🧵 1/8: In this video, we cover Trump’s Defense nominee Pete Hegseth, who allegedly fostered a toxic workplace, dividing women into “party girls” and “not party girls.” Claims of sexism and misconduct raise serious concerns. (click for video 👇)
2/8: As reported by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker, Hegseth allegedly caused chaos at a Louisiana strip club, drunkenly trying to climb on stage with dancers. A staffer also claimed sexual assault by a colleague that night. (click for video 👇)

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.

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…

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…

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-…

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…

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…

The Intellectualist Forecasts Kamala Harris to Win the 2024 Presidential Election

🧵1: The Intellectualist, after reviewing data from trusted sources like Marist, YouGov, Monmouth, and Emerson, believes Kamala Harris is positioned to become the next President of the United States.

This forecast comes from a model that carefully weighs what voters care about most: candidate approval ratings, top issues (especially the economy), demographic support, expected turnout, and the overall national mood.

To check the model’s reliability, The Intellectualist backtested it on past elections (2018, 2020, and 2022) and found that its predictions closely matched actual results. This strong alignment gives additional confidence in Harris’s projected edge.

theintellectualist.com/kamala-harris-… The Intellectualist Model: Voter Sentiment Analysis

2. The Intellectualist's voter sentiment approach to election forecasting is designed to capture a well-rounded view of how voters feel about each candidate and the issues that matter most to them.

Rather than focusing on polling numbers alone, this model creates a Composite Score that combines five key factors: candidate approval ratings, issue importance, demographic alignment, expected voter turnout, and overall national sentiment.

Each factor is weighted based on its significance in the current election cycle. For example, economic issues might hold more weight during times of financial strain, while approval ratings might play a larger role when evaluating incumbents.

This Composite Score offers a single, comprehensive measure of how well a candidate aligns with the priorities and concerns of the electorate. A score over 50 signals that the candidate is resonating positively with voters, suggesting an advantage in the race. For 2024, Kamala Harris’s higher Composite Score over Trump’s reflects stronger alignment with these critical voter priorities, especially on issues like the economy and overall favorability.

To ensure accuracy, this model has been rigorously backtested against previous elections (2018, 2020, and 2022) and refined based on those results. Further, it uses Monte Carlo simulations, eigenvalue analysis, and chi-square tests to validate the model’s reliability, accounting for variations in polling and turnout patterns.

The approach offers a snapshot of current voter sentiment but remains adaptable, ready to capture the influence of shifting public priorities on election outcomes.

theintellectualist.com/kamala-harris-…

🧵1/12: In the Bible, it is mentioned that in the desert, Jesus faced a temptation from Satan for dominion over the world—a bargain He famously refused. But in 2016, as Trump began his presidential run, evangelical leaders chose a different path.
theintellectualist.com/evangelicals-t… 2/12: Jerry Falwell Jr., a man driven by a love of the worldly—particularly luxury—revealed his hypocrisy when he endorsed Trump. Falwell, who used Christianity as a cudgel against marginalized groups, found his own secrets exposed.
theintellectualist.com/evangelicals-t…

🧵1/12: Imagine a man whose admiration for his daughter crosses a line so blurred, it shocks even his closest allies. That man is Donald Trump, who once mused about dating Ivanka, offering a window into a mind steeped in disturbing desires.
theintellectualist.com/access-hollywo… 2/12: “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her,” Trump said in 2006. But this wasn’t just an offhand remark—it was a revelation of a man who views even his daughter through a lens of sexual objectification.
theintellectualist.com/access-hollywo…

The Ghosts of American Racism: How Trump’s Presidency Rekindled Division and Authoritarianism

🧵1/5: Charlottesville wasn’t just a violent outburst—it was a harbinger.

The flames of 2017 lit up more than just torches; they illuminated a chilling resurgence of white supremacy, casting long shadows over the very foundation of American democracy.

The embers of America’s racist past never died.

They smoldered beneath the surface for generations, unseen but always present, waiting for a gust of wind or a deliberate hand to fan them into flame. Charlottesville marked one such moment.

As white nationalists marched with torches held high, chanting “blood and soil,” the ghosts of America’s racist past rose again, drawn to the silence of the nation’s highest office. From that silence, the old fire reignited, and the embers that had long smoldered beneath the surface burst into open flames.

Trump’s refusal to condemn these marchers was not an isolated moral failure—it was a strategic decision, the latest in a long line of political calculations designed to tap into America’s buried racial grievances. In an era where America prided itself on the progress of civil rights, Trump represented a shocking regression.

He didn’t merely allow the fire to spread—he stoked it, feeding off the flames of division and resentment that had been smoldering since the nation’s founding.

Trump became not just a racist president but the most racially divisive leader relative to his time in American history, actively working to raise the dead of America’s darkest chapters.

theintellectualist.com/trump-presiden… Raising Ghosts: Nixon’s Strategy and Trump’s Resurrection of Racial Division

2/5: The fire Trump reignited wasn’t new—it was the same fire that Nixon had tended with his Southern Strategy. In the aftermath of the civil rights movement, Nixon saw an opportunity to capitalize on the fears and frustrations of white Southern voters who felt alienated by the Democratic Party’s embrace of racial equality.

But Nixon’s strategy, guided by advisers like Lee Atwater, relied on coded language—what Atwater himself described as “abstract” racism in a 1981 interview with Harper’s Magazine.

Terms like “states’ rights” and “limited government” replaced the explicit racial slurs of earlier decades, giving white resentment a veneer of respectability.

As Atwater famously explained in that Harper’s article, the key was to be subtle:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘n*****, n*****, n*****.’ By 1968, you can’t say ‘n*****’—that hurts you. So you say stuff like ‘forced busing,’ ‘states’ rights,’ and all that stuff.

You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

Nixon’s War on Drugs, ostensibly framed as a crackdown on crime, was, in reality, a calculated political effort to target and destabilize Black communities and anti-war activists.

This strategy was candidly revealed by Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, in an interview from the early 1990s.

Ehrlichman admitted that by associating drugs with these groups, the administration could vilify them publicly and justify their mass arrests, effectively disrupting their political power. This admission was later published in Harper’s Magazine in 2016, shedding light on the ulterior motives behind the War on Drugs.

Reagan picked up where Nixon left off, feeding the same embers of racial division under the guise of law and order. Each administration added fuel to the flames, carefully maintaining a fire that never truly died, though hidden beneath coded language and political abstraction.

Then came Trump, who discarded the subtlety of his predecessors and openly fanned the flames that they had kept smoldering.

Trump’s approach, however, was different. He didn’t bother with Atwater’s abstractions. Where past Republican leaders had used dog whistles, Trump grabbed a megaphone.

His birther conspiracy—the baseless, racist claim that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States—was one of the most blatant attempts to stoke the embers of racial animus in modern political history. And it worked.

The birther movement morphed into the Tea Party, which cloaked its racial anxieties in the language of “limited government” and “personal liberty,” but these terms, as Atwater admitted, were thinly veiled code for the same fears that Nixon and Reagan had exploited.

The Tea Party pretended to be about limited government, but its true fuel was racial resentment. Ironically, many of its members would later depend on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for healthcare—a system they had once fiercely opposed.

The ACA provided significant benefits to many lower-income and middle-class Americans, overlapping with the demographic that had supported the Tea Party, as discussed in Politico in 2017. Even as they protested against “government takeover,” many would come to rely on Medicaid expansion or marketplace subsidies to access affordable healthcare.

The flames grew higher as the Tea Party railed against the ACA, branding it as a government takeover that would lead to “death panels.” These claims had nothing to do with small government—they were demagoguery, designed to stoke the embers of fear and mistrust. Many of the very people protesting the ACA would later rely on it for health care, but that didn’t matter.

What mattered was keeping the fire alive, maintaining the resentment that had been smoldering for decades.
theintellectualist.com/trump-presiden…

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…

🧵 1/12: Trump’s 2024 economic plan is a ticking time bomb wrapped in false promises. Marketed as a path to prosperity, his policies are designed to supercharge inequality and push supply-side economics—a theory that’s never worked in the real world.
theintellectualist.com/long-island-20… 2/12: Trump claims mass deportations make him look "tough," but expelling 11-13 million workers is morally indefensible, would devastate agriculture, likely violate human rights treaties, and trigger labor shortages and soaring prices.
theintellectualist.com/long-island-20…

How a Race on New York’s Long Island Could Define America’s Democratic Future

What happens when a district known for its beaches and billionaires holds the keys to the future of American democracy? We’re about to find out.

🧵1/6: The Hamptons—synonymous with wealth and luxury—might seem a world apart from political upheaval. Yet, nestled within New York’s 1st Congressional District, this iconic enclave has become a critical arena for an election that could reshape the national political landscape. The stakes couldn’t be higher: democracy’s survival may hinge on the outcome.

A District at the Crossroads of Democracy

New York’s 1st Congressional District stretches from the extravagant homes of the Hamptons to working-class rural communities, bridging two worlds. Historically a bellwether, this district’s 2024 election is drawing national attention as voters face a stark choice. The race between Republican incumbent Nick LaLota and Democratic challenger John Avlon, a former Republican, is more than a contest for a congressional seat—it’s a defining moment for the future of the U.S. House of Representatives, and possibly the nation’s democratic stability.

New York’s 1st District stretches from the luxurious homes of the Hamptons to the more modest, working-class communities inland. This blend of affluence and everyday struggle is reflected in its political diversity. Historically a swing district, the 2024 election here has attracted national attention. Voters face a stark choice between Republican incumbent @NickLaLota and Democratic challenger @JohnAvlon, a former Republican.

This race is more than a contest for a House seat—it could impact the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives and influence the nation’s democratic future.

In 2024, all 435 House seats will be contested, but due to gerrymandering and entrenched partisan divisions, only about 30-35 races are considered truly competitive, making up less than 8% of the total. Political scientists have identified New York’s 1st District as one of these key battlegrounds.

This reflects a broader decline in electoral competitiveness, highlighting the need for systemic reforms to strengthen democracy.

theintellectualist.com/new-york-1st-d… Democracy in the Balance

2/6: A win for Nick LaLota in New York’s 1st Congressional District could have far-reaching consequences not only for the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives but also for the future of American democracy.

While this may seem like a local race, its national significance becomes clearer when we consider that the current Republican majority in the House is razor-thin—just a few seats. In such a closely divided chamber, every win matters in either maintaining or flipping control.

A victory for LaLota could be crucial in helping Republicans either hold or expand their slim majority, which in turn could shape the legislative and oversight priorities of Congress. Here’s how that could impact democracy.

Erosion of Democratic Norms

With a narrow majority, each seat counts toward shaping the House’s legislative agenda, and LaLota’s win could strengthen a Republican caucus increasingly aligned with Trump’s rhetoric and policies. Since the 2020 election, Trump and his allies have spread unfounded claims about widespread voter fraud, undermining public trust in elections.

A reinforced Republican majority could push further restrictions on voting, often under the pretext of election security. These efforts are seen by many as eroding democratic norms, particularly the belief in free and fair elections.

LaLota, by joining a narrow but empowered majority, would likely support such measures, including voting laws that critics argue disproportionately affect certain voters, such as minorities and lower-income groups. These restrictions could make it more difficult for some Americans to vote, reducing electoral participation and further undermining confidence in democratic institutions.
theintellectualist.com/new-york-1st-d…

Donald Trump’s Reckless National Security Legacy: Playing With Fire, Burning the Nation

🧵1/5: “I had the absolute right to do it.” Those were the words of a man unmoored from the weight of responsibility, justifying the release of the nation’s most sacred secrets as if swatting away an inconvenience.

This wasn’t a misstep—it was a snapshot of a man whose presidency was shaped by reckless abandon, where classified intelligence was treated like poker chips at a high-stakes table.

Trump’s secretive chats with Vladimir Putin, conducted behind closed doors and without oversight, were only part of the damage. Storing nuclear secrets at Mar-a-Lago—a gilded palace turned into a playground for foreign spies—marked the nadir of his contempt for national security. This was not just negligence; it was a dangerous defiance that puts the very fabric of global stability in jeopardy.
theintellectualist.com/trump-secret-c… 2/5: Trump’s Secret Calls: A Whisper Away From Disaster

Picture this: Vladimir Putin on the other end of the line, his voice steady, measured. Donald Trump, now out of office, leaning back in Mar-a-Lago, speaking in hushed tones. Seven secret phone calls with the former KGB operative, all without the oversight of U.S. intelligence. What were they discussing? Military secrets? Sanctions? Backdoor deals that could reshape the geopolitical chessboard?

And all this after Trump left office—after he no longer had any authority, after the world had turned its back on his chaotic reign.

If it feels like a scene from a spy thriller, that’s because it should. Only this time, the enemy isn’t just across the ocean.

He’s the one who swore an oath to protect you.

Trump’s admiration for Putin didn’t start in a vacuum. It was a relationship forged in shadows, built on Trump’s obsession with authoritarian strength and disdain for the democratic systems that constrained him.

The secret phone calls were more than diplomatic blunders—they were glimpses into a dark alliance, an unholy exchange that could have compromised the safety of every American.

What was said in those calls?

We may never know, but the threat lingers like an unsheathed blade, waiting for its moment to strike.
theintellectualist.com/trump-secret-c…

🧵1/12: Why did Donald Trump engage in 7 secretive calls with Vladimir Putin, long after his presidency? These conversations, cloaked in secrecy, raise profound concerns over U.S. national security and the unprecedented risks of private diplomacy.
theintellectualist.com/trump-putin-re… 2/12: In a stunning breach of transparency, Trump covertly supplied COVID-19 test machines to Russia at Putin’s personal request. “Please don’t tell anybody,” Putin said. Trump’s compliance signals a hidden deference to Moscow’s agenda.
theintellectualist.com/trump-putin-re…

🧵1/4: J.D. Vance enters the political sphere wrapped in the garb of a populist hero, a self-proclaimed defender of Appalachia’s forgotten people. But beneath this carefully curated image lies a far darker reality.
theintellectualist.com/jd-vance-autho… 2/4: Vance’s America isn’t one of hope and opportunity; it’s a fortress built brick by brick, policy by policy, with each new decision further entrenching the elite in their seats of power.
theintellectualist.com/jd-vance-autho…

🧵1/6: The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a lower court ruling to stand, preventing hospitals from performing emergency abortions in Texas if they violate the state's strict laws. No reasoning was provided, and no dissenting opinions were noted.
theintellectualist.com/texas-abortion… 2/6: TX has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S., permitting abortions only if the pregnant person’s life is at serious risk. But the law's vagueness on what qualifies as "serious risk" has left doctors unsure, risking prosecution. theintellectualist.com/texas-abortion…

Trump Faces Growing Concerns Over Cognitive Decline as 2024 Election Looms

🧵1/7: As the 2024 presidential race progresses, attention has shifted to Donald Trump’s cognitive state, with former allies, political commentators, and health experts expressing concern over his mental fitness.

Trump, now 78, would be 82 by the end of a potential second term. His recent public appearances, rally speeches, and interviews have sparked speculation about his mental acuity, as several notable figures, including former staff members, question his coherence and memory.
theintellectualist.com/trump-faces-gr… Decline in Campaign Activity

2/7: In comparison to his 2016 campaign, Trump has significantly reduced the number of rallies he has held in 2024, with only 61 so far, compared to 283 in 2016. This reduction in public appearances has raised questions about his stamina and ability to engage with voters at the same level as previous campaigns.

According to his former deputy press secretary, Sarah Matthews, Trump’s recent speeches are more rambling and incoherent than in the past. She remarked that the erratic nature of his speeches “maybe didn’t stand out as much when he was running against Biden,” implying that his decline might have gone unnoticed in comparison to his 2020 opponent.
theintellectualist.com/trump-faces-gr…

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…

🧵1/4: Fox News: The Engine of Disinformation That Shaped and Shattered America

In the summer of 2001, while President George W. Bush was enjoying a break at his Texas ranch, America’s future was buried in a stack of ignored intelligence reports. Among them, the now-infamous “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” memo.

The negligence was catastrophic, leading to 9/11—a tragedy that would forever alter the world. But as the dust settled from the Twin Towers, another kind of threat was taking shape—not through terror, but through information, or rather, disinformation. Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News wasn’t merely informing the public; it was systematically bending reality, reshaping the world one half-truth at a time.

From the moment it launched, Fox News wasn’t interested in being a conservative counterweight to the so-called liberal media. It set out to create an alternate universe where facts were malleable, and the truth was whatever kept its audience hooked. Think of it as a political reality show, except instead of roses, viewers were handed fear, outrage, and lies. It wasn’t about keeping the public informed; it was about keeping them addicted.

The WMD Lie: Fox’s Role in Selling a War

Fox News wasn’t just reporting a war—it was crafting one. Doubt the WMD narrative? Question the invasion’s morality? You weren’t just wrong—you were unpatriotic, even traitorous. Anchors like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly weren’t journalists; they were war salesmen, packaging an invasion as a righteous crusade against evil. Fox’s “Countdown to Iraq” segments, complete with ominous music and dramatic flag imagery, reduced a complex geopolitical conflict into a high-stakes episode of 24. Saddam Hussein wasn’t just a dictator—he was the villain America had to vanquish. And the viewers? They weren’t asked to think; they were told to feel. Fear. Anger. Patriotism.

The results were as predictable as they were deadly. Research confirmed that regions with heavy Fox News consumption saw disproportionately higher support for the Iraq War, a direct result of the network’s uncritical amplification of flawed intelligence. But these aren’t just numbers on a page.

These are human lives—neighbors, family members—lost to an ideological war where ratings mattered more than responsibility. Over 4,000 American soldiers died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis perished. And the war, a ratings bonanza for Fox, became one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in American history.

And the cost? A destabilized Middle East, the birth of ISIS, and a war on terror that left deep scars on the global stage. Fox didn’t stop at reporting—it manufactured consent. As former producer Alex Bronkowski admitted, “We weren’t in the business of informing. We were in the business of fear. Fear sells.” And sell, it did—like a dark rerun of America’s longest-running horror show.
theintellectualist.com/how-fox-news-r… 2/4: COVID-19: The Deadly Cost of Disinformation

With lessons learned from Iraq, Fox turned its attention to a new battlefield: the global pandemic. In 2020, as the world locked down to fight COVID-19, Fox was busy opening the floodgates of misinformation. This time, the enemy wasn’t a foreign dictator—it was science.

Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, the network’s stars, led the charge against masks, vaccines, and lockdowns. Carlson, with his trademark smirk, called lockdowns “the greatest infringement on personal liberty since slavery” (yes, really), while Ingraham downplayed the efficacy of vaccines, even as body counts rose.

Behind the scenes, Fox’s hypocrisy was breathtaking. Inside their own offices, strict COVID protocols were enforced. Rupert Murdoch quietly got vaccinated—one of the first to do so. The very people spreading vaccine skepticism to millions of Americans were protecting themselves, leaving their viewers to roll the dice with their lives. The result? The regions most loyal to Fox News saw higher COVID-19 deaths, with vaccine hesitancy rampant.

Take Joe Joyce, a Brooklyn bar owner who took Fox at its word, dismissed COVID as media hype, and refused to wear a mask. He died from the virus not long after. His daughter said, “He trusted them. Now he’s gone.” Stories like Joe’s never made it to air. Instead, Fox promoted figures like Robert LaMay, a Washington state trooper who refused the vaccine and became a folk hero for defying mandates—until COVID took his life. After he died, Fox moved on. His defiance was useful; his death, not so much.

But these aren’t just tragic anecdotes. Research confirmed that COVID death rates were higher in counties dominated by Fox News viewers. Once again, Fox had blood on its hands—not because of bombs, but because of lies.
theintellectualist.com/how-fox-news-r…