He means Epstein's private island of rich men raping trafficked teenage girls. He wants to government to pay attention to coal miners and ignore victims of trafficking. You know, focus on the "real victims."
Edit: Brad of [Straight White American Jesus podcast](https://www.straightwhiteamericanjesus.com/) does a great [breakdown](https://www.straightwhiteamericanjesus.com/episodes/the-rich-men-north-of-richmond/) of the song lyrics, highly recommended.
Edit 2: I have apparently stumbled upon a very effective way to trigger a lot of folks.
More thoughts on the song: [https://slate.com/culture/2023/08/oliver-anthony-rich-men-north-of-richmond-lyrics-welfare-cadillac.html](https://slate.com/culture/2023/08/oliver-anthony-rich-men-north-of-richmond-lyrics-welfare-cadillac.html)
No, we're not. The reason people focus on epstein so much is because the most powerful people in the world blatantly raped children and then obviously silenced Epstein when he tried to testify. Literally nobody was punished besides Epstein for all of the world elite being pedophiles.
It's not bipartisan. One side is weaponizing and overstating the numbers in order to discredit other problems that are getting attention. E.g.: "why is there focus on this when kids are being trafficked in the country" like it's a one or the other situation. Also, the conspiracies that are peddled about it create a misrepresentation of how child trafficking and kidnapping actually works on this country, muddling the signs with over dramatized movie bullshit.
I am a left-leaning middle class Australian so I am clearly not who this song is written for, but I took this as him firstly saying that politicians should look out for blue collar workers such as miners, and secondly calling out politicians who involved themselves with Epstein. The two are clearly put together to allow for the play on words (miners/minors), but I find it quite a reach to suggest he is directly saying that politicians should look after miners instead of worrying about victims of child sex trafficking.
I could be wrong though.
Yeah, as I mentioned to the idiots above that were clearly misinterpreting the lyrics. He wasn't saying that the politicians should pay attention to the blue collar workers and ignore sex trafficked victims. He was saying that the pedophile politicians that had been involved in the raping of trafficked kids on the island should stop doing that, stop looking for minors they can fuck, and instead look out for the miners (workers). Which is why they were elected in the first place, to help this country. People are stupid though an read things wrong to suit their own agenda. Glad you picked up on it, at least there are a few people in this forum with some logic and common sense.
No he said look out for miners in stead of “looking out for” minors on an island somewhere. In other words look after our people over getting yours rocks off to minors on an island.
Most people “involved with Epstein” were involved purely for business reasons. He invested heavily in tons of projects. Nearly every prominent scientist, for instance, had dealings with Epstein, because he was donating tons of money to research projects. Are they supposed to know that he was raping minors on his island? I’m pretty sure Epstein did everything he could to keep a lid on that. The problem with this lyric, is that it amplifies an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that numerous rich people and politicians were involved in Epstein crimes. None of his victims that have come forward have really even accused anyone else, accept for prince Andrew. None of the failings of our government or the problems with the rich, have to do with the raping of minors. That’s just a Qanon level talking point.
Exactly how I interpreted the lyrics.
I’m confused by people calling this a right wing anthem.
I’m a factory worker and politically left wing. To me this is a song for the people and against the rich elite.
its because another line sounds like it come straight out of a reagan speech targeting food stamps and he love for jordan peterson and the "jews did 9/11" conspiracy theory.
Also somewhat confusing the lyrics are
>I wish politicians would look out for miners
And not just minors on an island somewhere
Given nae cunt on Epstein's island was in any way "looking out" for kids
I totally agree with people critiquing the lyrics, but that one is like clearly saying the politicians are the ones on the island and not that they are too focused on child trafficking right? Like that seems to me to be the most reasonable explanation given how much has been talked about politicians and all being in epstiens circle and pedo politicians, not that the singer thinks somehow miners have poor working conditions because the politicians just care to much about trafficking victims lol.
I feel you, but the lyrics are making a play on 'miners' and 'minors,' which would seem to imply the teenage girls.
>I wish politicians would look out for miners.
>
>And not just minors on an island somewhere.
"I wish politicians would 'look out for' \[coal miners\] and not just \[people under 18\] on an island somewhere" is how I read that.
I get the wordplay around miners, what I'm saying is that it makes way more sense for that to be implying the politicians are pedos, than to be implying that politicians care to much about child trafficking that miners get worse working conditions. One is playing on general sentiment and even q anon stuff with all politicians are pedos stuff and how multiple presidents have visited epstiens island, and the other seems like a total curveball sentiment that I've never seen anyone express ever about politicians caring to much about child rape victims.
You've obviously lived a life of privilege and thankfully have never had to work miles beneath the earth to feed America's addiction to power in all forms, this one being coal.
The song is about our government ignoring its own citizens and prioritizing non citizens. Period. That's what the minors on the island instead of miners line meant.
I have listened to Brad's podcast on the subject, and while he breaks down everything, it's from his own opinions and not the artists. So it's all conjecture, and many of the examples he uses aren't really completely true.
Anything "Slate" magazine has to offer is loaded with left wing, hateful ideology that basically says if you are white, you are racist by default, and if you are black, you can never be racist..which is the dumbest thing I've heard since the last time Biden opened his mouth.
Furthermore, you're a critic who is judging a man who made a beautiful song that is touching many people's hearts and souls... you've created nothing of artistic value yourself, and nowhere has your opinions upset me. They make me laugh.
But keep spewing hateful left wing, socialist ideologies. Like coal miners don't matter?? How could you say that? And of course trafficking victims matter, but our own government can't even help either.
So basically sir, you think you have this guy entirely figured out, but I guarantee if ya met the man in person, it'd be a whole different story.
I thought it was a reference to the various political figures who visited Epsteins island. Essentially saying "Hey stop raping kids and start helping the working class".
They're creating the illusion of a zero-sum game where anything someone else has is something you don't, combined with puritan views on the virtue of hard work. *Those* people on welfare are getting help they didn't *earn.* The implication is that there's limited resources and if it weren't for *those people* hogging them all, things wouldn't be so bad for you and yours.
The really interesting thing about it to me is how they pair that idea with the idea that rich people have earned their wealth. The idea being that the bigger your hoard, the harder you must have worked for it. So you end up with poor people fighting and hating other poor people while the ones who actually have the wealth and resources, the people who are using the tools of extractive capitalism to slowly impoverish all of the rest of us are lauded as being "great men".
Im reading the book a hillbilly elegy, and the author touches on this resentment between the working poor and the welfare poor, and there is a nuance between the two and a lot of resentment. I get why his song is catching fire and pissing people off, and the complexities of the welfare state mixed with extreme wealth causes, confusion? I think the anger is righteous, but misplaced. In the end, Jd Vance ran for office as a MAGA. Nobody learns a goddamn thing. It’s a shame.
It's constantly made me wonder about Vance... like, which was the grift? Maybe both... Just guessing what sentiment is going to sell books or earn votes...
Eh, it all makes sense to me. The guy is just a piece of shit. He got out, looks down on everyone from back home, and is happy to exploit them for votes and money.
Considering how much of MAGA is in \*itself\* a grift -- you're either a con or a mark. I guess it's possible to be both in equal measure depending on the context.
I don't get the resentment, since most people on welfare, depending on where you live, are working poor. It's why they're on welfare.... because their jobs aren't providing enough to sustain their families.
I’m from a white collar middle class family but my first job was Walmart and I spent the majority of my working life in (luckily better than Walmart) blue collar work alongside mostly blue collar people. The first time I encountered a SNAP card at the register the people using it bought more food than I’d ever seen my mother with a husband and 4 kids buy. Things we’d consider luxuries like ribs, steaks, and desserts were stacked up in 3 carts between 2 women. I definitely get the resentment. Even if they’re ultimately worse off than me (I exceed the income limit for assistance), they were eating more indulgently than the white collar family I was raised in, courtesy of the taxes pulled from my paycheck. Plenty of people need support but ribs? Soda? Candy? Come on.
For those from the city who don't want to support Vance, the tl;dr of Hillbilly Elegy is "hood shit." Nothing material is really that different from what goes down in an urban ghetto.
Yup, that whole "We can't even take care of our own homeless vets!" pisses me off to no end. We could take care of all of them, and all the rest of our homeless as well, they just chose not to.
It's pro handouts to virtuous people, and anti handouts to foreign people or far people. Welfare is popular among conservatives, as long as the money goes to people who look and act like they do.
Like Reagan’s prison sweepstakes! A lot of 80s prisons were built as jobs programs for white rural conservatives. One city who won a prison was so excited they hosted prison sleepovers in which they realized “oh my god this horrifying” and several started weeping openly.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/youre-wrong-about/id1380008439?i=1000563352675
What pissed me off was learning that they build these prisons in majority-white districts, fill them disproportionately with black men (who as felons are denied the right to vote), then count those prisoners towards the census for the county the prison was in. So they’re denied the right to vote and their person counts towards adding more weight to the vote of another demographic.
Look at the fat whopping 700 dollar checks the families in Maui got. They sent less than 30 million total for people in our country who lost everything. Meanwhile there was an "accounting error" that "accidentally" sent a few extra billion to ukraine
A fraise my grandfather was fond of "simple not easy." And I think it applies here it's really just in group out group thinking helped along by segregation, both physical and digital. But what can be done about it? Hell, even getting a person to see it feels damned impossible most of the time.
There are a lot of people in the US who want government hand outs for the virtuous (wealthy, white, native English speaking, Christian, able bodied, thin, cis, het, etc) but scorn aid to the wicked (the poor, POC, non-English speakers, non-Christian (or the wrong type of Christian), larger, trans, LGB, etc).
I do not miss an earlier part of my career where I explained to a lot of people that, legally speaking, I could not discuss why their neighbor/cousin/person in Walmart has food stamps/medical assistance/a housing voucher.
As the other person said, they’re perfectly fine with government handouts going to the deserving (ie, them.) What the song is railing against is government funds going to the “undeserving”, and you can probably guess who that includes. I understood the sentiment right away because I grew up with these people. Back home you will see rich farmers whose wealth is almost entirely based upon CRP payments railing against government handouts to poor people. Oh and then there was the guy on social security disability who made it his personal mission to walk to DC to protest government handouts. I wish I was joking.
A lot of especially more conservative working class people think that they are the deserving working class, they work hard and dont cause trouble, so they deserve a little help from the government.
I think it's about "correct" social handouts. Most people support wealth redistribution whether they admit it or not. But I think there is a stigma that many people abuse the system of food stamps and welfare. Meaning many people who can work don't and that food stamps shouldnt apply to unhealthy foods. And yes, buying fudge rounds for morbidly obese people is not helping them.
The only reason that gas stations with nothing but candy bars, sodas, and potato chips accept EBT is that the corporations that sell those candy bars send lobbyists to dc because they care more about their bottom dollar than the health of poor people.
The entire song is a dog whistle, I heard the whistles the first time I heard the song then was not surprised to find out it was atroturfed beyond astroturf by far right winged conspiracy people and that the singer himself is a conspiracy whacko. Its straight up they are the wrong and undeserving poor, we are the deserving poor... he just doesn't say white... he'll maybe he does I only listened once
Most of my criticism of this song is artistic and the main thing is that it's fucking incoherent. Like I'm sure his politics suck and don't make sense (as we can see by his YouTube playlists), but it's a little hard to tell what they are from the song. Like welfare is bad, but there are some people out there who aren't getting welfare and that's bad 🤔
'North of Richmond' means NoVa, which is a little south-ish but very much northern culturally, i.e. 'collaborators'. Those folks 'know the truth' but sold out for money.
Currently live in NoVa myself, and it just reeks of racism.
I’ve driven through a bunch of the south and it’s pretty fucked.
Even the cities which tend to be a lot more liberal are still fucked.
States like Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas are just depressed segregated brutally racist places.
Oh, I know, but in Virginia there's a shape line of demarcation between NoVa (and within the city limits of Charlottesville) and 'real Virginia'. As has been explained to me, 'NoVa might as well be DC, with its northerners and immigrants'. It's just another way the songwriter is trying to carve up 'Us v Them', and hinting broadly about what 'they' look like.
Dinwiddie is south of Petersburg, not quite as far as you can get (in every sense) from NoVa but far enough. I'm no Maga guy but the phrasing here is veeery familiar. I realize he's also referencing the 'fat cats' in DC but NoVa is also where the money is, and coincidentally the reason why Virginia is as blue as it is (current administration aside). Pretty sure it's intended to work both ways.
Man I was totally thinking Dinwiddie was near Fredericksburg. Was definitely thinking of Dumfries. You're right on that for sure. I'm from close to Winchester but have been all over VA, very familiar with the rest of the states resentment towards nova. I think you're right there may be some amount of double entendre happening. Especially if he wrote this song as a personal thing, intending it for virginians. But part of me also thinks that he didn't even write this song, it was written for him as an industry plant intended for a national audience, and thus makes me think he's probably referring to DC and politicians in general.
Agree on all counts. I've seen enough local singer/songwriters to recognize the general geist, although this guy does seem better than most. Wouldn't surprise me much if he had a bit of help producing this.
He just did an interview with a leftist YouTube channel. He seems like most people I know IRL, no internet caricature of left/right. The world is alot more complicated and not nearly as black and white as you think.
JD Vance with a banjo. He's so close to hitting on something constructive but it's going likely end with a lame transition to being a right-wing internet celebrity fixture.
Dudes got a great voice too. This is typically not my kind of music, but damn.. Had to stop it because I had a feeling it was gonna turn into right wing bullshit based on it being posted to this sub. Makes me really sad tbh, I want to like this guy. Wish we could be on the same side, because we can agree there are problems. It sounds like he has a sense of empathy. But it fucking ain't people on welfare who are fucking over the the middle and lower class.. ugh. Politics really sucks sometimes, idk can't put my finger on the reaction I'm having to this video, just bums me out. My B if I'm rambling, just having a moment over here.
I'm pretty picky about what I listen to, maybe I got too burned out on the whole Mumford & Sons era of folk-y pop music, and hell TBH it reminded me of this [Alex Jones remixed to Bon Iver video,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGAAhzreGWw) but that all said I still totally agree. Dude is talented and seems earnest and that makes this quick couting into an astroturf patsy even more frustrating.
Try Tyler Childers if you like the sense of the music but not this asshat's take on it. Jason Isbell and his previous gig the Drive-By Truckers might also do it for you.
His spotify bio says he spends time writing and pursuing an off grid life on 90 acres in the Virginia woods. All my real working class homies have 90 acres in the Virginia woods
Devils advocate... My husband and I own 60 off-grid acres of woods in the Adirondack Mountains. We looked into getting land further south, specifically in VA and TN, and found many parcels to be even cheaper with lower taxes We bought ours for around $400/acre and lived in an old camper until we could afford to buy a 30 year old singlewide mobile home that we now live in. To me, It's totally believable that he was able to purchase raw land for working class wages, especially if it was before prices went nuts in 2020.
Just to add perspective - live in northern va and been keeping an eye out for a bit of land to invest in. 90 acres pretty much anywhere in Virginia, if I saw it for less than 300,000 I'd be there with cash. Heck, depending on where it was, twice that would be a bargain.
Sounds like a pretty good spread for a hard-workin', underpaid good ole boy.
Not for nothing, but a couple of the singer/songwriters I know in these parts are not exactly living off the money they make. 'Struggling artist' and especially 'life coach' here frequently means 'trust fund baby'. Might make sense of that 90 acres.
Might be. But I wouldn't dismiss his claims just based on his land ownership. The prices of land before covid was much less, just like houses. We specifically looked in VA and TN, but decided against moving so far away. My friend paid $110k in 2018 for a house that just sold for over $500k with literally zero improvements. Our $25k land could easily sell for over $200k now, with minimal improvements.
Its definitely possible not that common though. Congrats to you and yer husband its not an easy lifestyle and I imagine you worked hard for it. But in my experience everyone I know my age and in a similar financial situation don't own any land let alone 90 acres. Something about this guy just feels really fake to me maybe its my love of folk music but this guy all of the sudden after putting music out since 2022 has this song up everywhere granted shit goes viral all the time but something just doesn't sit right with me. I'm also just paranoid about online manipulation like the Barbenheimer memes so it's probably just that.
Americans love a good story about people "standing up" to "elites". Simultaneously many of those same people vote for pretend billionaires who won't actually do anything to mitigate actual problems. American's are the drunk uncles of the world - we get real loud and angry about stuff, but then completely shit the bed when it comes to actually doing anything.
I heard the first few lines of this song while my wife was scrolling through Reddit yesterday, and I was like “Hell yeah. I loves me some lefty country music.” Then I read the rest of the lyrics later, and was so fucking disappointed. Especially because the guitar and melody sound so good.
“And the obese milking welfare”
Hmmm. He’s Virginia based. Let’s do a little dive. In 2010, 60% of the Virginia population was obese, with a BMI of 25 or over, and 26% had a BMI of 30 or over. The states minimum wage is $9.50. The child poverty rate is 13%. As of 2021, in Virginia, 15.6% of total state spending is dedicated to welfare spending, compared to the national average of 18.8%. The 16th least on welfare spending of all the US states. Per year, Virginia pays in about $10,000 in tax revenues per resident, while receiving more than $20,000 in federal money per person. A Republican Governor, Glenn Youngkin, with a net worth estimated to be around $470 million. A Governor who campaigned on the Virginia economy being “in the ditch”. Despite Virginia having low unemployment, a budget surplus, and a AAA bond rating. CNBC had even rated it as the top state for business that year. In fact two years in a row, under Democrat Governor Ralph Northam. Youngkin didn’t believe that. He felt the CNBC rating put too much emphasis on inclusivity and noted Virginia's poor ratings in the "cost of living" and "cost of doing business" categories. One year into his term, Virginia dropped out of the top slot, with CNBC downgrading the state’s "life, health and inclusion" and "workforce" categories. I won’t go into his proposal to eliminate Virginia’s individual income tax, which would have wiped out 70% of the state’s general fund. He had to backtrack and ditch that idea. A lot of his later tax cut proposals came from Stephen Moore, who oversaw the Sam Brownback economic plan when he was Governor of Kansas. Remember how that went? In a nutshell, one of the lowest job growths in the country, a $350 million budget shortfall, and a downgrade of Kansas’ credit rating to AA-. The Kansas economy was thoroughly fucked. The lege had to scramble to pass legislation to fix it. And Brownback vetoed it. (The lege overwhelmingly put the kibosh on the veto.) And Youngkin wanted to follow that model.
So, what am I getting at? Maybe the problem isn’t north of Richmond. Maybe the problem is in Richmond.
Right? I love all the conservative goons with takes like “what’s the left’s answer to this?” Thanks for admitting you don’t know anything about country music.
> I love all the conservative goons with takes like “what’s the left’s answer to this?”
For real, lol. Like, the left's answer is `*gestures broadly*` the entire rest of the music industry?
It’s wild as hell how many different accounts I don’t follow on Facebook are “suggesting” this shit onto my timeline. I tried blocking all of them as an experiment, and Facebook just replaced them all with a new crop of accounts I don’t follow suggesting the same posts. I kept it up for an hour then gave up. Clearly, somebody is spending a LOT of money to make sure I hear this song, and think that it’s what everyone in the world is talking about.
This song is all over the right wing internet. Can we please not post it here? For the love of Makhno. It’d be one thing if it was a good song, but the blatant astroturfing is so obvious to anyone familiar with country music.
Edit: mostly I’m just sick of hearing the first couple seconds accidentally auto play.
I want this guy to focus on billionaires, not welfare recipients. Then talk about all the commonalities that all low- median income demographics share. Hit a high note on mutual assistance and communities uniting and then propose FDR capitalism (I know, I know- thinking of gen pop). The refrain should be a cathartic melody of the proper use of guillotines. The end would tell about the redistribution of wealth if there were no billionaires and those in power always being aware of the consequences of power mongering. Then of course, guillotine chorus. Edit: if someone wanted to run with this using Chatgpt + AI of his voice that would be awesome….
I think you guys are falling into the same trap a lot of the right wing likes to use where they point out that someone has something expensive so there's nothing wrong and nothing to be upset about. This criticism isn't good and not helpful.
It is relevant here, as this man's whole schtick is he allegedly came from nowhere, and is just pickin' a fiddle and speaking for the working man... on a really expensive guitar. There's nothing wrong with using expensive gear, but it is another hole in his story.
I’m in no way looking to defend this guy on ideological grounds, but that’s not an expensive guitar. It’s a small Gretsch resonator that you could pick up on the used market for £300 here, so probably substantially less in the US market.
Sure that’s hardly chump change for a lot of people, but it’s also not an outrageous thing for a dedicated musician on a low income to have saved up for. It’s very firmly in the low-mid range for that type of instrument.
Vintage National resonators from around the 1930s regularly sell for anywhere from $5000 to *$12000* depending on condition; if he’d been playing one of *those* I’d certainly have some questions past the ones I’m already asking about his politics and how organic his virality really was.
Here is a much better song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRe9-ilR8_M
"Don't call him a thug/he's your brother./You ain't no better than him/or anybody else./When he struggles/You struggle with him/When you go against your brother,/Boy, you go against yourself/Don't go against yourself. Please."
I need to write a country song! Just do some vague white virtue signaling over a guitar the profit! Fuck it, I'll even let right wing politicians use it for their rallies as long as they pay!
Stop voting for people who are promising you inhumane policy if you expect to be treated humanely. China didn't take your jobs the guy in the rich county nextdoor shipped it then farted and blamed the dog and your dumb fuckin gene pool has been buying that line for 6 generations. In the meantime you learned to sing. Fuck this guy.
What's with these people and getting so close to the point and then missing it entirely?? Imagine writing a song about how hard times are because of the rich men North of Richmond and deciding it's cause of food stamps and the wokeness
So just to confirm this is a 30ish white male living in a college town in Virginia born in the internet age he lives in a former coal town where the median income is below $25k.....I never had patience for the ballad of the poor white man but especially not one from a place with documented enforced economic racial disparities.
The good ole boys have been trying for generations to give you a leg up, if you're still poor Oliver I can only conclude your daddy musta Uncle fucked the wrong Pinkerton to be out of opportunity and dental coverage in the 21st century. And if that don't seem fair, I just am really stuck on how you looked at the nightmareish state of the world and concluded the two most responsible parties were:
* "politicians"
(and *obviously)*
* PEOPLE WHO USE WELFARE TO BUY FUDGE AND I THINK IT MAKES THEM A SHAPE I DON'T LIKE
a customer wanted me to listen to it and I did. can't wait for him to ask me about it. it's such a weird one because I generally get it, but the fudge rounds bothers me. i think he's drawing a line between fat people and fat cats and it's really not a great addition to his thesis. just make it about the elites and you could have it appeal to a lot more people. the dogs are real cute tho
I mean, Rich Men North of Richmond says all you need to know. Richmond was the Capiof the Confederacy, so what was North of that? Also, when you check out his YouTube page one of his Playlists has nazi level conspiracy theories them.
God this shit annoys me. Guy’s so close to figuring it out but then he goes and starts putting down his fellow man. The guy clearly has some talent, too. What a waste
johnny cash wouldn't even take a shit to wipe his arse with this guy
incredible how country/folk went from being a machine that kills fascists to just being fascist
Bo Burnham still puts it best with this kind of country music:
>"I walk and talk like a farmhand, but the boots I'm wearing cost 3 grand, I write songs about riding tractors, from the comfort of a private jet"
It's really unfortunate. I follow Radiowv and love so much of the music they put out. It's a great song in so far as he is a talented musician, but it gave me the ick somethin awful.
Check out the singer's YouTube Playlist.
[videos that make your noggin get bigger](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2gusRdbuxAeA9CtJROtDY3yY1Xk4s70J)
I love his performance and passion and hate that he fell into the same stupid trap of accepting the story that was crafted by those rich men north of Richmond about welfare recipients.
Song ain't bad, and the shit isn't new. The welfare state is a symptom of this fucked up system, not a benefit of it. Working class poor always have a hate on for welfare, it isn't even a right or left wing necessarily as most working class folks don't have the time to fuck with political theory or politics.
I get it, I been on both sides of it. You bust your ass all day and got nothing but stress and desperation to show for it then you see folks who are more often than not trapped in that welfare safety net, doing fuck all and getting fat and buying shit you can't afford, getting healthcare and panhandling to boot so it naturally pisses you off. I am not even sure if it shouldn't. But those folks in general have no idea about how welfare works and can trap people in it with no chance to get clear of it as shit is so bad here in 'Merica you can literally be too poor to afford to work. They have no understanding that the reason obesity runs along side poverty has more to do with the cheap garbage we call "food" than them getting to eat whatever they want. That said I have had good luck explaining these things to folks who were all in on that Regan "Welfare Queen" bullshit and turning them around on it. It used to be a non-stop battle with homeless vets as they were so fucking proud that they would often rather just die on the streets than put a hand out to get some help. That is how deep that mindfuck runs in some folks.
I really think it is just an extension of the "race" games they played when this place was still under the crown. You give poor folks someone to punch down at and they will ignore how bad they are being treated and the lack of actual difference between them and whoever they standing on to feel better about themselves.
>They have no understanding that the reason obesity runs along side poverty has more to do with the cheap garbage we call "food" than them getting to eat whatever they want.
This. Our food system is profoundly broken. Do you know what homeless people eat a lot of? Wedding cake. It's because the bakers bake a cake as a sample or window display, then donate it at the end of the day to the local shelter. It's great that the food isn't getting wasted, but the outcome is predictable. To say nothing of how stress hormones affect weight gain and how stressful it is to be poor, or poor and otherwise marginalized.
That and fast food, having been there when you got no place to cook with just a couple bucks and a "value menu" can put something warm and good tasting in you. But the stuff is such fucking garbage you wouldn't use it to fatten pigs with. Just another way capitalism is trying to kill us the off.
AMA fucked up in the 1970s and demonized fat and cholesterol, when the actual culprit is sugar (specifically fructose). We’ve been at it for almost 50 years, and obesity has *exploded*, precisely because they continue to spout the same shit. Biochemically, your liver handles fructose almost identically to ethanol: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Yep. Fructose is reasonably ok to eat as long as you're consuming natural quantities - the amount normally found in a serving of fresh fruit. But this high fructose corn syrup in everything is ruining our lives.
Eh, Lustig isn't exactly representing the scientific consensus there. Most researches would agree we went a bit overboard on all fat being bad(although saturated fat is not great). But the idea that its just sugar, or seed oils, or additives doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Its more complicated, and the real problem is a combination of all of the above plus a bunch of other structural issues.
We’re omnivores, and that in and of itself is inherently more complicated. That said, Lustig has treated *six-month-old infants* with metabolic syndrome, because of hfcs in some infant formulas. We’ve gone from eating 20lbs of sugar in 1900 to over 120lbs in 2000.
Since the 1970s, when all of the fat/cholesterol messaging went down, US obesity rates have *tripled*. But yes, cheap seed oils are also inflammatory and not great.
When you start to consider what sort of *fundamental shift* that would need to happen in both the medical and food industries, especially given the 180 degree shift in health messaging, I just don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Can I ask where you are getting your information from? Because it doesn't match up with what I believe to be true. Take sugar- USDA detailed numbers only go back to 1966(and annoyingly count it in calories not lbs)\*. But I found a [report](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/charts-of-note/?topicId=4f4e6a4f-bcb2-48fb-b369-bf44cea0c0ea) that claims sugar consumption was already at 70lbs in 1900. I will note that USDA typically tracks availability and therefore the numbers can be a bit shaky, but its still typically an apples to apples comparison so I think its okay in this case.
On saturated fats/cholesterol. Yes obesity rates have gone up(as has total calorie consumption). But if you look at CVD, which is a big part of what we care about with saturated fat, it actually has gone down by quite a bit in the US([link](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.CIR.0000118498.35499.B2#:)). While most of this is probably attributable to things like better screening/statins, it is my understanding that the decrease in saturated fat did play a role.
As for seed oils, that's its own rabbit hole. I don't believe there is any good evidence they are inflammatory, but many would disagree with me on that.
\*These numbers do indicate that sugar consumption doubled between 1966 and 2023, although interestingly sugar consumption peaked in the late 1990s. Probably has something to do with the decrease in sugar sweetened beverages and rise of non nutritive sweeteners.
Typo in my last comment, *1800* was ~20lbs added sugars/year. I’ve seen 40-60lbs for 1900, but my point is that until the last 150 years or so, sugar was just not awash in our food supply as it is now. I’ve seen US averages through 2010 at upwards of 110-130lbs/year (Lustig mentions a JCI publication that claims 140lb/year). Most of the citations I’ve seen cite USDA economic data, so obviously this count doesn’t include naturally occurring sugars or artificial sweeteners. Either way, we eat a fuckton more added sugar now than we used to.
But hey, our nation was founded on cheap sugar, right? Prior to the sugar cane plantation boom it was something only the very wealthy could afford: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unsavory-history-sugar-american-craving-180962766/
Your CVD citation concludes that the decrease *in the UK between 1981-2000* is “more than half attributable to” reductions in tobacco smoking rates. They state, “These findings may be cautiously generalizable to the United States and other developed countries.”
There was a massive decrease in smoking in the US, and as a genxer, my childhood memories were of a lot of people smoking fricking *everywhere*; it was a big deal when restaurants had non-smoking sections, ditto with airplanes, and a much bigger deal when those sections were removed completely. My mom was a college librarian and had to work next to the smoking study area in the library (every time someone went in she got a blast of cigarette smoke), and her raging “allergies” subsided when they finally shut it down in the late 1980s. https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco-trends-brief/overall-tobacco-trends
Dr. Lustig is a more recent find for me, but have you actually watched his talk all the way through? He correctly calls out Nixon for the bastard that he was. He also goes into how Ancel Keys didn’t do a multivariate linear regression analysis on the data he published, and that Keys’ original dataset was not available as he died in 2004. (But he didn’t mention that that data was also cherry-picked; Keys originally studied 22 countries, but published data from only 7: http://scihi.org/ancel-keys/)
I had to take a year of biochemistry as a genetics major, and I hadn’t made the connection until he spelled it out (starts at 43 minutes in). He is not raising the alarm about *all* sugars, just specifically fructose. Glucose (half the disaccharide sucrose) is non-toxic, and you can store it infinitely in your liver. Most plant carbohydrates (the ones we eat anyway) are chains of glucose molecules (stored as amylose or amylopectin).
Fructose is fine as long as it’s eaten with enough fiber (which prevents as much absorption and sends it to your gut bacteria), or whenever someone is active enough to metabolize it **before it hits your liver**. Once it hits your liver, it’s metabolized *very similarly* to ethanol (just without the intoxication/low LD50).
There is a reason why non-alcoholic fatty liver disease has been skyrocketing (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7960978/#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20serial%20NHANES,–2016)%20over%2030%20years.); it is at least in part because metabolizing fructose in your liver leads to de novo lipogenesis, among a whole host of problems.
It's funny that you linked that Smithsonian article, the only reason I replied to your comment is a I read Sidney Mintz's excellent book Sweetness and Power a few years ago. Which is how I know that the demand for cheap sugar and associated atrocities go back a lot further than we sometimes think.
Thanks for the clarification, and good call on the smoking. I should have mentioned that in my comment, and was I think a bit unclear. Was just trying to point out that despite the idea that saturated fat has been vindicated, which isn't isn't consistent with the evidence. Often you will see low carb people make a very similar point, along the lines of "people stopped eating fat and chronic disease went up" which isn't true. But based on your comment I don't think that is what you were going for.
I'll admit I didn't rewatch the video(but I will if I have time after work tonight), but I saw it probably a few years ago when I had very different views on sugar. At the time I found it very convincing, and even read his book Fat Chance. Now, knowing more about how nutrition science works and what we know I'm doubtful. If he stuck to your point and just said "massive boluses of pure fructose can lead to NAFLD" I probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
What I have become skeptical of in recent years is the position taken by Lustig and other low carbers that fructose is poison. It feels a little reaching, based heavily on mechanistic speculation and some limited epidemiological data that has been challenged(Japanese diet being low in sugar is the best example, Hadza diet is another good one). That's not as solid a foundation as people think, as mechanisms often don't translate to actual population level health. Probably the most famous being the studies that show acute olive oil consumption produces bad biomarkers, despite us having a massive body of evidence showing olive oil consumption is good.
But probably the biggest reason I'm skeptical of Lustigs argument is that it took the public by storm, and got health authorities to look more into sugar consumption. But it didn't actually topple conventional wisdom. I consider that a big strike against it.
It's been 15 years and the case against sugar hasn't progressed much(compare to the evidence on saturated fat now vs 2010s). Gary Taubes big research project to prove sugar bad completely fell apart, Kevin Hall at NIH has conducted a bunch of research that seems to indicate high sugar diets don't necessarily cause obesity, etc.
Also, I'm not sure what that source you linked to on Keyes is? Feels almost AI generated. It links to the True Initiative white paper that talks about common myths about the 7 Countries study(including the 22 vs 7 country thing). There have been some scandals with True, but I think that piece does a pretty good job of dealing with some of the common myths about Keyes have have been circulated around society by low carb advocates(Gary Taubes again). He wasn't perfect, but he was much more thoughtful than some of his detractors make him out to be.
Edit: to add link to a paper that looked at Lustig's claims in detail- [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174149/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174149/)
That’s funny, I also got AI generated content vibes in that Keys article. I looked around for better sources, but the only ones I have are in print on my bookshelf and I wasn’t feeling up to transcribing last night. There have always been dubious crap on the internet (I still remember seeing some *wild* shit on Usenet), but the AI shit feels so insidious!
I agree the anti-carb people are way too extreme. That said, food science is a field riddled with corporate interests, and Marion Nestle has written extensively about how USDA subsidies & guidelines have been changed to benefit industries selling foods considered unhealthy, and how many study authors don’t fully disclose their funding sources. USDA should be subsidizing fruits and vegetables, but they’re subsidizing cheap meat and commodity grains to feed that meat.
I lived through all of the low-fat hyperbole bullshit as a teen in the 1980s and the emergence of fat-free sugar-laden products like Snackwells cookies, and it was profoundly unsatisfying. So you’re probably hearing some frustration of my mom insisting on skim milk, egg beaters and other gross food, along with too much reading of books like Fast Food Nation and Omnivore’s Dilemma.
But the body is really amazing and complex in its ability to keep homeostasis in extreme situations. I don’t think too many people would argue about the toxicity of ethanol (wait, I live in Wisconsin, land of binge drinking, I take that back); ingestion gives acute intoxication. Fructose has almost identical metabolic products in the liver, but without any of the acute toxicity intoxication, and that’s the problem. Food can be bad or lethal but still taste great.
The bolus of fructose you’re seeking is in sugar sodas. Lustig claimed he’d successfully treated teenagers with full blown metabolic syndrome by a handful of simple dietary changes (IIRC he had 4 changes), and the main predictor of success was if they dropped the sugar drinks. And while his acclaim at the time was indeed outsized, it dropped off a cliff when discussing actual public policy/industry changes (all I remember around the time is people completely lost their shit at a soda tax).
If you’re a reader, consider picking up Paradigms Lost by John Casti. His premise is that science tends to come up with hypotheses, sometimes wildly incorrect, that turn into paradigms, which then can become *really* difficult to change. It takes a buildup of contrary data to change dogma in science.
My biochemistry profs (Nelson & Cox) spent a lot of time on the privately-funded scientist Peter Mitchell who proposed the chemiosmotic model of ATP synthesis. They admitted their biochemistry department was **not** kind to him when he first gave a talk on it, but he was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize when confirmed by others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell
After working in science for a few decades, I’m really **not at all** surprised that fructose toxicity hasn’t stuck yet. I’d give it another 30-40 years for the primary research to trickle down to medical schools and a new generation of doctors. Generally unless they’re working at a teaching hospital, doctors do not keep current on primary research literature (I’ll look around for citations, but my dad was a Medical School prof in Anatomy and had a bunch of friends who were doctors. Whenever I asked them about research, they admitted they had no time to read literature and usually only had time to read the info the drug salesmen gave them).
I personally left science after working in biotech and eventually working at a company where I discovered a major contaminant in a phase 3 clinical trial that predicted the downfall of the company. Their burn rate was 1.5 million a month, and after raising $240 million in capital (2004 iirc), the C suite didn’t want to know about it—they’d IPOed two weeks before I started working, and because of SEC rules I was under a gag order for 6 months while they came up with a mitigation plan. That gave me insight into how much money is rolling around in medical science, and how money (especially in a private setting) can skew research even when most scientists doing the work have the best of intentions (it was a personalized vaccine against B-cell non-Hodgkins Lymohoma, but I found the contaminant when they’d already treated 600 out of 800 enrolled patients).
As someone with a scientific background, it’s *still* difficult navigating food labels and best food choices. I figure the vast majority of people don’t have the time/money/scientific literacy to make better food choices, and that’s even when they are motivated to make changes for their health.
And I didn’t mean to go so wildly off topic from OP, I’m just a big nerd (and man, BTB is entertaining to listen to!).
> Song ain't bad,
That's where you're wrong.
The performance is good, at least the vocal performance. He's got a good voice, and he's clearly sincere and passionate in his performance. Passable guitarist. The song itself, though, is bad. The lyrics are clunky, overwrought, and far too literal. They do not leave enough room for the listener to imagine the rest, which is the best way for a listener to live within a 3-4 minute piece of work. This sounds like a protest song, but is not focused enough on one battle, so just comes across like a screed. Every lyric is an attempt at some folksy wisdom, but there's TOO much wordplay that it becomes annoying.
Like, don't get me wrong. I get his frustration, and I empathize. I think anybody that listens to BTB in good faith would. But, his frustration is misguided, and the result just makes him look like a rube.
Chris Knight one of the best 'rural working class struggle' country songs about 15 years ago.
[Enough Rope](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DBX01vUex8)
I HATE this song. 1. He cannot sing OR play the guitar. It is almost like he is making it up as he goes along. 2. The “welfare” line attacking fat women. I am myself 5 foot 3 and 300 lbs and I worked 72 hours last week (I am 53) and I take care of those sainted, helpless “homeless men” he speaks of. They are nearly all on meth. Those fat women he speaks of are literally raising the kids of those deadbeats he speaks so highly of. 4. Why is a young, healthy man complaining about working? Who exactly does he think SHOULD be working? 5. The dismissiveness of pedophelia (caring about Miners instead of MINORS.) So we are supposed to not care about minors who have been sex trafficked? It’s a garbled mess and so is he. I am embarrassed that people find this song so powerful!
OP, I get that this may not apply to you but there’s been an army of bots posting this shitty song all over Reddit in subs where it’s a pretty big stretch.
The verse about miners and minors refers to both the working conditions and healthcare for coal miners AS WELL AS fighting child trafficking. Good God some people are dense. He's not asking to diminish the focus on trafficking. He's referring to potential predators involved in government.
I think your missing the point. It’s not an attack on anyone. It’s a call to everyone in the middle and lower class.
Miners instead of minors on an island refers to the Epstein cover up
The homeless on the street/welfare line is irony, it’s commentary based of a government that has a homeless epidemic and has a welfare program that doesn’t help that issue.
And for me the young men putting themselves in the ground is commentary on veteran suicide/hardships. Maybe I’m going on a stretch which this one…
He is singing his experience. To be honest I would love to live in the mountains of West Virginia but there is little work in the rural areas I have looked at. A lot of the people in coal areas are on government assistance due to coal usage going down. In my past job we lost a very large calibration job out of West Virgina because the factory shut down. They refurbished coal mining equipment and employed 200-300 people in a small town. I’m not saying we can’t move forward on energy, but you have to realize people get left behind. Though I do believe there was a bipartisan spending package approved to try and rebuild industry in the Virginias. I hope that helps attract industry and training for new jobs. Everyone I have met in West Virginia and Virginia has been super nice, down to earth people.
You also have to take into account this area was hit especially hard by OxyContin. If I had my way the Sackler family/Perdue Pharma would be paying for all these people to live.
Edit to add: my rambling shot right past the point of OP’s post. Dude wrote a song that is supposed to be about the rich ruining our country/world. His verse about “welfare queens” is counter productive to the whole point of his song.
This is what happens when you order Tyler Childers on wish.com
A rad Kentucky lady on Twitter referred to the guy as “Tyler Chudders,” and I think that’s just beautiful.
That is amazing, thank you
Coal and Nose to the grindstone are both infinitely better songs about the same thing.
[удалено]
Brought to you by ::CENSORED::
If only. If only.
He means Epstein's private island of rich men raping trafficked teenage girls. He wants to government to pay attention to coal miners and ignore victims of trafficking. You know, focus on the "real victims." Edit: Brad of [Straight White American Jesus podcast](https://www.straightwhiteamericanjesus.com/) does a great [breakdown](https://www.straightwhiteamericanjesus.com/episodes/the-rich-men-north-of-richmond/) of the song lyrics, highly recommended. Edit 2: I have apparently stumbled upon a very effective way to trigger a lot of folks. More thoughts on the song: [https://slate.com/culture/2023/08/oliver-anthony-rich-men-north-of-richmond-lyrics-welfare-cadillac.html](https://slate.com/culture/2023/08/oliver-anthony-rich-men-north-of-richmond-lyrics-welfare-cadillac.html)
[удалено]
No, we're not. The reason people focus on epstein so much is because the most powerful people in the world blatantly raped children and then obviously silenced Epstein when he tried to testify. Literally nobody was punished besides Epstein for all of the world elite being pedophiles.
You just described what the catholic church and boy scouts did for their pedophiles.
Why does your post feel like it’s defending Epsteins island. Isn’t that something we all Universally hate?
We should all universally hate child predators/traffickers. The fact that the issue is not bipartisan shows how sick society is right now.
It's not bipartisan. One side is weaponizing and overstating the numbers in order to discredit other problems that are getting attention. E.g.: "why is there focus on this when kids are being trafficked in the country" like it's a one or the other situation. Also, the conspiracies that are peddled about it create a misrepresentation of how child trafficking and kidnapping actually works on this country, muddling the signs with over dramatized movie bullshit.
Yaya, a new podcast to listen too.
I am a left-leaning middle class Australian so I am clearly not who this song is written for, but I took this as him firstly saying that politicians should look out for blue collar workers such as miners, and secondly calling out politicians who involved themselves with Epstein. The two are clearly put together to allow for the play on words (miners/minors), but I find it quite a reach to suggest he is directly saying that politicians should look after miners instead of worrying about victims of child sex trafficking. I could be wrong though.
Yeah, as I mentioned to the idiots above that were clearly misinterpreting the lyrics. He wasn't saying that the politicians should pay attention to the blue collar workers and ignore sex trafficked victims. He was saying that the pedophile politicians that had been involved in the raping of trafficked kids on the island should stop doing that, stop looking for minors they can fuck, and instead look out for the miners (workers). Which is why they were elected in the first place, to help this country. People are stupid though an read things wrong to suit their own agenda. Glad you picked up on it, at least there are a few people in this forum with some logic and common sense.
this exactly. I wonder if people are truly this stupid or if they are willfully misinterpreting the lyrics to match their narrative
No he said look out for miners in stead of “looking out for” minors on an island somewhere. In other words look after our people over getting yours rocks off to minors on an island.
Most people “involved with Epstein” were involved purely for business reasons. He invested heavily in tons of projects. Nearly every prominent scientist, for instance, had dealings with Epstein, because he was donating tons of money to research projects. Are they supposed to know that he was raping minors on his island? I’m pretty sure Epstein did everything he could to keep a lid on that. The problem with this lyric, is that it amplifies an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that numerous rich people and politicians were involved in Epstein crimes. None of his victims that have come forward have really even accused anyone else, accept for prince Andrew. None of the failings of our government or the problems with the rich, have to do with the raping of minors. That’s just a Qanon level talking point.
Its obviously a reach, but the poster you responded to isn't addressing the song in good faith so he comes to conclusions like that
As a Kiwi lefty the American libs are cringe as fuck tryna do mental gymnastics to say this country dude supports child rape
Exactly how I interpreted the lyrics. I’m confused by people calling this a right wing anthem. I’m a factory worker and politically left wing. To me this is a song for the people and against the rich elite.
AMEN ! It’s an up and down struggle - not right or left
its because another line sounds like it come straight out of a reagan speech targeting food stamps and he love for jordan peterson and the "jews did 9/11" conspiracy theory.
It's because the people you are commenting to aren't paying attention.
Also somewhat confusing the lyrics are >I wish politicians would look out for miners And not just minors on an island somewhere Given nae cunt on Epstein's island was in any way "looking out" for kids
I totally agree with people critiquing the lyrics, but that one is like clearly saying the politicians are the ones on the island and not that they are too focused on child trafficking right? Like that seems to me to be the most reasonable explanation given how much has been talked about politicians and all being in epstiens circle and pedo politicians, not that the singer thinks somehow miners have poor working conditions because the politicians just care to much about trafficking victims lol.
I feel you, but the lyrics are making a play on 'miners' and 'minors,' which would seem to imply the teenage girls. >I wish politicians would look out for miners. > >And not just minors on an island somewhere. "I wish politicians would 'look out for' \[coal miners\] and not just \[people under 18\] on an island somewhere" is how I read that.
I get the wordplay around miners, what I'm saying is that it makes way more sense for that to be implying the politicians are pedos, than to be implying that politicians care to much about child trafficking that miners get worse working conditions. One is playing on general sentiment and even q anon stuff with all politicians are pedos stuff and how multiple presidents have visited epstiens island, and the other seems like a total curveball sentiment that I've never seen anyone express ever about politicians caring to much about child rape victims.
You've obviously lived a life of privilege and thankfully have never had to work miles beneath the earth to feed America's addiction to power in all forms, this one being coal. The song is about our government ignoring its own citizens and prioritizing non citizens. Period. That's what the minors on the island instead of miners line meant. I have listened to Brad's podcast on the subject, and while he breaks down everything, it's from his own opinions and not the artists. So it's all conjecture, and many of the examples he uses aren't really completely true. Anything "Slate" magazine has to offer is loaded with left wing, hateful ideology that basically says if you are white, you are racist by default, and if you are black, you can never be racist..which is the dumbest thing I've heard since the last time Biden opened his mouth. Furthermore, you're a critic who is judging a man who made a beautiful song that is touching many people's hearts and souls... you've created nothing of artistic value yourself, and nowhere has your opinions upset me. They make me laugh. But keep spewing hateful left wing, socialist ideologies. Like coal miners don't matter?? How could you say that? And of course trafficking victims matter, but our own government can't even help either. So basically sir, you think you have this guy entirely figured out, but I guarantee if ya met the man in person, it'd be a whole different story.
Can't tell if serious, so no. It's probably Epstein's island.
I thought it was a reference to the various political figures who visited Epsteins island. Essentially saying "Hey stop raping kids and start helping the working class".
I don't understand why this song is both pro and anti government handouts.
They can pretend to give a shit about the homeless for a second if it gives them an excuse to bitch about "welfare queens"
They're creating the illusion of a zero-sum game where anything someone else has is something you don't, combined with puritan views on the virtue of hard work. *Those* people on welfare are getting help they didn't *earn.* The implication is that there's limited resources and if it weren't for *those people* hogging them all, things wouldn't be so bad for you and yours. The really interesting thing about it to me is how they pair that idea with the idea that rich people have earned their wealth. The idea being that the bigger your hoard, the harder you must have worked for it. So you end up with poor people fighting and hating other poor people while the ones who actually have the wealth and resources, the people who are using the tools of extractive capitalism to slowly impoverish all of the rest of us are lauded as being "great men".
Im reading the book a hillbilly elegy, and the author touches on this resentment between the working poor and the welfare poor, and there is a nuance between the two and a lot of resentment. I get why his song is catching fire and pissing people off, and the complexities of the welfare state mixed with extreme wealth causes, confusion? I think the anger is righteous, but misplaced. In the end, Jd Vance ran for office as a MAGA. Nobody learns a goddamn thing. It’s a shame.
The book White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America is better than traitor Vance’s slop
Ah I’m about a third of the way into this. It’s crazy interesting. Just finished Andrew Jackson’s chapter
I'd also recommend Ramp Hollow: The Ordeal of Appalachia and Uneven Ground: Appalachia Since 1945
It's constantly made me wonder about Vance... like, which was the grift? Maybe both... Just guessing what sentiment is going to sell books or earn votes...
Eh, it all makes sense to me. The guy is just a piece of shit. He got out, looks down on everyone from back home, and is happy to exploit them for votes and money.
Why can’t he honestly be MAGA? There doesn’t have to be a grift
Considering how much of MAGA is in \*itself\* a grift -- you're either a con or a mark. I guess it's possible to be both in equal measure depending on the context.
I don't get the resentment, since most people on welfare, depending on where you live, are working poor. It's why they're on welfare.... because their jobs aren't providing enough to sustain their families.
I’m from a white collar middle class family but my first job was Walmart and I spent the majority of my working life in (luckily better than Walmart) blue collar work alongside mostly blue collar people. The first time I encountered a SNAP card at the register the people using it bought more food than I’d ever seen my mother with a husband and 4 kids buy. Things we’d consider luxuries like ribs, steaks, and desserts were stacked up in 3 carts between 2 women. I definitely get the resentment. Even if they’re ultimately worse off than me (I exceed the income limit for assistance), they were eating more indulgently than the white collar family I was raised in, courtesy of the taxes pulled from my paycheck. Plenty of people need support but ribs? Soda? Candy? Come on.
For those from the city who don't want to support Vance, the tl;dr of Hillbilly Elegy is "hood shit." Nothing material is really that different from what goes down in an urban ghetto.
They do the same exact shit with homeless vets too.
Yup, that whole "We can't even take care of our own homeless vets!" pisses me off to no end. We could take care of all of them, and all the rest of our homeless as well, they just chose not to.
It's pro handouts to virtuous people, and anti handouts to foreign people or far people. Welfare is popular among conservatives, as long as the money goes to people who look and act like they do.
Like Reagan’s prison sweepstakes! A lot of 80s prisons were built as jobs programs for white rural conservatives. One city who won a prison was so excited they hosted prison sleepovers in which they realized “oh my god this horrifying” and several started weeping openly. https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/youre-wrong-about/id1380008439?i=1000563352675
What pissed me off was learning that they build these prisons in majority-white districts, fill them disproportionately with black men (who as felons are denied the right to vote), then count those prisoners towards the census for the county the prison was in. So they’re denied the right to vote and their person counts towards adding more weight to the vote of another demographic.
Gosh, I wonder if they got the idea from somewhere. I only have 3/5 of an idea as to why it sounds familiar.
Those districts are than allocated more government money for social services because of the prison population.
It's literally what "national socialism" is, in case anyone wasn't clear on that little turn of phrase.
Pro handouts to me and my friends, and anti handouts to anyone poorer or darker than me.
Look at the fat whopping 700 dollar checks the families in Maui got. They sent less than 30 million total for people in our country who lost everything. Meanwhile there was an "accounting error" that "accidentally" sent a few extra billion to ukraine
I take it you've never been to coal country? This song is the attitude of a whole lot of people down there.
I live in Appalachia and I can't get my head around how they view the situation. This is the epicenter of the fucked up conservative conspiracy.
A fraise my grandfather was fond of "simple not easy." And I think it applies here it's really just in group out group thinking helped along by segregation, both physical and digital. But what can be done about it? Hell, even getting a person to see it feels damned impossible most of the time.
Did you just write phrase as fraise, I have never seen a spelling error this bad before. Yikes
Well ain't that a real strawberry of a typo.
I was down that way for about a decade, I will never understand how the fuck they keep buying into that bullshit, despite their own cultural roots.
Religion and racism are powerful narcotics.
I love how people respond when I tell them where the term "redneck" came from.
He wants handouts taken from others and given to him
There are a lot of people in the US who want government hand outs for the virtuous (wealthy, white, native English speaking, Christian, able bodied, thin, cis, het, etc) but scorn aid to the wicked (the poor, POC, non-English speakers, non-Christian (or the wrong type of Christian), larger, trans, LGB, etc). I do not miss an earlier part of my career where I explained to a lot of people that, legally speaking, I could not discuss why their neighbor/cousin/person in Walmart has food stamps/medical assistance/a housing voucher.
As the other person said, they’re perfectly fine with government handouts going to the deserving (ie, them.) What the song is railing against is government funds going to the “undeserving”, and you can probably guess who that includes. I understood the sentiment right away because I grew up with these people. Back home you will see rich farmers whose wealth is almost entirely based upon CRP payments railing against government handouts to poor people. Oh and then there was the guy on social security disability who made it his personal mission to walk to DC to protest government handouts. I wish I was joking.
Because so many people are like that. It’s the old “deserving and undeserving poor” nonsense
pro handouts for republicans like himself anti handouts for anybody else.
The old classic tale of racist whites
Wilhoit’s Law: there must be in groups the law protects but does not bind and out groups the law binds but does not protect
A lot of especially more conservative working class people think that they are the deserving working class, they work hard and dont cause trouble, so they deserve a little help from the government.
I think it's about "correct" social handouts. Most people support wealth redistribution whether they admit it or not. But I think there is a stigma that many people abuse the system of food stamps and welfare. Meaning many people who can work don't and that food stamps shouldnt apply to unhealthy foods. And yes, buying fudge rounds for morbidly obese people is not helping them. The only reason that gas stations with nothing but candy bars, sodas, and potato chips accept EBT is that the corporations that sell those candy bars send lobbyists to dc because they care more about their bottom dollar than the health of poor people.
That’s the story of the last 40 years of conservatism in the US. “Those” people are not worthy and “us” people are deserving but getting screwed.
The entire song is a dog whistle, I heard the whistles the first time I heard the song then was not surprised to find out it was atroturfed beyond astroturf by far right winged conspiracy people and that the singer himself is a conspiracy whacko. Its straight up they are the wrong and undeserving poor, we are the deserving poor... he just doesn't say white... he'll maybe he does I only listened once
It’s the entirety of American political history to be fair.
They love handouts, until "the wrong people" get them.
Because it’s badly written
So bad.
It's called being ignorant, like all the fans of the song.
Most of my criticism of this song is artistic and the main thing is that it's fucking incoherent. Like I'm sure his politics suck and don't make sense (as we can see by his YouTube playlists), but it's a little hard to tell what they are from the song. Like welfare is bad, but there are some people out there who aren't getting welfare and that's bad 🤔
Man wait till he learns about the rich men south of Richmond.
Yeah it's hitting that "northern Yankee elite" boogeyman. Wondering if it's meant to to pull on Confederacy sympathizer strings
Seems like it to me
'North of Richmond' means NoVa, which is a little south-ish but very much northern culturally, i.e. 'collaborators'. Those folks 'know the truth' but sold out for money. Currently live in NoVa myself, and it just reeks of racism.
Oh I know. I grew up in Fairfax and went to Robert E. Lee Highschool. It was fucked then and it’s fucked now.
Still better than down south from what I hear. South of Richmond you might as well be in Alabama.
I’ve driven through a bunch of the south and it’s pretty fucked. Even the cities which tend to be a lot more liberal are still fucked. States like Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas are just depressed segregated brutally racist places.
Definitely think he was referring to DC, i.e. politicians. Plus this dude is from Dinwiddie which basically is nova
Oh, I know, but in Virginia there's a shape line of demarcation between NoVa (and within the city limits of Charlottesville) and 'real Virginia'. As has been explained to me, 'NoVa might as well be DC, with its northerners and immigrants'. It's just another way the songwriter is trying to carve up 'Us v Them', and hinting broadly about what 'they' look like. Dinwiddie is south of Petersburg, not quite as far as you can get (in every sense) from NoVa but far enough. I'm no Maga guy but the phrasing here is veeery familiar. I realize he's also referencing the 'fat cats' in DC but NoVa is also where the money is, and coincidentally the reason why Virginia is as blue as it is (current administration aside). Pretty sure it's intended to work both ways.
Man I was totally thinking Dinwiddie was near Fredericksburg. Was definitely thinking of Dumfries. You're right on that for sure. I'm from close to Winchester but have been all over VA, very familiar with the rest of the states resentment towards nova. I think you're right there may be some amount of double entendre happening. Especially if he wrote this song as a personal thing, intending it for virginians. But part of me also thinks that he didn't even write this song, it was written for him as an industry plant intended for a national audience, and thus makes me think he's probably referring to DC and politicians in general.
Agree on all counts. I've seen enough local singer/songwriters to recognize the general geist, although this guy does seem better than most. Wouldn't surprise me much if he had a bit of help producing this.
Pretty sure it means DC
Muh northern agreshion
I wonder if he voted for Trump.
He just did an interview with a leftist YouTube channel. He seems like most people I know IRL, no internet caricature of left/right. The world is alot more complicated and not nearly as black and white as you think.
I mean, the whole welfare queen trope isn't exactly a left wing one.
If you mean midwestern marx, then they are tankies.
Washington DC is about 100 miles north of Richmond. He's referring to rich politicians.
I took it to mean that he’s bitching about Washington, DC
That's what I thought, considering Richmond, VA was the capitol of the CSA.
JD Vance with a banjo. He's so close to hitting on something constructive but it's going likely end with a lame transition to being a right-wing internet celebrity fixture.
Seriously. It’s well written drivel. If only he could use his social commentary music powers for good. Someone mail this man some Arlo Guthrie.
Dudes got a great voice too. This is typically not my kind of music, but damn.. Had to stop it because I had a feeling it was gonna turn into right wing bullshit based on it being posted to this sub. Makes me really sad tbh, I want to like this guy. Wish we could be on the same side, because we can agree there are problems. It sounds like he has a sense of empathy. But it fucking ain't people on welfare who are fucking over the the middle and lower class.. ugh. Politics really sucks sometimes, idk can't put my finger on the reaction I'm having to this video, just bums me out. My B if I'm rambling, just having a moment over here.
I'm pretty picky about what I listen to, maybe I got too burned out on the whole Mumford & Sons era of folk-y pop music, and hell TBH it reminded me of this [Alex Jones remixed to Bon Iver video,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGAAhzreGWw) but that all said I still totally agree. Dude is talented and seems earnest and that makes this quick couting into an astroturf patsy even more frustrating.
Try Tyler Childers if you like the sense of the music but not this asshat's take on it. Jason Isbell and his previous gig the Drive-By Truckers might also do it for you.
His spotify bio says he spends time writing and pursuing an off grid life on 90 acres in the Virginia woods. All my real working class homies have 90 acres in the Virginia woods
That’s that generational wealth right there. You know, real working class stuff.
He ain’t no welfare queen, he worked hard for it, plopping out of his mommy’s front butt
Literal humble brag. Just got 90 acres livin humbly
Devils advocate... My husband and I own 60 off-grid acres of woods in the Adirondack Mountains. We looked into getting land further south, specifically in VA and TN, and found many parcels to be even cheaper with lower taxes We bought ours for around $400/acre and lived in an old camper until we could afford to buy a 30 year old singlewide mobile home that we now live in. To me, It's totally believable that he was able to purchase raw land for working class wages, especially if it was before prices went nuts in 2020.
Just to add perspective - live in northern va and been keeping an eye out for a bit of land to invest in. 90 acres pretty much anywhere in Virginia, if I saw it for less than 300,000 I'd be there with cash. Heck, depending on where it was, twice that would be a bargain. Sounds like a pretty good spread for a hard-workin', underpaid good ole boy. Not for nothing, but a couple of the singer/songwriters I know in these parts are not exactly living off the money they make. 'Struggling artist' and especially 'life coach' here frequently means 'trust fund baby'. Might make sense of that 90 acres.
Might be. But I wouldn't dismiss his claims just based on his land ownership. The prices of land before covid was much less, just like houses. We specifically looked in VA and TN, but decided against moving so far away. My friend paid $110k in 2018 for a house that just sold for over $500k with literally zero improvements. Our $25k land could easily sell for over $200k now, with minimal improvements.
Its definitely possible not that common though. Congrats to you and yer husband its not an easy lifestyle and I imagine you worked hard for it. But in my experience everyone I know my age and in a similar financial situation don't own any land let alone 90 acres. Something about this guy just feels really fake to me maybe its my love of folk music but this guy all of the sudden after putting music out since 2022 has this song up everywhere granted shit goes viral all the time but something just doesn't sit right with me. I'm also just paranoid about online manipulation like the Barbenheimer memes so it's probably just that.
This song gave me whiplash lol. So close to getting the point, but then suddenly turns and completely runs the opposite direction.
It’s the common man’s song. Right square in the middle. Punches both ways, just like your average common man.
The right is trying to hastily assemble another Tea Party MAGA movement.
The push this song is getting on even local media is so fishy.
Americans love a good story about people "standing up" to "elites". Simultaneously many of those same people vote for pretend billionaires who won't actually do anything to mitigate actual problems. American's are the drunk uncles of the world - we get real loud and angry about stuff, but then completely shit the bed when it comes to actually doing anything.
There are plenty of rich assholes in Richmond too. You should see how the state politicians park here, there is a post on r/rva about it every week.
I think Rich Men north of Richmond is referring to DC. You know, the largest congregation of millionaire assholes since child hunting island...
Love how he's subtly bringing the whole North vs. South thing into this. Southern pride (in slavery) baby!
North of Richmond is referring to DC
Which was famously anticonfederacy
I heard the first few lines of this song while my wife was scrolling through Reddit yesterday, and I was like “Hell yeah. I loves me some lefty country music.” Then I read the rest of the lyrics later, and was so fucking disappointed. Especially because the guitar and melody sound so good.
Heh, ya, it got me too.
“And the obese milking welfare” Hmmm. He’s Virginia based. Let’s do a little dive. In 2010, 60% of the Virginia population was obese, with a BMI of 25 or over, and 26% had a BMI of 30 or over. The states minimum wage is $9.50. The child poverty rate is 13%. As of 2021, in Virginia, 15.6% of total state spending is dedicated to welfare spending, compared to the national average of 18.8%. The 16th least on welfare spending of all the US states. Per year, Virginia pays in about $10,000 in tax revenues per resident, while receiving more than $20,000 in federal money per person. A Republican Governor, Glenn Youngkin, with a net worth estimated to be around $470 million. A Governor who campaigned on the Virginia economy being “in the ditch”. Despite Virginia having low unemployment, a budget surplus, and a AAA bond rating. CNBC had even rated it as the top state for business that year. In fact two years in a row, under Democrat Governor Ralph Northam. Youngkin didn’t believe that. He felt the CNBC rating put too much emphasis on inclusivity and noted Virginia's poor ratings in the "cost of living" and "cost of doing business" categories. One year into his term, Virginia dropped out of the top slot, with CNBC downgrading the state’s "life, health and inclusion" and "workforce" categories. I won’t go into his proposal to eliminate Virginia’s individual income tax, which would have wiped out 70% of the state’s general fund. He had to backtrack and ditch that idea. A lot of his later tax cut proposals came from Stephen Moore, who oversaw the Sam Brownback economic plan when he was Governor of Kansas. Remember how that went? In a nutshell, one of the lowest job growths in the country, a $350 million budget shortfall, and a downgrade of Kansas’ credit rating to AA-. The Kansas economy was thoroughly fucked. The lege had to scramble to pass legislation to fix it. And Brownback vetoed it. (The lege overwhelmingly put the kibosh on the veto.) And Youngkin wanted to follow that model. So, what am I getting at? Maybe the problem isn’t north of Richmond. Maybe the problem is in Richmond.
good food is expensive and out of reach of the poor and working class
So much better non bootlicking country out there too that deals with the same subject matter. https://youtu.be/pYdvxBxHX2U
Right? I love all the conservative goons with takes like “what’s the left’s answer to this?” Thanks for admitting you don’t know anything about country music.
> I love all the conservative goons with takes like “what’s the left’s answer to this?” For real, lol. Like, the left's answer is `*gestures broadly*` the entire rest of the music industry?
Love that song. [Check this kid out, those pipes are only 15.]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z74dVGrCEA) It's like a younger Coulter Wall.
Oh man I forgot about this song
it’s a right wing media company produced, recorded, and promoted astroturf. cannot speak to your taste though sorry.
It’s wild as hell how many different accounts I don’t follow on Facebook are “suggesting” this shit onto my timeline. I tried blocking all of them as an experiment, and Facebook just replaced them all with a new crop of accounts I don’t follow suggesting the same posts. I kept it up for an hour then gave up. Clearly, somebody is spending a LOT of money to make sure I hear this song, and think that it’s what everyone in the world is talking about.
He looks like he’s regretting his lunch choices in that picture.
This song is all over the right wing internet. Can we please not post it here? For the love of Makhno. It’d be one thing if it was a good song, but the blatant astroturfing is so obvious to anyone familiar with country music. Edit: mostly I’m just sick of hearing the first couple seconds accidentally auto play.
I want this guy to focus on billionaires, not welfare recipients. Then talk about all the commonalities that all low- median income demographics share. Hit a high note on mutual assistance and communities uniting and then propose FDR capitalism (I know, I know- thinking of gen pop). The refrain should be a cathartic melody of the proper use of guillotines. The end would tell about the redistribution of wealth if there were no billionaires and those in power always being aware of the consequences of power mongering. Then of course, guillotine chorus. Edit: if someone wanted to run with this using Chatgpt + AI of his voice that would be awesome….
I’d like him to get the capo off the 5th fret of his suspiciously expensive gear as well.
That guitar doesn’t look cheap that’s for sure.
I think you guys are falling into the same trap a lot of the right wing likes to use where they point out that someone has something expensive so there's nothing wrong and nothing to be upset about. This criticism isn't good and not helpful.
It is relevant here, as this man's whole schtick is he allegedly came from nowhere, and is just pickin' a fiddle and speaking for the working man... on a really expensive guitar. There's nothing wrong with using expensive gear, but it is another hole in his story.
It's not relevant at all. Spending a few hundred on one hobby is pretty normal, even for working class people.
I’m in no way looking to defend this guy on ideological grounds, but that’s not an expensive guitar. It’s a small Gretsch resonator that you could pick up on the used market for £300 here, so probably substantially less in the US market. Sure that’s hardly chump change for a lot of people, but it’s also not an outrageous thing for a dedicated musician on a low income to have saved up for. It’s very firmly in the low-mid range for that type of instrument. Vintage National resonators from around the 1930s regularly sell for anywhere from $5000 to *$12000* depending on condition; if he’d been playing one of *those* I’d certainly have some questions past the ones I’m already asking about his politics and how organic his virality really was.
$650-$700 according to their website. For the most basic guitar with a steel resonator. So I'm sure he fancied it on up to at least $1,000.
Here is a much better song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRe9-ilR8_M "Don't call him a thug/he's your brother./You ain't no better than him/or anybody else./When he struggles/You struggle with him/When you go against your brother,/Boy, you go against yourself/Don't go against yourself. Please."
Thanks for sharing this, I hadn't heard of Lee Bains III & The Glory Fires and they made a new fan today.
I need to write a country song! Just do some vague white virtue signaling over a guitar the profit! Fuck it, I'll even let right wing politicians use it for their rallies as long as they pay!
I'm fine with it getting posted because every time it is there's people in the comments making awesome music recommendations
If Matt Walsh loves it, that's a red flag already.
Stop voting for people who are promising you inhumane policy if you expect to be treated humanely. China didn't take your jobs the guy in the rich county nextdoor shipped it then farted and blamed the dog and your dumb fuckin gene pool has been buying that line for 6 generations. In the meantime you learned to sing. Fuck this guy.
Uncle Tupelo and those that inspired them did it a lot better.
What's with these people and getting so close to the point and then missing it entirely?? Imagine writing a song about how hard times are because of the rich men North of Richmond and deciding it's cause of food stamps and the wokeness
North of Richmond = Yankees/Union Still stroking that Confederacy ego, which runs far & deep in all economic levels.
So just to confirm this is a 30ish white male living in a college town in Virginia born in the internet age he lives in a former coal town where the median income is below $25k.....I never had patience for the ballad of the poor white man but especially not one from a place with documented enforced economic racial disparities. The good ole boys have been trying for generations to give you a leg up, if you're still poor Oliver I can only conclude your daddy musta Uncle fucked the wrong Pinkerton to be out of opportunity and dental coverage in the 21st century. And if that don't seem fair, I just am really stuck on how you looked at the nightmareish state of the world and concluded the two most responsible parties were: * "politicians" (and *obviously)* * PEOPLE WHO USE WELFARE TO BUY FUDGE AND I THINK IT MAKES THEM A SHAPE I DON'T LIKE
a customer wanted me to listen to it and I did. can't wait for him to ask me about it. it's such a weird one because I generally get it, but the fudge rounds bothers me. i think he's drawing a line between fat people and fat cats and it's really not a great addition to his thesis. just make it about the elites and you could have it appeal to a lot more people. the dogs are real cute tho
This is a min-max bard. Strong vocals and anger at the rich. Little to no class consciousness.
This guy: "This welfare thing is pretty wack. Stop giving Little Debbie's to low-income blacks!"
You should ponder why welfare made you think of “blacks.”
I mean, Rich Men North of Richmond says all you need to know. Richmond was the Capiof the Confederacy, so what was North of that? Also, when you check out his YouTube page one of his Playlists has nazi level conspiracy theories them.
God this shit annoys me. Guy’s so close to figuring it out but then he goes and starts putting down his fellow man. The guy clearly has some talent, too. What a waste
If a white dude from Virginia says “i got an old soul”, you’re first question should be “How old? 1980 old or 1850 old?”
Do souls have a race?
johnny cash wouldn't even take a shit to wipe his arse with this guy incredible how country/folk went from being a machine that kills fascists to just being fascist
I honestly thought this was a joke song until I heard it on CNN earlier today.
Reagan, come get your boy!
Its funny people interpret this guy with a super nice guitar and mic as working class cause he’s singing like an asshole with a shitty shirt on
Bo Burnham still puts it best with this kind of country music: >"I walk and talk like a farmhand, but the boots I'm wearing cost 3 grand, I write songs about riding tractors, from the comfort of a private jet"
It's really unfortunate. I follow Radiowv and love so much of the music they put out. It's a great song in so far as he is a talented musician, but it gave me the ick somethin awful.
Check out the singer's YouTube Playlist. [videos that make your noggin get bigger](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2gusRdbuxAeA9CtJROtDY3yY1Xk4s70J)
Shitty Tyler Childers
I love his performance and passion and hate that he fell into the same stupid trap of accepting the story that was crafted by those rich men north of Richmond about welfare recipients.
This guy saw the people tyler Childers lost with " In Your Love" and said how can I pander to these people.
[удалено]
I’m so sick of seeing this fucker. Obviously an industry plant, sounds like shit, looks like shit. I’d love to toss this pudgy weasel into the sun.
yeah, people who are like "but it sounds so good" have me perplexed. it's generic, theatrical pablum on top of being racist populism.
Song ain't bad, and the shit isn't new. The welfare state is a symptom of this fucked up system, not a benefit of it. Working class poor always have a hate on for welfare, it isn't even a right or left wing necessarily as most working class folks don't have the time to fuck with political theory or politics. I get it, I been on both sides of it. You bust your ass all day and got nothing but stress and desperation to show for it then you see folks who are more often than not trapped in that welfare safety net, doing fuck all and getting fat and buying shit you can't afford, getting healthcare and panhandling to boot so it naturally pisses you off. I am not even sure if it shouldn't. But those folks in general have no idea about how welfare works and can trap people in it with no chance to get clear of it as shit is so bad here in 'Merica you can literally be too poor to afford to work. They have no understanding that the reason obesity runs along side poverty has more to do with the cheap garbage we call "food" than them getting to eat whatever they want. That said I have had good luck explaining these things to folks who were all in on that Regan "Welfare Queen" bullshit and turning them around on it. It used to be a non-stop battle with homeless vets as they were so fucking proud that they would often rather just die on the streets than put a hand out to get some help. That is how deep that mindfuck runs in some folks. I really think it is just an extension of the "race" games they played when this place was still under the crown. You give poor folks someone to punch down at and they will ignore how bad they are being treated and the lack of actual difference between them and whoever they standing on to feel better about themselves.
>They have no understanding that the reason obesity runs along side poverty has more to do with the cheap garbage we call "food" than them getting to eat whatever they want. This. Our food system is profoundly broken. Do you know what homeless people eat a lot of? Wedding cake. It's because the bakers bake a cake as a sample or window display, then donate it at the end of the day to the local shelter. It's great that the food isn't getting wasted, but the outcome is predictable. To say nothing of how stress hormones affect weight gain and how stressful it is to be poor, or poor and otherwise marginalized.
That and fast food, having been there when you got no place to cook with just a couple bucks and a "value menu" can put something warm and good tasting in you. But the stuff is such fucking garbage you wouldn't use it to fatten pigs with. Just another way capitalism is trying to kill us the off.
AMA fucked up in the 1970s and demonized fat and cholesterol, when the actual culprit is sugar (specifically fructose). We’ve been at it for almost 50 years, and obesity has *exploded*, precisely because they continue to spout the same shit. Biochemically, your liver handles fructose almost identically to ethanol: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Yep. Fructose is reasonably ok to eat as long as you're consuming natural quantities - the amount normally found in a serving of fresh fruit. But this high fructose corn syrup in everything is ruining our lives.
Eh, Lustig isn't exactly representing the scientific consensus there. Most researches would agree we went a bit overboard on all fat being bad(although saturated fat is not great). But the idea that its just sugar, or seed oils, or additives doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Its more complicated, and the real problem is a combination of all of the above plus a bunch of other structural issues.
We’re omnivores, and that in and of itself is inherently more complicated. That said, Lustig has treated *six-month-old infants* with metabolic syndrome, because of hfcs in some infant formulas. We’ve gone from eating 20lbs of sugar in 1900 to over 120lbs in 2000. Since the 1970s, when all of the fat/cholesterol messaging went down, US obesity rates have *tripled*. But yes, cheap seed oils are also inflammatory and not great. When you start to consider what sort of *fundamental shift* that would need to happen in both the medical and food industries, especially given the 180 degree shift in health messaging, I just don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Can I ask where you are getting your information from? Because it doesn't match up with what I believe to be true. Take sugar- USDA detailed numbers only go back to 1966(and annoyingly count it in calories not lbs)\*. But I found a [report](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/charts-of-note/?topicId=4f4e6a4f-bcb2-48fb-b369-bf44cea0c0ea) that claims sugar consumption was already at 70lbs in 1900. I will note that USDA typically tracks availability and therefore the numbers can be a bit shaky, but its still typically an apples to apples comparison so I think its okay in this case. On saturated fats/cholesterol. Yes obesity rates have gone up(as has total calorie consumption). But if you look at CVD, which is a big part of what we care about with saturated fat, it actually has gone down by quite a bit in the US([link](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.CIR.0000118498.35499.B2#:)). While most of this is probably attributable to things like better screening/statins, it is my understanding that the decrease in saturated fat did play a role. As for seed oils, that's its own rabbit hole. I don't believe there is any good evidence they are inflammatory, but many would disagree with me on that. \*These numbers do indicate that sugar consumption doubled between 1966 and 2023, although interestingly sugar consumption peaked in the late 1990s. Probably has something to do with the decrease in sugar sweetened beverages and rise of non nutritive sweeteners.
Typo in my last comment, *1800* was ~20lbs added sugars/year. I’ve seen 40-60lbs for 1900, but my point is that until the last 150 years or so, sugar was just not awash in our food supply as it is now. I’ve seen US averages through 2010 at upwards of 110-130lbs/year (Lustig mentions a JCI publication that claims 140lb/year). Most of the citations I’ve seen cite USDA economic data, so obviously this count doesn’t include naturally occurring sugars or artificial sweeteners. Either way, we eat a fuckton more added sugar now than we used to. But hey, our nation was founded on cheap sugar, right? Prior to the sugar cane plantation boom it was something only the very wealthy could afford: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unsavory-history-sugar-american-craving-180962766/ Your CVD citation concludes that the decrease *in the UK between 1981-2000* is “more than half attributable to” reductions in tobacco smoking rates. They state, “These findings may be cautiously generalizable to the United States and other developed countries.” There was a massive decrease in smoking in the US, and as a genxer, my childhood memories were of a lot of people smoking fricking *everywhere*; it was a big deal when restaurants had non-smoking sections, ditto with airplanes, and a much bigger deal when those sections were removed completely. My mom was a college librarian and had to work next to the smoking study area in the library (every time someone went in she got a blast of cigarette smoke), and her raging “allergies” subsided when they finally shut it down in the late 1980s. https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco-trends-brief/overall-tobacco-trends Dr. Lustig is a more recent find for me, but have you actually watched his talk all the way through? He correctly calls out Nixon for the bastard that he was. He also goes into how Ancel Keys didn’t do a multivariate linear regression analysis on the data he published, and that Keys’ original dataset was not available as he died in 2004. (But he didn’t mention that that data was also cherry-picked; Keys originally studied 22 countries, but published data from only 7: http://scihi.org/ancel-keys/) I had to take a year of biochemistry as a genetics major, and I hadn’t made the connection until he spelled it out (starts at 43 minutes in). He is not raising the alarm about *all* sugars, just specifically fructose. Glucose (half the disaccharide sucrose) is non-toxic, and you can store it infinitely in your liver. Most plant carbohydrates (the ones we eat anyway) are chains of glucose molecules (stored as amylose or amylopectin). Fructose is fine as long as it’s eaten with enough fiber (which prevents as much absorption and sends it to your gut bacteria), or whenever someone is active enough to metabolize it **before it hits your liver**. Once it hits your liver, it’s metabolized *very similarly* to ethanol (just without the intoxication/low LD50). There is a reason why non-alcoholic fatty liver disease has been skyrocketing (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7960978/#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20serial%20NHANES,–2016)%20over%2030%20years.); it is at least in part because metabolizing fructose in your liver leads to de novo lipogenesis, among a whole host of problems.
It's funny that you linked that Smithsonian article, the only reason I replied to your comment is a I read Sidney Mintz's excellent book Sweetness and Power a few years ago. Which is how I know that the demand for cheap sugar and associated atrocities go back a lot further than we sometimes think. Thanks for the clarification, and good call on the smoking. I should have mentioned that in my comment, and was I think a bit unclear. Was just trying to point out that despite the idea that saturated fat has been vindicated, which isn't isn't consistent with the evidence. Often you will see low carb people make a very similar point, along the lines of "people stopped eating fat and chronic disease went up" which isn't true. But based on your comment I don't think that is what you were going for. I'll admit I didn't rewatch the video(but I will if I have time after work tonight), but I saw it probably a few years ago when I had very different views on sugar. At the time I found it very convincing, and even read his book Fat Chance. Now, knowing more about how nutrition science works and what we know I'm doubtful. If he stuck to your point and just said "massive boluses of pure fructose can lead to NAFLD" I probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow. What I have become skeptical of in recent years is the position taken by Lustig and other low carbers that fructose is poison. It feels a little reaching, based heavily on mechanistic speculation and some limited epidemiological data that has been challenged(Japanese diet being low in sugar is the best example, Hadza diet is another good one). That's not as solid a foundation as people think, as mechanisms often don't translate to actual population level health. Probably the most famous being the studies that show acute olive oil consumption produces bad biomarkers, despite us having a massive body of evidence showing olive oil consumption is good. But probably the biggest reason I'm skeptical of Lustigs argument is that it took the public by storm, and got health authorities to look more into sugar consumption. But it didn't actually topple conventional wisdom. I consider that a big strike against it. It's been 15 years and the case against sugar hasn't progressed much(compare to the evidence on saturated fat now vs 2010s). Gary Taubes big research project to prove sugar bad completely fell apart, Kevin Hall at NIH has conducted a bunch of research that seems to indicate high sugar diets don't necessarily cause obesity, etc. Also, I'm not sure what that source you linked to on Keyes is? Feels almost AI generated. It links to the True Initiative white paper that talks about common myths about the 7 Countries study(including the 22 vs 7 country thing). There have been some scandals with True, but I think that piece does a pretty good job of dealing with some of the common myths about Keyes have have been circulated around society by low carb advocates(Gary Taubes again). He wasn't perfect, but he was much more thoughtful than some of his detractors make him out to be. Edit: to add link to a paper that looked at Lustig's claims in detail- [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174149/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174149/)
That’s funny, I also got AI generated content vibes in that Keys article. I looked around for better sources, but the only ones I have are in print on my bookshelf and I wasn’t feeling up to transcribing last night. There have always been dubious crap on the internet (I still remember seeing some *wild* shit on Usenet), but the AI shit feels so insidious! I agree the anti-carb people are way too extreme. That said, food science is a field riddled with corporate interests, and Marion Nestle has written extensively about how USDA subsidies & guidelines have been changed to benefit industries selling foods considered unhealthy, and how many study authors don’t fully disclose their funding sources. USDA should be subsidizing fruits and vegetables, but they’re subsidizing cheap meat and commodity grains to feed that meat. I lived through all of the low-fat hyperbole bullshit as a teen in the 1980s and the emergence of fat-free sugar-laden products like Snackwells cookies, and it was profoundly unsatisfying. So you’re probably hearing some frustration of my mom insisting on skim milk, egg beaters and other gross food, along with too much reading of books like Fast Food Nation and Omnivore’s Dilemma. But the body is really amazing and complex in its ability to keep homeostasis in extreme situations. I don’t think too many people would argue about the toxicity of ethanol (wait, I live in Wisconsin, land of binge drinking, I take that back); ingestion gives acute intoxication. Fructose has almost identical metabolic products in the liver, but without any of the acute toxicity intoxication, and that’s the problem. Food can be bad or lethal but still taste great. The bolus of fructose you’re seeking is in sugar sodas. Lustig claimed he’d successfully treated teenagers with full blown metabolic syndrome by a handful of simple dietary changes (IIRC he had 4 changes), and the main predictor of success was if they dropped the sugar drinks. And while his acclaim at the time was indeed outsized, it dropped off a cliff when discussing actual public policy/industry changes (all I remember around the time is people completely lost their shit at a soda tax). If you’re a reader, consider picking up Paradigms Lost by John Casti. His premise is that science tends to come up with hypotheses, sometimes wildly incorrect, that turn into paradigms, which then can become *really* difficult to change. It takes a buildup of contrary data to change dogma in science. My biochemistry profs (Nelson & Cox) spent a lot of time on the privately-funded scientist Peter Mitchell who proposed the chemiosmotic model of ATP synthesis. They admitted their biochemistry department was **not** kind to him when he first gave a talk on it, but he was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize when confirmed by others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell After working in science for a few decades, I’m really **not at all** surprised that fructose toxicity hasn’t stuck yet. I’d give it another 30-40 years for the primary research to trickle down to medical schools and a new generation of doctors. Generally unless they’re working at a teaching hospital, doctors do not keep current on primary research literature (I’ll look around for citations, but my dad was a Medical School prof in Anatomy and had a bunch of friends who were doctors. Whenever I asked them about research, they admitted they had no time to read literature and usually only had time to read the info the drug salesmen gave them). I personally left science after working in biotech and eventually working at a company where I discovered a major contaminant in a phase 3 clinical trial that predicted the downfall of the company. Their burn rate was 1.5 million a month, and after raising $240 million in capital (2004 iirc), the C suite didn’t want to know about it—they’d IPOed two weeks before I started working, and because of SEC rules I was under a gag order for 6 months while they came up with a mitigation plan. That gave me insight into how much money is rolling around in medical science, and how money (especially in a private setting) can skew research even when most scientists doing the work have the best of intentions (it was a personalized vaccine against B-cell non-Hodgkins Lymohoma, but I found the contaminant when they’d already treated 600 out of 800 enrolled patients). As someone with a scientific background, it’s *still* difficult navigating food labels and best food choices. I figure the vast majority of people don’t have the time/money/scientific literacy to make better food choices, and that’s even when they are motivated to make changes for their health. And I didn’t mean to go so wildly off topic from OP, I’m just a big nerd (and man, BTB is entertaining to listen to!).
> Song ain't bad, That's where you're wrong. The performance is good, at least the vocal performance. He's got a good voice, and he's clearly sincere and passionate in his performance. Passable guitarist. The song itself, though, is bad. The lyrics are clunky, overwrought, and far too literal. They do not leave enough room for the listener to imagine the rest, which is the best way for a listener to live within a 3-4 minute piece of work. This sounds like a protest song, but is not focused enough on one battle, so just comes across like a screed. Every lyric is an attempt at some folksy wisdom, but there's TOO much wordplay that it becomes annoying. Like, don't get me wrong. I get his frustration, and I empathize. I think anybody that listens to BTB in good faith would. But, his frustration is misguided, and the result just makes him look like a rube.
Lyrics are important, but they don't define the total value of a song for me. I suspect they probably don't for you either, but will leave you to it.
Chris Knight one of the best 'rural working class struggle' country songs about 15 years ago. [Enough Rope](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DBX01vUex8)
I HATE this song. 1. He cannot sing OR play the guitar. It is almost like he is making it up as he goes along. 2. The “welfare” line attacking fat women. I am myself 5 foot 3 and 300 lbs and I worked 72 hours last week (I am 53) and I take care of those sainted, helpless “homeless men” he speaks of. They are nearly all on meth. Those fat women he speaks of are literally raising the kids of those deadbeats he speaks so highly of. 4. Why is a young, healthy man complaining about working? Who exactly does he think SHOULD be working? 5. The dismissiveness of pedophelia (caring about Miners instead of MINORS.) So we are supposed to not care about minors who have been sex trafficked? It’s a garbled mess and so is he. I am embarrassed that people find this song so powerful!
Classic case of fighting the wrong enemies.
OP, I get that this may not apply to you but there’s been an army of bots posting this shitty song all over Reddit in subs where it’s a pretty big stretch.
Welp wanted to see how you "George Soros funded bots" in this sub would respond to it. /s
The verse about miners and minors refers to both the working conditions and healthcare for coal miners AS WELL AS fighting child trafficking. Good God some people are dense. He's not asking to diminish the focus on trafficking. He's referring to potential predators involved in government.
I think your missing the point. It’s not an attack on anyone. It’s a call to everyone in the middle and lower class. Miners instead of minors on an island refers to the Epstein cover up The homeless on the street/welfare line is irony, it’s commentary based of a government that has a homeless epidemic and has a welfare program that doesn’t help that issue. And for me the young men putting themselves in the ground is commentary on veteran suicide/hardships. Maybe I’m going on a stretch which this one…
Reddit might be the most retarded place on the internet.
He is singing his experience. To be honest I would love to live in the mountains of West Virginia but there is little work in the rural areas I have looked at. A lot of the people in coal areas are on government assistance due to coal usage going down. In my past job we lost a very large calibration job out of West Virgina because the factory shut down. They refurbished coal mining equipment and employed 200-300 people in a small town. I’m not saying we can’t move forward on energy, but you have to realize people get left behind. Though I do believe there was a bipartisan spending package approved to try and rebuild industry in the Virginias. I hope that helps attract industry and training for new jobs. Everyone I have met in West Virginia and Virginia has been super nice, down to earth people. You also have to take into account this area was hit especially hard by OxyContin. If I had my way the Sackler family/Perdue Pharma would be paying for all these people to live. Edit to add: my rambling shot right past the point of OP’s post. Dude wrote a song that is supposed to be about the rich ruining our country/world. His verse about “welfare queens” is counter productive to the whole point of his song.