Bob Woodward on Donald Trump: “It looks like he wants to destroy the economy.”

A Warning from Watergate: Woodward Returns

🧵1/11: On March 28, 2025, Bob Woodward sat down with The Washington Post’s Colby Itkowitz for his first major interview since Donald Trump’s second inauguration.

It was more than a retrospective.

It was a warning.

A quiet alarm from the man who helped bring down Nixon, now sounding the signal again—this time, not over a break-in, but over the deliberate unraveling of an economy.

Woodward has written books on ten presidents. He’s interviewed Trump extensively. But in this conversation, he didn’t hedge.

When asked what Trump’s end goal appears to be, Woodward answered plainly:

“It looks like he wants to destroy the economy.”

theintellectualist.com/bob-woodward-t… Doctrine of Destruction: Trump’s Economic Endgame

2/11: To understand why a president might do that, you have to understand what he’s trying to build in its place.

During Trump’s first term, in January 2018, he summoned his economic advisors to the Oval Office.

He wanted tariffs—aggressive ones.

His chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, warned him that tariffs would backfire. They’d raise prices on American consumers.

They’d jeopardize the very stock market gains Trump often boasted about. They’d risk triggering retaliation from allies.

Trump didn’t flinch.

He dismissed Cohn, called him a “globalist,” and told him to sit on the couch—like a subordinate being punished.

That word, globalist, wasn’t random.

In far-right discourse, it’s a term saturated with anti-Semitic overtones—used to cast Jewish figures as manipulators of finance and internationalism.

Cohn, a Jewish man and former president of Goldman Sachs, wasn’t just being ignored.

He was being marked. It wasn’t a policy debate.

It was a purge.

theintellectualist.com/bob-woodward-t…

Trump to Unveil Largest Tax Increase in World History

A Hidden Tax Bomb, Not Passed—But Imposed

🧵1/10: What if the biggest tax hike in U.S. history wasn’t passed by Congress—but snuck in through a tariff?

That’s exactly what President Trump is planning, according to economic columnist Matthew Lynn, writing for The Telegraph on March 31, 2025.

Liberation Day: A $600 Billion Fiscal Earthquake

The initiative is called Liberation Day.

It’s expected to be unveiled this week, and it could impose tariffs so sweeping that they’d generate an estimated $600 billion a year in revenue.

That’s not a side policy—it’s a fiscal earthquake.

To put that in perspective, it would exceed all corporate tax revenue in the United States and instantly become the third largest source of federal funding, behind only income taxes and payroll taxes.
youtube.com/watch?v=kvdfyn… Navarro’s Pitch: A Massive Tax Shift Without a Vote

2/10: Trump loyalist Peter Navarro pitched the plan on Fox News, saying the goal is to tax imports—particularly foreign cars and manufactured goods—in a way that “brings jobs back.”

But Navarro also admitted that the federal government could collect $600 billion a year through this new tariff structure.

If that happens, it would amount to a 15% increase in total U.S. tax revenue, without a single act of Congress.

How Trump Can Do This Alone

How is this possible?

Because under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs.

That means this $600 billion tax could materialize without a single Congressional vote.

It’s a stunning shift in the structure of American taxation—executive fiat replacing legislative deliberation.

youtube.com/watch?v=kvdfyn…

To Help Trump Defy the Constitution, a GOP Senator Proposes Ending Judicial Independence

When the Judge Serves the Ruler

🧵 1/10: What happens when the judge serves the ruler?

That question haunted the Founders. They had seen what power could do to justice—and what justice must do to constrain power. That’s why they built a system where the law stands above the leader, not beneath him.

Imagine if a president lost in court—not because of bias, but because the law and the facts weren’t on their side.

A federal judge rules that the president’s actions are unconstitutional or unlawful.

Checks and balances working exactly as designed.

Now imagine that president simply creates a new court—one that agrees with him.

A custom court. A bench dressed to obey.

That isn’t reform.

That’s absolute power, rubber-stamped and notarized.

So ask yourself: What happens when the courts are no longer independent—but installed?

When the robes answer not to law, but to loyalty?

youtu.be/Stodp_iUn6U The Proposal

2/10: On March 25, 2025, Ashley Moody, a Republican U.S. Senator from Florida, proposed exactly that.

Appearing on Fox News, she suggested that the federal government should create “specialty courts” to bypass federal judges who issue rulings unfavorable to President Donald Trump.

Some defenders argue this is a fix for judicial bias—a counter to so-called “liberal” courts.

But reform operates within the system.

This proposal operates above it.

Reform seeks to uphold the rule of law.

This replaces it.

And this comes as the administration Moody defends openly defies court orders, purges civil servants, and rewrites institutional norms in real time.

Moody, a former federal prosecutor and Attorney General of Florida, framed it as reform.

But in truth, it was an attempt to sidestep judicial independence altogether.

Her proposal isn’t reform.

It’s an attempt to selectively silence the courts—using tools that history, and the very Framers whom people like Moody claim to venerate, explicitly condemned.

It echoes the kind of system the Founders studied, feared, and rejected.

The Star Chamber

The Founders knew what happens when rulers shape courts to serve their will.

In pre-democratic England—before the 1689 Bill of Rights—prerogative courts operated under direct royal authority.

Unlike common law courts, they had no juries, followed no standard legal procedures, and weren’t accountable to the public.

They held secret hearings and punished dissent without due process.

They didn’t exist to deliver justice—they existed to enforce the monarch’s will.

The most infamous of these was the Star Chamber. It answered directly to the crown. It bypassed juries, ignored legal protections, and became a tool for silencing opposition.

Its original mission was noble—punishing powerful nobles who intimidated the courts.

But once the king controlled it, it became something darker: law in appearance, repression in practice.

Its abolition in 1641 wasn’t just legal housekeeping.

It was a declaration: liberty cannot exist where power controls judgment.

The Disappeared: Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine and the Shadow Prison in El Salvador

A Knock at the Door, Then Nothing

🧵1/10: Imagine waking up one morning to discover that your brother is gone.

Not missing—disappeared.

No phone call. No charges. No lawyer.

And days later, a message appears—he’s been deported to a country he’s never been to, locked in a concrete hell designed for gang leaders and killers.

That’s not a story from Argentina’s Dirty War or Stalin’s gulags.

It happened in the United States—in 2025.

And it’s still happening, as you read this.

This is the story of The Disappeared—238 Venezuelan men secretly deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador’s most notorious prison, CECOT—a facility condemned by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch for crimes against human dignity.
youtube.com/watch?v=pJIGxn… Not Criminals—Targets of Vulnerability

2/10: They weren’t taken because they were criminals.

They were taken because they were vulnerable—asylum seekers, migrants, dissidents—fleeing persecution, hoping for protection under American law.

Instead, they were swept up under a statute from 1798—the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime relic once used by John Adams to jail immigrants.

The Trump administration revived it and reinterpreted it to enable a deportation machine without trial, judge, or oversight.

This wasn’t a crackdown on MS-13.

Most had no criminal records.

Some were flagged only for tattoos—like Jefferson José Laya Freites, deported because of a lion on his forearm. It was assumed to be gang-related. It was actually a tribute to his Christian faith.

Or Arturo Suárez Trejo, a Venezuelan singer living in Houston, legally awaiting an asylum hearing. One morning, ICE agents came to his door.

“He’s being transferred to finish processing,” they told his daughter.

He never came home.

His family later identified him in a prison photo—head shaved, shackled, kneeling in the white uniform of El Salvador’s mega-prison.
youtube.com/watch?v=pJIGxn…

The Rise of Hitler: A History of How Democracy Fell in Germany and Its Parallels to Today

🧵1/13: His past was steeped in scandal—a felon, accused of treason and sedition, his actions and rhetoric frequently straddling the line of legality.

He was convicted for attempting to overthrow the government, yet this criminal history didn’t disqualify him.

It only made him more appealing to those who viewed the establishment as corrupt and broken. Instead of disqualifying him, his criminal record and charges became part of his defiant charm, painting him as an outsider willing to fight the system.

Every accusation, every charge of treason, only fueled his rise, showing his supporters that he could not be tamed and was the only one willing to challenge the powers that had held the nation in their grip.
youtu.be/ShqC3146Shw?si… 2/13: At first, they dismissed him. The elites, the media, the political class—they thought they could control him. They mocked him as a sideshow, a foolish provocateur, destined to be forgotten.

But in the wake of high inflation, economic instability, and a country that had lost its bearings, his words struck a chord with those who had been cast aside.

In an age of rising populism, economic dislocation, and a shrinking middle class, his rhetoric didn’t promise solutions—it promised retribution.

It wasn’t just blame he offered; it was a convenient, scapegoated enemy to rally against.

His was a message soaked in anger, dripping with resentment for anyone deemed an outsider.

Minorities, immigrants, political rivals—all of them were the root of the nation’s collapse. And in this narrative of vengeance, he found his power.
youtu.be/ShqC3146Shw?si…

Trump’s War on Lawyers Leaves His Critics Defenseless

When the Law Stands Down

🧵1/9: Some stories reveal injustice. Others show how justice itself disappears.

In a March 25, 2025 report published by The Washington Post, journalist Michael Birnbaum reveals that major U.S. law firms are now refusing to represent opponents of President Donald Trump, as the administration escalates retaliatory actions that many legal scholars warn are reshaping the American justice system itself.

Weaponizing the Legal Profession

President Donald Trump is no longer just targeting political adversaries—he’s targeting their lawyers.

Through executive orders, punitive sanctions, and quiet threats, the administration is redrawing the boundaries of professional risk.

Once-proud firms that challenged Trump’s first-term agenda are retreating, fearing loss of federal access, clients, and economic survival.

“The law firms have to behave themselves,” Trump declared.

“They behave very badly, very wrongly.”

His message is clear: resistance has consequences. And America’s legal firewall is starting to crack.
theintellectualist.com/trump-legal-cr… The Chilling Effect in Action

2/9: The tactics are surgically coercive.

Targeted law firms are barred from federal buildings.

Their attorneys stripped of security clearances.

Executive orders direct federal agencies to sever all contracts with any business that employs them.

The chilling effect is deliberate—and immediate.

Former Biden officials now facing litigation say they can’t find lawyers.

One had five firms withdraw, including a pro bono partner who backed out the day after Trump signed an order against Perkins Coie.

“The partner was livid,” the former official said, “but said leadership wouldn’t take the risk.”

When the law firms tasked with defending liberty retreat, what remains to defend the Constitution?

Compliance vs. Consequence

The harm is financial, reputational—and constitutional.

Perkins Coie estimated losses of 25% of its revenue after the order.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a restraining order and expressed deep alarm:

“It sends little chills down my spine.”

In response, the Justice Department tried to remove her from the case, accusing her court of bias.

Another firm—Paul Weiss—chose compliance over confrontation.

After a closed-door meeting at the White House, it agreed to donate $40 million in legal work aligned with Trump’s policy goals.

The executive order against it was promptly rescinded.

Resistance brings punishment.

Compliance brings reprieve.
theintellectualist.com/trump-legal-cr…

The Disappeared: Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine and the Shadow Prison in El Salvador

A Knock at the Door, Then Nothing

🧵1/10: Imagine waking up one morning to discover that your brother is gone.

Not missing—disappeared.

No phone call. No charges. No lawyer.

And days later, a message appears—he’s been deported to a country he’s never been to, locked in a concrete hell designed for gang leaders and killers.

That’s not a story from Argentina’s Dirty War or Stalin’s gulags.

It happened in the United States—in 2025.

And it’s still happening, as you read this.

This is the story of The Disappeared—238 Venezuelan men secretly deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador’s most notorious prison, CECOT—a facility condemned by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch for crimes against human dignity.
theintellectualist.com/the-disappeare… Not Criminals—Targets of Vulnerability

2/10: They weren’t taken because they were criminals.

They were taken because they were vulnerable—asylum seekers, migrants, dissidents—fleeing persecution, hoping for protection under American law.

Instead, they were swept up under a statute from 1798—the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime relic once used by John Adams to jail immigrants.

The Trump administration revived it and reinterpreted it to enable a deportation machine without trial, judge, or oversight.

This wasn’t a crackdown on MS-13.

Most had no criminal records.

Some were flagged only for tattoos—like Jefferson José Laya Freites, deported because of a lion on his forearm. It was assumed to be gang-related. It was actually a tribute to his Christian faith.

Or Arturo Suárez Trejo, a Venezuelan singer living in Houston, legally awaiting an asylum hearing. One morning, ICE agents came to his door.

“He’s being transferred to finish processing,” they told his daughter.

He never came home.

His family later identified him in a prison photo—head shaved, shackled, kneeling in the white uniform of El Salvador’s mega-prison.
theintellectualist.com/the-disappeare…

Trump’s USAID Cuts Leave Starving Babies Without Food as American Aid System Collapses

A Life-Saving Mission Crumbles

🧵1/6: In a detailed report by CBS News correspondent Graham Kates, titled “American manufacturer of food for malnourished babies lays off staff amid USAID funding upheaval,” published March 20, 2025, an American-made humanitarian crisis is unfolding with devastating global consequences.

At the heart of it is Edesia Nutrition, a Rhode Island-based nonprofit that produces Plumpy’Nut—a shelf-stable, peanut-based paste used to treat severe acute malnutrition in children.

The company has been a crucial partner in U.S. foreign aid for 16 years, supplying ready-to-use therapeutic food to famine-stricken regions.

But after a sweeping overhaul of USAID led by the Trump administration eliminated more than 80% of the agency’s foreign assistance contracts, Edesia—though technically spared—was still forced to lay off 10% of its workforce due to non-payment of invoices for already fulfilled orders.
theintellectualist.com/trump-usaid-cu… Layoffs Amid Plenty: When Compassion Meets a Wall of Bureaucracy

2/6: CEO Navyn Salem called the layoffs “the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do.”

Although her USAID contract remains active on paper, multiple invoices have been rejected in recent weeks, causing shipments to halt and her warehouse to overflow with unsent product.

One invoice was rejected because the goods had not yet shipped; another was denied despite being tied to a batch that had shipped.

Meanwhile, American peanut farmers and suppliers—integral parts of Edesia’s domestic supply chain—have gone unpaid, creating ripple effects that undercut both U.S. agriculture and global health aid.

A Fictional Baby, A Real Crisis

To understand what’s truly at stake, consider one fictional but fully representative case: a baby girl named Nyalok, living in a remote region of South Sudan, one of the countries currently experiencing extreme famine.

Born prematurely and weighing less than five pounds, Nyalok showed signs of acute malnutrition—sunken eyes, distended belly, and barely the energy to cry.

Her mother, Abuk, walked hours to a rural health clinic where Plumpy’Nut had saved another child’s life two years earlier.

This time, the staff had nothing to offer. “A shipment was supposed to come,” one nurse told her, “but it never arrived.” The food had been produced in the United States—but it never left the port, because USAID hadn’t paid for it.

To be absolutely clear: Nyalok is a fictional case, based on conditions widely reported by humanitarian organizations like UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.

She is not real, but her story is representative of thousands of real children whose survival now hangs in the balance. Babies just like her will now go without food. Some will die.

And not because the world lacks resources—but because the U.S. government, under Donald Trump’s leadership, has broken the system that used to deliver help.

theintellectualist.com/trump-usaid-cu…

In Social Media Post, Trump Demands Submission From Maine’s Governor

“We need a full-throated apology from the Governor herself, and a statement that she will never make such an unlawful challenge to the Federal Government again.” — President Donald J. Trump

A Defiant Response from Governor Mills

🧵1/8: At the recent White House Governors’ Conference, Maine Governor Janet Mills responded to President Donald Trump’s criticism of state policies concerning transgender athletes with a succinct remark:

“I’ll see you in court.”

Standing among her peers, Governor Mills invoked the rule of law, signaling readiness to resolve disputes through judicial means.
theintellectualist.com/trump-demands-… Trump’s Demand for Submission

2/8: President Trump’s reaction was swift and pointed. He publicly demanded that Governor Mills issue a personal, “full-throated” apology and pledge never to challenge the federal government in such a manner again.

Despite Maine’s prior clarification on the matter, the President dismissed it as insufficient, emphasizing that Governor Mills herself must make the concession. This response transcended typical political discourse, resembling a demand for personal submission.
A Familiar Pattern with Women in Power

Observers note that this incident aligns with a recurring pattern in President Trump’s interactions, particularly with female leaders who openly challenge him.

Historically, figures such as Hillary Clinton, Gretchen Whitmer, and E. Jean Carroll have faced similar responses characterized by demands for public contrition or personal attacks. This consistent behavior raises questions about the President’s approach to dissent and governance.

theintellectualist.com/trump-demands-…

🌍Spanish: How The Language of A Once Tiny Kingdom Became Global

🧵1/9: The roots of Spanish stretch back to the spoken Latin of the Romans on the Iberian Peninsula, a language that has undergone extensive transformation to become the rich and complex Spanish we recognize today.

This evolution was not in isolation; the Arabic influences during the Almoravid rule introduced a wealth of vocabulary and grammatical nuance to the language.

These influences were integral in shaping modern Spanish, which now boasts the status of being the fourth most widely spoken language in the world. The emergence of Spanish as a national language is a relatively recent phenomenon, mirroring the historical trend where diverse dialects unify into a single standard language.

This standardization reflects the broader pattern of emerging modern nation-states during the early modern period, where language played a critical role in constructing national identity.

The Linguistic Evolution of the Iberian Peninsula

Long before modern borders were drawn, the Iberian Peninsula was a melting pot of languages. Each community spoke a distinct language, contributing to a colorful linguistic patchwork. When the Romans came, they brought Latin with them, which slowly began to weave its way into the local dialects, becoming the common thread among the various communities.

However, not all languages blended with Latin. The Basque language, spoken in the mountainous region between Spain and France, stands out as a unique member of this linguistic family. It is unrelated to the Romance languages that sprouted from Latin and remains a living example of the Peninsula’s ancient linguistic diversity.

After the fall of Rome, Latin’s unifying influence faded, and the Peninsula fragmented into a series of kingdoms, each with a language that was a mix of Latin and local speech.

Over time, these languages began to consolidate—a process where, slowly but steadily, one language extends its influence over others. This can happen for many reasons, like the power of the kingdom that speaks it, the prestige of its literature, or its use in trade and governance.

In the case of the Iberian Peninsula, the language of the Kingdom of Castile, known as Castilian, gained the upper hand. As Castile expanded its territory and power, so did its language. Castilian spread through the Peninsula, in schools, in laws, and in everyday conversation, gradually becoming the dominant language.

This is the language we now recognize as Spanish, a testament to the historical process of language consolidation where one regional tongue becomes the voice of a nation.

The Almoravid Influence on Castilian Spanish

When North African invaders, known as the Moors, swept into the Iberian Peninsula, they brought with them not only their armies but also a rich and complex culture.

These conquerors, reaching as far as present-day France, were halted at the Battle of Tours, an event that could have significantly reshaped European history had they succeeded. This pivotal moment marked the northernmost expansion of the Moors, with the Iberian Peninsula remaining their stronghold.

The era of Moorish rule, particularly under the Almoravids, gave rise to Al-Andalus, a time and place where cultures converged, and the arts and sciences thrived. It was here, amidst this vibrant intellectual milieu, that Castilian Spanish absorbed a wealth of Arabic vocabulary.

The Arabic language, renowned for its contributions to science, mathematics, and philosophy, left an indelible mark on Spanish, as seen in the many Spanish words prefixed with ‘al,’ a direct lift from Arabic articles. Al-Andalus stands out in history as a beacon of learning and tolerance, and its linguistic legacy is still audible in the Spanish we speak today. Words like “alcohol,” “algebra,” and “almohada” (pillow) are but a few examples of this enduring Arabic influence.

theintellectualist.com/spanish-how-th… The Almoravid Influence on Castilian Spanish

2/9: When North African invaders, known as the Moors, swept into the Iberian Peninsula, they brought with them not only their armies but also a rich and complex culture.

These conquerors, reaching as far as present-day France, were halted at the Battle of Tours, an event that could have significantly reshaped European history had they succeeded. This pivotal moment marked the northernmost expansion of the Moors, with the Iberian Peninsula remaining their stronghold.

The era of Moorish rule, particularly under the Almoravids, gave rise to Al-Andalus, a time and place where cultures converged, and the arts and sciences thrived. It was here, amidst this vibrant intellectual milieu, that Castilian Spanish absorbed a wealth of Arabic vocabulary.

The Arabic language, renowned for its contributions to science, mathematics, and philosophy, left an indelible mark on Spanish, as seen in the many Spanish words prefixed with ‘al,’ a direct lift from Arabic articles. Al-Andalus stands out in history as a beacon of learning and tolerance, and its linguistic legacy is still audible in the Spanish we speak today. Words like “alcohol,” “algebra,” and “almohada” (pillow) are but a few examples of this enduring Arabic influence.

This blending of languages under the Almoravids illustrates the depth of cultural interplay that occurred and highlights the role of conquests not only in changing borders but also in enriching languages.

The Gradual Reconquista and the Development of Spain’s Modern Languages

The Reconquista, a centuries-long period of intermittent battles, was not just a military campaign but also a crucible for the languages of the Iberian Peninsula. As Christian kingdoms in the north began to reclaim territory from the Moorish south, they found themselves not only fighting against a common enemy but also vying for dominance amongst themselves. Each kingdom—be it Castile, Aragon, or Leon—had its own version of the Romance languages that had emerged after the fall of Rome.

It was during this period that Castilian began to take on a role larger than just the language of a single kingdom.

Under King Sancho III of Castile, a concerted effort was made to standardize this dialect, laying the groundwork for its future as the national language. This standardization included the adoption of certain grammatical and orthographic rules, making Castilian more consistent and widely intelligible across the various regions of the kingdom.

As the Reconquista progressed, so did the expansion of Castilian.

It was a gradual process, with each victory against the Moors also serving as a catalyst for the spread of Castilian culture and language.

By the time the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella completed the Reconquista in 1492, Castilian had already taken root as the primary language of governance and commerce throughout the reconsolidated territories.

The final seal of linguistic unity came with the political unification of Spain.

As the new Spanish state began to emerge, Castilian was increasingly seen as the language of the Spanish identity, a sentiment that was formalized when it became the official language of the entire kingdom. This official status secured Castilian’s position as the national language, a status it has maintained into modern times.

Today’s linguistic landscape in Spain is still marked by the diversity that characterized the early days of the Reconquista, with languages like Catalan, Galician, and Basque holding official status in their respective regions. However, the story of Castilian’s rise reflects the historical power dynamics that have shaped national languages worldwide.

theintellectualist.com/spanish-how-th…

The Poisoning of the American Mind: How Fox News Conditioned A Nation for Tyranny

🧵1/9: There is no single moment when democracy dies.

No grand funeral.

No sirens wailing in the streets.

It vanishes step by step—one norm broken, one institution hollowed out, one truth buried beneath a pile of lies.

And when the final threshold is crossed, most people don’t even realize it.

They wake up, drink their coffee, scroll their news feed, and assume the world is as it was yesterday.

But it isn’t.

The rules have changed. Power is no longer constrained by law.

What was once unthinkable is now just another headline.

Another day in America.

Black Saturday: The Day the Rule of Law Collapsed

March 15, 2025—Black Saturday—the day checks and balances failed.

A sitting president, in open defiance of the judiciary, brazenly violated a federal court order, authorizing the deportation of over 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador despite Judge James E. Boasberg’s directive to halt and return the flights.

With that single act, he shattered the foundations of constitutional government, proving that the rule of law no longer applied to those in power.

Future historians will mark it as a day of infamy—spoken in the same breath as December 7, September 11, and January 6.

It was the moment a court order became a mere suggestion rather than a constitutional19: There is no single moment when democracy dies.

No grand funeral.

No sirens wailing in the streets.

It vanishes step by step—one norm broken, one institution hollowed out, one truth buried beneath a pile of lies. l.

No tanks rolled through the streets. No new constitution was signed.

But make no mistake—this was the day democracy in America ceased to function.

A federal court issued a direct order to the President of the United States. The White House ignored it.

And nothing happened.

No enforcement. No accountability. No constitutional crisis that led to immediate consequences.

This is how democracy falls—not with a bang, but with silence.

Not through a dramatic coup, but through quiet acquiescence.

Black Saturday was the moment it became clear: the law only matters if those in power choose to obey it.

A System Already Hollowed Out

This was not the first time a leader defied the rule of law.

But this time was different.

This time, there was no backlash, no intervention, no meaningful resistance.

The political system had already been eroded to the point where consequences no longer applied.

Congress would not act—Trump’s party had become a rubber-stamp legislature, too afraid or too complicit to challenge him.

The Supreme Court—stacked with justices who believe in an all-powerful executive—would not intervene.

The Justice Department—purged of officials with even a shred of independence—would do nothing.

And the press?

The press would cover it, debate it, analyze it—then move on.

Because the machine that had poisoned the American mind for decades had already done its work.
theintellectualist.com/?p=73800 Fox News: America’s Chief Poisoner

2/9: Fox News, one of the chief architects of America’s democratic decay, had conditioned the public to expect lawlessness from their leader.

To justify it.

To celebrate it.

This is the legacy of Rupert Murdoch’s empire.

Not just misinformation.

Not just propaganda.

But the systematic destruction of the American public’s ability to see reality, to process truth, to respond to corruption with outrage.

Fox News did not act alone.

It built the foundation for the others who would follow—OAN, Newsmax, the radicalization of Facebook’s algorithm, and the transformation of Twitter into X.

But Fox was the original poisoner. The one that made the others possible.

The one that trained millions to distrust any information that did not conform to their worldview.

The one that taught its audience that the courts, the press, and the opposition were not just wrong, but illegitimate.

That any act taken in the name of power was justified, as long as their side was the one doing it.
theintellectualist.com/?p=73800

Black Saturday: The Day the United States Ceased to Be a Constitutional Democracy

The Moment Democracy Ceased to Function

🧵1/10: Saturday, March 15, 2025, may have seemed unremarkable to most Americans. But in time, history will remember it as Black Saturday—the moment the United States ceased to function as a constitutional democracy.

For the first time in modern American history, a sitting president openly defied a direct federal court order—and nothing happened. No intervention. No enforcement. No consequences.

A legal ruling was issued, and the White House simply ignored it.

The White House’s Decision: Power Over Law

Inside the White House, the decision was not about law—it was about power.

A federal judge ruled against the administration. The debate inside Trump’s team was not whether the ruling was legal, but whether they could get away with ignoring it. They decided they could. And they were right.

This was not a clash between equal branches of government. It was the moment the judiciary was exposed as powerless. The courts do not have an army. They rely on compliance.

But a court that cannot enforce its rulings is not a court—it is a suggestion box.

And a presidency that can ignore the courts without consequence is no longer constrained by law—it is an untouchable executive.

Trump did not declare the end of judicial authority in a speech.

He demonstrated it in practice.

This is how democratic systems collapse—not with a single act, but with the normalization of defiance, the expectation that a ruling can simply be brushed aside.
theintellectualist.com/black-saturday… How the System Failed to Stop Him

2/10: This moment did not happen in isolation. It happened because every prior attempt to hold Trump accountable has failed.

The system tried—and at every turn, it proved incapable of stopping him.

Impeachment failed—twice.

Criminal cases stalled.

The Supreme Court refused to rule on his disqualification.

Congress never moved to check his power.

At each step, Trump tested the system—and the system flinched.

He learned that laws are only as strong as the institutions willing to enforce them.

And so, when faced with a court ruling, he did what he had been conditioned to do—he ignored it. And nothing happened.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Making the Presidency Untouchable

The judiciary was already weakened by years of erosion, but in 2024, the Supreme Court itself ensured that when this moment arrived, there would be no legal recourse left.

In a landmark ruling, the Court expanded presidential immunity to such an extent that the office of the presidency is now functionally above the law.

A president can commit crimes while in office and face no immediate accountability.

And now, with Black Saturday, Trump has proven that he can ignore court rulings entirely without consequence.

This is not the separation of powers.

It is the absorption of power into a single branch. The courts were supposed to be the last line of defense. Instead, they have been reduced to issuing rulings the executive can freely ignore.

theintellectualist.com/black-saturday…

The Collapse of U.S. Global Leadership Has Arrived

The Moment Before the Fall

1/13: 🧵There is a moment before the fall, a moment when history slows, when those who can still see the truth begin screaming into the void.

A moment when an empire stands at the edge of the abyss, staring down into the darkness, but does nothing to stop the fall. That moment is now.

Trump’s Subtle Endorsement of Russia’s Land Grab

On March 14, 2025, on Fox News, Sean Hannity turned to Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, and said, “I would imagine parts—maybe the Donbas region in particular—or areas that are heavily populated by people from Russia, that would go to Putin in any negotiated settlement. Am I wrong?”

It didn’t sound like a question. It sounded like a suggestion, a justification disguised as inquiry.

The language was carefully crafted, eerily aligned with Kremlin talking points, reinforcing the idea that Russian-speaking territories in Ukraine are naturally Russian and that the realignment of borders is not an act of war but an inevitability.

Waltz did not push back. He did not correct the record. Instead, he said, “You’re not wrong in any of that.”

But this time, history does not have to repeat.

theintellectualist.com/trump-ukraine-… The Abandonment of Ukraine

2/13: With those words, the Trump administration signaled something far more dangerous than a shift in policy.

It suggested that Ukraine’s fate would no longer be determined by the battlefield, by the resolve of its people, or by the alliances it had built with democratic nations.

Instead, it would be dictated by a White House willing to trade land for political favor, negotiated in Washington rather than Kyiv.

The message was clear. Trump was not simply re-evaluating America’s support for Ukraine—he was dismantling it.

This was not the language of deterrence. It was not even the language of realpolitik.

It was surrender dressed up as pragmatism, an admission that America would no longer be an obstacle to Putin’s ambitions.

The betrayal was not subtle. It was not hidden. It was happening in plain sight.
theintellectualist.com/trump-ukraine-…

From Global Leader to Rogue Nation: How Trump’s Policies Are Destroying U.S. Influence

🧵1/9: There was a time when the world could count on the United States.

That time is over.

Not because we were conquered.

Not because we were outmatched.

But because we let it slip away. Because we turned on each other.

Because we have allowed one man to turn our institutions into weapons of vengeance, our laws into tools of self-preservation, and our global leadership into a sideshow of pettiness and destruction.

For most of the post-World War II era, the United States was the pillar of global stability.

We were the axis upon which the modern world turned.

We led in defending democracy, upholding international law, ensuring economic security.

The Pax Americana—however flawed—kept the world in relative balance.

But today, the U.S. is no longer a stabilizer. It is a destabilizer.

The country that once defended order now manufactures chaos.

And no single person is more responsible for this shift than Donald Trump.

For the past ten years, even when he wasn’t in office, Trump dictated the direction of U.S. foreign policy, economic strategy, and domestic governance.

He has been the single most destabilizing force in modern American history. This is not just about a second Trump presidency.

This is about a decade-long transformation of America from a superpower into a source of global instability.

The collapse of global order didn’t begin with Trump.

But he accelerated it in ways once thought unimaginable.

When the Cold War ended, the U.S. stood uncontested as the world’s superpower.

The American Century was supposed to endure.

But instead of fortifying our institutions, we let them rot.
theintellectualist.com/americas-globa… Newt Gingrich, the Tea Party, and Donald Trump

2/9: The Republican Party, once a champion of American strength abroad, turned its gaze inward—away from foreign adversaries, toward its own countrymen.

Newt Gingrich redefined politics as war.

The Tea Party turned governance into siege.

By the time Trump arrived, the GOP had already abandoned policy for grievance, and he gave them what they had been waiting for: a demagogue who didn’t just hate Democrats, but democracy itself.

This shift created a party that no longer seeks to govern—it seeks only to rule.

Some argue that Trump’s nationalism was a necessary correction after decades of globalization.

But economic nationalism does not have to be isolationist or erratic. Trump’s reckless trade wars, unilateral tariffs, and deliberate antagonism toward U.S. allies weren’t about strengthening America—they were about punishment.

While past administrations leveraged economic power to build alliances, deter adversaries, and reinforce global stability, Trump wields it as a weapon of sabotage, turning America’s economic influence against its own allies.
theintellectualist.com/americas-globa…

JD Vance’s Cousin Fought in Ukraine—Now He Says JD Betrayed His Brothers-in-Arms

🧵1/8: History is not destiny. It is the choices we make when history calls that define us.

Two men, bound by blood but divided by war, politics, and conviction, prove this truth with every step they take.

Nate Vance fought in Ukraine, where every inch of ground was paid for in blood. JD Vance, his first cousin, spoke of it from behind a polished lectern.

But words from power do more than shape policy. They decide who gets the weapons to fight—and who is left to die without them.

Nate gave three years of his life to Ukraine—two and a half in the trenches, where survival was measured in yards, and death came in waves of artillery fire.

He had seen men, barely out of their teens, stand their ground against Russian firepower with nothing but rifles and borrowed armor.

He had witnessed war in ways few ever would. He knew, with absolute certainty, what was at stake in Ukraine.

JD Vance did not.

Then came the moment that broke him. JD Vance—his first cousin—sat beside Donald Trump in the Oval Office, looking across at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—not as an ally, but as a skeptic.

As he dismissed Ukraine’s need for U.S. support, something inside Nate fractured.

He had defended his cousin for years. Told others JD was smart, thoughtful, principled. That he played politics because he had to. That deep down, he understood what really mattered.

He had been wrong.

When JD Vance spoke about Ukraine, he turned to pundits and reports—to men in suits, not men in trenches.

He never called the one person in his own family who had seen it with his own eyes, who could have told him, with absolute certainty, what was true—his own cousin.
theintellectualist.com/jd-vance-cousi… Before the War: Nate’s Journey to Ukraine

2/8: Before the war, Nate Vance lived a life of quiet stability. He was a lifelong Republican, a hunter, a man who had spent years working in Texas’s oil industry.

There was nothing in his past to suggest he would one day find himself deep in the trenches of eastern Ukraine.

But when Russia invaded in 2022, something inside him stirred.

At first, it was a desire to see history unfold, a curiosity mixed with a sense of duty. In March 2022, he traveled to Lviv, western Ukraine, intending to support the war effort through logistics or medical aid.

What he found instead was a nation fighting for survival.

A military so desperate for soldiers that bartenders, students, and schoolteachers were given a week of training before being sent to the front.

In a hotel lobby, a British volunteer recognized his military background and asked if he could help train new recruits. A few months later, training was not enough. Nate picked up a rifle and went to war.

By the summer of 2022, he had joined the Da Vinci Wolves, a battalion formed by Ukrainian defenders who had been fighting since the Maidan Revolution of 2014.

The people he fought beside had left behind careers as lawyers, professors, engineers.

They had given up their futures because they understood that without sacrifice, there would be no country left to fight for.

The battles that followed tested every limit of the human spirit:

Bakhmut – where entire blocks of buildings were reduced to twisted steel and ash under relentless shelling.

Kupiansk – a fight so brutal that soldiers engaged in hand-to-hand combat amid the ruins of their own defenses.

Avdiivka – where the sky never darkened without the glow of burning buildings, and Nate and his comrades held their ground, knowing that if the line broke, thousands would die.

Fifteen times, he believed he would not make it out alive. In Bakhmut, under an artillery barrage so relentless it seemed the sky itself had turned to fire, he and his commander sat in the mud, trapped, convinced they would never see another sunrise. They said their goodbyes. But somehow, morning came, and they were still breathing.

He had long since stopped questioning why.

“You don’t think about it,” he would later say. “You just do it.”

Leaving Ukraine: A Reluctant Farewell

When his service in Ukraine came to an end, it was not by choice. Nate Vance did not leave because he wanted to—he left because he had to.

When JD Vance became Vice President in January 2025, Nate understood that he was no longer just another foreign volunteer. His familial connection to the new Vice President complicated his situation—making him a potential political liability or, worse, a propaganda tool if captured by Russian forces.

Reluctantly, he left his brothers-in-arms behind.

Now, drifting across the roads of the American West in his camper van, he watches his cousin, the man he once defended as intelligent and principled, dismantle everything Ukraine has fought for.

JD Vance, sitting beside Donald Trump, advocating for negotiations with Putin, as if diplomacy had ever stopped a dictator before he was forced to his knees.
theintellectualist.com/jd-vance-cousi…

Trump Justifies Russian War Crimes: “Putin is Just Doing What Anybody Else Would Do.”

🧵1/10: The Trump administration hasn’t just abandoned Ukraine—it’s actively working to hand Putin the victory Russia’s military couldn’t secure through force.

More than mere appeasement, the U.S. President is an active enabler of Moscow’s war effort.

His administration’s decision to block critical battlefield intelligence—data that has saved countless lives—wasn’t just a policy shift. It was deliberate sabotage.
theintellectualist.com/trump-aiding-p… 2/10: As Russian bombs rain down on Ukrainian cities, Trump shrugs off the horror, declaring in the Oval Office:

“Putin is just doing what anybody else would do.”

An excuse as chilling as history’s worst rationalizations of atrocity.

This is the same moral void that once justified the leveling of Grozny, the razing of Aleppo, the destruction of Mariupol.

The message is clear: In Trump’s world, the strong have the right to exterminate the weak.
theintellectualist.com/trump-aiding-p…

Trump’s Intel Cutoff Costs Hundreds of Ukrainian Lives as Russia Advances

1/9: 🧵Donald Trump’s decision to cut off intelligence-sharing has left Ukrainian soldiers blind—and hundreds are already dead. Smoke rises over Kursk, where Russia advances unchallenged, its path cleared by Washington’s betrayal.

According to Simon Shuster’s TIME report, “Hundreds of Dead: Inside the Fallout from Trump’s Ukraine Intel Pause”, published on March 8, 2025, Trump’s administration severed military intelligence-sharing with Ukraine in the days following a contentious February 28 Oval Office meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky.

During that exchange, Zelensky pleaded for continued U.S. support, warning that Russia could not be trusted in ceasefire negotiations.

Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance publicly dismissed him, with Trump rejecting Ukraine’s position outright. “You don’t have the cards,” Trump said, dismissing Zelensky’s concerns. “You’re gambling with World War III.”

In the days that followed, the U.S. cut off critical intelligence-sharing and military aid. The decision came swiftly after the meeting, with U.S. officials openly blaming Ukraine for the fallout.
theintellectualist.com/trump-intel-cu… 2/9: The impact has been immediate and devastating. “As a result of this pause, there are hundreds of dead Ukrainians,” a senior Ukrainian military officer told TIME.

The officer, speaking anonymously, described a morale collapse among troops now forced to fight without access to key intelligence that previously helped them anticipate Russian attacks. “The biggest problem is morale,” he explained. “It’s really causing an advantage for the enemy on the front line.”

One of the hardest-hit areas is Kursk, where Ukrainian forces launched a surprise offensive last August, marking the first invasion of Russian territory since World War II.

That operation embarrassed the Kremlin and prompted Moscow to escalate its war effort, bringing in North Korean troops to reinforce Russian forces.

Zelensky had intended to use Kursk as a bargaining chip in future negotiations, hoping to trade parts of the region for Ukrainian land currently under Russian occupation.

However, with the loss of U.S. intelligence, Russia has exploited Ukraine’s growing vulnerabilities and made rapid gains in Kursk. “If we do nothing, there will be huge consequences,” warned Roman Pogorily, co-founder of Deep State, an open-source intelligence organization monitoring battlefield developments. “It is impossible to move normally along [the main supply line],” he added.

Beyond Kursk, the intelligence blackout has significantly weakened Ukrainian operations inside Russian-held territory.

A Ukrainian government source told TIME that the loss of U.S. intelligence has left Ukraine exposed to Russian bomber and missile launches, dramatically reducing the time available to warn civilians and military personnel of incoming attacks.

“Not only Kursk, in all Russian territory there are problems now,” the source confirmed. “It’s very dangerous for our people.”
theintellectualist.com/trump-intel-cu…

Loyalty or Ruin: How Trump Brought America's Oligarchs to Submission

🧵1/8: The transformation of the United States into a personalist, autocratic, and kleptocratic regime is no longer a possibility—it is happening.

For decades, America’s billionaires bought politicians. Now, they pay tribute out of fear. The system is shifting from influence to submission, where economic power exists at the mercy of Donald Trump.

“Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America—one of extreme wealth, power, and influence that threatens our democracy, basic rights, and the fair opportunity for everyone to get ahead.”

That was President Joe Biden’s final address to the nation on January 15, 2025—a warning that, in retrospect, carries the same weight as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech, where he cautioned that the unchecked power of the military-industrial complex would corrupt democracy.

Eisenhower’s fear was corporate dominance.
Biden’s fear was something darker.

This is not just oligarchy—it is subjugation.

This is something new in America. But familiar to those who have studied the rise of Vladimir Putin.

theintellectualist.com/americas-trans… 2/8: In 1990s Russia, oligarchs bought elections.

A handful of billionaires rescued Boris Yeltsin’s failing 1996 campaign, flooding it with cash despite his unpopularity. In return, they seized control of Russia’s wealth—oil, gas, metals, and media.

They believed they had mastered the system.

Then, Vladimir Putin came to power.

He made it clear: your wealth is not your own—it exists at my discretion.

Some oligarchs resisted. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia’s richest man, tried to challenge Putin.

He was arrested in 2003, his assets seized, his name erased. The others got the message. They could keep their fortunes—but only if they played along. They had to pay up—or be destroyed.

Trump is actively creating the same system in the United States.

For decades, America’s billionaires shaped policy through campaign donations, lobbying, and influence networks. It was corrupt, but predictable.

You paid for access, and you got something in return—lower taxes, deregulation, government contracts.

That world is gone.
theintellectualist.com/americas-trans…

The Great Disconnect: Why Americans Enable The Policies That Harm Them

1/10: 🧵Carl Sagan once warned of a world where people, unable to discern reality from illusion, would slide back into superstition and darkness.

He spoke of a time when truth itself would erode, when those in power would operate unseen, and when the people—adrift in confusion—would mistake their own cages for freedom.

That world is not a distant nightmare. It is here.

There is something deeply wrong. Everyone can feel it, like a slow decay beneath their feet. Bank accounts empty faster than they fill. Rent rises while wages freeze in place. Grocery bills climb, medical costs spiral, stability dissolves.

And yet, in a cruel inversion of progress, those at the top grow wealthier, more powerful, untouchable. The American Dream, once a promise, has become a taunt.

For the first time in modern history, Americans believe their children will have it worse than they did.

And yet—ask why this is happening, and the answers scatter into confusion. Some say immigrants. Some say laziness. Some say woke policies, or global elites, or government incompetence.

A thousand explanations, all carefully placed to conceal the truth.

The suffering is real, but its cause?

Deliberately obscured.
theintellectualist.com/the-great-disc… 2/10: Those who rule over us do not fear anger—they fear understanding. So they construct a world where people are too exhausted, too distracted, and too misled to see cause and effect.

When more than half of Americans read at a sixth-grade level or lower, the consequences are profound.

A public that cannot read deeply cannot think deeply. They are left with emotional shortcuts—gut instincts, scapegoats, and simplistic villains. They do not process complexity; they react. And reaction is controllable. It can be redirected.

A functioning democracy requires an electorate that can critically examine who benefits from their suffering.

But an informed public is the last thing the powerful want. Instead, they need a population too overwhelmed to ask questions, too bombarded with noise to see the connections hiding in plain sight.

Once, there were institutions that exposed these connections.

Journalism existed not to entertain, but to investigate, to reveal, to hold power accountable.

Local newspapers covered local corruption. Regional outlets kept state governments in check. National publications conducted investigations that could bring down presidents.

That era is over.

In its place, we have infotainment, outrage-bait, algorithmic hysteria. Local papers have been gutted, their voices silenced.

Investigative teams have been replaced by repackaged press releases. What remains is not journalism, but entertainment disguised as news—a machine that does not seek to inform, but to enrage, distract, and distort.

Truth has been monetized, manipulated, and buried beneath a flood of manufactured outrage. And in its place?

Echo chambers designed not to challenge your beliefs, but to weaponize them.

A handful of corporations control nearly everything Americans see, read, and hear. Six conglomerates own the vast majority of media.

Tech giants determine which stories are amplified and which are buried.

And the billionaires who own these platforms are not neutral actors—they are power brokers, shaping reality itself.
theintellectualist.com/the-great-disc…

The Offensive Absurdity of Suggesting That Ukraine Should Just Forgive Russia and ‘Move On’

🧵1/7: Some questions aren’t just offensive.

They expose something deeper—something rotten at the core of the person asking them.

What if, just three years after 9/11, the President of France—a country that is an ally of the United States—stood in front of the world and said to President George W. Bush:

“Do you think you can forgive al-Qaeda?”

“Why don’t you forgive Osama bin Laden?”

“This whole thing could end if you would just find a way to make peace with him.”

Imagine the outrage. Imagine the reaction of the American people.

The sheer indignation at the idea that the burden of peace should fall on the victims, rather than the terrorists who had just murdered 3,000 innocent people.
theintellectualist.com/trump-ukraine-… 2/7: Now, imagine the United States itself—a country that until very recently under Trump was considered an ally of Ukraine—saying the exact same thing.

Because that is precisely what Donald Trump is doing to Ukraine.

He isn’t asking Russia, the invader, the aggressor, the one committing war crimes, to stop.

He isn’t telling Putin to withdraw his forces, to stop bombing cities, to stop executing civilians, to stop abducting children.

Instead, he’s telling Ukraine—the invaded, the victim—to lay down its arms and “move on.”

It’s an obscene question.

A betrayal.

And it completely flips reality on its head.

But let’s go even further.

What if, just three years after 9/11, someone walked up to President George W. Bush and asked:

“Do you think you can forgive al-Qaeda?”

“Why don’t you forgive Osama bin Laden?”

“Why can’t you just get along with him?”

The absurdity of the question would be immediate.

The shock on Bush’s face would have said it all.

It would have been a scandal.

An outrage.

Just the suggestion of forgiveness for the masterminds of 9/11 would have been met with fury, disbelief, and moral condemnation.

Now, imagine 9/11 wasn’t a single event.

Imagine if, instead of one horrific terrorist attack, the attacks never stopped.

Imagine if, every single day, across the entire country, bombings, executions, and mass kidnappings were taking place.

Imagine if, instead of 3,000 deaths, the body count reached hundreds of thousands.

Imagine if entire cities were reduced to rubble.

Imagine if millions of Americans were forced to flee their homes—not just for weeks, but forever.

And then, three years in, someone asked the president:

“Why don’t you just forgive them?”

That is exactly what Donald Trump is asking Ukraine to do.

When Trump says, “Why can’t Zelensky just forgive Putin?” he’s not making a call for peace.

He’s demanding submission.

It’s a grotesque question.

It flips victim and aggressor.

It erases the scale of Ukraine’s suffering.

And it absolves the perpetrator of the crime while blaming the victim for resisting it.

Let’s put the scale of this suffering into perspective.

Ukraine’s pre-war population was about 40 million—roughly one-eighth the size of the United States.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, over 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed.

That’s the equivalent of 344,000 American troops dead.

More than 12,340 Ukrainian civilians have been murdered.

Proportionally, that’s like losing 98,720 American civilians to enemy attacks.

And the suffering doesn’t end there.

Over 14 million Ukrainians—one-third of the entire population—have been displaced from their homes.

In U.S. terms, that’s as if over 100 million Americans were suddenly made refugees.

And nearly 20,000 Ukrainian children—not soldiers, not politicians, but children—have been abducted by Russia.

Taken from their families.

Erased from their homeland.

This is what Trump is asking Ukraine to forgive.

But let’s go deeper.

If this question is so obviously ridiculous when asked about 9/11, why is it being asked about Ukraine?

It’s not being asked in good faith.

It’s a deliberate inversion of reality, designed to justify Russian war crimes while shifting the blame onto Ukraine for refusing to be conquered.

Because if the invader can be the victim, and the victim can be the problem, then truth itself no longer matters.

MAGA propagandists push the idea that Ukraine somehow provoked the war—because Ukraine dared to seek NATO membership, because Ukraine wanted to move toward the West.

But let’s be absolutely clear:

Ukraine didn’t invade Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine.

If Russia withdrew tomorrow, the war would end.

If Ukraine stopped fighting tomorrow, Ukraine would cease to exist.

Asking Ukraine to “forgive” Russia while Russian forces are still bombing their cities, murdering civilians, and occupying their land isn’t just offensive.

It’s obscene.
theintellectualist.com/trump-ukraine-…

February 28, 2025: The Day America Publicly Embraced Tyranny

🧵1/10: Friday, February 28, 2025, will be remembered as a day of infamy—a moment as dark in America’s history as December 7th, January 6th, and September 11th. This is the day the United States did not just abandon its leadership in the democratic world—it actively joined the forces working to dismantle it.

For decades, America was the backbone of the international order.

The world relied on Washington for security, stability, and the defense of democratic values. Allies coordinated with the U.S. before making major decisions. Dictators feared its economic leverage. Enemies calculated their moves carefully.

That world is gone.

Today, NATO allies plan around Washington, not with it. Dictators act without concern for American retaliation. And for the first time in modern history, the United States is no longer a democracy defending freedom—it is a power aligned against it.

This is the moment when the U.S. officially passed the baton of global leadership, not to another democracy, but to the forces of authoritarianism.

This is the moment it changed teams.
theintellectualist.com/february-28-20… 2/10: The Role Reversal: Europe Takes the Mantle America Created

In the 18th century, America was the answer to European despotism.

The U.S. Constitution was a radical rejection of monarchy, tyranny, and the suppression of liberty. America’s founding was an act of defiance against the old world, a revolution meant to establish democracy as a permanent force in human history.

Now, history has reversed itself.

Today, Europe has become the standard-bearer of democracy, while the United States is slipping into the very despotism it once rejected. By nearly every measure—press freedom, fair elections, democratic participation, protections against corruption—European democracies now surpass the United States.

And now, Europe has formally acknowledged it must take the mantle America has abandoned.

Kaja Kallas’ statement—“The free world needs a new leader.”—wasn’t just a warning. It was a declaration of succession.

America created the postwar order. Now, Europe will inherit it.

The United States did not simply lose influence today—it lost the very role it created for itself at its founding.
theintellectualist.com/february-28-20…