Estrangement Ideology – Part 15. The Radicalised Parent Narrative

The role of academic "experts" and media propagandists in shaping anti-parent narratives justifying estrangement.

This is the fifteenth in a series of articles concerning Estrangement Ideology. Key concepts are introduced in Part 1. Tenets, Goals and Methods; Part 2. Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values; and Part 3. The One-Sided Path to Redemption. Other parts can be found here.

The radicalised parent and conspiracy theorist narrative has emerged as a polarising theme in public discourse, particularly in online forums like Reddit. This framing reflects broader societal trends of ideological and generational division, moral superiority and the pathologisation of dissent. Within the Estranged Adult Child communities, this narrative is often linked to an inability to cope and the stress of dealing with parents expressing such ideas and with moral judgements about purported harms arising from “misinformation” and “disinformation.” These narratives closely mirror official moves to clamp down on free speech and a range of academic and media articles designed to debunk such ideas.

In such accounts, labels like “MAGA”, “QAnon”, “COVID Denier”, “Anti-Vaxxer” or “9/11 Truther” become shorthand for moral failings, portraying such parents as irredeemably “irrational”, “harmful” and “unworthy” of reconciliation. In these narratives, adult children often position themselves as victims of their parents’ "toxic" or "harmful" beliefs, which further serves to justify estrangement and the imposition of “boundaries” on what can and cannot be discussed or, at last resort, “Low Contact (LC)” or “No Contact (NC)” policies.

These narratives prioritise self-preservation and mental health, casting avoidance as the rational and moral choice. Parents are frequently described as victims of manipulation—such as, "brainwashed by QAnon"—or as suffering from psychological flaws like generational gullibility, susceptibility to misinformation or cognitive biases. A range of “experts”—such as “Fact Checkers” like FullFact or links to articles on websites like RationalWiki—are used to support this framing of dissent as irrational or extreme, unquestioningly conflating legitimate scepticism—like questioning COVID-19 measures, the safety and efficacy of vaccines or suggesting political corruption—with deranged or deluded “conspiracy thinking”, undermining the possibility of critical engagement.

Recent Reddit commentary on this subject has included reference to resources such as the Professor Matthew Hornsey’s academic articles on why people engage with conspiracy theories and media disinformation podcasts such as “The Anthill” and the BBC’s “Marianna in ConspiracyLand” series. However, a close reading of these resources reveals all have serious deficits, especially in how they invariably assume a priori that such non-mainstream narratives are false by definition and hence begin their discussion on the entirely unsubstantiated basis that anyone holding such views is intellectually or psychologically deficient.

The Role of Experts in Constructing Orthodox Narratives

Experts play a central role in constructing and reinforcing orthodox narratives by shaping public perceptions of what constitutes rational, acceptable belief. The modern trend towards offloading of intellectual and moral authority to experts—whether psychologists, therapists or media commentators—creates a system where institutional narratives gain legitimacy not through open debate but through the perceived credibility of those who articulate them. Collectively, these experts define the window of acceptable belief and legitimate criticism.

As discussed in Part 4. The Therapist, therapists—increasingly positioned as arbiters of relational health—validate estrangement decisions by framing ideological conflict as an issue of personal well-being, reinforcing the idea that avoiding dissenting parents is necessary for self-care. Meanwhile, academics like Hornsey pathologise alternative perspectives using a psychologically-based frame, presenting scepticism toward dominant narratives as a cognitive flaw rather than a legitimate response to discredited media, systemic failures, power dynamics or justified historical mistrust.

Hornsey’s contribution:

Hornsey’s writings on conspiracy theory represent just one part of his body of work covering the application of behavioural psychology to business and health related fields. In terms of the latter, I have taken one of his papers entitled “Reasons why people may refuse COVID-19 vaccination (and what can be done about it)” which provides an example of the way his work shapes attitudes towards the vaccines in ways that align with the orthodox “safe and effective” narrative as a matter of course. A close reading of his paper reveals how it exemplifies a broader trend of pathologising dissent rather than engaging with its substance.

In his paper, Hornsey dismisses a raft of legitimate concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines, instead categorising dissent as the product of cognitive biases, misinformation and conspiratorial thinking. Critical issues such as the lack of long-term testing, the novelty of mRNA technology and the distinction between traditional vaccines and gene therapy are entirely ignored. By framing “vaccine hesitancy” (a grossly misleading and trivialising term in its own right) as a psychological failing rather than a rational response to scientific uncertainty, Hornsey constructs a narrative that delegitimises any critique of institutional claims. He states, "A curious aspect of the human mind is that we struggle to rationally appraise risk”, reducing vaccine hesitancy to a flaw in human cognition rather than a potential response to empirical concerns.

However, it is clear that Hornsey’s work lacks any serious engagement with the truth status of the so-called "conspiracy theories" he examines; instead, they are automatically assumed to be false without investigation. His research does not differentiate between historically validated conspiracies, legitimate scepticism and baseless speculation, treating all non-mainstream narratives as equally irrational and dangerous. This presumption allows him to focus solely on why people believe "wrong things" rather than whether those beliefs might have merit, effectively shutting down inquiry before it begins. By framing scepticism as a psychological failing rather than a possible response to real-world corruption, deception or institutional mistrust, Hornsey reinforces a dogmatic, compliance-driven model of belief that delegitimises dissent outright.

This psychological framing extends to his omission of the well-documented corruption of pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, whose history of fraud and bribery justifies public mistrust. Instead of acknowledging systemic factors—such as regulatory capture, the suppression of dissenting scientific voices or the rushed emergency-use authorisation process—Hornsey reduces vaccine refusal to emotional irrationality. He writes, “One of the most powerful predictors of vaccine hesitancy is the conspiracist worldview”, collapsing all scepticism into a pathological mindset rather than recognising it as a response to past institutional failures. This is particularly disingenuous given his own reference to the 19th-century anti-vaccine movement, which arose in part due to the well documented proven harms from early smallpox vaccines (see Dissolving Illusions pp 59-79). By failing to distinguish between justified historical mistrust and contemporary misinformation, he reinforces the idea that dissent itself—regardless of its basis—is a psychological aberration.

In conflating genuine critique with “conspiracy theorising”, Hornsey serves a propagandistic role, reinforcing orthodox, officially approved narratives rather than fostering critical inquiry. His framing justifies the exclusion of dissenters from public discourse, treating them as irrational actors rather than participants in a necessary debate about scientific and ethical integrity. In doing so, he contributes to a broader agenda seeking to marginalise scepticism, enforce compliance and narrow the boundaries of acceptable discourse. His assertion that "facts are not enough", while meant to explain resistance to vaccination, ironically reveals what appears to be the paper’s true function: not as a balanced analysis of vaccine hesitancy, but as a tool to delegitimise opposition without addressing its substantive claims.

The danger of relying on the works of academics like Hornsey in an attempt to understand parental beliefs—especially those labelled as "conspiratorial"—is that this poses a serious risk of mischaracterisation and dehumanisation, reinforcing estrangement rather than fostering dialogue. Hornsey’s framework pathologises dissent, reducing scepticism to “cognitive flaws”, “emotional instability” or susceptibility to “misinformation”, rather than acknowledging the rational concerns, historical context and systemic failures that often fuel such beliefs.

In presenting parents who question mainstream narratives as intellectually deficient or psychologically compromised, adult children are encouraged to disengage rather than seek understanding, reinforcing the view that estrangement is not only justified but necessary for self-preservation and protection from wild deranged ideas. This one-sided model shuts down meaningful intergenerational conversations, making ideological agreement a precondition for maintaining relationships, and ultimately accelerating the breakdown of familial bonds under the guise of scientific objectivity.

Marianna Spring and The Anthill:

Mainstream productions like Marianna in Conspiracyland and The Anthill reinforce the Radicalised Parent narrative by presenting dissenting parents as victims of manipulation, psychological defects or dangerous ideological forces. A critical reading of these productions shows that they follow a structured ideological framework, which prioritises institutional trust, the marginalisation of alternative viewpoints and the justification of censorship​.

Both of these productions carefully tailor their messaging to an audience that is young, educated, middle-class and institutionally aligned—a demographic that overlaps significantly with the Estranged Adult Child communities on platforms like Reddit and Instagram. Using presenters like Spring—articulate, well-educated and socially relatable—these productions establish credibility and emotional resonance with viewers who see themselves reflected in the hosts. The target audience skews millennial and Gen Z—predominantly female, university-educated and politically progressive—mirroring the key demographic most likely to engage in online estrangement discourse. This peer-group validation effect increases the impact of their messaging, making ideological compliance feel not only intellectually correct but socially desirable. In contrast, the “conspiracy theorist” parent is portrayed as older, less educated, technologically illiterate and irrational, reinforcing the generational divide and legitimising estrangement as an act of personal and intellectual superiority.

Analysis of these sources shows how they selectively highlight extreme cases and frame ideological disagreement as a public safety issue and these narratives encourage Estranged Adult Children to see their parents as beyond reason or redemption, further legitimising severance of personal relationships. A key feature of both productions is their binary framing of discourse, dividing the public into two groups:

• Rational individuals (institutionally aligned)

• Conspiracy theorists (irrational extremists)

This framework disincentivises independent critical thinking by making scepticism appear inherently irrational and dangerous. When applied to family relationships, this binary thinking encourages estranged individuals to view ideological difference as irreconcilable, reinforcing the idea that their parents' beliefs are not merely different but pathological and harmful. The delegitimisation of alternative perspectives is further reinforced through fear-based storytelling, where individuals with non-mainstream views are portrayed as slipping into dangerous radicalisation, often through the lens of manipulation or emotional instability.

Marianna Spring and The Anthill’s approach also features a heavy reliance on authority figures, positioning journalists, psychologists and fact-checkers as the ultimate arbiters of truth while dismissing parental concerns as misguided or the product of cognitive bias. This approach mirrors the institutional alignment of figures like Matthew Hornsey, who frame dissent as a psychological failing rather than a response to historical and systemic failures. By applying this model to family estrangement, these productions encourage adult children to see their parents not as individuals capable of complex reasoning but as case studies in cognitive distortion, justifying their exclusion from meaningful dialogue.

Perhaps most insidious is the way these productions encourage guilt by association, conflating parents who question mainstream narratives with extremist groups and dangerous ideologies. This framing discourages nuanced discussion and makes Estranged Adult Children more likely to self-censor their interactions, impose rigid conversational boundaries, or disengage entirely. Rather than offering tools for critical engagement, productions like Marianna in Conspiracyland and The Anthill validate emotional detachment as a legitimate response to ideological difference, deepening both social and familial fragmentation.

Estrangement and the Sense of Moral Superiority

A defining characteristic of Estrangement Ideology is the sense of moral and intellectual superiority it instills in Estranged Adult Children, particularly in how they view their parents and older generations. Social media platforms like Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok play a key role in reinforcing this superiority complex, offering echo chambers where estrangement is framed as an enlightened decision rather than a deeply personal and often painful rupture. Online communities validate the idea that cutting off one’s parents is not only justified but necessary for self-actualisation, while any attempt at reconciliation is seen as a regression into toxicity and emotional immaturity.

This narrative is further reinforced by generational stereotypes that position Boomers as outdated, irrational and resistant to progress, while millennials and Gen Z digital natives are portrayed as intellectually and morally advanced. The rapid expansion of digital information access has deepened this generational divide, with younger generations viewing their ability to navigate online fact-checkers, expert opinions and institutional messaging as proof of superior discernment. Meanwhile, parents who are sceptical of mainstream narratives, media bias or corporate and governmental authority are framed as gullible, misinformed or even dangerous. This binary thinking reduces intergenerational discourse to a simplistic struggle between progress and ignorance, further legitimising estrangement as a rational, necessary break from a group perceived as intellectually and morally irredeemable.

By positioning themselves as more informed, self-aware, and socially responsible, the Estranged Adult Children justify cutting ties not just as a personal “boundary” but as a moral stance against outdated or problematic worldviews. This sense of generational superiority plays directly into the pathologisation of parental beliefs, reframing ideological disagreements as evidence of cognitive decline or psychological dysfunction, rather than a reflection of different lived experiences and perspectives.

The Problem of Parental Fixation, Crisis and Estrangement

Central to the Radicalised Parent narrative is the tendency of Estranged Adult Children to pathologise their parents’ beliefs, particularly when they express deep scepticism about mainstream narratives. The complaint that “they won’t talk about anything else, every conversation turns back to the same stuff” is frequently cited in online estrangement forums as a justification for reducing or severing contact. The framing of parents as fixated, obsessive or consumed by misinformation transforms what is often a natural response to societal upheaval into a pathology that warrants estrangement.

However, periods of high societal stress—such as the COVID-19 pandemic—have historically triggered increased ideological fixation across the population. When institutions fail, when the mainstream media repeatedly shifts narratives or when government policies impose sweeping, life-altering restrictions, people instinctively seek alternative explanations and counter-narratives to make sense of their reality. This is neither irrational nor unique to a particular political or social group; rather, it is a universal human response to uncertainty, perceived deception, and systemic failure. From wartime propaganda scepticism to economic collapse theories, people across history have gravitated towards unconventional explanations when the official ones fail to provide satisfactory answers.

Yet, within Estrangement Ideology, this entirely natural phenomenon of seeking coherence in chaotic times is weaponised against parents. If an adult child does not share their parent’s viewpoint—whether it be about COVID-19 policies, vaccine mandates, MAGA, LGBTQI+ issues, election fraud or global governance—they are encouraged to see the parent's perspective as not just misguided but mentally destabilised. The frequent pathologisation of dissenting parental beliefs frames them as a sign of cognitive decline, brainwashing or an emotional failing that renders the parent incapable of meaningful connection. The very act of caring deeply about certain issues and expressing them repeatedly is framed as a loss of rationality, justifying emotional disengagement.

Yet, it is evident that the real issue at play is not ideological fixation—it is relational devaluation. The parent-child relationship becomes secondary to ideological agreement, with the estranged individual demanding that certain topics be off-limits as a condition for continued contact. This is the hallmark of a fragile relational dynamic, where difference is perceived as inherently unsafe rather than a natural part of family life. It also exposes the hypocrisy within Estrangement Ideology, which often promotes self-expression and authenticity—except when it comes to parents whose views do not align with those of their adult children.

In this way, the Radicalised Parent narrative serves as an ideological filter, reinforcing the idea that parents are fundamentally incapable of maintaining a relationship unless they abandon their dissenting perspectives. This conditional framework mirrors the broader trend in Estrangement Ideology, where family bonds are only maintained if the parent conforms to the ideological expectations of the adult child. Rather than viewing parental fixation as a predictable response to uncertain times, it is used as evidence of irrationality, deterioration or toxicity, further cementing the justification for estrangement.

The inability to cope with natural fixations that arise in response to societal crises reveals a fragility of self in many Estranged Adult Children, where discomfort with ideological difference is reframed as “emotional harm.” Rather than recognising their parents’ focus on certain issues as a predictable reaction to uncertainty or institutional failures, they interpret it as a personal attack or a sign of cognitive decline, exposing a lack of resilience in navigating complex, evolving relationships. In line with the discussion in Part 9. The Emotional Immaturity Paradox, this hypersensitivity to disagreement suggests a fragile self-concept, where any challenge to their worldview is experienced as an existential threat, reinforcing the belief that estrangement is the only viable solution.

Conclusion

The Radicalised Parent narrative reflects a broader ideological framework that seeks to pathologise dissent, enforce ideological conformity and frame estrangement as both morally and psychologically necessary. By leveraging fear-based storytelling, expert validation and generational superiority narratives, this framing recasts intergenerational disagreement as evidence of cognitive decline or emotional instability, rather than recognising it as a natural response to societal upheaval and crisis.

Selective reference to academics like Hornsey, “journalists” like Marianna Spring, and official narrative aligned media productions like The Anthill serves to legitimise severing personal relationships on ideological grounds, reinforcing a binary worldview where dissenting parents are beyond reason or redemption. This framework not only deepens family fragmentation but also normalises a broader culture of estrangement, in which ideological purity is prioritised over relational resilience and emotional disengagement is celebrated as a rational and enlightened act.

---

Note: This article was developed with assistance of ChatGPT, used as a structured analysis and writing tool. All ideas, interpretations and final outputs were authored, verified and edited by me. The model was conditioned to reflect my reasoning, not to generate content independently.