Rachel Wilson: Occult Feminism & The Secret History of Women's Liberation
Quick Take
Rachel Wilson, a self-described cultural commentator, Orthodox Christian, and homeschooling mother of five, joins Rogan to promote her book "Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women's Liberation." Wilson argues that the feminist movement was never organic but was orchestrated by occultists, Marxists, and esoteric elites — drawing connections between Theosophy, the Golden Dawn, Spiritualism, witchcraft, and women's suffrage. While some historical connections she cites are real (early feminists did overlap with Spiritualist movements), the book's central thesis — that feminism was a deliberate conspiracy to destroy the family — relies heavily on cherry-picked history, guilt-by-association, and conspiratorial framing.
Key Claims Examined
🔮 "Feminism Has Occult Roots in Theosophy and Spiritualism"
Wilson argues that key figures in the early women's movement were deeply involved in Spiritualism, Theosophy, and groups like the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn — and that these occult connections shaped feminism's true agenda.
Our Analysis
This is Wilson's strongest claim, and it contains a genuine kernel of historical truth — wrapped in conspiratorial conclusions.
- What's true: There is real historical overlap between 19th-century feminism and Spiritualism. Historians like Ann Braude (Radical Spirits, 1989) have documented how Spiritualist movements gave women public speaking platforms and challenged patriarchal religious authority. Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president (1872), was indeed a Spiritualist medium.
- Theosophy connection: Helena Blavatsky's Theosophical Society (founded 1875) did attract women seeking alternatives to patriarchal Christianity. Annie Besant was both a Theosophist and a women's rights advocate. These are documented historical facts.
- Where it goes wrong: Correlation is not causation. Many social reform movements of the 19th century — abolition, temperance, labor rights — overlapped with Spiritualism. Wilson singles out feminism to imply deliberate occult manipulation, while ignoring that Spiritualism was simply the era's progressive religious movement.
- Academic consensus: Mainstream historians view the Spiritualism-feminism overlap as a product of shared progressive values, not evidence of an occult conspiracy. Women were drawn to both movements because both offered autonomy from patriarchal institutions.
- Missing context: The vast majority of suffragists were mainstream Christians — Quakers, Methodists, Unitarians. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and most major suffrage leaders had no occult connections whatsoever.
Verdict: Real historical overlap, conspiratorial interpretation
☭ "Marxists and Occultists Deliberately Engineered Feminism to Destroy the Family"
Wilson contends that feminism was never an organic grassroots movement for social justice, but was engineered by Marxists and occultists with the explicit goal of dismantling the traditional family unit and making children dependent on the state.
Our Analysis
This is the book's central thesis and its weakest claim — a classic conspiracy theory structure that attributes complex social change to deliberate elite manipulation.
- The Marxism angle: It's true that Marx and Engels critiqued the bourgeois family structure, and that some socialist feminists in the 20th century drew on Marxist analysis. But conflating all feminism with Marxism ignores liberal feminism, Christian feminism, and the many strands that had nothing to do with socialism.
- The "orchestrated" claim: Social movements are messy, decentralized, and driven by millions of individual decisions. The idea that feminism was "never organic" requires ignoring centuries of women's documented complaints about legal inequality, lack of property rights, domestic violence, and political disenfranchisement.
- Historical reality: Women couldn't own property, vote, attend most universities, or have legal custody of their children in most Western nations before feminist advocacy. These weren't imaginary grievances manufactured by occultists.
- The family argument: Wilson's framing assumes the pre-feminist family was universally stable and beneficial for women. Historical records of domestic abuse, marital rape (legal until the 1970s-90s in most US states), and economic dependency complicate this idealized picture significantly.
- Guilt by association: Some feminists were Marxists. Some were occultists. Some were Christians. Some were capitalists. Cherry-picking the most exotic connections to define the entire movement is intellectually dishonest.
Verdict: Conspiracy theory with selective evidence
👩💼 "Feminism Made Women 'Wage Slaves' — They Were Better Off Before"
Wilson argues that feminism didn't liberate women from patriarchal oppression but instead "ripped away the fundamental structures that afforded them stability, security, and purpose — turning them into wage slaves for corporations and tax revenue cash cows for governments."
Our Analysis
This argument contains a legitimate critique of modern capitalism wrapped in a deeply misleading historical framework.
- The valid kernel: There's a real conversation to be had about whether the modern economy's requirement for dual incomes has reduced rather than expanded choice for families. Some feminist scholars themselves (like Nancy Fraser) have critiqued how feminist ideals were co-opted by neoliberal capitalism.
- The false nostalgia: "Women had it pretty good back in the day" erases the experiences of women who couldn't leave abusive marriages, couldn't open bank accounts without a husband's permission (until 1974 in the US), and had no legal recourse for workplace harassment or marital rape.
- Class blindness: Working-class women have always worked — in factories, fields, domestic service. The "women stayed home" ideal was primarily a middle-class phenomenon. Wilson's framing erases the majority of women's historical experience.
- The data: Women's labor force participation correlated with massive reductions in poverty, increased educational attainment, and longer life expectancy. Women's economic independence is strongly correlated with lower rates of domestic violence.
- Choice vs. mandate: The goal of feminism was expanding choice — the ability to work or stay home. Blaming feminism for economic conditions that require dual incomes conflates a social movement with macroeconomic forces like wage stagnation and housing costs.
Verdict: Legitimate economic critique undermined by historical revisionism
🕯️ "Witchcraft, CIA Operations, and Sex Cults Were Central to Feminism"
Wilson's book promises "incredible true stories of demon worship, spirit mediums, magic mushrooms, witchcraft, CIA spies, and sex cults" as the real history of feminism.
Our Analysis
This is sensationalist marketing that conflates fringe figures with the mainstream movement.
- The CIA angle: Gloria Steinem did have a documented connection to the CIA-funded Independent Research Service in the 1950s-60s, which sent American students to youth festivals to counter Soviet influence. This is historical fact. But it doesn't prove feminism was a CIA operation — Steinem was one of thousands of people in a broad movement.
- Witchcraft revival: The W.I.T.C.H. (Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell) collective in the late 1960s used witch imagery as political theater. Starhawk and Zsuzsanna Budapest did blend feminist activism with neo-pagan practice. But these were fringe subcultures, not the mainstream movement.
- The sensationalism problem: Describing feminism through its most exotic margins — sex cults, demon worship, CIA spies — is like describing Christianity through the lens of snake-handling churches and televangelists. Technically some Christians do those things; it says nothing about the broader movement.
- Scale of influence: The suffrage movement involved millions of women across decades. The Nineteenth Amendment passed through supermajority votes in Congress and state legislatures. Attributing this to occult manipulation requires ignoring democratic reality.
Verdict: Sensationalist framing that distorts historical reality
📚 "Feminist Scholars Have Been Gatekeeping the Real History Since the 1970s"
Wilson claims that "since the 1970s, everything we learn about the history of the women's movement has been subject to gatekeeping by radicals who run women's studies departments in universities."
Our Analysis
The "suppressed knowledge" framing is a hallmark of conspiracy thinking — and it's particularly ironic here.
- The irony: The historical connections Wilson cites — Spiritualism and feminism, Theosophy's influence on progressive movements — are well-documented in mainstream academic literature. Ann Braude's Radical Spirits is assigned in university courses. This isn't suppressed knowledge.
- Academic diversity: Women's studies departments contain scholars with wildly different perspectives — liberal feminists, socialist feminists, postcolonial feminists, critics of feminism. The idea of a monolithic gatekeeping operation is a caricature.
- Who's the real expert: Wilson is described as a "wife, Orthodox Christian, homeschooling mom" with interests in "fitness, cooking, history, philosophy, and religious studies." No academic credentials in history, gender studies, or religious studies are cited. The scholars she accuses of gatekeeping have spent decades researching primary sources.
- The conspiracy trap: If academics confirm Wilson's claims, she's right. If they dispute them, it's proof of gatekeeping. This unfalsifiable structure makes the argument immune to criticism — which is the opposite of how honest inquiry works.
Verdict: Classic conspiracy framing that immunizes claims from critique
What Should We Believe?
Rachel Wilson is clearly passionate and well-read on the intersection of occultism and 19th-century social movements. But her book and this interview suffer from several fundamental problems:
- Real history ≠ conspiracy: Yes, some early feminists were Spiritualists and Theosophists. Yes, Gloria Steinem had CIA connections. Yes, some 1960s feminists practiced witchcraft. But stringing these facts together into a grand conspiracy theory is intellectually dishonest. You could do the same thing with any social movement.
- Credentials matter: Wilson has no academic training in history or gender studies. Her bio lists her as a homeschooling mom with interests in history and religion. The scholars she dismisses as "gatekeepers" have spent careers in primary source research. That doesn't make her wrong — but it should calibrate your confidence.
- The nostalgia trap: The idea that women "had it pretty good" before feminism requires erasing centuries of legal inequality, domestic violence, and economic dependency. Pre-feminist life was not a golden age for most women.
- Rogan doesn't push back: As usual with ideologically sympathetic guests, Rogan asks interested questions but never challenges the central assumptions. No mainstream historian or feminist scholar is present to offer counterarguments.
- The economic critique has legs: The one genuinely interesting thread — that modern capitalism co-opted feminist ideals to create dual-income households that primarily benefit corporations — deserves serious discussion. Unfortunately, it's buried under conspiracy theory.
The Bottom Line
This episode is a masterclass in how real historical facts can be woven into a conspiratorial narrative. Wilson isn't making everything up — there are genuine, documented connections between 19th-century feminism and Spiritualism, and between some 20th-century feminists and radical counterculture. The problem is the leap from "some feminists were involved in the occult" to "feminism was an occult conspiracy to destroy the family."
Worth listening to if: You're interested in the historical overlap between occultism and social reform movements, and you can separate the interesting historical nuggets from the conspiratorial framing.
Take with a grain of salt: The central thesis that feminism was deliberately engineered by Marxists and occultists, that women were better off before it, and that academic historians are engaged in a coverup. These claims don't survive contact with mainstream historical evidence.
Missing from this conversation: Any historian who could provide context, any feminist scholar who could respond to the claims, any acknowledgment that women's legal inequality was real and worth addressing regardless of who else was involved in the movement.