Thanks, Robert and David, for your perspectives. First, about Cadwalladr, I'm not endorsing all of her views or actions, simply the perspective she provides on high-tech autocracy, which is both real and ascendant. She wields a valuable spotlight
About the question — who's the big dog, corps or the nominal state? — my point is that in large, it doesn't matter. There is a State with consolidated control in most of the world today. Its components vary, and that's interesting, but not the main point. The State exists, whatever pieces it has. Women and men are its subjects. It can be kinder (see the US in 1955) or rough. But state structures are always limiting, and always benefit the Few by placing the Many into unwilling, or semi-willing, service. I probably should have made that more clear.
These comments are welcome though, considered and interesting. Thanks for offering them.
Thomas, first time visitor and I'm enjoying your stack.
Thanks for the reference to Carole Cadwalladr and the flashback to Facebook/Analytica. I can appreciate Carole bringing a spotlight to this and considered following her a bit more - until I visited her stack. The post linked by Ngungu below regarding her reaction to the Washington Post (WP) firings is problematic to the point that it, IMHO, raises some serious questions about her judgment. This is highlighted when you actually look at the newspaper and journalists for which Carole is rallying:
1) The Bezos-era WP was virulently anti-Trump when Trump was making noises about "draining the swamp", e.g., the WP was just one of many prominent members of the MSM that pushed the absurd Russiagate garbage.
2) The "journalists" Carole is praising aren't journalists, they're propagandists. Lizzie Johnson, whose tweet Carole quotes in her stack says she's still working in Kiev - where Johnson is part of the machine delivering gross misinformation to the public, e.g., the Ukrainians are still in the fight with minimal losses while Russia has losses 20-30x higher than Ukraine's. Why no power, heat or running water in Kiev, Liz? Because the Ukrainians are winning bigly? Oh, and WP laid off the "journalist" covering Bezos' "business interests"? Bezos not wanting his employees rooting around the dank corners of his cellars ... imagine that.
3) The WP's slogan "Democracy dies in the darkness" willfully ignores the fact that the WP and it's ilk flipped the light switch to the off position and intentionally kept millions in darkness while the oligarchs bought their way into power while oppressing societies and economies around the world. Yet the decline of the WP is not to be considered deservedly overdue, but rather an occasion of weeping and gnashing of teeth?
If she was a real journalist she should be examining WHY Bezos is gutting his troop of "journalists"; instead she's "Fuck Bezos, the WP will rise from the ashes."
IMHO here's why they layoffs happened:
1) It's not about money, if Bezos truly needed the WP to further his interests, the losses would be petty cash to him.
2) It's more about wasting money. There's no need for the squad at the WP since Trump is now onboard with the "Broligarchy", which he wasn't during his first term (thanks for that, Peter Thiel).
3) IOW why pay 300 WP propagandists? This should have been apparent when all members of the "Broligarchy" were front and center at Trump's second inauguration. These are the same people who financed the fight against Trump previously - and the same people whose problematic presence at the inauguration should have been a massive red flag.
Finally, Carole's stack's tag line "Girl power vs Tech bros" is cringeworthy yet explains quite a bit.
The "who's the big dog" question? IMHO the answer is clear - the oligarchs. The state is merely a subsidiary - albeit it a very large one whose leadership has been appointed by the oligarchs; e.g., objectively, the Federal Reserve is virtually a subsidiary of Blackrock.
Second, you're right. I find much I disagree with in Cadwalladr's work. But I still think her work around techbro-world is good, and she's highlighting something important. I've been wondering which RW faction would finally take hold. It looks like the well-worshiped tech crazies could be the ones.
We'll see, but they're way ahead of the pack, and I don't thing the Dems have it in them to block their full rise. They may not have critical mass, not yet any way, but they have "critical momentum" (to coin a phrase) and no one to stop them.
My fundamental issue with Carole is her lens. Because of the massive amount of information/opinion available today and the filtering necessary to narrow down consumption to available time constraints, I've found it helpful to identify commentators' lenses since that not only flavors their output but, as a consumer, can be a valuable tool for evaluating and placing perspective onto their output.
Let's take Carole.
IMHO she identifies and views things through the lens of a feminist journalist. I personally have issues with each element of that lens but I'm more than willing to put that aside and evaluate the output - while noting the existence of the lens. The problem with the WP post is that it was the expression of the worst elements of each of those lenses, i.e., no actual journalism about the WP purge but some added girl power elements. This might have been cathartic for some people but, objectively, it was neither helpful nor informative. Some of that might have been passable, but wanting the Washington Post to rise from the ashes? The coiner of the phrase "Broligarchy" wanting one of the most effective oligarchical tools used to control and manipulate the masses to be resurrected? I find that highly problematic.
So I went to Carole's "Peter Thiel's New Model Army" post you referenced. Some interesting content, but the end of it was women challenging ICE, and the now-iconic picture of a woman lighting a cigarette from a burning Ayatollah photograph. If only the woman had actually been in Iran - as implied - and not in Canada when the photograph was taken, but who cares since girl power trumps journalism. Does that mean I believe Carole is incapable of "proper journalism"? No. Would I follow her work? No. While I will side eye Carole's output, I'd gladly read/consider something pre-filtered to be of interest. Like, say, if someone - like you - made a recommendation about it.
I'm firmly convinced we've passed the tipping point and the oligarchs - or rather, the people for whom they work - have won. People/the masses have little stomach for resistance, let alone the conviction and intellect required for it today, e.g., the majority of Western popular revolt could be ended simply by Tim Cook disabling iMessage for a few days. Democrat, Republican, sides are utterly irrelevant because the very tip of the pyramid of power literally has no sides. We now know, thanks to Epstein, that TPTB are amoral, ultra-rich ghouls who traffic not only children's bodies and souls, but in power and money. We now know that members of political parties, high social strata, royalty, all can be bought and owned; despite their high status they are no more than chattel slaves to Epstein's masters.
The Tech Bros? Also slaves. They have significant power because power is intrinsic to their positions of managing the mechanisms of maintaining power (i.e., manipulating, programming, and controlling) over the masses. But The Bros are not and will not be the holders and wielders of the highest levels of power simply because they are not at the tip of the pyramid of power. If you question this, look at how many of the rich and powerful - even Bros like Musk and Thiel - were paying obeisance to Epstein, who himself was not at the tip of the pyramid.
If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.
Carole has undoubtedly been doing formidable investigative journalism, but I am somewhat surprised by her being upset about 300 journalists fired from The Washington Post – https://broligarchy.substack.com/p/fight
Thanks, Thomas. Generally concur. However, there's a problem with the emphasis of part of this.
"...You may remember [Carole] from the 2016 election; she was prominent for helping expose the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica scandal."
First, from context, by "election" you actually mean "referendum"? Though arguably it doesn't actually matter. Neither Carole's motivation for her "scoop", nor its execution, had anything to do with either the election or the referendum (which almost nobody knew at the time would turn out as it did).
More importantly, at the time my heart sank. I was gutted by Carole's catastrophically poor timing. She let Facebook off the hook completely, and reduced the impact on CA to a derisory fine. Had she delayed the timing just 2-3 months until May, she would have (a) established liability directly against Facebook, (b) cost them literally billions, because of the peculiarly immediate impact of GDPR, (primarily due to its being a Regulation, the two-year deliberately botched UK non-"implementation" being irrelevant); and (c) opened them up to potentially existential civil claims.
Thomas, you have committed a serious category error about the relationship between oligarch-controlled entities such as Palintir and the U.S. state. Elvis Chan of the FBI made that relationship clear: “We just need to know the industry group’s preference.” Who’s calling the shots here?
The late historian of politics Sheldon Wolin told us way back in 2010 in his book-length essay, “Democracy Incorporated.” Wolin coined the phrase “Inverted Totalitarianism” for what had developed in America during the administrations of Clinton and Bush-Cheney and was fully-formed under Obama. The American system inverts 20th century fascism/corporatism, under which all organizations served the state. In 21st century America the state serves oligarch-controlled corporations. It was Trump who was swearing fealty to Bezos, Zuckerberg, Ellison, Pichai, and Musk, assuredly not the other way around.
Cadwalladr’s perspective is uniquely British. Starmer is certainly leading the UK government in this direction but because British corporations other than banks are too weak, he wishes to subsume the authority of the state to American corporate interests.
The oligarchs who stood behind Trump don’t care a whit what we think. They only use their control of the state and powers of surveillance and manipulation to hoard ever more power, wealth, and resources for themselves. They see only a zero-sum world of diminishing resources in which anything possessed by an ordinary person is something that they must have for themselves.
The MoD signed a contract with Palantir precisely because the uk wants to show its American Master who is the most loyalest little bitch and in hopes that it can lobby Palantir to keep the Americans in The War On Russia, which is the sole priority of the british political class.
Thanks, Robert and David, for your perspectives. First, about Cadwalladr, I'm not endorsing all of her views or actions, simply the perspective she provides on high-tech autocracy, which is both real and ascendant. She wields a valuable spotlight
About the question — who's the big dog, corps or the nominal state? — my point is that in large, it doesn't matter. There is a State with consolidated control in most of the world today. Its components vary, and that's interesting, but not the main point. The State exists, whatever pieces it has. Women and men are its subjects. It can be kinder (see the US in 1955) or rough. But state structures are always limiting, and always benefit the Few by placing the Many into unwilling, or semi-willing, service. I probably should have made that more clear.
These comments are welcome though, considered and interesting. Thanks for offering them.
Thomas, first time visitor and I'm enjoying your stack.
Thanks for the reference to Carole Cadwalladr and the flashback to Facebook/Analytica. I can appreciate Carole bringing a spotlight to this and considered following her a bit more - until I visited her stack. The post linked by Ngungu below regarding her reaction to the Washington Post (WP) firings is problematic to the point that it, IMHO, raises some serious questions about her judgment. This is highlighted when you actually look at the newspaper and journalists for which Carole is rallying:
1) The Bezos-era WP was virulently anti-Trump when Trump was making noises about "draining the swamp", e.g., the WP was just one of many prominent members of the MSM that pushed the absurd Russiagate garbage.
2) The "journalists" Carole is praising aren't journalists, they're propagandists. Lizzie Johnson, whose tweet Carole quotes in her stack says she's still working in Kiev - where Johnson is part of the machine delivering gross misinformation to the public, e.g., the Ukrainians are still in the fight with minimal losses while Russia has losses 20-30x higher than Ukraine's. Why no power, heat or running water in Kiev, Liz? Because the Ukrainians are winning bigly? Oh, and WP laid off the "journalist" covering Bezos' "business interests"? Bezos not wanting his employees rooting around the dank corners of his cellars ... imagine that.
3) The WP's slogan "Democracy dies in the darkness" willfully ignores the fact that the WP and it's ilk flipped the light switch to the off position and intentionally kept millions in darkness while the oligarchs bought their way into power while oppressing societies and economies around the world. Yet the decline of the WP is not to be considered deservedly overdue, but rather an occasion of weeping and gnashing of teeth?
If she was a real journalist she should be examining WHY Bezos is gutting his troop of "journalists"; instead she's "Fuck Bezos, the WP will rise from the ashes."
IMHO here's why they layoffs happened:
1) It's not about money, if Bezos truly needed the WP to further his interests, the losses would be petty cash to him.
2) It's more about wasting money. There's no need for the squad at the WP since Trump is now onboard with the "Broligarchy", which he wasn't during his first term (thanks for that, Peter Thiel).
3) IOW why pay 300 WP propagandists? This should have been apparent when all members of the "Broligarchy" were front and center at Trump's second inauguration. These are the same people who financed the fight against Trump previously - and the same people whose problematic presence at the inauguration should have been a massive red flag.
Finally, Carole's stack's tag line "Girl power vs Tech bros" is cringeworthy yet explains quite a bit.
The "who's the big dog" question? IMHO the answer is clear - the oligarchs. The state is merely a subsidiary - albeit it a very large one whose leadership has been appointed by the oligarchs; e.g., objectively, the Federal Reserve is virtually a subsidiary of Blackrock.
Thanks again and keep up the good work.
Moose & Squirrel,
First off, love the handle!
Second, you're right. I find much I disagree with in Cadwalladr's work. But I still think her work around techbro-world is good, and she's highlighting something important. I've been wondering which RW faction would finally take hold. It looks like the well-worshiped tech crazies could be the ones.
We'll see, but they're way ahead of the pack, and I don't thing the Dems have it in them to block their full rise. They may not have critical mass, not yet any way, but they have "critical momentum" (to coin a phrase) and no one to stop them.
Thanks for this, M&S.
Thomas
Thomas,
Thanks, a throwback to a much simpler time.
My fundamental issue with Carole is her lens. Because of the massive amount of information/opinion available today and the filtering necessary to narrow down consumption to available time constraints, I've found it helpful to identify commentators' lenses since that not only flavors their output but, as a consumer, can be a valuable tool for evaluating and placing perspective onto their output.
Let's take Carole.
IMHO she identifies and views things through the lens of a feminist journalist. I personally have issues with each element of that lens but I'm more than willing to put that aside and evaluate the output - while noting the existence of the lens. The problem with the WP post is that it was the expression of the worst elements of each of those lenses, i.e., no actual journalism about the WP purge but some added girl power elements. This might have been cathartic for some people but, objectively, it was neither helpful nor informative. Some of that might have been passable, but wanting the Washington Post to rise from the ashes? The coiner of the phrase "Broligarchy" wanting one of the most effective oligarchical tools used to control and manipulate the masses to be resurrected? I find that highly problematic.
So I went to Carole's "Peter Thiel's New Model Army" post you referenced. Some interesting content, but the end of it was women challenging ICE, and the now-iconic picture of a woman lighting a cigarette from a burning Ayatollah photograph. If only the woman had actually been in Iran - as implied - and not in Canada when the photograph was taken, but who cares since girl power trumps journalism. Does that mean I believe Carole is incapable of "proper journalism"? No. Would I follow her work? No. While I will side eye Carole's output, I'd gladly read/consider something pre-filtered to be of interest. Like, say, if someone - like you - made a recommendation about it.
I'm firmly convinced we've passed the tipping point and the oligarchs - or rather, the people for whom they work - have won. People/the masses have little stomach for resistance, let alone the conviction and intellect required for it today, e.g., the majority of Western popular revolt could be ended simply by Tim Cook disabling iMessage for a few days. Democrat, Republican, sides are utterly irrelevant because the very tip of the pyramid of power literally has no sides. We now know, thanks to Epstein, that TPTB are amoral, ultra-rich ghouls who traffic not only children's bodies and souls, but in power and money. We now know that members of political parties, high social strata, royalty, all can be bought and owned; despite their high status they are no more than chattel slaves to Epstein's masters.
The Tech Bros? Also slaves. They have significant power because power is intrinsic to their positions of managing the mechanisms of maintaining power (i.e., manipulating, programming, and controlling) over the masses. But The Bros are not and will not be the holders and wielders of the highest levels of power simply because they are not at the tip of the pyramid of power. If you question this, look at how many of the rich and powerful - even Bros like Musk and Thiel - were paying obeisance to Epstein, who himself was not at the tip of the pyramid.
If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.
All the best.
Some simple ways to migrate out of BigTech
Carole has undoubtedly been doing formidable investigative journalism, but I am somewhat surprised by her being upset about 300 journalists fired from The Washington Post – https://broligarchy.substack.com/p/fight
After all, isn't the WP a CIA mouthpiece?
Thanks, Thomas. Generally concur. However, there's a problem with the emphasis of part of this.
"...You may remember [Carole] from the 2016 election; she was prominent for helping expose the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica scandal."
First, from context, by "election" you actually mean "referendum"? Though arguably it doesn't actually matter. Neither Carole's motivation for her "scoop", nor its execution, had anything to do with either the election or the referendum (which almost nobody knew at the time would turn out as it did).
More importantly, at the time my heart sank. I was gutted by Carole's catastrophically poor timing. She let Facebook off the hook completely, and reduced the impact on CA to a derisory fine. Had she delayed the timing just 2-3 months until May, she would have (a) established liability directly against Facebook, (b) cost them literally billions, because of the peculiarly immediate impact of GDPR, (primarily due to its being a Regulation, the two-year deliberately botched UK non-"implementation" being irrelevant); and (c) opened them up to potentially existential civil claims.
Thomas, you have committed a serious category error about the relationship between oligarch-controlled entities such as Palintir and the U.S. state. Elvis Chan of the FBI made that relationship clear: “We just need to know the industry group’s preference.” Who’s calling the shots here?
The late historian of politics Sheldon Wolin told us way back in 2010 in his book-length essay, “Democracy Incorporated.” Wolin coined the phrase “Inverted Totalitarianism” for what had developed in America during the administrations of Clinton and Bush-Cheney and was fully-formed under Obama. The American system inverts 20th century fascism/corporatism, under which all organizations served the state. In 21st century America the state serves oligarch-controlled corporations. It was Trump who was swearing fealty to Bezos, Zuckerberg, Ellison, Pichai, and Musk, assuredly not the other way around.
Cadwalladr’s perspective is uniquely British. Starmer is certainly leading the UK government in this direction but because British corporations other than banks are too weak, he wishes to subsume the authority of the state to American corporate interests.
The oligarchs who stood behind Trump don’t care a whit what we think. They only use their control of the state and powers of surveillance and manipulation to hoard ever more power, wealth, and resources for themselves. They see only a zero-sum world of diminishing resources in which anything possessed by an ordinary person is something that they must have for themselves.
The MoD signed a contract with Palantir precisely because the uk wants to show its American Master who is the most loyalest little bitch and in hopes that it can lobby Palantir to keep the Americans in The War On Russia, which is the sole priority of the british political class.