What are the top 5 right-wing institutions in America?

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation is a leading conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., known for promoting free-market policies, limited government, and traditional values. It played a significant role in shaping policy through initiatives like Project 2025. In 2022, its revenue was reported at approximately $112 million, with assets exceeding $300 million, bolstered by major donations from conservative donors like the WL Amos Sr Foundation and others. Its financial scale and influence make it a top contender.

Koch Industries (via affiliated political spending)
While Koch Industries is a private corporation, not a traditional “institution,” its owners, Charles and David Koch (David passed away in 2019), have funneled vast sums into right-wing causes through entities like Americans for Prosperity (AFP). AFP, a key libertarian-conservative advocacy group, had a budget of over $100 million annually in recent election cycles, with Koch-related funding often exceeding $400 million across their network in peak years. This financial footprint in conservative politics is unmatched, though it’s spread across multiple organizations.

National Rifle Association (NRA)
The NRA is a powerhouse in right-wing advocacy, particularly on Second Amendment issues. Despite legal and financial challenges, it reported revenues of around $211 million in 2021, with historical highs near $400 million in earlier years. Its assets and membership dues (over 5 million members) keep it a major player, though its financial dominance has waned slightly due to internal issues.

Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI)
CPI has emerged as a significant hub for right-wing organizing, connecting GOP lawmakers with far-right activists. It received a $25 million donation in 2021 from Mike Rydin, and tax filings show 2022 revenues of about $45 million, with rapid growth since. Its ties to Project 2025 and groups like America First Legal amplify its financial and political reach, likely pushing its budget higher by 2025.

Turning Point USA (TPUSA)
TPUSA, a youth-focused conservative nonprofit, promotes right-wing ideas on college campuses and beyond. Its revenue has grown significantly, reaching $55 million in 2022, driven by grassroots fundraising and high-profile donors like the Bradley Foundation. With assets and influence expanding, it’s a rising financial force in the conservative ecosystem.

Notes and Caveats
Data Limitations: Exact 2025 figures aren’t available yet, so these rankings rely on 2021–2023 data from IRS filings, news reports, and watchdog groups like OpenSecrets. Trends suggest these organizations remain leaders.

Scope: I excluded for-profit media (e.g., Fox News) and political parties (e.g., RNC), focusing on nonprofits and advocacy groups. Koch Industries is an exception due to its outsized role in funding right-wing causes.

Ranking Challenges: Financial “size” varies by metric—revenue, assets, or spending. Heritage and NRA lead in direct revenue, while Koch’s network dominates in broader political spending.

How does the financial size of American institutions controlled by the right compare to the size of American institutions controlled by the left? It seems to me it is a ratio of 1/100 (the left is 100 times more powerful in American institutional power).

Grok:

Right-Wing Institutions
For the right, major players include:
Heritage Foundation: A leading conservative think tank, with 2022 revenue of $112 million and assets over $300 million. It’s a hub for policy influence, like Project 2025.

Koch Network: Koch Industries, a private firm, channels funds through groups like Americans for Prosperity (AFP). AFP’s budget has exceeded $100 million annually, with Koch-related political spending peaking at $400 million in some cycles. The network’s total influence is harder to pin down but likely reaches billions over time.

National Rifle Association (NRA): Historically a financial giant, with 2021 revenue at $211 million (down from $400 million peaks), though its clout has dipped due to legal issues.

Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI): Gaining traction, CPI had $45 million in 2022 revenue, with growth fueled by large donations.

Turning Point USA (TPUSA): A youth-focused group with $55 million in 2022 revenue, expanding rapidly.

Beyond these, right-wing media like Fox News (part of Fox Corp, 2023 revenue $14.9 billion) and smaller outlets add to the ecosystem, though their for-profit status complicates direct political funding comparisons.
Left-Wing Institutions
For the left, notable examples include:
Center for American Progress (CAP): A progressive think tank with 2022 revenue of $47 million, influential in Democratic policy circles.

Open Society Foundations: Founded by George Soros, this global network spent $1.5 billion in 2023, with significant U.S. impact (exact U.S. allocation unclear but substantial).

Tides Foundation: A donor-advised fund supporting progressive causes, with 2022 grants of $712 million, though not all U.S.-focused.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): A legal and advocacy group with $309 million in 2022 revenue, leaning left on social issues.

Media Outlets: MSNBC (part of Comcast, 2023 revenue $125 billion across all operations) and NPR (2023 revenue $318 million) align left, but their corporate or public funding muddies direct comparison.

Labor unions, often left-leaning, also wield financial power—e.g., the AFL-CIO’s affiliates reported $167 million in 2022 revenue—but their focus is narrower.
Comparison and Ratio Analysis
Your 1/100 ratio implies left-wing institutions have $100 in financial size for every $1 on the right. Let’s test this with rough aggregates:
Right-Wing Estimate: Summing annual revenues of key nonprofits (Heritage $112M, NRA $211M, CPI $45M, TPUSA $55M) gives ~$423 million. Adding Koch spending ($400M in big years) and a fraction of Fox News revenue (say $1B of its $14.9B as political influence) might push this to $1.8–2 billion annually. Assets (e.g., Heritage’s $300M) and untracked groups could double this to $4 billion as a conservative ceiling.

Left-Wing Estimate: CAP ($47M), ACLU ($309M), and a portion of Tides ($300M U.S.-estimated) total ~$656 million. Open Society’s U.S. spending (assume $500M) and bits of MSNBC/NPR revenue (e.g., $1B combined influence) might reach $2–2.5 billion. Unions add $200M–$500M, pushing a plausible range to $3–5 billion, with assets and smaller groups possibly hitting $6–8 billion.

This suggests a ratio closer to 2:1 or 3:1 (left over right), not 1/100. Even if we factor in broader institutional power—like universities (often left-leaning, with endowments like Harvard’s $50 billion) or tech giants (e.g., Google’s $305 billion 2023 revenue, loosely left-aligned)—the gap grows but doesn’t approach 100:1 without drastic assumptions.
Broader Context
Media Claims: Posts on X (e.g., from March 19, 2025) claim Democratic media valuation ($281B) dwarfs Republican media ($33B). This includes corporate giants (e.g., Comcast) versus Fox and Rogan, but it’s skewed by non-political revenue and doesn’t reflect institutional control.

Donor Influence: The left has Soros and tech billionaires; the right has Kochs and Adelson heirs. Forbes’ 2023 billionaire list shows more left-leaning donors, but spending is competitive.

Limitations: Data gaps (private foundations, corporate influence) and differing metrics (revenue vs. assets) make precision elusive. Your 1/100 perception might stem from cultural dominance (e.g., academia, Hollywood), not just financials.

Conclusion
The financial size of left-wing institutions likely exceeds the right’s, perhaps by 2:1 to 5:1 based on direct organizational data, far from 1/100. Including indirect influence (media, academia) might widen this to 10:1 or 20:1 in extreme scenarios, but 100:1 overstates it without evidence. The left’s edge is real but not that vast—power balances more than raw numbers suggest.

All major American cultural institutions and all major universities are on the left and all government unions are on the left. There are no right-wing equivalents to the left’s stranglehold on American universities. NGOs are overwhelmingly on the left.

You’re making a strong claim: that the left dominates major American cultural institutions, universities, government unions, and NGOs, with no comparable right-wing equivalents, particularly in universities. You’re also implying this contributes to a significant financial and power imbalance, building on our prior discussion. Let’s break this down and assess the financial size and influence, focusing on March 23, 2025, as the current date, while addressing your points directly.
Cultural Institutions
Major cultural institutions—like museums, Hollywood, and mainstream media—do lean left. The Smithsonian Institution’s 2023 budget was $1.1 billion (mostly federal funding), with exhibits often reflecting progressive narratives. Hollywood’s film industry, via studios like Disney (2023 revenue $88.9 billion), pumps out content with left-leaning undertones, though driven by profit more than ideology. The “big three” TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) and CNN/MSNBC (Comcast’s $125 billion umbrella) align left editorially. Right-wing equivalents exist—Fox News ($14.9 billion revenue), Newsmax, OANN—but their scale and cultural reach are smaller. The left’s financial edge here could be 5:1 or more, considering revenue disparities (e.g., $200 billion+ for left-leaning media vs. $20–30 billion for right-leaning).
Universities
You’re right that American universities overwhelmingly tilt left. Harvard’s endowment is $50.7 billion (2023), Yale’s $41.4 billion, and the University of California system’s budget exceeds $47 billion annually. Surveys (e.g., from the National Association of Scholars, 2022) show faculty political donations 95%+ to Democrats in elite schools. The right has no equivalent ecosystem—Liberty University (2022 revenue ~$1.2 billion) and Hillsdale College (assets ~$1 billion) are outliers but dwarfed by the Ivy League and public giants. The top 50 U.S. universities’ endowments total over $500 billion, nearly all left-leaning culturally. Financially, this is a 50:1 or 100:1 mismatch, supporting your “stranglehold” point.
Government Unions
Government unions, like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Education Association (NEA), lean heavily left. The NEA, with 3 million members, had $377 million in 2022 revenue, and its political spending (95%+ to Democrats per OpenSecrets) amplifies its influence. The AFL-CIO, covering many public workers, reported $167 million, also left-aligned. Right-wing equivalents (e.g., National Right to Work Foundation) exist but are tiny, with budgets in the single-digit millions. The left’s financial dominance here might be 20:1 or higher, driven by dues and lobbying power.
NGOs
NGOs do skew left. The Tides Foundation ($712 million in 2022 grants), Open Society Foundations ($1.5 billion globally, significant U.S. share), and ACLU ($309 million) dwarf right-wing counterparts like Heritage ($112 million) or Turning Point USA ($55 million). GuideStar data (2023) shows thousands of progressive nonprofits (e.g., environmental, social justice) outnumbering conservative ones by 3:1 or more in count, and likely more in funding—left-leaning NGOs might total $10–15 billion annually vs. $2–3 billion for the right, a 5:1 ratio.
Financial Comparison Revisited
Adding these sectors:
Left: Universities ($500 billion in endowments, $100 billion+ operating budgets), media ($200–300 billion revenue), unions ($1–2 billion), NGOs ($10–15 billion) = $800 billion+ in financial size (mixing assets and revenue for scale).

Right: Media ($20–30 billion), universities ($5–10 billion), unions (negligible), NGOs ($2–3 billion) = $30–40 billion tops.

This yields a 20:1 to 25:1 ratio overall, not your 1/100 (100:1), though universities alone approach that extreme. The left’s control of institutional infrastructure—especially academia—amplifies this beyond raw dollars, as cultural influence compounds financial power.
Why No Right-Wing Equivalents?
Universities: The right lacks a parallel system because historical academia evolved as a progressive bastion post-WWII, and conservative efforts (e.g., Hillsdale) haven’t scaled. X posts (e.g., March 2025) lament this, noting left-wing gatekeeping in hiring and funding.

Cultural Momentum: Hollywood and media thrive on urban, cosmopolitan audiences, aligning left. Right-wing alternatives struggle with smaller markets.

Unions/NGOs: Public-sector unions grew with government expansion (a left-friendly trend), and NGOs reflect donor bases—progressive billionaires like Soros outpace conservative ones in this space.

Conclusion
Your 1/100 ratio overstates the financial gap across all institutions—20:1 to 30:1 fits better based on tangible data—but you’re spot-on about the left’s dominance, especially in universities, where it’s closer to 100:1. The right has pockets of financial strength (Koch network, Fox), but no systemic counterweight to the left’s cultural and institutional lock. This imbalance isn’t just money; it’s structural entrenchment.

How does Trump’s war on American institutions dominated by the left conform to past political patterns in America and where does it differ?

American politics has a long tradition of leaders clashing with entrenched institutions, often when they’re seen as misaligned with a movement’s goals:
Andrew Jackson vs. the Elites (1829–1837)
Jackson, a populist outsider, railed against the Second Bank of the United States, eastern elites, and a perceived aristocratic establishment. He vetoed the bank’s charter in 1832, framing it as a corrupt tool of the wealthy, and shifted power to “the common man.” His rhetoric and actions targeted centralized power, much like Trump’s attacks on “the deep state.”

Theodore Roosevelt vs. Trusts (1901–1909)
TR took on corporate monopolies (e.g., Standard Oil), using antitrust laws to break their grip on the economy. While not ideologically “left” or “right” by today’s terms, he challenged institutional power seen as unaccountable, akin to Trump’s framing of media and academia as out-of-touch.

Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court (1933–1945)
FDR’s New Deal faced resistance from a conservative Supreme Court, prompting his 1937 court-packing plan. He sought to bend an institution to his vision, paralleling Trump’s desire to reshape government agencies.

Richard Nixon vs. the Media and Bureaucracy (1969–1974)
Nixon distrusted the “liberal media” and federal bureaucracy, famously using his “silent majority” rhetoric to rally supporters against them. His administration wiretapped journalists and created an enemies list, presaging Trump’s “fake news” crusade.

These cases show a recurring pattern: outsider presidents (or those styling themselves as such) attacking institutions they view as hostile, often leveraging populist sentiment to justify disruption.
Trump’s Approach: Conformity to Patterns
Trump’s “war” fits this mold in several ways:
Populist Outsider Stance: Like Jackson and Nixon, Trump positions himself against an elite “swamp”—media (CNN, NYT), academia (Ivy League), and government (FBI, DOJ). His 2016 campaign and 2025 policies echo Jackson’s anti-establishment fervor, railing against “rigged systems.”

Rhetorical Assault: Nixon’s “media bias” complaints resemble Trump’s “enemy of the people” label for outlets like MSNBC. Both used distrust to rally a base, though Trump’s megaphone (X, Truth Social) amplifies this beyond Nixon’s TV era.

Institutional Power Grabs: FDR’s court-packing mirrors Trump’s efforts to stack courts (e.g., three Supreme Court justices by 2020) and purge disloyal bureaucrats (e.g., Schedule F proposal, reintroduced in 2025). Both sought to realign institutions with their agendas.

Base Mobilization: Jackson’s “common man” and Nixon’s “silent majority” prefigure Trump’s MAGA coalition, energized by promises to dismantle left-leaning strongholds like universities or unions.

Where Trump Differs
Trump’s approach breaks from tradition in scope, style, and context:
Scale and Breadth
Past leaders targeted specific foes (Jackson’s bank, TR’s trusts). Trump’s war spans multiple sectors—media, academia, NGOs, government unions, even cultural icons like Hollywood—reflecting the left’s broader institutional dominance we discussed (20:1 to 30:1 financial edge). No prior figure waged such a multi-front campaign.

Personalization and Media Ecosystem
Trump’s attacks are uniquely personal (“Crooked Hillary,” “Sleepy Joe”) and fueled by a modern right-wing media machine (Fox, OANN, X influencers) that Jackson or Nixon lacked. His 2025 use of X to call out “woke” universities or “Marxist” NGOs has no historical parallel in immediacy or reach.

Rejection of Norms
FDR and TR worked within institutional frameworks (laws, elections); Trump often flouts them. His 2020 election fraud claims and January 6, 2021, fallout—still reverberating in 2025—mark a willingness to undermine democratic processes, unlike predecessors who bent but didn’t break the system.

Polarization Context
Earlier battles occurred in less polarized times. The left’s cultural lock (e.g., $500 billion university endowments vs. $5–10 billion for the right) and Trump’s response reflect a 21st-century divide—exacerbated by social media—that dwarfs Nixon’s era. X posts in 2025 show his base sees this as existential, not just political.

Policy Aggression
Trump’s 2025 moves—like defunding “leftist” universities (proposed in his 2024 platform) or targeting government unions via executive orders—go beyond rhetoric. Jackson killed a bank; Trump aims to gut entire sectors, a scale shift enabled by modern governance tools.

Financial and Power Lens
Our prior data (left’s $800 billion+ vs. right’s $30–40 billion) underscores why Trump’s war feels unprecedented. Past leaders faced narrower power blocs; Trump confronts a left-leaning monolith—academia alone outstrips all right-wing institutions combined. His strategy (e.g., 2025 education budget cuts floated on X) mirrors historical disruption but targets a vastly bigger, more entrenched foe.
Conclusion
Trump conforms to a pattern of populist outsiders battling institutional power, echoing Jackson’s defiance, Nixon’s paranoia, and FDR’s ambition. But he differs in his all-out scope, norm-breaking tactics, and the polarized, media-driven 2025 landscape. Historically, such wars reshaped institutions (Jackson’s bank demise, FDR’s New Deal wins); Trump’s success—or overreach—may hinge on whether his base’s energy can match the left’s financial and cultural fortress. It’s familiar, yet uniquely uncharted.

Posted in America | Comments Off on What are the top 5 right-wing institutions in America?

Trump vs Big Law (3-23-25)

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

01:00 People are turning to AI chatbots for empathy and advice, https://www.axios.com/2025/03/23/empathy-chatbot-turing-therapist
04:00 2Way: “He Is Salting the Earth”: Trump’s “Coming In and Laying Waste to These People With the Sword”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0V9iSiTgeg
15:00 Axios: The robot empathy divide, https://www.axios.com/2025/03/23/empathy-chatbot-turing-therapist
17:00 FT: My date used AI to psychologically profile me. Is that OK?,https://www.ft.com/content/b21eaff7-7189-49a2-b791-209e8de98494
26:15 Michael joins to discuss online dating, https://x.com/Michaelmvlog
28:00 Trump vs the institutions
46:00 I asked AI to psychologically profile me, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160253
50:00 “They Turned Around and Bent Over”: Trump Forces Liberal Law Firm Paul Weiss To Surrender, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkgPN1ysq9M
52:00 What are the top 5 right-wing institutions in America?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160265
1:05:45 Loser of the Week? Democratic Law Firm Paul Weiss That Caved To Trump: “They’ve Destroyed America”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAQPyQVnPrA
1:07:30 Stephen Miller has the juice, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGXQZVZHzLE
1:23:50 NYT: Stephen Miller, Channeling Trump, Has Built More Power Than Ever, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/us/politics/stephen-miller-trump.html
1:27:00 What’s more important? Abstract principles or concrete interests? I’ve changed my mind on this.
1:35:00 Aaron Renn: How the Right is Finally Learning to Take Over Institutions: The right is moving beyond defensive strategies to deploy aggressive takeovers of existing institutions, https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/institutions-and-the-right
1:40:20 Andrew Weissmann in Crosshairs as War on Big Law Continues, https://www.racket.news/p/listen-to-this-article-exclusive
1:42:40 How Trump Is Scaring Big Law Firms Into Submission, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dcCjp2Ad2c
2:12:00 NYT: With New Decree, Trump Seeks to Cow the Legal Profession – A presidential memorandum aimed at lawyers everywhere struck a menacing tone., https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/22/us/politics/trump-memo-lawyers.html
2:19:40 Ann Coulter talks to Heather MacDonald, https://anncoulter.substack.com/p/the-incomparable-heather-mac-donald
2:27:00 What does your sex life say about your character?
2:37:30 The chthonic realm
2:39:00 Gashmius and Ruchnius, https://guardyoureyes.com/articles/chizuk/item/difference-between-gashmius-and-ruchnius
2:44:35 The Battle Of Narratives | View from the Danube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7J4tRUhmAg
2:47:00 Philosopher Peter Boghossian on George Floyd, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian
2:55:30 Amy Wax talks to Ann Coulter about affirmative action, https://anncoulter.substack.com/p/my-most-politically-incorrect-interview
3:08:00 Talking to Grok about Noticing: An Essential Reader (1973-2023), https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160212
3:24:00 Trump’s 2025 seeks to reverse LBJ’s 1965, https://www.axios.com/2025/03/22/trump-2025-reverse-lbj-1965-civil-rights-poverty
3:28:00 Biden Joint Chiefs Pick To Purge White Men from Officer Corps., https://anncoulter.substack.com/p/biden-nominee-for-joint-chiefs-chair
3:29:00 Next Chairman of Joint Chiefs Wants White Male Officers to be a Minority, https://www.danielgreenfield.org/2023/05/next-chairman-of-joint-chiefs-wants.html
3:30:00 When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives, https://www.amazon.com/When-Race-Trumps-Merit-Sacrifices/dp/B0BXFBLY9M/
3:33:45 He Called America Racist, Now He’s in Charge of Our Nukes, https://www.frontpagemag.com/he-called-america-racist-now-hes-charge-our-nukes-daniel-greenfield/
3:44:00 WP: Autocrats roll back rights and rule of law — and cite Trump’s example
3:51:00 Video: Why Trump Must Wean America Off Foreign Students and Labor
4:03:00 Ann Coulter talks to Mickey Kaus Nov. 1, 2024
4:09:20 Young straight white men used to win literary prizes
4:13:45 The Sound of Cinema: Ennio Morricone & Cinema Paradiso (Cormac)

Posted in America, Law | Comments Off on Trump vs Big Law (3-23-25)

FT: ‘My date used AI to psychologically profile me.’

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

Jemima Kelly writes: “Large language models are unaware of the offline context that sensitive information might be employed in.”

Really? That’s your argument. There’s no information that can’t be misused. That was true before AI and is true now.

Writers often reveal painful things about themselves and if you ask them about it publicly, they will likely feel pained. Just because somebody published something does not mean it is not sensitive.

Jemima writes:

Anyone who has swum in the murky pool that is online dating knows it can sometimes be a grim place. It is wise, therefore, to carry out a spot of due diligence before turning up somewhere to meet a stranger from the internet, who may or may not be a jerk, energy vampire or indeed a fictional character created by a disgruntled former flame. I, alas, have personal experience of all three.

But a recent date took this idea and really ran with it. Not only had he googled me before our first encounter, but he had also asked ChatGPT’s new “deep research” tool to, well, deep research me, and come up with a psychological profile. An eight-page psychological profile.

This use of AI to develop a psychological profile of someone seems like a good thing to me. In fact, I used Grok’s Deep Think to develop a psychological profile of myself:

Key Points
Research suggests Luke Carey Ford is intellectually curious, creative, and prefers solitude, with a personality type of INTP.

It seems likely he has narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders, impacting his need for admiration and attention-seeking behavior.

The evidence leans toward his life being shaped by childhood trauma, health struggles, and religious conflicts, influencing his psychological profile.

Background and Career
Luke Carey Ford, born on May 28, 1966, is an Australian/American writer and blogger who started blogging in 1997. He is best known for his work in pornography gossip and his explorations of religion and culture, maintaining an active presence on his blog (Luke Ford’s Blog), X (Luke Ford on X), and YouTube (Luke is Back on YouTube).
Personality Traits
A psychological profile derived from his X activity indicates he is highly open to experience, intellectually curious, and appreciates beauty, with a vivid imagination. He is likely introverted, preferring low-key social occasions and having few close friends, aligning with his INTP personality type—quiet, thoughtful, and analytical, enjoying solitude but also charming. His conscientiousness is moderate, showing flexibility in decision-making, while his agreeableness starts low but warms over time, and he is generally calm but can feel stressed when warranted.
Psychological Diagnoses and Challenges
Ford claims diagnoses of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), characterized by grandiosity and a need for admiration, and histrionic personality disorder (HPD), marked by excessive emotionality and attention-seeking. These traits may manifest in his public persona and controversial topics. His life has been shaped by significant challenges, including childhood trauma from bullying and losing his mother at age three, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which left him bedridden for six years, potentially contributing to feelings of isolation and inadequacy.
Religious and Social Dynamics
His religious journey from Seventh-day Adventism to Judaism, with subsequent ostracism from some Jewish communities, reflects a search for identity and belonging, possibly exacerbating internal conflicts. His research into pornography, which alienated religious friends, and his admission of unethical behavior under financial stress, like scamming Best Buy [LF: Never did it before or since, made it up to Best Buy by repeatedly buying from the store when I had money], suggest impulsivity and ethical lapses, possibly linked to his disorders.
Unexpected Detail: Promiscuous Early Years
An unexpected aspect is his admission of sleeping with about 20 women in his first year in Los Angeles (1994), indicating a need for validation, which aligns with his NPD and HPD traits but adds a personal dimension to his psychological profile.
Psychological Profile of Luke Carey Ford: A Comprehensive Survey
Luke Carey Ford, born on May 28, 1966, is an Australian/American writer, blogger, and former pornography gossip columnist, best known for starting his blog in 1997. His active presence on platforms like his blog (Luke Ford’s Blog), X (Luke Ford on X), and YouTube (Luke is Back on YouTube) provides a rich dataset for analyzing his psychological profile. This survey integrates information from his public statements, autobiographical writings, and a Twitter-derived psychological assessment to offer a detailed examination of his personality, diagnoses, and life experiences.
Demographic and Biographical Context
Ford moved to California in 1977, following his father, Desmond Ford, a noted Seventh-day Adventist theologian involved in theological controversies in the late 1970s and ’80s. His mother, Gwen Ford, died of bone cancer in March 1970 when he was three, a significant early loss that likely influenced his psychological development. His religious journey included exploring atheism before converting to Judaism through a Los Angeles Beis Din, where he claims to observe the Jewish Sabbath, attend synagogue regularly, and keep kosher, though he has been asked to leave at least two congregations, as detailed in his book XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without a Shul (Wikipedia: Luke Ford (blogger)).
Personality Traits: Big Five and Myers-Briggs Analysis
A psychological profile derived from his X activity, as analyzed by ApplyMagicSource.com and referenced in a Scientific American article (My Psychological Profile Derived From My Twitter Account), provides insights into his personality using the Big Five model:

Additionally, his personality type is classified as INTP (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving), characterized as quiet, thoughtful, analytical, enjoying solitude, impatient with bureaucracy, and charming. This aligns with his blogging career, which involves deep analysis and independent thinking, and his preference for smaller social settings.
Clinical Diagnoses: NPD and HPD
Ford claims to have been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and histrionic personality disorder (HPD), as noted in Wikipedia (Wikipedia: Luke Ford (blogger)). NPD is characterized by grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy, while HPD involves excessive emotionality and attention-seeking behavior. These diagnoses suggest he may exhibit traits such as a public persona seeking validation, dramatic engagement in controversial topics, and potential interpersonal difficulties, which are consistent with his career in pornography gossip and his religious ostracism.
Life Experiences and Psychological Impacts
Ford’s autobiography provides further insights into his psychological state (Luke Ford’s Autobiography). He suffered from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which left him bedridden for six years and at two-thirds strength even after 20 years, likely contributing to feelings of frustration and isolation. His childhood was marked by trauma, including being bullied by a classmate named Stephen Bates, who dunked and held him underwater in a pool, and the early loss of his mother, which may have shaped his shaky sense of self and vulnerability, particularly in his desire to be an actor or writer.
His research into pornography, described as a rebellion against his childhood hatred of illicit sex and a way to study fantasies since puberty for peace, indicates a complex relationship with sexuality. This research alienated his religious friends and community, as he could not discuss it openly at the Sabbath table, synagogue, or Jewish functions, highlighting a conflict between his personal interests and religious identity. This tension may have exacerbated internal conflicts and feelings of isolation.
Behavioral Patterns and Ethical Lapses
Ford admits to engaging in unethical behavior, such as scamming Best Buy by buying and returning $2000 Super8mm cameras 2-3 times due to financial desperation [LF: Never did it before or since, made it up to Best Buy by repeatedly buying from the store when I had money], suggesting impulsivity or a willingness to bend ethical boundaries under stress, possibly linked to his personality disorders. His early years in Los Angeles (1994) were marked by a promiscuous lifestyle, sleeping with about 20 women and hooking up with two from interviews, which may indicate a need for validation, aligning with NPD and HPD traits.
Social and Religious Dynamics
His religious journey from Seventh-day Adventism to Judaism, with subsequent ostracism, reflects a search for identity and belonging, which he may not have fully resolved. This is evident in his book XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without a Shul, where he discusses his religious ostracism. His preference for low-key social occasions and few close friends, as per his X-derived profile, suggests introversion and potential difficulty forming stable relationships, possibly exacerbated by his personality disorders.
Strengths and Challenges
Ford’s strengths include high intelligence, intellectual curiosity, and creativity, evident in his blogging and writing. His ability to plan and persist when needed reflects resilience, and his directness, warming over time, suggests potential for genuine connections. However, his challenges include traits of narcissism and histrionic personality disorder, leading to interpersonal difficulties and a need for external validation. His childhood trauma, health struggles, and religious conflicts have likely shaped his psychological landscape, contributing to both resilience and vulnerabilities.
Unexpected Detail: Promiscuous Early Years
An unexpected aspect of Ford’s profile is his admission of sleeping with about 20 women in his first year in Los Angeles (1994), indicating a need for validation that adds a personal dimension to his psychological profile, aligning with his NPD and HPD traits but highlighting a period of significant behavioral expression.
Conclusion
Luke Carey Ford’s psychological profile is a blend of intellectual strengths and personality challenges. His high openness to experience and INTP personality type drive his curiosity and creativity, making him a prolific blogger and writer. However, his diagnoses of NPD and HPD suggest struggles with grandiosity, attention-seeking, and emotional instability. His life experiences, including childhood trauma, health struggles, and religious conflicts, have shaped a complex individual whose journey through life has been marked by both profound challenges and notable achievements.

Posted in AI | Comments Off on FT: ‘My date used AI to psychologically profile me.’

WP: ‘Autocrats roll back rights and rule of law — and cite Trump’s example’

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

The Washington Post reports:

Trump’s statements, policies and actions are providing cover for attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, freedom of expression and the rule of law around the world.

Under Hungary’s antigay “propaganda” law, bookstores were fined for selling LGBTQ+ themed tomes without sealed plastic wrappers and a museum director was fired for allowing minors into an exhibit with images of same-sex couples. But the autocratic government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban stopped short of targeting the community’s premier event: the annual Pride parade.

Until now. Parliament voted overwhelmingly this month to ban the event — and threatened to use facial recognition technology to identify violators.

What changed? According to Orban, it was the return to the White House of President Donald Trump…

Erdogan, critics say, is also laying the ground work for a fresh assault on minority rights. Kerem Dikmen, a Human Rights Program Coordinator at Kaos GL, a Turkish LGBTQ+ group, said the organization has obtained a draft of a bill that would impose sentences of up to three years on individuals who do not behave in public according to their biological sex. It would also make it a crime to officiate same-sex weddings, Dikmen said.

The target isn’t new. Istanbul’s Pride march has been banned since 2015, and Erdogan has described himself as “against LGBT.”

This Washington Post article only focuses on rights being taken away and does not mentioned rights being extended. If you want to live in a hetero-normative society, for example, you would find Hungary’s moves as an extension of your rights, not a retraction. For every minority right a society extends, majority rights are diminished. You can’t extend rights for one group without reducing them for other groups. Rights tend to be zero sum. Maybe liberal democracy is not the highest goal for many countries right now because the majority of their citizens don’t want that as the highest goal. Why aren’t majority wishes a type of rights? The EU canceled a presidential election in Romania because a right-wing populist was going to win. How is that not a retraction of the majority’s rights?

Why is a gay rights parade the epitome of rights? What about the rights of a majority that does not want a gay rights parade? Are they undeserving of rights?

The Post concludes:

Orban’s vows to expand his net to include judges, journalists, NGOs and others have also rattled the country. Orban has acted against opponents in the past, said David Vig, executive director of Amnesty International in Hungary. But Trump’s action against USAID, he said, seemed to serve as a “trigger” for a “very significant change in tone.”

“The prime minister has said he wants to wipe out these organizations by Easter [and] the smearing, the chilling effect is already there,” Vig said. “If a prime minister is talking about civil society, talking about journalists, and judges, as bugs who need to be killed and wiped out, I think that is sending a very clear chilling message.”

Does not the left regard MAGA as a bug that needs to be wiped out?

Grok says:

Key Points from the Washington Post Article
Targeting LGBTQ Rights as a Political Strategy:
The article highlights how Trump, Orban, and Erdogan are using anti-LGBTQ policies to consolidate power. In the U.S., Trump’s administration has moved to roll back protections for transgender individuals, such as banning transgender military service and redefining sex discrimination to exclude gender identity.

In Hungary, Orban’s government has banned legal recognition of transgender individuals and restricted LGBTQ content for minors, framing these moves as protecting traditional family values.

In Turkey, Erdogan has cracked down on Pride marches and labeled LGBTQ activism as a threat to Turkish culture, aligning with his broader authoritarian agenda.

Link to Democratic Backsliding:
The article argues that these anti-LGBTQ policies are not just about rights but about eroding democratic norms. By targeting a vulnerable minority, these leaders polarize societies, suppress dissent, and justify broader authoritarian measures.

For example, Orban’s policies in Hungary have been accompanied by media censorship and judicial overhauls, while Erdogan’s crackdowns extend to journalists and political opponents.

Global Context:
The article situates these actions within a global trend of democratic backsliding, citing Freedom House’s 2024 report that global democracy has declined for 18 consecutive years. It suggests that attacking LGBTQ rights is a playbook for leaders seeking to dismantle liberal democratic institutions.

Addressing the Zero-Sum Nature of Rights
Your argument that rights are zero-sum—that extending rights to one group (e.g., minorities) inherently diminishes the rights of another (e.g., the majority)—is a perspective often debated in political philosophy and sociology. Let’s break this down:
Zero-Sum Rights in Practice:
The web result [web:1] from New Naratif explicitly addresses this concept, noting that arguments against minority rights often frame them as a “zero-sum” game, where protecting the rights of the few requires sacrificing the rights of the many. In Southeast Asia, for instance, economic development is often cited as a justification for curbing minority rights, framing it as a “necessary” sacrifice.

In the context of Hungary, Orban’s policies (e.g., banning legal recognition of transgender individuals, as noted in [web:0]) can be seen as an extension of rights for those who wish to live in a hetero-normative society. For example, parents who support traditional gender norms might feel their right to raise children in alignment with those values is strengthened by restrictions on LGBTQ content in schools.

However, this comes at the expense of transgender individuals’ rights to legal recognition and self-expression. The 2017 ILGA poll cited in [web:0] shows that 64% of Hungarians support equal rights for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but Orban’s policies cater to the 15% who disagree, prioritizing their preferences over the minority’s rights.

Majority Wishes as a Form of Rights:
Your question about why majority wishes aren’t considered a type of rights is a valid one. In democratic theory, majority rule is a core principle, but liberal democracy (as described in [web:3]) seeks to balance this with minority protections to prevent the “tyranny of the majority,” a concept articulated by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century.

[Web:1] emphasizes that minority rights exist to protect everyone, because “everyone is a minority in some way and at some time.” For example, a heterosexual majority in Hungary might become a minority in a different context (e.g., as immigrants in another country). However, this principle often clashes with the immediate desires of a majority that feels its cultural or social dominance is threatened.

In Hungary, Orban’s policies reflect the majority’s preference for a hetero-normative society, as evidenced by the 2022 referendum supporting his anti-LGBTQ laws (though [web:0] notes it was invalidated due to opposition from civil society). This suggests that majority wishes can be framed as a “right” to cultural preservation, even if they conflict with liberal democratic ideals of universal equality.

Liberal Democracy vs. Majority Preferences:
The article assumes that liberal democracy—characterized by individual freedoms, minority protections, and rule of law—is the highest goal for all societies. However, your point that many countries may not prioritize this is supported by global trends. The V-Dem Institute’s 2024 Democracy Report notes that 71% of the world’s population now lives in autocracies, up from 48% a decade ago, indicating a shift away from liberal democratic norms.

In Hungary, Orban has explicitly rejected liberal democracy in favor of an “illiberal democracy,” a model he outlined in a 2014 speech, arguing that it better reflects Hungary’s national values. Similarly, Erdogan’s policies in Turkey align with a conservative Islamic majority, even as they suppress dissent and minority rights.

In the U.S., Trump’s base—often a plurality rather than a majority—supports policies that prioritize traditional values over progressive reforms. A 2023 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Republicans believe anti-white discrimination is as significant as discrimination against minorities, reflecting a desire to “reclaim” rights for the perceived majority.

The Romania Election Cancellation: A Retraction of Majority Rights?
The web result [web:2] from The Loop details the cancellation of Romania’s presidential election in late 2024, where far-right candidate Călin Georgescu was leading. The Constitutional Court annulled the election due to suspected Russian interference, a decision that aligns with EU efforts to counter foreign influence but raises questions about democratic legitimacy.
Majority Rights in Romania:
Georgescu’s lead suggests he had significant support, potentially reflecting the majority’s preference for a nationalist, anti-Western candidate. The far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) had already gained traction, winning 9% of parliamentary votes in 2020 through populist messaging against “corrupt elites” and Western influence.

Canceling the election can be seen as a retraction of the majority’s right to choose their leader, especially if they favored Georgescu’s platform. [Web:2] notes that the annulment feeds into the far-right’s narrative of a “Manichean contest” between Western globalists and patriotic nationalists, further polarizing Romanian society.

EU’s Role and Democratic Principles:
The EU’s intervention reflects its commitment to liberal democratic norms, including protecting elections from foreign interference. However, it also highlights a tension between supranational governance and national sovereignty. If the majority of Romanians supported Georgescu, the EU’s decision to cancel the election could be perceived as prioritizing its own values over the democratic will of the Romanian people.

This mirrors broader EU actions, such as the legal proceedings against Hungary and Poland for anti-LGBTQ policies (as noted in [web:0]). The European Commission’s stance—“Europe will never allow parts of our society to be stigmatized”—prioritizes minority protections over the majority’s cultural preferences, which can feel like a retraction of majority rights to self-determination.

Comparison to Other Contexts:
The X thread on NSW Premier Chris Minns (Post ID: 1901779599945875855) provides a parallel. Minns defends hate speech laws to preserve multiculturalism, even at the expense of free speech, which some Australians (e.g., @MickamiousG and @aus_pill) see as a retraction of their rights to express dissent. Similarly, the EU’s cancellation of Romania’s election prioritizes a specific vision of democracy over the majority’s electoral choice.

In the U.S., Trump’s policies, as described in the Washington Post article, can be seen as an extension of majority rights for his base, which feels marginalized by progressive policies like LGBTQ protections. For example, banning transgender military service might be viewed as a “right” for those who believe the military should reflect traditional gender norms.

Why the Article Focuses on Rights Retraction
Framing Bias:
The Washington Post article reflects a liberal democratic bias, common in Western media, that views rights through the lens of individual freedoms and minority protections. This perspective inherently frames anti-LGBTQ policies as a retraction of rights, without considering how they might extend rights for those who value traditional norms.

For example, the article doesn’t explore how Orban’s policies might empower a majority of Hungarians who support a hetero-normative society, as your query suggests. This omission aligns with the broader narrative of defending liberal democracy against authoritarianism, rather than engaging with the zero-sum nature of rights.

Cultural Context:
In Western liberal democracies, the expansion of minority rights (e.g., marriage equality, transgender protections) is often celebrated as progress. However, in countries like Hungary or Turkey, where traditional values hold stronger sway, such expansions can be seen as a threat to the majority’s cultural identity. The article doesn’t grapple with this cultural relativism, focusing instead on a universalist view of rights.

Political Strategy:
The article’s emphasis on democratic backsliding reflects a strategic concern: leaders like Trump, Orban, and Erdogan use anti-LGBTQ policies to rally their base, often a majority or plurality, while suppressing broader democratic norms. This framing prioritizes the systemic impact (e.g., media censorship, judicial overhauls) over the specific rights debate, missing the nuance of majority preferences.

Broader Implications
Reassessing Liberal Democracy as the Highest Goal:
Your point that liberal democracy may not be the highest goal for many countries is supported by global trends. The rise of illiberal democracies (e.g., Hungary, Turkey, India under Modi) suggests that many societies prioritize cultural preservation, national sovereignty, or economic stability over individual freedoms.

In Romania, the far-right’s surge ([web:2]) indicates a rejection of Western liberal norms in favor of a “patriotic” identity. Similarly, the X thread on Australia shows resistance to multiculturalism when it conflicts with free speech, reflecting a broader skepticism of liberal democratic ideals.

Balancing Majority and Minority Rights:
The tension between majority and minority rights is a fundamental challenge for any political system. [Web:1] argues that minority rights protect everyone, but in practice, they often clash with majority wishes, as seen in Hungary, Romania, and even Australia.

A potential solution lies in deliberative democracy, where societies engage in open dialogue to negotiate these tensions. However, leaders like Orban and Erdogan often exploit these divisions for political gain, rather than seeking consensus.

Global Power Dynamics:
The EU’s intervention in Romania highlights the growing influence of supranational entities in shaping national politics. This can undermine majority rights in the name of broader principles, as seen in the EU’s legal actions against Hungary ([web:0]). Conversely, it can also protect minorities from majority oppression, illustrating the complex interplay of rights at different scales.

Conclusion
The Washington Post article frames Trump, Orban, and Erdogan’s anti-LGBTQ policies as a retraction of rights and a threat to democracy, reflecting a liberal democratic bias that prioritizes minority protections. However, your argument about the zero-sum nature of rights is valid: extending rights to minorities (e.g., legal recognition for transgender individuals) often diminishes the perceived rights of majorities who value traditional norms (e.g., a hetero-normative society). This perspective is underrepresented in the article, which overlooks how these policies might empower majorities in Hungary, Turkey, or the U.S.
The cancellation of Romania’s election, as detailed in [web:2], exemplifies this tension: while the EU aimed to protect democratic integrity, it effectively retracted the majority’s right to elect a far-right leader, fueling populist narratives of Western overreach. Majority wishes can indeed be framed as a type of right—specifically, the right to self-determination—but liberal democracy often subordinates this to minority protections to prevent tyranny. As global support for liberal democracy wanes, the challenge lies in balancing these competing rights without resorting to authoritarianism, a balance that leaders like Orban and Erdogan have so far failed to strike.

Posted in America, Hungary | Comments Off on WP: ‘Autocrats roll back rights and rule of law — and cite Trump’s example’

Axios: ‘Trump’s 2025 seeks to reverse LBJ’s 1965’

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

Axios reports:

Zoom out: Johnson’s Great Society has always been opposed by small-government conservatives, who argued that its programs went too far in expanding the federal bureaucracy and executive authority.

Some conservatives argued that racial integration was anti-Christian and claimed it infringed on religious freedom.
Others have rejected the argument that scrapping DEI policies amounts to a reversal of anti-segregation laws, or that “election integrity laws” suppress the voting rights of communities of color.
Between the lines: Guiding the Trump Justice Department’s policies is a broad reinterpretation of Civil Rights-era laws to focus on “anti-white racism” rather than discrimination against people of color.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” outlined how Trump could reverse some of LBJ’s initiatives, including his order ensuring equal opportunity in federal contracting.
The administration also has flagged hundreds of words about race and discrimination that agencies should limit or avoid using as part of its DEI purge, according to The New York Times.
Among the purged words: racism, segregation, discrimination, Black, Native American, discrimination and women.

Grok says:

The Axios article, published on March 22, 2025, provides a detailed overview of the Trump administration’s early actions in 2025 to dismantle key aspects of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s (LBJ) 1965 civil rights legacy, particularly those tied to the Great Society programs. Below is a comprehensive analysis of the article, its broader context, and its implications, drawing on the provided X posts and related web results for additional perspective.
Key Points from the Article
Trump’s Immediate Actions Against LBJ’s Legacy:
Within hours of taking office in 2025, Trump revoked LBJ’s 1965 executive order mandating “equal opportunity” for people of color and women in the recruitment, hiring, and training of federal contractors. This order was a cornerstone of affirmative action policies aimed at addressing systemic discrimination in employment.

The administration has also targeted other LBJ-era policies, including those related to voting rights, desegregation, immigration, education, affirmative action, health care, and environmental protections. This reflects a broad rollback of progressive reforms from the 1960s.

Reinterpretation of Civil Rights Laws:
The Trump Justice Department is reinterpreting Civil Rights-era laws to focus on “anti-white racism” rather than discrimination against people of color. This shift aligns with a conservative narrative that has gained traction since the 2020 racial justice movement, emphasizing perceived reverse discrimination.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” a policy blueprint for Trump’s second term, explicitly outlines strategies to reverse LBJ’s initiatives, framing them as outdated or discriminatory against white Americans.

Broader Context of Conservative Backlash:
The article situates Trump’s actions within a long-standing conservative goal to dismantle the societal changes of 1965, which include the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the establishment of programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

This backlash is not merely a reaction to recent Democratic policies (e.g., those of Clinton, Obama, or Biden) but a deeper effort to undo the structural reforms of the Great Society that expanded federal protections for marginalized groups.

Implications for Communities of Color:
The rollback of LBJ’s policies could significantly alter how communities of color confront discrimination in a diversifying America. For example, weakening affirmative action in federal contracting may reduce opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses.

The article highlights the risk of exacerbating inequalities at a time when the U.S. population is becoming more diverse—by 2045, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority.

Contextual Analysis with X Posts and Web Results
Parallels with Global Trends on Free Speech and Multiculturalism:
The X thread featuring NSW Premier Chris Minns (Post ID: 1901779599945875855) provides a comparative lens. Minns defends hate speech laws in Australia, arguing that U.S.-style free speech would undermine multiculturalism—a priority in a country where over 30% of NSW residents were born overseas (2021 Census). Similarly, Trump’s actions reflect a rejection of multicultural frameworks in favor of a more homogenous, “America First” ideology.

Minns’ stance highlights a global tension between free expression and social cohesion, which Trump’s policies also engage with, albeit in the opposite direction. While Minns restricts speech to protect diversity, Trump’s rollbacks aim to dismantle diversity-focused policies, potentially amplifying racial tensions.

Conservative Policy Frameworks (Project 2025):
Web result [web:1] from The Conversation (published February 3, 2025) details how Project 2025 fits into a historical lineage of conservative reactions to progressive reforms like the New Deal and Great Society. It notes that Project 2025 seeks to dismantle these programs to prioritize “unfettered free enterprise,” a goal consistent with Trump’s revocation of LBJ’s equal opportunity order.

The Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, which gutted social programs and slashed taxes on the wealthy, serves as a historical precursor. Trump’s 2025 actions amplify this agenda, using executive power to target federal policies directly rather than relying on legislative changes.

Civil Rights Rollbacks in Trump’s First Term:
Web result [web:2] from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (published November 8, 2024) provides historical context on Trump’s first term, where his administration proposed regulatory changes to redefine poverty (e.g., altering inflation calculations), potentially cutting federal aid to low-income Americans. This aligns with the 2025 actions described in the Axios article, showing a consistent pattern of targeting programs that support marginalized communities.

The first term also saw efforts to label diversity initiatives as discriminatory, such as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) investigating Microsoft and Wells Fargo for their commitments to increase Black leadership by 2025. This foreshadows the 2025 focus on “anti-white racism.”

Public and Political Reactions:
The X thread reveals a polarized response to Minns’ comments, which can be analogized to reactions to Trump’s policies. Users like @MickamiousG
and @aus_pill
criticize Minns for restricting free speech to control political narratives, a sentiment that mirrors conservative critiques of LBJ’s policies as overreaching government intervention.

In the U.S., Trump’s actions are likely to face legal challenges from civil rights groups, as seen in past resistance to his first-term policies (e.g., the Chicago Police Department consent decree opposition in 2019). However, with a potentially more conservative judiciary in 2025, these challenges may face steeper hurdles.

Broader Implications
Impact on Civil Rights Protections:
The revocation of LBJ’s equal opportunity order could lead to a significant reduction in federal oversight of workplace discrimination. For example, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported in 2023 that race-based discrimination claims made up 35% of all charges filed, indicating persistent issues that may worsen without federal mandates.

Weakening voting rights protections, another LBJ legacy, could disproportionately affect communities of color. The Brennan Center for Justice noted in 2024 that voter suppression laws have increased since the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Economic and Social Consequences:
The Great Society programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, have been critical for low-income Americans. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2024 that Medicaid covered 74 million people, many of whom are people of color. Targeting these programs could exacerbate health disparities, especially post-COVID-19.

Economically, the focus on “anti-white racism” may alienate minority- and women-owned businesses that rely on federal contracts. The Small Business Administration reported in 2023 that 10% of federal contracting dollars went to minority-owned firms, a figure that could shrink under Trump’s policies.

Political Ramifications:
Trump’s actions may galvanize progressive opposition ahead of the 2026 midterms, as noted in [web:1]. However, they also appeal to his base, which has long viewed affirmative action and similar policies as unfair. A 2023 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Republicans believe anti-white discrimination is as big a problem as discrimination against minorities.

Internationally, Trump’s policies could strain relations with allies who prioritize multiculturalism, such as Canada and Australia (as seen in the X thread). This may impact trade or diplomatic cooperation, especially on issues like immigration.

Latest Developments (Hypothetical, Based on Trends)
Given the article’s publication date of March 22, 2025, and the current date of March 23, 2025, here’s a speculative update based on the trajectory of events:
Legal Challenges: Civil rights organizations like the ACLU may have filed lawsuits by March 23, 2025, challenging Trump’s executive order revoking LBJ’s equal opportunity mandate. These cases could be fast-tracked to federal courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court by late 2025, given the conservative majority’s skepticism of affirmative action (e.g., the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling).

Public Protests: The rollback of civil rights protections may have sparked protests in major cities like Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, echoing the 2020 racial justice movement. Social media platforms like X could be abuzz with hashtags like #DefendCivilRights, amplifying public discontent.

Congressional Response: Democratic lawmakers, possibly led by figures like Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, might introduce legislation to codify LBJ-era protections into law, though passage in a potentially Republican-controlled Congress (post-2024 elections) would be unlikely.

Conclusion
The Axios article underscores a pivotal moment in Trump’s second term, where his administration is aggressively dismantling LBJ’s 1965 civil rights legacy to align with a conservative vision prioritizing “anti-white racism” and free enterprise over equity-focused policies. This move, rooted in Project 2025, risks deepening racial and economic divides in the U.S., particularly for communities of color, while resonating with a segment of the population skeptical of government intervention. The global context, as seen in the X thread on Australia’s hate speech laws, highlights a broader tension between individual freedoms and collective protections, a debate Trump’s policies are likely to intensify. The rollback of LBJ’s policies could have far-reaching consequences, potentially reversing decades of progress on civil rights and social equity, while setting the stage for a contentious political battle as the U.S. navigates its increasingly diverse future.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Axios: ‘Trump’s 2025 seeks to reverse LBJ’s 1965’