The newsletter excerpts from December 11-17, 2025—spanning Monocle’s urbane reportage, ARTnews’s cultural market observations, Semafor’s technology analysis, and Newsweek’s geopolitical commentary, complemented by items from Bloomberg, CNBC, the Economist and the New York Times —offer a palimpsest of contemporary anxieties and emergent possibilities. These are not mere snippets of news but rather symptoms of deeper structural transformations unfolding across political legitimacy, cultural reproduction, spatial imagination, and the fragile architecture of civil society. To read these newsletters reflectively is to recognize them as what Walter Benjamin might have termed “dialectical images”—constellations of historical forces crystallized in the present moment, demanding interpretation through both synchronic analysis and diachronic awareness.

The newsletter snippets offer a mosaic of global narratives, weaving together economic forecasts, geopolitical tensions, cultural revivals, and market volatilities. At their core, these pieces—from Monocle’s dispatches on European and Latin American affairs to ARTNews’ coverage of luxury auctions in Abu Dhabi, DealBook’s analyses of U.S. policy pivots, and CNBC’s market updates—paint a world in flux. Economically, they highlight resilient growth in nations like Spain and Brazil amid immigration and resource booms, juxtaposed with U.S. market jitters over AI infrastructure debt and Federal Reserve rate cuts. Socially, stories of heroism amid the Bondi Beach terrorist attack and rising antisemitism underscore societal fractures, while cultural vignettes revive literary cafés and celebrate soft power through Mexican cuisine and Swiss design. Policy-wise, Trump’s aggressive stances on Venezuela, crypto deregulation, and tariffs signal a return to state capitalism, intersecting with European debates on emissions and defense. Culturally, the opulence of Sotheby’s Abu Dhabi sales reflects the Gulf’s pivot from oil to art tourism. Integratively, these threads reveal a post-pandemic world where economic optimism coexists with social precarity, policy disruptions amplify cultural identities, and global interdependencies—fueled by migration, tech, and trade—foster both innovation and inequality. Yet, their interrelations expose deeper tensions: economic gains often rely on social policies like immigration reform, while cultural soft power masks policy hardball, as seen in Mexico’s ascent amid U.S. trade wars.

This commentary proceeds through an associative methodology that resists linear exposition in favor of what philosopher Edward Said termed “secular criticism”: the practice of connecting disparate cultural phenomena to broader patterns of power, resistance, and human possibility (Said, 1983). The newsletters reveal at least five interlocking problematics that warrant sustained reflection: (1) the legitimation of political power through ethical claims amid corruption; (2) the demographic and cultural transformations reshaping European society; (3) the erosion and potential reimagining of spaces devoted to intellectual encounter; (4) the eruption of violence against marginal communities and the question of civil courage; and (5) the mutation of consumption, luxury, and cultural capital in what Jean Baudrillard might recognize as the hyperreal reaches of late capitalism.

December 2025 presents a moment of profound contradiction—economic indices reach new heights while fundamental vulnerabilities proliferate beneath the surface. Through the fragmented prism of these newsletters, we observe a global landscape caught between technological exuberance and geopolitical turbulence, between consumer abundance and systemic fragility. This brief commentary will examine the intersecting narratives of economic transformation, cultural displacement, and power realignment that define our contemporary moment.

The newsletter bundle, thus, stages a compact drama of our present political–economic–cultural conjuncture: resurgent national narratives (Spain, Brazil, Denmark, Chile), the mobilisation of culture as geoeconomic asset (Abu Dhabi, Mexico, museum repatriation), the commodification and theatre of luxury (Mytheresa, Sotheby’s), and the stress-lines of civic life (Bondi Beach). These items are not discrete curiosities; read together they show how (1) states and private actors co-produce value through culture and infrastructure, (2) public safety and social cohesion have immediate economic consequences, and (3) markets of taste (auctions, luxury maisons) are now instruments of statecraft and capital formation.

The Monocle feature on Spain’s emergence as “Europe’s new economic powerhouse” presents a political paradox that deserves closer examination (Stocker, 2025). Spain’s sustained economic growth (3.5% in 2024), progressive gender parity in parliament (43% female representation), immigration integration, and infrastructure investment coexist with the “Caso Koldo” corruption scandal and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s ethically principled but politically isolated positions on Gaza, abortion, and disinformation. The essay’s concluding observation—”whether it comes from a genuine place or is mere expediency almost misses the point: he’s a talented politician”—harbors a philosophical problem that resonates with Max Weber’s distinction between the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility (Weber, 1919).

For Weber, the statesman faces an irreconcilable tension: the moral imperative to act according to one’s principles may conflict with the pragmatic necessity of maintaining power to achieve any good at all. Sánchez’s stance appears to embrace the ethics of conviction—his explicit condemnation of Gaza operations as genocide, his constitutional commitment to abortion rights, his principled refusal to elevate defense spending to NATO expectations—yet such stances risk rendering him politically homeless, dependent on coalition partners and vulnerable to electoral backlash. The Monocle essayist suggests that this distinction between genuine conviction and strategic calculation is “almost” beside the point, yet this move too easily forecloses the question that Hannah Arendt identified as fundamental to political thought: What is the responsibility of leaders in democratic societies when conscience and institutional power diverge?

The broader context matters: Sánchez governs in a Spain riven by regional nationalism, far-right mobilization, and—as suggested by Spanish scholar research on media autonomy—a journalism field structurally vulnerable to polarization and disinformation (Cogitatiopress, 2025). In such a landscape, Sánchez’s ethical positioning may function as what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu termed “symbolic capital”—not a reflection of genuine moral conviction but rather a form of cultural authority deployed to maintain legitimacy among progressive constituencies (Bourdieu, 1986). This is not to accuse Sánchez of insincerity, but rather to suggest that in contemporary European politics, the performance of ethics has become inseparable from the substance of ethical practice. The very act of loudly proclaiming one’s principles becomes a strategy for differentiation in a market saturated with populist competitors.

Yet the “Caso Koldo” cannot be dismissed as mere political theater. The involvement of former transport minister José Luis Ábalos, adviser Koldo García, and party secretary-general Santos Cerdán in corruption investigations points to what political theorist David Held might recognize as a legitimacy deficit that transcends any individual politician’s rhetorical gestures (Held, 1995). When a governing coalition depends upon parties like ERC and Junts—themselves regional nationalist forces—to maintain parliamentary majorities, every claim to ethical governance becomes hostage to the very structural conditions that necessitate those claims.

The paradox deepens when we recognize that Spain’s progressive achievements—gender parity, infrastructure innovation, immigration integration—are genuine material accomplishments, not mere simulacra. The Madrid-Barcelona high-speed rail upgrade, the integration of 368,000 immigrants in 2024, the constitutional trajectory toward abortion rights—these are not merely symbolic gestures but constitute what sociologist Anthony Giddens termed “institutional reflexivity,” the capacity of modern societies to monitor and modify their own structures in response to evolving challenges (Giddens, 1990). Spain’s apparent success suggests that progressive governance is possible even amid global nativist backlash, yet the Caso Koldo scandal reminds us that such success remains vulnerable to the old pathologies of party capture and insider dealing.

The December newsletters present a portrait of an economy increasingly organized around artificial intelligence as both promise and peril. Oracle’s reported earnings miss, despite “the biggest cloud-computing deal in history” with OpenAI, embodies what economist Robert J. Shiller identified as “narrative economics”—where market valuations are increasingly untethered from traditional fundamentals (Shiller, 2019, p. 4). The financial markets’ contradictory reactions—record stock indexes alongside growing investor skepticism toward AI infrastructure companies like Oracle and CoreWeave—reveal what Shiller describes as “the human element in economic behavior,” where stories about technological transformation drive market dynamics despite uncertain underlying value (2019, p. 218).

Walter Benjamin’s prophetic observations on technological transformation resonate here. In his 1936 essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” he noted that “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (Benjamin, 1936/2008, p. 22). Today’s AI reproduction technologies—Disney’s licensing characters to OpenAI’s Sora, Monocle’s digital news briefings—demonstrate how digital reproduction detaches cultural value from traditional ownership structures, creating new economic models that promise abundance while simultaneously threatening established revenue streams.

Two pieces crystallise a familiar pattern of the 2020s: domestic performance (growth, immigration policy, social measures) buys international leverage, while resource and cultural assets underpin geopolitical bargaining.

Ed Stocker’s appraisal of Spain highlights a pragmatic, mixed-model recovery—investment in high-speed infrastructure, tourism and a policy of pragmatic immigration to offset demographic decline—that produces the rare combination of progressive rhetoric and growth metrics (Spain: +3.5% in 2024; robust arrivals in 2024). This model offers an argument against simplistic left/right binaries: inclusive labour-market policy and targeted public investment can coexist with competitiveness (Stocker).

Bryan Harris’s note on Brazil underscores a complementary dynamic: institutional resilience (the prosecution of a former president) together with strategic resource leverage (lithium, copper, rare earths) positions Brasília as a partner of choice in a fragmented global order—yet reminds us that political reforms (budgetary transparency, curbs on clientelism) remain binding constraints on long-term gains.

Two analytic frames are useful here. First, Saskia Sassen’s global city thesis helps explain why states pursue cultural and infrastructural projects to claim nodal status in networks of capital and knowledge (Sassen, 1991). Second, David Harvey’s account of neoliberalisation explains why private actors (luxury platforms, auction houses) now act as quasi-state brokers of value: the built environment, heritage and consumption are monetised and repurposed for accumulation (Harvey, 2005).

Analytically, the economic dimensions dominate, portraying a bifurcated global landscape where progressive policies yield dividends but face populist backlashes. Monocle’s laudatory take on Spain’s 3.5% GDP growth in 2024, driven by tourism, manufacturing, and migrant integration (368,000 arrivals that year), echoes scholarly arguments on immigration as an economic elixir. As Borjas (2016) posits in We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative, “Immigrants fill labor shortages in aging societies, boosting productivity without displacing natives” (p. 112), a resonance evident in Spain’s gender parity and infrastructure upgrades. Similarly, Brazil’s leverage in strategic minerals like lithium positions it as a geopolitical swing player, per DealBook’s notes on Trump’s tariff retreats, aligning with Rodrik’s (2018) framework in Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy, where emerging markets exploit global fragmentation for “long-term growth through structured investments” (p. 201). Yet, these gains interrelate with social costs: Spain’s high unemployment (over 10%) and Brazil’s unreformed parliamentary perks highlight Piketty’s (2014) inequality thesis in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, warning that unchecked growth exacerbates divides unless redistributed. In the U.S., CNBC’s coverage of Fed rate cuts to 3.5%-3.75% amid resilient 2.3% GDP forecasts for 2026 suggests a “soft landing,” but AI debt burdens (e.g., Oracle’s $15 billion capex hike) evoke Schumpeter’s (1942) creative destruction in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, where innovation’s “gales” risk financial instability if not balanced by regulation.

Growth without stronger institutional governance (transparency, rule-of-law, redistributive mechanisms) risks producing brittle legitimacy: international influence can rise even as domestic fault-lines—inequality, corruption, social exclusion—deepen.

The Monocle piece emphasizes Spain’s recognition that “its ageing workforce needs a boost,” reflected in amended immigration laws and the welcome of 368,000 new arrivals in 2024—placing the country in the top five OECD nations for immigration. This pragmatic embrace of immigration stands in stark relief against the nativist rhetoric dominating elsewhere in Europe and North America. Yet the deeper significance extends beyond economic calculation: it reflects a civilizational choice about whether European societies will metabolize demographic change through cultural pluralism or through fortress-like resistance.

European demographers and policy scholars increasingly recognize that aging societies face a trilemma: either accept immigration at significant scale, radically restructure pension and healthcare systems through intergenerational transfer mechanisms, or accept economic stagnation (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2025). Spain’s choice—to pursue immigration alongside integration policies—represents what sociologist Rainer Baubock calls “transnational citizenship,” the idea that political belonging need not be zero-sum, that newcomers can contribute to economic vitality while maintaining cultural particularity (Baubock, 2009). The Canadian “Strong Pass” described in another Monocle feature reinforces this logic: by positioning domestic tourism as a nationalist project open to international participation, Canada signals that cultural identity and cosmopolitan openness need not be antagonistic.

Yet both Spain and Canada’s approaches harbor a deeper tension. Spain’s integration of immigrants occurs within a framework of “progressive, ethics-based politics,” as Monocle suggests, which implicitly positions Spain as a nation offering moral leadership to the European project. This framing—Spain as a civilizational model for how to reconcile economic dynamism, gender equality, and immigration—carries echoes of what postcolonial theorist Edward Said called “latent Orientalism,” the tendency of Western nations to position themselves as universal exemplars for others to emulate (Said, 1978). Spain’s leadership in immigration integration becomes, in this reading, less a pragmatic response to demographic necessity than a performance of cosmopolitan virtue.

Similarly, Canada’s domestic tourism campaign, despite its apparent inclusivity, subtly reasserts national identity at a moment of trade tension with the United States. The “informally-organized travel boycott of the US” and “surging nationalism” that propelled Canada Strong Pass adoption reveal that even progressive cosmopolitanism emerges from zero-sum geopolitical competition. The Canadian state instrumentalizes tourism for nationalist purposes, transforming wilderness and cultural heritage into vehicles for reasserting sovereignty and national pride. This is neither inherently condemnable nor innocent: it exemplifies what critical theorist Michel de Certeau termed “tactical” space-making, the way subaltern actors (in this case, a mid-sized nation in relation to US dominance) deploy available cultural resources to assert autonomy (de Certeau, 1984).

Several items show culture retooled as diplomatic leverage: Mexico’s rising “soft power” (tourism, gastronomy, a female president as image asset) and Abu Dhabi’s feverish museum-building and art-market courting (Sotheby’s Collectors’ Week) are twin cases of culture-as-infrastructure. Joseph Nye’s notion—soft power as attraction rather than coercion—remains analytically productive here: states use museums, festivals, and culinary prestige to shape preferences and geopolitical alignments (Nye, 2004).

But two tensions appear. First, the “instrumentalisation” of culture risks commodification: exhibitions and cultural districts can be publicity for capital flows (real-estate, luxury collecting) rather than public enrichment. ARTnews’s account of Sotheby’s pivot to luxury goods in Abu Dhabi shows how auction houses tailor formats to produce private markets that then buttress institutional collections and prestige economies.

Second, the ethics of provenance and repatriation complicate soft-power claims. Museums that function as nodes of prestige must also confront colonial legacies—returns and restitution are not merely symbolic but reconfigure legitimacy (the Smithsonian and other returns discussed in the briefings). The paradox is that cultural diplomacy depends on moral authority; contested holdings undermine that authority.

Perhaps no Monocle essay captures contemporary ambivalence about European cultural reproduction more acutely than Claudia Jacob’s meditation on literary cafés (Jacob, 2025). The closure of Rome’s Antico Caffè Greco and the “quiet” sale of Madrid’s Café Gijón to a chain represent what might be termed the commodification of intellectual space itself. These venues—wherein Baudelaire, Fellini, García Lorca, and Vallejo had gathered to debate art and politics, to shelter from state repression, to forge new aesthetic movements—embodied what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would recognize as counter-hegemonic sites of cultural production.

The café’s distinctiveness lay not merely in serving coffee and simple fare but in providing what the essay identifies as three essential conditions: political neutrality, central location, and democratic accessibility. These spatial preconditions enabled what Hannah Arendt might call natality, the human capacity to begin something new through collective deliberation (Arendt, 1958). The intellectual movements of modernity—existentialism, surrealism, anarchism—crystallized in cafés precisely because these spaces permitted the kind of prolonged, embodied encounter that digital communication cannot replicate. As Kesten’s description of the Viennese café in exile suggests, the café became “house and home, church and parliament, desert and pilgrim’s aim”—a liminal space suspended between necessity and possibility.

Yet Jacob’s essay resists melancholic nostalgia. Instead, it identifies nascent initiatives—Fenix in Rotterdam (housing migration museum with Anatolian cuisine), Tanzhaus in Zürich (dance center with integrated café), the Royal Academy of Arts’ Keeper’s House—that suggest a revival of the café principle through institutional embedding. Rather than freestanding establishments dependent on commercial viability, these new ventures integrate cafés within cultural institutions, thereby subsidizing intellectual encounter through public or philanthropic support.

This transformation itself requires interpretation. If the literary café once constituted an autonomous space for cultural production—one that could host dissidents, revolutionaries, and aesthetic experimenters regardless of commercial profitability—then its institutionalization within museums and galleries represents a form of what Bourdieu termed “cultural integration into the dominant order” (Bourdieu, 1984). The revolutionary potential of unmonitored, unfunded intellectual encounter yields to curated, institutional spaces where artistic and philosophical discourse becomes amenable to management and pedagogical purpose. Yet this need not be read as pure loss: the alternative—the complete commodification or disappearance of such spaces—might represent a greater danger to democratic culture.

Michel de Certeau’s distinction between “strategies” (institutionally imposed spatial orders) and “tactics” (creative appropriations of imposed spaces) illuminates this predicament (de Certeau, 1984). The literary café represented a tactical emergence within the built environment: intellectuals appropriated commercial establishments for purposes their proprietors may not have anticipated, creating spaces of genuine spontaneity and unpredictable encounter. The contemporary crisis is that tactics themselves have been colonized; coffee shops now actively design for intellectual productivity through ambient music, WiFi, and ergonomic seating—transforming the café into what we might term a “productivity theater” rather than a space of genuine encounter.

Walter Benjamin’s concept of the “flaneur”—the figure who wanders urban spaces in search of unexpected juxtapositions and chance encounters—becomes increasingly untenable in contemporary cities designed for efficiency and throughput (Benjamin, 1999). The literary café was fundamentally a flaneur’s space: one entered without predetermined purpose, encountered familiar and unfamiliar figures, submitted oneself to the contingency of conversation. Modern institutional replications of the café, by contrast, typically presuppose a visiting public with defined cultural-educational objectives. The spontaneity is staged; the encounter is curated.

Perhaps most poignantly, these newsletters capture the transformation of public culture and urban space. Monocle’s lamentation that “literary cafés have consistently and unfairly flown under the radar” (December 16) reveals a deeper anxiety about the loss of what sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1989) termed “third places”—social environments distinct from home and work where public discourse flourishes. The closing of Rome’s Antico Caffè Greco and Madrid’s Café Gijón, as reported, represents not merely the disappearance of historic venues but the erosion of spaces for “undirected sociability” that forms what philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1989) identified as the public sphere.

Cultural institutions face similar tensions between global circulation and local meaning. The newsletters’ coverage of Frank Gehry’s death and his unbuilt Toronto towers exemplifies architecture’s changing role in late capitalism. Gehry’s work, characterized by its sculptural complexity and technological virtuosity, represents what cultural theorist Fredric Jameson (1991) described as the “cultural logic of late capitalism”—where artistic production becomes inseparable from real estate development and global branding. The fate of Gehry’s Toronto project, dependent on presales in an already strained market, suggests that even architecture’s greatest stars must now navigate the volatile currents of speculative capital.

The tension between digital and physical cultural experiences emerges in the battle for Warner Bros. Discovery between Netflix and Paramount. This conflict isn’t merely corporate but represents competing visions of cultural production in a digitizing world. Netflix’s platform-based model versus Paramount’s traditional studio approach reflects what media scholar Henry Jenkins (2006) characterizes as “convergence culture”—where old and new media collide, creating friction at the boundaries of established industries.

The coverage of the Bondi Beach attack on Hanukkah celebrants—carried out by apparent Islamists targeting a Jewish community—erupts within the newsletters as what Andrew Mueller terms a moment of “darkness” illuminated by “a civilian’s heroism” in the form of Ahmed al-Ahmed, the 43-year-old Syrian fruit seller who disarmed one of the gunmen despite being wounded by the other (Mueller, 2025). Mueller’s essay performs significant philosophical work in what it doesn’t do: it refuses to implicate the entire Muslim community, to instrumentalize Ahmed’s heroism for anti-immigration rhetoric, or to collapse distinct phenomena (antisemitism, Islamist violence, far-right xenophobia) into a single narrative of civilizational conflict.

Instead, Mueller articulates something closer to what Arendt termed “natality” or what more recently has been theorized as “moral courage”: the human capacity to act against self-interest, to risk one’s safety for strangers, to refuse the scripts of cynicism or collective blame (Arendt, 1958; Pettit, 1997). Ahmed al-Ahmed’s intervention—arising from conscience rather than training, from what Mueller characterizes as simple moral clarity—demonstrates that civil society depends not upon institutional frameworks or legal structures primarily, but upon the incalculable willingness of individuals to act when systems fail.

Yet Mueller’s essay also gestures toward a deeper problem: the conditions that produce both terrorism and heroism simultaneously. The Bondi attack emerges from a specific context—escalating antisemitism during Israel’s war in Gaza, online radicalization, the availability of weapons despite Australia’s post-Port Arthur restrictions—that heroism alone cannot address. Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism and her later thinking about violence illuminate this tension. For Arendt, political action must always contain the possibility of a “new beginning,” yet this very capacity for action can be weaponized by those seeking to destroy political pluralism itself (Arendt, 1958). Terrorism represents, in this framework, the perversion of natality: the initiation of something radically new, but directed toward negation rather than creation.

The discourse surrounding the Bondi attack also implicates what philosopher Giorgio Agamben has termed the “state of exception”—the suspension of normal legal protections in the name of security (Agamben, 2005). Mueller notes that Australia has implemented social media bans for under-16s and tightened gun regulations, interventions that raise the question: at what point do security measures become instruments of the very domination that terrorism aims to achieve? Agamben argues that the state of exception has become the norm in modern biopolitics, that sovereignty increasingly expresses itself through the capacity to designate who counts as fully human and who is relegated to “bare life” (zoē rather than bios, biological existence rather than political life).

The targeting of a Jewish community by Islamist attackers, the subsequent far-right backlash against Muslim communities, and government responses that enhance surveillance and restriction—this escalatory cycle suggests what Agamben might recognize as the normalization of exception. Yet Mueller’s framing of Ahmed al-Ahmed’s heroism offers a counterpoint: the possibility that civil society persists not through formal institutions but through the ethical commitments of individuals willing to risk themselves. This is a fragile, minimal hope, but it resists the closure that Agamben sometimes seems to suggest.

Socially, the snippets illuminate heroism and division in a nativist era, with policy implications that ripple culturally. The Bondi Beach massacre—15 dead at a Hanukkah event—evokes Camus’ (1942) existential defiance in The Myth of Sisyphus, where the fruitseller Ahmed al Ahmed’s disarmament of a gunman mirrors the absurd hero’s rebellion: “The absurd man says yes and his effort will henceforth be unceasing” (p. 123), symbolizing societal resilience against sectarian violence. This interrelates with policy critiques in Monocle, like Australia’s social media bans for under-16s and gun lobby pushback, paralleling Sunstein’s (2018) analysis in #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media, which argues platforms amplify disinformation, fostering “echo chambers that erode civic trust” (p. 87). Culturally, Mexico’s soft power surge—45 million tourists, Michelin guides—contrasts this darkness, embodying Nye’s (2004) concept in Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, where “culture and ideals attract without coercion” (p. 11), yet DealBook notes its interplay with U.S. trade hostilities. Literary cafés’ revival, as Jacob (2025) in Monocle advocates, fosters “spirited exchanges” amid isolation, echoing Habermas’ (1989) public sphere in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, a neutral space for discourse now threatened by “takeaway culture and QR codes” (p. 159). These social-cultural ties underscore interrelations: policy inaction on hate (e.g., Iran’s linked vandalism) amplifies economic migration’s social strains, per Putnam’s (2000) Bowling Alone, where diversity challenges community bonds unless integrated.

Andrew Mueller’s dispatch on the Bondi Beach massacre sharply pivots the dossier from geopolitics and luxury to the fragility of the civic sphere. A single public-ritual (a Hanukkah gathering) became the site of political meaning: questions of social media, radicalisation, hate crime, and gun-policy reform are instantly policy-relevant (Mueller).

Two conceptual moves help: (a) Habermas’s public sphere (1962/1989) helps us see how ritualized gatherings—markets, cafés, festivals—are sites of communicative action; when those sites are terrorised, the public sphere is wounded. (b) Hannah Arendt’s reflections on violence and political space (Arendt, 1951) remind us that violence both destroys and seeks to reconstitute public meaning; heroic civilian intervention (Ahmed al-Ahmed) becomes a narrative resource for national cohesion, but it cannot substitute for structural policy (surveillance, counter-radicalisation, social media regulation).

The newsletters recommend, and the underlying debates suggest, a mixed-response: tighter platform accountability, targeted gun-law review (within Australia’s existing strong baseline), and community-level strategies for inclusion and resilience.

The newsletters document a world where geopolitical consensus has fractured. Venezuela’s oil crisis, Ukraine negotiations, and Australia’s response to the Bondi Beach attack exemplify what political scientist John Ikenberry (2018) describes as “the end of liberal internationalism.” Where post-Cold War international order relied on multilateral institutions and rules-based cooperation, today’s landscape features competing spheres of influence and unilateral actions—Trump’s “complete blockade” of Venezuelan oil tankers, Russia’s continued pressure on Ukraine despite peace negotiations, and the United States’ withdrawal from global climate leadership.

This fragmentation echoes historian Christopher Clark’s analysis of pre-WWI Europe: “The great powers of our time do not merely feel increasingly able to act independently of one another, but increasingly prefer to do so” (Clark, 2013, p. 24). The Trump administration’s simultaneous courting of autocrats and confrontation with traditional allies demonstrates a strategic recalibration that rejects the institutional frameworks of post-1945 international governance.

The economic dimensions of this realignment appear in the newsletters’ reports of U.S.-China technological competition. Despite apparent warming in some areas (Nvidia’s H200 export permission), China continues developing domestic semiconductor capabilities while simultaneously investing in European energy infrastructure through ACWA Power. This reflects what economist Dani Rodrik (2018) terms “smart globalization”—nations strategically engaging with international markets while retaining policy autonomy in critical sectors.

Policy threads reveal a Trumpian pivot to interventionism, with economic and cultural ramifications that interlink global actors. DealBook’s scrutiny of SEC crypto leniency—dropping 60% of cases, benefiting Trump-tied firms—signals cronyism, akin to Mazzucato’s (2013) critique in The Entrepreneurial State of state capitalism’s risks: “Public investment in innovation must avoid capture by private interests” (p. 176). Venezuela’s blockade, per Monocle and DealBook, disrupts China’s 80% oil imports, interrelating with Berg’s (2025) analysis of Beijing’s Latin American anxieties, echoing Friedman’s (2005) globalization in The World is Flat, where supply chains become “geopolitical weapons” (p. 421). Europe’s emissions rollback, as DealBook hints, bows to auto lobbies, per Schneider (2025) in BofA research, contrasting with Fukuyama’s (2018) Identity on populist erosion of green policies. Culturally, Abu Dhabi’s $133 million Sotheby’s haul (ARTNews) embodies petrostates’ diversification, per Khouri (2025), aligning with Florida’s (2002) creative class in The Rise of the Creative Class, where art hubs attract talent amid oil decline. These policies interrelate socially: Trump’s “America First” tariffs boost Brazil’s agribusiness but fuel xenophobia, per Monocle’s Chile election coverage, mirroring Arendt’s (1951) totalitarianism warnings in The Origins of Totalitarianism: “Ideological rigidity isolates societies” (p. 474).

Subscribe

The ARTnews coverage of Sotheby’s Abu Dhabi Collectors’ Week—generating $133 million through auctions of luxury goods ranging from a $25.3 million McLaren (driven by Ayrton Senna) to a $2.9 million Hermès Birkin bag—invites interpretation through Jean Baudrillard’s concept of simulacra and sign value (Sotheby’s, 2025). For Baudrillard, late capitalist consumer societies have progressed through four orders of simulation: the natural world, the artificial imitation of nature, the substitution of signs for the real, and finally hyperreality in which signs circulate independently of any referent (Baudrillard, 1994). The luxury auction represents perhaps the purest expression of this final order: the commodities being sold circulate primarily as signs of status, heritage, and cosmopolitan taste rather than for their use value.

The Birkin bag, for instance, becomes valuable not through the quality of its leather or craftsmanship (though these matter) but through its position within a system of signification that Baudrillard terms “sign value.” The bag’s price—which has quadrupled its estimate—derives entirely from its capacity to communicate membership in an imagined community of enlightened collectors. The MacLaren automobile similarly becomes significant not as a vehicle but as a relic from Formula 1 history, a fragment of spectacle converted into commodity. The purchasers, as ARTnews reports, include both private collectors and state-backed entities; what matters is that both orders of buyer participate in the same system of sign circulation, the same economy of distinction.

This transformation of commodities into signs operates, Pierre Bourdieu argued, as a mechanism for “cultural reproduction”—the way dominant classes maintain their position not primarily through economic domination but through the inculcation of refined taste (Bourdieu, 1984). The participation of Abu Dhabi in the luxury market, through both acquisitions and infrastructure investment (museums, retail districts, auction houses), represents a new form of what Bourdieu termed “cultural capital”: the ability to recognize and reproduce refined aesthetics, to move comfortably through spaces of cosmopolitan sophistication.

Yet this capital flows increasingly through circuits of state power rather than through the circulation of independent intellectuals and artists. As ARTnews notes, much of the art purchased at auctions in Abu Dhabi is acquired by state actors or state-backed entities. The Louvre Abu Dhabi, the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi, the Zayed National Museum—these institutions represent sovereign investments in cultural authority rather than organic developments of local intellectual life. This pattern suggests what we might term the “statification of culture”: the transformation of aesthetic judgment and cultural production into instruments of state soft power and geopolitical positioning.

A counterpoint emerges from Monocle’s coverage of artisanal craft traditions, particularly the pieces featured in sections devoted to “Edo Tokyo Kirari”: Maekawa Inden’s leather accessories incorporating traditional patterns, Ryukobo’s kumihimo cords balancing “function and beauty,” Takahashi Kobo’s ukiyo-e prints maintained since 2009 by sixth-generation practitioner Yukiko Takahashi. These pieces, though undoubtedly expensive, circulate through a logic partially exterior to Baudrillardian hyperreality. They carry the weight of genealogy, of what Walter Benjamin termed “aura”: the traces of human hands, historical time, and authentic craft (Benjamin, 1999).

The tension between commodity hyperreality (the Birkin bag, the auction house spectacle) and the persistence of auratic craft becomes legible as a bifurcation within luxury itself. On one side, the Sotheby’s market trades in pure signs, simulacra that require no grounding in materiality or history beyond narrative construction. On the other side, artisanal craft claims authenticity through its very resistance to commodification, through the integrity of the maker and the particularity of materials and technique. Yet this very distinction has been colonized by the market: artisanal authenticity has become a luxury aesthetic, a sign of taste precisely because it appears to resist commodification.

Reports on Mytheresa’s St. Moritz maison and Sotheby’s luxury-first auctions reveal an important shift in how consumption is architected: exclusivity through curated experiences and place-based theatrics. Rather than mere e-commerce, luxury firms now sell immersive, territorialised status—private clubs, archive tours, curated museum tie-ins—blending consumption with cultural capital (Mytheresa).

This is a familiar neoliberal logic—finance, taste and place fuse into extractive value chains. The result is uneven: while elite markets expand and create cultural infrastructure, the social use-value of those places for broad publics may shrink. Theorists of cultural economy (Bourdieu; Sassen; Harvey) give us tools to see these as classed spatial practices.

The death of Frank Gehry at age 96—covered in Bloomberg reporting—raises profound questions about artistic legacy, temporal duration, and the relationship between an artist’s vision and the institutional forces that complete (or abandon) their work (Altstedter, 2025). Gehry’s Toronto towers, designed across two decades as a culmination of his aesthetic and personal investment in his childhood home, remain “years away” from completion. The question posed—”Will they be completed? Can they be considered part of the builder’s legacy?”—opens onto philosophical territory explored by Martin Heidegger in his analysis of technology and authentic dwelling.

Heidegger argues that modern technology reduces beings (including human beings and the material world) to calculable resources in a process he terms “enframing” (Gestell) (Heidegger, 1954). The architectural project, from this perspective, risks becoming merely a design to be executed rather than a lived world to be inhabited. Gehry’s vision, articulated through “stacked blocks, cantilevered and twisted, then covered in faceted glass and shimmering steel,” expresses an aesthetic of dynamic movement, of forms that seem to flow and dance. Yet the translation of this vision into actual steel and glass—requiring the coordination of engineers, contractors, developers, and capital flows—necessarily submits the design to forces that exceed aesthetic intention.

The Bloomberg essay suggests that Gehry had “something to prove” through the Toronto project, that it carried significance beyond ego. This intuition deserves weight: the artist’s late works often carry an urgency about finitude, a sense that what remains unbuilt becomes irrevocably lost. Yet the conditions of contemporary construction—involving complex financial engineering, regulatory approval, and market forces—mean that even visionary architects cannot guarantee the realization of their designs.

A seemingly distinct but related phenomenon appears in ARTnews’s account of Somerset’s emergence as an art hotspot (ARTnews, 2025). A former farmland site has been transformed by Hauser & Wirth into a contemporary art gallery featuring mid-century modern masterworks and experimental design. The juxtaposition is telling: a rural English landscape, traditionally associated with agricultural production and conservative stability, becomes a site of cosmopolitan aesthetic experimentation. This transformation exemplifies what geographers term “third-wave gentrification”: the targeted redevelopment of rural and post-industrial spaces by cultural institutions seeking to establish themselves outside urban centers.

The Somerset example is particularly interesting because it reproduces, in miniaturized form, the dynamic that transforms cities like Zurich or Berlin into art destinations. Yet rural gentrification carries distinct implications: it disrupts agricultural economies, dislocates longstanding residents, and converts use value (productive farmland) into exchange value (cultural capital). This is not necessarily condemnable—cultural dynamism and aesthetic innovation matter—but it exemplifies what Harvey terms “accumulation by dispossession,” the way modern capitalism destroys organic social worlds to create zones of cultural consumption (Harvey, 2003).

The Semafor revelations about the Washington Post’s “Your Personal Podcast” feature—launching despite internal tests finding that 68-84% of scripts failed quality standards—expose a fundamental crisis in contemporary journalism (Semafor, 2025). The decision to deploy AI-generated podcasts despite documented failure represents what might be termed a capitulation of editorial judgment to technological imperative. The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, has shifted the publication toward alignment with the Trump administration; the AI podcast feature appears as a cost-cutting measure designed to generate content without meaningful human labor.

What is remarkable is not the existence of AI-generated error—machines are prone to error—but rather the decision to proceed despite knowing of systematic failures. This suggests that journalistic legitimacy has become subordinate to the appearance of technological sophistication and speed. The newsletter form itself—the daily briefing, the curated snippet, the algorithmically personalized summary—already represents a degradation of the kind of sustained, investigative journalism that Hannah Arendt recognized as essential to maintaining the “common world” that democratic deliberation requires.

The succession crisis at the British Broadcasting Corporation—following the resignation of director-general and BBC News CEO Tim Davie in a “Trump-related editing mess”—reveals how thoroughly elite cultural institutions have become entangled in the politics of the current moment. Semafor’s speculation about potential successors (James Harding from Tortoise Media, Charlotte Moore, Alex Mahon, Mark Thompson from CNN, Will Lewis from the Washington Post, Emma Tucker from the Wall Street Journal) is notable for its assumption that leadership must be drawn from the transnational elite of media professionals.

The absence of any consideration of candidates from outside this cosmopolitan, English-speaking professional class suggests the degree to which the BBC—theoretically a public institution—has become indistinguishable from commercial media enterprises. The focus on recruitment from prestigious institutions and established networks reproduces what Bourdieu terms “cultural capital” through elite socialization and network access. A genuinely democratic broadcasting institution might solicit leadership from educators, community organizers, or artists rooted in non-metropolitan contexts; instead, the BBC leadership search recycles the same personnel across London-New York-Washington circuits.

A thread connecting these disparate phenomena concerns the question of authenticity and its relationship to commodification. The literary cafés discussed by Claudia Jacob aspired to authenticity—spaces of unmediated encounter, spontaneous intellectual exchange. Yet their contemporary recovery requires institutional preservation, which inevitably constrains spontaneity. The artisanal crafts featured in Monocle claim authenticity through genealogy and technique, yet they circulate through luxury markets that are thoroughly hyperreal. Ahmed al-Ahmed’s heroism appears authentic precisely because it escapes calculation and strategic interest, yet it has been immediately subsumed into narratives of national identity and cultural valor.

What these cases suggest is that authenticity cannot be recovered or preserved; it can only be performed and negotiated. The craft of the sixth-generation ukiyo-e practitioner is “authentic” not because it escapes the market but because it maintains a certain integrity of practice despite market pressures. The literary café can be recreated institutionally, but only in attenuated form. Ahmed al-Ahmed’s courage cannot be rationalized without destroying its moral significance. These are not failures of authenticity but rather the actual conditions within which authenticity becomes possible in late modernity.

A danger in this kind of reflective analysis is the lapse into nostalgic melancholy: mourning the disappearance of authentic spaces (the literary café), authentic commodities (craft goods), authentic political action (heroism), and authentic discourse (journalism). Yet this melancholy misses the productive possibilities available within contemporary conditions. The reimagined café integrated within cultural institutions may produce new forms of intellectual exchange. The luxury market’s hyperreality may generate space for what art critics call “post-luxury conceptual functional art,” deliberate subversions of commodity logic (Objects of Affection Collection, 2025). The crisis of journalism may generate new forms of accountability journalism rooted in non-institutional contexts.

Associatively, these snippets evoke Orwell’s (1949) 1984, where disinformation (Sánchez’s warnings) and surveillance (social media bans) erode truth, interlinking with economic surveillance capitalism in Zuboff’s (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: “Behavioral data commodifies human experience” (p. 93). Philosophically, Kant’s (1784) enlightenment in “What is Enlightenment?” urges “public use of reason” in cafés, a cultural antidote to policy-driven isolation. Ultimately, the newsletters reflect a world balancing progress and peril, where economic vitality demands social cohesion, policy boldness risks cultural erasure, and interrelations demand nuanced stewardship—as Arendt might say, to preserve the “plurality” of human affairs.

What unites these phenomena, despite their apparent diversity, is a recurring concern with the conditions for the existence of a “common world”—what Hannah Arendt identified as the prerequisite for both democratic politics and meaningful culture. The literary café provided a common world in which strangers could encounter one another across social divides. Contemporary institutional museums attempt to create commons, but their curation inevitably excludes certain voices and perspectives. The luxury market creates not a common world but rather stratified access to aesthetic experience. The attacks on vulnerable communities (as in Bondi Beach) and the state’s security responses both threaten the possibility of shared civic life. The collapse of journalism means the dissolution of forums in which common factual reality can be negotiated.

Ahmed al-Ahmed’s heroism—his immediate, bodily response to violence—reasserts the possibility of a common world constituted through risk and ethical commitment. This is not a political program, not a policy proposal, but rather a reminder that even in the darkest moments, the human capacity for courage, for refusing to accept what Arendt termed “the banality of evil,” persists.

The newsletters of December 11-17, 2025 contain no explicit philosophical argument, yet they constitute what we might term a “practical philosophy”—a demonstration through concrete examples of how the great themes of political theory, aesthetics, and ethics persist in the quotidian world. Spain’s wager on progressive integration, the death of beloved intellectual spaces, the eruption of violence and its response through heroism, the mutations of luxury and consumption, the ongoing crisis of democratic institutions—these are not separate phenomena but rather expressions of a shared condition: the fragility of modernity itself.

What the newsletters suggest, read against philosophical and scholarly contexts, is that the question facing contemporary civilization is not whether modernity will survive—modernity will persist because it constitutes the only framework within which most of us can imagine living—but rather what forms of attention, what practices of care, what commitments to the common world can persist within modernity’s contradictions. The literary café may be dying, but the human need for encounter and dialogue cannot be extinguished. Heroism may be increasingly rare, but its existence demonstrates what remains possible. Artisanal craft may be subsumed into luxury markets, yet it carries forward a tradition of authentic making that haunts hyperreality. Democratic institutions may be in crisis, yet new forms of journalism and intellectual production continue to emerge.

The question is not whether we can return to some imagined authentic past, but rather whether we can learn to inhabit the complex, mediated, compromised present with sufficient attention, care, and ethical commitment to preserve the possibility of a common world.

Reading these newsletters reveals a world simultaneously more interconnected and more fragmented than at any previous moment. The economic exuberance around AI infrastructure exists alongside warnings of a potential bubble; international tensions over resources and territory develop in the shadow of unprecedented global communication networks; cultural institutions struggle to maintain their traditional missions while adapting to digital imperatives.

Political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1958) observed that “the world we have lost did not merely consist of material things that could be replaced... it was the world in which we found our place and our meaning” (p. 55). The newsletters from December 2025 document precisely this search for place and meaning amid profound transformation. Whether in the economic sphere (Oracle’s ambitious bets), the political realm (Venezuela sanctions), or cultural spaces (literary cafés), established frames of reference are being challenged and reconfigured.

What might allow us to navigate this terrain with wisdom? Perhaps the answer lies in sociologist Zygmunt Bauman’s (2000) concept of “liquid modernity”—recognizing that contemporary life requires flexibility without losing sight of enduring human values. The newsletters present both warning signs of fragmentation and hopeful examples of adaptation: the Louvre’s response to staffing shortages, the reinvention of retail through Mytheresa’s Alpine pop-up, and the continued resilience of physical gathering spaces like Tokyo’s Kabuki theater performances in Saudi Arabia.

As winter 2025 deepens, these newsletters offer not merely news items but windows onto the human condition in transition. Their interconnections—between AI investments and oil sanctions, between cultural preservation and digital transformation—reveal that we inhabit not separate spheres but an integrated, albeit often contradictory, reality. In navigating this landscape, we might heed philosopher Amartya Sen’s (1999) reminder that economic development and cultural progress must ultimately be measured in terms of human freedoms rather than narrow metrics of growth or technological advancement.

Taken together, the newsletter week shows a world where soft power, hard resources, cultural prestige and civic safety are interlocked. States and private actors pursue prestige and profit through museums, festivals, infrastructure and auctions; but the viability of these projects depends on domestic legitimacy and ethical stewardship (repatriation, social inclusion, security). The prescriptive edge is clear: cultural policy must be coherent with social policy and institutional reform. Otherwise, the spectacle of prestige will increasingly ring hollow.

Subscribe

Agamben, G. (2005). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life (D. Heller-Roazen, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

Altstedter, A. (2025, December 11). When an architect dies, what happens to their legacy? Bloomberg.

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

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

Baubock, R. (2009). Transnational citizenship: Membership and rights in international perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing.

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

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

Benjamin, W. (1999). The arcades project (H. Eiland & K. McLaughlin, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Illuminations (pp. 217-251). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1936)

Borjas, G. J. (2016). We wanted workers: Unraveling the immigration narrative. W.W. Norton & Company.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979)

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Camus, A. (1942). The myth of Sisyphus (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Vintage Books (1955).

Clark, C. (2013). The sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914. Harper.

Cogitatiopress. (2025, September 24). Defining journalistic autonomy in the wake of disinformation in Spain. Media and Communication, 13(2), 10651.

de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. F. Rendall, Trans.). University of California Press.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. (2025, November 24). Europe’s demographic dilemma between aging and migration. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gehry, F. (2022, June 19). Personal communication with Bloomberg Toronto reporter Ari Altstedter.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press (Original work published 1962).

Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939-941.

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1954). The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford University Press.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241

Jacob, C. (2025, December 16). It’s time to bring the literary café back to the heart of society. Monocle, 189.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press.

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

Kant, I. (1784). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In Kant’s political writings (H. Reiss, Ed., H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). Cambridge University Press (1970).

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press.

Mueller, A. (2025, December 15). In the darkness of the Bondi Beach massacre, a civilian’s heroism gives Albanese a clear path forward. Monocle, 189.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.

Objects of Affection Collection. (2025, November 20). The simulacrum of luxury: A guide to Jean Baudrillard’s critique of consumer society.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Paragon House.

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Harcourt Brace.

Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of government and freedom. Oxford University Press.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy. Princeton University Press.

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

Said, E. W. (1983). The world, the text, and the critic. Harvard University Press.

Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Shiller, R. J. (2019). Narrative economics: How stories go viral and drive major economic events. Princeton University Press.

Sotheby’s. (2025, December 10). Abu Dhabi Collectors’ Week results: $133M in sales. Sotheby’s.

Stocker, E. (2025, December 11). Spain 2026 forecast: You may not agree with Pedro Sánchez but his country continues to take a refreshing stance. Monocle, 189.

Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.

Weber, M. (1919). Politics as a vocation. In From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (C. Wright Mills & H. H. Gerth, Eds., pp. 77-128). Oxford University Press.

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 Grok, xAI, Comet, Perplexity, Qwen, Alibaba, and ChatGPT, OpenAI, tools (December 20, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (December 20, 2025).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (December 20, 2025). The Digital States of Exception of Late-Capitalist Modernity: Hyperreality and Consumption, Intellectual Spaces in Crisis and Demographic Transition. Open Access Blog.

Share

The newsletter excerpts from December 11-17, 2025—spanning Monocle’s urbane reportage, ARTnews’s cultural market observations, Semafor’s technology analysis, and Newsweek’s geopolitical commentary, complemented by items from Bloomberg, CNBC, the Economist and the New York Times —offer a palimpsest of contemporary anxieties and emergent possibilities. These are not mere snippets of news but rather symptoms of deeper structural transformations unfolding across political legitimacy, cultural reproduction, spatial imagination, and the fragile architecture of civil society. To read these newsletters reflectively is to recognize them as what Walter Benjamin might have termed “dialectical images”—constellations of historical forces crystallized in the present moment, demanding interpretation through both synchronic analysis and diachronic awareness.

The newsletter snippets offer a mosaic of global narratives, weaving together economic forecasts, geopolitical tensions, cultural revivals, and market volatilities. At their core, these pieces—from Monocle’s dispatches on European and Latin American affairs to ARTNews’ coverage of luxury auctions in Abu Dhabi, DealBook’s analyses of U.S. policy pivots, and CNBC’s market updates—paint a world in flux. Economically, they highlight resilient growth in nations like Spain and Brazil amid immigration and resource booms, juxtaposed with U.S. market jitters over AI infrastructure debt and Federal Reserve rate cuts. Socially, stories of heroism amid the Bondi Beach terrorist attack and rising antisemitism underscore societal fractures, while cultural vignettes revive literary cafés and celebrate soft power through Mexican cuisine and Swiss design. Policy-wise, Trump’s aggressive stances on Venezuela, crypto deregulation, and tariffs signal a return to state capitalism, intersecting with European debates on emissions and defense. Culturally, the opulence of Sotheby’s Abu Dhabi sales reflects the Gulf’s pivot from oil to art tourism. Integratively, these threads reveal a post-pandemic world where economic optimism coexists with social precarity, policy disruptions amplify cultural identities, and global interdependencies—fueled by migration, tech, and trade—foster both innovation and inequality. Yet, their interrelations expose deeper tensions: economic gains often rely on social policies like immigration reform, while cultural soft power masks policy hardball, as seen in Mexico’s ascent amid U.S. trade wars.

This commentary proceeds through an associative methodology that resists linear exposition in favor of what philosopher Edward Said termed “secular criticism”: the practice of connecting disparate cultural phenomena to broader patterns of power, resistance, and human possibility (Said, 1983). The newsletters reveal at least five interlocking problematics that warrant sustained reflection: (1) the legitimation of political power through ethical claims amid corruption; (2) the demographic and cultural transformations reshaping European society; (3) the erosion and potential reimagining of spaces devoted to intellectual encounter; (4) the eruption of violence against marginal communities and the question of civil courage; and (5) the mutation of consumption, luxury, and cultural capital in what Jean Baudrillard might recognize as the hyperreal reaches of late capitalism.

December 2025 presents a moment of profound contradiction—economic indices reach new heights while fundamental vulnerabilities proliferate beneath the surface. Through the fragmented prism of these newsletters, we observe a global landscape caught between technological exuberance and geopolitical turbulence, between consumer abundance and systemic fragility. This brief commentary will examine the intersecting narratives of economic transformation, cultural displacement, and power realignment that define our contemporary moment.

The newsletter bundle, thus, stages a compact drama of our present political–economic–cultural conjuncture: resurgent national narratives (Spain, Brazil, Denmark, Chile), the mobilisation of culture as geoeconomic asset (Abu Dhabi, Mexico, museum repatriation), the commodification and theatre of luxury (Mytheresa, Sotheby’s), and the stress-lines of civic life (Bondi Beach). These items are not discrete curiosities; read together they show how (1) states and private actors co-produce value through culture and infrastructure, (2) public safety and social cohesion have immediate economic consequences, and (3) markets of taste (auctions, luxury maisons) are now instruments of statecraft and capital formation.

The Monocle feature on Spain’s emergence as “Europe’s new economic powerhouse” presents a political paradox that deserves closer examination (Stocker, 2025). Spain’s sustained economic growth (3.5% in 2024), progressive gender parity in parliament (43% female representation), immigration integration, and infrastructure investment coexist with the “Caso Koldo” corruption scandal and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s ethically principled but politically isolated positions on Gaza, abortion, and disinformation. The essay’s concluding observation—”whether it comes from a genuine place or is mere expediency almost misses the point: he’s a talented politician”—harbors a philosophical problem that resonates with Max Weber’s distinction between the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility (Weber, 1919).

For Weber, the statesman faces an irreconcilable tension: the moral imperative to act according to one’s principles may conflict with the pragmatic necessity of maintaining power to achieve any good at all. Sánchez’s stance appears to embrace the ethics of conviction—his explicit condemnation of Gaza operations as genocide, his constitutional commitment to abortion rights, his principled refusal to elevate defense spending to NATO expectations—yet such stances risk rendering him politically homeless, dependent on coalition partners and vulnerable to electoral backlash. The Monocle essayist suggests that this distinction between genuine conviction and strategic calculation is “almost” beside the point, yet this move too easily forecloses the question that Hannah Arendt identified as fundamental to political thought: What is the responsibility of leaders in democratic societies when conscience and institutional power diverge?

The broader context matters: Sánchez governs in a Spain riven by regional nationalism, far-right mobilization, and—as suggested by Spanish scholar research on media autonomy—a journalism field structurally vulnerable to polarization and disinformation (Cogitatiopress, 2025). In such a landscape, Sánchez’s ethical positioning may function as what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu termed “symbolic capital”—not a reflection of genuine moral conviction but rather a form of cultural authority deployed to maintain legitimacy among progressive constituencies (Bourdieu, 1986). This is not to accuse Sánchez of insincerity, but rather to suggest that in contemporary European politics, the performance of ethics has become inseparable from the substance of ethical practice. The very act of loudly proclaiming one’s principles becomes a strategy for differentiation in a market saturated with populist competitors.

Yet the “Caso Koldo” cannot be dismissed as mere political theater. The involvement of former transport minister José Luis Ábalos, adviser Koldo García, and party secretary-general Santos Cerdán in corruption investigations points to what political theorist David Held might recognize as a legitimacy deficit that transcends any individual politician’s rhetorical gestures (Held, 1995). When a governing coalition depends upon parties like ERC and Junts—themselves regional nationalist forces—to maintain parliamentary majorities, every claim to ethical governance becomes hostage to the very structural conditions that necessitate those claims.

The paradox deepens when we recognize that Spain’s progressive achievements—gender parity, infrastructure innovation, immigration integration—are genuine material accomplishments, not mere simulacra. The Madrid-Barcelona high-speed rail upgrade, the integration of 368,000 immigrants in 2024, the constitutional trajectory toward abortion rights—these are not merely symbolic gestures but constitute what sociologist Anthony Giddens termed “institutional reflexivity,” the capacity of modern societies to monitor and modify their own structures in response to evolving challenges (Giddens, 1990). Spain’s apparent success suggests that progressive governance is possible even amid global nativist backlash, yet the Caso Koldo scandal reminds us that such success remains vulnerable to the old pathologies of party capture and insider dealing.

The December newsletters present a portrait of an economy increasingly organized around artificial intelligence as both promise and peril. Oracle’s reported earnings miss, despite “the biggest cloud-computing deal in history” with OpenAI, embodies what economist Robert J. Shiller identified as “narrative economics”—where market valuations are increasingly untethered from traditional fundamentals (Shiller, 2019, p. 4). The financial markets’ contradictory reactions—record stock indexes alongside growing investor skepticism toward AI infrastructure companies like Oracle and CoreWeave—reveal what Shiller describes as “the human element in economic behavior,” where stories about technological transformation drive market dynamics despite uncertain underlying value (2019, p. 218).

Walter Benjamin’s prophetic observations on technological transformation resonate here. In his 1936 essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” he noted that “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (Benjamin, 1936/2008, p. 22). Today’s AI reproduction technologies—Disney’s licensing characters to OpenAI’s Sora, Monocle’s digital news briefings—demonstrate how digital reproduction detaches cultural value from traditional ownership structures, creating new economic models that promise abundance while simultaneously threatening established revenue streams.

Two pieces crystallise a familiar pattern of the 2020s: domestic performance (growth, immigration policy, social measures) buys international leverage, while resource and cultural assets underpin geopolitical bargaining.

Ed Stocker’s appraisal of Spain highlights a pragmatic, mixed-model recovery—investment in high-speed infrastructure, tourism and a policy of pragmatic immigration to offset demographic decline—that produces the rare combination of progressive rhetoric and growth metrics (Spain: +3.5% in 2024; robust arrivals in 2024). This model offers an argument against simplistic left/right binaries: inclusive labour-market policy and targeted public investment can coexist with competitiveness (Stocker).

Bryan Harris’s note on Brazil underscores a complementary dynamic: institutional resilience (the prosecution of a former president) together with strategic resource leverage (lithium, copper, rare earths) positions Brasília as a partner of choice in a fragmented global order—yet reminds us that political reforms (budgetary transparency, curbs on clientelism) remain binding constraints on long-term gains.

Two analytic frames are useful here. First, Saskia Sassen’s global city thesis helps explain why states pursue cultural and infrastructural projects to claim nodal status in networks of capital and knowledge (Sassen, 1991). Second, David Harvey’s account of neoliberalisation explains why private actors (luxury platforms, auction houses) now act as quasi-state brokers of value: the built environment, heritage and consumption are monetised and repurposed for accumulation (Harvey, 2005).

Analytically, the economic dimensions dominate, portraying a bifurcated global landscape where progressive policies yield dividends but face populist backlashes. Monocle’s laudatory take on Spain’s 3.5% GDP growth in 2024, driven by tourism, manufacturing, and migrant integration (368,000 arrivals that year), echoes scholarly arguments on immigration as an economic elixir. As Borjas (2016) posits in We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative, “Immigrants fill labor shortages in aging societies, boosting productivity without displacing natives” (p. 112), a resonance evident in Spain’s gender parity and infrastructure upgrades. Similarly, Brazil’s leverage in strategic minerals like lithium positions it as a geopolitical swing player, per DealBook’s notes on Trump’s tariff retreats, aligning with Rodrik’s (2018) framework in Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy, where emerging markets exploit global fragmentation for “long-term growth through structured investments” (p. 201). Yet, these gains interrelate with social costs: Spain’s high unemployment (over 10%) and Brazil’s unreformed parliamentary perks highlight Piketty’s (2014) inequality thesis in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, warning that unchecked growth exacerbates divides unless redistributed. In the U.S., CNBC’s coverage of Fed rate cuts to 3.5%-3.75% amid resilient 2.3% GDP forecasts for 2026 suggests a “soft landing,” but AI debt burdens (e.g., Oracle’s $15 billion capex hike) evoke Schumpeter’s (1942) creative destruction in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, where innovation’s “gales” risk financial instability if not balanced by regulation.

Growth without stronger institutional governance (transparency, rule-of-law, redistributive mechanisms) risks producing brittle legitimacy: international influence can rise even as domestic fault-lines—inequality, corruption, social exclusion—deepen.

The Monocle piece emphasizes Spain’s recognition that “its ageing workforce needs a boost,” reflected in amended immigration laws and the welcome of 368,000 new arrivals in 2024—placing the country in the top five OECD nations for immigration. This pragmatic embrace of immigration stands in stark relief against the nativist rhetoric dominating elsewhere in Europe and North America. Yet the deeper significance extends beyond economic calculation: it reflects a civilizational choice about whether European societies will metabolize demographic change through cultural pluralism or through fortress-like resistance.

European demographers and policy scholars increasingly recognize that aging societies face a trilemma: either accept immigration at significant scale, radically restructure pension and healthcare systems through intergenerational transfer mechanisms, or accept economic stagnation (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2025). Spain’s choice—to pursue immigration alongside integration policies—represents what sociologist Rainer Baubock calls “transnational citizenship,” the idea that political belonging need not be zero-sum, that newcomers can contribute to economic vitality while maintaining cultural particularity (Baubock, 2009). The Canadian “Strong Pass” described in another Monocle feature reinforces this logic: by positioning domestic tourism as a nationalist project open to international participation, Canada signals that cultural identity and cosmopolitan openness need not be antagonistic.

Yet both Spain and Canada’s approaches harbor a deeper tension. Spain’s integration of immigrants occurs within a framework of “progressive, ethics-based politics,” as Monocle suggests, which implicitly positions Spain as a nation offering moral leadership to the European project. This framing—Spain as a civilizational model for how to reconcile economic dynamism, gender equality, and immigration—carries echoes of what postcolonial theorist Edward Said called “latent Orientalism,” the tendency of Western nations to position themselves as universal exemplars for others to emulate (Said, 1978). Spain’s leadership in immigration integration becomes, in this reading, less a pragmatic response to demographic necessity than a performance of cosmopolitan virtue.

Similarly, Canada’s domestic tourism campaign, despite its apparent inclusivity, subtly reasserts national identity at a moment of trade tension with the United States. The “informally-organized travel boycott of the US” and “surging nationalism” that propelled Canada Strong Pass adoption reveal that even progressive cosmopolitanism emerges from zero-sum geopolitical competition. The Canadian state instrumentalizes tourism for nationalist purposes, transforming wilderness and cultural heritage into vehicles for reasserting sovereignty and national pride. This is neither inherently condemnable nor innocent: it exemplifies what critical theorist Michel de Certeau termed “tactical” space-making, the way subaltern actors (in this case, a mid-sized nation in relation to US dominance) deploy available cultural resources to assert autonomy (de Certeau, 1984).

Several items show culture retooled as diplomatic leverage: Mexico’s rising “soft power” (tourism, gastronomy, a female president as image asset) and Abu Dhabi’s feverish museum-building and art-market courting (Sotheby’s Collectors’ Week) are twin cases of culture-as-infrastructure. Joseph Nye’s notion—soft power as attraction rather than coercion—remains analytically productive here: states use museums, festivals, and culinary prestige to shape preferences and geopolitical alignments (Nye, 2004).

But two tensions appear. First, the “instrumentalisation” of culture risks commodification: exhibitions and cultural districts can be publicity for capital flows (real-estate, luxury collecting) rather than public enrichment. ARTnews’s account of Sotheby’s pivot to luxury goods in Abu Dhabi shows how auction houses tailor formats to produce private markets that then buttress institutional collections and prestige economies.

Second, the ethics of provenance and repatriation complicate soft-power claims. Museums that function as nodes of prestige must also confront colonial legacies—returns and restitution are not merely symbolic but reconfigure legitimacy (the Smithsonian and other returns discussed in the briefings). The paradox is that cultural diplomacy depends on moral authority; contested holdings undermine that authority.

Perhaps no Monocle essay captures contemporary ambivalence about European cultural reproduction more acutely than Claudia Jacob’s meditation on literary cafés (Jacob, 2025). The closure of Rome’s Antico Caffè Greco and the “quiet” sale of Madrid’s Café Gijón to a chain represent what might be termed the commodification of intellectual space itself. These venues—wherein Baudelaire, Fellini, García Lorca, and Vallejo had gathered to debate art and politics, to shelter from state repression, to forge new aesthetic movements—embodied what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would recognize as counter-hegemonic sites of cultural production.

The café’s distinctiveness lay not merely in serving coffee and simple fare but in providing what the essay identifies as three essential conditions: political neutrality, central location, and democratic accessibility. These spatial preconditions enabled what Hannah Arendt might call natality, the human capacity to begin something new through collective deliberation (Arendt, 1958). The intellectual movements of modernity—existentialism, surrealism, anarchism—crystallized in cafés precisely because these spaces permitted the kind of prolonged, embodied encounter that digital communication cannot replicate. As Kesten’s description of the Viennese café in exile suggests, the café became “house and home, church and parliament, desert and pilgrim’s aim”—a liminal space suspended between necessity and possibility.

Yet Jacob’s essay resists melancholic nostalgia. Instead, it identifies nascent initiatives—Fenix in Rotterdam (housing migration museum with Anatolian cuisine), Tanzhaus in Zürich (dance center with integrated café), the Royal Academy of Arts’ Keeper’s House—that suggest a revival of the café principle through institutional embedding. Rather than freestanding establishments dependent on commercial viability, these new ventures integrate cafés within cultural institutions, thereby subsidizing intellectual encounter through public or philanthropic support.

This transformation itself requires interpretation. If the literary café once constituted an autonomous space for cultural production—one that could host dissidents, revolutionaries, and aesthetic experimenters regardless of commercial profitability—then its institutionalization within museums and galleries represents a form of what Bourdieu termed “cultural integration into the dominant order” (Bourdieu, 1984). The revolutionary potential of unmonitored, unfunded intellectual encounter yields to curated, institutional spaces where artistic and philosophical discourse becomes amenable to management and pedagogical purpose. Yet this need not be read as pure loss: the alternative—the complete commodification or disappearance of such spaces—might represent a greater danger to democratic culture.

Michel de Certeau’s distinction between “strategies” (institutionally imposed spatial orders) and “tactics” (creative appropriations of imposed spaces) illuminates this predicament (de Certeau, 1984). The literary café represented a tactical emergence within the built environment: intellectuals appropriated commercial establishments for purposes their proprietors may not have anticipated, creating spaces of genuine spontaneity and unpredictable encounter. The contemporary crisis is that tactics themselves have been colonized; coffee shops now actively design for intellectual productivity through ambient music, WiFi, and ergonomic seating—transforming the café into what we might term a “productivity theater” rather than a space of genuine encounter.

Walter Benjamin’s concept of the “flaneur”—the figure who wanders urban spaces in search of unexpected juxtapositions and chance encounters—becomes increasingly untenable in contemporary cities designed for efficiency and throughput (Benjamin, 1999). The literary café was fundamentally a flaneur’s space: one entered without predetermined purpose, encountered familiar and unfamiliar figures, submitted oneself to the contingency of conversation. Modern institutional replications of the café, by contrast, typically presuppose a visiting public with defined cultural-educational objectives. The spontaneity is staged; the encounter is curated.

Perhaps most poignantly, these newsletters capture the transformation of public culture and urban space. Monocle’s lamentation that “literary cafés have consistently and unfairly flown under the radar” (December 16) reveals a deeper anxiety about the loss of what sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1989) termed “third places”—social environments distinct from home and work where public discourse flourishes. The closing of Rome’s Antico Caffè Greco and Madrid’s Café Gijón, as reported, represents not merely the disappearance of historic venues but the erosion of spaces for “undirected sociability” that forms what philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1989) identified as the public sphere.

Cultural institutions face similar tensions between global circulation and local meaning. The newsletters’ coverage of Frank Gehry’s death and his unbuilt Toronto towers exemplifies architecture’s changing role in late capitalism. Gehry’s work, characterized by its sculptural complexity and technological virtuosity, represents what cultural theorist Fredric Jameson (1991) described as the “cultural logic of late capitalism”—where artistic production becomes inseparable from real estate development and global branding. The fate of Gehry’s Toronto project, dependent on presales in an already strained market, suggests that even architecture’s greatest stars must now navigate the volatile currents of speculative capital.

The tension between digital and physical cultural experiences emerges in the battle for Warner Bros. Discovery between Netflix and Paramount. This conflict isn’t merely corporate but represents competing visions of cultural production in a digitizing world. Netflix’s platform-based model versus Paramount’s traditional studio approach reflects what media scholar Henry Jenkins (2006) characterizes as “convergence culture”—where old and new media collide, creating friction at the boundaries of established industries.

The coverage of the Bondi Beach attack on Hanukkah celebrants—carried out by apparent Islamists targeting a Jewish community—erupts within the newsletters as what Andrew Mueller terms a moment of “darkness” illuminated by “a civilian’s heroism” in the form of Ahmed al-Ahmed, the 43-year-old Syrian fruit seller who disarmed one of the gunmen despite being wounded by the other (Mueller, 2025). Mueller’s essay performs significant philosophical work in what it doesn’t do: it refuses to implicate the entire Muslim community, to instrumentalize Ahmed’s heroism for anti-immigration rhetoric, or to collapse distinct phenomena (antisemitism, Islamist violence, far-right xenophobia) into a single narrative of civilizational conflict.

Instead, Mueller articulates something closer to what Arendt termed “natality” or what more recently has been theorized as “moral courage”: the human capacity to act against self-interest, to risk one’s safety for strangers, to refuse the scripts of cynicism or collective blame (Arendt, 1958; Pettit, 1997). Ahmed al-Ahmed’s intervention—arising from conscience rather than training, from what Mueller characterizes as simple moral clarity—demonstrates that civil society depends not upon institutional frameworks or legal structures primarily, but upon the incalculable willingness of individuals to act when systems fail.

Yet Mueller’s essay also gestures toward a deeper problem: the conditions that produce both terrorism and heroism simultaneously. The Bondi attack emerges from a specific context—escalating antisemitism during Israel’s war in Gaza, online radicalization, the availability of weapons despite Australia’s post-Port Arthur restrictions—that heroism alone cannot address. Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism and her later thinking about violence illuminate this tension. For Arendt, political action must always contain the possibility of a “new beginning,” yet this very capacity for action can be weaponized by those seeking to destroy political pluralism itself (Arendt, 1958). Terrorism represents, in this framework, the perversion of natality: the initiation of something radically new, but directed toward negation rather than creation.

The discourse surrounding the Bondi attack also implicates what philosopher Giorgio Agamben has termed the “state of exception”—the suspension of normal legal protections in the name of security (Agamben, 2005). Mueller notes that Australia has implemented social media bans for under-16s and tightened gun regulations, interventions that raise the question: at what point do security measures become instruments of the very domination that terrorism aims to achieve? Agamben argues that the state of exception has become the norm in modern biopolitics, that sovereignty increasingly expresses itself through the capacity to designate who counts as fully human and who is relegated to “bare life” (zoē rather than bios, biological existence rather than political life).

The targeting of a Jewish community by Islamist attackers, the subsequent far-right backlash against Muslim communities, and government responses that enhance surveillance and restriction—this escalatory cycle suggests what Agamben might recognize as the normalization of exception. Yet Mueller’s framing of Ahmed al-Ahmed’s heroism offers a counterpoint: the possibility that civil society persists not through formal institutions but through the ethical commitments of individuals willing to risk themselves. This is a fragile, minimal hope, but it resists the closure that Agamben sometimes seems to suggest.

Socially, the snippets illuminate heroism and division in a nativist era, with policy implications that ripple culturally. The Bondi Beach massacre—15 dead at a Hanukkah event—evokes Camus’ (1942) existential defiance in The Myth of Sisyphus, where the fruitseller Ahmed al Ahmed’s disarmament of a gunman mirrors the absurd hero’s rebellion: “The absurd man says yes and his effort will henceforth be unceasing” (p. 123), symbolizing societal resilience against sectarian violence. This interrelates with policy critiques in Monocle, like Australia’s social media bans for under-16s and gun lobby pushback, paralleling Sunstein’s (2018) analysis in #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media, which argues platforms amplify disinformation, fostering “echo chambers that erode civic trust” (p. 87). Culturally, Mexico’s soft power surge—45 million tourists, Michelin guides—contrasts this darkness, embodying Nye’s (2004) concept in Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, where “culture and ideals attract without coercion” (p. 11), yet DealBook notes its interplay with U.S. trade hostilities. Literary cafés’ revival, as Jacob (2025) in Monocle advocates, fosters “spirited exchanges” amid isolation, echoing Habermas’ (1989) public sphere in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, a neutral space for discourse now threatened by “takeaway culture and QR codes” (p. 159). These social-cultural ties underscore interrelations: policy inaction on hate (e.g., Iran’s linked vandalism) amplifies economic migration’s social strains, per Putnam’s (2000) Bowling Alone, where diversity challenges community bonds unless integrated.

Andrew Mueller’s dispatch on the Bondi Beach massacre sharply pivots the dossier from geopolitics and luxury to the fragility of the civic sphere. A single public-ritual (a Hanukkah gathering) became the site of political meaning: questions of social media, radicalisation, hate crime, and gun-policy reform are instantly policy-relevant (Mueller).

Two conceptual moves help: (a) Habermas’s public sphere (1962/1989) helps us see how ritualized gatherings—markets, cafés, festivals—are sites of communicative action; when those sites are terrorised, the public sphere is wounded. (b) Hannah Arendt’s reflections on violence and political space (Arendt, 1951) remind us that violence both destroys and seeks to reconstitute public meaning; heroic civilian intervention (Ahmed al-Ahmed) becomes a narrative resource for national cohesion, but it cannot substitute for structural policy (surveillance, counter-radicalisation, social media regulation).

The newsletters recommend, and the underlying debates suggest, a mixed-response: tighter platform accountability, targeted gun-law review (within Australia’s existing strong baseline), and community-level strategies for inclusion and resilience.

The newsletters document a world where geopolitical consensus has fractured. Venezuela’s oil crisis, Ukraine negotiations, and Australia’s response to the Bondi Beach attack exemplify what political scientist John Ikenberry (2018) describes as “the end of liberal internationalism.” Where post-Cold War international order relied on multilateral institutions and rules-based cooperation, today’s landscape features competing spheres of influence and unilateral actions—Trump’s “complete blockade” of Venezuelan oil tankers, Russia’s continued pressure on Ukraine despite peace negotiations, and the United States’ withdrawal from global climate leadership.

This fragmentation echoes historian Christopher Clark’s analysis of pre-WWI Europe: “The great powers of our time do not merely feel increasingly able to act independently of one another, but increasingly prefer to do so” (Clark, 2013, p. 24). The Trump administration’s simultaneous courting of autocrats and confrontation with traditional allies demonstrates a strategic recalibration that rejects the institutional frameworks of post-1945 international governance.

The economic dimensions of this realignment appear in the newsletters’ reports of U.S.-China technological competition. Despite apparent warming in some areas (Nvidia’s H200 export permission), China continues developing domestic semiconductor capabilities while simultaneously investing in European energy infrastructure through ACWA Power. This reflects what economist Dani Rodrik (2018) terms “smart globalization”—nations strategically engaging with international markets while retaining policy autonomy in critical sectors.

Policy threads reveal a Trumpian pivot to interventionism, with economic and cultural ramifications that interlink global actors. DealBook’s scrutiny of SEC crypto leniency—dropping 60% of cases, benefiting Trump-tied firms—signals cronyism, akin to Mazzucato’s (2013) critique in The Entrepreneurial State of state capitalism’s risks: “Public investment in innovation must avoid capture by private interests” (p. 176). Venezuela’s blockade, per Monocle and DealBook, disrupts China’s 80% oil imports, interrelating with Berg’s (2025) analysis of Beijing’s Latin American anxieties, echoing Friedman’s (2005) globalization in The World is Flat, where supply chains become “geopolitical weapons” (p. 421). Europe’s emissions rollback, as DealBook hints, bows to auto lobbies, per Schneider (2025) in BofA research, contrasting with Fukuyama’s (2018) Identity on populist erosion of green policies. Culturally, Abu Dhabi’s $133 million Sotheby’s haul (ARTNews) embodies petrostates’ diversification, per Khouri (2025), aligning with Florida’s (2002) creative class in The Rise of the Creative Class, where art hubs attract talent amid oil decline. These policies interrelate socially: Trump’s “America First” tariffs boost Brazil’s agribusiness but fuel xenophobia, per Monocle’s Chile election coverage, mirroring Arendt’s (1951) totalitarianism warnings in The Origins of Totalitarianism: “Ideological rigidity isolates societies” (p. 474).

Subscribe

The ARTnews coverage of Sotheby’s Abu Dhabi Collectors’ Week—generating $133 million through auctions of luxury goods ranging from a $25.3 million McLaren (driven by Ayrton Senna) to a $2.9 million Hermès Birkin bag—invites interpretation through Jean Baudrillard’s concept of simulacra and sign value (Sotheby’s, 2025). For Baudrillard, late capitalist consumer societies have progressed through four orders of simulation: the natural world, the artificial imitation of nature, the substitution of signs for the real, and finally hyperreality in which signs circulate independently of any referent (Baudrillard, 1994). The luxury auction represents perhaps the purest expression of this final order: the commodities being sold circulate primarily as signs of status, heritage, and cosmopolitan taste rather than for their use value.

The Birkin bag, for instance, becomes valuable not through the quality of its leather or craftsmanship (though these matter) but through its position within a system of signification that Baudrillard terms “sign value.” The bag’s price—which has quadrupled its estimate—derives entirely from its capacity to communicate membership in an imagined community of enlightened collectors. The MacLaren automobile similarly becomes significant not as a vehicle but as a relic from Formula 1 history, a fragment of spectacle converted into commodity. The purchasers, as ARTnews reports, include both private collectors and state-backed entities; what matters is that both orders of buyer participate in the same system of sign circulation, the same economy of distinction.

This transformation of commodities into signs operates, Pierre Bourdieu argued, as a mechanism for “cultural reproduction”—the way dominant classes maintain their position not primarily through economic domination but through the inculcation of refined taste (Bourdieu, 1984). The participation of Abu Dhabi in the luxury market, through both acquisitions and infrastructure investment (museums, retail districts, auction houses), represents a new form of what Bourdieu termed “cultural capital”: the ability to recognize and reproduce refined aesthetics, to move comfortably through spaces of cosmopolitan sophistication.

Yet this capital flows increasingly through circuits of state power rather than through the circulation of independent intellectuals and artists. As ARTnews notes, much of the art purchased at auctions in Abu Dhabi is acquired by state actors or state-backed entities. The Louvre Abu Dhabi, the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi, the Zayed National Museum—these institutions represent sovereign investments in cultural authority rather than organic developments of local intellectual life. This pattern suggests what we might term the “statification of culture”: the transformation of aesthetic judgment and cultural production into instruments of state soft power and geopolitical positioning.

A counterpoint emerges from Monocle’s coverage of artisanal craft traditions, particularly the pieces featured in sections devoted to “Edo Tokyo Kirari”: Maekawa Inden’s leather accessories incorporating traditional patterns, Ryukobo’s kumihimo cords balancing “function and beauty,” Takahashi Kobo’s ukiyo-e prints maintained since 2009 by sixth-generation practitioner Yukiko Takahashi. These pieces, though undoubtedly expensive, circulate through a logic partially exterior to Baudrillardian hyperreality. They carry the weight of genealogy, of what Walter Benjamin termed “aura”: the traces of human hands, historical time, and authentic craft (Benjamin, 1999).

The tension between commodity hyperreality (the Birkin bag, the auction house spectacle) and the persistence of auratic craft becomes legible as a bifurcation within luxury itself. On one side, the Sotheby’s market trades in pure signs, simulacra that require no grounding in materiality or history beyond narrative construction. On the other side, artisanal craft claims authenticity through its very resistance to commodification, through the integrity of the maker and the particularity of materials and technique. Yet this very distinction has been colonized by the market: artisanal authenticity has become a luxury aesthetic, a sign of taste precisely because it appears to resist commodification.

Reports on Mytheresa’s St. Moritz maison and Sotheby’s luxury-first auctions reveal an important shift in how consumption is architected: exclusivity through curated experiences and place-based theatrics. Rather than mere e-commerce, luxury firms now sell immersive, territorialised status—private clubs, archive tours, curated museum tie-ins—blending consumption with cultural capital (Mytheresa).

This is a familiar neoliberal logic—finance, taste and place fuse into extractive value chains. The result is uneven: while elite markets expand and create cultural infrastructure, the social use-value of those places for broad publics may shrink. Theorists of cultural economy (Bourdieu; Sassen; Harvey) give us tools to see these as classed spatial practices.

The death of Frank Gehry at age 96—covered in Bloomberg reporting—raises profound questions about artistic legacy, temporal duration, and the relationship between an artist’s vision and the institutional forces that complete (or abandon) their work (Altstedter, 2025). Gehry’s Toronto towers, designed across two decades as a culmination of his aesthetic and personal investment in his childhood home, remain “years away” from completion. The question posed—”Will they be completed? Can they be considered part of the builder’s legacy?”—opens onto philosophical territory explored by Martin Heidegger in his analysis of technology and authentic dwelling.

Heidegger argues that modern technology reduces beings (including human beings and the material world) to calculable resources in a process he terms “enframing” (Gestell) (Heidegger, 1954). The architectural project, from this perspective, risks becoming merely a design to be executed rather than a lived world to be inhabited. Gehry’s vision, articulated through “stacked blocks, cantilevered and twisted, then covered in faceted glass and shimmering steel,” expresses an aesthetic of dynamic movement, of forms that seem to flow and dance. Yet the translation of this vision into actual steel and glass—requiring the coordination of engineers, contractors, developers, and capital flows—necessarily submits the design to forces that exceed aesthetic intention.

The Bloomberg essay suggests that Gehry had “something to prove” through the Toronto project, that it carried significance beyond ego. This intuition deserves weight: the artist’s late works often carry an urgency about finitude, a sense that what remains unbuilt becomes irrevocably lost. Yet the conditions of contemporary construction—involving complex financial engineering, regulatory approval, and market forces—mean that even visionary architects cannot guarantee the realization of their designs.

A seemingly distinct but related phenomenon appears in ARTnews’s account of Somerset’s emergence as an art hotspot (ARTnews, 2025). A former farmland site has been transformed by Hauser & Wirth into a contemporary art gallery featuring mid-century modern masterworks and experimental design. The juxtaposition is telling: a rural English landscape, traditionally associated with agricultural production and conservative stability, becomes a site of cosmopolitan aesthetic experimentation. This transformation exemplifies what geographers term “third-wave gentrification”: the targeted redevelopment of rural and post-industrial spaces by cultural institutions seeking to establish themselves outside urban centers.

The Somerset example is particularly interesting because it reproduces, in miniaturized form, the dynamic that transforms cities like Zurich or Berlin into art destinations. Yet rural gentrification carries distinct implications: it disrupts agricultural economies, dislocates longstanding residents, and converts use value (productive farmland) into exchange value (cultural capital). This is not necessarily condemnable—cultural dynamism and aesthetic innovation matter—but it exemplifies what Harvey terms “accumulation by dispossession,” the way modern capitalism destroys organic social worlds to create zones of cultural consumption (Harvey, 2003).

The Semafor revelations about the Washington Post’s “Your Personal Podcast” feature—launching despite internal tests finding that 68-84% of scripts failed quality standards—expose a fundamental crisis in contemporary journalism (Semafor, 2025). The decision to deploy AI-generated podcasts despite documented failure represents what might be termed a capitulation of editorial judgment to technological imperative. The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, has shifted the publication toward alignment with the Trump administration; the AI podcast feature appears as a cost-cutting measure designed to generate content without meaningful human labor.

What is remarkable is not the existence of AI-generated error—machines are prone to error—but rather the decision to proceed despite knowing of systematic failures. This suggests that journalistic legitimacy has become subordinate to the appearance of technological sophistication and speed. The newsletter form itself—the daily briefing, the curated snippet, the algorithmically personalized summary—already represents a degradation of the kind of sustained, investigative journalism that Hannah Arendt recognized as essential to maintaining the “common world” that democratic deliberation requires.

The succession crisis at the British Broadcasting Corporation—following the resignation of director-general and BBC News CEO Tim Davie in a “Trump-related editing mess”—reveals how thoroughly elite cultural institutions have become entangled in the politics of the current moment. Semafor’s speculation about potential successors (James Harding from Tortoise Media, Charlotte Moore, Alex Mahon, Mark Thompson from CNN, Will Lewis from the Washington Post, Emma Tucker from the Wall Street Journal) is notable for its assumption that leadership must be drawn from the transnational elite of media professionals.

The absence of any consideration of candidates from outside this cosmopolitan, English-speaking professional class suggests the degree to which the BBC—theoretically a public institution—has become indistinguishable from commercial media enterprises. The focus on recruitment from prestigious institutions and established networks reproduces what Bourdieu terms “cultural capital” through elite socialization and network access. A genuinely democratic broadcasting institution might solicit leadership from educators, community organizers, or artists rooted in non-metropolitan contexts; instead, the BBC leadership search recycles the same personnel across London-New York-Washington circuits.

A thread connecting these disparate phenomena concerns the question of authenticity and its relationship to commodification. The literary cafés discussed by Claudia Jacob aspired to authenticity—spaces of unmediated encounter, spontaneous intellectual exchange. Yet their contemporary recovery requires institutional preservation, which inevitably constrains spontaneity. The artisanal crafts featured in Monocle claim authenticity through genealogy and technique, yet they circulate through luxury markets that are thoroughly hyperreal. Ahmed al-Ahmed’s heroism appears authentic precisely because it escapes calculation and strategic interest, yet it has been immediately subsumed into narratives of national identity and cultural valor.

What these cases suggest is that authenticity cannot be recovered or preserved; it can only be performed and negotiated. The craft of the sixth-generation ukiyo-e practitioner is “authentic” not because it escapes the market but because it maintains a certain integrity of practice despite market pressures. The literary café can be recreated institutionally, but only in attenuated form. Ahmed al-Ahmed’s courage cannot be rationalized without destroying its moral significance. These are not failures of authenticity but rather the actual conditions within which authenticity becomes possible in late modernity.

A danger in this kind of reflective analysis is the lapse into nostalgic melancholy: mourning the disappearance of authentic spaces (the literary café), authentic commodities (craft goods), authentic political action (heroism), and authentic discourse (journalism). Yet this melancholy misses the productive possibilities available within contemporary conditions. The reimagined café integrated within cultural institutions may produce new forms of intellectual exchange. The luxury market’s hyperreality may generate space for what art critics call “post-luxury conceptual functional art,” deliberate subversions of commodity logic (Objects of Affection Collection, 2025). The crisis of journalism may generate new forms of accountability journalism rooted in non-institutional contexts.

Associatively, these snippets evoke Orwell’s (1949) 1984, where disinformation (Sánchez’s warnings) and surveillance (social media bans) erode truth, interlinking with economic surveillance capitalism in Zuboff’s (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: “Behavioral data commodifies human experience” (p. 93). Philosophically, Kant’s (1784) enlightenment in “What is Enlightenment?” urges “public use of reason” in cafés, a cultural antidote to policy-driven isolation. Ultimately, the newsletters reflect a world balancing progress and peril, where economic vitality demands social cohesion, policy boldness risks cultural erasure, and interrelations demand nuanced stewardship—as Arendt might say, to preserve the “plurality” of human affairs.

What unites these phenomena, despite their apparent diversity, is a recurring concern with the conditions for the existence of a “common world”—what Hannah Arendt identified as the prerequisite for both democratic politics and meaningful culture. The literary café provided a common world in which strangers could encounter one another across social divides. Contemporary institutional museums attempt to create commons, but their curation inevitably excludes certain voices and perspectives. The luxury market creates not a common world but rather stratified access to aesthetic experience. The attacks on vulnerable communities (as in Bondi Beach) and the state’s security responses both threaten the possibility of shared civic life. The collapse of journalism means the dissolution of forums in which common factual reality can be negotiated.

Ahmed al-Ahmed’s heroism—his immediate, bodily response to violence—reasserts the possibility of a common world constituted through risk and ethical commitment. This is not a political program, not a policy proposal, but rather a reminder that even in the darkest moments, the human capacity for courage, for refusing to accept what Arendt termed “the banality of evil,” persists.

The newsletters of December 11-17, 2025 contain no explicit philosophical argument, yet they constitute what we might term a “practical philosophy”—a demonstration through concrete examples of how the great themes of political theory, aesthetics, and ethics persist in the quotidian world. Spain’s wager on progressive integration, the death of beloved intellectual spaces, the eruption of violence and its response through heroism, the mutations of luxury and consumption, the ongoing crisis of democratic institutions—these are not separate phenomena but rather expressions of a shared condition: the fragility of modernity itself.

What the newsletters suggest, read against philosophical and scholarly contexts, is that the question facing contemporary civilization is not whether modernity will survive—modernity will persist because it constitutes the only framework within which most of us can imagine living—but rather what forms of attention, what practices of care, what commitments to the common world can persist within modernity’s contradictions. The literary café may be dying, but the human need for encounter and dialogue cannot be extinguished. Heroism may be increasingly rare, but its existence demonstrates what remains possible. Artisanal craft may be subsumed into luxury markets, yet it carries forward a tradition of authentic making that haunts hyperreality. Democratic institutions may be in crisis, yet new forms of journalism and intellectual production continue to emerge.

The question is not whether we can return to some imagined authentic past, but rather whether we can learn to inhabit the complex, mediated, compromised present with sufficient attention, care, and ethical commitment to preserve the possibility of a common world.

Reading these newsletters reveals a world simultaneously more interconnected and more fragmented than at any previous moment. The economic exuberance around AI infrastructure exists alongside warnings of a potential bubble; international tensions over resources and territory develop in the shadow of unprecedented global communication networks; cultural institutions struggle to maintain their traditional missions while adapting to digital imperatives.

Political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1958) observed that “the world we have lost did not merely consist of material things that could be replaced... it was the world in which we found our place and our meaning” (p. 55). The newsletters from December 2025 document precisely this search for place and meaning amid profound transformation. Whether in the economic sphere (Oracle’s ambitious bets), the political realm (Venezuela sanctions), or cultural spaces (literary cafés), established frames of reference are being challenged and reconfigured.

What might allow us to navigate this terrain with wisdom? Perhaps the answer lies in sociologist Zygmunt Bauman’s (2000) concept of “liquid modernity”—recognizing that contemporary life requires flexibility without losing sight of enduring human values. The newsletters present both warning signs of fragmentation and hopeful examples of adaptation: the Louvre’s response to staffing shortages, the reinvention of retail through Mytheresa’s Alpine pop-up, and the continued resilience of physical gathering spaces like Tokyo’s Kabuki theater performances in Saudi Arabia.

As winter 2025 deepens, these newsletters offer not merely news items but windows onto the human condition in transition. Their interconnections—between AI investments and oil sanctions, between cultural preservation and digital transformation—reveal that we inhabit not separate spheres but an integrated, albeit often contradictory, reality. In navigating this landscape, we might heed philosopher Amartya Sen’s (1999) reminder that economic development and cultural progress must ultimately be measured in terms of human freedoms rather than narrow metrics of growth or technological advancement.

Taken together, the newsletter week shows a world where soft power, hard resources, cultural prestige and civic safety are interlocked. States and private actors pursue prestige and profit through museums, festivals, infrastructure and auctions; but the viability of these projects depends on domestic legitimacy and ethical stewardship (repatriation, social inclusion, security). The prescriptive edge is clear: cultural policy must be coherent with social policy and institutional reform. Otherwise, the spectacle of prestige will increasingly ring hollow.

Subscribe

Agamben, G. (2005). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life (D. Heller-Roazen, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

Altstedter, A. (2025, December 11). When an architect dies, what happens to their legacy? Bloomberg.

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

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

Baubock, R. (2009). Transnational citizenship: Membership and rights in international perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing.

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

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

Benjamin, W. (1999). The arcades project (H. Eiland & K. McLaughlin, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Illuminations (pp. 217-251). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1936)

Borjas, G. J. (2016). We wanted workers: Unraveling the immigration narrative. W.W. Norton & Company.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979)

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Camus, A. (1942). The myth of Sisyphus (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Vintage Books (1955).

Clark, C. (2013). The sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914. Harper.

Cogitatiopress. (2025, September 24). Defining journalistic autonomy in the wake of disinformation in Spain. Media and Communication, 13(2), 10651.

de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. F. Rendall, Trans.). University of California Press.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. (2025, November 24). Europe’s demographic dilemma between aging and migration. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gehry, F. (2022, June 19). Personal communication with Bloomberg Toronto reporter Ari Altstedter.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press (Original work published 1962).

Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939-941.

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1954). The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford University Press.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241

Jacob, C. (2025, December 16). It’s time to bring the literary café back to the heart of society. Monocle, 189.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press.

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

Kant, I. (1784). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In Kant’s political writings (H. Reiss, Ed., H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). Cambridge University Press (1970).

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press.

Mueller, A. (2025, December 15). In the darkness of the Bondi Beach massacre, a civilian’s heroism gives Albanese a clear path forward. Monocle, 189.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.

Objects of Affection Collection. (2025, November 20). The simulacrum of luxury: A guide to Jean Baudrillard’s critique of consumer society.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Paragon House.

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Harcourt Brace.

Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of government and freedom. Oxford University Press.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy. Princeton University Press.

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

Said, E. W. (1983). The world, the text, and the critic. Harvard University Press.

Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Shiller, R. J. (2019). Narrative economics: How stories go viral and drive major economic events. Princeton University Press.

Sotheby’s. (2025, December 10). Abu Dhabi Collectors’ Week results: $133M in sales. Sotheby’s.

Stocker, E. (2025, December 11). Spain 2026 forecast: You may not agree with Pedro Sánchez but his country continues to take a refreshing stance. Monocle, 189.

Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.

Weber, M. (1919). Politics as a vocation. In From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (C. Wright Mills & H. H. Gerth, Eds., pp. 77-128). Oxford University Press.

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 Grok, xAI, Comet, Perplexity, Qwen, Alibaba, and ChatGPT, OpenAI, tools (December 20, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (December 20, 2025).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (December 20, 2025). The Digital States of Exception of Late-Capitalist Modernity: Hyperreality and Consumption, Intellectual Spaces in Crisis and Demographic Transition. Open Access Blog.

Share