Painting "Crunchy Moms" As Victims of RFK Jr.

Exploring a Vaccine Propaganda Piece's Drama Triangle

I was listening to the Darkhorse Podcast this morning and I thought it was great. But the ending concerning the Measles vaccine article made me want to write a quick note here. It’s about an hour and 12 minutes into the podcast. The article Heather reads is Crunchy moms aren’t scared of measles Kennedy has fed their delusions.

I agree with Heather as she reads it. I don’t feel the need to reiterate everything Heather says, so I suggest watching the episode or at least that segment.

The Drama Roles

Mothers caring for their children and other children they didn’t even birth warn people to stay away from harmful substances out of love. These people get called “crunchy” like it’s a slur and get mocked, and sometimes people vindictively call child protective services on them.

Do they have a reason to lie? Are their upsides? Not really. Are they attempting to harm other people by warning about vaccines or food additives? What is their motivation?

Well, according to the UnHerd article title, these so-called crunchy moms are delusional. That’s their only motivation. It has nothing to do with love and caring for others apparently.

Are You Really Coming From a Place of Love?

The writer, Rosie Gray, should be ashamed of her article, for many reasons. It is amazing to me that she probably feels proud about writing it instead.

If you’ve been reading my Substack on the Drama Triangle you can already point out from the UnHerd article’s title that Robert Kennedy Jr is being cast as a “persecutor.” The title paints the crunchy moms more as “victims” of RFK who feeds their delusions.

In the article, there is a quote that also could imply social media companies are partly to blame. I’ve seen that argument about YouTube’s algorithm promoting misinformation before. This is one that may slip by readers of the article because of how it’s said in passing.

“One minute you’re looking at someone’s video about co-sleeping, and the next you’re watching a woman drinking out of a jug of raw milk and talking about chemtrails.”

There’s also the depiction of conspiracy theorists (someone who would believe in chemtrails) as an “idiot.” The article paints crunchy moms as victims throughout.

Victory goes to the crunchy moms, but they may find that it’s a pyrrhic one. They want nasty ingredients and dyes out of the food supply, they want clean water and soil, and they want sterner oversight of pharmaceuticals — but they support an administration that is dismantling the federal agencies that oversee these areas.

Of course, there is no mention of the fact that the federal agencies as they currently are have failed miserably in protecting us. Something needs to change. The article goes on and ends with:

This could be the moment for liberals to somehow reach out to the crunchy moms, but so far they’ve shown no interest in speaking to them on their terms — or in general, addressing the large swathes of Americans who have lost trust in the medical establishment. These women are trying to protect their children, and they think they’re doing so — even those who don’t vaccinate for measles. As long as “trust the science” is the only answer to a worried mom who has questions about the vaccine schedule, those moms will gravitate towards the side that embraces them — whether it ultimately benefits them or not.

It’s true that so-called liberals (leftists really) don’t want to reach out to “crunchy moms” (who may have been Democrats at one point). This is a problem of their own making. They believe in the fallacy of guilt by association; they’re always ostracizing people. Many on the left want to cast “anti-vaxxers” as evil persecutors, so to reach out to them on their (anti-vaxx) terms would be dangerous. Their own peers might find fault in them simply for “associating” with an anti-vaxxer and meeting them on those terms.

No, Democrats can’t “Save” crunchy moms. They’ve made them untouchable.

What’s Worse?

Heather Heying

& Brett also discuss the fact that the flu has apparently killed more children than measles. Why is there such a fixation on Measles when there are other harms out there for children in greater numbers?

Partly, I think there are many untouchable subjects for Democrats. If leftists write about anything that might be considered a “conspiracy theory” like seed oils being harmful, their own party will disown them. I’ve written about how they perceive that ostracization & bullying threat, whether consciously or unconsciously, and fawn here.

How Many "Allies" Are Fawning Over Persecutors?

But I believe they’re actually legitimately scared to write about certain topics. I don’t know if that is conscious, but I do believe it keeps them off of certain topics, the topics that may be doing the most damage to our population. So they will steer clear of those untouchable subjects.

Secondly, I think they’re in echo chambers and are probably scared of the Measles more than the Flu, et al. They believe people get their flu vaccines. But they are told people are not getting Measles vaccines. Although the writer of the article wrote in a way to make “crunchy moms” into “victims” of disinformation, there is a way in which any person who rejects vaccines can be thought of as a threat (“persecutor”) because they may walk around “diseased” and possibly make others sick.

Ultimately I think articles like these get written because of fear (of getting sick), and as (righteous indignation) attacks on those they believe can get them sick (hence the derogatory labels like “crunchy”). There’s a separation between the delusional “crunchy” moms and the Leftist “smart” people who could help “Save” the “victims” of disinformation. It’s “us” versus “them.” There is no attempt to see if maybe the “crunchy” moms are on to something, so how on earth are they going to be talked to on the same level?

The author of the article doesn’t mention how. And I’m reminded of this quote (which I shared before) from a study on vaccine hesitancy.

“I think we need to avoid the trap of thinking that information or knowledge is enough, because for a lot of the people, and when you look at hesitancy and parental vaccine hesitancy in the US, the group who is most likely to purposefully choose to not vaccinate are highly educated. In speaking with them, these are people who have read the primary literature themselves, and they’re correctly interpreting it, so it’s not a misunderstanding. They have other concerns that go beyond the traditional public health message of, ‘This is what you should be doing.’”

— Emily Brunson, MPH, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Anthropology at Texas State University - You can download the guide to COVID-19 vaccine communications on the archive of their website.

The people who actually study why humans might be hesitant to get a vaccine, know that vaccine hesitant people are smart and understand the data. The idea that the “true-believers” in vaccines could talk to them on their level and change their minds is utterly ridiculous and honestly prideful.

That should probably be my last point. To write the UnHerd article, Rosie had to be prideful that she was “correct.” Pride is a lifting up oneself as smarter or better than another person, in this case the incorrect naive “crunchy moms.” It takes a lot of pride to write an article like that. The article’s point seems to be that “crunchy moms” are stupid and fall for RFK’s propaganda and Democrats who are smarter should be able to “save” them but willfully won’t. There’s no explanation as to why the Democrats won’t.

Do you agree with me on my reasoning for why they won’t? That they’ve made anti-vaxxers untouchable?

The UnHerd article just seems to be a puffing up of oneself, lowering down of “crunchy moms” and attacking the “persecutor” RFK/Trump administration as harming those “poor moms”. It’s an emotional Drama Triangle propaganda piece, nothing more.

If you enjoyed my article, you may enjoy the following one:

BTC Donation Address: bc1q4s6h8rhyqawqlz46ppc3zc5v43duycp8m57h9p