Post

More from @highbrow_nobrow

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Nov 21

Dr. Oz: The uninsured “don’t have the right to health,” but should be given “a way of crawling back out of the abyss” with “15-minute physicals” provided by the government “in a festival like setting.”

It would cost less if everyone was insured and had access to healthcare from cradle to grave.

If you’re not following us, please do. We would appreciate it. Thank you.

Read 4 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Nov 19

Rupert Murdoch: The Love of Money Over Everything Else

🧵1/5: For a man whose empire spans continents, Rupert Murdoch’s real legacy may be less the reach of his influence than the harm it has inflicted.

In the relentless pursuit of wealth, he left a trail of misinformation and division that has reshaped democracies and endangered lives. This is the story of one man’s obsession with “the green”—and the cost the world has paid for it.

theintellectualist.com/rupert-murdoch…

2/5: Rupert Murdoch, now 93, has left a global legacy of damage driven by his obsession with hoarding money—something that cannot be eaten, worn, used as shelter, or taken as medicine.

For Murdoch, our modern Scrooge, this wealth obsession justified promoting the Iraq War, which many argued lacked legitimate legal grounds, and spreading misinformation about a deadly virus and its vaccine—all while securing his own place at the front of the vaccination line.

As he admitted under questioning from Smartmatic attorneys, he cares only about “the green.”
theintellectualist.com/rupert-murdoch…

3/5: Selfishness, the basis of all moral failure, defines the man. Murdoch’s willingness to fuel wars based on questionable premises and to mislead the public on health matters during a global pandemic marks him among the era’s most morally troubling figures.

He has, in a sense, been complicit in the deaths of thousands of Americans who took at face value the disinformation his network intentionally and knowingly broadcasted.

theintellectualist.com/rupert-murdoch…

Read 6 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Nov 7

The True End of Pax Americana: A Second Trump Presidency and the Dawn of a New Era of Global Instability

The world’s surface lies in fragile calm, yet from beneath, shadows gather—a silent, unyielding invitation to the chaos we believed had been quarantined to the past.

A Second Trump Presidency: The End of Pax Americana

Since the end of World War II, Pax Americana—a period of relative global stability under U.S. leadership—has served as the backbone of the modern international order.

For nearly eight decades, the United States has acted as both anchor and enforcer, promoting democracy, free trade, and collective security. Today, however, that foundation seems to be fracturing, and a second Trump presidency could mark the ultimate collapse.

If the United States fully retreats from its role as a global stabilizer, nations around the world may soon find themselves grappling with a void—one that invites chaos, conflict, and existential threats.

Trump’s first term left allies shaken and adversaries emboldened, as his foreign policy oscillated between abrupt decisions and transactional values. A defining moment came with Trump’s impeachment, after allegedly withholding military aid from Ukraine—a critical buffer against Russian aggression—to pressure them into investigating his political rival.

For allies, this incident underscored Trump’s willingness to compromise national security for personal gain. The hasty, chaotic withdrawal from northern Syria further exemplified this volatility, abandoning Kurdish allies who had fought alongside the United States against ISIS, and echoing the haunting evacuation scenes of Saigon in Afghanistan.

Should Trump return to office, this stance may harden, signaling to the world that U.S. commitments are more conditional than ever—a precarious message in a world teetering on the edge of instability.

For many allies, Trump’s past actions have raised a fundamental question: Can they trust the United States to honor its commitments? When he abandoned the Kurds, one of America’s staunchest allies in the fight against ISIS, and moved to withdraw from NATO, it sent a message that U.S. promises could be easily discarded.

Trump’s public statements, suggesting he would “let Russia do whatever it wants” and referring to NATO as a “protection racket,” further eroded faith in America’s reliability as a partner. For allies facing existential threats, a U.S. promise under Trump may no longer be a guarantee of security but a gamble.

As a result, nations are increasingly pursuing “self-help” measures, from nuclear proliferation to significant increases in defense spending. Japan has recently announced a substantial increase in its defense budget, doubling spending to reach 2% of GDP—a historic shift that reflects deep concerns about the stability of American alliances.

Taiwan, too, is ramping up its military budget in anticipation of a potential conflict with China, especially as Beijing has closely observed how the world reacted—largely in silence—when it tightened its grip on Hong Kong. In Europe, Germany has committed €100 billion to modernize its military, a direct response to growing uncertainty over U.S. involvement and the threat of Russian aggression in the region.

This global trend toward increased defense spending and nuclear self-sufficiency reflects the fears of a world without a reliable stabilizer.

Should the U.S. continue on an unpredictable, isolationist path, other nations may feel they have no choice but to secure their own means of defense, up to and including nuclear arms. The echoes of history are hard to ignore: as empires recede, smaller powers are often left to fend for themselves, and self-preservation can lead to an arms race that escalates tensions rather than defuses them.

The Dangers of a Power Vacuum in a Multipolar World
Nature abhors a vacuum.

History shows that when a great power retreats, disorder rushes in to fill the space. The end of Pax Americana would create just such a void, likely unleashing rivalries, territorial ambitions, and a resurgence of opportunistic alliances.

The collapse of the Roman Empire ushered in centuries of fragmented rule, leaving Europe vulnerable to violent power struggles. As the British Empire receded, alliances fractured, fueling the tensions that eventually led to World War I. The interwar period, defined by the collapse of European empires, created a fertile ground for totalitarian regimes, culminating in the devastation of World War II.

Today, a similar collapse could herald catastrophic consequences. In a world without a stabilizing force, nations would scramble to form self-serving alliances, gravitating toward authoritarian powers willing to exploit vulnerabilities. China and Russia, poised to expand their influence, would likely demand concessions from smaller nations in exchange for “protection.”

The once-open oceans may become contested zones, with authoritarian powers setting terms for safe passage. Smaller countries, fearing abandonment, may accept oppressive alliances as a means of survival, reshaping the global landscape in ways that favor power over principle.

A second Trump presidency, accompanied by an isolationist outlook, would almost certainly accelerate this shift. By pivoting inward and retracting its influence, the United States would leave a power vacuum that rivals like China and Russia would rush to fill. The result: a fragmented world where dominant regional powers openly vie for control, and smaller states are left adrift in a dangerous, divided landscape.

The Shadow of Great Power War and Existential Threats

The risks of this unanchored world are profound, none more so than the possibility of renewed great power conflict. World War II, at its core, was a great power struggle—a collision of empires following the collapse of stability. Today, any similar conflict would carry existential stakes. Advances in AI, autonomous weapons, and cyber warfare have fundamentally altered the nature of conflict, raising the specter of automated battlegrounds and weapons systems capable of striking across continents in minutes.

In a world where no stabilizing force exists, the race for technological supremacy would accelerate unchecked, as each nation pursues increasingly advanced, automated weapons for an edge.

Without international oversight, AI and autonomous systems capable of making life-or-death decisions independent of human control could proliferate, exponentially increasing the potential for catastrophic miscalculations. A small skirmish could escalate, triggering an irreversible chain of events—one that humanity is not prepared to control.

A second Trump term would likely deepen these risks, as the U.S. steps away from treaties and multilateral discussions on emerging technologies. In this world, warfare would no longer require human decision-making; conflicts could unfold on a scale and speed unprecedented in history, with potentially existential consequences.

Nuclear Proliferation and the Erosion of Non-Proliferation Norms

One of the most immediate dangers in a post-Pax Americana world is the risk of nuclear proliferation. As American influence fades, nations previously dependent on U.S. protection may feel compelled to develop their own nuclear capabilities, either as a deterrent or a bargaining chip.

Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, in particular, may pursue nuclear programs if U.S. guarantees no longer appear credible. In a world where nuclear weapons become more accessible, the risks of an arms race—and the potential for nuclear miscalculations—would rise dramatically.

Trump’s previous foreign policy approach, marked by unpredictability and a disregard for long-standing alliances, could be a tipping point for these nations. Should the U.S. signal that it will no longer defend its allies decisively, these countries may see self-armament as their only viable path to security.

This erosion of non-proliferation norms could yield a world far more precarious than during the Cold War, as multiple states acquire nuclear arsenals with limited channels for communication or protocols to prevent escalation.

theintellectualist.com/the-true-end-o…

"If the United States fully retreats from its role as a global stabilizer, nations around the world may soon find themselves grappling with a void—one that invites chaos, conflict, and existential threats."
theintellectualist.com/the-true-end-o…

If you like the Intellectualist and would like to support our work, you can do so at the link below.
buymeacoffee.com/theintellectua…

Read 4 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Nov 4

Listen To The Jeffrey Epstein Tapes: ‘I Was Donald Trump’s Closest Friend’

🧵1/6:

• Jeffrey Epstein described himself as Donald Trump’s “closest friend.”

• Epstein claimed to have intimate knowledge of Trump’s sexual proclivities, including his habit of cuckolding his best friends.

• Epstein also claimed that Trump first slept with his now-wife, Melania, on Epstein’s plane, known as the “Lolita Express.”

thedailybeast.com/listen-to-the-…

2/6:

•Epstein described Trump as “charming” and “always fun,” with a talent for salesmanship.

•Epstein claimed he supported Trump’s stance on transgender policies.

•He alleged that Trump was a serial cheater in his marriages and enjoyed pursuing the wives of his best friends.

•Epstein suggested that, despite having friends, Trump was ultimately a friendless man lacking in kindness.

•He also claimed that Trump had undergone scalp reduction surgery for baldness and referred to himself as “The Trumpster.”

thedailybeast.com/listen-to-the-…

3/6:

• Epstein’s leaked address books contained contact information for both Donald Trump and Melania Trump.

• Trump’s name appeared seven times in the flight logs for Epstein’s planes.

thedailybeast.com/listen-to-the-…

Read 8 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Nov 3

3/5: Self-interest, often the root of moral failure, defines the man. Murdoch’s willingness to fuel wars based on questionable premises and to mislead the public on health matters during a global pandemic marks him among the era’s most morally troubling figures. He has, in a sense, been complicit in the deaths of thousands of Americans who took at face value the disinformation his network intentionally and knowingly broadcasted.

theintellectualist.com/rupert-murdoch…

Read 8 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Oct 30

The Lies That Killed: How Fox News and Right-Wing Leaders Betrayed America During the Pandemic

🧵1/7: They trusted their television screens more than they trusted their doctors. In the end, it was the disembodied voices of broadcasters—not medical experts—that influenced the choices of life or death for many.

In the spring of 2020, when the world fell into an eerie hush and nations shuttered their doors against an invisible enemy, another contagion, far more insidious, crept into American homes. It wasn’t airborne in the traditional sense.

Instead, it traveled through the cables of television sets, radiated from radio waves, and surged through digital platforms. Its source was not a virus but an industry fueled by profit, politics, and the manipulation of public fear. At its helm was Fox News.

The COVID-19 pandemic, with all its terrifying uncertainty, became the perfect stage for the grand illusion orchestrated by a network that had, for decades, skillfully blurred the lines between entertainment and journalism.

Through their screens, millions of conservative Americans—many elderly and isolated—watched as the global pandemic became a sideshow to a far more captivating drama: the fight to maintain their way of life, their personal freedoms, and, most importantly, their trust in a network that had, for years, become synonymous with their identity.

Fox News’ role in American conservatism is not new. Since its launch in 1996, the network has historically aligned itself with conservative viewpoints and has played a prominent role in shaping the media landscape for conservative audiences.

However, as the pandemic raged across the country, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives, some observers noted a shift in the network’s coverage that raised concerns about public health implications. The need to keep viewers glued to their screens, to sell advertising, and to maintain political influence appeared to outweigh adherence to established public health guidance.

What unfolded over the next two years raised significant concerns about public health communication, as various narratives emerged that seemed to prey on cognitive biases, exploit cultural divisions, and, ultimately, contributed to public health challenges.

theintellectualist.com/fox-news-covid…

A Network Built on Fear and Distrust

2/7: The seeds of Fox News’ pandemic disinformation campaign were sown long before the first cases of COVID-19 were reported in Wuhan. Decades earlier, with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, a floodgate opened for partisan media to shape public opinion with little regard for balance or fact-checking. For Fox News, this was an opportunity to tap into a conservative audience that felt alienated by mainstream media.

The network didn’t simply report the news; it curated a worldview—one in which its viewers, predominantly older, white, and Christian, were under siege by liberal elites, secularism, and an ever-expanding government.

By the time the pandemic arrived, Fox News had already mastered the art of shaping reality for its viewers. It wasn’t just a television network; it was an ideological fortress, and within its walls, truth became malleable. Science, once revered as a beacon of objectivity, was increasingly viewed by some as a tool of control wielded by an oppressive government.

When the virus first appeared on American soil, the network’s hosts—most notably Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson—were quick to downplay its severity. The pandemic, they insisted, was just another liberal hoax designed to undermine President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign.

The early days of Fox’s pandemic coverage reflected a strong skepticism toward public health measures. Mask mandates? A violation of personal liberty. Vaccines? An unproven experiment. The virus? Exaggerated by the left to seize control.

Carlson, in particular, became adept at presenting narratives that may have contributed to fear, painting an ominous picture of a world where government mandates stripped citizens of their freedoms, all while corporate elites and tech moguls grew richer.

What was more concerning was how these narratives played directly into the psychological vulnerabilities of Fox’s viewers. Elderly, economically anxious, and deeply religious, this demographic was already predisposed to distrust institutions.

Fox News didn’t just exploit this distrust; it appeared to weaponize it. In homes across America, the television screen became a portal to an alternate reality—one where the pandemic wasn’t a global catastrophe but a political game, and where the real enemy wasn’t a virus but the doctors, scientists, and politicians trying to save lives.

theintellectualist.com/fox-news-covid…

Cognitive Bias and the Funhouse of Misinformation

3/7: “You can’t trust them, but you can trust us.” It was a message Fox had perfected over the years, repeated so often that it became a mantra for its viewers. This psychological conditioning relied heavily on cognitive biases like confirmation bias and the illusory truth effect, where repeated exposure to the same false information eventually made it feel true, regardless of the evidence.

Fox News knew its audience well—older Americans, many living in rural or suburban areas, already skeptical of mainstream media and deeply invested in a particular version of American identity. For these viewers, the pandemic wasn’t just a health crisis; it was an existential threat to their way of life. Fox’s hosts capitalized on this fear, offering their audience a sense of familiarity through narratives that downplayed the severity of the situation.

Night after night, viewers were told that masks didn’t work, that vaccines were dangerous, and that the government was overreaching.

As the death toll climbed, so too did the network’s ratings. Hannity’s dismissal of the pandemic as “hysteria,” Ingraham’s promotion of unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine, and Carlson’s skepticism toward vaccines became nightly staples, reinforcing the narrative that the pandemic wasn’t to be taken seriously.

The consequences were concerning.

Research has indicated a correlation between higher viewership of Fox News and lower vaccination rates, as well as higher COVID-19 mortality rates in certain regions, suggesting that media consumption may have influenced public health behaviors.

Counties with higher rates of Fox News viewership reported lower vaccination rates and increased COVID-19 death tolls. A study published in the American Journal of Political Science found that exposure to Fox News was associated with a significant drop in adherence to public health guidelines.

theintellectualist.com/fox-news-covid…

Read 9 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

The Intellectualist

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @highbrow_nobrow

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!