The newsletter excerpts present a useful microcosm of contemporary geopolitical economy: fragile infrastructures in Greenland (tourism and sovereignty), the rollout of biometric regimes in Europe (mobility, ritual and failure), the market’s AI intoxication and the geopolitics of critical minerals, and a running cultural thread — memory, craft and design (spomeniks, sofas, artisanal continuity). Together these items reveal the same paradox Benjamin would have liked: the modern project builds spectacular, high-tech scaffolds while neglecting the social practices and institutions that make them usable (see the Nuuk airport case). I read these pieces as a single, composite argument about how materiality (runways, gates, chips, rare earths, memorials) and social practice (skills, rituals, governance, markets, memory) constantly re-negotiate power and meaning.

In perusing the eclectic assemblage of snippets from the Monocle newsletter —interwoven with CNBC market dispatches and New York Times excerpts—one encounters a mosaic of global anxieties and aspirations, a temporal artifact that captures the zeitgeist of a world teetering between resurgence and rupture. This compilation, ostensibly a digest of opinion, briefings, and cultural vignettes, unfolds as a polyphonic narrative: aviation woes in Greenland’s icy expanse, the triumphant close of Expo 2025 Osaka, ruminations on convertible cars amid climate shifts, geopolitical machinations surrounding Gaza’s fragile ceasefire, and the inexorable march of AI-driven markets punctuated by tariff wars. As an academic blogger attuned to the longue durée of historical patterns and the subtle cadences of cultural discourse, I find this newsletter not merely informative but revelatory, echoing themes from scholarly tomes and literary masterpieces. It invites us to explore the interrelations of economic precarity, social fragmentation, political brinkmanship, and cultural reinvention.

The dense tapestry of newsletter excerpts from October 2025 reveals a world wrestling with what Zygmunt Bauman (2000) termed “liquid modernity”—a condition where “the passage from ‘solid’ to ‘liquid’ modernity creates a new setting for individual life pursuits” (p. 7). Yet these dispatches suggest something more troubling: not merely liquidity, but fracture. The fragments collected here document multiple simultaneous crises—political, environmental, technological, and existential—that together form what might be called an architecture of instability.

The newsletter is not a mere chronicle of the week’s events; it is a palimpsest of our global condition, a layered text where the economic, political, social, and cultural anxieties of the early 21st century are written over and over again in increasingly bold script. To read it is to witness a world caught in a dialectic of connection and fracture, of technological promise and human frailty, where the grand narratives of the post-Cold War era have collapsed into a series of urgent, often contradictory, local dramas.

The recurring motif of Trump’s Middle East peace initiatives—threading through newsletters from The New York Times, The Economist, Newsweek, and Bloomberg—exemplifies what Guy Debord (1967/1994) identified as “the society of the spectacle,” where “the spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images” (p. 12). The peace deal between Israel and Hamas, whatever its substantive merits, becomes primarily a performance of dealmaking prowess.

Multiple sources document Trump’s explicit desire for the Nobel Peace Prize—a nakedly transactional approach to what is ostensibly a humanitarian achievement. As The New York Times (October 10) notes, “Trump has broken with the tradition of past recipients in fervently campaigning for the honor.” This inversion of diplomatic protocol—where the recognition becomes more significant than the recognized achievement—reflects what Michael J. Sandel (2020) describes in The Tyranny of Merit as the corruption of public goods through market logic, where “the more we treat important social practices as commodities, the more their meaning can be altered in troubling ways” (p. 98).

The newsletter from The Economist (October 9) provides crucial context: “Against all odds, the longest and deadliest war in the century-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict may finally be edging toward peace. How did this happen?” The answer lies in what multiple sources identify as unprecedented pressure on both parties. Yet this pressure-based diplomacy, however effective in the short term, raises questions about durability. As Hannah Arendt (1963) observed in On Revolution, “Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent” (p. 56). The peace achieved through coercion contains the seeds of its own undoing.

The Newsweek analysis (October 9) frames the achievement through the lens of “something in it for every major player”—a realpolitik reading that echoes Hans Morgenthau’s (1948) classical realist position that “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power” (p. 25). Hamas releases hostages but maintains organizational coherence; Netanyahu brings hostages home but avoids immediate electoral consequences; Trump secures a diplomatic victory. Yet as the Times notes (October 13), “Stubborn sticking points were left for future discussions. Will Hamas disarm? Who will run Gaza? Any one of these could unwind a fragile cease-fire.”

The structural fragility of the agreement becomes clearer when examined through the framework of what James C. Scott (1998) calls “seeing like a state”—the tendency of centralized authorities to impose simplified, legible order on complex social realities. Trump’s 20-point plan, with its vision of “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” governance, represents precisely this kind of imposed simplification. Scott observes that such schemes “ignore the essential role of practical knowledge, informal processes, and improvisation in the face of unpredictability” (p. 6). The newsletters document this tension repeatedly: the plan’s elegant architecture colliding with Gaza’s devastated reality, where Hamas officials note that “widespread devastation in Gaza was making it difficult to retrieve” the remains of deceased hostages (The New York Times, October 14).

Perhaps the most chilling thread running through these newsletters concerns the construction of political martyrdom around Charlie Kirk. The New York Times (October 14) provides a systematic analysis of martyrdom mechanics, noting that effective martyrs require three elements: “a public, dramatic and ‘innocent’ death”; “a cause linked to them”; and “a powerful movement.”

This framework resonates with René Girard’s (1972/2005) theory of scapegoating in Violence and the Sacred, where he argues that “the victim is held responsible for the desperate state of the community, and it is to its death that the community looks for deliverance” (p. 79). But in the inverted logic of political martyrdom, the community seeks not deliverance but rather justification—the sanctification of already-held positions through the sacred blood of the fallen.

The newsletter’s explicit comparison to Horst Wessel—the Nazi “martyr” whose song became part of fascist Germany’s national anthem—is historically acute. As historian George L. Mosse (1990) documents in Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars, the aestheticization of political death became central to totalitarian movements: “The cult of the fallen soldier became a primary means through which mass politics was able to transcend traditional political and religious divisions” (p. 7). The rapid elevation of Kirk—complete with congressional “Day of Remembrance,” highway dedications, and proposals for mandatory statues at state colleges—follows this template with disturbing fidelity.

Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s declaration that the administration is “at war” with the left and vows “to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy” what he calls a “vast domestic terror movement” “in Charlie’s name” represents what Giorgio Agamben (2005) terms the “state of exception”—where emergency powers suspend normal legal protections. Agamben warns that in modernity, “the state of exception tends increasingly to appear as the dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics” (p. 2). The newsletter documents this normalization: visa cancellations for foreign nationals who posted ambiguous social media comments, threats of deportation, and the systematic targeting of liberal groups.

The theological dimension of this martyrdom becomes explicit in comparisons to Roman Christian martyrs and the invocation of Kirk as a “MAGA saint.” This civil-religious fusion echoes Robert Bellah’s (1967) concept of “American civil religion”—but in a partisan, sectarian form that he explicitly warned against. Bellah noted that American civil religion could serve integrative functions, but “at its worst, it is idolatrous, a self-serving ideology” (p. 18). The Kirk cult exemplifies this degraded form: religion deployed not to unite a pluralistic nation around shared values, but to sacralize partisan division.

The government shutdown—entering its third week in these newsletters—reveals infrastructure not merely as technical system but as political weaponry. The New York Times (October 15) documents the selective nature of the shutdown: “$28 billion for projects primarily in places governed by Democrats” frozen or canceled, while “the administration used money from customs duties to fund a federal nutrition aid program” and “worked to keep rural airports open.”

This mirrors what Akhil Gupta (2012) describes in “Red Tape” as “the structural violence of poverty” enacted through bureaucratic means. Gupta argues that in developing countries, “the failure of the state to provide basic services to its poor citizens” constitutes “a form of structural violence” (p. 21). The Trump administration’s selective shutdown extends this logic to the developed world, with Democratic-governed territories experiencing what amounts to administrative siege.

The Monocle newsletter’s coverage (October 8) of Greenland’s airport infrastructure failures provides an illuminating counterpoint. The piece describes how “shiny new infrastructure means little without properly trained people to run it”—yet in the U.S. case, we see the inverse: trained people deliberately prevented from running existing infrastructure for political purposes. The Greenlandic situation reflects what economist Dambisa Moyo (2009) calls “dead aid”—well-intentioned infrastructure investment that fails due to inadequate institutional capacity. The U.S. shutdown, conversely, represents something more sinister: capable institutions deliberately disabled as punishment.

The newsletter’s documentation of “creative accounting to keep some workers paid and programs functioning” where politically advantageous reveals what James C. Scott (1985) termed “weapons of the weak”—but employed here by the powerful. In Weapons of the Weak, Scott examined “the ordinary weapons of relatively powerless groups: foot dragging, dissimulation, desertion, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander, arson, sabotage, and so on” (p. 29). The Trump administration appropriates these tactics from above, using administrative discretion to reward allies and punish enemies while maintaining a veneer of emergency necessity.

The escalating U.S.-China trade confrontation over rare earth minerals forms perhaps the most consequential economic thread in these newsletters. As Bloomberg (October 14) notes, “China’s announcement last week of sweeping new curbs on rare-earth elements signaled a new stage in the economic showdown with Washington—one in which Beijing is willing to weaponize its overwhelming advantage in the global supply of critical minerals.”

This weaponization exemplifies what Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman (2019) term “weaponized interdependence”—the strategic exploitation of network centrality. They argue that “actors can use their network position to gain information about others’ activities and can also ‘choke’ flows of goods, services, or information” (p. 44). China’s rare earth dominance—producing roughly 70% of global supply according to multiple sources—provides precisely this chokepoint power.

The historical depth of this strategy becomes clear in the newsletter’s citation of Deng Xiaoping’s 1992 observation: “The Middle East has its oil, China has rare earths... it is of extremely important strategic significance” (The New York Times, October 12). This represents what Erez Manela (2007) calls “the Wilsonian moment” in reverse—not the projection of liberal internationalist norms from center to periphery, but the deliberate construction of peripheral advantage. Deng understood that globalization would create dependencies that could later be exploited.

The Economist (October 11) frames this as China “dealing from weakness” rather than strength, arguing that China’s export substitution strategies require unsustainable price-cutting or “dumping.” This interpretation draws on classical trade theory, particularly Paul Krugman’s (1994) “strategic trade” framework. Yet the newsletter evidence suggests a more complex picture. As Goldman Sachs (October 14) notes, “China this year will deploy about 500 gigawatts of solar alone. The US will deploy 50”—an order of magnitude difference that reflects genuine capacity, not merely subsidy-driven overproduction.

The broader implications emerge in The New York Times’ detailed reporting (October 12) on China’s high-altitude renewable energy development in Tibet. The account of the Talatan Solar Park—covering “420 square kilometers” and producing electricity “about 40 percent less than coal-fired power”—documents not just manufacturing capacity but infrastructure imagination at a scale the U.S. no longer attempts. This resonates with Dan Wang’s (2021) observation that “China is the world’s manufacturing center not because it has access to cheap labor, but because it has built up sophisticated manufacturing capabilities” (para. 12).

The contrast with American economic strategy becomes stark. While China invests in tangible productive capacity, the U.S. increasingly relies on financial instruments and sanctions. As Bloomberg (October 14) notes regarding the AI boom: “Shvets provocatively cites two more communist revolutionaries to make his point: ‘Marx and Lenin had closed but brilliant minds, and for both, intertwined oligarchic relations between governments and businesses were precursors of a social collapse.’” The comparison may seem hyperbolic, but the structural analysis has merit: an economy increasingly concentrated in intangible assets (AI valuations, cryptocurrency, financial derivatives) becomes vulnerable to confidence shocks in ways that physical infrastructure is not.

Subscribe

The newsletters document an emerging vocabulary around artificial intelligence—particularly the term “slop” for AI-generated content. The New York Times (October 8) explains: “Slop was A.I.-generated content—like duh, Mom.” This dismissive neologism captures something important about AI’s cultural reception among digital natives: not wonderment or terror, but a kind of weary recognition of degraded quality.

This attitude reflects what Nicholas Carr (2010) warned about in The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains: “The Net’s cacophony of stimuli short-circuits both conscious and unconscious thought, preventing our minds from thinking either deeply or creatively” (p. 119). AI-generated content represents the apotheosis of this trend—infinite production of plausible-seeming material optimized for engagement rather than truth, depth, or beauty.

Multiple newsletters document the scale of AI investment. Goldman Sachs reports OpenAI buying “AI chips with a total power consumption of 10 gigawatts”; Google investing “$15bn over five years” in India for AI data centers; and a general infrastructure boom where “global dealmaking is heating up” with “162 data center M&As this year, worth more than $46 billion” (Bloomberg, October 15). This investment frenzy occurs against repeated warnings of a bubble. The Bank of England, according to Semafor (October 9), cautioned that “valuations appear ‘stretched,’ particularly for AI companies.”

The tension between investment scale and actual utility recalls Charles Mackay’s (1841/1995) Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, where he observed that “men go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one” (p. xxiii). Yet the AI boom differs from classic bubbles in one crucial respect: unlike tulips or railroad stocks, AI systems are being used at scale, even if they underdeliver on transformative promises.

The New York Times interview with tech columnist Kevin Roose (October 8) captures this ambivalence. Discussing AI video generation tools like Sora, Roose notes: “I’m worried about these apps being used to generate hyper-realistic A.I. deepfakes and further erode our information ecosystem... I’m also worried about the social and mental health effects of giving everyone on earth access to an infinite library of hyper-personalized, ultra-stimulating A.I.-generated media.”

This concern echoes Neil Postman’s (1985) warning in Amusing Ourselves to Death that “when a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments... then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility” (p. 156). AI-generated content threatens not through obvious falsehood but through sheer volume and personalization—a flood of plausible, engaging, but ultimately empty material that crowds out more substantive engagement.

The economic implications of this technology become clearer in Bloomberg’s discussion (October 12) of how “AI is starting to displace junior white-collar workers.” This resonates with recent research by Acemoglu and Restrepo (2019) on “automation and new tasks,” which found that “automation reduces employment and the labor share, and increases productivity growth” but that “the effect of automation is largely offset by the creation of new tasks” (p. 3). The question for AI is whether it will create new tasks or simply eliminate existing ones—and whether the timeline allows for social adjustment.

The Economist’s profile of “so-so automation” economist Daron Acemoglu (October 15) directly addresses this concern. The newsletter paraphrases his fear: “a future of ‘so-so automation’ that does allow companies to cut jobs but doesn’t deliver productivity gains. Like self-checkout kiosks or automated customer service phone menus, the tools in this dystopia are OK at best... but never truly great.” This captures a crucial asymmetry: AI may be good enough to displace workers but not good enough to generate the productivity gains that would create new opportunities.

The newsletters document multiple environmental threads that collectively suggest a world in profound ecological transition. The New York Times’ detailed report (October 12) on China’s Tibetan Plateau solar installations provides a striking example of energy transition at scale. The description of “solar panels stretch to the horizon and cover an area seven times the size of Manhattan” operating at “more than 3,000 meters above sea level” where “sunlight is much brighter than at sea level because the air is so thin” represents a kind of environmental engineering ambition largely absent from Western planning.

This contrasts sharply with The Economist’s note (October 9) that “Donald Trump’s administration canceled an enormous solar power project in the Nevada desert that would have been one of the world’s largest.” The divergence in energy strategy reflects what Andreas Malm (2016) identifies as “fossil capital”—not merely an energy source but a social relation. Malm argues that “fossil fuels have become so deeply embedded in the circuits of capital that a transition to alternatives would require a head-on confrontation with core capitalist interests” (p. 391).

The California battery storage revolution, detailed in Bloomberg (October 14), offers a counterpoint: “Capacity has tripled to 13 gigawatts, enough to power nearly 10 million homes, with a further 8.6 GW planned by 2027.” This exemplifies what Vaclav Smil (2010) calls “energy transitions”—shifts that “unfold across decades or generations” but that, once begun, can accelerate rapidly (p. 9). The key insight from the newsletter is that “Lithium-ion batteries have dropped 90% in price since 2010,” illustrating how renewable technology cost curves differ fundamentally from fossil fuels.

Yet the environmental news is far from uniformly positive. Multiple newsletters document continuing crises: Semafor (October 15) reports that “20 million acres” of forest “deforested around the world last year”; The Economist (October 10) notes that “a snowstorm buried tents and stranded people on Mount Everest last weekend” in what “may have been the mountain’s most intense storm on record.” These accumulating indicators suggest what Timothy Morton (2013) calls “hyperobjects”—”things that are massively distributed in time and space relative to humans” (p. 1), like climate change, that we struggle to fully comprehend even as we experience their effects.

The political economy of environmental degradation emerges clearly in The New York Times’ reporting (October 9) on avocado-driven deforestation in Mexico: “The American appetite for avocados has led to illegal deforestation in Mexico. A new satellite monitoring program will block violators from the U.S. market.” This exemplifies what Jason W. Moore (2015) terms the “Capitalocene”—the idea that “capitalism does not have an ecological regime; it is an ecological regime” (p. 13, emphasis original). Consumer demand in the Global North drives environmental destruction in the Global South through market mechanisms that externalize costs.

The recurring theme of migration enforcement—particularly ICE operations and National Guard deployments in U.S. cities—represents what Michel Foucault (1978/1990) called “biopower”: “the power to ‘make live and let die’” (p. 138). The newsletters document multiple instances of what might be called the weaponization of uncertainty around migration status.

The New York Times (October 15) reports that “some Chicago residents are openly fighting back against ICE. Others have formed volunteer groups to monitor their neighborhoods or are honking when they see agents.” This grassroots resistance echoes what James Holston (2008) calls “insurgent citizenship”—”citizenship that emerges when political society is no longer ‘insulated’ by state institutions” (p. 5). The formation of neighborhood monitoring networks represents citizens claiming authority to determine who belongs in their communities, in direct contradiction to federal authority claims.

The broader context emerges in Newsweek’s report (October 14) about deployment challenges: “Lawyers representing Illinois and Oregon argued that protests didn’t justify Trump’s deployment of the National Guard.” This constitutional tension—between federal enforcement power and state authority—recalls the nullification crises of the antebellum period. As Harry V. Jaffa (1959) observed regarding the Lincoln-Douglas debates, “The question of state sovereignty versus national sovereignty was never a mere matter of constitutional law, but always involved the question: sovereignty to do what?” (p. 4).

The international migration picture is equally fraught. Rest of World (October 14) reports on Europe’s “Global Gateway initiative” pledging “$600 billion to building clean energy projects across Africa”—a sum that appears designed to compete with Chinese Belt and Road investments while also addressing root causes of migration. Yet as Alexander Betts (2013) argues in Survival Migration, “the international refugee regime has not kept up with the new challenges posed by forced migration” (p. 4), particularly when displacement results from slow-onset disasters like climate change or economic collapse rather than discrete persecution.

The most disturbing migration-related item appears in Semafor’s report (October 9) about Iran promoting “affordable gender transition operations”: “Its doctors have decades of experience because the government has long forced transgender Iranians to undergo the surgeries.” This reveals the dark underside of medical tourism—procedures performed under social compulsion rather than genuine choice. It exemplifies what Jasbir Puar (2017) calls “the right to maim”—”the right to exploit, to target, to harm, rather than to kill” (p. xvii)—exercised through medical systems rather than overt violence.

Two linked tendencies stand out: (a) the economic centrality of mobility infrastructures to local development and (b) the concentration-driven volatility of contemporary capital markets.

First, the Greenland vignette shows that capital expenditure on “hard” infrastructure (runways, terminals) is necessary but not sufficient: the runway can be inaugurated, but flights fail when trained personnel, procedures, and governance are absent — a classic infrastructure-in-practice problem. The newsletter notes that Nuuk’s expanded runway has been hobbled by suspended security screening, capped aircraft movements and weather-prone geography, with knock-on effects for tourism revenues (each incoming narrow-body flight brings roughly $200k in local spending) and for sovereignty narratives about independence vs. dependence on Danish support. This observation resonates with scholarship that insists infrastructures are socio-technical ensembles: infrastructures “work” only when technical artefacts are embedded in institutional labour, maintenance practices and governance (Star & Bowker, 1999; Larkin, 2013). The policy implication is clear: capital transfers without parallel investments in human capital and governance capacity create stranded assets and brittle local economies (Urry’s tourist economy insight is also relevant: mobility is created as much by services and rituals as by tarmac). (Star & Bowker, 1999; Larkin, 2013; Urry, 1990).

Second, the market excerpts (CNBC, Semafor) highlight how a single narrative — AI as the engine of growth — can decouple asset prices from broader fundamentals, producing concentration risk (Nvidia, “Magnificent Seven”) while geopolitical shocks (rare-earth export controls; Trump tariffs) produce sudden repricing. The newsletter notes both the AI-fuelled market highs and the fragility when tariffs or rhetoric intervene (hundreds of billions wiped out by tariff announcements). This pattern calls to mind Shiller’s critique of “irrational exuberance” and Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis: credit- and narrative-driven booms expose the system to sudden reversals when underlying political or supply-chain constraints bind (Shiller, 2000; Minsky, 1986). The rare-earth episode exemplifies industrial geopolitics — China’s soft-legal tightening of export rules is both a leverage play and a market signal that feeds re-shoring/strategic industrial policies elsewhere.

Economically, the newsletter paints a portrait of uneven development and resource skirmishes, where infrastructure investments collide with human capital deficits. Florian Siebeck’s piece on Greenland’s airports exemplifies this: the expansion of Nuuk’s runway, underwritten by Danish subsidies, aims to catalyze tourism but falters due to inadequate training and environmental hazards like fog and winds. This mirrors the pitfalls of “big push” development strategies critiqued in William Easterly’s The White Man’s Burden (Easterly, 2006), where top-down aid often neglects local capacities, leading to inefficiencies. Easterly argues that such projects, akin to colonial legacies, prioritize shiny infrastructure over sustainable human elements: “Planners announce good intentions but don’t motivate anyone to carry them out” (p. 5). In Greenland, the shift from Kangerlussuaq—a relic of U.S. military might—underscores postcolonial dependencies, where economic “opening” risks cultural erosion for indigenous Inuit communities. Interrelatedly, CNBC’s reports on China’s rare earth export controls and Trump’s retaliatory 100% tariffs evoke a neo-mercantilist scramble, reminiscent of the resource wars in Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion (Collier, 2007), where commodity dominance fuels global inequality. Collier posits that resource-rich nations like China wield “traps” of dependency, here amplified by AI’s voracious appetite for rare earths, as Nvidia’s deals propel market highs while exposing vulnerabilities in supply chains.

Beneath the political theatre lies a tectonic economic shift, one that is both material and immaterial. The newsletter is saturated with the language of artificial intelligence, from the “AI-fueled market rally” to OpenAI’s trillion-dollar infrastructure deals. Yet, this digital utopia is built on a foundation of rare earth metals, a resource whose control has become the new geopolitical fulcrum. China’s tightening of export controls on these critical minerals is a stark reminder that the “weightless economy” is a myth. As economic historian Adam Tooze has argued, our digital age is in fact an age of immense physical infrastructure—data centers, undersea cables, and the mineral supply chains that feed them (Tooze, 2018). The trade war between the U.S. and China is not just about tariffs on finished goods; it is a struggle for control over the very atoms that constitute our technological future.

This struggle is further complicated by the rise of a new economic logic, one that blends state power with private capital in a manner reminiscent of what political economist Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman have termed “weaponized interdependence” (Farrell & Newman, 2019). The U.S. government’s $20 billion bailout of Argentina, its purchase of Argentine pesos, and JPMorgan Chase’s “America First” investment fund are all part of a new economic statecraft where finance is a direct extension of foreign policy. This is a world far removed from the liberal international economic order of the late 20th century, a world that more closely resembles the mercantilist rivalries of the 18th century, updated for the age of AI and quantum computing.

Politics surfaces in multiple registers:

Sovereignty and soft-power frictions. Nuuk’s predicament is not merely operational: it is symbolic. Decisions about which foreign carrier, ground-handling partner or state personnel help run the airport become questions of influence. Monocle explicitly links the airport operation to sovereignty anxieties (the spectre of US presence after the “buy Greenland” quip) and the need for Danish backing while asserting autonomy. This is classic neocolonial tension: infrastructure underwrites economic opening, but also creates vectors for external influence (cf. the literature on infrastructure and dependencies).

Biometric governance, ritual and legitimacy. The EU Entry/Exit biometric roll-out attempts to render borders seamless via fingerprints and facial recognition, but the newsletter points to brittle implementation — frozen gates, cyber-attacks, misaligned expectations — and laments the erosion of ritual (the passport stamp) that once embodied state recognition and reciprocity. Colin Nagy’s piece rightly reframes this as a governance problem: when digital regimes assume “perfect conditions,” the result is often cascading failure in the messy, contingent reality of airports. This problem sits within a broader democratic dilemma: biometric systems centralize state visibility but shift everyday friction (and the locus of failure) to software and networks — raising both reliability and civil-liberties questions (Zuboff, 2019; Lyon, 2007).

Scarcity, statecraft and strategic materials. China’s tightening of rare-earth rules is geopolitics through supply chains: the “spice” metaphor in the newsletter (Dune) is apt. Control of critical inputs translates directly into diplomatic leverage and industrial policy space for rivals to respond (tariffs, subsidies, stockpiling). The market reaction (miners’ shares surging; talk of domestic supply chains) underscores how geopolitics and industrial strategy have recombined in a world where chips and magnets matter as much as oil did in previous eras.

Politically, the newsletter bristles with the specter of authoritarian drift and diplomatic realignments, most palpably in Alexis Self’s analysis of Gaza’s ceasefire as a “vindication of Trump’s ignorant-man diplomacy.” Self’s portrayal of Trump as a “blank slate” unburdened by history—pushing Netanyahu and Hamas toward compromise—invokes the madman theory from Richard Nixon’s era, but with a twist of naïveté. This aligns with Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism (Arendt, 1951), where she dissects how leaders exploit ignorance to dismantle precedents: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction...no longer exists” (p. 474). Trump’s quips about Gaza as the “Riviera of the Middle East” and his Nobel aspirations, juxtaposed with nominations from unlikely allies like Cambodia’s prime minister, underscore this erosion. Interlinked is the U.S.-Finland icebreaker deal, symbolizing Arctic securitization amid Russian aggression, as per Barry Buzan’s securitization theory in People, States and Fear (Buzan, 1991), where environmental resources become existential threats. Trump’s combustible rapport with Finland’s Stubb highlights personalist diplomacy, echoing the cult of personality in George Orwell’s 1984 (Orwell, 1949), where leaders rewrite alliances on whims.

At the heart of this document is the figure of Donald Trump, whose second presidency has become a masterclass in what political theorist Bonnie Honig might call “emergency politics” (Honig, 2009). His administration is not a government in the Weberian sense of a rational-legal bureaucracy, but a performative engine. The Gaza ceasefire, brokered not through patient diplomacy but through the sheer force of his “ignorant-man diplomacy” (as Monocle’s Alexis Self puts it), is a prime example. This is a peace deal born not of a deep understanding of historical grievance—a prerequisite for any lasting reconciliation in a place like Palestine—but of a transactional calculus and a desire for a Nobel Prize. It is a peace that resembles the “peace” of a ceasefire in a video game, a temporary pause in hostilities to reload, not a foundation for a new society.

This performative sovereignty is mirrored in the domestic sphere by the government shutdown, which is wielded not as a failure of governance but as a weapon of political warfare. The layoffs of federal workers and the targeted cancellation of Democratic-led projects are not collateral damage; they are the central objective. This reflects a deeper trend described by political scientist Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way in their work on competitive authoritarianism, where democratic institutions are hollowed out from within while maintaining a façade of legitimacy (Levitsky & Way, 2010). The state is no longer a neutral arbiter but a partisan instrument, its very machinery turned against its own citizens.

Two cultural threads run through the snippets: the erosion (or reconfiguration) of ritual and the renewed valuation of craft and memory.

Rituals of mobility and their loss. The essay on biometric entry notes how passport stamps perform a social function — marking journeys; creating narratives of travel — and how their disappearance erases small civic rituals. As the newsletter argues, we should not equate “frictionless” with better: appropriate friction is sometimes the social glue that makes institutions legible and manageable. Philosophically, this calls to mind Benjamin’s attention to the aura of objects (and rituals) and the anthropologist’s worry that technocratic substitution can hollow lived meaning.

Memory, craft and heritage. Conversely, other pieces celebrate durability — Tatiana Bilbao’s sofa as a locus of family life, Japan’s kumihimo craft, and the spomeniks that embody Yugoslav memory and its contradictions. These are counterweights to both churn and techno-fetishism: they insist on slow practices, embodied knowledge (Sennett on craft), and the complex politics of public memory (Boym; James E. Young on memorialization). The spomeniks in particular are monuments to an ambitious social project that later collapsed; their present-day status — dormant, ambiguous, but powerful — reminds us that built forms mediate collective memory even when political projects fail. (Sennett, 2008; Boym, 2001; Young, 1993).

Socially, these economic threads intertwine with narratives of mobility, identity, and communal resilience. Robert Bound’s ode to convertible cars laments their decline amid SUV dominance and EV transitions, framing it as a loss of “carefree motoring” in an era of “eco-censoriousness.” This resonates with Zygmunt Bauman’s concept of “liquid modernity” in Liquid Life (Bauman, 2005), where consumer choices reflect fragmented identities: convertibles symbolize fluid freedom, while SUVs embody fortified security in uncertain times. Bound’s nostalgic evocation—”driving alfresco is just a gearchange away from getting frisky”—echoes the sensual escapism in Jack Kerouac’s On the Road (Kerouac, 1957), a literary touchstone for American individualism, now curtailed by climate imperatives and gadgetification. Yet, social triumphs emerge in the Baltic Pavilion at Expo 2025 Osaka, where Latvia and Lithuania’s joint effort, drawing 800,000 visitors, fosters unity among “small nations.” This counters the isolationism in Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens (Harari, 2014), where he warns of tribalism’s resurgence; instead, the pavilion’s viral mascot, Barabi-chan, illustrates how cultural symbols can bridge divides, boosting exports by €50 million and challenging Harari’s narrative of inevitable fragmentation (p. 382).

Culturally, the snippets reveal a vibrant yet precarious renaissance, from Edo Tokyo Kirari’s celebration of traditional crafts like kumihimo braids to Frieze London’s artistic disruptions. Mori Seimenjo’s zabuton cushions, hand-layered by artisans, evoke the wabi-sabi aesthetic in Jun’ichirō Tanizaki’s In Praise of Shadows (Tanizaki, 1933), praising imperfection amid modernity’s glare: “We find beauty not in the thing itself but in the patterns of shadows” (p. 30). This contrasts with Colin Nagy’s critique of EU biometric borders, which threaten to replace “poetry of passport stamps” with algorithmic friction, invoking Michel Foucault’s panopticon in Discipline and Punish (Foucault, 1975), where surveillance commodifies identity (p. 200). The interrelation peaks in the Monocle Design Directory’s focus on spomeniks—Yugoslav memorials—as artifacts of failed utopias, paralleling Svetlana Boym’s The Future of Nostalgia (Boym, 2001), where she distinguishes restorative nostalgia (rebuilding lost homes) from reflective (mourning ruins): “Nostalgia is rebellion against the modern idea of time” (p. xv). In 2025’s context, these cultural artifacts resist the homogenizing forces of AI bubbles and tariff wars, fostering hybrid identities as in Homi Bhabha’s The Location of Culture (Bhabha, 1994).

While the great powers jostle for position, the social fabric at home is quietly fraying. The newsletter’s most poignant observations are often its most subtle. The decline of the convertible car, mourned by Robert Bound in Monocle, is not just a shift in consumer preference; it is a symbol of a broader cultural retreat from public, shared experience into the private, climate-controlled capsule of the SUV. It speaks to a society that has grown risk-averse, not just to the weather but to the unpredictable messiness of human interaction.

Similarly, the debate over AI-generated “slop” in The New York Times touches on a profound epistemological crisis. If our information ecosystem can be flooded with hyper-realistic, AI-generated content that is “plausibly-sounding” yet false, then the very notion of a shared reality becomes untenable. This is not a new fear—philosopher Jean Baudrillard warned of a world of “simulacra and simulation” where the map precedes the territory (Baudrillard, 1994)—but AI has made it an operational reality. The consequence is a public sphere where trust is the scarcest resource of all, a condition that makes the performative politics of a Trump not just possible, but inevitable.

Yet, amidst this grand narrative of fracture and performance, the newsletter also offers a counterpoint in the form of the human-scale and the artisanal. The features on Mori Seimenjo’s zabuton cushions and Domyo’s kumihimo braids in Monocle are more than just lifestyle fluff. They are quiet acts of resistance against the logic of mass production and digital disposability. In their focus on hand-layered wadding and the “character of its creator,” they evoke the philosophy of Japanese aesthetician Yanagi Sōetsu, who championed the “beauty of everyday things” found in anonymous, functional craft (Yanagi, 1972). This is a world where value is not derived from speed or novelty, but from time, skill, and a deep connection to material.

This same spirit animates the “Monocle Design Directory,” which seeks to foster “meaningful connections” through design. In a world of algorithmic feeds and frictionless, yet ultimately hollow, digital interactions, the desire for a tangible, well-made object or a thoughtfully designed space becomes a profound human need. It is a search for what sociologist Richard Sennett calls “the craftsman’s ethos”—a commitment to doing a job well for its own sake, a quality that is increasingly absent from both our work and our politics (Sennett, 2008).

The newsletters document a cultural landscape characterized by simultaneous hyperprofessionalization and amateur creativity, algorithmic curation and grassroots resistance. ARTNews (October 15) reports on the “Curated by Teens” exhibition at Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts, which “real show and we ran it through our full museum process.” This democratization of curatorial authority reflects what Hito Steyerl (2012) calls “poor images”—low-resolution, widely circulated cultural artifacts that “express all the contradictions of the contemporary crowd: its opportunism, narcissism, desire for autonomy and creation, its inability to focus or make up its mind” (p. 41).

Yet simultaneously, we see extreme wealth concentration in the art market. ARTNews (October 9) reports Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Crowns (Peso Neto) “will headline Sotheby’s fall auctions in New York this fall with a high estimate of $45 million.” This stratification—amateur teen curators and $45 million paintings coexisting—reflects what Luc Boltanski and Arnaud Esquerre (2020) term “enrichment economy,” where “certain goods increase in value as they age rather than losing it” (p. 3), creating parallel economies of symbolic and financial capital.

Popular culture shows similar fragmentation. The New York Times (October 10) documents “Labubu-mania”—the viral popularity of a plushie that “has somehow become the accessory of choice for celebs, fashionistas, and downtown crowds from New York to Bangkok and Hong Kong.” The article traces how “Hong Kong and China-based toymakers” emerged from “decades of experience in toy production” for Western brands. This represents what Koichi Iwabuchi (2002) calls “recentering globalization”—cultural flows that bypass Western nodes, creating new patterns of production and consumption.

Music culture reveals ongoing struggles over authenticity and appropriation. Bloomberg (October 11) reports that “Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem attacked the country music star Zach Bryan for a new song that says ICE ‘is going to come bust down your door.’” This collision between country music’s working-class roots and its contemporary political alignment with immigration enforcement exemplifies what Barbara Ching (2001) calls “the possum, the hag, and the rhinestone cowboy”—the constant negotiation between populist authenticity and commercial success in country music.

The newsletters also document D’Angelo’s death at 51, with The New York Times (October 15) noting his “innovative and sensuous take” on R&B but also his retreat from public life. Music critic Jon Pareles observes that D’Angelo “could be a one-man studio band in the mold of Prince and Stevie Wonder” but “spent much of the rest of his career removed from the public eye.” This withdrawal from spectacle—in an age demanding constant visibility—itself becomes a form of resistance, what Tressie McMillan Cottom (2019) might call “refusing to be legible” to market forces (p. 164).

Returning to the construction of political martyrdom around Charlie Kirk, the newsletters reveal how death becomes instrumentalized in contemporary politics. The New York Times (October 14) provides a chilling taxonomy of martyrdom effectiveness, comparing Kirk favorably to George Floyd and unfavorably to Ashli Babbitt in terms of “a public, dramatic and ‘innocent’ death” that has “a cause linked to them” and requires “a powerful movement.”

This clinical analysis of martyrdom mechanics reveals what Walter Benjamin (1940/2007) called “the aestheticization of politics,” where “its logical result is the introduction of aesthetics into political life... Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate” (p. 269). The Kirk martyrology serves precisely this function: channeling genuine social frustrations into symbolic politics that leave power structures intact.

The theological dimensions become explicit in newsletter descriptions of Kirk as a “MAGA saint” and comparisons to Roman Christian martyrs. This fusion of political and religious symbolism echoes what Carl Schmitt (1922/2005) argued in Political Theology: “All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts” (p. 36). The Kirk cult represents the reverse movement—the resacralization of politics, creating what might be called a “partisan civil religion” that sanctifies division rather than seeking unity.

The practical consequences are documented throughout the newsletters: visa cancellations, deportation threats, systematic targeting of “liberal groups,” and what The New York Times calls “normalizing the American military in major Democratic cities.” This reflects what Enzo Traverso (2017) terms “the new faces of fascism,” arguing that contemporary right-wing movements “do not need to copy the aesthetics, rituals, and policies of the interwar years to deserve being defined as fascist” (p. 15). Instead, they adapt these patterns to contemporary conditions, using social media virality rather than mass rallies, financial pressure rather than street violence, administrative power rather than paramilitaries.

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

Three analytic moves unify the items:

1. Sociotechnical coupling. Infrastructures (airports, biometric gates, AI datacentres) succeed or fail as socio-technical systems: hardware + code + trained personnel + governance + ritual. Failures are often failures of coupling, not purely of engineering (Star & Bowker, 1999; Larkin, 2013).

2. Narratives as economic forces. Markets are not merely aggregators of fundamentals; they are story processors. The AI narrative concentrates capital and attention (Shiller), while tariff-rhetoric or export controls puncture those narratives. Tetlock’s work on expert judgment reminds us that forecast cultures can be blind to narrative dynamics and institutional friction. (Shiller, 2000; Tetlock, 2005)

3. Memory vs. mobility as modes of politics. The newsletter’s design and memorial items (spomeniks, sofas, craft) represent modes of rootedness and long-durational value; the airports, biometrics, AI signify mobility, acceleration, and sometimes disposability. The political choices we make about which to prioritize will shape inequality, cultural continuity and resilience.

Taken together, these items argue for a political economy that treats technology and culture as co-constitutive: infrastructure is not neutral; it both shapes and is shaped by social practice, memory and power.

The newsletter’s snapshots offer several policy and intellectual takeaways:

• Investments in hardware must be matched by investments in human capital, regulatory capacity and institutional design (Greenland).

• Technological transitions (biometrics, AI) must be staged with humility about failure modes and the social rituals they displace (passport stamps as civic technologies).

• Market narratives can produce concentration and fragility; industrial policy (supply chains, critical minerals) is re-emerging as a legitimate lever of geopolitics.

• Cultural practices of craft and memorialization matter politically: they provide resilience, social memory and alternative temporalities to market haste.

Taken together, these newsletter fragments reveal not chaos but a kind of systematic fragmentation—what might be called “organized disorganization.” Multiple overlapping patterns emerge:

Selective infrastructure deployment: The government shutdown demonstrates that infrastructure need not be maintained universally but can be wielded as political weapon, rewarding allies and punishing enemies. This represents the spatially selective application of what Neil Brenner (2004) calls “new state spaces”—where “the national scale is no longer the privileged geographical scaffolding for state regulatory projects” (p. 475).

Supply chain weaponization: The rare earth confrontation exemplifies how globalization’s connective tissue becomes coercive leverage. As Farrell and Newman (2019) argue, “globalization has created vulnerabilities that can be exploited” (p. 45). We are witnessing the transition from “comparative advantage” trade theory to something closer to strategic game theory.

Algorithmic cultural production: The proliferation of AI-generated “slop” and the infrastructure built to support it reflects what Jonathan Crary (2013) calls “24/7 capitalism”—systems “dissolving the boundaries between work and non-work time” and creating “a time without breaks, without pause, without community” (p. 17). Cultural production becomes automated, infinite, and paradoxically meaningless.

Martyrological politics: The rapid construction of sacred meaning around political deaths demonstrates how traditional religious structures colonize secular politics, creating partisan theologies that sanctify division and justify extraordinary measures. This represents the dark side of what Robert Bellah hoped “American civil religion” might provide—not unifying myth but sectarian warfare.

Environmental triage: The differential investment in clean energy—massive in China, limited in the U.S.—suggests a bifurcating future where climate adaptation becomes yet another dimension of inequality. Some regions and populations will transition successfully; others will not.

These patterns interconnect through what Saskia Sassen (2014) calls “expulsions”—”the systemic logics of expulsion” through which “growing numbers of people are expelled from the orders that have shaped much of modernity: contract, membership, participation” (p. 213). The newsletters document multiple forms of expulsion: democratic norms expelled by authoritarian practices, civil discourse expelled by algorithmic amplification of outrage, cooperative internationalism expelled by strategic competition, stable climate conditions expelled by continued carbon emissions, workers expelled by automation, migrants expelled by intensified border enforcement.

Yet expulsion creates its own dialectic. The grassroots resistance in Chicago to ICE raids, the teen curators at major museums, the viral spread of political satire, the continued production of meaningful art despite market commodification—these represent what Raymond Williams (1977) called “structures of feeling,” the “practical consciousness of a present kind, in a living and interrelating continuity” that exists “in the most delicate and least tangible parts of our activity” (p. 132).

The question these newsletters pose is whether such structures of feeling—emergent, not yet fully formed—can cohere into effective counterforces to the systematic fragmentations they document. Or whether, as Walter Benjamin warned in his “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” “even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he wins” (1940/2007, p. 255). The newsletters suggest we are living through a decisive moment—not the “end of history” that Francis Fukuyama prematurely announced, but something more like what Gramsci (1971) described as an interregnum: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear” (p. 276).

The morbid symptoms are everywhere evident in these newsletters. Whether they presage death or merely difficult birth remains to be seen.

Ultimately, this newsletter’s interrelations—economic ambitions fueling social mobility, political gambits reshaping cultural narratives—evoke a Hegelian dialectic, where thesis (global integration) meets antithesis (nationalist retrenchment) in a fraught synthesis. As Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel posits in Phenomenology of Spirit (Hegel, 1807/1977), history progresses through contradictions: today’s AI-fueled rallies and Gaza ceasefires may presage tomorrow’s equilibria or escalations. Drawing from non-fiction like Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (Klein, 2007), which warns of crises exploited for neoliberal gains, we see Trump’s shutdowns and tariffs as “disaster capitalism” incarnate. Yet, literature offers hope: in Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude (García Márquez, 1967/1970), Macondo’s cycles of boom and bust remind us that isolation breeds phantoms, urging interconnection. This 2025 snapshot, then, is not endpoint but invitation—to reflect, associate, and act amid the flux.

The newsletter, therefore, presents a world of stark and unresolved contradictions. It is a world where a peace deal in Gaza is celebrated as a “new beginning” even as its foundations are acknowledged to be “fragile.” It is a world where stock markets soar on the promise of AI while gold, the ultimate safe haven, hits an all-time high, signaling a deep-seated fear of the very system that is generating that wealth. It is a world that is simultaneously more connected than ever through digital networks and yet more atomized and distrustful in its social relations.

This is the world we have built: a world of immense power and profound vulnerability, of grand geopolitical gambits and quiet, local acts of creation. To navigate it, we must hold these contradictions in our minds at once, recognizing that the future will not be determined solely by the actions of presidents and CEOs, but also by the choices of artisans, the resilience of communities, and our own capacity to seek out and create meaning in an age of slop.

Share

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3

Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception (K. Attell, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Schocken Books.

Arendt, H. (1963). On revolution. Viking Press.

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1981)

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

Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Polity Press.

Bellah, R. N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96(1), 1–21.

Benjamin, W. (2007). Theses on the philosophy of history. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 253–264). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1940)

Betts, A. (2013). Survival migration: Failed governance and the crisis of displacement. Cornell University Press.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.

Boltanski, L., & Esquerre, A. (2020). Enrichment: A critique of commodities (C. Porter, Trans.). Polity Press.

Boym, S. (2001). The Future of Nostalgia. Basic Books.

Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University Press.

Buzan, B. (1991). People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post-Cold War era (2nd ed.). Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton.

Ching, B. (2001). Wrong’s what I do best: Hard country music and contemporary culture. Oxford University Press.

Collier, P. (2007). The bottom billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it. Oxford University Press.

Cottom, T. M. (2019). Thick: And other essays. The New Press.

Crary, J. (2013). 24/7: Late capitalism and the ends of sleep. Verso.

Debord, G. (1994). The society of the spectacle (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Zone Books. (Original work published 1967)

Easterly, W. (2006). The white man’s burden: Why the West’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. Penguin Press.

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351

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

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1978)

García Márquez, G. (1970). One hundred years of solitude (G. Rabassa, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1967).

Girard, R. (2005). Violence and the sacred (P. Gregory, Trans.). Continuum. (Original work published 1972)

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

Gupta, A. (2012). Red tape: Bureaucracy, structural violence, and poverty in India. Duke University Press.

Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Harper.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1807).

Holston, J. (2008). Insurgent citizenship: Disjunctions of democracy and modernity in Brazil. Princeton University Press.

Honig, B. (2009). Emergency politics: Paradox, law, democracy. Princeton University Press.

Iwabuchi, K. (2002). Recentering globalization: Popular culture and Japanese transnationalism. Duke University Press.

Jaffa, H. V. (1959). Crisis of the house divided: An interpretation of the issues in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. University of Chicago Press.

Kerouac, J. (1957). On the road. Viking Press.

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

Krugman, P. (1994). Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/20045917

Larkin, B. (2013). The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 327–343.

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.

Mackay, C. (1995). Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. Wordsworth Editions. (Original work published 1841)

Malm, A. (2016). Fossil capital: The rise of steam power and the roots of global warming. Verso.

Manela, E. (2007). The Wilsonian moment: Self-determination and the international origins of anticolonial nationalism. Oxford University Press.

Minsky, H. P. (1986). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. Yale University Press.

Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the web of life: Ecology and the accumulation of capital. Verso.

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg.

Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. Yale University Press.

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

Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press.

Tanizaki, J. (1933). In praise of shadows (T. J. Harper & E. G. Seidensticker, Trans.). Leete’s Island Books. (Original work published 1933).

Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton University Press.

Tooze, A. (2018, November 29). The economics of the data center. The New York Review of Books. https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/11/29/the-economics-of-the-data-center/

Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage.

Yanagi, S. (1972). The unknown craftsman: A Japanese insight into beauty (B. Leach, Ed.). Kodansha International.

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 17, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (October 17, 2025).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (October 17, 2025). Runways, Rituals, and Rare Earths: Infrastructure Fragility, Biometric Mobility, and the Geopolitics of AI. Open Access Blog.