The newsletter compilation from October 2-5, 2025, presents a tapestry of interconnected crises, transformations, and continuities that illuminate our contemporary condition. These fragments—spanning military deployments, technological valuations, cultural phenomena, and democratic backsliding—reveal what Beck (1992) termed “risk society,” where traditional institutional boundaries dissolve and new forms of systemic interdependence generate cascading uncertainties. This commentary examines how these disparate narratives converge around three central tensions: the militarization of domestic politics, the financialization of technological futurity, and the performative exhaustion of democratic legitimacy.

The newsletters offer not merely a news digest but a polyphonic chronicle of a world in accelerated disintegration and recomposition. From the deployment of U.S. Marines in domestic cities to the valuation of OpenAI at half a trillion dollars, from Jane Goodall’s death to Taylor Swift’s twelfth album, the newsletter functions as a palimpsest of our moment: layered, contradictory, and haunted by the ghosts of liberalism, sovereignty, and human agency. What emerges is a global order oscillating between authoritarian retrenchment and technological utopianism, where the political is increasingly aestheticized and the economic is rendered spectral through AI-driven abstractions.

In perusing the eclectic mosaic of the newsletters—spanning Monocle’s urbane dispatches, ArtNews’ cultural vignettes, Goldman Sachs’ economic prognostications, Newsweek’s geopolitical alarms, CNBC’s and Bloomberg’s market pulses, The Economist’s policy critiques, The New York Times’ investigative depths, and UBS Insights’ investment forecasts—one is struck by a pervasive sense of precarity. This compilation, ostensibly a daily digest, functions as a Rorschach test for the contemporary zeitgeist: a world where political volatility intersects with economic optimism, cultural innovation grapples with historical echoes, and social fabrics strain under technological and militaristic pressures. Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s seminal work The Human Condition (1958), where she posits that human affairs are shaped by the interplay of labor, work, and action in a public sphere increasingly dominated by unpredictability, this newsletter reveals a “vita activa” distorted by authoritarian drifts, AI-driven disruptions, and climate-amplified anxieties. Arendt’s warning that action—political and collective—can devolve into mere spectacle resonates here, as Trump’s bombastic declarations on domestic military deployments mirror a theatrical erosion of democratic norms (Arendt, 1958, p. 198).

The fragments — from a dispatch about Marines at Quantico to briefings on gold and AI supply chains, from reportage on staffless retail failures to notes about museum politics and adaptive reuse — form a compact ecology in which coercion, valuation and cultural meaning co-evolve. Each item is discrete but they are not independent: militarized rhetoric at home reshapes state legitimacy; financial markets’ dissonance with “real” economic signals reframes risk and insecurity; automation and AI remake labor and the aesthetics of everyday life; and cultural institutions (museums, biennials, exhibitions) mediate public memory and authenticity under political pressure. The task, then, is to show how these registers — coercive power, financial imagination, technological mediation and cultural legitimation — thread into one another.

Charlotte McDonald-Gibson’s Monocle piece on Marine training at Quantico captures a profound transformation in American civil-military relations. President Trump’s directive that military forces should treat San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles as “training grounds” represents what Agamben (1998) identified as the “state of exception” becoming normalized—the suspension of legal protections justified by invoking emergency conditions. The deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June 2025 to “quell protests” marks the first such domestic deployment in 33 years, breaking a post-Cold War taboo.

This development echoes historical precedents analyzed by Kraska (2007) in his work on the militarization of American policing. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, designed to prevent federal military forces from enforcing domestic laws, has been progressively weakened through exceptions and redefinitions. What distinguishes the current moment is the explicit rhetorical framing: Trump’s assertion that urban disorder constitutes “a war from within” reconfigures political opposition as military threat, transforming citizens into potential combatants.

McDonald-Gibson astutely observes that Marines “are primarily trained in lethal force, rather than quelling civil unrest.” This echoes Foucault’s (1975/1995) analysis in Discipline and Punish, where he traced how military discipline became the model for civilian institutions. Here, however, we witness the reverse movement: civilian spaces become theaters for military operation, with “law enforcement, crowd control and an understanding of the legal limits” treated as afterthoughts to combat training.

The geopolitical context deepens this concern. While Marines train for engagements with China, they find themselves deployed to American cities—a dual mandate that recalls the colonial dynamics analyzed by Khalili (2013) in Time in the Shadows. The essay notes that Mout Town, the Marines’ urban warfare training facility, was “built during the Cold War” with structures resembling “a European town,” but with signs in Dari, reflecting Afghanistan deployments. Now this infrastructure of imperial projection turns inward, prefiguring what Graham (2010) termed the “new military urbanism,” where counterinsurgency techniques migrate from foreign battlefields to domestic streets.

The recurring theme of government shutdowns, judicial controversies, and political polarization across these newsletters illuminates what Brown (2015) diagnosed as democracy’s “undoing” under neoliberalism. The U.S. government shutdown that began October 1, 2025, receives remarkably muted treatment in market coverage: “Wall Street appears unbothered,” with the S&P 500 hitting new highs despite federal paralysis. This disconnect between political dysfunction and financial performance suggests what Streeck (2016) called the “buying time” phase of capitalist democracy—where economic elites have effectively seceded from political community.

The shutdown’s causes prove revealing. Republicans demand healthcare subsidy cuts while Democrats resist, but as Semafor notes, Democrats “are betting that the US public won’t remember the shutdown a year from now.” This calculus of strategic amnesia assumes politics as pure theater, disconnected from policy consequences. The Trump administration’s threat to “permanently eliminate selected federal jobs, rather than the characteristic furloughs” transforms routine budget disputes into what Klein (2007) termed “shock doctrine”—exploiting crisis to impose ideological restructuring.

Ivan Krastev’s comments in The New York Times about courts and democracy prove particularly incisive. He observes that in highly polarized environments, “even independent court rulings may no longer help stabilize societies anymore. In some cases, they might actually be destabilizing.” This captures a profound legitimacy crisis: institutions designed to be countermajoritarian precisely because they’re insulated from politics lose their stabilizing function when publics view them as inevitably political.

The examples multiply: Marine Le Pen’s conviction and ban from running in France’s 2027 election, Jair Bolsonaro’s 27-year prison sentence for coup plotting in Brazil, and prosecutions of political leaders across Turkey, Romania, and South Korea. Regardless of judicial independence or evidence quality, Krastev notes these rulings “become fuel for further polarization and mistrust.” The result is what Müller (2016) identified in What Is Populism?—the collapse of the democratic paradox, where institutional constraints on majorities are rejected as elite manipulation.

Politically, the newsletter is dominated by the Trump administration’s aggressive posturing, from deploying Marines domestically to quell urban unrest in “war-ravaged” cities like Portland and Los Angeles, to initiating an “armed conflict” with Venezuelan drug cartels. Charlotte McDonald-Gibson’s Monocle piece on trainee US Marines critiques this shift, noting that the force, traditionally geared toward foreign adversaries like China, now contends with “shifting political sands at home.” This evokes Michel Foucault’s concept of “biopower” in Society Must Be Defended (2003), where states invert external threats into internal “wars” to justify control over populations: “The war that is now being waged is a war against the enemy within” (Foucault, 2003, p. 51). Trump’s rhetoric—”It’s a war from within”—mirrors this, transforming civil protests into existential threats, as seen in the June deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles, the first in 33 years.

Interrelatedly, Newsweek’s coverage of escalating confrontations—drone incursions linked to Russia, cyber “arms races,” and Trump’s security guarantee to Qatar—highlights a multipolar world where alliances fracture. The cyber warnings from ex-UK chief Robert Hannigan align with Manuel Castells’ analysis in The Rise of the Network Society (1996), which argues that information warfare redefines sovereignty, turning nations into nodes in a volatile network (Castells, 1996, p. 374). Philosophically, this recalls Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651), where the state of nature’s “war of all against all” justifies absolute sovereignty; Trump’s executive orders, bypassing Congress, embody a Hobbesian leviathan unbound, risking democratic backsliding as seen in Brazil’s Bolsonaro coup trial or France’s political strikes.

Socially, these moves exacerbate divisions: the Manchester synagogue attack by a “British man of Syrian origin,” amid rising antisemitism post-Oct. 7, underscores how geopolitical tensions (e.g., Israel’s Gaza actions) fuel domestic hatred. This intersects with Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), critiquing how Western narratives frame Middle Eastern conflicts as civilizational clashes, perpetuating xenophobia (Said, 1978, p. 204). The newsletter’s juxtaposition of Trump’s anti-immigrant policies—like slashing refugee admissions to 7,500 and imposing H-1B visa fees—with Gen Z protests in Morocco and Madagascar illustrates a global youth backlash, akin to the “precariat” rebellions in Guy Standing’s The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class (2011), where economic insecurity breeds political activism (Standing, 2011, p. 88).

One of the most jarring motifs in the newsletter is the domestic militarization of the U.S. under a second Trump administration. Charlotte McDonald-Gibson’s report that Marines were deployed to Los Angeles and are slated for Portland under authorization to use “full force” signals a profound rupture in the American social contract. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878—designed to prevent precisely this conflation of military and police power—appears to have been rendered obsolete not by legislation but by executive fiat and rhetorical redefinition. Trump’s declaration that “San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles… they’re very unsafe places and we’re going to straighten them out… That’s a war. It’s a war from within” (Monocle, 2025, p. 2) echoes Carl Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction, wherein the sovereign is he who decides on the exception (Schmitt, 1922/2005). Yet here, the exception is not external but internalized: the city itself becomes the battlefield, the citizen the potential insurgent.

This domestic turn of the military reflects what Achille Mbembe (2003) terms “necropolitics”—the subjugation of life to the power of death—not in colonial peripheries but in the heart of the metropole. The Marine Corps, historically “the tip of the spear in foreign operations,” is now being retooled for urban pacification, a shift that demands new training in crowd control and legal restraint. But as McDonald-Gibson notes, Marines are “primarily trained in lethal force, rather than quelling civil unrest” (Monocle, 2025, p. 3). This mismatch is not accidental; it is symptomatic of a state that increasingly views dissent as insurgency. The specter of federal troops patrolling American streets recalls the Reconstruction-era backlash and foreshadows a future where the line between protest and rebellion is erased by executive decree.

Monocle’s account of the Basic School at Quantico, and the explicit political signalling by senior executives that Marines may be deployed domestically, is more than a personnel story: it is a rehearsal of the state’s claim to monopoly on legitimate force being remapped onto domestic political questions (Monocle reporting).

Two theoretical frames help us interpret this. First, Hannah Arendt’s worries about the collapse of the public-political sphere and the militarization of politics remain uncannily useful: when instruments designed for external coercion are repurposed internally, the boundary between civil order and martial law blurs (Arendt, 1951). Second, Michel Foucault’s account of disciplinary institutions (prisons, schools, armies) shows how techniques of training and surveillance produce certain kinds of bodies and subjects — obedient, routinized, “ready” — which can then be redeployed into novel formations of social control (Foucault, 1977). The Quantico vignette is therefore a case where symbolic performance (the president’s visit, talk of “scary, tough” training) translates into a potential reconfiguration of juridical limits and civil liberties: training in crowd control, rules of engagement, and inter-agency communications would not be merely technical changes but constitutional ones.

Implication: the domestication of external security forces is not simply an operational adjustment; it is a political technology that reshapes civic life. For scholars of state formation and political sociology, the imperative is to treat military doctrine as a site where norms about public protest, dissent, and the boundary of permissible force are being renegotiated.

Subscribe

Economically, the snippets paint a paradoxical picture: US stocks hit records despite a government shutdown, with the S&P 500 surpassing 6,700, buoyed by pharma deals like Pfizer’s tariff exemptions and AI investments. CNBC’s report on OpenAI’s $500 billion valuation and partnerships with Samsung and SK Hynix reflects Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019), where tech giants extract value from data, now “running out” for AI training, leading to synthetic data reliance (Zuboff, 2019, p. 137). Goldman Sachs’ gold forecast to $4,000 per ounce, driven by central bank demand and Fed easing, echoes John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), warning of liquidity traps in uncertain times; here, gold acts as a hedge against shutdown-induced GDP drags of 0.15% weekly (Keynes, 1936, p. 207).

These trends interlink with political instability: the shutdown, per The New York Times, slashes funding to Democratic areas, weaponizing economics in partisan warfare, reminiscent of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (2007), where crises enable “disaster capitalism” (Klein, 2007, p. 6). UBS Insights’ electrification narrative—PG&E’s $73 billion grid upgrades for AI data centers—highlights how tech demands (e.g., OpenAI’s Stargate) strain resources, potentially widening inequalities as per Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality (2012), where innovation benefits elites while burdening the grid-dependent masses (Stiglitz, 2012, p. 92). Culturally, this ties to Amazon Fresh’s UK closures, signaling a “small win for humans over automation,” as Andrew Mueller notes, echoing Karl Marx’s Capital (1867) on alienation from labor (Marx, 1867, p. 799).

A subtle but pervasive theme across these newsletters is the ongoing transfer of public functions to private entities, often framed as efficiency or innovation. The coverage of private equity interest in infrastructure (BlackRock’s potential $40 billion Aligned Data Centers acquisition), education (AI systems transforming schooling), and even military functions (Anduril and Palantir as “neoprime” defense contractors) documents what Harvey (2005) termed “accumulation by dispossession.”

The shutdown narrative provides vivid illustration. While government paralysis disrupts services and research funding, private-sector data substitutes emerge: “investors are increasingly relying on unofficial data as a substitute for federal sources.” The ADP private payroll report becomes crucial when BLS data is unavailable, privileging corporate-generated statistics over public ones. This substitution isn’t neutral—private data serves business needs, potentially missing dimensions crucial for public welfare like labor market discrimination or regional disparities.

The “eds and meds” model of urban development, exemplified by Pittsburgh’s transformation from steel city to university-research hub, faces threat from Trump administration higher education policies. The newsletter notes Trump’s attack on “woke universities” and research funding cuts could undermine this economic model. Shawn Donnan’s observation that universities are “where the country’s next industrial transformation is being created” captures the contradiction: neoliberal ideology celebrates markets while attacking the public institutions generating knowledge spillovers those markets depend upon.

Polanyi’s (1944/2001) The Great Transformation remains salient. He argued that market expansion eventually provokes “countermovement” protecting society from commodification’s destabilizing effects. The current moment suggests the countermovement’s failure or capture—even nominally left parties accept market logic, debating implementation rather than principle. The result is what Fraser (2017) termed capitalism’s legitimation crisis: markets corrode their own social preconditions without generating alternatives.

The newsletter repeatedly flags a short-run paradox: markets (S&P 500 highs, investor optimism) contradict other indicators (government shutdown, weak payrolls, BYD slowdowns) (CNBC; The Economist snippets).

Two conceptual tools help: Hyman Minsky’s instability hypothesis — financial confidence breeds risk-taking which generates fragility — and Michel Callon’s sociology of performativity, which shows that economic models and market devices (ratings, forecasts) do not just describe markets but actively make them. When traders shrug off a government shutdown and push indices to record highs, that is performative: market narratives and algorithmic liquidity create distinct — and sometimes self-validating — realities (Minsky, 1992; Callon, 1998). The Goldman Sachs note on gold’s ascent (and its drivers — central bank demand, ETF flows) complicates this reading: some assets (gold) are behaving as hedges against systemic risk even as equities absorb liquidity flows.

Implication: analysts must distinguish between signal (fundamentals that reflect underlying economic activity) and performative signal (market outcomes produced by narratives, algorithms, and liquidity). Policymakers confronting gaps in data (e.g., delayed BLS releases during a shutdown) confront a fragile epistemic environment in which misreadings of the macro picture can produce policy errors with real distributional consequences.

The economic narratives across these newsletters revolve around spectacular valuations that strain credulity. OpenAI’s valuation reaching $500 billion—surpassing SpaceX—represents more than market exuberance; it signals what Mazzucato (2018) identified as the “value extraction” economy, where financial claims detach from productive capacity. The newsletter notes that “despite fears of a bubble, investors are flocking to AI companies,” a formulation that acknowledges irrationality while naturalizing it.

This phenomenon connects to Shiller’s (2000) concept of “irrational exuberance,” but with a crucial difference. The dot-com bubble rested on anticipated future profits from internet commerce; the AI bubble rests on something more nebulous—the promise of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a technological singularity that would fundamentally restructure human civilization. As one newsletter excerpt notes, researchers at companies like OpenAI are “racing toward ‘artificial general intelligence,’ when machines might think like humans.”

The temporal structure of these valuations merits attention. Fisher (2009) argued that contemporary capitalism operates through “capitalist realism”—the inability to imagine alternatives to the present economic order. AI valuations invert this logic, demanding we imagine only alternatives, only radical transformation. The $500 billion valuation doesn’t reflect current cash flows but rather discounted future superintelligence—a promissory note on the apocalypse or utopia.

Yet the newsletters also document AI’s mundane reality. The Indian Express reports that “AI upends Chinese education” through “robot toys that help with tutoring, homework-grading systems, and AI-enabled tablets,” while experts note these systems “only add to their workload” and their adoption is “performative.” This gap between sublime promise and banal reality echoes Noble’s (2018) critique in Algorithms of Oppression, where she demonstrated how AI systems encode and amplify existing inequalities while claiming neutral optimization.

The juxtaposition of OpenAI’s valuation with reports of AI-generated misinformation, caste bias in chatbots, and concerns about bioweapon design reveals what Zuboff (2019) termed “surveillance capitalism’s” core logic: extraction and prediction override ethics and social welfare. The newsletter notes researchers found “AI-designed toxins can slip through safety screenings,” potentially enabling bioterrorism—a risk subordinated to the imperative of market dominance.

The technology narratives threading through these newsletters illuminate the emergence of what Zuboff (2019) termed “surveillance capitalism” as global governance structure transcending state sovereignty. OpenAI’s partnerships with Samsung and SK Hynix, South Korea’s embrace of OpenAI’s Stargate initiative, and the scramble for AI chips reveal how technological infrastructure creates new dependency relationships.

The CNBC notes that “Samsung and SK Hynix will ramp up their prediction of such chips” for OpenAI, while “OpenAI has also signed a series of agreements to explore developing next-generation AI data centers in South Korea.” This represents the “platform imperialism” analyzed by Jin (2015)—where U.S. technology firms establish infrastructural dominance, with allied nations subordinated as manufacturing suppliers or data centers, but excluded from architectural control.

China’s digital trajectory provides counterpoint. The newsletters document “China’s DeepSeek launches next-gen AI model” featuring “sparse attention” architecture claimed to rival U.S. models with less computational expense. If verified, this represents the “innovation without freedom” paradox—authoritarian states matching or exceeding democratic nations in technological frontiers, challenging liberal assumptions about freedom’s necessity for innovation (Ang, 2020).

The concern over H-1B visa costs and restrictions—Lucid’s CEO warns changes “could hamstring advanced manufacturing companies”—reveals how technology nationalism contradicts globalized production. The Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee aims to prioritize domestic workers but potentially cripples industries dependent on global talent. This echoes List’s (1841/1916) “national economy” arguments—protecting domestic industry through trade restrictions—but adapted to human capital rather than goods.

Parallel to this militarization is the vertiginous ascent of artificial intelligence as both economic engine and cultural force. OpenAI’s $500 billion valuation—surpassing SpaceX—marks not just a financial milestone but a metaphysical one: value is now detached from labor, materiality, and even human oversight. As Neema Raphael of Goldman Sachs observes, the industry has “already run out of data” and is now training models on other models, creating what some scholars have called “hallucinatory capitalism” (Bridle, 2018). This recursive loop generates not knowledge but what Ted Gioia (cited in Semafor, 2025) dubs “AI slop”—a deluge of low-effort, algorithmically generated content that floods cultural channels without meaning.

The economic implications are profound. AI’s demand for compute power is reshaping energy markets: PG&E pledges $73 billion in grid upgrades; nuclear plants are being reactivated; coal retirements are delayed (UBS Insights, 2025). This “electrification of cognition,” as one might call it, reveals a paradox: the more immaterial AI appears, the more materially extractive it becomes. As Jodi Dean (2016) argues in Crowds and Party, contemporary capitalism thrives not on production but on capture—of data, attention, and now, electricity. The dream of frictionless digital economies masks an infrastructural reality of mines, power lines, and server farms, echoing Marx’s observation that capital “comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt” (Marx, 1867/1976, p. 926).

The Monocle dispatch on Amazon Fresh’s UK closures (staffless stores) is a small episode with much wider resonance: automation has organisational economies but fragile cultural legitimacy. When customers recoil from the surveillance embedded in “seamless” shopping and when self-checkouts create everyday friction, the technology’s political economy shows its limits (Monocle feature).

This links to two literatures. First, Shoshana Zuboff’s work on surveillance capitalism clarifies how data extraction and behavioural prediction reconfigure market–user relations; the Amazon Fresh case is a microcosm in which surveillance becomes a political issue, not merely an efficiency metric (Zuboff, 2019). Second, classical critiques of commodification (Marx) remind us that attempts to render labour invisible — to externalize human costs — generate social pushback and policy dilemmas (Marx, 1867/1990). The human victory implicit in Amazon’s retreat is thus not merely sentimental: it is a rebuke to a certain political imagination of the future that prioritizes seamlessness over rights, dignity and sometimes simple taste.

The newsletter’s coverage of OpenAI’s partnerships with Samsung and SK Hynix — and the valuation headlines — indexes how AI’s infrastructure (chips, data centers) has become geopolitical terrain (CNBC; Semafor).

Analytically, the situation recalls earlier waves of techno-nationalism: access to semiconductors is not just a supply-chain issue but a source of strategic advantage. Scholars of global political economy (e.g., the literature on tech industrial policy) highlight that states now intervene to secure upstream capabilities, and corporations (OpenAI, Nvidia, Samsung) are nodes in a transnational political–economic network. Nick Srnicek’s account of platform capitalism (2017) helps explain corporate strategy: control of infrastructure (compute, memory) and data congruently produces rents and market power. The Goldman Sachs piece about “running out of data” for training models introduces a second constraint — epistemic scarcity — which firms answer with synthetic data and model-of-model training, producing feedback loops that raise issues about model robustness and the political economy of “training corpora” (Goldman Sachs summary).

Implication: AI competition is materially grounded; techno-nationalist policy and global supply-chain politics will shape both innovation trajectories and strategic alignments.

The Open Access Blogs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe

The energy and climate coverage across these newsletters reveals what Ghosh (2016) termed the “great derangement”—modernity’s inability to comprehend, represent, or politically address climate change. While the newsletters document record investments in renewables, nuclear restarts, and grid upgrades driven by AI data center demand, climate change itself appears primarily through disaster fragments: the Dubai floods attributed to cloud seeding, European droughts, and extreme weather events.

The focus on energy infrastructure for AI proves particularly revealing. PG&E pledges “$73bn in new spending by 2030” for grid upgrades to serve data centers, while the Energy Secretary announces emergency powers to “delay the retirement of most coal-fired power plants and to accelerate the reopening of nuclear plants.” This inversion—extending fossil fuel operation to power AI systems ostensibly advancing human welfare—captures the contradictions Klein (2014) identified in This Changes Everything. Capitalism can integrate climate concern rhetorically while subordinating it materially to accumulation imperatives.

The newsletter treatment of carbon markets—”carbon credit boom” with “98 million tons of carbon credits retired in the global voluntary carbon market in the first half of 2025”—illustrates the “market environmentalism” critique by Lohmann (2010). Carbon trading transforms atmospheric chemistry into financial instruments, creating new asset classes while evidence of emissions reduction remains contested. The boom in carbon trading coincides with continued emissions growth, suggesting these mechanisms serve primarily as “indulgences” allowing business-as-usual.

Mitchell’s (2011) Carbon Democracy provides crucial context. He argued that fossil fuel energy systems shaped democratic possibilities—coal enabled labor organization through strike power, while oil dispersed production geographically, weakening labor and enabling authoritarian petrostates. The energy transition’s political implications remain underexamined in these newsletters. Will renewable energy systems enable democratic participation or reinforce corporate control through intellectual property over battery technology, rare earth monopolies, and grid management algorithms?

Taylor Swift’s prominence across these newsletters—from her $2.1 billion net worth to her album release dominating search trends—illustrates what Adorno and Horkheimer (1944/2002) termed the “culture industry,” but with twenty-first-century characteristics. The newsletters note Swift is “worth $2.1 billion, up $1 billion from two years ago,” with wealth deriving primarily from her Eras Tour and catalog rights rather than streaming or endorsements.

This accumulation strategy reveals shifts in cultural capitalism analyzed by Prey (2020). Unlike earlier pop stars who diversified into perfume, makeup, or fashion lines, Swift’s wealth rests on intensifying rather than extending her core product—music and live performance. Her catalog repurchase from Shamrock Capital represents vertical integration, where the artist captures downstream revenue previously extracted by intermediaries. This echoes the platform capitalism dynamics described by Srnicek (2017), where control over infrastructure (here, intellectual property) enables rent extraction.

Yet Swift’s cultural power exceeds economic metrics. The newsletters note her album release includes “89-minute ‘release party’ at movie theaters worldwide,” blurring distinctions between album drop, concert film, and theatrical event. This transmedia saturation exemplifies Jenkins’s (2006) “convergence culture,” where narratives flow across multiple channels in carefully orchestrated campaigns. The result is what Dean (2010) termed “communicative capitalism”—endless circulation producing attention as commodity, irrespective of content.

The newsletter observation that “more than 5 million pre-saves on Spotify—the most ever” before release quantifies what Nakamura and Harasztosi (2020) identified as “platform capture,” where algorithmic affordances shape cultural production. Artists optimize for streaming metrics, playlist inclusion, and viral potential, transforming aesthetic choices into platform compliance. Swift’s dominance reflects not only talent but mastery of these systems—her “strategic ambiguity” about song subjects generates hermeneutic labor from fans, driving engagement metrics.

Amid this techno-economic churn, cultural production is undergoing its own transformation. Taylor Swift’s The Life of a Showgirl—released alongside a theatrical “release party”—exemplifies what David Joselit (2012) calls “the epistemology of the feed”: art as continuous, branded content rather than discrete works. Swift, now worth $2.1 billion, is less a musician than a “corporation,” as Bloomberg notes, whose “catalog now makes up an even bigger chunk of her net worth” (Bloomberg, 2025). Her success lies not in resisting commodification but in mastering it—a postmodern alchemy that turns personal narrative into shareholder value.

Contrast this with the fate of Jane Goodall, whose death is noted across outlets with reverence. Goodall represented a different episteme: one of patient observation, interspecies empathy, and ecological humility. Her discovery that chimpanzees use tools shattered the human/animal binary, prefiguring Donna Haraway’s (2008) call for “staying with the trouble” in multispecies worlds. In a moment when AI models are trained on scraped data without consent—prompting lawsuits from Bollywood stars and novelists alike (Semafor, 2025)—Goodall’s ethics of care stands as a quiet rebuke to the extractive logics of platform capitalism.

Culturally, the newsletter celebrates reinvention: Monocle’s Amsterdam University Library as “adaptive reuse” of a 19th-century hospital exemplifies Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), advocating for vibrant, repurposed urban spaces amid housing crises (Jacobs, 1961, p. 187). Paris Fashion Week’s “fresh talent” and Virgil Abloh exhibition reflect a post-pandemic optimism, yet question consumer loyalty, paralleling Roland Barthes’ The Fashion System (1967), where clothing signifies social codes in flux (Barthes, 1967, p. 243).

Socially, these intersect with darker undercurrents: the Dubai floods’ cloud-seeding conspiracy theories, debunked yet persistent, evoke Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum (1988), a novel satirizing paranoia in interconnected narratives (Eco, 1988, p. 314). AI’s encroachment—DeepSeek’s sparse attention models, Sora’s video app—raises philosophical qualms, as in Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation (1981), where hyperreality blurs truth: “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none” (Baudrillard, 1981, p. 1). Taylor Swift’s album release, amid celebrity activism, underscores cultural commodification, linking to Theodor Adorno’s The Culture Industry (1991), critiquing mass entertainment as ideological control (Adorno, 1991, p. 85).

Reports of art forgeries, the precarious independence of museums, and the conversion of civic space into commodified “intellectual havens” (adaptive reuse of Amsterdam’s library) show culture’s double movement: it is both a resource for civic identity and an asset class (ArtNews; Monocle architecture piece).

Walter Benjamin’s thesis about the “aura” of art in mechanical reproduction (Benjamin, 1936/1968) helps us see why forgeries and museum politicization are not trivial: the aura — the social and historical singularity of objects — is continuously negotiated. Pierre Bourdieu’s account of cultural capital (1984) explains how institutions mediate social distinction and therefore why state interference in museums is not a mere administrative matter but an attack on the infrastructure of symbolic power.

The international relations content across these newsletters documents what Acharya (2018) termed the “end of the liberal international order,” though without fully reckoning with what might succeed it. The Gaza war narratives—Hamas potentially accepting cease-fire terms, Israeli interception of aid flotillas, debates over hostage releases—illustrate the liberal order’s core contradiction: ostensibly universal humanitarian principles applied selectively based on geopolitical alignments.

The coverage oscillates between humanitarian framing—”humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza, Greta Thunberg detained while delivering aid—and strategic calculus, noting Trump’s cease-fire proposal “gives Israel nearly everything it wants and offers no clear path to Palestinian statehood.” This tension between universal norms and particular interests recalls Schmitt’s (1932/2007) critique of liberal internationalism: supposedly neutral legal frameworks inevitably serve particular sovereigns, with universalism functioning as ideology obscuring power asymmetries.

The European security situation—Russian drone incursions, the proposed “drone wall,” debates over defense spending—reveals NATO’s existential uncertainty. The newsletters note “Europe’s leaders backed a plan to build a so-called drone wall to bolster the continent’s defenses,” while simultaneously reporting that “Germany’s defense minister, Boris Pistorius, and Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, have spoken out against the idea.” This discord reflects deeper divisions about threat perception, burden-sharing, and whether European security remains possible within the Atlantic alliance framework or requires strategic autonomy.

Mearsheimer’s (2018) analysis of great power competition provides one lens: the post-Cold War “unipolar moment” has definitively ended, with China, Russia, and regional powers contesting U.S. hegemony. The newsletters document this through trade disputes (Taiwan rejecting U.S. demands for chip production relocation), sanctions regimes (Russian asset seizures, Venezuela confrontations), and military posturing. Yet the coverage also reveals what Posen (2014) identified as “restraint” imperatives—recognition that military primacy proves unsustainable financially and politically, generating blowback that erodes security.

The newsletters also chart a world where the liberal international order is fracturing. Trump’s executive order pledging military defense to Qatar—bypassing Senate ratification—reveals a transactional, ad hoc diplomacy that treats alliances as real estate deals. Simultaneously, South Korea boosts defense spending under U.S. pressure, while the EU debates a “drone wall” against Russian incursions. These moves reflect what Henry Kissinger (2014) warned of in World Order: the return of Westphalian statecraft in a multipolar world where norms are secondary to power.

Yet this realignment is not merely geopolitical but civilizational. China’s white paper reaffirming its claim over Taiwan, India’s tax-driven art market boom, and Saudi Arabia’s push into global music all signal a polycentric cultural economy. As Giuliano da Empoli—described as Europe’s “modern-day Machiavelli”—advises leaders on navigating strongman politics (Semafor, 2025), we see the emergence of what Pankaj Mishra (2017) calls the “age of anger”: a global revolt against technocratic liberalism, whether from the right (Trump, Babiš) or the left (Gen Z protests in Morocco, Nepal).

These aspects are inextricably linked: Trump’s military domesticity (political) fuels economic volatility (shutdowns), eroding social trust (antisemitism, protests) while cultural narratives (AI films, fashion) distract from systemic woes. This web recalls Zygmunt Bauman’s Liquid Modernity (2000), where fluid institutions foster anxiety: “The task is no longer to defend the status quo, but to accelerate the pace of change” (Bauman, 2000, p. 58). Globally, Israel’s Gaza blockade and Hamas negotiations interrelate with economic tariffs on drugs, illustrating how conflicts commodify human suffering, as per Susan Sontag’s Regarding the Pain of Others (2003) (Sontag, 2003, p. 102).

In sum, this newsletter encapsulates a world teetering on Arendtian “dark times,” where action devolves into spectacle. Yet, glimmers of resilience—Gen Z protests, adaptive architecture—suggest potential for renewal, echoing Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus (1942): “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart” (Camus, 1942, p. 123). As we navigate these interrelations, scholarly lenses remind us that understanding is the first step toward reclamation.

Taken together, the items in the newsletter trace an emergent pattern: (1) coercive capacity is being re-signified at home (military deployments/domestic policing); (2) financial markets deploy performative narratives that can outrun underlying economic indicators; (3) the infrastructural politics of AI and semiconductors instantiate new industrial geopolitics; (4) automation’s social imaginary meets cultural resistance; and (5) cultural institutions remain contested terrains where authenticity, politics and capital intersect.

These phenomena are mutually reinforcing. Militarized domestic postures erode civic trust and can increase demand for safe-haven assets (gold); market exuberance, by redistributing wealth and altering labor demand, intensifies social precarity that fuels protest (Gen Z mobilizations); AI and automation reorder labor markets and cultural production while raising questions about surveillance and epistemic authority; and the politicization of museums signals that symbolic resources are now actively contested in electoral and foreign-policy arenas.

These newsletter fragments document what scholars increasingly term “polycrisis”—multiple, interacting crises without clear causal hierarchy or sequential logic (Lawrence et al., 2022). Democratic backsliding, technological disruption, climate emergency, geopolitical realignment, and economic inequality don’t occur in isolation but mutually amplify, creating systemic fragility.

Three imperatives emerge from this analysis. First, intellectual frameworks adequate to polycrisis must embrace complexity and interdependence rather than disciplinary silos. Understanding AI valuations requires engaging political economy, epistemology, and technology studies simultaneously. Second, the distinction between domestic and international politics increasingly obscures more than it illuminates—Marines deployed to Los Angeles reflect the same sovereignty anxieties as drone incursions in Europe or trade wars with China. Finally, the performative exhaustion documented throughout these newsletters—markets shrugging at shutdowns, courts unable to stabilize democracy, climate summits disconnected from emissions—suggests what Gramsci (1971) termed an “interregnum”: “the old is dying and the new cannot be born.”

Whether what emerges from this interregnum proves emancipatory or authoritarian remains radically uncertain. These newsletters document both possibilities: mutual aid networks and fascist mobilization, technological abundance and climate catastrophe, democratic renewal and oligarchic capture. The task before us is clear if daunting: constructing institutions, movements, and epistemologies adequate to the crises we face, without guarantees of success but with clarity about what’s at stake.

The newsletters thus present a world caught in a dialectic of control and chaos. On one hand, states deploy military force, AI surveillance, and economic tariffs to impose order; on the other, climate disasters, civil unrest, and algorithmic unpredictability generate entropy. This tension mirrors the ancient Greek distinction between kosmos (ordered world) and chaos (primordial void)—except now, chaos is engineered by the very systems meant to contain it.

In such a moment, the role of the intellectual is not to predict but to witness. As Goodall once said, “What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make” (cited in The New York Times, 2025). The newsletter’s fragments—whether a Marine storming a mock Afghan village in Virginia or a teenager sprinting up Shenzhen’s SEG Plaza with a lunch bag—invite us to see the whole: a planet where power, technology, and culture are colliding with unprecedented velocity. The task ahead is not to restore a lost order but to imagine, amid the ruins, forms of solidarity that are neither militarized nor algorithmic—but human.

For scholars and reflective practitioners, the fragments are not isolated curiosities: they are early-warning signals of systemic re-couplings — security and domestic governance, market performance and narrative construction, technological infrastructure and geopolitical strategy, cultural authority and state power. The political task is to make these links legible to publics and policy-makers, and the intellectual task is to map causal mechanisms carefully so we avoid facile proportionate readings.

Share

Acharya, A. (2018). The end of American world order (2nd ed.). Polity Press.

Adorno, T. (1991). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture. Routledge.

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1944)

Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life (D. Heller-Roazen, Trans.). Stanford University Press.

Ang, Y. Y. (2020). China’s gilded age: The paradox of economic boom and vast corruption. Cambridge University Press.

Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt.

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.

Barthes, R. (1967). The fashion system (M. Ward & R. Howard, Trans.). Hill and Wang.

Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). Sage Publications.

Benjamin, W. (1936/1968). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans.). Schocken.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Bridle, J. (2018). New dark age: Technology and the end of the future. Verso.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.

Callon, M. (1998). The laws of the markets. Blackwell.

Camus, A. (1942). The myth of Sisyphus (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Vintage.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Blackwell.

Dean, J. (2010). Blog theory: Feedback and capture in the circuits of drive. Polity Press.

Dean, J. (2016). Crowds and party. Verso.

Eco, U. (1988). Foucault’s pendulum (W. Weaver, Trans.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? Zero Books.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)

Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-1976 (D. Macey, Trans.). Picador.

Fraser, N. (2017). Crisis of care? On the social-reproductive contradictions of contemporary capitalism. In T. Bhattacharya (Ed.), Social reproduction theory: Remapping class, recentering oppression (pp. 21-36). Pluto Press.

Ghosh, A. (2016). The great derangement: Climate change and the unthinkable. University of Chicago Press.

Graham, S. (2010). Cities under siege: The new military urbanism. Verso.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.

Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Andrew Crooke.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press.

Jin, D. Y. (2015). Digital platforms, imperialism and political culture. Routledge.

Joselit, D. (2012). After art. Princeton University Press.

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. Macmillan.

Khalili, L. (2013). Time in the shadows: Confinement in counterinsurgencies. Stanford University Press.

Kissinger, H. (2014). World order. Penguin Press.

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Metropolitan Books.

Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon & Schuster.

Kraska, P. B. (2007). Militarization and policing—Its relevance to 21st century police. Policing, 1(4), 501-513. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pam065

Lawrence, M., Janzwood, S., & Homer-Dixon, T. (2022). What is a global polycrisis? Cascade Institute Technical Paper, 2022-4.

List, F. (1916). The national system of political economy (S. S. Lloyd, Trans.). Longmans, Green and Co. (Original work published 1841)

Lohmann, L. (2010). Uncertainty markets and carbon markets: Variations on Polanyian themes. New Political Economy, 15(2), 225-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563460903290946

Marx, K. (1867). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1) (S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.). Progress Publishers.

Marx, K. (1867/1990). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin.

Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1). Penguin. (Original work published 1867)

Mazzucato, M. (2018). The value of everything: Making and taking in the global economy. PublicAffairs.

Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). The great delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities. Yale University Press.

Minsky, H. P. (1992). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. McGraw-Hill.

Mishra, P. (2017). Age of anger: A history of the present. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Mitchell, T. (2011). Carbon democracy: Political power in the age of oil. Verso.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? University of Pennsylvania Press.

Nakamura, L., & Harasztosi, P. (2020). Racism, sexism, and gaming’s toxic players. In J. Malkowski & T. M. Russworm (Eds.), Gaming representation: Race, gender, and sexuality in video games (pp. 28-44). Indiana University Press.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.

Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1944)

Posen, B. R. (2014). Restraint: A new foundation for U.S. grand strategy. Cornell University Press.

Prey, R. (2020). Locating power in platformization: Music streaming playlists and curatorial power. Social Media + Society, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120933291

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.

Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1922)

Schmitt, C. (2007). The concept of the political (G. Schwab, Trans.; Expanded ed.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1932)

Shiller, R. J. (2000). Irrational exuberance. Princeton University Press.

Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the pain of others. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.

Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. W.W. Norton.

Streeck, W. (2016). How will capitalism end? Essays on a failing system. Verso.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Qwen, Alibaba, and Grok, xAI, tools (October 11, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (October 11, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (October 11, 2025). A Prism of Global Unease: Entangled Anxiety, Cultural Dislocation, and the Exhaustion of the Global Order. Open Culture.