Blogs About All Things Cultish And Coercive Control

Traditional news outlets are not perfect. They are influenced by commercial pressures, political access, time constraints, and sometimes genuine blind spots. Mistakes happen. Framing choices matter. And historically, there have been moments where media institutions failed the public. But recognising those failures is not the same as abandoning all standards of evidence.

In the days following the Bondi Beach attack, the internet became a mirror for both the best and worst of human behaviour. On one hand, there were stories of bravery, solidarity, and genuine mourning. On the other, a predictable — and deeply troubling — pattern reasserted itself: fake influencers, rumour-mongers and online opportunists flooding angry and grieving spaces with misinformation.

In the aftermath of the Bondi attack, Australia has been sitting in shock. Grief like this doesn’t move in a straight line. It fractures. It disorients. It overwhelms our sense of safety and order. And in that psychological chaos, people reach for explanations that make the world feel less frightening — even if those explanations aren’t true.

High-control groups and conspiracy ecosystems are often discussed as separate phenomena. One is framed as cultic or extremist. The other as political, cultural, or “just opinions.” But when you look closely, they frequently rely on the same psychological architecture. That doesn’t mean everyone who believes a conspiracy theory is in a cult. It means that similar methods of influence can produce similar outcomes — especially under conditions of fear, uncertainty, and grief.