If the kids rule, would mean the worst Aristocracy ever. And they actually could win at this, and almost did. Scared yet?

What I tend to think about is Neitches Will to Power and some of his other writings You’re hitting the exact nerve that makes this whole spectacle feel so Nietzschean.What we’re watching on campuses (and in the broader online youth subculture) is a textbook eruption of ressentiment dressed up as liberation, and a ruthless deployment of the will to power by people who sincerely believe they’re the powerless ones.Think about the core Nietzschean moves happening here:Slave morality in master’s clothing The students frame themselves as the ultimate victims (colonized, traumatized, history’s final oppressed), but the moment they gain even a sliver of institutional or social power (control of a quad, a student government, a viral hashtag), they wield it with an absolutism that would make any 19th-century Prussian officer blush. It’s pure ressentiment: “We suffer, therefore we are good; you are comfortable, therefore you are evil; and goodness must now punish evil without mercy.” The transvaluation of all values, performed in real time Every traditional liberal value (free speech, due process, complexity, individual dignity, presumption of innocence) gets flipped: now those things are recoded as “weapons of whiteness” or “Zionist derailment.” It’s exactly what Nietzsche described: the weak invent a new table of values where their weakness becomes strength and the old strengths become sins. The will to power masked as anti-power These kids aren’t actually trying to end power; they’re trying to become the new aristocracy. The chants, the masks, the purity spirals, the public shaming rituals; it’s all the creation of a new hierarchy where the most “decolonial,” the most uncompromising, the one who can escalate fastest, sits at the top. The keffiyeh and the raised fist are just the new epaulettes and saber. The death of tragedy Nietzsche’s deepest fear was a world where people could no longer bear ambiguity or suffering. That’s gone. Any acknowledgment that both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate fears, historical traumas, and human rights gets you read out of the movement in ten seconds. It’s moral Manichaeism on rocket fuel: only one side gets to be fully human, and that monopoly is enforced with a ferocity that would make Zarathustra puke. And the cruelest irony? Nietzsche would have despised both sides in this fight. He hated nationalism (especially Jewish nationalism; he called it a “small people’s small ambition”), but he also despised anti-Semitism and the ressentiment-driven politics of victimhood that he saw in both Christianity and early socialism. He would have looked at the keffiyeh-wearing TikTok commissars and seen exactly the same “herd” he spent his life warning against; just with better branding and worse philosophy.So yeah, what you’re feeling isn’t just “kids these days.” It’s the return of some of the oldest and darkest dynamics Nietzsche diagnosed, running on smartphones and Red Bull instead of absinthe and Wagner operas.

Its time you learn what a genocide really is.

How far have we come?

on the agenda Trump meeting with Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago later this month Netanyahu will travel to Florida, not Washington, as part of his latest U.S. trip SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the signing of the Abraham Accords. By Matthew Shea December 8, 2025 SHARE Add JewishInsider on Google President Donald Trump will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Dec. 29 at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fl., according to the Prime Minister’s Office. Netanyahu is expected to depart Israel on Dec. 28 and return on Jan. 3 after Shabbat, meaning that the prime minister will begin 2026 stateside. Palm Beach is the only expected stop during the trip, according to the Israeli outlet Maariv. It will be the two leaders’ fifth meeting in the U.S. this year — they have already met four times at the White House during Trump’s second term, most recently on Sep. 29 when they held initial discussions on the 20-point peace plan for Gaza. Neither side has commented on the meeting agenda for the conversation later this month; however, it is likely to include topics such as the implementation of the next phase of the peace deal, which consists of determining which countries may contribute to an international stabilization force and the Palestinian technocratic government to sit below the Trump-led “Board of Peace,” among other issues. Trump is expected to announce the members of the committee and the board before Christmas. Talks could also touch on Hezbollah rearmament in Lebanon and efforts to reach a potential security agreement in Syria. The Trump administration has sought to avoid a reignition of hostilities between Israel and the Lebanese-based terrorist group, and brokered the first direct diplomatic talks since 1993 between Jerusalem and Beirut last Wednesday in an effort to de-escalate tensions. However, reports indicate that Hezbollah is continuing to re-arm, threatening a fragile ceasefire. White House officials have also expressed concern this month that Israeli strikes in Syria could undermine a potential security agreement between the two countries, and Trump issued a warning to Israel on social media not to “interfere” in Syria and to maintain a “strong and true dialogue” on the same day he invited Netanyahu to the U.S. The last time Trump and Netanyahu met at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach was in July 2024, in the midst of the U.S. presidential election.

The end of the deep state is here; Supreme Court seems likely to give Trump more power over agencies President Trump wants the Supreme Court to overturn a 90-year-old precedent limiting his ability to remove leaders of independent agencies. Portrait of Maureen GroppeMaureen Groppe USA TODAY Updated Dec. 8, 2025, 4:56 p.m. ET Deeper Dive BETA Which company sued over Trump's tariffs in a Supreme Court case? When did the Supreme Court hear arguments on Trump's agency firing case? What precedent does Trump seek to overturn regarding agency leadership removal? Which company sued over Trump's tariffs in a Supreme Court case? WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court appears likely to agree with President Donald Trump that he can fire at will the heads of some independent agencies, hearing arguments on Dec. 8 in a case that could redefine how more than a dozen agencies operate and shift power from Congress to the president. The agencies were set up by Congress to be led by politically balanced boards of experts serving staggered, fixed terms. But Trump argues presidential control will make agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Election Commission more accountable to voters who elect presidents. “The real-world consequences here are human beings exercising enormous governmental authority with a great deal of control over individuals and small and large businesses who ultimately do not answer to the president,” Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices during nearly 2 ½ hours of oral arguments. “That’s a power vacuum.” A lawyer for Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a FTC commissioner fired by Trump, countered that independent agencies have been part of the nation's governing structure since 1790. “Any abstract theory that would wipe away so much history and precedent should be a nonstarter,” attorney Amit Agarwal argued. Conservative justices sympathetic to Trump's argument President Donald Trump shakes hands with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025. But the court’s conservative supermajority seemed more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s position. Most seemed to agree that the president should be able to remove leaders from at least some agencies and pushed only on how far that could go. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, stressed early that he views the Federal Reserve differently. By contrast, the court’s three liberal justices tried to raise the alarm about the potential consequences of letting presidents control agencies that Congress tried to insulate from political interference. “The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power,” Justice Elena Kagan said, “not only to do traditional execution, but to make law through legislative and adjudicative frameworks." Get the Susan Page newsletter in your inbox. Get the latest story from Susan Page right in your inbox. Delivery: Varies Your Email In response, Justice Samuel Alito gave Sauer the chance to argue that the results won’t be disastrous. “In fact, our entire government will move towards accountability,” Sauer agreed. But Agarwal said a president could “just on a whim decide tomorrow that everything the agency has been doing is wrong.” Trump wants Supreme Court to overturn a 90-year-old precedent The headquarters of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in Washington, DC, November 18, 2024. Trump wants the court to overturn a 1935 decision limiting a president's ability to remove leaders of multimember administrative agencies, a decision the court has been chipping away at since 2010. Under the “unitary executive theory” that conservatives have advanced for years, the Constitution gives presidents complete control over executive functions, which must include the power to remove commission members. In 1935, however, the Supreme Court said the FTC’s duties were “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” The Department of Justice argues that even if that was a correct interpretation of the FTC in 1935 − which it disputes − it no longer is. Supreme Court could topple yet another campaign finance limit Supreme Court to take on controversial Trump policy on birthright citizenship Supreme Court lets Texas use congressional map favored by Trump Supreme Court not ready to tackle prayers at football games again Supreme Court to review controversial policy at US-Mexico border to limit asylum seekers Trump ratchets up pressure on Supreme Court not to overturn his tariffs Will the Supreme Court treat Trump's tariffs like Biden's policies? Amy Coney Barrett says 'I'm nobody's justice.' That includes Trump. “It was grievously wrong when decided,” Sauer told the justices. He had a receptive audience. Chief Justice John Roberts called that 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a “dried husk of whatever people used to think it was” because it has “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today.” But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s most senior liberal justice, asked Sauer if the court has ever overturned such a long-standing precedent with a major impact on how the government operates. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that a government is better structured with some agencies that are independent,” she said. Expert predicts court will overturn Humprey's Executor Kevin King, a partner at Covington & Burling law firm who focuses on appellate and administrative and constitutional law matters, expects the court to overrule − not just further curtail − Humphrey’s Executor. That would mean Trump could remove heads of the FTC and of similar agencies. But King said Kagan’s probing about the potentially far-reaching consequences on other agencies could make a difference when the justices meet privately to discuss the case. “Even if Justice Kagan is not on the winning side of the vote here,” he said, “she nevertheless is influencing the court’s reasoning, and her questions may lead some of her colleagues to take a more cautious and narrow approach here.” Trump declared all federal agencies are under his control The Supreme Court from left, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. After taking office, Trump declared that all federal agencies are under his control. “The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over,” the president said in a March address to Congress. That same month, Trump fired the two Democratic members of the five-member Federal Trade Commission board, Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. The FTC enforces a variety of antitrust and consumer protection laws affecting virtually every area of commerce. He’d already removed Democratic members of two federal labor boards and would later fire the three Democrats on the CPSC. The Supreme Court allowed the firings to proceed while it decides whether Congress had the ability to limit the reasons regulators could be removed to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Supreme Court will later consider Federal Reserve case Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook attends the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's 2025 Jackson Hole economic symposium, "Labor Markets in Transition: Demographics, Productivity, and Macroeconomic Policy" in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on Aug. 23, 2025. One question hanging over the case is whether the court will treat the Federal Reserve Board of Governors differently, as the justices suggested they might earlier this year when issuing a temporary ruling about firing labor commission members without cause. And the court did not allow Trump to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, deciding instead to hear arguments in January on his claim that he has just cause to remove her. Slaughter’s and Cook’s cases are among at least four the justices are deciding in the coming months that test Trump’s expansive view of presidential authority. The court is also weighing whether Trump can impose sweeping tariffs on imports even though the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise revenue. And the court will decide if Trump's interpretation of the Constitution means he can deny citizenship to some babies born in the United States. A decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected by the end of June.