The progressive elite’s downfall: Foxes failed to become lions



Political theorist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto identified two main personality types among ruling elites: foxes and lions. Foxes govern through manipulation and innovation, while lions rely on tradition and force. In a healthy civilization, power circulates between these two types, allowing a balance that meets the needs of society at any given time.

For decades, Western nations have been dominated by foxes, who favor manipulation over force. However, as populist movements began challenging their grip on power, the ruling class attempted to pivot to hard power. The American left responded with riots, imprisonment of political opponents, and even an assassination attempt on the populist presidential candidate. Yet these efforts failed, and Donald Trump won office with a decisive mandate.

Now that the attempt to transition to brute force has failed, the left is in disarray.

Now, after their failed shift toward coercion, progressives find themselves disoriented and divided. Their system of information control has been disrupted, and their attempts at brute force have backfired, leaving them uncertain about their next move.

In “The Mind and Society,” Pareto explained that every civilization has a ruling class, which can generally be divided into two groups. The first, type one residues or foxes, manipulates information and adapts quickly to shifting social dynamics. The second, type two residues or lions, is patriotic, courageous, and committed to preserving identity and tradition. Lions excel in physical defense and thrive in times when societies must carve out territory, settle new lands, or defend borders from external threats.

Lions typically rule through hierarchical structures and strategic applications of force, maintaining stability through a sense of duty and order. In contrast, foxes rely on deception and social engineering to achieve their ends. When either group dominates for too long without the other’s influence, societies risk stagnation, corruption, or collapse.

Foxes are intelligent and adaptable, skilled at manipulating ideas and combining concepts. They are not bound by tradition, which allows them to envision and implement radical changes. As societies grow more complex, they often turn to foxes, as the challenges faced by elites in advanced civilizations require abstract thinking and innovation. Foxes typically rule through soft power, using information control and bureaucratic systems to shape society.

Pareto argued that functional societies must maintain a balance between these two elite types. When a country overwhelmingly favors one over the other, it eventually declines. For decades, Western nations have prioritized foxes while marginalizing lions in elite institutions. Patriotic, strong, and tradition-oriented individuals have been pushed aside, while cunning and manipulative figures have been elevated.

This imbalance has led to an elite class that excludes many of its most capable potential leaders while embracing mediocrity or even corruption — simply because those in power share a similar mindset.

Foxes rule through manipulation and soft power, relying on information control and propaganda. Their preferred tactics involve getting political opponents fired, freezing their bank accounts, or using public shaming rather than resorting to direct force. News media, entertainment, and academia serve as their primary tools, while public humiliation remains their most effective weapon.

By carefully adjusting algorithmic information delivery and forging partnerships between corporations and intelligence agencies, fox-style elites can censor dissent without technically violating civil rights protected by Western constitutions.

Soft power allows elites to establish totalitarian practices without provoking the direct resistance that comes with brute force. But it depends on the credibility and prestige of the institutions enforcing it. People comply with these institutions because defying them can mean social and professional ruin — losing jobs, friendships, and status in polite society. To maintain control, foxes rely on institutions that command respect and influence.

These institutions can manipulate narratives and even push absurd claims occasionally, but overreach threatens their credibility. This became most evident during the pandemic lockdowns, when scientific, medical, and government authorities were caught lying so frequently that much of the public stopped trusting them. At a certain point, the cost of compliance with these institutions' demands outweighed the social penalties of defiance. Faced with growing dissent, the foxes began to panic.

As their grip on power weakened, the foxes turned to new tactics to reassert control. First came the violence of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, groups that effectively served as the Democratic Party’s paramilitary arms. This mob violence, cloaked in plausible deniability, aimed to intimidate those who had abandoned institutional authority back into compliance. Once the election was secured, Democrats shifted to more overt hard-power tactics, deploying the FBI to monitor church services and intimidate parents at school board meetings. Fearful of losing control, the fox-style elite attempted to rule like lions.

Nowhere was this desperation more evident than in the left’s relentless attempts to stop Donald Trump. The real estate tycoon provoked such an unhinged response that progressives sought to bankrupt him, remove him from the ballot, imprison him, and even assassinate him. These blatant displays of force resembled tactics used by third-world dictators. But a wounded animal is the most dangerous, and the foxes were willing to do anything to hold on to power.

Despite their efforts, both soft-power censorship and hard-power crackdowns failed. Trump secured a resounding mandate in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. At that point, Democrats faced a stark choice: embrace full-scale authoritarian repression or allow the duly elected Republican to take office. Their manipulation of information had collapsed. Their attempts to jail or kill Trump had backfired.

In the end, foxes lack both the skill and the resolve for violence. They are neither suited for nor adept at wielding force, and their sudden shift toward hard-power tactics only underscores their desperation. Now that the attempt to transition to brute force has failed, the left is in disarray. The American people rejected both manipulation and coercion — so what options remain?

For now, progressives seem trapped in a state of confusion, waging an internal battle between radical activists pushing for even more extreme measures and an establishment scrambling to rein in the movement they unleashed. Their failure to shift from soft power to hard power has left them demoralized. Let’s hope it stays that way.

'Just a ball of worms': Musk says Trump ready to shut down 'criminal organization' USAID



President Donald Trump, convinced that the U.S. "foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values," is taking an axe to the status quo — and it appears that the U.S. Agency for International Development might be next on the chopping block.

Elon Musk told Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Vivek Ramaswamy in an X Spaces conversation early Monday that the president has agreed that USAID, the pre-eminent international humanitarian and development arm of the federal government, cannot be fixed with "minor housecleaning" and must be "shut down."

"As we dug into USAID, it became apparent that what we have here is not an apple with a worm in it, but we have, actually, just a ball of worms," said Musk. "It's hopeless. USAID is a ball of worms. There is no apple. And when there is no apple, you just gotta basically get rid of the whole thing."

Musk noted further that Trump "agreed we should shut it down."

The stated mission of USAID, which was established in 1961 to implement the Foreign Assistance Act, is to "partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies while advancing [American] security and prosperity."

According to the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 2023 — the most recent year for which complete data is available — the agency managed over $40 billion in combined appropriations and employed over 10,000 individuals, two-thirds of whom worked overseas, not including institutional support contractors.

'USAID [is] run by radical lunatics, and we're getting them out.'

In 2023, USAID was dishing out American assistance in roughly 130 countries, the biggest beneficiaries of which were, in descending order, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Syria — now run by a terrorist who used to lead the Al-Nusrah Front and benefited from the CIA's operation Timber Sycamore.

USAID has blown American money abroad in a number of controversial and damaging ways.

For instance, the agency reportedly poured $38 million into an EcoHealth Alliance project titled "Predict-2" between October 2014 and September 2019. The subcontractor listed on the grant was Ben Hu, the Wuhan Institute of Virology's lead on gain-of-function research on SARS-like coronaviruses and among the "patients zero" — one of the three lab researchers first infected with COVID-19 in November 2019.

A USAID spokesman told the Wall Street Journal that the funding for research at the likely origin of the deadly COVID-19 virus "was part of the agency’s mission to identify and contain pandemic threats. The project provided about $815,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and $39,000 to Wuhan University."

Blaze News previously reported that USAID also bankrolled the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a giant international journalism organization that had a hand in the first impeachment of Trump and in the targeting of perceived adversaries of the American political establishment. The OCCRP lists among its supporters USAID, along with George Soros' Open Society Foundations and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, noted over the weekend that while "marketed as support for development, democracy, and human rights, the majority of [USAID] funds are funneled into opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing movements."

"At best, maybe 10% of the money reaches real projects that help people in need (there are such cases), but the rest is used to fuel dissent, finance protests, and undermine administrations that refuse to align with the globalist agenda," added Bukele.

Samantha Power, a former Obama adviser who served as USAID administrator from 2021 until 2025, once bragged that USAID was America's "soft power arsenal" and one of its "better-kept secrets."

Under Power, USAID meddled in the political affairs of various nations, including Ethiopia, Bolivia, and Ukraine. USAID has also awarded grants to various groups that work to influence domestic politics, such as the Tides Center, which is a sister organization to the leftist grant-making Tides Foundation.

Prior to the X Spaces discussion, Trump told reporters that USAID has "been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we're getting them out. USAID [is] run by radical lunatics, and we're getting them out, and then we'll make a decision."

On his first day in office, Trump ordered a 90-day pause in foreign aid, affording his administration an opportunity to review relevant programs "for programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy."

After the order went into effect last week, the administration fired or placed on furlough thousands of USAID employees and contractors. At least 56 senior career staffers who allegedly tried to get around Trump's foreign aid freeze, approving new contracts, were similarly placed on administrative leave.

NBC News reported that on Saturday evening, USAID director of security John Voorhees and his deputy, Brian McGill, tried to prevent members of the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing agency systems. DOGE personnel, allegedly keen to access USAID security systems and personnel files, were reportedly able ultimately to access the headquarters, and the two security officials were placed on leave.

Katie Miller, a member of the DOGE, noted Sunday, "No classified material was accessed without proper security clearances."

Musk stated early Monday that USAID, the website for which has gone dark, "is a criminal organization."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

US State Department exposed as key funder of journalism giant linked to Trump impeachment: Report



A consortium of independent news outfits helped make sense of a possible skew on the part of a giant international journalism organization that had a hand in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump and in the targeting of perceived adversaries of the American political establishment, jointly reporting Monday that it is majoritively funded by the U.S. State Department.

The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project is a massive investigative journalism organization that has collaborated over the years with newsrooms on all continents, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, the Guardian, and the Times (U.K.). It has played a key role in the production of various consequential stories, including the Panama Papers, the Pandora Papers, the Swedish telecom bribery scandal, and the "Russian Laundromat" money laundering scheme.

The OCCRP claims on its website that its investigations have so far contributed to over $10 billion in fines levied and seized assets; 430 official investigations; 251 "civil society reactions"; 820 governmental actions; 135 resignations and terminations; 736 indictments, arrests, and sentences; and 135 corporate actions.

Drew Sullivan, the organization's co-founder and publisher, reportedly bragged to the news consortium that reported on the OCCRP's American backing — comprising the left-leaning Drop Site Substack and a handful of European news outlets — that the OCCRP has "probably been responsible for about five or six countries changing over from one government to another government," citing Bosnia and Kyrgyzstan, as well as two NATO countries, Montenegro and the Czech Republic, as examples.

'What is true is that OCCRP has accepted funding from USG. We understand that reasonable people may believe that's a bad idea.'

Drop Site noted Monday that in many cases, the targets of the OCCRP's "game-changing exposés" were U.S. adversaries.

It appears, however, that at least one adversary was a domestic critic of the American deep state: President Donald Trump. The OCCPR reports were cited four times in the whistleblower complaint regarding Trump's 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

According to Drop Site, the OCCRP has been less than forthright about its origins and funding.

For instance, the OCCRP suggested on its website that it was launched initially with the help of funds from the United Nations Democracy Fund; however, that money reportedly made its way elsewhere and predated the formation of the OCCRP. Drop Site News indicated that it is "more accurate to say the first million dollars that made the creation of OCCRP possible came from the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs — known as INL, part of the State Department — in 2008."

The OCCRP lists among its supporters the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development along with George Soros' Open Society Foundations and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Critics have suggested that while admitting to receiving funds from the U.S. government, the OCCRP has appeared reluctant to advertise that the U.S. was its primary backer.

According to the joint report, 52% of the money spent by the OCCRP between 2014 and 2023 was provided by the U.S. government.

Sullivan told the consortium that U.S. grant money redirected from the OCCRP to other organizations shouldn't be counted. Even then, U.S. government funds would reportedly account for roughly 46% of his organization's budget.

The OCCRP's board of directors said in a statement obtained by the news consortium,

What is true is that OCCRP has accepted funding from USG. We understand that reasonable people may believe that's a bad idea, especially since it is not the norm in journalism in the United States (although government support of journalism is not uncommon in Europe and elsewhere). This was thoroughly discussed years ago when OCCRP was founded. The Board at that time — which included several of us who remain on the Board and whose personal reputations as journalists and executives are impeccable — decided that it was worth the tradeoff for the investigative journalism OCCRP could produce with this financial support.

Shannon Maguire, a former official with the National Endowment for Democracy who reportedly now runs the OCCRP file at the U.S. Agency for International Development, said that the U.S. government is proud of the work it has done supporting the organization.

"We're proud that we're the first public donor, that USAID is the first public donor, and the U.S. government is the first public donor to assist OCCR," Maguire told the consortium.

'US government weaponizes @OCCRP reporting.'

Maguire reportedly indicated that despite an alleged editorial firewall, the funding is conditional on the U.S. government's ability to veto senior personnel and editorial staff.

If Sullivan wants to change key personnel, Maguire indicated he must first ask U.S. officials for permission.

Democratic USAID administrator Samantha Power referred to the OCCRP as a "partner" at a Foreign Policy magazine event in November 2021. This "partner," which can apparently be controlled, unlike Wikileaks — deemed a security threat by the U.S. military — benefited from the Russian collusion hoax, securing significant funds as a result of bipartisan congressional efforts to fund the State Department's efforts to tackle "Russian disinformation."

Drop Site indicated that between 2015 and 2019, the U.S. State Department dumped $2.2 million into the OCCRP with the stated aim of "Balancing the Russian Media Sphere." The State Department poured another $1.7 million into the organization between 2019 and 2023 for the supposed purpose of "Strengthening investigative Journalism in Eurasia." Similar initiatives executed by the OCCRP have also been fueled by millions of American taxpayer dollars in recent years.

In other words, the supposedly editorially independent outfit receives money with the obligation to spend it investigating issues deemed priorities by the U.S. State Department.

Yann Philippin, a co-author of the damning report who sits on the board of European Investigative Collaborations, noted on X that the "US government weaponizes @OCCRP reporting by paying the journalistic organization to launch judicial investigations, sanctions and lobbying actions based on the articles published. This program has been overseen at @OCCRP by a former US State Department official."

'The truth is we don't know how deep the influence goes in some newsrooms.'

Extra to the perceived threat of internalizing American national biases, the OCCRP might also have to contend with domestic liberal biases from its veto-wielding benefactor. The Hill reported that ahead of the 2016 election, over 99% of contributions from employees at the State Department — which backs and apparently oversees the OCCRP — went to Hillary Clinton, who previously served as secretary of state.

Speaking to Drop Site, a top editor in Latin America who has worked with OCCRP suggested that the news organization "doesn't have to provide the U.S. government with any info to be useful to them. It's an army of 'clean hands' investigating outside the U.S."

"But it's always other people's corruption," said the editor. "If you're getting paid by the U.S. government to do anti-corruption work, you know that the money is going to get shut off if you bite the hand that feeds you. Even if you don't want to take U.S. government money directly, you look around and almost every major philanthropic funder has partnered with them on some initiative, and it gives the impression that you can only go so far and still get funded to do journalism. The truth is we don't know how deep the influence goes in some newsrooms."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Chinese Communist Party Has Weaseled Its Way Into America’s Kindergarten Classrooms

The CCP learned from Mao’s Cultural Revolution that to destroy a society’s culture and values, one must first destroy schools.

Why It’s In America’s Interest To Provide Disaster Relief To Earthquake-Ravaged Turkey

Disaster relief efforts are the best kind of soft power, displaying competence while also showcasing generosity.

How Deep Chinese Influence Pushed Australia Into Astonishing Covid Tyranny

A compromised political elite is responding to a virus likely juiced up in a Chinese bioweapons lab by adopting scientifically unprecedented, Communist-style social controls.

Compromised Biden Reopens Doors For Communist China To Infiltrate U.S. Universities

The Biden administration is marbled with Chinese Communist sympathizers, allies, and assets that extend to the president's household, so this decision is no surprise.