Notes from the cusp of kleptocracy

Today, for the first time ever, a convicted felon will be inaugurated as president of the United States. Naturally, such an unprecedented and demoralising event has conjured many thoughts within me – about authoritarianism, about the global lurch to the right, about our dystopian zeitgeist, about strong man expansionism – and I want to spill them on this page: 

• Firstly, there is a deep and gnawing sadness to this moment that must be expressed. It hits me at random times, and I often find myself staring into the middle distance, shaking my head at the incomprehensibility of it all. There are a lot of nefarious trends percolating in our world right now – many tangentially linked and mutually inspired – and I do not like where we are headed.
  
  
• Most pertinently, of course, we should address Trump 2.0 head on. Sure, he is a vacuous vessel, but this iteration seems even more unhinged than the previous one. I mean, the guy literally wants to take over Greenland, and has not ruled out deploying military force to that absurd end. He has also spoken wistfully about annexing Canada – a disgraceful suggestion that exposes his total lack of awareness. And while his supporters retort that Trump speaks purposely in hyperbolic extremes to project power, there is no telling what he may do in the years ahead. And that is deeply concerning.
  
  
• To me, it looks like Trump has spent the last five years watching Vladimir Putin morph into his ideal version of The Strong Man. Now, Donald wants an imperialist war steeped in nostalgic jingoism. Now, Donald wants total control and complete loyalty. Now, Donald wants a legacy. He is more dangerous than ever, and that is alarming.
  
  
• Apparently, Trump plans to rename the Gulf of Mexico as ‘the Gulf of America’ – low-hanging fruit ripped straight from the Putin playbook of symbolic reform. It is petty and ridiculous, but he will probably do it anyway.
  
  
• Devoid of a cogent ideology, Trump takes a reactive, scattergun approach to government, gathering input from ill-equipped allies then selecting their harebrained ideas for execution by spinning a political roulette wheel. Therefore, winning the president’s ear – rubbing shoulders with him, massaging his ego, and capitulating to his whims – has become the most expedient route to fame, wealth and influence in modernity. Hence a steady stream of billionaires – including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon honcho Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang – beating a path to Mar-a-Lago, that alternative seat of power, where they bend a knee and kiss the ring. Collectively, within the establishment class, there is a sense that, if you do not genuflect in front of Trump, you may be punished by his apparatus. And if that is not a textbook symptom of authoritarianism, I do not know what is.
  
  
• Elon Musk embodies such shameless compliance, of course, as sycophant-in-chief. The fact that he will lead a government efficiency taskforce, entirely unelected, is a scandal in its own right. But so, too, is the insouciant manner in which Musk spews sickening dogma without consequence.
  
  
• Shallow contradictions lie at the heart of Musk’s radicalisation, of course. He is a ‘free speech absolutist’ who charges people $8 per month to speak freely on X. He is the owner of an electronic vehicle behemoth who roams in the same conspiratorial circles as those who deny the existence of manmade climate change. He was born and raised in apartheid South Africa, but regularly shares content with covertly racist overtones. The cognitive dissonance is wild, but apparently, that is how one accumulates obscene wealth in this warped world. Musk would know.
  
  
• Musk has always influenced opinion and inspired acolytes, but rarely with such brazenness. Other Big Tech scions are falling in line behind Musk, including Zuckerberg, who explicitly cited Elon as inspiration for Meta’s crude abandonment of fact-checking earlier this month.
  
  
• The MAGA-fication of Zuckerberg is as worrying as it is cringeworthy. From the noodle hair, oversized t-shirts and gold chains to the vomit of corporate jargon, his stark rebrand has spawned an entire subgenre of memes. Yet though it is easy to ridicule such Zuckerberg, the policy changes he is enacting at Meta – and the philosophical capture they signal – are far from trivial.
  
  
• On its board, Meta recently swapped centrist Nick Clegg with conservative warhorse Joel Kaplan and UFC alpha Dana White. Then, the conglomerate abandoned third-party fact-checking on its platforms, in favour of a Musk-style community notes feature that loosens the net on hate speech. And finally, it terminated its diversity, equity and inclusion programs – totemic gestures tacitly aimed at placating the Trumpist zealots.
  
  
• Some may argue that Meta’s changes represent a boon to free speech. In reality, though, the tweaked policies simply endanger minority groups who have long endured hateful discourse via social media. As noted by Casey Newton in his Platformer newsletter, it is now within the Meta rules to ‘call gay people insane on Facebook,’ or ‘say that gay people don’t belong in the military, or that trans people shouldn’t be able to use the bathroom of their choice, or blame Covid-19 on Chinese people.’ That is harrowing.
  
  
• Community notes are the acceptable face of political pile-ons. They are not the democratisation of truth. Moreover, community notes are also mechanically deficient. Logically and statistically, Meta users cannot moderate the same amount of data as the semi-automated systems that preceded them. As such, more hateful content will inevitably – and irrefutably – fall through the net, making Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp places people do not enjoy spending time.
  
  
• It is also incredibly counterintuitive that, in the age of AI, as Zuckerberg has committed billions to such projects, he now reverts to human moderation. The guy is willing to contradict whole swathes of his life’s work to curry favour with the extremists in charge – a realisation that exposes him as vacant and corruptible. Do you really want to enrich such a vapid chameleon by frequenting his products? I do not.
  
  
• I will not delete my Threads account, because I have posted some useful writing and observations there – along with memories and photos from my wedding and honeymoon. Instead, I will leave those up, as a de facto archive, while abandoning the platform entirely. No new posts. No app on my phone. No promoting my articles in the Meta ecosystem, enriching a radical who has a finger on the scales of inequity. This website will once again be the only place I publish my writing, so be sure to subscribe to my free newsletter to receive timely updates.
  
  
• I’m unsure if those making these ubiquitous products want humanity to continue at all. Zuckerberg’s nirvana is a merging of the digital and physical in his Metaverse flatland. Musk, meanwhile, is a real-life version of Tony Stark who wants to colonise Mars in a perverse, extraterrestrial fever dream. In my opinion, their shared – though splintered – vision is akin to digital-wrought fascism. They want a homogeneity of thought and existence that makes us docile and compliant, easy to exploit, so they can exert their monarchical will. I, for one, am done playing their game.
  
  
• Bezos is another megalomaniacal billionaire who has embraced fringe thinking in pursuit of power and profit. Bezos’ weird schtick concerns immortality and anti-aging, with a side dollop of alt-right conservatism. Bezos owns and runs the Washington Post as a neutered organ of banality, and recently donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration. The partisanship is barely concealed.
  
  
• There is a reason Bezos bought the Washington Post and could not care less if it remains solvent. Why? Because the Washington Post is a symbolic journalistic institution, the paper that broke Watergate, and sterilising it is a totemic triumph in the culture war.
  
  
• Similar control is being orchestrated by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, another esteemed fulcrum of journalistic integrity. In December, Soon-Shiong asked the newspaper’s editorial board to ‘take a break’ from writing about Trump, and also blocked the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris. Such meddling cannot be condoned.
  
  
• Here, we see the Trumpists enacting another textbook tactic of authoritarianism: eroding the mainstream media through pernicious lawsuits, leading to blunted self-censorship. ABC News recently paid Trump $15 million in a defamation lawsuit. Similarly, the Des Moines Register is being sued by the president-elect for ‘brazen election interference’ related to a pre-election poll that projected a three-to-four-point Republican defeat. By litigating media outlets into extinction, and undermining trust in those that remain, the right plans to create an information void filled by its foot soldiers.
  
  
• And who are those foot soldiers? Well, the so-called ‘manosphere’ is a fertile breeding ground for such odious operators. Trump, Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos and White roam the same testosterone-fuelled wastelands as Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Dan Bongino, Russell Brand, Andrew Tate, Ben Shapiro and Andrew Huberman. While perhaps entertaining, all are relentless vectors of misinformation. Throw in shadowy backers like Altman, Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, and a clear ecosystem reveals itself. Those with money propel the movement; those with microphones amplify it.
  
  
• This commandeering of philosophical echo chambers threatens the mere ability to tolerate and sustain respectful discussion. Increasingly, we are splintering into walled gardens that reinforce our basest misconceptions. X vs Bluesky. Facebook vs Mastodon. Los Angeles Times vs New York Times. CNN vs Fox. When, and how, do we meet in the middle? How do we hear each other over the vociferous din of disagreement?
  
  
• It is also worth noting that the world’s three richest people – Musk, Zuckerberg and Bezos – are Trump adherents who share similar, myopic worldviews. With almost $900 billion in combined wealth, and oceans of user data, they have a bottomless pit of resources through which to promulgate their exclusive project.
  
  
• The obsequiousness of Silicon Valley is fuelled by a desire to mitigate the ever-present danger of prosecution – for antitrust encroachment, and for general online harm, among other risks. The European Union has already enacted aggressive regulation to curb Big Tech overreach, while the outgoing Biden regime notched several key wins in the fight against digital monopolies. Crucially, Big Tech CEOs know that Trump derives narcissistic supply from attention and deference, so that is the currency they use to prevent prosecution. For a clean docket, they will worship Teflon Don, who can be useful in their war of technological nationalism. Quid pro quo reigns supreme.
  
  
• To that end, I would not be too optimistic about Trump’s supposed opposition to banning TikTok in the US. The Chinese-owned social media goliath is currently flickering in and out of accessibility across America, following a Supreme Court ruling tethered to national security, and Trump has suggested he will  engineer a reprieve of indeterminate length. I would not bet on that, however. After all, these are the opportunities Musk, Zuckerberg, et al, have eyed in return for tolerating and titillating Trump. This is why they want a direct line to the White House, so they can gradually nudge Donald into decisions that enrich them – rationality be damned. Removing TikTok from the attention battlefield, driving users to Instagram or X, would do just that. Oh, and Trump has his own social media platform, remember. It is not difficult to connect the dots.
  
  
• The lack of awareness from these tech bros turned wannabe MAGA ideologues is stunning. They truly believe they are invincible. Their delusions of grandeur are insurmountable. They are narcissistic personality disorder incarnate.
  
  
•  Incidentally, Zuckerberg also recently announced that Meta will be moving key teams out of California and dropping them in Texas, a microcosm state in the Brotopian devolution, citing ‘concern about the bias of our teams’ based in the Democrat heartland. Again, this is a transparent virtue signal – away from liberalism, and towards bigotry cloaked as bureaucracy-busting. Rogan’s podcast is based in Texas, of course, meaning Zuckerberg can more easily appear on the show. That he did so just three days after announcing Meta’s MAGA-fication is not coincidental. In fact, it is a clear dog whistle.
  
  
• There is a great irony, of course, in tech bros taking any opportunity to convey contempt for California – the state that gave them the infrastructure, networks, resources and opportunities to become billionaires in the first place. Have some gratitude and humility. How about giving something back before bashing your catalyst?
  
  
• Another trendy star of the manosphere is Tommy Robinson, the football hooligan turned right-wing provocateur, who is currently imprisoned for contempt of court after repeating false claims, in a documentary, that defamed a Syrian refugee. Robinson’s anti-Islamic poison is well-known to British audiences, of course, but his invective has gone global, amplified by Musk’s recent fascination in his movement – which, in turn, was a product of the infected algorithm.
  
  Musk not only allowed X to host Robinson’s divisive documentary, but also promoted it to his 213 million followers, saying it was ‘worth watching,’ while calling for Robinson’s release.
  
  Going even further, Musk then took aim at UK prime minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of covering up sexual offences by gangs of predominantly Muslim men in various British towns and cities – the original crux of Robinson’s ‘reporting.’
  
  Starmer was the director of public prosecutions when the horrific scandals came to light in the late-2000s and early-2010s, and conspiracists have called for renewed public inquiries, despite several already taking place in the ensuing years. And while things did go egregiously wrong, and lessons must be learned, some of the offences occurred as far back as 1997. That, alone, does not make them inconsequential, but Robinson and Musk see the scandal as mere ‘content’ that can be moulded into propaganda, regardless of contextual and factual irregularities.
  
  Such toxic and misinformed meddling in British politics is deeply unwelcome. In my opinion, Musk, Robinson and their pals are fermenting hatred, which spills over into real-world violence like we saw with nationwide riots last summer.
  
  
• Robinson claims to be a patriot, but his rhetoric – and, indeed, his wilful misinformation – is inspiring threats to Britain, somewhat ironically. Homeland Security officials are literally monitoring social media posts by Musk and his disciples as a national security risk. The hypocrisy is astounding.
  
  
• Musk is influencing other factions within British politics, too. New Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch is already taking talking points from Elon, as shown by her decision to open a recent prime minister’s questions session with the grooming gangs story. Robert Jenrick, the shadow secretary of state, has also echoed Muskite sentiments with language redolent of Enoch Powell. Meanwhile, noted Trump chum Nigel Farage has designs on power with his populist Reform movement, which, according to some polls, has pulled into second place. The general trend does not inspire confidence.
  
  
• Parallel worldviews – and modes of living – are in effect here. Agitators like Robinson and Musk experience life through a warped social media prism, with tampered algorithms distorting truth through funhouse mirrors. Others, meanwhile, live in the real world, unmoved by the latest X-propelled scandal. These tectonic plates are clashing, and the resultant earthquake is disorientating. 
  
  
• What is the end game here? What is the grand unifying theory or overarching vision driving these trends? Where are we headed? Kleptocracy? Plutocracy? Anarchy? Ethnopluralism? Apocalypse? Maybe all of the above.
  
  
• I want to be anti-politics. I want to ignore the exhausting tit-for-tat. I want to eschew the polarisation. But those privileges no longer exist. This is too important. History will judge those who lived during this bitter era, asking who stood up and fought for decency and who contributed to the autocratic destruction. This is not about the nuts and bolts of policy and ideology, but rather, is concerned with fairness, law, equity and compassion.
  
  
• I subscribe to an issue-by-issue view of politics, rather than surrendering to toxic groupthink. All too often in these polarised times, people adopt the classic accoutrements of their ‘team’ – be it the gun-toting, abortion-hating, immigrant-bashing conservative archetype, or the woke, idealistic liberal alternative. Such binary virtue signalling is weak and exploitative. Often, progress is tangled in the grey in-between, with pragmatic interpretations of distinct issues preferred to dogmatic configurations that are ideologically preconceived.
  
  
• One pertinent example: I think California governor Gavin Newsom has done a terrible job dealing with homelessness and urban decay in Los Angeles, but I also believe recent attacks on him related to the ongoing wildfires are absurd. For example, Musk and Trump falsely accused Newsom of refusing to sign a ‘water restoration declaration’ while blaming diversity, equality and inclusion policies for somehow hampering firefighters’ abilities to tackle the emergency. Two things can be true at the same time. People and policies should not be shoehorned into ironclad buckets of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’
  
  
• To that end, I’m rooting for Starmer – as the incumbent of our highest office, if not as a devout believer in his politics – to defend Britain and stand up to these deluded bullies. Do not bend the knee. Stay true to your values – our values – and continue to exemplify decorum.
  
  
• Who, on the international stage, can we similarly believe in? Who can we trust to oppose Trump, Putin, Xi, Netanyahu, Orbán, Erdoğan and the axis of populist demagoguery? Starmer may be our best hope, along with Emmanuel Macron. The recent loss of Justin Trudeau in Canada is discouraging in this regard, because we need all the help, and all the sensible pragmatists, we can get.
  
  
• In the US, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is my greatest hope, while Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear, Tim Walz and Gretchen Whitmer all have big roles to play. Michelle Obama, too. We all have a big role to play, in fact. We must resist fascist imperialism wherever it marinates.
  
  
• In closing, there are positives to consider, however. Factions are already forming within the MAGA oligarchy, and as a rule, narcissists do not work well together for very long. Insurrectionist mastermind Steve Bannon loathes Musk and has called for his deportation. Musk has disavowed Farage, who refuses to endorse Robinson. And a messy Trump-Musk fallout seems inevitable – we just have to bide our time. That, you see, is the trouble with quests for unfettered power: only one egomaniac can win.