he published “Social Learning and Clinical Psychology,” in which he introduced a concept that would fundamentally change how psychologists understand motivation, depression, and political behavior.

Rotter proposed that every person develops a generalized expectancy about whether the outcomes in their life are controlled by their own actions or by external forces. He called this locus of control. Locus is Latin for place. The question is: where do you believe the control over your life is located?

People with an internal locus of control believe they are the primary architects of their outcomes. When they succeed they attribute it to their effort, preparation, or ability. When they fail they look inward for explanations and for solutions. They believe their choices matter. They believe their effort produces results. They take ownership of their lives because they believe ownership is possible.

People with an external locus of control believe the opposite. They believe outcomes are determined by forces beyond their influence: luck, fate, powerful institutions, other people, the system, the economy, the government. When they succeed it was lucky. When they fail it was unfair. They do not look inward because they do not believe the answer is in there.

In 1966, Rotter published a landmark article in Psychological Monographs summarizing over a decade of research. He found that external locus of control was consistently associated with higher anxiety, greater depression, lower academic achievement, poorer health outcomes, and greater susceptibility to authoritarian influence.

The finding is intuitive once you see it. If you believe you have no control over your own life, you need someone else to control it for you. And the person who promises to take control becomes the most important person in your world.

Subscribe now

The MAGA Application

Trump’s political message has never been about policy. It has always been about blame.

Your life is bad. It is not your fault. It is the immigrants taking your jobs. It is the deep state rigging the system. It is the radical left destroying your values. It is China stealing your future. It is the media lying to you. It is the elites looking down on you.

Every single message externalizes the problem. The source of your suffering is always outside of you. It is never your decisions. It is never your lack of education. It is never your refusal to adapt. It is never anything you could change about yourself. It is always someone else.

For a person with an internal locus of control, this message is transparently manipulative. They hear it and think: that is not how the world works. My choices matter. My effort matters. I am responsible for my outcomes.

For a person with an external locus of control, this message is the most validating thing they have ever heard. Someone is finally saying what they have always believed. It is not their fault. It was never their fault. Someone else did this to them. And now someone is going to fix it.

“I alone can fix it” is not a campaign slogan. It is a promise specifically designed for people who have already decided they cannot fix it themselves.

Subscribe now

Where External Locus of Control Comes From

Rotter’s research found that locus of control develops in childhood based on the relationship between a child’s actions and the outcomes they experience.

Children who grow up in environments where their effort produces consistent, predictable results develop an internal locus of control. They study and they get better grades. They practice and they improve. They make choices and they see consequences. The connection between action and outcome is clear and reliable.

Children who grow up in environments where outcomes are chaotic, unpredictable, or disconnected from effort develop an external locus of control. They study and their grades do not improve because the school is underfunded. They work hard and their family’s economic situation does not change. They make choices and the consequences are random. The connection between action and outcome is broken.

This is where the MAGA demographic becomes relevant. The communities that produce the strongest Trump support are communities where the connection between effort and outcome has been severed for decades. Factory towns where hard work used to guarantee a middle-class life until the factory closed. Agricultural communities where farming used to sustain families until corporate agriculture made them obsolete. Working-class neighborhoods where a high school diploma used to mean something until the economy changed and nobody told them.

These people did not choose to have an external locus of control. Their environment taught them that their effort does not matter. And once that lesson is internalized it becomes a worldview that shapes everything: their politics, their relationships, their health decisions, and their willingness to follow a leader who promises to do the work for them.

Subscribe now

The Accountability Gap

The deepest difference between internal and external locus of control is not optimism versus pessimism. It is accountability.

A person with an internal locus of control who loses a job asks: what could I have done differently? What skills do I need? What can I change? They may be devastated. They may be angry. But the direction of inquiry is inward.

A person with an external locus of control who loses a job asks: who did this to me? Who is to blame? Who is responsible? The direction of inquiry is outward. Always outward.

This is why MAGA supporters can watch Trump fail at everything and never hold him accountable. Accountability requires an internal locus. It requires the belief that people are responsible for their outcomes. But they do not believe that about themselves, so they cannot apply it to him either.

If you have spent your entire life believing that external forces control everything, then Trump’s failures are also caused by external forces. He did not fail. The deep state sabotaged him. He did not lose. The election was stolen. He did not make a bad decision. The media twisted it.

The external locus of control is a closed system. Nothing is ever anyone’s fault. Nothing can ever be fixed by the person experiencing the problem. And the leader who validates that worldview can never be held responsible because responsibility itself has been removed from the equation.

Subscribe now

Why Facts Do Not Work

Rotter’s framework explains one of the most frustrating experiences in modern American life: the impossibility of changing a MAGA supporter’s mind with evidence.

Evidence-based persuasion assumes that the person you are talking to has an internal locus of control. It assumes they believe that their beliefs are things they chose based on evidence and that presenting better evidence will produce a better choice. That is how an internal locus mind works.

An external locus mind does not work that way. Beliefs are not choices they made. Beliefs are things that were given to them by their authorities: Trump, Fox News, their Facebook group, their pastor. Presenting contradicting evidence is not presenting better information. It is attacking the authority they depend on. And attacking their authority feels the same as attacking them.

This is why the conversation always ends the same way. Not with reflection. With anger. Not with curiosity. With hostility. You are not challenging an idea. You are threatening the only structure they have for making sense of their lives.

And they will follow anyone who promises to blame someone else so they never have to blame themselves.

Share

Sources

Rotter, J. B. (1954). “Social Learning and Clinical Psychology.” Prentice-Hall.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). “Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs, 80(1), Whole No. 609.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). “Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Phares, E. J. (1976). “Locus of Control in Personality.” General Learning Press.

Strickland, B. R. (1989). “Internal-External Control Expectancies: From Contingency to Creativity.” American Psychologist, 44(1), 1-12.

Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., and Im, C. (2004). “It’s Beyond My Control: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of Increasing Externality in Locus of Control, 1960-2002.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 308-319.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N. (1950). “The Authoritarian Personality.” Harper and Brothers.

Before the internet, every town in America had them.

The guy at the end of the bar who thought the moon landing was faked. The woman in the break room who swore the government was hiding aliens. The neighbor who bought every tabloid at the grocery store checkout and believed every word.

Before the internet, grocery stores used to sell these trashy magazines at the checkout counter filled with fake headlines designed to trick stupid people into buying them. Headlines like “Woman Gives Birth to Alien Baby.” And people bought them. Eagerly. Repeatedly. Without a shred of skepticism.

Everyone knew who these people were. They were the gullible ones. Not very bright. Not all there mentally. And most people just laughed it off because it didn’t matter. These people were harmless. They were scattered across the country in random towns with no way of connecting to each other. There was no infrastructure for stupidity. No network. No platform. No way for the guy in Ohio who believed in alien babies to find the woman in Texas who believed the same thing. They were isolated. And isolated gullible people are just local entertainment. Sad, a little funny, and ultimately irrelevant.

Then the internet happened.

Subscribe now

In 2001, legal scholar Cass Sunstein at Harvard University published a book called Republic.com that predicted almost exactly what was about to happen to American democracy. Sunstein had spent years studying how people consume information and how groups form opinions. What he found was unsettling. When people have the ability to choose their own information sources, they don’t seek out the most accurate ones. They seek out the ones that already agree with them. And when they find other people who share their beliefs, something dangerous happens.

They don’t moderate each other. They radicalize each other.

Sunstein called it group polarization. The principle is simple and devastating. When like-minded people talk only to other like-minded people, their views don’t stay the same. They get more extreme. The group doesn’t pull people toward the middle. It pushes them toward the edges. The most extreme voice in the room gains the most social currency. And everyone else moves in that direction to keep up. Not because they’re thinking harder. Because they’re thinking less. The group is doing the thinking for them.

Before the internet, this process was limited by geography. You could only talk to the people around you. And the people around you were diverse enough, by accident of proximity, that you were constantly encountering people who disagreed with you. You had to deal with the neighbor who thought your alien baby theory was idiotic. You had to sit next to someone at work who rolled their eyes when you brought up your conspiracy. That friction kept people tethered to reality. Not because they wanted to be tethered. Because they had no choice.

The internet removed that friction entirely.

For the first time in human history, gullible people could find other gullible people instantly, across state lines, across time zones, by the millions. They could form groups. They could create communities. They could talk to each other all day, every day, in spaces where nobody ever disagreed with them and nobody ever challenged them.

And exactly what Sunstein predicted would happen, happened.

Subscribe now

They got more extreme. They got more confident. They got louder. The tabloid readers who used to believe in alien babies started believing the election was stolen. The people who used to think the government was hiding UFOs started thinking the government was trafficking children. The scale of the delusion grew because the network that supported it grew. And the network grew because the technology made it effortless.

Sunstein updated his warnings in 2009 with Going to Extremes and again in 2017 with #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Each edition more urgent than the last. By 2017 he was describing what he called “information cocoons” and “echo chambers” where citizens receive only information that confirms what they already believe, never encountering anything that might challenge or correct them. He warned that this fragmentation wasn’t just bad for individuals. It was destroying the shared reality that democracy requires to function.

But it wasn’t just the people finding each other. The platforms were actively pushing them together.

In 2019, Facebook’s own researchers created a fake user account to study how the platform’s recommendation algorithm treated a new conservative user. The experiment was called “Carol’s Journey to QAnon.” Carol Smith wasn’t a real person. She was a test account. The researchers gave her some basic conservative interests and then watched what happened.

Within two days, Facebook’s algorithm began recommending QAnon groups. Within five days, the account’s feed was flooded with what the researcher described as extreme, conspiratorial, and graphic content. Nobody asked for it. Nobody searched for it. The platform’s own recommendation system, the same system designed to keep users engaged and scrolling, took a brand new account and steered it directly into a rabbit hole of violent conspiracy theories.

Carol Smith didn’t go looking for extremism. The algorithm delivered it.

Subscribe now

These findings were among thousands of pages of internal documents later disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen in 2021. The documents revealed that Facebook had known for years that its recommendation tools were pushing users into extremist groups. They studied it. They documented it. They understood exactly how it worked. And they did almost nothing to stop it because the engagement metrics were too good.

Renee DiResta, then the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, put it plainly when she reviewed the internal documents. Facebook didn’t just allow a cult to form on its platform. Facebook helped facilitate a cult.

And this wasn’t a one-time glitch. The body of Facebook’s internal research consistently found that recommendation tools pushed users into rabbit holes, increasingly narrow echo chambers where violent conspiracy theories thrived. At Facebook’s scale, even a small percentage of radicalized users translated to millions of real people being funneled toward extremist content by a machine that was optimized for engagement, not truth.

This is what Sunstein warned about twenty years earlier. Not just that people would choose to surround themselves with agreeable information. But that the technology itself would do the sorting for them. That the architecture of the internet would make it easier to be radicalized than to remain informed. That the path of least resistance would lead directly to extremism.

Subscribe now

And that’s exactly what happened. The tabloid readers found each other. Social media and the internet didn’t just feed them and amplify their nonsense. It gave them platforms to connect with one another. It gave them communities. It gave them leaders. It gave them an identity. The same people who would have believed in an alien baby in 1995 now believe the election was stolen, vaccines have microchips, and a billionaire con man is fighting for them.

The people didn’t change. The technology did. The grocery store tabloid just became a Facebook feed. And the algorithms didn’t just show them the content. The algorithms found them more people who believed the same things, then pushed all of them further toward the edges, just as Sunstein said they would.

A group of gullible people who only talk to other gullible people doesn’t get less gullible. It gets more confident. More extreme. More organized. And eventually, more dangerous.

The idiots who used to be harmless now vote. They run for office. They storm the Capitol. And every single day, the same platforms that connected them keep pushing them further from reality and closer to each other.

That’s not a political movement. That’s a tabloid magazine with a voting booth.

Share

Sources

Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.

Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175-195.

Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford University Press.

Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.

Facebook Internal Research. (2019). Carol’s Journey to QAnon. Disclosed via SEC filings by Frances Haugen, 2021.

DiResta, R. Quoted in NBC News, October 22, 2021. “Carol’s Journey: What Facebook Knew About How It Radicalized Users.”

Never Trump. Never once Trump.

Not when he was in charge. Not when he signed the orders. Not when the consequences landed directly on their doorstep. Not when every piece of evidence pointed in one direction and one direction only.

Never Trump.

I call this dissonance-induced blame shifting. It’s what happens when someone makes a decision so tied to their identity that their brain physically cannot admit it was wrong. The mistake doesn’t get processed. It gets redirected. The blame goes outward, toward anyone and everyone except the person responsible. And the target of that blame is you.

The psychology behind this pattern has been documented for nearly seventy years.

Subscribe now

The Brain That Cannot Admit a Mistake

In 1957, psychologist Leon Festinger at Stanford University published A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, one of the most influential works in the history of psychology. Festinger’s theory was built on a deceptively simple observation: when a person holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time, or when their actions contradict their beliefs, the brain experiences a state of psychological discomfort so intense that it will do almost anything to make it stop.

Festinger called this state cognitive dissonance.

The brain doesn’t resolve dissonance by calmly evaluating the evidence and adjusting its position. That would require admitting a mistake. Instead, it reduces the discomfort by changing the belief, discrediting the evidence, rationalizing the behavior, or finding someone else to blame. Whatever it takes to make the contradiction disappear without having to confront the possibility that you were wrong.

Festinger demonstrated this most dramatically before he even published his theory. In 1954, he and his colleagues infiltrated a small doomsday cult led by a woman who claimed to have received messages from extraterrestrials warning that the world would be destroyed by a great flood on December 21st. The cult members had quit their jobs, sold their possessions, and organized their entire lives around this prophecy. Festinger wanted to observe what would happen when the prophecy inevitably failed.

December 21st came. There was no flood. The world didn’t end. The evidence was absolute and undeniable.

And the cult members didn’t leave. They doubled down. They concluded that their faith had been so strong that God had spared the Earth because of them. The failure of the prophecy didn’t weaken their belief. It strengthened it. Because admitting the prophecy was wrong would have meant admitting that they had destroyed their lives for nothing. And the brain could not allow that.

Festinger published these findings in 1956 in a book called When Prophecy Fails. It remains one of the most chilling studies in the history of psychology.

Subscribe now

When the Mistake Becomes the Identity

Most people can admit when they were wrong about a politician. Because the politician was just a choice they made. You voted for someone. They turned out to be a disappointment. You adjust. You move on.

For Trump supporters, it went further than that.

Voting for Trump wasn’t just a decision. It became who they are. Their identity. Inside. Everything they told their family and friends they stood for. They wore the hat. They put the flag on their truck. They posted the memes. They got in fights at Thanksgiving. They cut off family members. They made Trump the centerpiece of their personality, their social life, and their understanding of the world.

Admitting Trump was a catastrophic mistake doesn’t just mean they were wrong about one man. It means they were wrong about themselves. It means every argument they had was wrong. Every relationship they damaged was damaged for nothing. Every position they defended was indefensible.

The brain will never allow that. Because they are weak people. So instead of looking inward, it looks outward. For a target. And that target is you.

Dan Kahan, a researcher at Yale Law School, has spent years studying exactly this phenomenon. He calls it identity-protective cognition. Kahan’s research has shown that people don’t process evidence as neutral observers. They process it through the lens of their group identity. When a piece of evidence is identity-affirming, they accept it readily. When it’s identity-threatening, they dismiss it, discredit it, or attack the person presenting it.

And here is the finding that should terrify you: the smarter someone is, the better they are at doing this. Intelligence doesn’t protect against identity-protective cognition. Intelligence makes it worse, because smarter people are better at constructing sophisticated rationalizations for why they’re not wrong.

MAGA supporters aren’t rejecting evidence because they can’t understand it. They’re rejecting it because understanding it would destroy the identity they’ve built around Trump.

Subscribe now

Dissonance-Induced Blame Shifting

This is where cognitive dissonance becomes something more dangerous than a personal coping mechanism. This is where it becomes a political weapon.

When the brain cannot admit a mistake, it doesn’t just go quiet. It gets aggressive. The dissonance doesn’t disappear. It has to go somewhere. And if it can’t go inward, if the brain refuses to direct it at the self, it goes outward. It finds a target.

That’s what I mean by dissonance-induced blame shifting. It’s the predictable pattern where the consequences of one group’s decision get systematically blamed on everyone except the people who made the decision. The worse the consequences get, the louder the blame gets, because the cost of admitting the mistake grows with every new piece of damage.

Gas prices went up under policies Trump supported. The brain can’t blame Trump. So it blames Biden. Tariffs are destroying small businesses. The brain can’t blame the man who imposed the tariffs. So it blames the media for reporting on it. Their retirement accounts are shrinking. The brain can’t connect that to the economic policies they voted for. So it blames the deep state, the Democrats, the immigrants, the woke, the elites, anyone and everyone except the one person responsible.

This is not a conscious strategy. This is the brain protecting itself from a truth it cannot survive. And the more damage Trump does, the harder the brain works to redirect the blame, because the cost of admitting the mistake grows with every consequence.

The worse things get, the more aggressively they blame you. Not despite the damage. Because of it. Every piece of evidence that Trump is failing is another piece of evidence that they were wrong. And every time they were wrong, the dissonance increases. And every time the dissonance increases, the blame has to go somewhere louder, somewhere angrier, somewhere further from the truth.

Subscribe now

They’re Not Angry Because You’re Wrong

This is the part most people get backwards.

When a Trump supporter attacks you for pointing out that the economy is struggling, or that the tariffs aren’t working, or that the investigations uncovered real crimes, you assume they’re angry because they disagree with you.

They’re not.

They’re angry at you because you keep pointing at the damage. And the damage proves they did this.

Every fact you present is a mirror. And they cannot look in it.

You are not the source of their pain. You are the reminder of it. Every time you say “this is happening because of Trump,” their brain hears “this is happening because of you.” Because they voted for him. They defended him. They staked their identity on him. And now the consequences are landing on everyone, including them, and you won’t stop pointing at it.

Their anger at you is not about politics. It is the sound of cognitive dissonance hitting a wall. It’s the brain thrashing against a truth it cannot metabolize.

Subscribe now

Accountability Is Coming

And right now, everyone else is paying for their decision. The people who warned them. The people who voted against Trump. The people who saw this coming from the beginning. All of us are living inside the consequences of a choice that millions of people made and refuse to own.

They know this. Somewhere underneath the rage and the blame and the conspiracy theories and the flags and the rallies, they know. They know the damage is real. They know who caused it. They know they were part of it.

And they know accountability is right around the corner.

Not political accountability. Personal accountability. The kind that comes when the last excuse runs out. When the last scapegoat stops working. When the last conspiracy theory collapses under its own weight. When the people around them, the family members they alienated, the friends they lost, the coworkers who stopped engaging, finally say what everyone has been thinking.

You did this. And you knew.

Cognitive dissonance can delay that moment. It can redirect it. It can bury it under layers of blame and denial and rage. But it cannot prevent it forever. Because the evidence doesn’t stop accumulating just because you refuse to look at it.

MAGA doesn’t blame Trump. They blame you. And they will keep blaming you until the weight of what they’ve done becomes impossible to put on anyone else’s shoulders.

And that day is closer than they think.

Share

Sources

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., and Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World. University of Minnesota Press.

Kahan, D. M. (2017). Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition. Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper Series No. 164, Yale Law School.

Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407-424.

This is not how normal political supporters behave. Normal political supporters disagree with criticism. They push back. They argue. They vote for someone else next time.

MAGA doesn’t do any of that. MAGA punishes. MAGA retaliates. MAGA makes an example out of anyone who breaks rank. And they don’t just do it reluctantly, as some grim political necessity. They enjoy it. They celebrate it. They compete with each other to see who can be the most vicious toward whoever Trump has designated as today’s enemy.

That behavior has a name. And it was identified nearly fifty years ago by a psychologist who spent her career studying what happens inside families organized around one abusive, narcissistic parent.

Subscribe now

The Narcissistic Family System

In 1979, psychologist Alice Miller in Zurich, Switzerland published a book called The Drama of the Gifted Child that would go on to become one of the most important works of psychology in the twentieth century. Miller, a Polish-born Jewish woman who survived the Holocaust by concealing her identity, spent her career studying what happens to children raised in families organized around protecting one toxic narcissistic parent’s ego.

What she found was that these families don’t function like normal families. They function like systems. And the system has one purpose: to protect the dominant parent’s ego and their version of reality at all costs.

A narcissistic family system is a family organized around protecting one super toxic dominant person’s ego and their version of reality. The narcissistic parent can lie, abuse someone, humiliate someone, or do something obviously wrong, and then shortly after doing that awful thing, deny it ever happened. They rewrite what happened. They blame somebody else. They gaslight the family. And eventually everyone learns that keeping the peace means accepting the narcissistic parent’s version of reality. Not because it’s true. But because the consequences of disagreeing are unbearable.

Subscribe now

The Roles

So the family develops roles.

The obedient children protect the parent. They repeat the new family narrative. They enforce the family’s version of events. They attack anyone who threatens the story. And their reward for doing so is acceptance by the family. Approval. Belonging. The feeling that they are on the right side, that they are safe, that the parent’s love, however conditional and distorted, is directed at them and not against them.

But there is always one child who can’t do it. One child who sees what is actually happening and says so. One child who says, “No. That didn’t happen that way. You’re lying.”

That child becomes the scapegoat.

Subscribe now

The Scapegoat

And it’s not just the narcissistic parent who attacks the scapegoat. The obedient family members attack them too. They shame them, blame them, gaslight them, and ostracize them for refusing to go along with the family’s version of reality that’s not true.

The scapegoat becomes an outsider in their own home. Living with their family, but also completely alone. It’s an incredibly lonely place to be.

And here’s the part that matters most for understanding what’s happening in this country right now. The scapegoat isn’t punished because they’re a liar. They’re punished because they’re telling the truth about something the family has agreed not to acknowledge. Their honesty threatens the system. And the system cannot tolerate honesty, because honesty would require every obedient member of the family to confront something they have invested their entire identity in avoiding.

Miller didn’t stop with the family. In 1983, she published For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence, where she traced a direct line from the narcissistic family to political authoritarianism. She examined nineteenth century German parenting manuals that instructed parents to break the child’s will in the first year of life, to enforce blind obedience, to withhold affection, and to punish any sign of independent thinking. She called these practices poisonous pedagogy.

Miller wrote that the teacher finds the soil already prepared for obedience, and the political leader has only to harvest what has been sown. She argued that the child trained to suppress their own perception of reality, to obey without questioning, becomes the adult who follows without questioning. Not because they’re stupid. Because the obedience was installed before they were old enough to resist it.

Subscribe now

Now Look at MAGA

Donald Trump has recreated the exact architecture of a narcissistic family system on a massive scale. And he didn’t have to build it from scratch. He just had to step into the role that millions of Americans were already primed to fill a vacancy for.

Trump is the narcissistic parent. He establishes the family narrative. The election was stolen. The investigations are witch hunts. The media is lying. Everyone is against us. And his followers protect that narrative regardless of how many times it falls apart. Regardless of how much evidence contradicts it. Regardless of how many former allies, former attorneys, former cabinet members, and former advisors say publicly that it isn’t true.

Republicans who challenge Trump become RINOs. Former allies become traitors. Journalists become the enemies. Judges, prosecutors, investigators, scientists, educators, anyone who contradicts the family story becomes the problem. Not because they’re wrong. Because they’re threatening the narrative. And in a narcissistic family system, threatening the narrative is the only unforgivable act.

Because this isn’t about whether Trump is telling the truth. It’s about loyalty. For people who learned in childhood that belonging means submitting to authority, and protecting the family narrative is the only way to survive, or else that parent hurts you, this system doesn’t feel foreign. It feels like home.

Subscribe now

This Is How They Grew Up

This system feels incredibly familiar and comforting to many Trump supporters. Because this is how they grew up.

They know how to be the obedient child. They know how to take the side of the authoritarian abusive parent. They know the consequences of not playing along. They learned the rules before they could read.

And most importantly, they can’t wait to help punish the scapegoat. Because it makes them feel good to hurt someone else. For the focus to be on someone else. For the parent’s rage to land on someone else’s back instead of theirs.

Ganging up on the scapegoat was rewarded as kids and gets rewarded today.

The obedient children in a narcissistic family don’t just attack the scapegoat because they’re told to. They attack the scapegoat because that’s how they bond with the parent. The shared cruelty is the connection. It’s how they earn acceptance, approval, and belonging. Hurting someone together is the closest thing to love that family has ever known.

That’s the MAGA rally. That’s the comment section. That’s the pile-on. They’re not just attacking a target. They’re bonding with each other through the attack. The cruelty is the connection.

Every time Trump points at a target and his supporters pile on, they are doing the exact same thing they did in their childhood home. Protecting the parent. Attacking the truth teller. Earning their place in the family by proving they can be trusted to enforce the lie.

Clinical psychologist Ramani Durvasula at California State University, Los Angeles, has spent years studying how narcissistic family patterns scale into broader societal structures. Durvasula’s work describes how narcissistic behavioral patterns thrive in societies characterized by authoritarianism, rigid power hierarchies, and cultures that reward loyalty over truth. She has written that these dynamics do not support the development of empathy or emotional depth in relationships, and that they dehumanize others and treat them as dispensable. The narcissistic system, whether it operates in a kitchen or a country, runs on the same fuel: unquestioning obedience from the family and merciless punishment of anyone who breaks rank.

Trump recreated the old familiar narcissistic family system MAGA grew up in. He didn’t invent a new form of politics. He resurrected a form of family that millions of Americans already knew how to survive inside. And for people who spent their childhood navigating that system, the rules of MAGA aren’t confusing. They’re automatic.

Subscribe now

We Are the Scapegoats

No matter how insane the story is that Trump makes up, his obedient children will defend it. Trump doesn’t even need to convince his supporters he’s telling the truth about anything. He only needs to tell them what the family is supposed to believe. That new story becomes their reality, a reality they will defend like it’s the truth. They will rewrite reality when Trump tells them to. Because that’s what the obedient child does. That’s what the obedient child has always done.

To Trump and MAGA, the 70 percent of Americans who reject Trump are the scapegoats. Liberals, immigrants, historians, intellectuals, educated women. We’re all now the targets of this toxic family system.

We’re the outsiders who refuse to accept the family narrative. We keep saying, “No. That didn’t happen that way. And you’re lying.”

And every time we say it, we trigger the same response that the scapegoat child triggered in the narcissistic home. Rage. Blame. Harassment. Threats. The full weight of the family’s dysfunction directed at the one person who refused to go along.

That’s why facts don’t work. That’s why evidence doesn’t work. That’s why logic doesn’t work. You are not arguing with a political position. You are arguing with a family system that was built to destroy anyone who tells the truth. And the people inside it were trained from childhood to do exactly what they’re doing right now.

Subscribe now

But This Time Is Different

If you grew up as the scapegoat in a narcissistic family, watching MAGA can feel like watching your childhood play out on a national stage. The same gaslighting. The same rewriting of history. The same punishment for honesty. The same loneliness of being surrounded by people who have chosen the comfortable lie over the painful truth.

But here’s the difference. In the family, you were a child. You had no power. You couldn’t leave. You couldn’t vote. You couldn’t organize. You were trapped in a system that punished you for seeing clearly.

You’re not a child anymore.

And this time, the scapegoats outnumber the family.

They don’t punish the liars in a narcissistic family system. They punish the people who tell the truth.

But when the truth tellers are 70 percent of the country, the toxic family system doesn’t get to write the story anymore.

Share

Sources

Miller, A. (1979). The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self. Suhrkamp Verlag (German); Basic Books (English, 1981).

Miller, A. (1983). For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Durvasula, R. (2019). Don’t You Know Who I Am? How to Stay Sane in an Era of Narcissism, Entitlement, and Incivility. Post Hill Press.

Durvasula, R. (2024). It’s Not You: Identifying and Healing from Narcissistic People. Penguin Random House.

Gilligan was not building criminal profiles. He was asking a question nobody else in his field was asking. Not what these men did. What they were feeling in the seconds before they did it.

The one answer, across every population he studied, across decades of clinical work?

shame.

Not anger. Anger was the output. Shame was the fuel. Gilligan found that men who lacked the emotional tools to process shame converted it into destruction. The direction did not matter. Outward toward another person. Inward toward themselves. The mechanism was identical. A man who could not tolerate the feeling of being inadequate would destroy something rather than sit with it.

Gilligan published his findings in 1996 in Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. The book was not about politics. It was about clinical psychiatry inside maximum security facilities. But the pattern he identified does not stay behind prison walls.

Subscribe now

The Distance Between the Man and the Mirror

Gilligan’s central insight was not just that shame causes violence. It was the specific type of shame that matters. The men he studied were not ashamed of a single act. They were ashamed of who they were. They carried a gap between the person they believed they were supposed to become and the person they actually became. When that gap gets wide enough, and a man has no vocabulary for what he is feeling, the shame becomes intolerable. And intolerable shame demands a target.

This is the part that maps onto politics with uncomfortable precision.

Consider the demographic profile of the average Trump rally. These are not men at the peak of their lives. They are men who expected more from their lives and did not get it. Men who thought respect was something the world owed them and then discovered it was not. Men who told themselves ambition was for suckers and education was for elites and hard work was beneath them, and then spent two decades watching the people who did those things build lives that left them behind.

That produces exactly the type of shame Gilligan spent his career studying. Not guilt over a specific failure. A pervasive sense that they are less than what they were supposed to be. And no tools to deal with it.

Subscribe now

Why the Targets Keep Changing

If the rage were actually about immigration, it would have started when immigration became a policy issue and ended when policy changed. If it were about the economy, it would track economic data. It does neither. The targets rotate. Immigrants. College graduates. Trans people. Drag queens. Teachers. Scientists. Journalists. The specific enemy changes every few months but the emotional intensity never drops.

Gilligan’s research explains why. The target is not the point. The externalization is the point. A man carrying shame he cannot process needs someone to be less than him. Anyone. The target is interchangeable because the target is not what is driving the behavior. The shame is driving the behavior. And shame is permanent until you develop the capacity to face it.

These men did not develop that capacity. Nobody taught them how. The culture they grew up in told them that real men do not feel things. That vulnerability is weakness. That sitting with difficult emotions is something women do. And so they carry a weight they were never given permission to name, and they aim it at whoever Fox News or Truth Social puts in front of them that week.

Subscribe now

The Rally as Anesthetic

Gilligan found that the men he treated experienced violence as relief. Not pleasure. Relief. For a brief window, the act of destroying something external replaced the unbearable internal pressure of being disappointed in themselves. Then it was over. And the shame came back. And they needed to do it again.

The political rally operates on the same cycle. A room full of men who feel small, being told for two hours that they are actually big. Being told their failures belong to someone else. Being given permission to scream. For those two hours the shame is gone. They feel powerful. They feel like they matter. Then they drive home. Nothing in their life has changed. The gap between who they are and who they thought they would be is exactly the same width it was before they arrived. And they need another rally. Another enemy. Another hit.

That is not political engagement. That is the behavioral pattern of someone managing an emotional wound they refuse to look at.

Subscribe now

What Gilligan Actually Proved

Gilligan never studied Trump voters. He studied men in maximum security prisons who committed acts of extreme violence.

The application to politics is an extension, not a clinical finding.

What does not require any extension at all is the mechanism.

Shame that cannot be processed becomes destruction.

Men who cannot face their own inadequacy will find someone to blame for it.

And any leader willing to hand them a target will own their loyalty for as long as the shame persists.

The shame will persist because nothing about a red hat or a rally or a bumper sticker, closes the gap between who these men are and who they thought they would be.

The gap is still there every morning.

The rage is just how they get through the day without looking at it.

This was never about politics. It was always about a man who never became what he expected. And instead of reckoning with that, he needs someone else to pay for it.

Share

Sources

Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. Vintage Books.

Gilligan, J. (2001). Preventing Violence. Thames and Hudson.

Gilligan, J. (2022). Holding a Mirror Up to Nature: Shame, Guilt, and Violence in Shakespeare. Routledge.

But if you watch Fox News eight hours a day, you would think it is.

There is a psychological reason for that.

Three different researchers across three different decades studied what happens when people consume large amounts of partisan media. Their findings, taken together, describe a machine. Not a news network. A machine designed to build fear, seal people inside a false reality, and keep them there.

Subscribe now

The Fear Factory

In 1968, communications professor George Gerbner at the University of Pennsylvania launched the Cultural Indicators Project. It would run for decades. He tracked more than 3,000 television programs and studied how violence was portrayed across American media. Then he tracked what happened to the people who watched it.

What he found changed everything we know about media and perception.

Heavy television viewers, people watching more than three hours a day, were significantly more likely to believe the world was dangerous. They overestimated the amount of violence in their neighborhoods. They overestimated their chances of being a victim of a crime. They believed most people could not be trusted.

Gerbner called it Mean World Syndrome.

The television was not showing them a more dangerous world. It was building one inside their heads. The more they watched, the more afraid they became. Not because reality had changed. Because their perception of reality had changed.

Gerbner warned us. He said that whoever tells the stories of a culture governs human behavior. It used to be the parent, the school, the church, the community. Now it is a handful of corporations with nothing to tell people but a lot of things to sell them.

Fox News did not invent Mean World Syndrome. But it weaponized it. People are watching Fox eight hours a day and getting fear delivered to them in a continuous stream. Caravans. Crime waves. Chaos. Eight hours a day of a world that is falling apart. After years of that, the viewer does not just believe the world is dangerous. They feel it in their bones. And you cannot argue someone out of something they feel in their bones.

Subscribe now

The Information Wall

Mean World Syndrome explains why Fox viewers are afraid. But it does not explain why they cannot hear anything else.

In 1961, psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton published Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. He had spent years interviewing American prisoners of war and Chinese citizens who had been subjected to what the press called brainwashing. What he found was not a single technique. It was a system. A set of specific steps designed to reshape what a person believes.

Lifton identified eight criteria of thought reform. The first was milieu control: the control of information and communication within a person’s environment. You do not just tell someone what to think. You control what information they have access to. You build a wall between them and anything that contradicts the narrative. You isolate them from outside sources until the only reality they know is the one you have constructed for them.

That is what Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, and Truth Social do at scale.

Fox does not give its viewers a conservative perspective on the news. It gives them different news entirely. Different facts. Different stories. Different threats. It builds an information environment so sealed off from reality that anything from the outside sounds foreign. Not just wrong. Unrecognizable.

Lifton found that once milieu control is in place, the person stops questioning. Not because they have been convinced by a better argument. Because they have been cut off from anything that would make them question in the first place. The wall was built so slowly they never saw it go up.

This is not media bias. This is the first step of thought reform, the same technique used in Chinese communist reeducation programs, operating at a scale of millions of people. Most of them have no idea it is happening.

Subscribe now

What Happens When the Wall Comes Down

Mean World Syndrome builds the fear. Milieu control seals people inside it. But the question nobody had answered until recently was whether any of it could be reversed.

In 2020, political scientists David Broockman at UC Berkeley and Joshua Kalla at Yale decided to find out. They recruited 763 regular Fox News viewers. The participants were overwhelmingly white, 92% Republican, with an average age of 54. They were watching Fox News an average of 14 hours every week.

The researchers randomized 304 of those participants into a treatment group and paid them $15 an hour to watch CNN instead of Fox during primetime for an entire month. They gave them weekly quizzes to make sure they were actually paying attention.

The results were striking. The participants did not become liberals. But after one month of watching a different news source, their views started to shift. They became more likely to believe voting by mail was secure. Less likely to believe Democrats were stealing the election. Less likely to believe Biden wanted to defund the police. They became more critical of Donald Trump. They stopped believing the world was as dangerous as Fox had told them it was.

One month. That is all it took to start breaking through years of constructed reality.

And then the study ended.

Two months later, the researchers followed up. Most participants had gone back to Fox News. Every single change they had experienced reversed. The fear came back. The misinformation came back. The loyalty came back as though the month of real news had never happened.

Subscribe now

What the Machine Looks Like

Three researchers. Three decades of work. One consistent finding.

Heavy media consumption builds a false reality inside the viewer’s mind, a world that feels more dangerous than it actually is. Controlling information is the first step in controlling what a person believes. Cut people off from outside sources and they will accept whatever reality you construct for them. And even when the wall comes down briefly, even when reality gets through, the machine pulls them back.

This is not a news network with a conservative lean. This is a propaganda machine that builds fear, seals its viewers into an information environment with no exits, and feeds them a version of reality designed to keep them afraid, angry, and loyal.

Right now, millions of Americans are sitting inside that machine. They are consuming 40 hours a week of manufactured rage and engineered fear. They are wondering why the world feels so dangerous. And they have no idea that the danger they feel was built for them, on purpose, by people who profit from their fear.

The machine does not inform them. It owns them. And the data says they will not leave on their own.

Share

Sources

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on Media Effects (pp. 17-40). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. W. W. Norton & Company.

Broockman, D. E., & Kalla, J. L. (2022). The Manifold Effects of Partisan Media on Viewers’ Beliefs and Attitudes: A Field Experiment with Fox News Viewers. Working Paper, UC Berkeley and Yale University.

His name was Joseph Weil. He operated in Chicago in the early 1900s. He conned thousands of people out of millions of dollars over a career that lasted decades. When someone finally asked him why his victims were so eager to hand over their money, his answer was simple.

They wanted something for nothing.

That is the secret. That is the entire game. A con doesn’t work on someone who doesn’t want anything. A con works on someone who wants something they shouldn’t want, knows they shouldn’t want it, and jumps at the chance to get it anyway.

This is why con artists are almost never prosecuted. Not because they are hard to catch. Because their victims will not report the crime. Reporting the crime means standing in front of a room full of people and admitting what you were trying to buy.

And what you were trying to buy is the one thing you will never say out loud.

The Confidence Game

In 2016, psychologist Maria Konnikova at Columbia University published a book-length investigation into how con artists manipulate their victims. Konnikova holds a PhD in psychology from Columbia, studied under Walter Mischel, and spent years interviewing both con artists and the people they destroyed.

What she found overturned the basic assumption most people have about fraud. Most people believe the con artist tricks an innocent person into doing something they wouldn’t normally do. Konnikova showed the opposite is true. The con artist doesn’t force anyone to do anything. The con artist makes you complicit in your own undoing.

The con artist doesn’t steal from you. You give it to them willingly.

Konnikova called it the confidence game. The word confidence is not about the con artist’s bravado. It is about your confidence. The con works because the con artist earns your trust and then weaponizes it. But trust alone isn’t enough. The victim has to want something. And the thing they want has to be something that makes them willing to suspend their own judgment.

According to an AARP study Konnikova cited, only 37 percent of fraud victims over the age of 55 will admit to having been conned. Just over half of victims under 55 will admit it. Most con artists never see a courtroom. Not because they disappeared. Because nobody filed a report.

The shame of being conned is bad enough. But what keeps people silent isn’t just the shame of being fooled. It is the shame of what they were reaching for when they got fooled.

The Anatomy of a Con

Konnikova broke the confidence game into stages. Each stage maps perfectly onto what Trump did to the Republican base.

The first stage is the put-up. This is where the con artist identifies the victim. Not just anyone. The right person. Someone with a specific vulnerability. Someone who wants something badly enough to overlook the red flags.

Trump didn’t target everyone. He targeted people who already felt invisible, resentful, and left behind. People who already believed the system was rigged against them. People who already wanted someone to tell them that their anger was justified and their failures were someone else’s fault.

The second stage is the play. This is where the con artist builds trust. Not through credentials or evidence. Through emotional connection. The con artist mirrors the victim’s feelings. He validates their frustrations. He makes them feel seen.

Trump didn’t campaign on policy. He campaigned on rage. He said the things his audience was already thinking but couldn’t say out loud. He validated every grievance. He mirrored every resentment. He made millions of people feel like someone finally understood them.

The third stage is the rope. This is where the con artist introduces the scheme. Not all at once. Gradually. Each step feels reasonable. Each step feels like the victim’s own idea.

First you just support the candidate. Then you defend him online. Then you cut off the family member who disagrees. Then you donate money. Then you share the conspiracy theory. Then you show up at the rally. Then you buy the merchandise. Then you storm the Capitol. Each step felt small at the time. But each step pulled you deeper into complicity.

The fourth stage is the convincer. This is where the victim sees what appears to be real profit. Evidence that the scheme is working. The con artist gives back a small return to build confidence for the bigger ask.

Trump gave his supporters emotional returns. He punished the people they hated. He said the racist thing on television. He humiliated the journalist. He attacked the immigrant. Every cruelty was a dividend. Every outrage was proof that the investment was paying off.

The final stage is the blow-off. This is where the con is complete and the con artist disappears. But the blow-off only works if the victim stays silent. And the victim stays silent because talking means admitting what they were doing. Konnikova showed that the con artist relies entirely on the victim’s shame to ensure silence. The victim’s reputation, their self-image, their relationships all depend on never admitting what happened.

Why They Will Never Admit It

In 1957, psychologist Leon Festinger published the theory of cognitive dissonance. Festinger showed that when a person holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time, the psychological discomfort is so intense that the brain will do almost anything to resolve it. And the brain almost never resolves it by admitting the uncomfortable truth. It resolves it by building a story that makes the contradiction disappear.

Festinger studied this by infiltrating a doomsday cult. The cult’s leader had predicted the world would end on a specific date. When the date passed and the world did not end, Festinger expected the members to leave. They didn’t. They doubled down. They became more committed. They started recruiting new members more aggressively than before.

The reason is elegant and terrifying. The cult members had sacrificed too much. They had quit jobs. They had sold homes. They had cut off families. Admitting the prophecy was false didn’t just mean being wrong about a date. It meant every sacrifice they made was for nothing. Every relationship they destroyed was destroyed for a lie.

So the brain did what brains do. It rewrote the story. The prophecy wasn’t wrong. Their faith had saved the world. The sacrifice wasn’t pointless. It was heroic.

This is exactly what is happening with Trump supporters. They didn’t just vote for him. They defended him at Thanksgiving dinner. They cut off siblings. They screamed at their children. They posted things online that are permanently attached to their names. They donated money. They wore the hat. Some of them committed federal crimes on camera.

Admitting Trump is a con artist doesn’t just mean changing a vote. It means every argument they started was wrong. Every relationship they destroyed was destroyed for a fraud. Every dollar they donated went to a man who wouldn’t let them into his living room.

The psychological cost of that admission is so catastrophic that the brain simply refuses to make it. It is cheaper, psychologically, to keep believing the lie than to face what the truth would mean about who you are and what you did.

What They Were Really Buying

This is where Konnikova’s research cuts the deepest.

A con only works when the victim wants something they shouldn’t want. The con artist doesn’t create the desire. The con artist finds the desire that is already there and builds a story around it.

Trump didn’t trick innocent people. He found people who already wanted permission to be racist and called it patriotism. People who already wanted permission to be cruel and called it strength. People who already wanted someone to blame for their failures and called it politics.

He didn’t sell them a lie they didn’t want. He sold them the lie they were already telling themselves. He just said it out loud.

That is the confidence game. The victim can’t expose the con artist without exposing themselves. A Trump supporter can’t say “he conned me” without someone asking the obvious follow-up question: what were you buying?

They were buying permission to be the worst version of themselves. And they got it.

They got to be openly racist and feel patriotic about it. They got to be cruel and call it toughness. They got to be selfish and call it freedom. They got to hate and call it love of country.

That is the product Trump sold. Not economic policy. Not national security. Permission.

And you can’t return permission. You can’t ask for a refund on something you already used. You can’t report the crime when the crime is that someone sold you exactly what you wanted.

The Blow-Off

When MAGA eventually collapses, and it will, the blow-off will be the most predictable stage of the entire con.

They will not admit they were conned. They will not apologize. They will not take responsibility for the damage they caused. They will do what every con victim does when the shame is too big to carry.

They will go quiet. They will take the hat off. They will delete the posts. They will stop bringing up politics at dinner. They will act like none of it ever happened. And they will expect the rest of us to play along.

That is the blow-off. The con artist disappears. The victim pretends the con never happened. And nobody is held accountable.

The difference this time is that the rest of us watched the whole thing happen in real time. We saw what they were buying. We know what they wanted. We have the receipts.

They weren’t shopping for a president. They were shopping for permission.

And they will never confess that. Because confessing means admitting what they wanted in the first place.

And what they wanted is the one thing they can never say out loud.

Share

Sources

Konnikova, M. (2016). The Confidence Game: Why We Fall for It... Every Time. Viking Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World. University of Minnesota Press.

AARP. (2015). Caught in the Scammer’s Net: Risk Factors That May Lead to Becoming an Internet Fraud Victim. AARP Research.

Konnikova, M. (2020). The Biggest Bluff: How I Learned to Pay Attention, Master Myself, and Win. Penguin Press.

While they were privately planning to undermine and destroy the church as we know it.

In 1933, Germany was one of the most deeply religious nations in Europe. Out of a population of roughly 60 million, nearly 99% identified as Christian, split between 40 million Protestants and 20 million Roman Catholics.

Adolf Hitler knew he could never seize absolute control of Germany by declaring open war on the church from day one. Instead, he pulled off one of history’s greatest political deceptions: he publicly adopted the language, imagery, and moral posture of Christianity to gain the trust of a religious public, while privately plotting the absolute subversion and ultimate destruction of the church.

Subscribe now

The Public Mask: “Positive Christianity”

To reassure voters, the Nazi Party platform included an endorsement of what they called “Positive Christianity.” This was a calculated, state-sponsored version of faith that stripped away traditional theology to serve national interests.

And Hitler sold it hard.

In a 1928 speech in Passau, he told the crowd: “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. In fact our movement is Christian.”

In Mein Kampf, he wrote: “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”

In his March 1933 speech before the Reichstag, just before the Enabling Act was passed, he called both Christian denominations “the most important factor for the maintenance of our society.” He described Christianity as “the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”

He pledged publicly: “I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity.”

A Stuttgart newspaper ran the headline: “Hitler’s Affirmation of a Christian State.”

It was all a performance. Every word of it.

The Aryan Jesus Myth. Nazi-approved theologians went so far as to claim that Jesus Christ was not Jewish, but rather an “Aryan warrior” fighting against Jewish influence.

The Reichskonkordat. To neutralize Catholic political opposition, Hitler signed a treaty with the Vatican in July 1933, promising to protect Catholic schools and institutions in exchange for the clergy staying out of politics.

For millions of well-meaning Germans, this political theater worked.

They came to view Hitler not as a pagan dictator, but as a providential defender of traditional moral order.

Subscribe now

The Private Reality: Contempt and Hostility

Behind closed doors, the mask fell away completely. Hitler’s inner circle, including propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels and private secretary Martin Bormann, frequently recorded the dictator’s true opinions on the Christian faith.

In private conversations, Hitler made it clear that he viewed Christianity as inherently weak, obsolete, and entirely incompatible with the ruthless, social-Darwinist worldview of National Socialism.

A “Religion of the Weak.” Hitler despised core Christian virtues such as humility, mercy, and “turning the other cheek,” viewing them as signs of biological and moral degeneracy.

The “Blow to Humanity.” According to transcripts kept by his inner circle, Hitler privately declared that “the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity,” framing it as an artificial constraint on human strength.

The Post-War Directive. Hitler purposefully delayed an all-out purge of the churches to avoid massive civil unrest during World War II.

However, the long-term plan was clear: once the war was won, the state would systematically choke out Christian influence, replace the cross with the swastika, and eliminate the church entirely.

Subscribe now

Choking the Church from Within

Even before the war ended, the regime began executing its long-term strategy by attempting to swallow the church into the apparatus of the Nazi state.

They forced the major Protestant denominations into a single, unified state church known as the Reich Church, led by pro-Nazi “German Christians.” This faction stripped the Old Testament from their Bibles, banned pastors with Jewish ancestry, and demanded that the pulpit serve the Fuhrer.

While brave factions like the Confessing Church, led by figures like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, actively resisted this state takeover, the vast majority of religious institutions were successfully pressured into silence or active compliance.

Ultimately, Hitler’s relationship with Christianity was entirely transactional. He used the cross as a political stepping stone, using the deep faith of ordinary citizens to build a totalitarian machine designed to destroy the very foundations of that faith.

Christian Nationalism is Nazism full stop.

Using the same tactics Hitler used under a different name.

Share

Sources

The German Churches and the Nazi State, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Hitler’s Table Talk (1941-1944), transcripts collected by Martin Bormann detailing Hitler’s private monologues and his hostility toward traditional Christianity

The Goebbels Diaries, personal entries by Joseph Goebbels confirming the regime’s private anti-clerical stances and long-term plans to target the Vatican

Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich by Richard Weikart

The Barmen Declaration (1934), the foundational document of the Confessing Church opposing the Nazi state’s attempts to corrupt Christian theology

Imagine you take a test. Twenty questions on logical reasoning. You finish, put your pencil down, and the researcher asks you one more question.

How well do you think you did compared to everyone else in the room?

You think about it. You feel pretty good. You say you’re probably around the 62nd percentile. Better than most people here.

Your actual score? 12th percentile. You got almost everything wrong.

That’s not a hypothetical. That is exactly what happened in a psychology lab at Cornell University in 1999.

Psychologist David Dunning and his graduate student Justin Kruger ran four experiments. They tested Cornell undergraduates on three things: logical reasoning, English grammar, and humor. After each test, they asked every participant to estimate how well they had performed compared to their peers.

The results were devastating. Participants who scored in the bottom quartile, the lowest performers in the room, estimated that they had outperformed roughly two thirds of their classmates. They scored in the 12th percentile and believed they were in the 62nd. They weren’t slightly off. They were off by 50 points.

The top performers showed the opposite pattern. They scored above the 86th percentile but estimated themselves around the 70th to 75th. They slightly underestimated themselves. Not because they lacked confidence, but because they assumed that what was easy for them was easy for everyone.

Subscribe now

Dunning and Kruger called this a dual burden. The skills you need to get the right answer are the same skills you need to recognize when you’ve gotten the wrong one. If you don’t understand grammar, you also can’t tell when your grammar is bad. If you can’t reason logically, you also can’t tell when your reasoning has fallen apart. You are blind to your own blindness.

That paper was titled “Unskilled and Unaware of It.” It was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. And it named something that most of us already knew but had never had the language for. The Dunning-Kruger Effect. The less you know about something, the more confident you are that you know it. The more you actually know, the more you recognize how much you don’t.

This is the engine behind every Facebook expert, every YouTube epidemiologist, every uncle at Thanksgiving who read one article and now thinks he knows more than the entire medical establishment.

“I did my own research.” No you didn’t. You watched a ten minute video made by someone with no credentials and an algorithm that rewards outrage. You scrolled through a thread posted by someone equally as uninformed as you. You found a meme that confirmed what you already believed and called it evidence. That is not research. Research is peer-reviewed studies. Controlled experiments. Years of education. Specific expertise built over decades. Not twenty minutes on the toilet watching conspiracy content.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect explains why this gap is so hard to close. It is not just that these people are wrong. It is that they lack the cognitive tools to recognize they are wrong. You cannot correct an error you cannot see. You cannot question a conclusion when you don’t have the knowledge to evaluate it.

Subscribe now

This is why real experts sound uncertain. Doctors say “the data suggests.” Climate scientists say “based on current evidence.” Virologists say “our best models indicate.” They speak carefully because they understand complexity. They have studied the nuance. They know what they don’t know. Conservatives hear that careful language and interpret it as weakness. If the expert isn’t 100 percent certain, then it must not be true. If there is any doubt, then my gut feeling is just as valid as your thirty years of research. That is not critical thinking. That is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. It is incompetence so deep it disguises itself as confidence.

Dunning and Kruger ran a fourth study that makes this even clearer. They took the bottom-quartile performers from their grammar test and split them into two groups. One group received a short training session on the grammatical concepts they had been tested on. The other group did a filler task. After the training, the group that had been taught the material did something the untrained group did not. They revised their self-assessment downward. Their confidence dropped. Not because they got worse. Because they finally had enough knowledge to recognize how little they had known before. The untrained group? Their confidence stayed exactly where it was. High and wrong.

That is the trap. Learning makes you less confident, not more, because learning shows you the size of what you don’t know. The people who never learn never face that reckoning. They stay on top of the mountain of their own ignorance, looking down at everyone else, fully convinced they have the best view in the room.

Subscribe now

This is the MAGA base in one finding. Millions of people who have never studied medicine telling doctors they are wrong. Who have never read a climate study telling scientists they are lying. Who have never taken a single course in epidemiology telling virologists it was all a hoax. And when the facts prove them wrong, they don’t update. They don’t reconsider. They double down. They shout “Fake news!” or “You have TDS!” and storm away from the conversation the way a child storms out of a room when they have lost an argument they were never equipped to have.

Because admitting you are wrong requires the same skill that the Dunning-Kruger Effect says you are missing. It requires the metacognitive ability to evaluate your own thinking. And if you don’t have that, you will never see the gap. You will spend the rest of your life confusing volume for intelligence, certainty for knowledge, and outrage for being right. The confident idiots now have bigger platforms than qualified experts. Right-wing media hands them a microphone every single day. The algorithm rewards their certainty. And everyone else suffers for it, because the loudest voices in the room have always been the ones with the least to say.

Share

Sources

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.

Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 247-296.

Schlösser, T., Dunning, D., Johnson, K. L., & Kruger, J. (2013). How unaware are the unskilled? Empirical tests of the “signal extraction” counterexplanation for the Dunning-Kruger effect in self-evaluation of performance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 85-100.

Ask a liberal to describe who they are. Not what they believe. Who they are.

You’ll hear things like: I’m a dad. I coach my daughter’s soccer team. I like to cook. I’m learning guitar. I run a small business. I’m a husband. I’m a nerd about old movies.

Now ask a MAGA supporter the same question. Same words. “Tell me about yourself.”

And listen to what comes out.

I’m Pro-Life. I’m Second Amendment. I’m a Trump-supporting Christian. I’m a patriot. I’m anti-woke.

Every single word is a group. Not one word is about them as a person. Not a hobby. Not a skill. Not a passion. Not a relationship. Just a list of memberships.

The liberal gave you a person. The MAGA supporter gave you a uniform.

That difference is not an accident. It’s not a coincidence. It’s a documented pattern in human psychology that was first identified in the late 1970s by one of the most influential social psychologists of the twentieth century.

Subscribe now

The Psychology

In 1979, psychologist Henri Tajfel at the University of Bristol, along with his colleague John Turner, published a theory that changed how researchers understand the relationship between the individual and the group. Tajfel, a Polish-born Jewish man who survived World War II by concealing his identity from German captors, had spent his career studying how group membership shapes human behavior. What he and Turner proposed was that every person’s sense of who they are, their self-concept, operates on two distinct layers.

The first layer is personal identity. That means you know who you are because of the things you’ve done, the things you care about, and the life you built on your own. Your interests, your skills, your relationships, the experiences that made you who you are independent of any group.

The second layer is social identity. That means you define yourself through the groups you belong to. Your political party. Your religion. Your nation. Your team.

Tajfel and Turner called it social identity theory.

Both layers exist in everyone. That’s normal. But the balance between them matters enormously. When someone has a strong personal identity, the group is something they participate in. It’s a part of their life, not the entirety of it. They can lose the group and still know who they are.

Subscribe now

When someone has a weak personal identity, the group becomes the only thing holding them together. It becomes the self. Without it, there’s nothing there.

Before Tajfel published social identity theory, he had already demonstrated something unsettling about how easily group identity takes hold. In his earlier experiments at Bristol, known as the minimal group paradigm studies, Tajfel assigned schoolboys to completely arbitrary groups based on nothing more than which abstract painter they preferred, Klee or Kandinsky. The groups were meaningless. The boys didn’t know who else was in their group. There was no competition, no history, no reason to care. But when given the opportunity to distribute rewards, the boys consistently favored their own group over the other. Not because they had anything real in common. Simply because they had been told they were in a group.

That finding has been replicated hundreds of times. The human brain doesn’t need a real reason to attach to a group. It just needs to be told it belongs to one. And once that attachment forms, the group becomes worth defending, even at the expense of others.

Now apply that to people who had nothing to begin with.

Subscribe now

MAGA supporters didn’t join a movement because they believed in a set of policies. Most of them can’t name a single policy with any depth or detail. They joined because the movement gave them something they never had on their own. An identity.

They had nothing going on in their lives. No accomplishments. No ambition. Nothing about themselves worth talking about. So they borrowed an identity. From MAGA. From the Bible. From Fox News. They put on the red hat and for the first time in their mediocre lives they finally felt like they mattered.

This isn’t speculation. In 2021, researcher Michael Hogg published a comprehensive review of what he calls uncertainty-identity theory, which builds directly on Tajfel’s framework. Hogg, working out of Claremont Graduate University, found that when people experience self-uncertainty, when they don’t have a clear sense of who they are or what their life means, they are drawn to groups that offer rigid, clearly defined identities. The more uncertain someone is about themselves, the more extreme the group they seek out. Hogg specifically found that self-uncertainty can motivate a strong preference for zealous identification with extremist groups, groups that offer populist ideology, conspiracy theories, and narratives of victimhood.

That is MAGA described in a single research finding.

The movement doesn’t attract people who know who they are. It attracts people who don’t. People who need the group to fill a hole that their own personality never could. People who need to be told what to think, who to hate, and what to call themselves, because they never figured any of that out on their own.

Subscribe now

That’s why they fight so hard. They’re not defending ideas. They’re not defending policies. They’re defending the only identity they’ve ever had. Every argument about politics is actually an argument about their existence. Because without MAGA, without the group, without the red hat and the bumper stickers and the rallies, there’s no person left. Just an empty, angry nobody with nothing to show for their life.

That’s what the bumper stickers are. Twenty on one side of the truck telling you what groups they belong to. Twenty on the other side telling you what groups to hate. That’s not a personality. That’s a costume on a mannequin. It’s a person screaming “look at me” because they’ve never once had anyone’s attention based on who they actually are.

Researcher William Swann at the University of Texas at Austin has studied what happens when this process goes even further. In 2009, Swann and his colleagues published research on what they call identity fusion, a state where the boundary between the personal self and the group identity dissolves completely. When people become fused with a group, they don’t just identify with it. They become it. Their personal identity and their social identity become functionally the same thing. And fused individuals are willing to fight, sacrifice, and even die for the group, because an attack on the group is experienced as an attack on the self.

Subscribe now

That’s the MAGA rally. That’s the January 6th defendant who threw away their career and their freedom for a man who doesn’t know their name. That’s the person who cuts off family members over a political argument. They’re not being dramatic. They’re experiencing an identity threat. Because the group is all they have.

Liberals don’t have this problem. Because someone in their life taught them who they were before a group had to tell them. Someone encouraged them to develop interests, build skills, form their own opinions, and figure out what they care about independent of any movement. That’s personal identity. That’s the thing MAGA supporters never built.

And that’s the part nobody talks about. This isn’t really about politics. It’s about people who never developed a self and found a group that gave them one for free. The politics are just the wrapping paper. Underneath it is a person who peaked in high school and never moved on, who never built anything they were proud of, and who discovered that putting on a red hat was easier than doing the work of becoming someone worth knowing.

MAGA supporters didn’t join a movement because they believed in something. They joined because they had nothing else. Because these are people who peaked in high school and never moved on.

Share

Sources

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.

Hogg, M. A. (2021). Self-uncertainty and group identification: Consequences for social identity, group behavior, intergroup relations, and society. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 263-316.

Swann, W. B., Gomez, A., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J. F., and Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 995-1011.

Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., and Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141-156.

Someone at Thanksgiving starts talking about the border. Or the economy. Or whatever Fox News ran that morning. They say something short. Something confident. Something that sounds like it was pulled directly off a Facebook meme because it was.

And for about ten seconds, they feel like the smartest person in the room.

Then someone asks a follow up question. Not even a hard one. Just something like, “What do you mean by that?” or “Can you explain how that works?”

And it’s over.

The confidence disappears. The eye contact breaks. They either change the subject, start yelling, call you a name, or hit you with the classic MAGA escape hatch: fake news, TDS, do your own research.

Every single time.

You’re not imagining it. This is not just stubbornness. This is a documented failure in human cognition, and it was identified over twenty years ago at Yale University.

In 2002, researchers Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil published a study in the journal Cognitive Science that examined something most people never think about: the gap between how well you think you understand something and how well you actually understand it. They asked people to rate their understanding of common things. People rated themselves high. Then they asked those same people to actually explain how those things worked. Step by step. Mechanically.

And people fell apart.

Subscribe now

They couldn’t do it. The understanding they were so sure they had simply wasn’t there. It was a feeling of knowledge, not actual knowledge. A sense that they understood, without the ability to demonstrate that understanding in any meaningful way.

Rozenblit and Keil called it the illusion of explanatory depth.

The illusion works like this. You hear something explained in a short, confident way. A cable news host says it. A podcast repeats it. A meme frames it. And your brain registers that as comprehension. You feel like you get it. You feel like you could explain it yourself. But you never actually try. You never sit down and walk through the logic. You never test the idea against a counter argument. You just carry the feeling around and mistake it for knowledge.

That is the MAGA base in one paragraph.

The entire right wing media ecosystem is built to exploit this exact cognitive failure. The talking points are engineered to be short enough to memorize, confident enough to repeat, and emotional enough to feel like they mean something. They are designed to give stupid people enough confidence to say them out loud.

And that’s as far as it goes.

Subscribe now

These people have been taking shortcuts their entire lives. In school. At work. In every conversation they’ve ever had about anything that required depth. So of course they take shortcuts with their politics too. Of course they won’t do any actual research. Of course they won’t have any original thoughts. Lazy thinkers never do.

Their knowledge starts and ends with that one line they learned to memorize. If they are asked to explain what they mean on that topic, they can’t. They have no thinking past that initial comment. Nothing.

In 2013, researcher Philip Fernbach and his colleagues published a study in the journal Psychological Science that proved exactly this. They took Rozenblit and Keil’s concept and applied it directly to political beliefs. They asked people to explain how specific policies actually work. Not give their opinion. Not list their reasons. Explain the mechanics. Step by step. What happens first. What happens next. How does this policy produce the outcome you claim it produces.

Two things happened. Peoples’ confidence in their own understanding collapsed. And their positions became significantly less extreme.

They didn’t learn anything new. They just finally realized they never understood it in the first place.

But here’s the part that should terrify you. When a different group was asked to simply list reasons for their position instead of explain the mechanics, nothing changed. Confidence stayed high. Positions stayed extreme. Because listing reasons lets you lean on feelings, slogans, and borrowed language. Explaining the mechanics forces you to confront whether you actually know what you’re talking about.

Nobody in MAGA world is ever asked to explain the mechanics of anything. They are handed the talking point and told to repeat it.

Subscribe now

Fernbach kept pulling on this thread. In 2019, he and his team published a study in Nature Human Behaviour that looked at people who held extreme positions on genetically modified foods. They surveyed over 2,000 adults across the United States and Europe. What they found was that as the extremity of opposition increased, actual scientific knowledge decreased, but self-assessed knowledge increased. The people who knew the least were the most confident that they knew the most.

The pattern is always the same. The less you know, the more sure you are that you know everything. And that certainty makes you impossible to teach, because you’ve already decided you don’t need the lesson.

That’s why facts don’t work on MAGA.

You are not arguing with someone who came to their position through reason. You are arguing with someone who memorized a line, mistook the feeling of understanding for actual understanding, and now has their entire identity invested in never finding out they were wrong.

So when they get exposed, when someone pushes past the surface and asks them to explain what they actually mean, they do what every weak person does when caught in an embarrassing moment.

They lash out.

They rage quit the conversation. They change the subject. They call you names. They scream fake news. They claim you have TDS. They do exactly what narcissistic toxic people have always done. Every time they don’t have a canned response, they lose their shit. And every time they do this, the shame builds. They know they’re not being honest. Their ego just can’t handle it.

The talking points were never built to make people smart. They were built to make stupid people feel smart enough to say them.

Subscribe now

Feeling smart is a shortcut. Being smart takes decades of work. And MAGA doesn’t want to do the work. They never wanted to do the work to be smart. They just want to sound smart and then hope you don’t ask any follow up questions.

Poor little MAGA. They really want those participation trophies.

They feel empowered to debate experts and they think they look smart doing it, when really they just look like the clowns they are. The knowledge they pretend to have is borrowed, and borrowed knowledge without any real learning shows your weakness pretty fast.

You don’t sound smart to us, MAGA.

You sounded like someone who memorized the answer but never learned the subject.

Share

Sources

Rozenblit, L. and Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521-562.

Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R., and Sloman, S. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological Science, 24(6), 939-946.

Fernbach, P. M., Light, N., Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., and Rozin, P. (2019). Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 251-256.

What Is Identity Fusion?

William B. Swann Jr. is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. In 2009, Swann and his colleagues Ángel Gómez, D. Conor Seyle, J. Francisco Morales, and Carmen Huici published a foundational paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology titled “Identity Fusion: The Interplay of Personal and Social Identities in Extreme Group Behavior.”

Swann defined identity fusion as a visceral sense of oneness with a group or leader in which the borders between the personal self and the group become porous and highly permeable. In plain language: fused people stop knowing where they end and the group begins.

Normal group identification is cognitive. You support a team. You vote for a party. You attend a church. But you know you are separate from these things. If the team loses you are disappointed but you are still you. If the party nominates someone you dislike you can criticize them. Your identity remains intact because it was never dependent on the group.

Identity fusion is different. When fusion happens the group or leader becomes an extension of the self. An attack on the leader is not a political disagreement. It is an attack on you personally. The leader’s wins feel like your wins. The leader’s losses feel like your losses. The leader’s humiliation feels like your humiliation. The boundary between self and other has dissolved.

Swann’s experiments demonstrated this in dramatic fashion. In several variations of the classic trolley dilemma, highly fused participants endorsed saving fellow group members by throwing themselves in front of a speeding locomotive. They were willing to die for the group. Not because they were ordered to. Because the group had become so deeply fused with their identity that saving the group felt the same as saving themselves.

Subscribe now

Trump Fusion vs Clinton Fusion

A 2019 study by Jonas Kunst, John Dovidio, and Lotte Thomsen produced a finding that captures the entire difference between MAGA and liberals in a single data point.

They found that most Trump supporters were more loyal to Trump than to the Republican Party. They were fused with the leader, not the institution. Trump was the identity. The party was just the vehicle.

A separate study by Misch, Fergusson, and Dunham (2018) found the opposite pattern among Democrats. Clinton supporters reported higher fusion to the Democratic Party than to Clinton herself. They were fused with the institution and its values, as they reflect their values, not any individual leader.

If the leader does something wrong against their values, Democratic people instantly reject those people.

This is the structural difference the script describes. Liberals attach to values and institutions. Progressive people can criticize a leader because the leader is not the identity. The values are.

MAGA attaches to the man. The man is the identity. Criticize the man and you are attacking them personally. That is why every conversation with a MAGA supporter about Trump feels personal. Because it is to them.

Subscribe now

Why Fusion Happens

Swann’s research found that identity fusion does not happen at random. It happens under specific psychological conditions.

The most important predictor of identity fusion is the strength of a person’s personal identity. People with a strong, stable, well-developed personal identity can belong to groups without losing themselves in them. They have a clear sense of who they are independent of any group membership. They can join, participate, contribute, and still walk away with their self intact.

People with a weak, unstable, or underdeveloped personal identity cannot. They do not have a clear sense of who they are on their own. The group fills that void. The leader fills that void. And once the void is filled the person cannot separate from the source without experiencing something that feels like psychological death.

This is why identity fusion is most common among people whose individual lives are not giving them what they need. When your career is not fulfilling. When your relationships are struggling. When you feel invisible, unimportant, and irrelevant. You have a void where a personal identity should be. And a leader who tells you that you are special, that you are a patriot, that you are part of something historic fills that void instantly.

Trump did not create the void. The void was already there. He just offered to fill it.

Subscribe now

Where the Void Comes From

The void does not appear out of nowhere. It is built in childhood.

The majority of people who are susceptible to identity fusion grew up in environments that actively prevented the development of a strong personal identity.

Authoritarian households where questioning was punished. Children in these homes learn that the only safe move is to obey. They do not learn to question, explore, or develop their own beliefs. They learn that the person in charge is always right and that disagreeing is dangerous. That pattern does not disappear in adulthood. It just transfers to a new authority figure.

Churches where doubt was treated as sin. Children raised in fundamentalist religious environments learn that certainty is virtue and questioning is betrayal. They do not develop the ability to sit with ambiguity, evaluate evidence, or hold two competing ideas simultaneously. They learn that someone else has all the answers and their job is to believe.

Communities where emotional awareness was never modeled. In many conservative communities, therapy is seen as weakness. Vulnerability is shameful. Self-reflection is soft. Asking for help means you failed. Children raised in these environments never develop the internal tools needed to process their own emotions, evaluate their own behavior, or ask what they could do differently.

The result is a person who reaches adulthood without a stable internal sense of self. They do not know who they are independent of a group, a leader, or a belief system. They were never given the tools to build that. Looking inward is not an option because there is nothing there. Nobody ever helped them build it.

The only direction they know how to look is outward. And outward means finding someone else to tell them who they are and who to blame.

Subscribe now

Why Blame Feels Like Strength

Conservative culture did something specific that makes this pattern self-reinforcing. It rebranded blame as strength and self-awareness as weakness.

Therapy is weakness because you are admitting something is wrong with you. But blaming immigrants is not weakness because you are fighting for your country.

Self-reflection is soft because you are questioning yourself. But blaming the deep state is not soft because you are seeing what others cannot.

Vulnerability is shameful because you are exposing yourself. But blaming liberals is not shameful because you are standing your ground.

The culture flipped the entire framework. Looking inward became cowardice. Pointing fingers became courage. Admitting you are the problem became weakness. Saying someone else is the problem became patriotism.

This is why MAGA supporters externalize everything. Not because they are incapable of self-awareness in some biological sense. Because every system they grew up in, the home, the church, the community, the culture, taught them that self-awareness is the enemy and blame is the virtue.

And then a politician arrived who validated that worldview completely. Trump never asks his supporters to reflect. He never asks them to grow. He never asks them to consider whether they might be wrong. He gives them someone to blame. Every single day. Immigrants. Liberals. The media. The deep state. The enemy is always external. The problem is always someone else. And for people who were raised to believe that looking inward is weakness, that message is not just appealing. It is the only message they know how to hear.

Subscribe now

Why Liberals Do Not Fuse

The Misch, Fergusson, and Dunham (2018) finding is not an accident. Liberals fuse with institutions and values rather than leaders for a structural reason, not a moral one.

Liberal culture, encourages the tools that prevent identity fusion. Therapy is normalized. Emotional awareness is valued.
Questioning authority is not just permitted but expected.

Education emphasizes critical thinking.

Self-reflection is treated as a sign of maturity, not weakness.

The result is that most liberals develop a personal identity that is strong enough to exist independently of any political figure. They can vote for a candidate and disagree with that candidate the next day because their sense of self does not depend on the candidate being right.

The candidate is a tool for their values, not the source of their identity.

This is not because liberals are inherently smarter or better. It is because the environments they grew up in were more likely to provide the psychological tools needed to build an independent self.

Education.

Emotional literacy.

Permission to question.

Permission to doubt.

Permission to change your mind without losing who you are.

MAGA supporters, did not grow up in those environments. They grew up in environments that punished every one of those behaviors.

And the result is a population of adults who never built a personal identity strong enough to stand on its own.

When a liberal loses an election they are disappointed and they move on with their lives.

When a MAGA supporter loses an election they storm the Capitol.

Because the liberal lost a politician.

The MAGA supporter lost themselves.

Subscribe now

The Accountability Gap

The difference between a liberal and a MAGA supporter is not intelligence. It is not education. It is not income. It is accountability.

When a liberal’s life is not working they look inward. They go to therapy. They change careers. They read a book. They ask what can I do differently. They take ownership of their problems and they work on them.

When a MAGA supporter’s life is not working they look outward. They blame immigrants. They blame the deep state. They blame elites. They blame liberals. They never once ask what they could do differently. And then they find a leader who tells them it is not their fault. And they fuse with him because he is the first person who ever told them someone else is to blame for their life.

The person who takes ownership of their problems does not need a savior. The person who blames everyone else does.

That is why liberals do not worship politicians. They do not need to. They have themselves.

That is why MAGA worships Trump. Conservative culture never gave them the tools to build their own identity. It told them therapy is weakness. Self-reflection is soft. Vulnerability is shameful. Blaming others is strength. So they never built a self. And a man on television offered to be one for them.

Without Trump, MAGA supporters are just lonely, uneducated, angry people sitting in a room with nothing to talk about and no one to blame.

Share

Sources

Swann, W. B., Jr., Gómez, A., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J. F., and Huici, C. (2009). “Identity Fusion: The Interplay of Personal and Social Identities in Extreme Group Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 995-1011.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Jetten, J., Gómez, A., Whitehouse, H., and Bastian, B. (2012). “When Group Membership Gets Personal: A Theory of Identity Fusion.” Psychological Review, 119(3), 441-456.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Klein, J. W., and Gómez, A. (2024). “Comprehensive Identity Fusion Theory (CIFT): New Insights and a Revised Theory.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 275-332.

Kunst, J. R., Dovidio, J. F., and Thomsen, L. (2019). “Fusion with Political Leaders Predicts Willingness to Persecute Immigrants and Political Opponents.” Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 1180-1189.

Misch, A., Fergusson, G., and Dunham, Y. (2018). “Group Identification and Political Engagement Among Clinton and Trump Supporters.” Unpublished research cited in Swann et al. (2024).

Swann, W. B., Jr., Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., and Jetten, J. (2010). “Dying and Killing for One’s Group: Identity Fusion Moderates Responses to Intergroup Versions of the Trolley Problem.” Psychological Science, 21(8), 1176-1183.

Gómez, A., Brooks, M. L., Buhrmester, M. D., Vázquez, A., Jetten, J., and Swann, W. B., Jr. (2011). “On the Nature of Identity Fusion: Insights into the Construct and a New Measure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 918-933.

Buhrmester, M. D., and Swann, W. B., Jr. (2015). “Identity Fusion.” In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University.

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). “Escaping the Self: Alcoholism, Spirituality, Masochism, and Other Flights from the Burden of Selfhood.” Basic Books.

Baumrind, D. (1966). “Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on Child Behavior.” Child Development, 37(4), 887-907.

Altemeyer, B. (1981). “Right-Wing Authoritarianism.” University of Manitoba Press.

If this movement is really about faith, why do the people who push it the hardest show the least evidence of actually practicing it?

They are not the people who pray the most. They are not the people who read the Bible the most. They are not the people who attend church the most. In many cases they have not read the Bible at all.

But they will tell you with absolute certainty what God wants for America. And what God wants always seems to line up perfectly with what they want.

Control over women. Hostility toward immigrants. Contempt for gay people. Domination over anyone who does not look, think, or worship the way they do.

That is not a coincidence. Researchers have now proven it.

Subscribe now

What the Research Actually Found

In 2020, sociologists Andrew Whitehead at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and Samuel Perry at the University of Oklahoma published the first comprehensive empirical analysis of Christian nationalism in America. Their book, Taking America Back for God, drew on multiple sources of national survey data spanning decades and included in-depth interviews with Americans across the political spectrum.

They defined Christian nationalism as a cultural framework. A collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life. The key word is fusion. Christian nationalists do not simply believe that faith should play a role in public life. They believe the American government should unapologetically privilege Christianity above all other belief systems. And they believe that being a true American requires being a certain kind of Christian.

But here is what the data actually showed.

Christian nationalism does not predict devotion. It does not predict prayer. It does not predict Bible reading. It does not predict the behaviors that define a person who genuinely practices their faith.

What it predicts is something else entirely. Authoritarianism. Racism. Xenophobia. Opposition to immigration. Opposition to interracial marriage. Support for police violence against Black Americans. Anti-Muslim sentiment. Rigid enforcement of traditional gender roles. Hostility toward anyone who does not fit the template.

The people who scored highest on Christian nationalism were not the most devout. They were the most authoritarian. The most prejudiced. The most hostile toward people who were different from them.

They used the language of faith to make all of it sound holy.

Subscribe now

The Most Devastating Finding

The most important result in the entire body of Christian nationalism research is one that most people have never heard.

When Perry and Whitehead controlled for Christian nationalism in their statistical models, something remarkable happened. The relationship between religion and prejudice reversed.

Once Christian nationalism was removed from the equation, actual religiosity, measured by how often a person attends church, how often they pray, and how often they read scripture, was negatively associated with racism and opposition to interracial families. That means the more genuinely religious a person is, the less prejudiced they are.

Read that again. Genuine faith makes people less racist. Christian nationalism makes people more racist. The two are not the same thing. They are opposites wearing the same costume.

This finding has been replicated across multiple studies. Perry and Whitehead showed it with anti-Black racism. They showed it with xenophobia. They showed it with hostility toward immigrants. The same pattern appeared every time. Strip out the nationalism and the faith itself is protective. It is the nationalism, not the Christianity, that predicts every form of bigotry the research measures.

This is what makes the movement so dangerous. It uses the credibility of genuine faith as camouflage for something that has nothing to do with faith.

Subscribe now

The Jesus Problem

The script makes a point that the research confirms in detail. The stated values of Christianity and the measured values of Christian nationalism are in direct opposition.

Jesus said feed the poor. Christian nationalists support cutting food assistance programs.

Jesus said love your enemy. Christian nationalists want to deport their neighbors.

Jesus said turn the other cheek. Christian nationalists elected a man who mocked a disabled reporter on national television and cheered when he did it.

Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers. Christian nationalists support authoritarian violence against people they consider outsiders.

Jesus said the last shall be first. Christian nationalists believe they should be first in everything, permanently, by law.

This is not a case of imperfect people struggling to live up to high ideals. The research shows that the ideology itself is structured around dominance, not devotion. Christian nationalism does not fail to meet the standards of Christianity. It replaces those standards with something else entirely and keeps the label.

Subscribe now

The Persecution Performance

One of the most consistent patterns in Christian nationalism research is the weaponization of victimhood.

Christian nationalists routinely claim they are being persecuted. They claim that their religious freedom is under attack. They claim that secular America is trying to silence them.

But the research tells a different story. What they describe as persecution is almost always a loss of privilege. When a school stops leading students in Christian prayer, that is not persecution. That is equality. When a business is told it cannot refuse service to gay customers, that is not an attack on religious freedom. That is the law applying equally to everyone.

The research consistently shows that Christian nationalists define religious freedom not as the right to practice their own faith, but as the right to impose their faith on others. When that imposition is challenged, they experience the challenge as persecution.

This is the same mechanism that shows up in every authoritarian movement. The dominant group frames any reduction in its dominance as an attack. They are not losing power. They are losing the ability to use power unchecked. And they describe that loss as oppression.

They start trouble. They force their beliefs on people who did not ask for them. When someone pushes back, they cry religious persecution. They are the bully who punches you in the face and runs to the teacher crying when you push back.

Subscribe now

The Costume

Christian nationalism is not a faith. It is a costume.

It gives authoritarian people a moral vocabulary they did not earn. It gives racist people a divine justification they do not deserve. It gives abusive people a shield that nobody in America feels comfortable challenging.

Because the costume is a cross. And in American culture, questioning someone’s relationship with God makes you the bad guy. That is the entire strategy. That is why it works.

They use God as a shield. They use the Bible as a bat. And they use the word Christian to make you feel guilty for fighting back.

The researchers proved it. This has nothing to do with Jesus. These are authoritarian, prejudiced people wearing a cross because it is the one costume nobody in America is allowed to question.

But questioning it is exactly what needs to happen. Because the research is unambiguous. The more someone pushes Christian nationalism, the less their behavior has to do with Christianity. And the more it has to do with power, control, and dominance dressed up in the language of God.

They do not love God. They love what God lets them get away with.

Share

Sources

Whitehead, A. L., & Perry, S. L. (2020). Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. Oxford University Press.

Perry, S. L., & Whitehead, A. L. (2015). Christian Nationalism and White Racial Boundaries: Examining Whites’ Opposition to Interracial Marriage. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(10), 1671-1689.

Perry, S. L., Whitehead, A. L., & Davis, J. T. (2019). God’s Country in Black and Blue: How Christian Nationalism Shapes Americans’ Views About Police (Mis)Treatment of Blacks. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 5(1), 130-146.

Perry, S. L., Whitehead, A. L., & Grubbs, J. B. (2021). Prejudice and Pandemic in the Promised Land: How White Christian Nationalism Shapes Americans’ Racist and Xenophobic Views of COVID-19. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(5), 759-772.

Perry, S. L., & Whitehead, A. L. (2022). The Role of Christian Nationalism on January 6 and After: What National Survey Data Tell Us. Expert Testimony Submitted to the United States House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

Whitehead, A. L., & Perry, S. L. (2020). How Culture Wars Delay Herd Immunity: Christian Nationalism and Anti-Vaccine Attitudes. Socius, 6, 1-12.

Perry, S. L., Cobb, R. J., Whitehead, A. L., & Grubbs, J. B. (2022). Divided by Faith (in Christian America): Christian Nationalism, Race, and Divergent Perceptions of Racial Injustice. Social Forces, 101(2), 913-942.

Don’t argue with them. Don’t fact check them. Don’t try to change their mind. Just ask them one question.

“Where did you hear that?”

Watch what happens. They won’t be able to answer. Not because they’re hiding the source. Because they genuinely don’t know. The information is in their head but they have no idea how it got there. It just showed up one day like a bumper sticker they didn’t remember putting on their car.

Now ask a follow up. “What do you think about it?” Not what Fox News thinks. Not what Trump thinks. What do they think.

And you will watch a person buffer in real time.

This is not an insult. It’s not an exaggeration. It’s a documented pattern in human cognition that was identified over sixty years ago, and it explains why millions of American adults cannot process information without an authority figure handing it to them first.

In 1962, psychologist Herman Witkin published a book called Psychological Differentiation that changed how researchers understood the way people think. Witkin had spent years running experiments where he placed people in tilted rooms and asked them to determine whether a rod was straight. Some people could ignore the tilted room and judge the rod on its own. Others couldn’t. They needed the room, the surrounding environment, the external frame, to tell them what was straight and what wasn’t.

Subscribe now

This wasn’t about intelligence. It was about cognitive style. Witkin called the two ends of the spectrum field independence and field dependence.

A field-independent person can take in a piece of information, separate it from the noise around it, and evaluate it on its own terms. They don’t need the group to agree with them first. They don’t need an authority to validate what they’re seeing. Their brain works on its own.

A field-dependent person cannot do this. They rely on the surrounding environment, the field, to tell them what’s true. They process information through the people around them, the social cues, the authority figures, the dominant frame. Without that external structure, they struggle to determine what’s real and what isn’t. The information doesn’t compute unless someone else processes it for them first.

Witkin found that this cognitive style is remarkably stable across a person’s life. And his research, along with his colleague Ruth Dyk, traced its roots directly to childhood. In a 1965 study published in Child Development, Dyk and Witkin examined family environments and found a clear pattern. Parents who encouraged their children to explore, question, and act independently produced children who grew up to be field-independent thinkers. Parents who demanded obedience, discouraged questioning, and enforced conformity to authority produced children who grew up to be field-dependent.

Subscribe now

The authoritarian home doesn’t just raise an obedient child. It raises a mentally dependent adult who will spend the rest of their life looking for someone to obey.

Witkin revisited his own theory in 1977 at the Educational Testing Service in Princeton, New Jersey, and refined his framework further. He and his colleague Donald Goodenough described field dependence and field independence as tendencies to function with greater or less autonomy from external referents. Field-independent people rely on internal referents when processing information. They use their own judgment. Field-dependent people rely on external referents. They look outward for answers. And this tendency shows up not just in perception, but in social behavior. Field-dependent individuals are more attentive to social cues, more sensitive to social criticism, and more influenced by the people around them.

Now apply this to the MAGA information ecosystem.

Right wing media has built an entire infrastructure designed to serve one function: provide external referents to people who cannot generate internal ones. Fox News doesn’t inform its audience. It instructs them. It gives them the line, the frame, the emotional charge, and the target, all in one package. Facebook memes don’t encourage analysis. They provide conclusions. The entire content pipeline is engineered to do the thinking so the audience doesn’t have to.

And for a field-dependent person, this feels right. It feels natural. Because they have always needed someone else to tell them what’s straight and what’s crooked.

Subscribe now

This is why MAGA supporters can say a talking point with total confidence but collapse the moment you ask them to explain it. They didn’t arrive at the position through their own reasoning. They received it. The way a student memorizes a formula without understanding the math behind it. They can repeat the line, but they can’t show their work, because there is no work. There was never any work.

Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer spent decades studying this exact phenomenon from a different angle. His research on what he called right-wing authoritarianism, published across multiple books beginning in 1981, identified a personality pattern built on three interlocking traits: submission to authority figures perceived as legitimate, aggression toward whoever those authorities target, and rigid adherence to social conventions. Altemeyer called these people “authoritarian followers” to emphasize the point. They are not leaders. They are followers. Their entire psychological architecture is built around receiving instructions from above and executing them without reflection.

Altemeyer found that authoritarian followers are more likely to submit to established authorities whether they agree or disagree with those authorities’ political orientation. The obedience runs deeper than ideology. It’s structural. These are people whose brains are wired to comply first and rationalize later.

And what did Altemeyer find about where this comes from? The same thing Witkin found. Upbringing. Parents, religion, and early education play a direct role in determining whether someone develops this pattern of reflexive submission. The research points in one direction every time. Homes that reward curiosity produce adults who can think. Homes that reward compliance produce adults who need to be told what to think.

Subscribe now

That’s the MAGA base. Millions of adults who were never taught to think and now can’t function without someone telling them what is real.

They’re being fed every day. The way livestock are fed. On a schedule. From a trough. And they line up for it every single day.

That’s why facts don’t work with Trump supporters. You are showing evidence to a person whose brain doesn’t process evidence independently. It only processes instructions from authority. You are trying to reason with a person who was never given the tools to reason.

Liberals don’t have this problem. Because someone in their life taught them to think. And people who were taught to think don’t need a televangelist or a con man or an algorithm to do the thinking for them.

MAGA supporters aren’t free thinkers. Every opinion they have came from someone else’s mouth. The dumbest people in America somehow now think they’re the smartest people in the room. They think sounding smart is the same as being smart. They’ve been the joke for a decade and they still think people are laughing at someone else.

Share

Sources

Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., and Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation: Studies of Development. Wiley.

Dyk, R. B. and Witkin, H. A. (1965). Family experiences related to the development of differentiation in children. Child Development, 30, 21-55.

Witkin, H. A. and Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence revisited. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1977(1), i-53.

Witkin, H. A. and Goodenough, D. R. (1976). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1976(1), i-78.

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Harvard University Press.

They will say something offensive on purpose. They will wait for the reaction. And then they will point to that reaction as proof that they are being persecuted.

This is not random behavior. This is a strategy. And researchers have now measured it.

The Study That Changed Everything

In 2021, researcher Ekin Ok at the University of British Columbia ran six studies on people who publicly display two things at the same time: their virtue and their victimhood.

She wanted to know what kind of person does this the most.

The answer was clear across all six studies.

The people who combined virtue signaling with victim signaling scored highest on three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These three traits together are known as the Dark Triad. They represent the most manipulative, self-serving, and emotionally cold personality profile psychologists have ever measured.

But the most important finding was not who these people were. It was what they were doing.

Ok and her team found that this combination of signals was not about expressing real pain or real goodness. It was a resource extraction strategy. The research showed that people who signal virtue and victimhood at the same time are more successful at getting other people to give them things. Attention. Sympathy. Money. Status. Followers.

Psychologists call this nonreciprocal resource transfer. That means the signaler takes, but never gives back.

And the people who do it the most are not the ones who have actually been hurt. They are the ones who score highest in manipulation.

Subscribe now

Why Religion Is the Perfect Weapon

Now here is where it gets worse.

Religion gives narcissistic people something no other institution can offer: a moral framework that comes pre-installed with authority.

If you claim to speak for God, you do not need credentials. You do not need evidence. You do not need anyone’s permission. The authority is built into the claim itself.

Psychologist Gordon Allport spent decades studying why some religious people behave well and others behave terribly. He came up with a framework that splits religious motivation into two types.

The first type is intrinsic. That means a person practices their faith because they actually believe in it. They have internalized the values. Their religion shapes how they treat people, how they make decisions, how they live. Their faith is the point.

The second type is extrinsic. That means a person uses religion as a tool. They go to church for the social network. They quote scripture for the authority it gives them. They perform devotion because it gets them status, comfort, or control. The faith is not the point. The benefits are the point.

Decades of research have confirmed the same pattern. Extrinsic religiosity is linked to prejudice, manipulation, and dysfunction. Intrinsic religiosity is not.

And here is the part that should concern everyone.

A 2026 study published in Personality and Individual Differences found that every single facet of narcissism was linked to extrinsic religious orientation. Agentic narcissism. Antagonistic narcissism. Neurotic narcissism. Communal narcissism. All of them. Every type of narcissist uses religion as a means to an end.

Not one type of narcissism was linked to intrinsic faith.

Subscribe now

The Communal Narcissist Problem

There is a specific type of narcissist that thrives in religious settings more than any other. Researchers Jochen Gebauer and Constantine Sedikides identified what they call communal narcissism.

A communal narcissist does not brag about being rich or powerful. They brag about being the most caring person in the room. The most selfless. The most giving. The most spiritually evolved.

But here is the catch. When researchers actually measured their behavior, communal narcissists were no more prosocial than anyone else. They just believed they were. The gap between how good they thought they were and how good they actually were was enormous.

This is the person who stands up in a public space and preaches at people who did not ask to be preached at. This is the person who records the confrontation. This is the person who posts it online with a caption about being persecuted for their faith.

They are not doing this because they care about your soul. They are doing this because the performance of caring is what feeds them.

Subscribe now

How the Trap Works

The genius of this strategy is that it is almost impossible to call out.

If you push back against someone who is using religion to provoke you, they have a ready-made defense: you are attacking their faith. You are persecuting a believer. You are proving their point.

This is exactly what Ok’s research predicted. The virtuous victim signal works because it puts the target in a lose-lose position. If you react, you become the villain in their story. If you do not react, they escalate until you do.

The research also showed that people who frequently signal virtuous victimhood are more willing to lie, cheat, and exaggerate claims of being harmed. This was not a side finding. It was a core result across multiple studies.

These are not people who were wronged and are asking for help. These are people who manufacture conflict because conflict is profitable.

Subscribe now

The Difference Between Faith and Performance

None of this is an argument against religion. The research actually makes the opposite point.

People with intrinsic faith tend to be more humble, more forgiving, and more empathetic. Genuine belief appears to be protective against exactly the kind of manipulation described here.

The problem is not faith. The problem is people who use the language of faith as a delivery system for narcissistic supply.

When someone preaches at strangers on a train and keeps going after being told to stop, they are not practicing religion. They are farming content.

When someone records the reaction and posts it online, they are not spreading the gospel. They are building a brand.

When someone frames your discomfort as persecution, they are not defending God. They are feeding a personality disorder.

The sermon is not the point. The reaction is the point.

Your discomfort is the product.

Share

Sources

Ok, E., Qian, Y., Strejcek, B., & Aquino, K. (2021). Signaling Virtuous Victimhood as Indicators of Dark Triad Personalities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1634-1661.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443.

Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Verplanken, B., & Maio, G. R. (2012). Communal Narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 854-878.

Nehrlich, A. D., Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Schoel, C. (2019). Agentic Narcissism, Communal Narcissism, and Prosociality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(1), 142-165.

Personality and Individual Differences (2026). Between Ego and Faith: Motivational, Affective, and Cognitive Dimensions of Religious Engagement in Narcissism.

Hermann, A. D., & Fuller, R. C. (2018). Grandiose Narcissism and Religiosity. In A. D. Hermann, A. B. Brunell, & J. D. Foster (Eds.), Handbook of Trait Narcissism. Springer.