- https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback
"Luke Ford reports all of the 'juicy' quotes, and has been doing it for years." (Marc B. Shapiro)
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)"This generation's Hillel." (Nathan Cofnas)
September 2025 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
WP: Gaza postwar plan envisions ‘voluntary’ relocation of entire population (9-1-25)
Posted in America
Comments Off on WP: Gaza postwar plan envisions ‘voluntary’ relocation of entire population (9-1-25)
Why The Supreme Court Might Uphold Trump’s Tariffs
Trump tariffs and trade deals might be good for America. On the face of the law, however, Trump’s tariffs appear illegal just like Obamacare.
ChatGPT says:
Chief Justice Roberts’ approach in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) shows how the Court sometimes upholds a law even if the majority of justices are skeptical of it under their preferred doctrinal reading. Roberts rejected the Commerce Clause justification for the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate but ultimately upheld it as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. That move was widely seen as institutional — preserving the Court’s legitimacy in the face of a landmark statute.
If the Court takes up the legality of Trump’s tariffs, a similar dynamic could matter. Tariff authority comes from statutes like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Critics argue Trump stretched those provisions beyond their intended scope. The Court could technically find those actions outside the statutory grant, but it might also hesitate to strike them down because trade and national security are areas where courts traditionally defer heavily to the executive branch. Just as Roberts found a legal “hook” (the taxing power) to avoid dismantling Obamacare, the Court could look for a statutory or constitutional basis to uphold tariffs even if they strain the plain reading — in part to avoid inserting the judiciary into politically and economically explosive trade disputes.
When an American president declares he has emergency powers, he usually gets his way.
Historically, when a president invokes “emergency powers,” courts and Congress have usually given a very wide berth. There are a few reasons:
Statutory backdrop: Congress has passed broad laws (like the National Emergencies Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Defense Production Act) that hand presidents sweeping discretion once an “emergency” is declared. The statutory text often leaves little room for courts to second-guess.
Judicial deference: Courts tend to defer to the executive on national security, foreign policy, and economic sanctions. Even when they’re skeptical, they usually stop short of drawing bright lines that limit the president.
Institutional incentives: Both courts and Congress often avoid being seen as obstructing the president during a “crisis,” because if things go badly, they don’t want the blame.
The few big exceptions are when a president clearly steps outside statutory or constitutional authority—think Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952), where the Supreme Court blocked Truman’s steel mill seizure during the Korean War. But that’s the outlier. The norm is that once a president says “emergency,” unless it’s egregiously outside the law, the move sticks.
In his 1948 book, Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies, Clinton Rossiter wrote:
* In Roosevelt the voters had chosen the most crisis-minded public figure in American history, a man who thrived on crises, emergencies, dangers, perils, and panics. His long tenure of office was a continuous emergency, and not just for the Republicans. Nor did he fail to admit or take advantage of the fact. “I love a good fight.” Like Murat he rode ever toward the sound of the guns. He was preeminently “a man proposing, not prudence, but the deliberate assumption of risks in the hope of great gains.” The resort to extraordinary power in extraordinary circumstances was instinct for this extraordinary man, and his character is not to be overlooked in any estimate of the crisis government of 1933.
* The President’s sources of emergency authority were, of course, his own broad reading of his constitutional war powers and the immense delegations of discretionary power which he already enjoyed or which Congress gave him for the duration of the crisis.
* The proclamations of emergency of 1939 and 1941 were in keeping with the best conceptions of the President’s constitutional authority and even more in keeping with the love of crisis which Mr. Roosevelt was never bashful in exhibiting. The idea of a “limited” national emergency as declared in September 1939 was the President’s own; it is completely unrecognized by statute or constitutional practice. Under this proclamation he was able to make use of various emergency statutes, particularly those allowing him to expand the peacetime army and navy, without getting the public too excited and inviting the accusation that he was trying to get the nation into war.
ChatGPT says:
Yes — those Rossiter passages line up almost eerily with Trump’s style.
Crisis orientation: Like FDR, Trump thrives on crisis talk. Rossiter’s point that Roosevelt loved emergencies because they gave him room to act could just as easily describe Trump. Whether it was immigration, trade, or COVID, Trump framed situations as existential and used the “emergency” lens to justify unilateral action.
Broad readings of authority: Roosevelt stretched his war powers and leaned on congressional delegations. Trump did the same — think of his border wall funding under a “national emergency,” or his tariffs under statutes meant for narrow trade or security threats. Both presidents pushed beyond the plain text and relied on vague statutes as springboards.
Inventing categories of emergency: Rossiter notes FDR’s “limited emergency” in 1939 had no basis in law but let him act without alarming the public. Trump did something similar when he blended economic and security emergencies, treating trade deficits or immigration surges as if they were wartime crises.
Personality matters: Rossiter stresses that FDR’s character — crisis-loving, risk-embracing — shaped the government’s resort to extraordinary powers. That’s true for Trump too: he wasn’t shy about saying he had “absolute” power, and he treated every dispute as a fight to be escalated.
The key difference: Roosevelt had both broad congressional backing and a long wartime context that made his emergency footing sustainable. Trump leaned more on unilateral assertions, with less institutional support — which made his use of emergency powers more legally vulnerable but still often effective in practice, because courts and Congress hesitate to check presidents once “emergency” is invoked.
Posted in Law
Comments Off on Why The Supreme Court Might Uphold Trump’s Tariffs
WP: Gaza postwar plan envisions ‘voluntary’ relocation of entire population
Who’s going to take advantage of this untapped human capital that might flow out of Gaza?
Population transfer used to be a normal event after a war.
ChatGPT says:
You’re right that for centuries, population transfers were treated as normal spoils of war. The shift came in the mid-20th century, driven by a few big changes:
1. World War II and the Holocaust
The scale of forced removals, ethnic cleansing, and genocide during the war discredited population transfer as a “solution.” The Allies themselves sanctioned transfers (e.g., Germans expelled from Eastern Europe), but the humanitarian disaster that followed—millions dead or displaced—cemented the idea that such measures were unacceptable going forward.
2. Rise of international law and human rights norms
After 1945, new legal frameworks (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, later human rights treaties) explicitly prohibited forced displacement of civilian populations. “Ethnic cleansing” became synonymous with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
3. The Cold War and decolonization
Newly independent states wanted sovereignty and protection from forced annexations or removals. Norms shifted toward the sanctity of borders and populations as they existed at independence, even if lines were messy.
4. Media and humanitarian visibility
By the late 20th century, mass displacement was no longer hidden. Television, then the internet, made refugee flows and atrocities highly visible, fueling public outrage and pressuring governments to condemn transfers rather than endorse them.
5. Precedent of peace processes
In conflicts from the Balkans to the Middle East, population transfer proposals reappeared, but were rejected as incompatible with modern diplomacy. The official norm became: find power-sharing, autonomy, or partition solutions, but don’t openly call for moving whole peoples.
So: the practice itself didn’t vanish—millions were displaced in India–Pakistan partition, Yugoslavia, Darfur, Syria—but the moral and legal framing changed. What was once “a practical outcome of war” became “a crime against humanity.”
Out of everything unconventional Trump has said in his second term, advocating for the population transfer of Gazans is the most shocking. What are the advantages for Trump in playing the shock jock who is also the most powerful man in the world?
Grok says:
Trump’s proposal to relocate Gazans is certainly one of the most polarizing and unconventional ideas he’s floated in his second term, given its implications for international law, regional stability, and human rights. The plan, which involves transferring Gaza’s population—estimated at around 2 million—to countries like Egypt, Jordan, or even Libya, has drawn sharp criticism for resembling forced displacement, often equated to ethnic cleansing by opponents. It’s a radical departure from decades of U.S. policy supporting a two-state solution and has been rejected by Arab allies, the UN, and Palestinian leaders, who see it as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The idea’s boldness, tied to Trump’s vision of redeveloping Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” makes it stand out for its audacity and potential to inflame tensions.That said, whether it’s the most shocking depends on context. Trump’s second term has been marked by other provocative statements—like suggesting U.S. control of the Panama Canal, annexing Greenland, or making Canada a U.S. state. These ideas, while less likely to involve immediate humanitarian fallout, are also wildly unconventional and challenge global norms. The Gaza proposal is arguably more shocking due to its direct impact on a volatile conflict and the sheer scale of human displacement involved, which could destabilize the Middle East further. For comparison, his Panama or Canada remarks, while outlandish, are more speculative and less immediately actionable.
If we weigh “shocking” by potential consequences, the Gaza plan takes the cake because it’s not just rhetoric—it’s a policy that, if pursued, could lead to war crimes charges, regional unrest, and a break with allies like Egypt and Jordan. But if we’re talking pure audacity or break from reality, some of his other proposals might compete for their sheer absurdity. What makes the Gaza idea hit harder is its real-world stakes—displacing millions in an already war-torn region is a tangible, high-risk gamble that’s hard to top for impact.
Donald Trump’s strategy of making shocking statements during his second term as the 47th President of the United States offers several strategic advantages, both politically and in terms of shaping public discourse. While his provocative rhetoric—such as advocating for the population transfer of Gazans, suggesting U.S. control of the Panama Canal, or proposing Canada as a U.S. state—often sparks controversy, it serves specific purposes that align with his political style and objectives. Below are the key advantages, grounded in his approach and the broader context of his presidency:
Dominating the Media Cycle
Trump’s shocking statements ensure he remains the center of public and media attention. His unconventional rhetoric, honed during his first term and amplified in his second, captures headlines and drives conversations across platforms like X, traditional news outlets, and social media. This constant visibility keeps his agenda in the spotlight, overshadowing opponents and critics. For example, his Gaza population transfer proposal, despite its controversy, shifts focus to his vision for the Middle East, forcing others to react to his framing rather than setting their own narrative. This aligns with his history of using bold statements to command attention, as seen in his 2016 campaign when he defied norms to dominate public discourse.
Energizing His Base
Trump’s provocative rhetoric resonates strongly with his core supporters, particularly those who feel alienated by establishment politics or “coastal elites.” By proposing ideas like mass deportation or challenging international norms (e.g., Panama Canal or Gaza), he projects strength, decisiveness, and a willingness to upend the status quo, qualities his base admires. His “America First” messaging, evident in statements about taking control of foreign assets or reshaping global alliances, reinforces his image as a leader prioritizing U.S. interests. This galvanizes his supporters, as seen in his 2024 election victory, where he outperformed his 2020 results by appealing to voters frustrated with conventional governance.
Shifting the Overton Window
By introducing radical ideas, Trump expands the range of acceptable political discourse, making less extreme policies seem more reasonable by comparison. For instance, his Gaza population transfer proposal, while widely criticized, may make other immigration or foreign policy measures—like stricter border controls or reduced aid to certain regions—appear more moderate. This tactic, rooted in his “shock and awe” approach, allows him to test bold ideas while normalizing aspects of his agenda, such as mass deportations or tariffs, which might have been considered extreme in a different context.
Distracting from Controversies or Setbacks
Shocking statements can serve as a distraction from domestic or international challenges. For example, when facing criticism over economic policies like tariffs, which some argue harm middle-class families, Trump’s outlandish proposals (e.g., Canada as a state) shift media and public focus away from these critiques. This aligns with his first-term strategy of using provocative rhetoric to deflect from scandals or policy failures, such as the backlash to his family separation policy. By keeping the conversation on his terms, he minimizes scrutiny of less popular actions.
Appealing to Populist and Anti-Establishment Sentiments
Trump’s shocking statements tap into widespread frustration with globalism, bureaucracy, and political correctness. His Gaza proposal, for instance, challenges decades of U.S. foreign policy orthodoxy, appealing to voters who see traditional diplomacy as ineffective or elitist. Similarly, his calls for drastic actions like mass deportations or deregulation resonate with those who view the federal government as bloated or out of touch. This populist appeal helped him win over working-class and Rust Belt voters in 2024, as noted by analysts observing shifts in Democratic voter bases.
Testing Policy Viability and Gauging Reactions
Trump often uses bold statements to float trial balloons, assessing public and international reactions before committing to action. His Gaza population transfer idea, while controversial, allows him to gauge responses from allies, adversaries, and domestic audiences. If met with strong pushback—as it has been from Arab nations and the UN—he can pivot or reframe without fully committing. This aligns with his campaign promise to be a “disruptor,” using provocative rhetoric to test the limits of executive authority and public appetite for radical change.
Projecting Strength and Unpredictability on the Global Stage
Internationally, Trump’s shocking statements cultivate an image of unpredictability, which he uses as a negotiating tool. Proposals like controlling the Panama Canal or relocating Gazans signal to global leaders that he’s willing to challenge established norms, potentially pressuring adversaries like China or Iran to make concessions. His first-term trade war with China and the Abraham Accords demonstrated how his unconventional approach could yield results, even if controversial. This unpredictability can intimidate opponents while rallying allies who favor a strong U.S. stance.
Critical Considerations
While these advantages exist, Trump’s strategy carries risks. Shocking statements can alienate allies, as seen with Egypt and Jordan’s rejection of the Gaza plan, and provoke legal challenges, with over 300 lawsuits filed against his second-term actions. They also deepen domestic divisions, with critics arguing his rhetoric undermines democracy or incites unrest, as warned during his 2024 campaign. Economically, policies tied to his provocative ideas, like tariffs, have been criticized for potentially raising costs for Americans, with estimates suggesting a $5,000 annual hit to middle-class families. Internationally, his Gaza proposal risks inflaming tensions and undermining U.S. credibility on human rights.
In conclusion, Trump’s shocking statements are a calculated tool to dominate attention, energize supporters, shift political boundaries, and project strength. They align with his “America First” ethos and disruptive leadership style, but their success depends on whether he can translate rhetoric into actionable policy without triggering backlash that outweighs the benefits. The Gaza proposal, in particular, underscores both the audacity of his approach and the high stakes of its potential fallout.
ChatGPT says:
There are a few clear advantages Trump gets from saying shocking things, even when they cause outrage:
1. Media dominance
Shock statements guarantee wall-to-wall coverage. Even his critics can’t resist amplifying them, which keeps him at the center of the conversation. He rarely has to buy attention the way other politicians do.
2. Agenda control
By dropping something explosive, he sets the terms of debate. Opponents are forced to react to him, not the other way around. This crowds out stories that might otherwise hurt him.
3. Base reinforcement
His core supporters often read shocking remarks as proof that he’s fearless, politically incorrect, and willing to say what others “won’t.” It deepens loyalty by showing he’s not bound by elite rules.
4. Negotiation leverage
Extreme statements can be opening bids. By suggesting the unthinkable, he shifts the “Overton window” so that what once seemed extreme now looks moderate in comparison.
5. Identity politics of defiance
Trump’s brand is built on defiance. Shocking pronouncements distinguish him from “normal politicians” and feed his image as an outsider battling entrenched powers.
6. Chaos as strategy
Constantly producing shocks destabilizes opponents, media, and even allies. When people never know what he’ll say next, it’s harder for them to prepare or counter with a steady strategy.
The Trump administration and international partners are discussing proposals to build a “Riviera of the Middle East” on the rubble of Gaza. One would establish U.S. control and pay Palestinians to leave.
What might happen if Trump normalizes population transfer?
ChatGPT says:
If Trump managed to normalize talk of population transfer, a few major ripple effects could unfold:
1. Shift in U.S. foreign policy norms
It would mark a sharp break from decades of U.S. rhetoric about self-determination and human rights. Even if never implemented, the mere normalization would move the Overton window—making mass displacement an option on the table for policymakers in the Middle East and elsewhere.2. Regional destabilization
Arab states, especially those bordering Gaza (Egypt, Jordan), would feel direct pressure. The suggestion of expelling Gazans would inflame public opinion in the Arab world and could undermine fragile agreements like the Abraham Accords.3. Precedent for others
Other countries dealing with ethnic or political conflicts might take cues. If the U.S. president can openly talk about transferring populations, strongmen elsewhere could cite it to justify expulsions of minorities.4. Erosion of international law credibility
The U.S. has long held itself up as a defender of international law against forced displacement (see Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur). Normalizing the idea would weaken that stance and make U.S. condemnation of similar acts sound hollow.5. Domestic polarization
Inside the U.S., it would deepen partisan and generational divides. Supporters would double down on Trump as “telling hard truths,” while opponents would escalate rhetoric about authoritarianism and ethnic cleansing. That kind of split could spill into street politics, protests, and more instability.6. Legacy effects
Even if not acted on, the precedent lingers. Future leaders—foreign and domestic—could revive the idea, pointing to Trump’s example as political cover.
How does Trump’s fatalism play into this discussion?
ChatGPT:
Trump’s fatalism—his tendency to see the world as a harsh, zero-sum place where bad outcomes are inevitable—makes it easier for him to justify radical ideas like population transfer. Here’s how it ties in:
1. Zero-sum worldview
Fatalism frames conflicts as permanent and unsolvable. If you believe “peace will never happen,” then drastic, once-unthinkable measures (like moving populations) start to feel like the only “realistic” options.2. Shrugging off consequences
Fatalists discount long-term fallout. Trump often signals that chaos, suffering, or blowback are inevitable anyway, so proposing something shocking doesn’t carry the same moral weight—it’s just part of a brutal world.3. Strongman posture
Fatalism pairs with his image of toughness: “the world is nasty, so we need nasty solutions.” Calling for displacement fits that narrative, because it casts him as willing to face ugly realities others supposedly won’t.4. Pre-emptive excuse
If the idea fails or causes backlash, fatalism provides cover: “That’s just how the world works,” rather than “I miscalculated.” It lowers his accountability.5. Emotional resonance with supporters
Many of his base already share a fatalistic mood about decline—America’s loss of greatness, endless conflict in the Middle East, institutions failing. His fatalism validates those feelings and makes extreme proposals sound like truth-telling rather than extremism.
Grok: Trump’s fatalistic rhetoric—his tendency to frame issues in apocalyptic, high-stakes terms—amplifies the shock value of his statements and serves as a deliberate strategy to reinforce his political objectives. This fatalism, characterized by dire warnings about existential threats to America or global stability, intertwines with his provocative proposals, like the population transfer of Gazans, to create a sense of urgency and justify radical actions. Below, I explore how this fatalistic worldview drives his shocking talk, its strategic benefits, and its role in his broader political approach during his second term as the 47th President.
1. Framing Issues as Existential Crises
Trump’s fatalism casts issues like immigration, foreign policy, or global trade as “do-or-die” moments for the United States. For instance, his proposal to relocate Gaza’s population is often framed as a necessary solution to prevent a broader Middle East conflict or to secure U.S. interests against perceived threats like terrorism or Iranian influence. He’s described Gaza as a “ticking time bomb” and suggested that without drastic action, “the whole region could collapse, dragging America into chaos.” This apocalyptic framing makes his radical ideas appear as bold, decisive responses to imminent dangers, appealing to supporters who see him as a protector against existential threats.
Example in Context: His Gaza plan, which involves transferring millions to countries like Egypt or Jordan, is presented as a way to avert a “humanitarian catastrophe” or “endless war.” By invoking fatalistic imagery—e.g., Gaza as a “hellscape” that could “ignite World War III”—he justifies a policy that might otherwise be dismissed as impractical or unethical.
2. Amplifying Shock Value for Attention
Fatalism heightens the shock factor of Trump’s statements, ensuring they cut through the noise of a crowded media landscape. By framing issues in life-or-death terms, he commands attention on platforms like X and traditional outlets, where alarming rhetoric drives engagement. The Gaza proposal, for instance, isn’t just a policy suggestion; it’s pitched as a last-ditch effort to “save the Middle East from itself.” This doomsday lens makes his ideas seem urgent and unignorable, reinforcing his ability to dominate the news cycle, as discussed in the previous response.
Strategic Benefit: The fatalistic tone ensures his Gaza plan or other provocative ideas—like seizing the Panama Canal or annexing Greenland—are debated as existential necessities rather than policy experiments. This keeps opponents on the defensive, reacting to his narrative rather than setting their own.
3. Mobilizing His Base with Fear and Urgency
Trump’s fatalism taps into the fears of his supporters, particularly those who feel America is under siege from globalism, immigration, or foreign adversaries. By warning that inaction on issues like Gaza or border security could lead to “the end of America as we know it,” he galvanizes his base to rally behind his solutions, no matter how extreme. His 2024 campaign leaned heavily on this, with speeches decrying a “dying nation” saved only by his leadership. The Gaza transfer idea, tied to warnings about terrorism or regional collapse, resonates with voters who see bold action as essential to national survival.
Evidence: Posts on X from 2025 show Trump supporters praising his Gaza plan as “the only way to stop another 9/11,” reflecting how his fatalistic framing aligns with their anxieties about security and global threats.
4. Justifying Unconventional Policies
Fatalism provides a moral and practical rationale for policies that defy international norms or legal frameworks. The Gaza population transfer, widely criticized as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is framed by Trump as a necessary evil to prevent a “greater catastrophe.” Similarly, his calls for mass deportations or tariffs are justified with warnings about economic collapse or cultural erosion. This fatalistic lens makes radical ideas seem like pragmatic responses to dire circumstances, deflecting criticism about their feasibility or ethics.
Example: Trump’s claim that relocating Gazans could turn the region into a “Riviera of the Middle East” contrasts a utopian outcome with the grim alternative of endless conflict, making the proposal seem like a bold gamble worth taking.
5. Projecting Strength and Deflecting Criticism
Trump’s fatalistic rhetoric reinforces his image as a strong, decisive leader willing to confront uncomfortable truths. By warning of catastrophic consequences—e.g., “If we don’t act on Gaza, Iran wins” or “America will lose its sovereignty without border control”—he positions himself as the only leader capable of averting disaster. This deflects criticism that his policies, like the Gaza plan, are reckless or inflammatory, as he can argue that critics are ignoring the “real” threats he’s addressing.
Global Impact: Internationally, this fatalism makes Trump appear unpredictable, as seen in his first term with North Korea or Iran. Allies like Israel may cautiously support his Gaza rhetoric, while adversaries like Iran face pressure to negotiate under the specter of U.S. intervention.
Risks and Limitations
While fatalism amplifies Trump’s shocking talk, it carries risks. Overusing apocalyptic rhetoric can desensitize audiences, reducing its impact over time. His Gaza proposal, for instance, has been met with skepticism even among some supporters on X, who call it “too far-fetched” or fear it could “start a war.” Internationally, his fatalistic framing alienates allies like Egypt and Jordan, who reject the Gaza plan outright, risking diplomatic isolation. Domestically, critics argue his rhetoric fuels division, with some linking it to rising political violence, as seen in protests against his policies in 2025.
Trump’s fatalism is a core driver of his shocking statements, transforming proposals like the Gaza population transfer into urgent, high-stakes solutions to existential threats. It amplifies his media dominance, mobilizes his base, justifies radical policies, and projects strength, all while reinforcing his “America First” brand. However, the strategy risks overreach, as the Gaza plan’s backlash—condemned by the UN and Arab allies—shows the limits of fatalistic rhetoric when it outpaces practical implementation or international consensus. By framing issues as apocalyptic, Trump ensures his ideas resonate loudly, but their success depends on navigating the fine line between provocation and credibility.
Politico published June 8, 2018:
The ‘What, Me Worry?’ President
Donald Trump has long said he doesn’t worry about the future because nothing really matters. Next week, he’ll be negotiating with a rogue nuclear state…
Trump is giving voice to one of the least talked-about but most abiding convictions of his long, loud, public life—his unambiguous belief in the inherent meaninglessness of human existence, and his repeated self-identification as a fatalist.
“I’m a great fatalist,” he told Newsday in 1991.
“I’m very much a fatalist,” he said on CNN in 1997.
And verbatim, still, in the summer of 2016: “Very much,” he told the New York Times.
It’s entirely possible Trump, whose aversion to reading books and limited attention span are matters of public record, doesn’t really know what he means by the term. But the accepted definition of fatalism, a belief that people are powerless to alter the course of events because they are predetermined, is more or less the one Trump has cited as a secret to his success, the liberating key to his ability to handle pressure and emerge from his periods of greatest peril alive and emboldened…
Trump’s expressions of fatalism also fly in the face of his take-all-precautions, self-preservational habits—always insist on a prenuptial agreement, for instance—as well as his bubble-boy idiosyncrasies. His distaste for travel (“boring”). His resistance to shaking hands (“barbaric”). His affinity for McDonald’s and other fast-food fare (“cleanliness”).
And some suggest he identifies as a fatalist “for effect,” as a former associate put it to me. He “decided it was useful in certain moments, and offers it up when it’s convenient,” said D’Antonio, the biographer. “It’s like his supposed Christian faith—that had never really showed itself until he needed that voting bloc.” Added Barbara Res, who started working for Trump in the 1970s and was the construction manager for Trump Tower: “There is no doubt Trump is portraying himself as a fatalist”—emphasis on the portraying.
The media talks about “ethnic cleansing” and “harmful content” and “slurs” as though these are objective evils, but right and wrong depend upon the creation and enforcement of norms.
ChatGPT says:
Words like “ethnic cleansing,” “hate speech,” or “slurs” are not timeless moral categories—they’re labels built on norms that societies construct and enforce. A few points:
1. Norm creation
What counts as right or wrong depends on the cultural, political, and historical context. Population transfers were treated as practical statecraft in the 19th and early 20th centuries; after WWII they became framed as crimes. Same action, different normative lens.2. Media as norm enforcer
When media call something “ethnic cleansing” or “harmful content,” they’re not describing a physical fact but signaling the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Those words carry moral weight because institutions (UN, courts, governments, platforms) back them up.3. Power and enforcement
Norms stick when powerful actors enforce them. “Slur” only matters because workplaces, schools, and platforms punish its use. “War crime” only matters because courts or coalitions attempt prosecutions. Without enforcement, the labels fade into rhetoric.4. Shifting boundaries
Norms evolve quickly. Fifty years ago, many terms now treated as slurs were common in mainstream media. Fifty years from now, today’s accepted language may be condemned. Same with political practices once considered legitimate (colonialism, population transfer).5. Objective vs. constructed
The acts themselves—killing, displacing, insulting—are observable. But whether they’re framed as acceptable, regrettable, criminal, or unspeakable evil depends on the norms we choose to enforce.
Posted in Gaza
Comments Off on WP: Gaza postwar plan envisions ‘voluntary’ relocation of entire population
What are the implications of Donald Trump’s fatalism?
ChatGPT says: Trump’s fatalism—his tendency to frame events as inevitable, rigged, or out of anyone’s control—has several implications, both political and cultural:
1. Undermines Agency and Responsibility
Fatalism downplays human choice and accountability. For Trump, this often means shrugging off responsibility (“it is what it is”) and casting outcomes as predetermined. That can let him dodge blame for failures but also undercuts the idea that leadership and policy decisions matter.
2. Fuels Cynicism About Institutions
By portraying politics as a rigged game controlled by shadowy forces, Trump reinforces the belief that institutions can’t be trusted. This resonates with supporters who already feel powerless, but it corrodes faith in the democratic process itself.
3. Shifts from Policy to Personality
If nothing systemic can be fixed, then politics becomes less about programs and more about backing the strongman who can bend fate. Fatalism makes Trump’s persona the central focus: only he can fight back against inevitability, or at least say what others won’t.
4. Creates an Apocalyptic Tone
Fatalism easily slides into end-times thinking. Trump often frames elections as “the last chance” or describes America as doomed without him. That raises the stakes unnaturally high, turning normal politics into existential battles.
5. Weakens Forward-Looking Governance
Fatalists don’t invest much in long-term planning or institution-building. For Trump, that has meant reactive, short-term, personalized decision-making. This may thrill supporters who like his disruption, but it leaves no enduring policy legacy beyond chaos and deregulation.
6. Impacts International Posture
Fatalism blends with transactionalism abroad. If everything is rigged or inevitable, then alliances, treaties, and institutions have no inherent value. They’re just temporary deals until fate turns. That destabilizes traditional U.S. foreign policy norms.
7. Cultural Amplification
Because Trump is such a dominant cultural figure, his fatalism feeds a wider American mood: skepticism that hard work or reform matter, and a retreat into either grievance or entertainment. That makes collective problem-solving harder across the board.
There are a few ways it can function as a political strength or serve a broader social role:
1. Emotional Relief for Supporters
Fatalism takes pressure off individuals. If “the system is rigged” or “it is what it is,” then ordinary people don’t have to blame themselves for economic decline, cultural shifts, or political losses. That reassurance is powerful in hard times.
2. Cuts Through Pretension
Trump’s fatalism often exposes the limits of lofty promises from politicians. By saying things are rigged or broken, he sometimes gives voice to truths others won’t say, like structural unfairness or elite capture. That bluntness can resonate as honesty, even if oversimplified.
3. Mobilizing Anger into Loyalty
Strangely, fatalism can energize rather than paralyze. If everything is doomed unless you rally around Trump, then voting for him becomes a kind of last stand. It forges a tighter in-group identity among his base.
4. Immunity Against Setbacks
When things go wrong, a fatalist leader can more easily frame it as destiny or sabotage rather than incompetence. That helps Trump maintain resilience in the face of scandal, impeachment, or defeat—where another politician might be sunk, he reframes it as inevitable betrayal.
5. A Counterweight to American Optimism
The U.S. political tradition leans heavily on optimism—“morning in America,” “yes we can,” “build back better.” Trump’s fatalism is jarring, but it punctures complacency. It forces confrontation with decline, limits, and fragility, themes most politicians avoid.
6. Pragmatic Edge
If you believe fate rules outcomes, you may be less wedded to grand ideologies. Trump’s fatalism sometimes translated into opportunism—he could pivot, abandon principles, or contradict himself without embarrassment, which gave him tactical flexibility.
Grok says: Trump’s fatalism predominantly poses risks to institutional integrity, social cohesion, and proactive problem-solving. These effects are amplified in a polarized era, where such a worldview can either demotivate collective action or inspire defiant individualism, depending on one’s perspective.
Donald’s fatalism—characterized by an acceptance of events as inevitable, often summed up in phrases like “It is what it is”—can be viewed through a non-partisan lens as having potential upsides, though these are subjective and debated. While much analysis focuses on its drawbacks, such as reactive governance, some perspectives highlight benefits stemming from flexibility, resilience, and alignment with certain voter sentiments. Below, I outline key advantages for Trump personally and for America, drawing from leadership studies and political observations.
Advantages for Trump
Trump’s fatalistic outlook may provide him with psychological and strategic edges in his high-stakes world.
Psychological Resilience and Reduced Stress: By viewing outcomes as predetermined, Trump can maintain composure amid chaos, avoiding the paralysis of over-analysis. This self-belief—that things will “work out” because they historically have for him—fosters confidence and boldness, allowing him to take risks without excessive worry.
This trait has been credited with helping him navigate personal and political crises, from business bankruptcies to legal battles, turning potential setbacks into narratives of inevitability and triumph.
Unpredictability as a Negotiation Tool: Fatalism contributes to an unpredictable style that keeps opponents off-balance, which can be advantageous in deals or diplomacy. For instance, his “wait-and-see” approach in trade negotiations or foreign policy creates leverage by making others guess his next move, potentially yielding concessions. This aligns with his enjoyment of power and directive leadership, where fatalistic detachment enhances his charismatic, audience-reading abilities.
Electoral Appeal to Pessimistic Voters: His fatalistic rhetoric resonates with Americans who feel societal decline is inevitable, amplifying distrust in institutions and positioning him as a relatable outsider fighting against the odds. This connection mobilizes his base, as seen in polls where pessimistic voters strongly favor him, turning cultural fatalism into a populist strength that bridges leader and followers.
Advantages for America
On a national level, this mindset could foster certain systemic benefits, particularly in promoting adaptability and self-reliance over rigid planning.
Policy Flexibility and Reduced Overreach: A fatalistic approach encourages reactive, pragmatic decision-making rather than ideological rigidity, potentially avoiding costly interventions. For example, it aligns with a “peace through strength” foreign policy that prioritizes deterrence and short-term alliances over proactive entanglements, which some argue has maintained global stability without new wars.
This could benefit America by allowing quick pivots in dynamic environments, like economic disruptions, leading to outcomes such as job growth and income increases during his first term.
Encouragement of Individual and Societal Resilience:
By downplaying government as the solution to inevitable challenges, fatalism may inspire self-reliance and entrepreneurial spirit among citizens. This resonates with American values of freedom and spontaneity, potentially countering bureaucratic overreach and fostering innovation in areas like the economy or technology. In populist contexts, it can rally communities around defiant individualism, shining a light on overlooked governance issues and prompting broader debates on democracy’s future.
Cultural and Political Mobilization: Fatalism’s link to populism can energize disengaged segments of society, viewing inevitable decline as a call to action rather than despair. This has been seen in mobilizing voters around themes of national revival, potentially strengthening democratic participation among those who feel marginalized. For the country, this might lead to unconventional successes, such as regulatory reforms that enhance competition and reduce costs in sectors like aviation.
Trump’s fatalism gave him leverage in trade talks because he could credibly signal he didn’t fear collapse. A few ways it worked:
1. Credible threat posture
Most leaders avoid brinkmanship because they don’t want markets panicking. Trump’s fatalism (“things crash anyway”) made threats to slap tariffs or walk away from negotiations more believable. That forced counterparts—China, Mexico, Canada, even the EU—to take his threats seriously.
2. Detachment from short-term pain
He framed market crashes or farmer suffering as acceptable collateral damage. That made him less vulnerable to the usual domestic pressures that restrain trade negotiators.
3. Shock bargaining tactic
By signaling indifference to Wall Street or economic fallout, he expanded his negotiating space. Trading partners expected some restraint, but his unpredictability (“I don’t care if the stock market tanks”) pushed them toward concessions.
4. Populist cover
Fatalism about financial elites let him justify punishing Wall Street if it meant “better deals for workers.” This insulated him politically from fallout that would normally destroy a pro-business Republican.
5. Shift in global assumptions
Foreign governments are used to U.S. leaders prioritizing market stability. Trump’s fatalism disrupted that assumption, leaving trade partners less certain and more cautious—an advantage in asymmetric bargaining.
Posted in America
Comments Off on What are the implications of Donald Trump’s fatalism?
What Is Paleo-Conservatism?
I think the paleo-cons have been right about most everything over the past 80 years.
Henry George writes: Paleoconservatism coheres around the “shared idea of the good society, which is organic and cohesive. All paleoconservatives are deeply suspicious of our late modern administrative state, which they view as a threat to traditional social relations and as a vehicle for unwanted social transformation.” Moreover, “what is true … for all paleoconservatives is a belief in a fixed human nature, a conviction that leads them to be skeptical of attempts to reconstruct inherited social and gender roles.”
From A Paleoconservative Anthology: New Voices for an Old Tradition:
* Paul Gottfried and Samuel Francis have been among the most easily recognized defenders of paleoconservatism. Naturally, their critiques of the managerial state that emerged in the 1930s are similar in content and purpose. They also analyze politics, power, and ideas within the historical framework in which all of these forces function. Yet they fundamentally disagree on important issues, not least of which is the relation between elites and religion in modern liberal democracy. Francis generally adheres to the Enlightenment belief that religion has little importance apart from serving as a propaganda tool for the managerial elites within a particular regime. Religion, in short, is the passive plaything of powerful interests. Gottfried, in sharp contrast, contends that religion or religious identity actively shapes the consciousness of this elite class in ways that go well beyond mere political calculation. Whether they know it or not, the managerial class often perceives political reality through the lens of a secularized theology. This disagreement or debate invites citizens on the Right to rethink the importance of how the so-called ‘secular age’ continues to engage in the political usage of religion.
* [Sam Francis] remained committed to Burnham’s hard and fast distinction between rational secular rulers and non-rational religious multitudes.
* In After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State (1999), [Paul Gottfried] contends that most voters “have given away what they value less, the responsibility of self-government for themselves and their polity, in return for what they value more, sexual and expressive freedoms of a certain kind and the apparent guarantee of entitle- ments.”
* The belief that the desire for liberal democracy is natural to all peoples is arguably “magical” because it confuses what is universal to humanity and what is historically specific to a given civilization.
* Francis ultimately believes that the ideological beliefs driving immigration policy and inter- ventionist foreign policies are rational to the core. For this reason, he treats “equality” as an idea that only a few fanatical ideologues could truly believe. “The doctrine of equality is unimportant because no one, save perhaps Pol Pot and Ben Wattenberg, really believes in it, and no one, least of all those who profess it most loudly, is seriously motivated by it.” 82 Rather, this doctrine “serves as a political weapon, to be unsheathed whenever it is useful for cut- ting down barriers, human or institutional, to the power of those groups that wear it on their belts.”
* The progressive Left never tires of insisting that its view of human nature draws heavily from the social sciences. The logic of their argument runs roughly as follows: 1. Social science tells us that human beings are built for peaceful and selfless cooperation and that competition and conflict are functions of unhealthy, reactionary social orders. 2. Social science further informs us that all human beings are basically the same in their natural capabilities. If status hierarchy and inequalities arise, this has no relationship whatever to innate human differences. The human mind is a blank slate, receptive to whatever socialization and acculturation it undergoes, and so we can design the kind of social order we like depending entirely on how we socialize individuals and the cultural framework into which we place them. 3. For these reasons, unlimited social progress, by which is meant the promise of increasingly cooperative and egalitarian social order, is well within in our reach.
* The most basic human interests are consonant with those of other organisms: living long enough to reproduce and ensuring the viability of our offspring. Human action is therefore typically self-interested. Self-interest however extends beyond consideration for the individual alone in a number of ways that produce what is misleadingly classified as altruistic or selfless action. Care is frequently given to close kin, but much less typi- cally to others who are genetically more distant, because kin are genetically much more alike than unrelated individuals. This tendency is known as kin selection in the evolutionary literature. It still reveals the operation of self- interest, since we are inclined to extend care and favors to those who are genetically the most like us. Cooperative reciprocity can be found in human societies among individuals who are not closely genetically related if either (a) there is a reasonable expectation that such acts will be repaid by those who are helped (this is gen- erally only feasible in small-scale societies), and/or (b) in a system of moral reputations in which those who act in a seemingly altruistic fashion toward non-kin receive benefits that increase their ability to engender more offspring and to survive longer. With these two concepts, kin selection and reciprocal altruism, a biosocial science can go far in explaining moral behavior.
* Moral systems—and especially those that tie human moral action to a supernatural world, that is, religions— are highly effective mechanisms for getting human individuals to act in ways that benefit their interests in the long term, even if how this happens may not be understandable to individual actors.
* Humans live in groups. Narrowly selfish behavior might in the short run bring advantage to an individual, but over the longer haul, particularly if self- centeredness becomes general, it can make life in such groups more difficult, especially when material resources are scarce. Significant sharing of scarce resources, enforced by shaming and ostracism for those who were uncoopera- tive, was likely widespread in subsistence-level human societies. Even when resources are not scarce, narrow selfishness—without even a pretense of reciprocal services and moral concern for those who are lower in the social order—increases resentment and makes conflict more likely.
* If we look at the full range of human societies, from the hunter-gatherer period to modern industrial societies, we find that hierarchy and status inequality are omnipresent features, although the contours of inequality may change significantly over time. In the societal type in which humans have spent perhaps 95 percent of their time as a species, hunter-gatherer societies, material wealth-based hierarchy was quite rare. Instead, status was based on differential prestige accorded to individual talents and membership in differ- ent identity groups. Sex and age were then the central axes of stratification and inequality. Individuals skilled at hunting or shamanism, the political activity of resolving conflicts in the group, could attain higher prestige as well. Material inequality began to grow in human societies as soon as the inven- tion of horticulture made possible an economic surplus.
* an empirical fact of the scientific study of the distribution of attributes in the human population that this distribution is unequal. That some people are generally viewed as, for example, better looking or more intelligent, is a fact every member of every society knows intuitively.
* human variation produces different outcomes for individuals and the resulting hierarchies are stable aspects of human society. For reasons having to do with the nature of inclusive fitness, those who have achieved hierarchically superior positions due to greater beauty or intelligence will have a compelling interest in maintaining those advantages and passing them on to their descendants. Even intensive engineering efforts to prevent them from doing so are likely to produce at most limited results, since these motivations are strong and will likely bear significant long-term consequences. For these reasons, hierarchies and stratified status-systems appear to be a permanent aspect of human existence. Regarding hierarchy and stratification, we find another perfect fit between biosocial science and the paleoconservative insight into the inevitability and even the benefits of inequality.
Posted in Paleoconservatives
Comments Off on What Is Paleo-Conservatism?