The two masterminds driving Trump's disruption and Putin's war
The two masterminds driving Trump's disruption and Putin's war
Abhilash GaurRudroneel Ghosh
TNN
Jun 11, 2025, 13:08 IST IST
Curtis Yarvin and Aleksandr Dugin – the gurus that have inspired Trumpism and Putinism, and are fuelling their dangerous actions
Curtis Yarvin , an American math prodigy-turned-blogger, thinks government is a corporation that owns a country, that US should have a strongman ruler, that liberal politics is for pansies, that universities should be crushed… that's Trump 's playbook for you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's hand bruise becomes internet obsession — why are these marks showing up more frequently?
People noticed another big bruise on Donald Trump's right hand again, it's showing up often now. The bruise was first seen in Spring 2024, during Trump's court case with Stormy Daniels in Manhattan, as per reports. In February, the bruise looked worse after a busy schedule of handshakes following his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. In April, it showed up again when Trump held a football at a Commander-in-Chief Trophy ceremony in Washington, D.C., according to the report by Daily Beast. Most recently, the bruise was visible at Fort Bragg military base, during a speech about the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. During that White House speech, cameras caught a brownish patch under his knuckles when he raised his hand. according to a reports Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like If You Eat Ginger Everyday for 1 Month This is What Happens Tips and Tricks Undo While ranting about Joe Biden in the podcast, the bruise was seen again, this time it looked like makeup was used to cover it. In her article, Miranda Devine wrote that Trump gets bruises from hard handshakes from supporters and gives them back warmly, even though he's a 'reformed germaphobe', as per reports. White House blamed handshakes Dr. Stuart Fischer, a doctor from New York, said in February that handshakes could cause bruising, especially at Trump's age. Dr. Fischer also said it might be Osteoarthritis, which affects joints and bones, and Trump's old age, 78, is a factor too, as per the report by Daily Mail. Live Events Back in February, the White House said excessive handshaking was the reason behind the hand bruise. Karoline Leavitt, Trump's press secretary, told NBC News that the bruises were a result of 'constantly working and shaking hands all day'. Trump himself told Time magazine that the bruises come from 'shaking hands with thousands of people' After the bruise photos went viral again, people online questioned Trump's health, and the White House has not commented yet, as stated by the report by Daily Beast. FAQs Q1. Why does Donald Trump have a bruise on his hand? It may be from too many handshakes or age-related health problems. Q2. Is Trump's hand bruise a sign of poor health? Doctors say it could be normal for his age, but it might also point to joint or blood issues.
Economic Times
37 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Jaishankar warns Europe on terrorism, says India will advance US ties based on national interest
Blunt on West's past, China ties and data security Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Amid reports of growing divergence between India and the Trump camp on key security concerns like Pakistan-sponsored terrorism , external affairs minister S Jaishankar on Wednesday emphasised that India's engagement with the US is driven by national interest, not personalities. Speaking during his visit to Europe, Jaishankar also issued a stern warning to European countries against downplaying terrorism, asserting that the threat will 'come back to haunt' them.'I take the world as I find it. Our aim is to advance every relationship that serves our interests — and the US relationship is of immense importance to us. It's not about personality X or president Y,' said Jaishankar in an interview to Euractiv when asked whether India trusts Donald comments come amid subtle tensions with the Trump administration-in-waiting over its reported reluctance to take a strong position on Pakistan's role in cross-border terrorism, particularly after the Pahalgam terror attack that killed several Indian soldiers and triggered a military evoked the memory of Osama bin Laden's presence in Pakistan to underscore the gravity of the threat. 'Why did he, of all people, feel safe living for years in a Pakistani military town, right next to their equivalent of West Point?' he asked. 'I want the world to understand — this isn't merely an India-Pakistan issue. It's about terrorism. And that very same terrorism will eventually come back to haunt you.'Taking on European countries that have questioned India's ties with Russia, Jaishankar said those nations must reflect on their own historical actions. 'India has the longest-standing grievance — our borders were violated just months after independence, when Pakistan sent in invaders to Kashmir. And the countries that were most supportive of that? Western countries,' he said.'If those same countries — who were evasive or reticent then — now say 'let's have a great conversation about international principles', I think I'm justified in asking them to reflect on their own past,' the minister India's balancing act between economic growth and geopolitical caution, Jaishankar pointed to global trends of 'de-risking' from China. Recalling his conversations with European companies in India, he said many firms were actively choosing to diversify away from China.'Many companies are becoming increasingly careful about where they locate their data — they'd rather place it somewhere secure and trustworthy than simply go for efficiency. Would you really want that in the hands of actors you don't feel comfortable with?' he said.
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump is battling America's elite universities—and winning
Editor's note: On April 14th the Trump administration froze $2.2bn of federal funds for Harvard University after the Ivy League college became the first institution to reject policy changes it had demanded. This was not a hidden plot, but an open plan. In the eyes of the right, America's elite universities are guilty of a litany of sins: they propagate illiberal, left-wing ideas; they exclude or censor those who question woke views; they discriminate against the majority in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); they allow antisemitism to fester. Before Donald Trump's second term as president began, conservative activists had laid out in considerable detail the retribution they were preparing to exact for these misdeeds. The retribution is now under way. Mr Trump's administration has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants from prestigious schools, mostly in the Ivy League, and threatened to yank billions more. It has rescinded visas for students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year, in some cases by having plainclothes officers grab them on the street and push them into unmarked cars. It has capped overhead costs for scientific research in ways that have already led to thousands of lost jobs. Other levers, over access to federal student loans, for instance, have not even been pulled yet. Every university president in America dreads the arrival of 'the letter' from the administration. The first was sent to Columbia University on March 13th, shortly after $400m of grants were withheld. To win the money back, the letter demanded that Columbia expel certain students who participated in protests, reform its admissions policies and place its Middle Eastern studies department into 'academic receivership'. The university capitulated to all the demands. Its president, herself a stand-in, resigned a week later. 'The Columbia opening salvo was incredible to me,' says Chris Rufo, a prominent culture warrior. 'It's almost unbelievable how weak, feckless, and pathetic these folks have been.' More shakedowns have followed. On March 19th Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, wrote in the Atlantic that the Trump administration's actions presented 'the greatest threat to the American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s'. That may be an understatement: Joseph McCarthy, who hounded suspected communists, was a mere senator, without the weight of the federal government behind him. In late March the federal government informed Princeton that it was suspending research grants worth $210m, ostensibly because of antisemitism. On April 3rd a letter from the government arrived at Harvard threatening $9bn-worth of grants unless the university scrapped its DEI programmes and reformed 'departments that fuel antisemitic harassment'. This week $1bn in funding for Cornell and $790m for Northwestern was frozen. Disdain for elite universities is not new to the American right. Ronald Reagan won the governorship of California in 1966 by pledging 'to clean up the mess at Berkeley' and clear out the 'beatniks, radicals and filthy speech advocates' who had 'brought such shame' to the flagship state university. But the long-running antagonism has gradually intensified as education has become more of a dividing line in American politics, with university graduates tending ever more strongly to vote Democratic. In the 1970s there were fewer than two academics who described themselves as liberal for every conservative. Four decades later the ratio was six to one. Humanities faculties, in particular, have championed ideas unpopular with ordinary voters: that American society is structurally racist, for example, or that everyone has a 'gender identity' unrelated to their sex. Trust in universities has dropped precipitously over the past decade. In 2015 nearly 60% of respondents told Gallup, a pollster, that they had a great deal of confidence in higher education. That has since fallen to 36%, almost the same proportion as say they have 'very little' or 'no confidence'. Republicans are especially critical; only 20% of them express faith in universities, compared with 56% of Democrats. 'The isolation of the academy writ large, from the whole of society, is at the root of a lot of these problems,' says Greg Weiner, the president of Assumption University. Loud and lengthy protests against Israel's war in Gaza over the past 18 months have further cemented the idea that campuses are out of kilter with mainstream opinion—and given the right an opportunity to attack universities for not doing enough to make Jewish students and faculty feel safe. The administration has been using supposed antisemitism as grounds to demand reforms. 'In some cases, these are not just unconstitutional demands, but there is also no statutory authority for them,' says Jameel Jaffer, a professor of law and journalism at Columbia University. Mr Jaffer points out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which the administration has invoked on behalf of Jewish students and faculty, does allow for sanctions—but only after a formal investigation. Even then, 'The remedial measures have to be limited to the programme found to be in violation.' The withdrawal of grants could also be challenged. Universities might argue that the conditions the administration is imposing for their restoration amount to unconstitutional coercion. In 1967 in Keyishian v Board of Regents, the Supreme Court found that academic freedom is 'a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom'. The deportation of foreign students involved in protests is of dubious legality, too. In Bridges v Wixon in 1945 the Supreme Court affirmed, 'Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.' The Trump administration has explicitly rejected this idea. In its deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia involved in protests against the war in Gaza, the administration is citing a seldom-used law allowing the secretary of state to cancel visas for migrants whose continued presence could yield 'potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences'. The Supreme Court has never opined on this law, but in 1996 in Massieu v Reno, a federal district judge struck it down as unconstitutional. As it happened, the judge in question was Maryanne Trump Barry, the late sister of Mr Trump. It seems unlikely that even the Supreme Court, with its conservative supermajority, would endorse all the Trump administration's attacks on universities, if asked. Yet most of the victims seem more inclined to capitulate than litigate. That may be because universities are worried that even if they prevail in one instance, the administration will simply find other ways to punish and coerce them. Moreover, judicial relief comes only slowly; there would be lots of financial difficulties during the delay. Talented faculty might decamp to other institutions with fewer government headaches. By the same token, although many of the universities affected are enormously wealthy (see chart), the federal government can impose costs in so many ways that most see no hope of simply enduring the financial pressure. Instead, universities, whether recipients of letters or not, are disavowing the policies the right so dislikes, academic freedom notwithstanding. The University of Michigan has shuttered its DEI office, on which it had lavished $250m over the past decade. The University of California, which pioneered the requirement that prospective hires provide 'diversity statements' (in effect, professions of support for DEI), recently dropped them. 'This is the Vichy moment. It's a classic collaborationist dilemma,' says Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, an as-yet-untargeted institution. 'You can have preserved your school but you live in a sea of authoritarianism.' Bringing universities to heel from 'a position of savage strength', as Mr Rufo puts it, may yield only superficial results. Because Mr Trump's approach is so hostile and extreme, it may actually discourage universities from honestly assessing how they went wrong and correcting course. 'None of this will make any difference in the long run unless it is accompanied by a full accounting of what has happened for the last two decades in higher education in America,' says Anthony Kronman, a former dean of Yale Law School. There is also little logic in the government's decision to switch off funding for science in order to punish ideas that emanated from humanities departments. Another recent decision, to cap the share of research grants that can be spent on overheads, will diminish the amount of scientific research conducted at all American universities, not just the elite ones. So will the gutting of the National Institutes of Health, which dispense huge amounts of funding for medical research. The administration's general antipathy towards immigrants will presumably also take a toll. 'Our universities are the best in the world. We drain the world of human capital. It's the goose that lays the golden egg,' says Nicholas Christakis, a professor at Yale. Mr Rufo is undaunted. He hints that the campaign against woke academics is only in its infancy. Certainly, more universities will come under attack and more means of coercion will be tested. There is talk in conservative circles of demanding the sacking of particular professors. Mr Rufo gives short shrift to talk about the sanctity of academic freedom. 'Freedom is the wrong lens to analyse the problem,' he says. 'The Columbia post-colonial studies faculty are not engaged in academic research. They're engaged in political activism. They're engaged in ideological mania. And in order to have academic freedom, you have to accept academic responsibility.' But even accepting the remedies Mr Trump is dispensing does not seem to have been enough in Columbia's case, at least. Although it has complied with the administration's demands, it still has not received the $400m that had been frozen. Correction (April 11th 2025): A previous version of this piece said that Eugene McCarthy was the senator who pursued suspected communists in the 1950s. In fact it was Joseph McCarthy. Sorry.
