An excursion into the heart of American plutocracy

In a week that has seen the spectacle of tech billionaires occupying the front row at Trump’s inauguration while his cabinet members were relegated to second-class seating, we find ourselves in a moment of grotesque symbolism that even the most ham-fisted satirist would hesitate to conjure up. Driven by collective dread, Americans have flocked to Google to type in „oligarchy,“ which now feels less like an old Russian issue and more like a coming reality.

It is in this context that I present to you this week’s edition of my newsletter. Brace yourself for the putrid swamp of billionaire excess, a journey through the muck of unearned privilege and unchecked power that threatens to drown our already suffering democracy. We will examine the nauseating spectacle of these modern-day robber barons who, not content with merely hoarding obscene wealth, now seek to purchase the very levers of government itself.

So pour yourself a stiff drink—you’ll need it—and join me as we take a close look at the malignant influence of those who would fashion themselves our new overlords. It promises to be an enlightening, if not entirely pleasant, excursion into the heart of American plutocracy. However, keep in mind that my “Odds and Sods” are merely the musings of a discontented journalist on parental leave.

Peter Thiel’s Techno-Libertarian Crusade

The alliance between Elon Musk and Peter Thiel reflects a techno-libertarian vision focused on policies that benefit their interests while resisting government oversight and perceived "wokeness” in tech. They met in the late 1990s, during Paypal’s early days, and collaborated with and supported each other while maintaining a complex rivalry. “Musk and Thiel’s latest acquisition is, effectively, the United States government,” Dave Karpf argues in “Peter Thiel Dreams of Empire.” And Thiel is positioning Big Tech’s policy goals at the centre of U.S. foreign policy.

His next goal is to utilize U.S. government resources to suppress any other democracy that confronts the members of his group chat. Thiel’s techno-libertarian vision is in no way just a benign philosophy; it threatens democratic society. His ideology, masked in the guise of technological progress, represents oligarchic authoritarianism. The belief that unfettered capitalism and technology will lead to universal freedom is a fallacy that ignores human and societal complexities. His readiness to manipulate U.S. foreign policy for tech interests also poses global risks. Merging corporate and national interests distorts democratic principles, highlighting the dangers of unchecked wealth. His fantasies of seasteading and life extension reflect a disconnection from critical issues like climate change and economic inequality. Ultimately, Thiel’s philosophy outlines a new feudalism, where a few tech oligarchs wield immense power over many. This worldview must be challenged to uphold democracy, equality, and human dignity in the face of advancing technology and concentrated wealth.

Democracy Dies in Drivel

The Washington Post, founded in 1877, has a legacy of journalistic integrity and accountability, highlighted by its reporting on the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, leading to Nixon’s resignation. Its commitment to investigative journalism has garnered numerous Pulitzer Prizes, establishing it as a leading news outlet. Two prominent films that focus on The Washington Post and have significantly contributed to perceptions of journalism are “All the President’s Men” (1976) and “The Post” (2017). Both had a profound impact on public perceptions of journalism, elevating the profession’s status and inspiring a generation of journalists.

But, of course, multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos acquired the Post in 2013, portraying himself as a saviour of journalism, promising to maintain the paper’s traditions while adapting it for the digital age. In 2017, the Post adopted the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” reinforcing its watchdog role. So far, so good. However, recent changes under Bezos’ influence suggest a shift in focus. The new mission statement, “Riveting Storytelling for All of America,” aims to attract a broader audience, particularly conservatives. One can almost hear the collective groan of the nation’s literate populace as they contemplate this latest genuflection at the altar of lowest-common-denominator journalism.

“Riveting,” a word more suited to the breathless prose of pulp fiction than the masthead of a once-respected newspaper, suggests that the Post’s primary aim is no longer to inform but to entertain. One wonders if the next edition will come with a free bag of popcorn and a warning to fasten one’s seatbelt. “Storytelling,” that most insidious of modern buzzwords, implies a prioritization of narrative over truth. It is the language of marketing departments and TED talks, not of rigorous journalism. Are we to understand that the Post now views world events as mere grist for the storyteller’s mill, to be shaped and moulded for maximum emotional impact rather than presented with clarity and precision? But it is the final phrase, “for All of America,” that truly plumbs the depths of intellectual bankruptcy. This pandering inclusivity, this desperate attempt to be all things to all people, is nothing more than a craven capitulation to the forces of market segmentation. It is the journalistic equivalent of a politician kissing babies and promising tax cuts – a cynical ploy to broaden appeal at the expense of substance and integrity.

Why Greenland?

The Big Picture: Historically, countries have always bought and sold territories, including the United States, which expanded through purchases like Alaska from Russia and the Danish West Indies. Recently, Donald Trump has expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada, citing national security concerns.

Expert Take: Greenland’s strategic importance to the United States cannot be overstated, as Florian Fade, National Security reporter for WDR and SZ Investigativ, writes on his Blog. Since World War II, the U.S. has maintained bases for missile defense and submarine monitoring, which are key to potential conflicts with Russia in the North Atlantic. China’s growing interest increases U.S. fears about limiting its global influence. Greenland’s natural resources (rare earth) are attracting attention in the light of U.S.-Chinese rivalry. Trump’s acquisition comments have created a backlash from Denmark, Greenland, Canada, and the EU, signaling a U.S. shift toward competition with China, putting NATO alliances at risk. As geopolitics change, it's uncertain whether the U.S. will adopt aggressive tactics or seek new agreements to safeguard its interests in Greenland. Greenland’s strategic significance will shape international relations.

My Two Cents: Trump’s obsession with buying Greenland is a dangerous throwback to colonial-era thinking. His threats against NATO allies and disregard for international norms are not just diplomatically disastrous; they’re a direct assault on global stability. This isn’t about national security but rather ego and a misguided view of geopolitics. We must reject this neo-colonialism and reaffirm that sovereign territories are not for sale. It’s time for the U.S. to abandon this reckless pursuit before it further damages its alliances and global standing.

When Podcasting Buffoons Became Kingmakers

I want to share a piece of data-driven journalism that I truly admire: A team of journalists from Bloomberg examined 1,300 hours of footage (over 2,000 videos) from nine highly popular podcasters and streamers on Youtube to analyze how they contributed to Trump's rise to power. Take a look at their insights and immaculate style of reporting, and tell me you don’t live for this kind of journalism.

Musk’s Game Over: Leveling Up His Lies

Remember last week when I poked fun at Elon Musk for lying about being good at video games? It turns out his video game character was caught leveling while he was at Trump’s inauguration. "So Elon levels up his video game characters the same way he runs his companies: pay others to do the hard work and then take all the credit," is how Futurism puts it.

2+2=5: Musk’s War on Wikipedia

While on the topic of what I wrote about Elon Musk last week, his recent criticism of traditional media and Wikipedia resembles George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Like the Party in the novel, Musk seeks to control the narrative by discrediting reliable information sources and promoting his platform as the arbiter of truth.

His calls to “defund Wikipedia” and claims of bias reflect themes of information manipulation and revisionism. Musk’s promotion of alternative narratives and conspiracy theories on X mirrors the Party’s use of doublethink, accepting contradictory beliefs. “It is quite possible that we are descending into an age in which two and two will make five when the Leader says so,” Orwell wrote in a 1939 essay.

If you’ve managed to slog through this diatribe against the parasitic plutocrats who feast upon the marrow of our democracy, I want to thank you. Your perseverance against unrelenting vitriol is heroic, maybe masochistic – I’ll let your therapist decide. I invite you to share your feedback, no matter how scathing or contrarian. Did my assault on the billionaire class fall short? Was it not acerbic enough? Or perhaps you found a morsel of merit in my ramblings? Whatever your opinion, don’t deprive me of it. So, dear reader, sharpen your wit and let me have it. I await your response with equal parts dread and anticipation.

John Stanley Hunter