I want to better understand the "Crunchy MAGA" right wing wellness phenomenon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not MAGA, principally because I dislike Donald Trump, his morals, his dishonesty, his racism, and his insistence on what feels like "dear leader"-style obsequiousness. But I have some views that I'm sure the DCUM crowd would be aghast at (e.g., opposed to abortion, believe trump has sometimes been treated unfairly by the press and prosecutors, skeptical of our strategy vis-a-vis Ukraine). So I'll give you my reaction for what it's worth:

I think it's a sense of skepticism of authorities. I think many people outside the Dem fold believe that the authorities are persistent perpetrators of obvious falsehoods-- e.g., that free trade would be good for the country as a whole, that an appreciable number of men are actually women and vice versa, that COVID came from a wet market, that inflation wouldn't emerge from the stimulus, etc. etc. (I get that most of you are probably rage yelling "those aren't falsehoods!" or "Trump is worse!", but accept the premise for purposes of this explanation). Then someone comes along and says that the experts are also wrong about our food additives and pharmaceutical products. Is it so hard to see why, in the face of people getting fatter and sicker, many people already skeptical of authorities would conclude there is something to that?

Agree with you but you will make DCUMs howl in rage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a crunchy wellness person. I'm a vegan, I live in Takoma Park, grow a lot of my own food, and I do yoga. I am vaccinated but skeptical of Big Pharma, I tend to use medications as a last resort if lifestyle modifications don't work.

I want to learn more about the people who agree with Trump and RFK's MAHA movement. I'm trying to make this a friendly question although I can't help but point out the logical inconsistencies.

For example - you want to get chemicals out of food and water - me too! So why do you vote for the party that wants to deregulate industries?
You're skeptical of Big Pharma - me too! But do you think Republicans don't take donations from pharmaceutical companies?

What about the environment? Most yogis that I practice with are very cognizant of climate change and sustainability and protecting wildlife. I would also agree with criticisms from the right about the global scale climate initiatives being a lot of feel-good greenwashing, and that wealthy elites are hypocrites when they fly on private jets to a climate conference. So does this mean throw the baby out with the bathwater and Drill, Baby, Drill? And allow corporations to pollute everything?

I also agree that obesity is a problem and that we should eat healthier. Again, why do you feel Republicans are the people to make this happen? Especially when their standard-bearer is obese himself? To be quite frank, a lot of this attitude I'm seeing seems to be less about Make America Healthy Again, but more making it an individualistic superiority complex about shaming people without the resources to live healthier (they live in food deserts, have long commutes and sit at multiple jobs all day, cannot afford a single family home to have their own gardens, etc) and bragging about your own ability to be healthy, rather than enabling the (gasp) government to make it easier for people to be healthy?

It's a fundamental mistrust of various institutions.

[Anonymous]

the very short line from wellness influencer to right-wing nutjob has been around for a long while. I think it's a need for individualist control and a lack of interest in others or the collective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a crunchy wellness person. I'm a vegan, I live in Takoma Park, grow a lot of my own food, and I do yoga. I am vaccinated but skeptical of Big Pharma, I tend to use medications as a last resort if lifestyle modifications don't work.

I want to learn more about the people who agree with Trump and RFK's MAHA movement. I'm trying to make this a friendly question although I can't help but point out the logical inconsistencies.

For example - you want to get chemicals out of food and water - me too! So why do you vote for the party that wants to deregulate industries?
You're skeptical of Big Pharma - me too! But do you think Republicans don't take donations from pharmaceutical companies?

What about the environment? Most yogis that I practice with are very cognizant of climate change and sustainability and protecting wildlife. I would also agree with criticisms from the right about the global scale climate initiatives being a lot of feel-good greenwashing, and that wealthy elites are hypocrites when they fly on private jets to a climate conference. So does this mean throw the baby out with the bathwater and Drill, Baby, Drill? And allow corporations to pollute everything?

I also agree that obesity is a problem and that we should eat healthier. Again, why do you feel Republicans are the people to make this happen? Especially when their standard-bearer is obese himself? To be quite frank, a lot of this attitude I'm seeing seems to be less about Make America Healthy Again, but more making it an individualistic superiority complex about shaming people without the resources to live healthier (they live in food deserts, have long commutes and sit at multiple jobs all day, cannot afford a single family home to have their own gardens, etc) and bragging about your own ability to be healthy, rather than enabling the (gasp) government to make it easier for people to be healthy?

It's a fundamental mistrust of various institutions.

It’s a selective mistrust. They don’t trust people that have nothing to gain from a public health intervention (see dentists- they lose money when kids have fluoride. $20 fluoride applications have nothing on the $20k they make to rebuild a mouth of rotting teeth). Yet the conspiracy theorists unquestionably trust people who are selling them snake oil at wildly inflated prices.

The truth is there is no individual control. Your well water has no fluoride but it is full of PFAS. Our environment is so polluted even your lovingly tended backyard garden is going to produce veggies full of lead and other toxins. You can’t trust your supplement makers because there is zero regulation and zero accountability. Science is the best we got. It isn’t perfect and it’s always prone to bias, but it is the best we have.

[Anonymous]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/conspirituality-wellness-world-red-pilled-1234770419/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a crunchy wellness person. I'm a vegan, I live in Takoma Park, grow a lot of my own food, and I do yoga. I am vaccinated but skeptical of Big Pharma, I tend to use medications as a last resort if lifestyle modifications don't work.

I want to learn more about the people who agree with Trump and RFK's MAHA movement. I'm trying to make this a friendly question although I can't help but point out the logical inconsistencies.

For example - you want to get chemicals out of food and water - me too! So why do you vote for the party that wants to deregulate industries?
You're skeptical of Big Pharma - me too! But do you think Republicans don't take donations from pharmaceutical companies?

What about the environment? Most yogis that I practice with are very cognizant of climate change and sustainability and protecting wildlife. I would also agree with criticisms from the right about the global scale climate initiatives being a lot of feel-good greenwashing, and that wealthy elites are hypocrites when they fly on private jets to a climate conference. So does this mean throw the baby out with the bathwater and Drill, Baby, Drill? And allow corporations to pollute everything?

I also agree that obesity is a problem and that we should eat healthier. Again, why do you feel Republicans are the people to make this happen? Especially when their standard-bearer is obese himself? To be quite frank, a lot of this attitude I'm seeing seems to be less about Make America Healthy Again, but more making it an individualistic superiority complex about shaming people without the resources to live healthier (they live in food deserts, have long commutes and sit at multiple jobs all day, cannot afford a single family home to have their own gardens, etc) and bragging about your own ability to be healthy, rather than enabling the (gasp) government to make it easier for people to be healthy?

The difference is that you trust and identify with the establishment to a degree that Crunchy Maga does not. And you don’t understand regulatory capture as well as Crunchy Maga does. Of course Trump and RFK are deeply deeply flawed, but Crunchy Maga knows that they have a better chance of toxin reductions with a shakeup of the system than with a continuation of it.

[Anonymous]

MAHA mom here. Simple answer- the government has shown no intention to regulate these issues. We have fewer regulations about environmental toxins than most developed nations. Trump and RFK are introducing more FDA regulations, not less.

Re environmental regulations, I think you'd find that MAHA people would agree with you in principle. However, we tend to be more skeptical of government and thats why we don't automatically want regulations-- only when the regulations seem like they will produce the desired result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MAHA mom here. Simple answer- the government has shown no intention to regulate these issues. We have fewer regulations about environmental toxins than most developed nations. Trump and RFK are introducing more FDA regulations, not less.

Re environmental regulations, I think you'd find that MAHA people would agree with you in principle. However, we tend to be more skeptical of government and thats why we don't automatically want regulations-- only when the regulations seem like they will produce the desired result.

do you think Trump will regulate the supplement industry (or at least in a not in the bs way it currently is regulated)? There's a huge overlap between supplement salesmen and MAHA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAHA mom here. Simple answer- the government has shown no intention to regulate these issues. We have fewer regulations about environmental toxins than most developed nations. Trump and RFK are introducing more FDA regulations, not less.

Re environmental regulations, I think you'd find that MAHA people would agree with you in principle. However, we tend to be more skeptical of government and thats why we don't automatically want regulations-- only when the regulations seem like they will produce the desired result.

do you think Trump will regulate the supplement industry (or at least in a not in the bs way it currently is regulated)? There's a huge overlap between supplement salesmen and MAHA.

I hope so. It's been slow going so far so I'm in wait and see mode.

[Anonymous]

The scale of fraud and corruption and money in Big Pharma absolutely dwarfs anything the supplement sellers are doing. If you’re skeptical of people with something to sell, you should be mire skeptical of the medial and regulatory establishment than of right wing grifters hawking vitamins. Big Pharma is so rich they control all politicians, all major news organizations, all doctors, all medical research, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey OP, eating healthier has nothing to do with lack of money or education.

It is LITERALLY aout passing the vegetable aisle and going for the Twinkies. It's a lack of will power by the individual.

No amount of money or government indoctrination will fix that.

I used to think like you. I've never struggled with weight and I'm fit and trim. I don't eat twinkies, etc. But as I've looked into the issue, I have become aware that we have many cancer causing additives in our food- even healthy food that normal people eat, like yogurt, bread, salad dressing, etc. These are items that are part of a typical healthy diet, yet can cause cancer because of the way they are made in the US. Even our vegetables are less nutrient dense than in previous generations- so simply avoiding processed foods only gets you part of the way there. Our food system has been so disrupted that you can't go to a regular grocery store *at all* and be assured that the food is healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey OP, eating healthier has nothing to do with lack of money or education.

It is LITERALLY aout passing the vegetable aisle and going for the Twinkies. It's a lack of will power by the individual.

No amount of money or government indoctrination will fix that.

I used to think like you. I've never struggled with weight and I'm fit and trim. I don't eat twinkies, etc. But as I've looked into the issue, I have become aware that we have many cancer causing additives in our food- even healthy food that normal people eat, like yogurt, bread, salad dressing, etc. These are items that are part of a typical healthy diet, yet can cause cancer because of the way they are made in the US. Even our vegetables are less nutrient dense than in previous generations- so simply avoiding processed foods only gets you part of the way there. Our food system has been so disrupted that you can't go to a regular grocery store *at all* and be assured that the food is healthy.

I used to think this too. But I think what this train of thought misses is the huge effect that our microbiome has on psychology and food choices. A Chinese research company last summer found through the use of AI that they could distinguish between the excrement of people with autism and neurotypicals based on metabolites and other waste byproduct. (I might be a tad imprecise in my language, but I believe that is the upshot.). Anyone with experience with autism knows that, among those who suffer from the condition and have restricted diets, there is a clear preference for certain types of foods, often highly processed carbohydrates. You can debate how much of that is chicken and egg, but there is likely a feedback loop between microbiome and the psychology of food.

On that understanding, it seems very reasonable to expect the government to protect people from their own choices to some extent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey OP, eating healthier has nothing to do with lack of money or education.

It is LITERALLY aout passing the vegetable aisle and going for the Twinkies. It's a lack of will power by the individual.

No amount of money or government indoctrination will fix that.

I used to think like you. I've never struggled with weight and I'm fit and trim. I don't eat twinkies, etc. But as I've looked into the issue, I have become aware that we have many cancer causing additives in our food- even healthy food that normal people eat, like yogurt, bread, salad dressing, etc. These are items that are part of a typical healthy diet, yet can cause cancer because of the way they are made in the US. Even our vegetables are less nutrient dense than in previous generations- so simply avoiding processed foods only gets you part of the way there. Our food system has been so disrupted that you can't go to a regular grocery store *at all* and be assured that the food is healthy.

I used to think this too. But I think what this train of thought misses is the huge effect that our microbiome has on psychology and food choices. A Chinese research company last summer found through the use of AI that they could distinguish between the excrement of people with autism and neurotypicals based on metabolites and other waste byproduct. (I might be a tad imprecise in my language, but I believe that is the upshot.). Anyone with experience with autism knows that, among those who suffer from the condition and have restricted diets, there is a clear preference for certain types of foods, often highly processed carbohydrates. You can debate how much of that is chicken and egg, but there is likely a feedback loop between microbiome and the psychology of food.

On that understanding, it seems very reasonable to expect the government to protect people from their own choices to some extent.

After cigarettes were outlawed, the cigarettes companies bought food companies (Philip Morris bought General Foods and Kraft, RJ Reynolds bought Nabisco, etc). Then they transitioned all their chemists and scientists that had worked to make cigarettes more appealing and addictive, and put them to work on food. And obesity has skyrocketed, and people claim this is a discipline issue.

I'm not affected by this-- I'm called anorexic and disordered over on the diet and exercise forum because I'm quite open that I maintain my healthy but low weight through restriction. But that is what is required these days because our food supply is basically full of addictive chemicals that stimulate appetite.

For decades, the government has done nothing about this. Everyone patted their backs for outlawing cigarettes, when in reality, the problem is now worse than it ever was when they were just slinging tobacco, because it's in everything a normal person eats. You have to go through independent farms to get even close to a natural, undrugged food source at this point.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Hey OP, eating healthier has nothing to do with lack of money or education.

It is LITERALLY aout passing the vegetable aisle and going for the Twinkies. It's a lack of will power by the individual.

No amount of money or government indoctrination will fix that.[/quote]

I used to think like you. I've never struggled with weight and I'm fit and trim. I don't eat twinkies, etc. But as I've looked into the issue, I have become aware that we have many cancer causing additives in our food- even healthy food that normal people eat, like yogurt, bread, salad dressing, etc. These are items that are part of a typical healthy diet, yet can cause cancer because of the way they are made in the US. Even our vegetables are less nutrient dense than in previous generations- so simply avoiding processed foods only gets you part of the way there. Our food system has been so disrupted that you can't go to a regular grocery store *at all* and be assured that the food is healthy. [/quote]

I used to think this too. But I think what this train of thought misses is the huge effect that our microbiome has on psychology and food choices. A Chinese research company last summer found through the use of AI that they could distinguish between the excrement of people with autism and neurotypicals based on metabolites and other waste byproduct. (I might be a tad imprecise in my language, but I believe that is the upshot.). Anyone with experience with autism knows that, among those who suffer from the condition and have restricted diets, there is a clear preference for certain types of foods, often highly processed carbohydrates. You can debate how much of that is chicken and egg, but there is likely a feedback loop between microbiome and the psychology of food.

On that understanding, it seems very reasonable to expect the government to protect people from their own choices to some extent. [/quote]

After cigarettes were outlawed, the cigarettes companies bought food companies (Philip Morris bought General Foods and Kraft, RJ Reynolds bought Nabisco, etc). Then they transitioned all their chemists and scientists that had worked to make cigarettes more appealing and addictive, and put them to work on food. And obesity has skyrocketed, and people claim this is a discipline issue.

I'm not affected by this-- I'm called anorexic and disordered over on the diet and exercise forum because I'm quite open that I maintain my healthy but low weight through restriction. But that is what is required these days because our food supply is basically full of addictive chemicals that stimulate appetite.

For decades, the government has done nothing about this. Everyone patted their backs for outlawing cigarettes, when in reality, the problem is now worse than it ever was when they were just slinging tobacco, because it's in everything a normal person eats. You have to go through independent farms to get even close to a natural, undrugged food source at this point. [/quote]

I am your mirror image. It's embarrassing, but I have next to no willpower over food. If there are sweets in my house, they're in the back of my mind. It's like a mental tax at best and a shame-filled indulgence at worst. I'm not overweight, but I think all the time about how I'm surely building insulin resistance, and I have some sense of all the things that smart people will tell you totally aren't caused by diabetes but that they'll concede are correlated with it. It feels like gaslighting to me when people pretend that the junk in our food isn't addictive. They didn't slip added sugar in all our food for just no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey OP, eating healthier has nothing to do with lack of money or education.

It is LITERALLY aout passing the vegetable aisle and going for the Twinkies. It's a lack of will power by the individual.

No amount of money or government indoctrination will fix that.

I used to think like you. I've never struggled with weight and I'm fit and trim. I don't eat twinkies, etc. But as I've looked into the issue, I have become aware that we have many cancer causing additives in our food- even healthy food that normal people eat, like yogurt, bread, salad dressing, etc. These are items that are part of a typical healthy diet, yet can cause cancer because of the way they are made in the US. Even our vegetables are less nutrient dense than in previous generations- so simply avoiding processed foods only gets you part of the way there. Our food system has been so disrupted that you can't go to a regular grocery store *at all* and be assured that the food is healthy.

I used to think this too. But I think what this train of thought misses is the huge effect that our microbiome has on psychology and food choices. A Chinese research company last summer found through the use of AI that they could distinguish between the excrement of people with autism and neurotypicals based on metabolites and other waste byproduct. (I might be a tad imprecise in my language, but I believe that is the upshot.). Anyone with experience with autism knows that, among those who suffer from the condition and have restricted diets, there is a clear preference for certain types of foods, often highly processed carbohydrates. You can debate how much of that is chicken and egg, but there is likely a feedback loop between microbiome and the psychology of food.

On that understanding, it seems very reasonable to expect the government to protect people from their own choices to some extent.

After cigarettes were outlawed, the cigarettes companies bought food companies (Philip Morris bought General Foods and Kraft, RJ Reynolds bought Nabisco, etc). Then they transitioned all their chemists and scientists that had worked to make cigarettes more appealing and addictive, and put them to work on food. And obesity has skyrocketed, and people claim this is a discipline issue.

I'm not affected by this-- I'm called anorexic and disordered over on the diet and exercise forum because I'm quite open that I maintain my healthy but low weight through restriction. But that is what is required these days because our food supply is basically full of addictive chemicals that stimulate appetite.

For decades, the government has done nothing about this. Everyone patted their backs for outlawing cigarettes, when in reality, the problem is now worse than it ever was when they were just slinging tobacco, because it's in everything a normal person eats. You have to go through independent farms to get even close to a natural, undrugged food source at this point.

And this all happened with the approval of establishment Democrat regulators. They are completely captured. For all of their faults, Trump and Kennedy are more likely to disrupt the disgusting status quo of American toxic food than do the establishment types who let it get that way. They probably won’t deliver, but the establishment wasn’t even going to pretend to try.