In a wide-ranging conversation, Megyn Kelly and author Buck Sexton explored what they describe as the far left’s “brainwashing” tactics around gender identity and race — and why they believe those tactics ultimately harm not just conservatives, but liberals as well.
Sexton, whose book Manufacturing Delusion examines psychological manipulation in political movements, argued that modern social justice activism often relies on public shaming, forced apologies, and linguistic policing to enforce ideological conformity. Kelly opened the discussion by revisiting the 2017 controversy at Evergreen State College, where professor Bret Weinstein objected to a campus event that asked white students and faculty to stay off campus for a day. Weinstein’s mild criticism sparked protests, and he ultimately left the college.
Kelly highlighted a viral clip from that episode showing a young Black student being pressured to publicly apologize for defending Weinstein. The student, visibly distressed, struggled to read a prepared statement accusing herself of “anti-Blackness.” For Sexton, the moment exemplified what he calls “self-denunciation” — a tactic he compares to historical “struggle sessions” used during China’s Cultural Revolution.
According to Sexton, these public confessions are not random outbursts of outrage but part of a broader psychological process. He referenced studies of totalitarian regimes and cult dynamics, arguing that forcing individuals to degrade themselves publicly fosters confusion, submission, and ideological compliance. “There’s no greater power,” Sexton said, “than power over people’s minds.”
The conversation expanded beyond college campuses. Kelly shared a personal anecdote about a private school in New York where a teenage girl was required to deliver multiple public apologies over a comment deemed racially insensitive. When administrators deemed her first apology insufficient, they instructed her to “racialize” it further. Kelly described the ordeal as humiliating and unnecessary, adding that it only stopped when the student involved her parents.
Sexton suggested that such incidents reflect a broader pattern: keep people confused about what is acceptable to say, degrade them publicly when they err, and then reshape their thinking. He cited the work of mid-20th-century psychiatrist Joost Meerloo, who wrote about “menticide” — the destruction of independent thought through confusion and humiliation.
Language, Sexton argued, is a central battleground. He and Kelly discussed how certain phrases — even ones intended as compliments, such as “man up” or “woman up” — can provoke backlash. Sexton framed this as strategic word policing designed to reinforce authority and destabilize dissenters. By constantly shifting linguistic boundaries, he said, activists create uncertainty that weakens opposition.
At the same time, Sexton contended that the left’s tactics ultimately boomerang. He cited examples of infighting within progressive circles, where individuals are criticized for minor perceived infractions. In his view, ideological purity tests create a climate where “no one is safe,” even among allies.
Kelly and Sexton agreed that young people are especially vulnerable. College students, they argued, are often idealistic and eager to belong, making them susceptible to group pressure and moral fervor. Sexton likened this to historical revolutionary movements that mobilized youth as agents of cultural change.
While critics of their perspective might see such comparisons as exaggerated, Kelly and Sexton maintained that understanding these patterns is essential. For Sexton, the solution begins with awareness — recognizing the mechanisms of social shaming and refusing to participate in public humiliation rituals.
The discussion closed with a broader warning: when confusion and degradation become normalized, open debate suffers. In their view, resisting that trend is not just a conservative cause but a defense of intellectual independence across the political spectrum.
