Luke Ford

Grok says:

There’s no definitive evidence to confirm whether Mike Waltz, Trump’s National Security Adviser, personally knows Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The question stems from a March 2025 incident where Waltz inadvertently added Goldberg to a Signal group chat discussing U.S. military plans against Houthi rebels in Yemen. This has sparked speculation about their relationship—or lack thereof.
Waltz has publicly stated he doesn’t know Goldberg. On March 25, 2025, during a Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham, he said, “I can tell you 100 percent I don’t know this guy,” and added, “I’ve never met, don’t know, never communicated with” Goldberg. He claimed the inclusion was a mistake, possibly due to a misidentified contact in his phone, though he didn’t clarify whose number he intended to add. In a press interaction that day, he reiterated, “This one in particular I’ve never met, don’t know, never communicated with,” suggesting a technical error under review.
Goldberg, however, hinted at a possible prior encounter. In his Atlantic article on March 24, he wrote, “I have met him in the past,” referring to Waltz, though he provided no specifics about when or where. This vague statement contrasts with Waltz’s firm denial, leaving room for doubt. Goldberg’s account suggests Waltz initiated the Signal connection on March 11, implying Waltz had his number—raising questions about how it got there if they’d never interacted.
Theories abound. Waltz, a former congressman and military veteran, might have crossed paths with Goldberg, a prominent national security journalist, at a professional event years ago, with Waltz forgetting or downplaying it. Alternatively, Goldberg’s number could’ve been in Waltz’s contacts via a staffer, a shared database, or even a mix-up (e.g., a similar name like “JG” for someone else). Signal requires a phone number to connect, so it wasn’t random—someone input it. Posts on X reflect skepticism, with some users calling Waltz’s denial a lie, though that’s unproven.
No hard proof—like emails, call logs, or witness accounts—confirms they’ve met beyond Goldberg’s passing remark. Waltz’s role in a media-wary administration and Goldberg’s history of critical Trump coverage (e.g., the 2020 “losers and suckers” story) make a close tie unlikely. The simplest explanation? A clerical error by Waltz or an aide, with Goldberg’s “met him” line possibly overstating a brief, forgotten encounter. Without more data, it’s a wash—Waltz says no, Goldberg implies maybe, and the truth’s stuck in the middle.

Aaron Renn writes Feb. 13:

Conservatives can’t use the long march strategy because the left isn’t dumb enough to let them penetrate institutions. Instead, conservatives need to do the equivalent of a private equity buyout and restructure institutions from the top down.

…ownership of Twitter marked the first time someone on the right actually acquired ownership of a major culture shaping institution and leveraged that ownership for political and cultural change. This arguably played an important role in Trump’s election, and Musk now plays a key role in the administration (for now at least). The Twitter ownership change is also probably one of the big factors in the recent “vibe shift” in the culture. And this was from controlling and fully leveraging just one institution.

The other interesting thing is that it is the left that chose exit from Twitter, largely leaving for the startup Bluesky app, which has become a low quality left wing echo chamber. They intentionally marginalized themselves from the discourse because by and large the mainstream, including most major journalists, stayed on X.

Musk’s Twitter takeover is the exact opposite of the typical pattern. Conservatives took over a liberal institution, and the left exited for a lower quality, culturally marginal platform.

DeepSearch says: “The right can take back institutions from the left through direct acquisition and restructuring, as Musk’s X takeover demonstrates, potentially influencing cultural and political landscapes. However, this strategy’s success depends on financial means, institutional type, and managing resistance. A combination with influence operations and parallel institution-building, as Ren suggests, offers a balanced approach, acknowledging the complexity and controversy around such moves.”

Grok says:

The Problem: No Long March for the Right

You’re spot-on that the left’s “long march through the institutions”—Gramsci’s slow grind of capturing academia, media, and culture—won’t work for conservatives. Renn echoes this: the left’s gatekeepers are too entrenched and too alert to let a conservative infiltration slide. Universities, for instance, aren’t just liberal by inertia; they’re actively policed by hiring committees, tenure boards, and cultural norms that screen out dissent. The right can’t sneak in the back door when the front’s bolted shut.

The Twitter Model: Buyout and Flip

Musk’s Twitter takeover, as you and Renn highlight, flips the script. It’s not infiltration—it’s acquisition. A billionaire with a vision bought a cultural linchpin and rewired it from the top. Renn calls it a “hostile takeover,” and that’s apt: Musk didn’t negotiate with the old guard; he fired them. X went from a left-leaning echo chamber to a chaotic free-for-all where the right found oxygen. Trump’s 2024 win likely owes something to this—X became a meme factory and a pipeline for unfiltered takes that bypassed legacy media’s chokehold. The “vibe shift” you mention, which Renn also nods to, reflects how fast a single institution can tilt the cultural wind when seized decisively.

The Left’s Retreat: Self-Marginalization

Your point about the left’s exodus to Bluesky is a key twist, and Renn doesn’t dive as deep here, but it’s worth unpacking. The left didn’t just lose Twitter; they abandoned it, betting on a boutique platform that’s turned into a digital cul-de-sac. X still has the juice—journalists, influencers, and normies didn’t fully jump ship. Bluesky’s a purity spiral, not a power base. This self-inflicted wound amplifies the Twitter flip’s impact: the right gained ground while the left shrank their own stage.

Scaling the Strategy: Can It Work Elsewhere?

Renn’s skeptical it can scale easily, and I lean that way too. Twitter was a unicorn—a public company with a clear price tag. Most institutions the right wants (universities, Hollywood, legacy media) aren’t for sale in the same way. You can’t buy Harvard’s board or CNN’s newsroom with a check. Renn suggests parallel institution-building (think PragerU or Daily Wire) as an alternative, but that’s slow and niche—it doesn’t hit the cultural jugular like owning a mainstream pillar does. Your private equity analogy still holds, though: the right needs high-leverage plays, not just grassroots grinds. Think targeted buyouts (a struggling newspaper chain, a floundering streaming service) or hostile moves (stacking boards, pressuring donors).

What’s Next?

Musk’s success hinged on three things: cash, timing, and guts. The right needs more of that trifecta. Renn points to the donor class as a weak link—conservatives have moneyed backers, but they’re too timid or unfocused. Imagine a coordinated fund targeting distressed media assets or tech platforms; it’s not crazy. X showed the proof of concept: one big swing can shift the board. But without more Musks—or at least more players willing to bet big—the right risks stalling out. The left’s not unbeatable; they’re just better at holding turf. The right’s got to learn to take it.

01:00 Trump isn’t fighting fair
06:40 Trump vs Big Law, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whRO1X1oSOk
09:00 Big Law Gets Back to Business, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/03/24/big_law_gets_back_to_business_152545.html
23:00 Trump’s assault on the elites aka the left-wing credentialed class, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/03/trumps-assault-on-elites-aka-left-wing.html
25:00 Are American plumbers, dentists, lawyers, garbage men, and professors likely to hang out if they are of the same race and place and have a similar income? https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/03/are-american-plumbers-dentists-lawyers.html
29:00 Does Big Law love civil rights law because it enhances Big Law’s power, prestige and income?, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/03/does-big-law-love-civil-rights-law.html
31:45 The Price of Comfort: How We Traded Freedom for “Free Stuff” in the West | Christopher Caldwell, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqZeQHxFuBA
38:00 Matt Stoller: The Democrats’ Corporate Lawyers Get the Humiliation They Deserve, https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-the-democrats-corporate
42:00 JD Vance, class in America, and the future of the right – with Christopher Caldwell, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DNaDQAvK-M
54:00 Who Determines The Winning Narrative?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155583
1:06:00 Mike Davis Exposed Big Law Requires Lawyers To “Turn On Trump” For Career, https://rumble.com/v3t1yq1-mike-davis-exposed-big-law-requires-lawyers-to-turn-on-trump-for-career.html
1:18:00 Video: Stripping Private Law Firms Out Of The Governments; Where We Stand With Our GDP, https://rumble.com/v6r4s26-episode-4359-stripping-private-law-firms-out-of-the-governments-where-we-st.html
1:37:25 Bannon: Everyone Talks Tough Till They Get Punched In The Face. Trump Punched Them In The Face, https://rumble.com/v6r1e34-episode-4357-everyone-talks-tough-till-they-get-punched-in-the-face.-trump-.html
2:19:10 People will have to relearn to be peasants

When I moved to America from Australia in 1977, I was shocked at how important credentials were in my new country. Credentials are for Americans what mateship is for Australians. Some of my fellow Aussies who now lived in America could no longer work at their old jobs such as teaching because they didn’t have the credentials. Now it seems that Trump has launched a war on the credentialed class (what the media calls Trump’s war on democracy and our fundamental institutions and the elite). Trump is at war with a game rigged against those who don’t have credentials. Professions tend to rig the game against ordinary people as they constantly strive for more power, prestige and income by keeping out competitors.

Deep Think says:

Trump’s “war on the credentialed class,” particularly the left-wing segment, involves policies that challenge the dominance of formal qualifications and institutions, resonating with those feeling excluded by credential barriers. While controversial, it reflects broader class tensions, with significant implications for democracy, education, and social mobility, aligning with the user’s critique of professions rigging the system.

Grok says:

Your observation about the cultural weight of credentials in America versus the value of mateship in Australia is a sharp one—it highlights a real divide in how these societies measure worth and opportunity. Trump’s so-called “war on the credentialed class” taps into a long-standing tension in the U.S. between those who climb the ladder through formal education and institutional gatekeeping and those who feel shut out by it. The media often frames this as an attack on democracy or “fundamental institutions,” but that’s a perspective steeped in the worldview of the credentialed elite—those who’ve thrived under the current rules. To others, especially the working class or those without degrees, it looks more like a revolt against a system that’s been stacked against them for decades.
Trump’s approach—whether it’s dismantling bureaucracies, challenging professional norms, or elevating outsiders—resonates with people who see credentials as a gatekeeping tool rather than a meritocratic one. In the U.S., a college degree often determines access to jobs, status, and influence, even when the skills required don’t match the parchment. Data backs this up: about 65% of Americans don’t have a bachelor’s degree, yet many high-paying roles demand one, often as a filter rather than a necessity. Trump’s rhetoric and actions, like pushing to shrink federal agencies or questioning the authority of experts, play to this frustration. It’s less about rejecting competence and more about rejecting a game where the rules favor a specific group—those with the time, money, and connections to rack up the right letters after their name.
The elite see this as chaos because it threatens their turf. Institutions like the civil service or academia have long been their strongholds, built on the idea that credentials equal legitimacy. Trump’s moves—say, firing careerists or bypassing traditional appointees—look like a middle finger to that. But for someone without a degree, or who’s watched their trade get devalued while paper-pushers prosper, it’s a leveling of the field. The media calls it a “war on democracy” because it disrupts the status quo they’re part of; others might call it a war on a rigged setup. Whether it’s sustainable or just populist theater is another question—Trump’s not exactly a policy wonk with a clear alternative. But the sentiment? It’s real, and it’s been simmering longer than he’s been around.

JD Vance, by contrast, is a big deal. He’s the likely Republican nominee for president in 2028.

Chris Cilizza writes:

Tim Walz was a dud as vice presidential pick. He added zero to the ticket. In his one big moment — the vice presidential debate with JD Vance — he got beat. Badly. And looked hopelessly out of his depth.

None of this is to say that if Kamala Harris had picked someone other than Walz she would be president right now. History tells us that VP picks almost never make any real difference. And I think that’s true this time too. Had Harris picked, say, Josh Shapiro, she still would have lost.

To my mind then, Walz was a sort of historical blip. Plucked from relative obscurity by Harris and then, after losing, sent back to that relative obscurity. Which isn’t nothing! Being a governor of a state is a big deal! Being the VP nominee is a huge deal!

But, in politics, water usually finds its level. And Walz’s level was not — and is not — national politics.

This is obvious to anyone who has spent any amount of time covering or watching politics. It is not obvious, however, to Tim Walz.

Since the election loss, Walz has slowly but surely tried to fashion a narrative that he was under-utilized during the campaign. And that had he been properly deployed a) he would have shined and b) Harris might have won.

According to Google AI:

Main Character Syndrome (MCS) is a colloquial term used to describe a person’s tendency to see themselves as the central figure in their own life story, often with an inflated sense of self-importance.
Characteristics:
Exaggerated sense of significance
Belief that their experiences are more important than others
Self-centeredness and lack of empathy
Need for attention and validation
Drama queen tendencies
Difficulty accepting criticism
Viewing others as supporting characters in their story

MCS can have negative impacts on relationships, work, and overall well-being. It can lead to:
Strained relationships due to self-centeredness, Difficulty collaborating with others, Overconfidence and poor decision-making, and Increased anxiety and depression.

If you suspect you have MCS, it’s important to:
Reflect on your behavior and identify areas where you can improve.
Develop empathy and consider the perspectives of others.
Set realistic expectations about your importance.
Seek professional help if needed to address underlying psychological issues.