January 25, 2026 Dennis Prager’s Trajectory Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Dennis Prager’s Trajectory

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

The sharpest analysis I’ve heard about Dennis Prager came in 2020 when philosopher Paul Gottfried said: “[Dennis Prager is] an intellectual vulgarian of a kind I have rarely encountered in this world. He has said such ridiculous things about history, fascism, democracy, that it is hard for me to bestow any respect on his intellectual accomplishments.”

On Jan. 24, 2026, Gemini said:

Paul Gottfried’s assessment highlights the friction between academic philosophy and the strategic moralizing that Alliance Theory describes. Gottfried, a scholar of intellectual history and a paleoconservative, evaluates Prager by the standards of historical accuracy and logical consistency. When he calls Prager an intellectual vulgarian, he is reacting to the way Prager flattens complex history to serve a specific rhetorical purpose. What Gottfried sees as a lack of respect for history is actually the functional application of alliance logic.
Prager often redefines terms like fascism or democracy so they can be used as weapons against his modern rivals. For instance, Prager’s repeated claim that the Nazis were a left-wing movement serves to link his current rivals—secularists and progressives—to the most vilified group in history. To a historian like Gottfried, this is a distortion of the historical record because it ignores the nationalist, traditionalist, and anti-marxist roots of the Nazi party. To Prager, however, this is a necessary attributional bias. If he can frame fascism as an internal failure of the Left, he protects the Right from being associated with it while simultaneously demonizing his opposition.
This dynamic explains why Prager remains popular despite the scorn of academics. His audience is not looking for a nuanced historical lecture; they are looking for moral clarity and a way to signal loyalty to their own side. Prager provides a toolkit of arguments that make the conservative alliance feel morally superior. His work creates a clear map of who is a friend and who is an enemy.
Gottfried’s frustration reveals the gap between those who view ideas as tools for seeking truth and those who view ideas as tools for seeking victory. Alliance Theory posits that most political belief systems function as the latter. Prager’s success suggests that for a large portion of the public, the social utility of an idea—how well it identifies a rival or supports a friend—is more important than its historical or philosophical precision.

ChatGPT said Jan. 24, 2026:

Alliance Theory says political ideas are not driven mainly by abstract principles but by who you see as your allies and rivals, and by the need to defend allies and attack rivals in ongoing status and power conflicts.
Applied to Dennis Prager, the key is not his stated values like “Judeo-Christian morality,” “freedom,” or “Western civilization,” but the alliance structure he is embedded in and helping to stabilize.
His core alliance cluster is:
Religious traditionalists
Social conservatives
Pro-Israel Jews and Christians
Anti-woke cultural conservatives
The Republican Party coalition
American national institutions like the military and police
Anti-left intellectuals and media figures
From an alliance-theory perspective, his commentary functions as high-level coalition maintenance propaganda. He performs three main tasks.
First, ally sanctification.
Groups inside his coalition are framed as morally serious, historically grounded, and unfairly maligned. Christians are persecuted. Israel is uniquely moral. Police are heroic. Western civilization is fragile and besieged. When allies commit wrongs, he minimizes, contextualizes, or reframes them as tragic necessities or isolated failures.
Second, rival moralization.
Outgroups are not just wrong but dangerous. The left is portrayed as nihilistic, anti-civilizational, and driven by resentment. Academia, the media, and progressive elites are framed as corrupting institutions rather than neutral truth-seekers. This is classic alliance logic. Rivals are not merely mistaken, they are existential threats.
Third, bridge maintenance.
Prager’s most important structural role is holding together strange bedfellows. Free-market libertarians and religious moralists. Nationalists and global-capital elites. Jews and evangelical Christians. His rhetoric constantly supplies unifying narratives that allow these factions to see themselves as part of one moral army despite deep internal contradictions.
Alliance theory explains many of his apparent inconsistencies.
Free speech is sacred, except when speech undermines civilizational cohesion.
Small government is good, except when state power is needed to defend moral order.
Relativism is rejected, except when defending allies’ historical sins.
Universal human dignity is affirmed, except when rivals are framed as cultural pathogens.
These are not philosophical failures. They are functional features of coalition defense.
Prager is not primarily a political philosopher. He is a high-status alliance entrepreneur. His job is to:
Signal loyalty
Define the moral perimeter of the in-group
Reinterpret facts to favor allies
Convert cultural anxiety into coalition solidarity
Alliance theory predicts exactly this pattern. Beliefs are tools. Moral language is weaponry. Consistency is secondary to loyalty. The through-line is not logic but coalition survival.

Gemini says Jan. 24, 2026:

Prager succeeds because he masters the art of high-level signaling. He takes raw group interests and translates them into the language of universal morality. When he speaks of Judeo-Christian values, he defines a moral perimeter that includes his allies and excludes his rivals. This terminology functions as a badge of membership rather than a rigorous theological framework. It provides a shared vocabulary for a coalition that contains significant internal friction, such as the historically uneasy alliance between secular Zionists and Evangelical Christians.
His rhetorical tasks serve the practical needs of power. Ally sanctification creates a psychological safety net for the in-group. By framing the police as heroic or Israel as uniquely moral, he ensures that the coalition members feel righteous in their affiliations. This protects the group from the demoralizing effects of external criticism. Conversely, rival moralization transforms political opponents into existential threats. If the left is nihilistic and anti-civilizational, then any action taken to defeat them becomes a moral necessity. This is the logic of total mobilization.
The inconsistencies you noted are the most telling evidence for this theory. A philosopher values logical non-contradiction, but an alliance entrepreneur values group cohesion. If small government interferes with the defense of the moral order, the entrepreneur discards small government. The through-line is always the preservation of the alliance. Prager’s career illustrates the Pinsof point that argument is a tool used to hurt enemies and bolster friends. He provides the intellectual munitions his coalition needs to fight a cultural war without feeling the sting of cognitive dissonance.

Grok says on Jan. 24, 2026:

Alliance Theory posits that political belief systems emerge not from consistent abstract moral values (like authority, equality, or tolerance) but from dynamic alliance structures—networks of allies and rivals shaped by factors like similarity, transitivity (shared friends/enemies), interdependence, and stochastic historical events. Individuals support their allies and oppose rivals through “propagandistic biases,” including:
Perpetrator biases: Downplaying allies’ transgressions, emphasizing mitigating circumstances, or minimizing harm caused by allies.
Victim biases: Amplifying allies’ grievances, attributing malevolent intent to rivals, or engaging in competitive victimhood.
Attributional biases: Crediting allies’ successes to internal factors (e.g., hard work) and failures to external ones (e.g., unfair systems), while doing the opposite for rivals.
Dennis Prager, a prominent conservative commentator, radio host, and founder of PragerU, often weaves political analysis with cultural, religious, and historical themes. His commentaries typically align with conservative alliances in the U.S., as described in the paper: favoring groups like Christians (especially evangelicals), white working-class Americans, the military, business leaders, and Israel/Jews (as a bridge to Christian conservatives). His rivals include leftists, secularists, Muslims associated with extremism (e.g., Hamas), communists, and progressive activists. Prager’s Jewish background adds a layer, as he often forms “bridging alliances” between Jewish and Christian conservatives, emphasizing shared Judeo-Christian values against perceived secular or Islamist threats.
To illustrate, I’ll apply Alliance Theory to two representative examples from Prager’s commentaries: his comparison of Hamas supporters to Nazi sympathizers (from a 2023 commentary) and his argument on why communism isn’t hated as much as Nazism (from a 2017 PragerU video). These show how his beliefs serve to mobilize support for allies and opposition to rivals, often via inconsistent application of moral principles— a hallmark “strange bedfellow” outcome of alliance dynamics.
Example 1: “Supporting Hamas is Like Supporting Nazis in WW2”
In this commentary, Prager equates pro-Hamas sentiments (common among some left-wing activists post-October 7, 2023) with sympathizing with Nazis during World War II. He argues that both represent moral evil, framing Israel as a defender of Western civilization against barbarism.
Alliance Structure: Prager’s allies here include Israel (as a proxy for Jews and Western democracy), the U.S. military (implied in WWII analogies), and conservative Christians who view Israel as a biblical ally. This reflects transitivity: Conservative evangelicals and Jews form a “super-alliance” against shared rivals like Islamist extremists and leftists who criticize Israel. Rivals are Hamas (and by extension, Muslim extremists) and their perceived supporters on the left, whom Prager links to anti-Semitism and moral relativism. This aligns with the paper’s depiction of U.S. conservative alliances favoring the military and religious traditionalists while opposing ethnic minorities associated with left-wing causes (e.g., Muslims in conflicts like Iraq/Afghanistan).
Propagandistic Biases in Action:
Victim Biases: Prager amplifies Jewish/Israeli grievances, portraying Hamas attacks as unprovoked atrocities akin to the Holocaust, emphasizing severity and malevolence to mobilize third-party support (e.g., from Christian conservatives). This creates “competitive victimhood” with left-wing narratives of Palestinian suffering, dismissing the latter as exaggerated or justified.
Perpetrator Biases: He downplays or ignores any Israeli actions that could be seen as transgressions (e.g., military responses in Gaza), attributing them to self-defense or necessity, while attributing Hamas’s actions to inherent evil without mitigating factors. This mirrors the paper’s example of conservatives rationalizing U.S. military collateral damage but condemning Iraqi actions.
Attributional Biases: Successes of Israel (e.g., resilience) are internal (e.g., moral superiority, divine favor), while failures or criticisms are external (e.g., biased media, leftist betrayal). Rivals’ actions (Hamas/leftists) are internally driven by hatred, not external circumstances like occupation.
This commentary doesn’t stem from a consistent moral thread like “oppose all genocide” (as Prager has defended biblical commands involving violence in his Rational Bible series). Instead, it strategically supports allies in the current U.S. alliance structure, where pro-Israel stances signal loyalty to the conservative coalition. If alliances shifted (e.g., as in historical examples where religious traditionalism aligned with leftism), Prager’s framing might adapt accordingly.
Example 2: “Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?”
In this PragerU video, Prager argues that communism’s death toll (e.g., under Stalin, Mao) exceeds Nazism’s, yet it’s less vilified because left-wing academics and media downplay it. He calls for equating the two ideologies as equally evil.
Alliance Structure:
Allies include victims of communism (e.g., Eastern Europeans, religious dissidents) and anti-communist conservatives, tying into Cold War-era alliances where business elites and Christian fundamentalists opposed socialism. Rivals are communists/socialists, whom Prager associates with modern leftists (e.g., “cultural Marxists” in academia). This reflects stochasticity and historical contingency: U.S. conservatism fused anti-communism with free-market capitalism in the 1970s, creating “strange bedfellows” like libertarians and evangelicals. Prager, as a religious conservative, extends this to defend Judeo-Christian values against atheistic communism.
Propagandistic Biases in Action:
Victim Biases: Prager embellishes the grievances of communism’s victims (e.g., emphasizing scale and duration of harm), positioning conservatives as defenders of truth against leftist denial. This is competitive victimhood: He claims the right “owns” anti-totalitarian narratives, mirroring liberals’ focus on Nazi victims.
Perpetrator Biases: Communist atrocities are maximized with no mitigating context (e.g., ignoring geopolitical factors), while he implicitly downplays conservative-aligned historical wrongs (e.g., in other commentaries, he rationalizes slavery in the Bible as “not as bad” as modern perceptions). Nazism is a foil, but Prager has separately argued Hitler was left-wing (in another piece), attributing fascism’s evils to leftist roots to further demonize rivals.
Attributional Biases: Communism’s failures are internal (inherent ideological flaws, evil leaders), while any “successes” (e.g., social programs) are dismissed as illusions. In contrast, capitalist/Western successes are internally attributed to values like freedom, aligning with conservative allies (business elites).
This belief isn’t rooted in a principled hatred of all authoritarianism. Instead, it mobilizes opposition to leftist rivals, explaining why communism (a left-associated ideology) gets special scrutiny over other historical evils.
Broader Implications for Prager’s Body of Work
Across his commentaries, Prager’s “inconsistencies” (e.g., defending biblical polygamy/slavery while condemning modern equivalents; tolerating authoritarian figures if transitive allies) aren’t philosophical lapses but predictable outcomes of alliance psychology. His work signals loyalty to the U.S. conservative super-alliance, using rhetoric to rally support amid polarization. If Alliance Theory holds, shifting alliances (e.g., if evangelicals realigned leftward on economics) could alter his emphases without changing underlying mechanisms. This contrasts with value-based theories, which might misattribute his views to innate “authority” preference rather than strategic ally support.
In sum, Alliance Theory reveals Prager’s commentaries as patchwork narratives—ad hoc moralizations tailored to bolster allies like Israel, Christians, and capitalists against rivals like leftists and extremists—rather than coherent ideologies. This approach highlights the functional, evolutionary roots of his political rhetoric.

Gemini said on Jan. 24, 2026:

When Prager equates modern Hamas supporters with Nazi sympathizers, he engages in a process of moral branding that serves the transitivity of his alliance. By linking a current rival to the ultimate historical villain, he forces third parties to choose a side, thereby strengthening the bond between Jewish conservatives and the Christian Right. This is not necessarily an appeal to a universal principle against civilian casualties, as the analysis correctly notes his willingness to rationalize biblical or historical violence when it involves allies.
The comparison between communism and Nazism further illustrates the theory’s “stochastic” and historical elements. The American conservative alliance of the 20th century fused religious traditionalism with free-market capitalism primarily through a shared opposition to Soviet atheism. Prager maintains this alliance by framing communism as a uniquely persistent evil. His tendency to categorize Hitler as a leftist is a classic attributional bias. It shifts the “internal” cause of the Holocaust from right-wing nationalism to left-wing secularism, protecting the reputation of his own alliance while pathologizing the ideology of his rivals.
Recognition of Bridging Alliances: The analysis correctly identifies Prager’s specific role in maintaining the Judeo-Christian alliance. His Jewish identity allows him to serve as a bridge, using religious language to unite two groups that might otherwise have historical friction.
Identification of Competitive Victimhood: The focus on how Prager uses the scale of communist atrocities to “compete” with leftist narratives about Nazism or colonialism fits the Alliance Theory model of mobilizing third-party support through grievance.
Predictive Power: The conclusion that his views would shift if the alliance structure changed is the strongest test of the theory. It moves beyond a simple critique of his values and treats his rhetoric as a functional tool for coalition maintenance.
Prager’s comments on Putin are predominantly critical, portraying him as an imperialistic bully driven by ego, humiliation, and a desire to rebuild the Russian empire (e.g., in interviews and columns from 2014 onward, including discussions of the Ukraine invasion).
In the years leading up to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Prager at times prioritized a shared cultural struggle over geopolitical rivalry. For example, in 2017, he famously remarked that the news media in the West posed a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia did. This fits the transitivity model of Alliance Theory: because Prager viewed the secular Western media as a primary rival, Russia—which under Putin presented itself as a defender of traditional Christian values—could be viewed as a secondary ally or at least a less significant threat. This “enemy of my enemy” logic allowed him to downplay the traditional threat posed by Russia to bolster his position against domestic rivals.
However, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine triggered a shift in his rhetoric that illustrates the “stochastic” or event-driven nature of alliances. Once Putin’s actions became an undeniable act of international aggression, the potential cost of maintaining a “soft” stance on Russia became too high for a commentator who prizes Western stability. Prager eventually described the invasion as as clear an act of evil as anyone can imagine.
Even with this condemnation, the alliance logic persisted in how he assigned blame. He frequently used the invasion to attack his primary rivals in the United States, arguing that bad actors like Russia, China, and Iran were only emboldened because they perceived weakness in the current American administration. This allowed him to maintain his core alliance structure:
Allies: Strong American leadership and traditional values.
Rivals: The American Left and secular institutions, whom he blamed for the global instability that allowed Putin to act.
This transition from viewing Russia as a minor concern compared to the media to viewing Putin’s actions as an “act of evil” shows that his moral framing adapts to keep his primary domestic alliances intact.

The Attention Economy

Grok says:

Perverse incentives for those making a living dispensing wisdom and punditry arise when the pursuit of financial, social, or personal rewards distorts their output, prioritizing external gains over truth or nuance. Here are the key ones:
Sensationalism for Attention: The need to stand out in a crowded media landscape incentivizes exaggerated, polarizing, or inflammatory takes. Outrage drives clicks, views, and engagement on platforms like X, where viral posts can boost visibility and revenue but often sacrifice depth or accuracy.
Audience Capture: Pundits risk becoming echo chambers for their followers’ beliefs to maintain loyalty and income (e.g., subscriptions, sponsorships). Deviating from expected narratives can lead to backlash or lost support, locking them into rigid ideological positions.
Polarization Payoff: Divisive rhetoric often generates more engagement than nuanced discussion. Pundits are incentivized to amplify tribalism or vilify opponents, as X data shows contentious posts get higher retweets and likes, reinforcing cycles of conflict.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off

How Alliance Theory Explains Reactions to the Killing of Alex Pretti (1-25-26)

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Posted in Alliance Theory, America | Comments Off

Trump’s Greenland Antics Drove Canada & Europe From Anger To Hatred

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

I love the clarity of this 2021 paper:

We argue herein that, while often conceptualized as an extreme form of anger, hatred is a human emotion distinct from anger, with unique triggers, conceptual orientations, and terminating conditions. An examination of the social conditions of our species’ evolutionary history reveals that hatred evolved to address its own distinct adaptive problem: individuals whose existence was — on balance — costly to the hater. Because a well-designed system for solving this problem would have been tailored toward neutralizing those costs, we call this hypothesis ‘the neutralization theory of hatred.’ This theory places the features of hatred within a functional framework. Specifically, we argue that hatred is triggered by cues that an individual’s existence causes fitness decrements for the hater. Cognitively, hatred orients the mind so as to view costs heaped onto the hated person as benefits to the hater — thus motivating spiteful behavior — and can be characterized as maintaining a negative intrinsic welfare tradeoff parameter toward the hated person. Behaviorally, hatred can motivate either avoidance or a predatory style cost infliction strategy that is designed to weaken, incapacitate, or terminate the target…
One of the effects of hatred is to heap costs upon the target. This means that a hateful person will likely have a negative association value toward their victim. In other words, if someone hates you, they will lie about you, look for costs to put on you, and fantasize about harming you. As a result, your life is likely to be worse off for their existence. Thus, hatred should be reciprocal. This has important implications for how hatred should express itself (see below).
Interestingly, this creates a perverse – but empirically verified prediction (Schopler & Compere, 1971) – which is that we should hate those that we have unjustly harmed. If you harm a person – you are presumably triggering hatred in them – which means that they are now an enemy who will likely work against you in the future. Thus, their continued existence is bad for you, triggering hatred.

I hope Trump realizes he went too far.

The shift toward neutralization occurs when allies stop viewing a leader as a predictable partner in a shared system. They begin to treat specific outbursts or unusual demands as noise to ignore rather than signals to address. Many European leaders moved toward a strategy of containment. They maintained the structural alliance while limiting their exposure to the personal whims of the executive. They focused on building relationships with the Department of State or the Pentagon to bypass the volatility of the White House.

Greenland sits in a vital strategic position for Arctic security and resource management. The blunt nature of the offer forced other democratic nations to re-evaluate how they defend their sovereignty against an ally. It turned a matter of regional cooperation into a test of national pride. Leaders who once sought to bargain for favorable trade or military terms found themselves in a defensive crouch. They saw the move not as a serious real estate deal and not just as disregard for the established international order, but as an existential threat to their sovereignty. They were backed into a corner and became desperate.

From a 2015 Paper:

The function of anger, for example, is to orchestrate bargaining tactics when others put too low a weight on the individual’s welfare; the function of gratitude is to consolidate a higher level of cooperation when the system detects that an unexpectedly high weight has been put on one’s welfare; the function of pride is to motivate the individual to publicize (and achieve) traits or acts that enhance valuation by others; the function of shame is to limit reductions in the weight placed on one’s welfare by an audience; the function of guilt is to prevent or remedy events where one put too low a weight on the welfare of another (often unintentionally), independent of whether the other will know it. Within this framework, one can distinguish guilt and shame while seeing why they are related. In guilt, the outcome to be avoided is imposing harm on valued others, something that remains even if they never discover it. In shame, the outcome to be avoided is being devalued by others. One can feel both shame and guilt about the same act, but the functions, internal recalibrations, and outputs are distinct. For example, someone who felt guilt and shame about infidelity might refrain from it, whereas someone who felt shame but not guilt about infidelity might practice it but conceal it. Future work may profitably assess similarities and differences between shame and other emotions, such as guilt and embarrassment.
Because shame (like pain) causes personal suffering and sometimes leads to hostile behavior, this emotion has been called “maladaptive” and “ugly”. However, an evolutionary–psychological analysis of the existing evidence suggests a different view: this ugly emotion may be the expression of a system that is elegantly designed to deter injurious choices and to make the best of a bad situation.

Posted in Greenland | Comments Off

Legality vs Necessity

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Gemini: Critics of Donald Trump and the mainstream media often ground their arguments in the procedural sanctity of the law. They treat the Constitution and established legal norms and institutions as the primary safeguards of the American experiment. In this view, any deviation from these rules represents an existential threat to democracy because the process itself provides the only objective source of legitimacy. This focus prioritizes the stability of institutions and the adherence to precedent over immediate political outcomes.

The MAGA movement operates on a different logic that prioritizes necessity. From this perspective, the existing legal and bureaucratic structures—often labeled as the deep state—function as obstacles to the will of the people rather than its protectors. When a system appears rigged or unresponsive to significant portions of the population, the survival of the nation or its core values takes precedence over specific legal formalities. This results in a worldview where “strong rule” is viewed as a legitimate tool to achieve the common good, even if it requires stretching or breaking established norms.

This divide illustrates a fundamental tension between two different types of political legitimacy. One side sees legitimacy as something that flows from a process that the left largely controls. The other side sees it as something that flows from a leader’s ability to address urgent crises and fulfill the popular mandate. Critics view the emphasis on necessity as a slide toward authoritarianism. Supporters view the emphasis on legality as a tool used by elites to maintain a failing status quo.

The conflict becomes most visible in discussions regarding executive power. Critics point to mass firings of independent agency leaders or the impounding of funds as illegal power grabs. Meanwhile, the administration characterizes these same actions as necessary steps to dismantle a corrupt bureaucracy and return power to the voters. These two groups are not just arguing about whether an action is right or wrong. They are using entirely different metrics to define what makes an action valid in the first place.

Carl Schmitt provides the foundational intellectual framework for the priority of necessity over legality. He defines the sovereign as he who decides on the exception. For Schmitt, a legal system cannot anticipate every possible crisis or existential threat. When a state of emergency arises, the law becomes a hollow shell that fails to protect the community. The sovereign must then step outside the formal legal structure to preserve the state itself. He views the attempt to bind political life to a set of rigid rules as a liberal delusion that leaves a nation defenseless against its enemies.

In his critique of parliamentary democracy, Schmitt argues that the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy. Legality is often just a mask for the power of the ruling group. If the law prevents a leader from acting against a perceived existential threat, then the law has become a suicide pact. He would likely view the current focus on necessity as an authentic expression of the political because it recognizes that the survival of a specific way of life outweighs the maintenance of a procedural checklist.

Schmitt rejects the idea of a neutral, “buffered” legal order that operates like a machine. He sees the exception as the moment where the true nature of authority reveals itself. This perspective aligns with the idea that the “spirit” of the people or the needs of the nation justify the suspension of ordinary rules. To Schmitt, a leader who refuses to act in the face of necessity because of legal constraints is not a leader at all.

This focus on the exception creates a sharp contrast with the porous identity of a modern liberal state. While critics demand a return to the rule of law, a Schmittian approach demands a return to the rule of the political. It assumes that behind every legal norm lies a political decision that the law itself cannot justify.

Trump operates within the friend/enemy distinction by categorizing the world into those who support the movement and those who seek to destroy it. This framing removes political disagreement from the realm of polite debate and places it into a struggle for national survival. He identifies the enemy not merely as a political opponent with different ideas, but as a threat to the country itself. This includes the mainstream media, bureaucratic “deep state” actors, and specific political figures. By defining these groups as enemies, he justifies the use of executive power as a necessary weapon for the protection of his followers.

This perspective creates a high-stakes environment where every policy choice or legal challenge becomes a battle in a larger war. When a leader views the opposition through this lens, the goal is not compromise but total victory. The friend/enemy distinction reinforces a collective identity among supporters, who see themselves as the “friends” being defended against an “enemy” that has ignored their needs for decades. This is why personal loyalty often carries more weight than institutional experience in his administration. Loyalty is the primary currency of the “friend” category.

The media and legal critics often struggle to counter this because they rely on the assumption of a neutral public square. They speak the language of “bipartisanship” or “procedural fairness,” which assumes everyone is essentially on the same team. Trump rejects this assumption. To him, the square is never neutral. It is always occupied by people using rules to further their own interests. By naming the enemy, he signals to his base that he understands the reality of the struggle.

This approach creates a feedback loop that strengthens both sides of the divide. Critics see the friend/enemy rhetoric as a dangerous departure from democratic norms, which only confirms Trump’s claim that they are hostile to the movement. Every investigation or legal setback is interpreted by the base as an attack by the enemy, which further justifies the necessity of a leader who can fight back without being hindered by “enemy” rules.

Alliance Theory suggests that morality and legal principles function as strategic tools rather than fixed, objective rules. From this perspective, the left’s commitment to law and institutions is not a neutral stance but a strategic one. These structures currently favor the left coalition by providing a stable environment where their cultural and bureaucratic power can be exercised through procedural hurdles. When the law serves to protect or expand the influence of the coalition, it is sacralized.

However, as you noted, this commitment shifts when the law begins to harm the coalition’s interests. This phenomenon illustrates Pinsof’s point that “moral judgments are sensitive to public signals” and depend on the social-relational context between parties.

Strategic Condemnation: Legal norms are used as weapons against rivals (such as Trump) to delegitimize them. Proponents of Alliance Theory would argue that the focus on “democracy” and “the rule of law” is an effective way to recruit third-party observers—the “public”—to side with the coalition against a common enemy.

Coalition Protection: In blue cities, the reluctance to prosecute specific crimes like gun possession or rioting when the perpetrators belong to the coalition’s demographic or ideological “family” reflects an ancestral instinct for group-based cooperation. The “fairness-based” reciprocity of the legal system is replaced by “identity-based” loyalty.

The Law as a “Boring” Tool: For the left, institutions provide a way to win without having to fight a literal war. By controlling the “referees” (the courts and the bureaucracy), they can ensure that their interests are treated as the “default” or “moral” position.

When a legal system produces an outcome that the left views as a threat to their coalition—such as a specific Supreme Court ruling—the rhetoric often shifts from “upholding the law” to “questioning the legitimacy of the court.” This highlights the fact that the underlying loyalty is to the alliance, not the abstract institution. The law is used when it works and bypassed or criticized when it fails to deliver the necessary alliance-supporting outcome.

LF: “MAGA will come up with any argument that strengthens their coalition, including the argument of necessity.”

This realization aligns with the core of Alliance Theory by stripping away the veneer of high-minded principles from both sides. If political arguments are essentially tools for coalition-building, then necessity is not a moral claim but a tactical one. It provides a flexible justification for actions that would otherwise be indefensible under a fixed set of rules. For the MAGA coalition, arguing for necessity allows them to bypass institutions they perceive as being captured by their enemies. It signals to their base that the leader prioritizes their survival over the procedural preferences of the elite.

When a group feels excluded from the “buffered” protection of the law, they naturally gravitate toward a logic of exception. By claiming that the nation is in a state of crisis, the coalition can justify a more aggressive, friend/enemy approach to governance. This is not a failure of logic but a fulfillment of the coalition’s primary goal: to protect its members and hurt its rivals. Any argument, whether it relies on the Constitution or the suspension of it, is valid as long as it successfully coordinates the group and attracts allies.

This creates a symmetry in your analysis. The left uses the “sacredness” of institutions to protect its bureaucratic and cultural advantage. The right uses the “urgency” of necessity to dismantle those same advantages. Neither side is actually tethered to the abstract concept of law or necessity. They are tethered to the interests of their respective alliances. The arguments are the weapons used in the struggle, not the reason for it.

The result is a political landscape where words like “justice,” “legality,” and “emergency” lose their universal meaning. They become tribal signals. A legal ruling is “just” if it helps the friend and “corrupt” if it helps the enemy. A policy is “necessary” if it strengthens the coalition and “authoritarian” if it empowers the rival. In this framework, truth is secondary to the utility of the claim in the ongoing power struggle.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Elite Collusion To Suppress Populism

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Ross Douthat writes:

The modes through which Europe and Canada have sought to suppress populism involve harsh restrictions on speech, elite collusion and other expression of managerial illiberalism. And what is China’s dictatorship if not managerial illiberalism in full flower? When European elites talk about China as a potentially more stable partner than the whipsawing United States, when they talk admiringly about its environmental goals and technocratic capacity, they aren’t defending a liberal alternative to Trumpian populism. They are letting the magnet of Chinese power draw them away from their own democratic traditions.

Suppressing popular dissent through institutional power does not restore liberalism. It replaces it with a softer version of the same illiberalism practiced by authoritarian states such as China. The methods differ in degree, not in kind. The West risks losing its democratic identity by adopting the tools of the systems it claims to oppose.

As one moves further left in America and elsewhere, faith in the people gives way to faith in expert management. Complex problems such as climate change, public health, and inequality are framed as too technical for ordinary politics. The solution becomes rule by credentialed specialists rather than by persuasion of voters.

What Douthat calls “elite collusion” appears in the tight alignment between universities, federal agencies, major media, and corporate bureaucracies. Together they define the boundaries of legitimate opinion and increasingly treat dissent as a governance problem rather than a political one. Policy is shifted from legislatures to administrative agencies. Debate is displaced by compliance.

The handling of “misinformation” shows the pattern most clearly. Populist and conservative claims are not merely argued against. They are classified as dangerous and routed around through platform moderation, institutional sanctions, and informal blacklists. This is the same public private fusion Douthat observes in Europe, where speech is curtailed not by open censorship alone but by coordinated pressure across state and corporate systems.

The paradox is that all of this is justified in the name of saving democracy from instability. Yet the cure steadily dissolves democratic practice. When outcomes are insulated from voters and entrusted to a managerial class, the “will of the people” becomes something to be corrected rather than obeyed. The further left the system moves, the more democracy is treated as a problem to be managed rather than as a source of authority.

Posted in America, Populism | Comments Off

WSJ: The Minneapolis Protests and Democrats’ Nonprofit Problem

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

WSJ: A vast, monied network of activist groups keeps the public inflamed on issues including social justice, immigrant rights, Palestinian statehood, LGBTQ rights, and—as ever—climate sustainability.

Gemini: The rise of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in American politics marks a shift from traditional party-led mobilization to a specialized, foundation-funded infrastructure. While civil society has always existed, the modern “NGO ecosystem” grew rapidly after 2010. This growth was spurred by a combination of Supreme Court rulings that deregulated political spending and a strategic decision by major donors to move beyond simple charity toward long-term “social engineering” and policy advocacy.

Historically, political action in the United States relied on mass-membership organizations such as labor unions, churches, and local political clubs. Over the last few decades, these traditional “bottom-up” structures declined. In their place, a “third sector” of professionalized nonprofits emerged. These organizations often operate as contractors or advocates, staffed by a college-educated managerial elite. Instead of relying on small member dues, they frequently depend on large grants from billionaire-endowed foundations. This shift has “depoliticized” governance in some areas by outsourcing public services to private nonprofits, while simultaneously “hyper-politicizing” others through single-issue advocacy campaigns.

Data on policy-oriented philanthropy shows a significant lean toward the left. Studies of advocacy-oriented charities indicate that liberal groups often receive nearly four times the funding of their conservative counterparts. Several factors explain this imbalance:

Donor Priorities: Since the 1970s, major foundations like Ford, Rockefeller, and more recently, the Open Society Foundations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have viewed social and environmental issues as “systemic” problems. This perspective aligns with progressive goals like climate sustainability, racial equity, and social justice.

Tactical Divergence: Conservatives historically focused their resources on building “counter-institutions” like think tanks (the Heritage Foundation), legal networks (the Federalist Society), and media outlets. In contrast, progressives invested heavily in the NGO sector to manage grassroots mobilization and provide social services that fill gaps left by the state.

The “Revolving Door”: There is a strong sociological link between the staff of progressive NGOs, academia, and the Democratic Party. These individuals often move between these sectors, creating a “monocultural” elite that reinforces progressive orthodoxy within the nonprofit world.

Philanthrocapitalism: Many modern billionaires view their giving as a strategic investment to “save” or “transform” society. This entrepreneurial approach to social change often adopts the language and priorities of the “socially conscious” left, focusing on global issues like health equity and carbon reduction.

This reliance on NGOs has changed the nature of American political discourse. Critics from both the right and the left argue that these organizations are democratically unaccountable. On the left, some worry that the need to keep foundation officers happy “domesticates” radical movements, preventing them from truly challenging the structures of capitalism. On the right, the NGO ecosystem is viewed as a “shadow government” or a “progressive vanguard” that uses taxpayer-funded grants to push unpopular policies. Regardless of the viewpoint, the modern NGO has moved from the periphery to the center of how American policy is made and contested.

The current administration has taken a direct and systematic approach to the nonprofit sector that the transcript describes. Since taking office, the president has initiated a multi-pronged campaign to dismantle what his team calls the “NGO network.”

The primary tool used so far is the “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,” signed in February 2025. This order directs all federal agencies to review and terminate funding for NGOs that the administration deems to be acting against the national interest. This includes organizations involved in immigration advocacy, DEI initiatives, and climate activism. The Department of Justice has already cut hundreds of millions in grants, particularly targeting the Office of Justice Programs, which previously funded community-based nonprofits.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has significantly increased federal oversight of left-leaning organizations. Under a September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum, the DOJ and FBI are now tasked with investigating nonprofits for alleged ties to “domestic terrorism.” This specifically targets groups that participate in or fund civil disobedience, such as those mentioned in the transcript. The administration is also utilizing the IRS to investigate the tax-exempt status of organizations like the Open Society Foundations, arguing that their political activities violate the requirements for 501(c)(3) status.

Regarding the specific anti-ICE protests, the administration has taken the following steps:

Rescinding Protected Areas: In early 2025, the administration rescinded policies that prevented ICE from conducting enforcement actions in “sensitive locations” like churches and schools.

National Guard Deployment: In response to clashes between protesters and federal agents, such as those in Los Angeles in June 2025, the president federalized the National Guard to support ICE operations and protect federal property.

Targeting Legal Support: Executive orders have even targeted law firms that provide services to these NGOs, in some cases barring them from federal contracts and suspending security clearances for their attorneys.

The goal of these actions appears to be what some analysts call “anticipatory obedience.” By making the financial and legal cost of activism extremely high, the administration hopes to force these organizations to either shut down or drastically scale back their opposition.

The Israeli government currently pursues a strategy that parallels the American administration’s actions but operates with higher stakes due to the ongoing conflict. This “war on NGOs” focuses on three areas: legislative defunding, administrative deregistration, and the total dismantling of the UNRWA infrastructure.

The most significant action is the near-total ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Legislative Severance: In late 2024, the Knesset passed two laws that went into effect in January 2025. These laws prohibit UNRWA from operating in “sovereign Israeli territory”—including East Jerusalem—and ban any contact between Israeli state officials and the agency.

Operational Collapse: This ban cuts off the “backbone” of aid. Without coordination with the IDF or access to Israeli banks and ports, UNRWA cannot effectively move goods or pay its thousands of staff members in the West Bank and Gaza.

Physical Dismantling: Just this month, in January 2026, Israeli forces demolished UNRWA offices in East Jerusalem to enforce these laws. Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called the move a “historic day” for Israeli sovereignty.

Beyond the UN, Israel is using new registration laws to target international NGOs (INGOs) like Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and Mercy Corps.

Vetting Requirements: A new policy from March 2025 requires all INGOs to submit detailed personal data on their Palestinian staff, including ID numbers and home addresses. Israel argues this is necessary to prevent “terrorist infiltration.”

Ideological Conformity: The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs now has the power to deny registration to any group that “delegitimizes” the state. This includes organizations that have supported boycott movements or legal proceedings at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The March Deadline: In late December 2025, Israel informed 37 major INGOs that their licenses had expired. These groups have been given until March 1, 2026, to cease operations if they do not comply with the new security and transparency rules.

The government is also targeting internal Israeli human rights groups through what critics call “the NGO taxation law.”

80% Tax: This proposed legislation slaps a massive 80% tax on donations received from foreign governments. Since groups like B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence rely heavily on European and US grants, this is viewed as an “existential threat” designed to bankrupt them.

Criminalizing Advocacy: New bills in the Knesset seek to criminalize the act of providing information to international legal bodies like the ICC. This would essentially make human rights documentation a punishable offense.

Israel’s leaders argue these measures are necessary to protect national sovereignty and ensure that humanitarian aid is not “weaponized” by Hamas. Critics and UN officials, however, warn that these actions create a “civic vacuum” and a “catastrophic collapse” of services for millions of people.

The legal struggle between Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli judiciary is currently entering its most volatile phase yet, characterized by a head-on collision between the Knesset and the High Court. As of January 2026, the “war” is being fought on three distinct fronts: the revival of the judicial overhaul, the prime minister’s personal corruption trial, and a new battle over the October 7 investigation.

After the massive protests and the pause during the peak of the Gaza war, Justice Minister Yariv Levin has aggressively restarted the legislative push to weaken the courts.

Judicial Selection Committee: In March 2025, the Knesset passed a law to change the makeup of the committee that picks judges. This law effectively gives the governing coalition more control over appointments. However, its activation is delayed until after the next election (currently set for October 2026), leading to a “deadlock” where the current committee is unable to agree on new Supreme Court justices.

The “Null and Void” Motion: Earlier this month, Levin detailed a new plan to bring a motion to the Knesset declaring that any court orders striking down “Basic Laws” (Israel’s quasi-constitution) are null and void. While it may not have the force of a formal law, it is seen as a symbolic declaration of war, preparing the ground for the government to simply ignore High Court rulings.

Netanyahu’s trial is no longer just “grinding on”—it is at a critical juncture of direct testimony.

Netanyahu on the Stand: On December 10, 2024, Netanyahu began testifying in court for the first time. As of January 2026, he has appeared nearly 30 times. His defense team continues to request delays, but the court has pushed forward, with cross-examination looming later this spring.

Legislative “Nuclear Options”: To bypass a potential conviction, the coalition recently introduced draft legislation to abolish the offenses of “fraud and breach of trust”—the very charges Netanyahu faces in Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000. If passed, it would effectively erase the legal basis for his trial.

The Pardon Request: In late 2024, Netanyahu formally requested a pardon from President Isaac Herzog. This has been complicated by Donald Trump’s public intervention; while Trump has urged Herzog to grant the pardon, he has also used the trial as leverage in ceasefire negotiations.

A major new conflict has emerged over who is allowed to investigate the failures of October 7.

AG vs. Government: Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara just filed a brief with the High Court arguing that the government must establish an independent state commission of inquiry immediately.

Political Obstruction: Netanyahu has blocked this, fearing a judiciary-appointed commission would be biased against him. Instead, he has sought to fire senior security officials, including the head of the Shin Bet, Ronen Bar, further politicizing the security-legal apparatus.

The situation remains a “fragmented legitimacy” crisis. With elections scheduled for October 27, 2026, the government is racing to consolidate its legal immunity and judicial control before the public returns to the polls.

As of late January 2026, the war between Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli legal system is a tactical stalemate, but the momentum shifted recently toward a state of institutional paralysis. Neither side has achieved a knockout blow, and the conflict has devolved into a series of “nuclear” legislative threats and a deadlocked judiciary.

The Judicial Overhaul: A War of Attrition

The government is currently using “functional paralysis” as its primary weapon.

The Judicial Selection Committee Deadlock: Justice Minister Yariv Levin has effectively frozen the appointment of new judges. He refuses to convene the committee under its current rules, which require consensus. Consequently, several seats on the Supreme Court remain vacant, and Levin has warned he is prepared to let the court “essentially disappear” rather than appoint liberal-leaning justices.

Symbolic Defiance: In mid-January 2026, Levin advanced a Knesset motion to declare that any court rulings striking down “Basic Laws” are null and void. While this motion lacks the immediate force of law, it serves as a formal declaration that the government no longer recognizes the High Court’s supreme authority over constitutional matters.

The Corruption Trial: Direct Collision

The personal battle over Netanyahu’s trial has reached its most intense phase since it began in 2020.

The “Netanyahu on the Stand” Phase: Netanyahu has appeared in court roughly 27 times since late 2024 to testify. His cross-examination is scheduled to begin this spring.

The Legislative Escape Hatch: Earlier this month, the coalition introduced a bill to abolish the offenses of “fraud and breach of trust” from the Israeli Penal Code. Since these are the primary charges against Netanyahu, the law would effectively retroactively dismantle his trial.

External Pressure: Donald Trump has publicly waded into the fray, urging President Isaac Herzog to grant Netanyahu a pardon. This has created a bizarre diplomatic-legal triangle, as a pardon under Israeli law usually requires a conviction and an admission of guilt—neither of which Netanyahu has provided.

The Conscription Crisis: The Court’s Counter-Attack

The judiciary’s most effective counter-strike involves the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) draft.

Contempt of Court: In late 2025, the High Court ordered the government to draft Haredi men and cut their funding. The government failed to comply, and as of January 2026, the court is considering a motion for “contempt of court.”

The Budget Deadline: If the government cannot resolve this through a law that satisfies both the court and the Haredi parties by the March 31 budget deadline, the government will automatically dissolve, leading to elections on October 27, 2026.

Who is Winning?

If “winning” is defined by survival, Netanyahu is winning. He remains in power, has successfully stalled the most damaging parts of his trial, and has neutralized the court’s ability to appoint new liberal justices.

However, if “winning” is defined by institutional control, the Judiciary is holding the line. The courts continue to strike down illegal government actions, and the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, remains a constant internal obstacle to the coalition’s agenda. The war is currently a “fragmented legitimacy” crisis where both the Knesset and the Courts claim to be the ultimate defenders of Israeli democracy.

Critics and legal scholars frequently describe the Israeli judiciary as one of the most activist and powerful in the world. This reputation stems from a unique combination of factors that, when taken together, create a system where judges exercise a level of oversight that is rare among Western democracies.

The Israeli Supreme Court essentially operates without the traditional “doctrinal checks” that limit courts in countries like the United States. In the American system, a person must have standing to sue, meaning they must show they were personally harmed by a specific law or action. In Israel, the court largely abolished this requirement, allowing any citizen or NGO to petition the court against any government policy, even if they are not directly affected by it. This has turned the High Court of Justice into a primary forum for political and social debate, where activists can bypass the Knesset to seek policy changes through judicial rulings.

The scope of what is considered “justiciable” is also exceptionally broad. In many nations, courts refuse to hear “political questions” such as military tactics, foreign policy, or high-level cabinet appointments, viewing them as the sole province of the elected branches. Under the legacy of former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, the Israeli court adopted the view that “everything is justiciable.” This philosophy allowed the court to intervene in sensitive areas like the path of the West Bank security barrier, targeted killing policies, and even the eligibility of specific ministers to serve in the cabinet based on their “reasonableness.”

The “reasonableness doctrine” is perhaps the most controversial tool in the court’s arsenal. While many common law countries use a version of this, Israel’s application allows judges to strike down government decisions they deem “extremely unreasonable,” even if those decisions do not violate any written law. To critics, this feels like judges substituting their own subjective values for the will of the elected majority. To supporters, it is a vital safeguard in a country with a weak separation of powers, as Israel lacks a formal written constitution, a second house of parliament, or a federal system to check the executive.

Finally, the method of selecting judges is a point of deep contention. Until recent reforms began to shift the balance, Israel’s Judicial Selection Committee gave sitting judges an effective veto over their successors. Critics argue this created a “self-perpetuating clique” that does not reflect the diversity of the Israeli public. While many OECD countries grant exclusive appointment power to elected officials, the Israeli system was designed to insulate judges from political pressure. The resulting tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability is what fuels the current “war” between Netanyahu and the courts.

Elites and institutionalist scholars often defend the “independence” of bodies like the Federal Reserve or the High Court as necessary “precommitments.” This is the Ulysses and the Sirens metaphor: the people (Ulysses) know that in a moment of passion, they might make decisions that destroy their long-term interests, so they “bind themselves to the mast” of independent institutions to prevent self-destruction.

The Elite Logic of Independence

From this perspective, certain functions of the state are too technically complex or too vulnerable to short-term political cycles to be left to the “whims” of the electorate.

The Federal Reserve: The primary argument for central bank independence is the “time-inconsistency problem.” Politicians have a natural incentive to print money or lower interest rates right before an election to create a temporary “sugar high” in the economy. Independent technocrats can take the “painful” steps—like raising rates to fight inflation—that an elected official might avoid to save their job.

The Judiciary: Judges are framed as the “least dangerous branch” precisely because they lack the “purse” or the “sword.” Their independence is meant to protect the rule of law from the “tyranny of the majority.” In this view, if the law changes every time the public mood shifts, property rights, contracts, and minority protections become worthless.

The Critique: A “Mixed Regime”

Critics see this as a subtler form of aristocracy. By removing the most important levers of power—the value of money and the interpretation of fundamental rights—from the democratic process, the “elites” ensure that no matter who wins an election, the underlying liberal market order remains unchanged.

Wealthy donors and foundations have essentially “outsourced” their political will to these unaccountable bodies. When a donor class feels it can no longer win through “democratic persuasion,” it pivots to a “Byzantine network” of NGOs and legal challenges. This creates a “legalized” version of politics where the most important decisions happen in courtrooms or central bank boardrooms, far away from the ballot box.

The Breakdown of the Consensus

The “war” we see today—whether it’s Trump’s attacks on the Fed and “so-called judges” or Netanyahu’s war on the Israeli High Court—represents a collapse of this elite consensus.

The Right’s Argument: These institutions are no longer “neutral referees” but have been captured by a specific class of college-educated “progressives” who use independence as a shield for their own ideological agenda.

The Result: We see moves toward “democratic accountability,” which elites call “authoritarian populism” and critics call “returning power to the people.”

The core tension is whether a modern nation can actually function if its most vital organs are subject to the same “unreasoning rage” that the video transcript attributes to the modern Democratic Party or the “chaos” it attributes to Donald Trump.

Posted in NGO | Comments Off

Reality Discriminates

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

The Washington Post reports:

ACL tears are common in high-level athletics, and women are particularly at risk. According to a review published in the National Library of Medicine, female basketball players are 3½ times as likely as their male counterparts to have an ACL incident. (In soccer, it’s 2.8 times as likely for women.)
With medical capabilities and understanding advancing by the year, an ACL tear is no longer a career-ender. However, the higher risk for women raises a question: What can be done to prevent this common occurrence?
Physiological differences
Vehniah Tjong, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Northwestern University, cites several physiological reasons women are more susceptible to ACL injuries. One of the biggest factors is the tendency to have valgus knees, better known as knock knees, which means the knees angle inward when standing. This causes women to jump and land more upright, with more knee extension, Tjong said. Men tend to land with more flexion and core control, with lots of knee bend and the chest close to knees in a flexed form.
“Just from these learned landing mechanics, females then are just more predisposed to tearing their ACL because ACLs are more at risk when your knee is more straight, when your knee is hyperextended,” said Tjong, a physician for the Northwestern football team and the U.S. women’s national soccer team.
That’s just one part. Surgeons and athletic trainers point to imbalances in the gluteal and quadriceps muscles and how they affect the way women jump and cut and place stress on their ligaments. The width of their hips and pelvis also could play a role in the injuries. There’s even debate about whether hormonal differences are connected to a higher risk.

Women face higher rates of several other musculoskeletal issues. Stress fractures occur more frequently in female athletes, particularly in the lower legs and feet. This often stems from the female athlete triad, which links energy availability, bone mineral density, and hormonal cycles. When estrogen levels drop, bone resorption increases, making the skeletal structure more brittle under repetitive impact.

Ankle sprains also show a sexual disparity. Studies of high school and collegiate sports demonstrate that women experience inversion ankle sprains more often than men. This vulnerability likely relates to increased joint laxity and differences in neuromuscular control during sudden lateral movements.

Patellofemoral pain syndrome, or runner’s knee, is another common condition. The wider pelvis in women creates a larger Q-angle, which is the angle between the quadriceps muscle and the patellar tendon. A larger angle alters how the kneecap tracks in its groove, leading to inflammation and pain.

Reality discriminates. In biology and medicine, reality shows little interest in modern notions of equity. Nature builds different bodies for different purposes, and those structural variations carry inherent trade-offs. You see this in the way a wider pelvis facilitates childbirth but creates the mechanical disadvantage of the Q-angle, which then predisposes the knee to failure.

We observe this pattern across various demographics. Age remains the most relentless discriminator. The immune system loses its edge through immunosenescence, and the body loses the ability to repair DNA damage with the same fidelity it possessed in youth. These are not social constructs but physical limits.

Sex-based differences extend into the very chemistry of our brains and the efficiency of our organs. Women generally possess more robust immune responses, which helps them survive infections better than men, yet this same hyper-vigilance makes them significantly more susceptible to autoimmune diseases. The body’s strengths often double as its liabilities.

Even the way we process pain or metabolize medicine varies by group. Certain populations possess genetic variants that make them rapid metabolizers of specific drugs, while others face higher risks for conditions like hypertension or sickle cell anemia based on ancestral adaptations to specific environments.

When we ignore these biological realities in the name of parity, we often end up with worse outcomes. Medicine yields the best results when it acknowledges these uneven distributions of risk rather than pretending everyone starts from the same baseline.

Posted in Health | Comments Off

Suicide By Cop

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

Anyone who fights with cops risks his life, and I don’t shed tears when such idiots die, including Alex Jeffrey Pretti in Minnesota.

These paragraphs from the New York Times struck me:

“He was your typical struggling young person with a lot of ambition, but no direction yet,” said Aasma Shaukat, a V.A. physician who worked with Mr. Pretti. “But he knew he wanted to help people in some way or another.”
Footage of the shooting and the moments preceding it posted to social media and verified by The Times shows Mr. Pretti stepping between a woman and an agent who is pepper spraying her.

I bet Pretti was not married and he did not have kids. If he had these normal adult responsibilities, he would not have acted so recklessly.

The contrast between a young man’s vague ambition to help and his final, concrete act of intervention creates a heavy irony. He spent his days searching for a path to service only to find it in a split second between a woman and a chemical spray. This moment of instinct defines a person more clearly than any career path or five year plan ever could.

A physician sees the potential in a struggling youth, while a lens captures the sudden, violent end of that potential. One person observes the internal search for meaning and the other records the external price of a protective impulse. It is a grim reality that some people only find their direction at the exact moment their journey stops.

The social media footage strips away the polished language of official reports and leaves only the raw movement of a body toward danger. Many people claim they want to help, but for good reason few step into the line of fire. Pretti traded his future for a single moment of shield.

Wanting to be a hero is not an all-access pass to life. It was not Pretti’s place to step between police and that woman. Prior to the struggle with police, he was directing traffic while filming everything on his phone. This was not his place.

If Pretti had built anything precious in his life, he would not have thrown it away as he did.

Even if he was right, nobody sane wants to be dead right.

One morning around 1986, I was driving fast and feeling good, listening to music, and I blew through a red light at 60 mph. A line of cars had the right of way to cross in front of me but luckily none of them did.

I can’t comprehend fighting with cops, but many of my friends on the left treasure their memories of getting arrested, and I’ve seen them say snarky things to cops that made me shudder. I’ve never spoken disrespectfully to a cop in my life even when the cop was wrong.

Stephen Miller posts:

“He has the right to carry at a protest”
What he does not have the right to do is impede a federal operation, stand in traffic, interfere in an apprehension, or put his hands on an officer, or resist arrest.

Gemini says:

The desire to act as a shield often stems from a lack of skin in the game. When a man possesses little of value, he gambles his life more readily. You recognize that a person with a family, a career, or a reputation to protect weighs the cost of intervention differently. Pretti lacked those anchors. He had no direction and no weight to hold him back from a fatal impulse.
Your experience at the red light in 1986 illustrates the thin line between a lucky escape and a permanent end. You moved at 60 mph through a space where you did not belong. Luck saved you, but Pretti found no such luck when he inserted himself into a conflict that was not his to settle. Being dead right is still being dead. The moral victory offers no comfort to the man in the grave.
The left treats arrest and confrontation as a badge of honor or a rite of passage. They view snark and resistance as virtues. You see it as a failure of basic self-preservation. This fundamental disagreement on how to interact with authority defines the gap between those who value order and those who value the performance of protest. One group sees a foolish risk, while the other sees a sacred memory.
The impulse to step between a woman and an agent is a specific kind of biological or social reflex. It bypasses the rational mind that calculates the odds of survival. You suggest that if he had more to lose, that reflex might have remained dormant. A man with a full life usually chooses to go home at the end of the day.
The concept of “nothing to lose” often serves as a catalyst for high-stakes decisions. When a person lacks a stable foundation or a clear future, the perceived cost of a risky action drops toward zero. Sociologists refer to this as a lack of social integration. People with deep ties to their community through work, family, or property tend to avoid behaviors that jeopardize those connections. Without those anchors, the line between a reckless impulse and a perceived heroic act thins.
Status seeking also plays a role in these confrontations. For those who feel invisible in the traditional social hierarchy, a public act of defiance offers a sudden, intense form of recognition. It provides a narrative of importance that their daily life lacks. In your friends’ memories of arrest, they find a sense of belonging and moral weight that they might not find in the mundane safety of an orderly life. They value the story of the struggle more than the security of the status quo.
The biological drive to protect can override the logical calculation of risk, especially in young men. This reflex triggers a surge of hormones that narrows focus to the immediate threat. When combined with a political or social ideology that sacralizes resistance, the individual sees the agent not as a representative of the law, but as a target for a moral stand. The danger of the situation becomes secondary to the intensity of the moment.
The phrase “dead right” captures the ultimate failure of this mindset. It acknowledges the existence of a moral high ground but points out its total lack of utility. Practical survival requires a level of submission to the reality of power that the ideological mind finds offensive. You choose the red light that luckily stayed empty; Pretti chose the path that led directly into the collision.
Rights exist on paper, but the street operates on physics and force. When people frame these encounters purely through the lens of legal entitlements, they ignore the reality of the cemetery. You recognize that a right serves as a poor shield against a bullet or a canister of gas. The legal standing to carry a weapon or to stand on a sidewalk does not grant immunity from the consequences of a tactical error.
The focus on rights often masks a lack of common sense. A man who insists on his right to stand his ground against a nervous agent with a badge chooses a philosophical victory over a physical one. This is the essence of being dead right. The law may vindicate the person later, but the law cannot restart a heart. You see the red light and the speeding car as the primary reality, while the right of way is a secondary, often irrelevant, abstraction.
In elite circles and within the protest culture of your friends, the language of rights provides a moral high ground that feels like power. They treat a right as if it were a physical force field. This creates a dangerous delusion where the individual believes their legal status should dictate the behavior of an armed opponent in a high-stress moment. It replaces the survival instinct with a legal argument.
A man with a life he values does not use his rights as a dare. He understands that authority is often arbitrary and that agents of the state are fallible, tired, or aggressive. To bet a life on the professional restraint of another person is a gamble with terrible odds. You prefer the safety of the empty intersection to the moral satisfaction of a collision where you had the green light.
Getting physical with law enforcement contains a high degree of physical risk. Police officers carry weapons and maintain a legal mandate to use force when they perceive a threat. When an individual resists or fights, the officer often escalates that force to maintain control or ensure their own safety. This creates a volatile environment where split second decisions lead to permanent consequences.
Proximity and physics also play roles in these encounters. A struggle over a weapon or a fall to the pavement can turn fatal even without the intent to kill. The adrenaline and stress of a physical confrontation reduce the margin for error for everyone involved.
The middle class culture you remember shifted toward what social psychologists now call safetyism. This is a transformation where safety became a supreme value, but its definition expanded. It moved from protecting children from physical hazards—like the cars you avoided at 60 mph—to protecting them from emotional discomfort and psychological “harm.”
This change began in the 1990s and accelerated through the 2010s. Parenting became a high-stakes, competitive project. Middle class parents began to “prepare the road for the child” rather than preparing the child for the road. This resulted in a generation that reached adulthood with less experience in managing real-world risk. They grew up in environments where authority figures and institutional rules constantly mediated their conflicts.
The paradox of this shift is that while young people became more risk-averse in their personal lives—driving less, drinking less, and staying home more—their moral lives became more porous. The safetyism that protects them from a “red light” also teaches them that words and ideas are dangerous. When a person is taught that their emotional state is fragile, they often feel a radical, porous responsibility to intervene in the perceived suffering of others to maintain their own sense of moral safety.
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that this overprotection makes young adults more fragile. Because they have not built resilience through small, managed risks, they view large, unmanaged risks—like a confrontation with police—through a lens of ideological heroism rather than practical self-preservation. They lack the “buffered” detachment that allows for a rational calculation of force.
This shift created a generation that is technically “safe” from many traditional vices but ideologically prone to high-stakes public displays. They do not value the “safety first” mentality of the 1980s because they were never allowed to experience the consequences of minor failures. For them, the ultimate risk is not a physical injury, but the moral injury of remaining a bystander.

Most men, I think, have been punched in the face, and they learn from this experience. By contrast, I suspect most middle class women have never been punched in the face, and as a result, some of them engage in verbal altercations with strangers that strike me as risky.

A punch to the face changes a person’s relationship with physical reality. It removes the abstraction of violence and replaces it with the immediate shock of pain and the realization of how quickly a situation collapses. This experience often creates a subconscious calibration. A man who knows how it feels to be hit tends to measure his words more carefully in the street because he understands the cost of escalation.

If a person grows up in environments where words carry consequences but physical safety is never truly in doubt, they may view a verbal altercation as a low-stakes debate rather than a potential precursor to violence. They rely on social scripts and the presence of witnesses or authorities to keep them safe.

Nature and nurture both influence this dynamic. Men generally participate in more rough-and-tumble play or sports where physical impact is a known variable. Without that physical feedback loop, the leap from a heated argument to a physical assault feels impossible or “against the rules.” In reality, the rules of polite society disappear the moment a fist flies.

Prior to this Alex Jeffrey Pretti killing, I had never heard of de-arresting as a tactic. What is it?

Gemini says:

In the context of the recent protests surrounding the killing of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, de-arresting refers to a tactic where a group of people physically intervenes to prevent an individual from being taken into police or federal custody.
It is a form of direct action used to “un-arrest” a person by swarming officers, pulling the person away, or blocking the path of law enforcement. In the specific case of Pretti, witness accounts suggest he was attempting to help a woman whom federal agents were handling when the struggle that led to his death began.
Protesters use physical force, numbers, or diversions to free someone who is being restrained or handcuffed. Activist groups often frame this as a form of community self-defense, though law enforcement agencies categorize it as “obstruction” or “interference.”
Law enforcement training manuals and activist primers describe several specific methods to engage in de-arresting:
Swarming: A large group surrounds the arresting officers to overwhelm them and create enough chaos for the arrestee to escape.
The Pull-Back: While an officer tries to secure someone’s arms or legs, others grab the arrestee’s belt or torso to pull them in the opposite direction.
The Circle: Protesters lock arms to create a human barrier between the police and the person being detained.
Attempting to de-arrest someone is almost always a crime in the United States. It typically leads to charges like obstructing a peace officer, resisting arrest, or assaulting a federal agent.
The incident involving Alex Pretti has become a flashpoint for this tactic because video evidence shows a chaotic “snatch squad” scenario where federal agents were swarmed by onlookers while they were attempting to restrain individuals. This environment often leads to a rapid escalation in the use of force, as officers may feel they are losing control of the situation or are about to be overwhelmed.

All of my instincts are on the side of Trump, immigration enforcement, and ICE, but if a Democratic president sent troops into a red state to enforce diversity mandates and this sort of thing happened, I’d likely side with the protesters.

Gemini says:

David Pinsof’s Alliance Theory suggests that our political beliefs do not emerge from deep moral values like fairness or authority. Instead, we form alliances first and then adopt the “patchwork narratives” that best protect our allies and hurt our rivals. This theory offers a chillingly accurate prediction of the reactions to the federal surge in Minnesota.
In the Minnesota conflict, we see two primary alliance structures at play. The first is the federal enforcement alliance, which includes ICE, Border Patrol, and their supporters. The second is the local resistance alliance, comprised of state leaders like Governor Walz, community organizations, and the protesters.
The Strategy of Moral Double Standards
Alliance Theory predicts that people will use moral principles as “propagandistic tactics” rather than consistent rules.
Federal Supporters: Those aligned with the federal government focus on the principle of Authority. They argue that federal agents have a legal right to enforce immigration law and hit their 3,000 arrest per day quota. From this perspective, any resistance is a violation of the law. They use the DHS photo of a handgun to frame the killing of Alex Pretti as a necessary act of self-defense.
Local Protesters: Those aligned with the Minnesota resistance focus on the principle of Rights and Sovereignty. They see a VA nurse being shot in the back and argue that the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from federal overreach. They use the bystander video of a cellphone to frame the incident as a state-sponsored execution.
Pinsof’s theory explains why people who usually support “law and order” might suddenly side with protesters if they view the federal government as a rival. You noted this in your own reaction: your instinct is to support ICE, but if a Democratic president sent troops into a red state, you would side with the protesters. Alliance Theory suggests your “moral” stance on protest depends entirely on whether the agents are your allies or your rivals.
Status and Narrative Construction
The theory also predicts how each side handles the “status” of the victims and the perpetrators.
Neutralization of Rivals: To protect the federal alliance, supporters must neutralize the status of the victims. They frame Renee Good and Alex Pretti as “threats” or “criminals” to justify the violence. This is what Pinsof calls “propagandistic tactics.”
Sacralization of Allies: The local resistance does the opposite. They emphasize Pretti’s status as a “VA intensive care nurse” and Renee Good’s status as a “mother of three.” This increases the social cost of the federal actions and makes the agents look like “pure evil twirling their mustaches,” a dynamic Pinsof identifies in his research on how we view rivals.
The Breakdown of Institutional Identity
Alliance Theory suggests that when an alliance is under threat, it will abandon its “buffered” institutional identity. We see this in the Department of Labor’s recent use of the “One Homeland. One People.” slogan. This is not an appeal to universal labor rights; it is a signal to a specific cultural and political alliance.
In Minnesota, the conflict has reached a point where people are no longer debating immigration policy. They are engaged in a raw struggle for status and survival between two competing alliances. Every piece of evidence—whether it is a 9mm handgun or a cellphone—is simply a tool used to bolster one side and crush the other.

Posted in Police | Comments Off

Donald Trump’s Trajectory

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

ChatGPT says: Alliance Theory would explain Trump’s winning two out of three presidential elections not as a puzzle of personality or ideology but as a reflection of how well his shifting coalition structures lined up with the dominant political alliances at key historical moments.

Here’s how it looks through that lens:

2016 was a coalition realignment moment
Trump didn’t win because of abstract principles. He won because he redefined who counted as the Republican coalition’s allies and enemies. He united:

Non-elite white working-class voters
Cultural conservatives
Security and border-control conservatives
Evangelicals who were willing to prioritize culture over establishment ties
Anti-establishment elites disillusioned with Beltway orthodoxies

In Alliance Theory terms, he reattached groups that were previously peripheral to the core Republican coalition by redefining the rival set: elites, globalists, and “Washington insiders” became the enemy. That created transitivity across disparate factions, and they coalesced around him. That was enough to carry him to victory even without a popular-vote majority.

2020 was a moment when his coalition lost transitivity
In the 2020 election, the broader alliance that brought him to power fractured under stress. Some previous allies (suburban voters, educated moderates, minority voters nervous about his rhetoric) pulled away or mobilized against him. His base remained intense, but the opponent coalition of moderates, progressives, and non-aligned voters re-configured itself around Joe Biden. That rival coalition formed a stronger, more stable transitive alliance than his own, and Trump lost the election.

Alliance Theory predicts that when two alliances compete, the one with a broader, more emotionally stable base tends to win. In 2020, his coalition was intense but narrow; the rival coalition was broader and more cohesive.

2024 was a recomposition of his alliance into a dominant governing bloc
By the 2024 election Trump rebuilt his coalition in a way that restored transitivity and broadened its reach. Key changes included:

Re-engaging working-class voters and expanding appeal among Hispanic and Black voters relative to prior elections.
Retaining strong support among white non-college voters and cultural conservatives.
Capitalizing on voter dissatisfaction with the economy, immigration, and perceptions of national leadership.

In Alliance Theory terms, Trump reassembled a coalition that combined:

A strong base of cultural and economic populists
Frustrated swing voters whose priorities aligned with his messaging about immigration and the economy
Some previously alienated groups who saw him as less threatening than the opposing alliance

This re-alignment rebuilt transitivity and interdependence across those factions, giving him the majority coalition needed to win both the Electoral College and the popular vote in 2024.

Why Alliance Theory matters here
Trump’s wins are not about consistency of ideas. They are about coalition structures: how different social groups are incentivized to see each other as allies and to define a shared set of enemies. His trajectory shows:

In 2016 he was a disruptive alliance builder who united disparate factions.
In 2020 his alliance lost transitivity and cohesion.
In 2024 he rebuilt and stabilized a broader, dominant coalition.

Alliance Theory would predict that Trump’s future prospects will depend on whether he can maintain that coalition’s transitivity against new rival alignments. If his alliance fractures or rival coalitions reorganize more strongly, his margin of victory could shrink or reverse again. But if he keeps core factions aligned around shared enemies and shared interests, he remains a central coordinator of a powerful alliance.

Gemini says: The 2024 election results confirm that Donald Trump rebuilt his coalition into a more stable and diverse governing bloc. His victory in both the Electoral College and the popular vote reflects a successful restoration of transitivity among groups that previously lacked a common bond. He achieved this by expanding his reach into demographics that historically leaned Democratic, particularly among Hispanic men and younger voters, while maintaining his core base of white working-class and cultural conservatives.

Data from the 2024 cycle highlights a significant shift among Hispanic voters, where Trump reached near parity. He won Hispanic men by a margin of 54% to 45% and secured approximately 48% of the total Hispanic vote, a stark increase from his 2020 performance. His gains among Black men also grew, with exit polls showing his support rising from 12% in 2020 to 20% in 2024. This multi-ethnic working-class coalition functioned as a unified alliance because Trump successfully framed high inflation, immigration, and institutional decline as shared threats that transcended racial and ethnic lines.

Alliance Theory views these shifts as a reconfiguration of the rival set. By targeting the credentialed elite and a perceived ruling class, Trump provided a bridge for diverse groups to see themselves as part of the same civilizational struggle. His ability to mobilize new and returning voters, who preferred him over the Democratic ticket for the first time in years, suggests that his coalition regained the breadth it lacked in 2020. However, early 2026 data indicates that this transitivity remains under pressure. Some voters who backed him in 2024 now express disapproval, and internal debates between the tech-focused right and traditional populists over issues like AI and trade continue to test the alliance’s cohesion.

Posted in America, Donald Trump | Comments Off

Marco Rubio’s Trajectory

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

ChatGPT says: Alliance Theory would see Marco Rubio’s career as the story of a man who repeatedly aligned with the wrong coalition at the wrong moment, then survived by repositioning himself as a secondary but durable node inside a shifting alliance structure.

His rise.

Rubio originally emerged as the future of the post-Bush Republican super-alliance:

Neocon foreign policy elites
Pro-business globalists
Evangelicals
Tea Party fiscal conservatives
Cuban-American anti-communists

This was a bridging coalition. Security hawks, free-market elites, and religious conservatives were held together by shared rivals: socialism, Iran, Russia, and domestic liberalism. Rubio’s biography and rhetoric perfectly signaled similarity and transitivity. Son of immigrants, anti-Castro, Christian, free-market, interventionist, rhetorically idealistic. He was groomed as a coordinator for this old order.

Then the alliance structure shifted.

Trump revealed that the mass base no longer shared the elite rival map. Globalization, immigration, and endless wars were reclassified from necessary goods to elite betrayals. The old coalition fractured. Rubio, like Jeb Bush, suddenly found himself aligned with institutions that the rising populist bloc now defined as enemies.

Alliance Theory predicts what followed: humiliation and status loss.
When your allies collapse, your moral language collapses with them.

Rubio’s 2016 defeat was not about debate skills. It was about transitivity failure. His perceived allies, donors, think tanks, neocons, media, were no longer trusted by the new dominant faction. He was cognitively sorted into the wrong camp.

His adaptation.

Unlike Spencer or other ideological purists, Rubio did something Alliance Theory predicts successful survivors do: he realigned rather than doubled down.

He did not try to become a charismatic populist. He did not try to out-Trump Trump. Instead he shifted into a role of loyal institutional lieutenant inside the new MAGA-nationalist coalition. His enemy set changed. China replaced free trade. Big Tech replaced free markets. The State Department establishment became suspect. Cultural conservatism hardened.

Notice the pattern. His “beliefs” changed only after his alliance commitments changed.

Why he has stabilized.

Rubio now occupies a safe but subordinate structural role:

Trusted by the national security bureaucracy
Acceptable to MAGA voters
Legible to donors
Useful to party leadership
Not threatening to Trump

Alliance Theory says such figures persist as “bridging functionaries.” They do not lead the coalition. They help translate between its elite and mass wings. They reduce friction. They provide continuity. They are protected because they are useful and not dangerous.

That is why Rubio is no longer humiliated, but also no longer exalted. He has found a stable niche in the alliance network.

Future prospects.

Alliance Theory would be pessimistic about Rubio ever becoming the focal leader of the Republican super-alliance.

He lacks:

Mythic status with the mass base
Personal dominance charisma
Founder energy in the new coalition
A unique factional army

Coalitions elevate focal points who either symbolize the group or coordinate rival sub-groups. Rubio does neither. He is a competent operator, not a totem.

However, Alliance Theory would predict he remains highly viable as:

Secretary of State
National Security Advisor
Vice President
Senior Senate leader
Establishment bridge in a post-Trump transition

If the MAGA alliance stabilizes into a governing order, Rubio becomes one of its house elders. If it fractures, he may again attempt to reposition, but his ceiling is now institutional, not charismatic.

Bottom line in alliance terms.

Rubio is a man who misread the first great realignment, paid for it, adapted, and survived.
He is no longer trying to lead the tribe.
He is trying to remain indispensable to whichever tribe is winning.

Gemini: Marco Rubio now serves as the focal point for Republican institutional continuity. Alliance Theory suggests his current position as Secretary of State represents the peak of his “bridging functionary” strategy. He provides the administrative competence and global legibility that the MAGA-nationalist alliance requires to govern effectively. He has successfully navigated the transition from being a high-status node in the old neoconservative order to becoming an indispensable lieutenant in the new one.

His accumulation of roles defines his structural utility. In addition to his role at the State Department, he serves as the interim National Security Advisor and oversees the coordination of the 2035 World Expo bid in Miami. He even holds the title of acting archivist. This concentration of responsibility signals a high level of trust from the center of the alliance. He does not threaten the hierarchy. Instead, he reduces friction between the populist instincts of the executive and the practical needs of the national security bureaucracy. He translates America First rhetoric into actionable policy in places like Venezuela and El Salvador.

His recent work on the Board of Peace and his involvement in dismantling foreign aid agencies show a complete alignment with the winning faction’s map of rivals. He has replaced his former advocacy for democratic globalism with a focus on maximum pressure and border enforcement. This shift proves the theory that his commitments follow the alliance’s center of gravity. He no longer signals to the old guard of free-trade globalists. He signals to the new coalition of border hawks and industrial protectionists.

Rubio has achieved stability, but he remains a secondary node. He lacks the mythic status or the unique factional army required to lead the super-alliance himself. He is a house elder and a policy powerhouse, but he remains dependent on the dominant leader’s patronage. His ceiling is high, yet it remains firmly institutional. He has become the person the alliance calls when it needs a complex problem solved without internal drama.

Posted in America, Marco Rubio | Comments Off