What can we DO, 7. About Democracy, its enemies and champions

Schermafbeelding 2019-08-19 om 15.55.46.png

Dear readers,

In this blog two very strong and important “interrupts” for the present chaotic political transition we are re-blogged here:

  1. Column by Sibylle Berg, author of the best-selling book GRM. She explains that the upcoming “populist” authoritarian regimes will fail and result in huge destruction. Because what they promise does not work, and is not even expected to work.  (in the German language. My attempt to translate it into English is attached below that).

2. “Opinion” by the famous journalist Ann Applebaum in The Washington Post.

And, I added a very important article in The New York Review of Books by prof. Tamsin Shaw about who are behind the attacks on Democracy: the Oligarchs  https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/08/27/the-oligarch-threat/

Full copy of that must read article is shown below.

Jaap van Till, TheConnectivist

================(1)

Angst, Hass, Hetze: Die neue Generation PolitikerInnen und ihr Irrtum

Nationen spalten, Unfrieden stiften und den Reichtum weniger vermehren: Kann man machen, bringt nur nichts. Am Ende ist die Geschichte der Menschheit intelligenter als ihre ProtagonistInnen. Ein offener Brief.

© Joseph Strauch

Eine Kolumne von 

  Der Spiegel (GER)

An alle autoritären nationalradikalen PolitikerInnen, (Begriff gelernt von Herrn Heitmeyer)

Vielleicht erreicht mein offener Brief Sie im Probenraum, in dem Sie sich einmal im Monat treffen. Ein wenig Parolen schreien und sich umarmen. Und dann wieder schreien. Je dümmer, desto besser. Ihrem Menschenbild gedankt. Danach darüber lachen, wie dumm die Menschen sind.

Der Probenraum, in dem Sie, VolksvertreterInnen aus Polen, Guatemala, Ungarn, England, Deutschland usw., vor dem Spiegel Parolen mit dem Motto üben: Wie erreiche ich es, an die dumpfsten Gedanken in Menschen zu appellieren, also dieses Aufzucken von Bösartigkeit, das man beim Stuhlgang hat. Wie kann ich mit unbewegtem Gesicht in kürzester Zeit möglichst wirkungsvoll denunzieren? Wie kann ich den Menschen mit starken aber sparsamen Gesten von meiner Führungsstärke überzeugen?

Vielleicht lesen Sie den Brief auch nachts, wenn Sie nicht schlafen können, weil da kurz wieder das Gefühl von Versagen wach geworden ist, das Sie durch Ihr Leben begleitet. Das Versagen, es nicht an die Spitze geschafft zu haben, zu denen, die Sie finanzieren, Sie benutzen, Sie verachten.

Ihr Größenwahn ist Attitüde

Vermutlich ahnen Sie, dass der wirklichen Elite nie wieder ein Fehler wie Hitler unterlaufen wird. Ein Irrer, ein Größenwahnsinniger. Ihr Größenwahn ist Attitüde. Sie sind nicht mehr als kontrollierbare Handlanger. Nie werden Sie dazugehören. Zur wirklichen Elite. Zu denen, die die Welt beherrschen. Nicht durch die Kraft Ihres Verstandes, sondern schlicht wegen Ihres Reichtums.

Und Sie, Herr und Frau Populist, wollen so gerne dazugehören. Wenn schon kein unermesslicher Reichtum, dann doch wenigstens in der Nähe der Macht sein. Gesehen werden, befehlen können, Spuren in dieser verdammten Welt hinterlassen. Wie schön das klingt.

Dann nichts wie ran. Weitermachen. Die Bevölkerungen von dem, was gerade passiert, ablenken. Vom Abbau der Sozialstaaten, von einem neuen neoliberalen faschistoiden weltumspannenden System, das wenigen noch mehr Reichtum bringen wird. Mit dem sie dann irgendwas machen können. Was kann man mit 100 Milliarden machen? Keine Ahnung. Ich weiß es nicht. Sie, werte PolitikerInnen, werden es auch nie erfahren.

Sie machen nur Ihren Job: Die Bevölkerungen gegeneinander aufhetzen, die alten Parameter von links und rechts wieder beleben, Sündenböcke finden, Staaten zerschlagen, alles Soziale eliminieren, denn Reiche haben wirklich keine Lust mehr, für Leute aufzukommen, die es nicht geschafft haben, ordentlich zu erben oder irgendeine Scheißplattform zu gründen. Darum gibt es euch.

Da ist nur Angst, aber kein Plan

Ihr seid die VollstreckungsbeamtInnen der Gier, die VollzugshelferInnen in einem Krieg gegen Normal- und GeringverdienerInnen, HenkerInnen des Sozialstaates und Hampelmänner und -frauen eines asozialen Systems, das sich weltweit etablieren will: ein paar Feudalherren und die Völker, die weit von Ihnen entfernt leben, und viele, die dann eben – nicht mehr überleben werden.

Ihr pöbelt und hetzt, ihr fördert das Schlechteste im Menschen zutage, und ihr seid ohne Scham. Nur Angst habt ihr. Angst davor, aufzufliegen. Angst davor, dass ihr nach euren Plänen gefragt werdet, denn da sind keine Pläne. Da ist nichts, was die Welt zu einer besseren werden lässt. Der Klimawandel, den gibt es nicht in eurer Agenda, denn die Umrüstung von Industrie und Wirtschaft würde teuer für eure Gönner. Ihr seid gegen gute Bildung, denn kluge BürgerInnen, das wissen wir seit Lenin, sind eine Gefahr für Despoten. Ihr seid gegen ein gutes Gesundheitswesen, denn wer kein Geld hat, kann aussterben.

Außer Hetze und Bosheit habt ihr nichts zu dieser Welt beizutragen

Ihr seid gegen alles, was es der Mehrheit der Menschen ermöglicht, ein menschenwürdiges Leben zu führen, und ihr habt keine Antworten. Außer Parolen und Gebrüll. Außer Hetze und Bosheit, die ihr hinter Phrasen versteckt, habt ihr nichts zu dieser Welt beizutragen. Außer Unfrieden, Elend, Verwüstung und ihr ahnt es. Ihr ahnt, dass ihr vielleicht nicht einmal einen Platz in einer “Gated Community” bekommt, wenn euer Plan aufgeht, der nicht einmal euer Plan ist.

Liebe autoritäre nationalradikale PolitikerInnen,

die dritte Möglichkeit ist, dass ihr diesen Brief nicht lest oder dass ihr einfach aus eurer Rolle nicht mehr rauskommt. Vielleicht ist es an der Zeit, ein Aussteigerprogramm zu initiieren, na oder…

Warum eigentlich? Ihr habt Missgunst und Unfrieden über die Menschen gebracht, ihr habt zu Morden aufgerufen, direkt oder indirekt. Ihr seid TäterInnen. Seht zu, wie ihr mit dieser Schuld klarkommt. Eure Zeit ist jetzt. Sie wird vorübergehen, wie alles, was rückwärtsgewandt und dumm ist. Und ihr werdet nicht einmal in einem Geschichtsbuch weiterleben. Kommt damit klar.

===================translation German – English====Please send me corrections==

Fear, Hate and Rage

Open Letter in Der Spiegel by Sibylle Berg

To all “authoritarian national radical Politikerinnen” (Term learned from  Mr. Heitmeyer )

Maybe my open letter will reach you in the rehearsal room where you meet once a month. To scream a few slogans scream and hug each other. And then scream again. The more stupid the better. Confirming your self-centered worldview. Then afterwards laugh about how stupid people are.

The rehearsal room, in which you, representatives of the people of Poland, Guatemala, Hungary, England, Germany, etc., practice in front of the mirror slogans with the motto: How do I manage to appeal to the dullest thoughts in people, so this rapture of malice, that you have during bowel movements. How can I denounce as effectively as possible with a straight face in no time? How can I convince people of my leadership with strong but frugal gestures?

You may also read this letter at night when you can not sleep, because the feeling of failure that accompanies you through your life has come to life again. The failure to make it to the top, to those who finance you, you use, you despise.

Your megalomania is attitude

You probably suspect that the real elite will never again make a mistake like with Hitler . A madman, a megalomaniac. Such megalomania is attitude. You are no more than controllable henchmen. You will never belong to the real elite. To those who rule the world. Not by the power of their mind, but simply because of their wealth.

And you, Mr. and Mrs. ‘Populist, want to be a part of it. If not immeasurable wealth, then at least be near the power. Being seen, commanded, leaving traces in this damnable world. How nice that sounds.

Then it will not work. Keep going. To distract the populations from what is happening. From the dismantling of the welfare states, from a new neoliberal fascist global system that will bring even more wealth to a few. With which they can do something. What can you do with 100 billion? No idea. I don’t know. You, dear politicians, will never know.

They are just doing their job: Raising the populations against each other, reviving the old parameters from left and right, finding scapegoats, shattering states, eliminating all social issues, because the rich really do not want to pay for people who have not made it, neat to inherit or to start some fucking platform. That’s why you exist.

There is only fear, but no plan

You are the executor of greed, the execution assistants in a war against ordinary and low-income earners, executioners of the welfare state, and runners and women of an anti-social system that wants to establish itself worldwide: a few feudal lords and the peoples who live far from you, and many who will not survive then.

You mob and rush, you bring out the worst in man , and you are without shame. Only you are afraid. Afraid to fly up. Fear that you will be asked for your plans, because there are no plans. There is nothing from you that makes the world a better one. The climate change , which is not available in your agenda, because the conversion of industry and economy would be expensive for your patrons. You are against good education, because smart citizens, we know since Lenin , are a danger to despots. You are against a good health care, because who has no money, can die out.

Other than baiting and malice, you have nothing to contribute to this world

You are against everything that enables the majority of people to lead a decent life, and you have no answers. Except slogans and roars. Other than the hate and malice that you hide behind phrases, you have nothing to contribute to this world. Except strife, misery, devastation and you guessed it. You sense that you may not even get a seat in a “gated community” if your plan works, not even your plan.

Dear Authoritarian National Radical Politicians,

Why? You brought resentment and strife over people, you called for murder, directly or indirectly. You are perpetrators. Watch how you handle this guilt. Your time is now. It will pass, like everything that is backward and stupid. And you will not even live on in a history book. Come to terms with that.

===========end of ubersetzung========

===========(2)===========

Hong Kong and Russia protesters fight for democracy. The West should listen and learn.

We live in an era of declining faith in elected leaders, declining faith in the institutions of the West, declining faith in democracy itself. In the United States, the world’s most important democracy, Congress seems permanently deadlocked, in hock to moneyed interests, unable to grapple with the big issues of climate change, technological change, the information revolution. In Britain, one of the world’s oldest democracies, politicians now speak in an offhand way about “proroguing” Parliament — asking the queen to suspend Britain’s House of Commons — as a way of resolving the unresolvable problem of Brexit.

Nor is the problem confined to the Anglo-Saxon world. A couple of years ago, two political scientists, Yascha Mounk and Roberto Stefan Foa, looked at the numbers in a now famous article and found that the number of people who believe that it is “essential” to live in a democracy has slipped in almost every Western country. The trend is especially pronounced among the young. Among Swedes born in the 1930s and 1940s, just to take one random example, more than 80 percent believe democracy is “essential.” Among Swedes born in 1980, however, the figure has fallen to 60 percent. At the same time, several established democracies, from Hungary to India, have begun dismantling fundamental institutions and principles, including independent courts — a democratic deconsolidation that doesn’t even arouse the interest of this U.S. administration.

It’s a gloomy picture. It’s also too simple. Even while the news at home gets constantly worse, we are simultaneously living in an era when the ideals of democracy have never burned more brightly, especially among younger people — at least those who live in autocracies. Here is a paradox: In two of the most authoritarian countries on the planet, unprecedented pro-democracy demonstrations are now unfolding, inspiring precisely the same generation that is bored by democracy in the West.

In Hong Kong, thousands of young people, most of whom no longer remember the years of British rule, are defying police brutality to make their voices heard. Having learned from the mistakes of the “Occupy” movement of 2014, they have created a whole new set of tactics to oppose a new law on extradition, learning to “be water” by constantly shifting the sites and styles of their protest, one day blocking major roads, another day rendering the airport dysfunctional. Constant, overwhelming propaganda from the Chinese authorities appears not to be working: Opinion polls show that the majority of Hong Kong people — including the vast majority of young people — don’t sympathise with the regime and don’t even feel “Chinese,” a shift in sensibility that helps to explain protesters’ bravery.

In Russia, where propaganda also attacks the West and derides democracy as chaotic and anarchic, protesters have focused very directly on the most fundamental of democratic institutions: They are demanding the right, simply, to vote for independent candidates in local elections. Just as in Hong Kong, Russian protests are being led by younger people, none of whom can remember any other leader except Vladimir Putin: “I am 20 years old, and in my entire life there has not been a single day of freedom,” one of them told reporters, according to Meduza, an independent website that covers Russia. They, too, are well organized, using up-to-the-minute apps to keep in touch with one other, deploying a phalanx of lawyers and a carefully planned social media campaign. Like the young Hong Kongers, young Russians aren’t just dedicated; they are organised, thoughtful and well prepared.

But it may also be that the young protesters of Russia and China are simply ahead of us. We’ve gotten used to the idea that political influence flows from West to East, but are we so sure that is still true? A generation of Eastern dissidents has thought harder than we have about how to self-organize, about how to operate in a world run by secretive, kleptocratic elites who go out of their way to create distraction and apathy. Remember that they, too, are fighting regimes that seem in hock to moneyed interests and wrestling to cope with the pace of technological change. It may be that we in the West simply haven’t thought about what tactics ordinary people need to deploy to compete in a world where money is offshore, power is invisible and apathy is widespread. It may be that we need to learn from people who have.

Read more from Anne Applebaum’s archivefollow her on Twitter or subscribe to her updates on Facebook.

=========================Start of NYR article==========

The Oligarch Threat

Netflix

A still from The Great Hack, 2019

On July 24, 2019, a buoyant Boris Johnson swept past crowds shouting “Bollocks to Brexit! Bollocks to Boris!” and was ushered into the hushed splendor of Buckingham Palace. There, he shook hands with the antique, bejeweled Queen Elizabeth II, and became the prime minister of Great Britain, elected not by popular mandate but by members of his Conservative Party. That same day, on the other side of the Atlantic, a frail and reluctant Robert Mueller took his oath before giving public testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, and later the House Intelligence Committee, on a controversial and difficult twenty-two-month-long investigation—made more challenging by multiple witnesses’ lying under oath—in which he had painstakingly examined Russian interference in the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

That day was also chosen by Netflix for the worldwide release of the documentary by filmmakers Karim Amer and Jehane Noujaim, The Great Hack. Within a week, millions of viewers had watched it. For many, this was their first exposure to the links between the political upheavals on both sides of the Atlantic. The documentary almost certainly alarmed many more people than Mueller’s testimony did. July 24 was as close as we have got so far to a day of reckoning with the nefarious activity designed to manipulate voters in both the UK and the US in 2016.

The primary focus of The Great Hack is the infamous and now insolvent data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica, which worked for the Trump campaign as well as the Leave.EU campaign promoting Brexit. Among various legally questionable activities was the company’s harvesting of huge quantities of data from Facebook in ways unknown to that platform’s millions of users. This data, used to target voters with specific “messages”—in many cases, a euphemism for outright lies—was a powerful propaganda tool, although the precise extent of its influence on electoral outcomes in Britain or the US is incalculable.

The hero of The Great Hack is Carole Cadwalladr, a British journalist for The Observerand The Guardian who broke the Cambridge Analytica story, and in so doing, has had to brave waves of misogynistic abuse, hate campaigns on social media, and numerous bullying legal threats (some still current). Together with colleagues at The New York Times, Cadwalladr was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for their joint reporting.

I know Carole personally, and in the months leading up to the publication of her big Cambridge Analytica–Facebook scoop, I spoke to her often. Initially, she wasn’t writing a story about Facebook and didn’t expect the social network to be a main focus. But executives made Facebook the story’s headline when, two days before publication on March 18, 2018, they sent her a threat of legal action. This was such a bizarrely aggressive move that it drew a great deal of public attention; Facebook later admitted that it had been a mistake and apologized. But by the time an alabaster-faced Mark Zuckerberg appeared before the US Congress, barely a month later, propped like a mildly indignant dauphin upon extra seat cushions and reciting scripted answers to committee members’ questions, the Cambridge Analytica story had wiped $134 billion off his company’s share value.

Netflix

British journalist Carole Cadwalladr in The Great Hack, 2019

It was somewhat surprising that Facebook succeeded in hogging the limelight in a field so rich with villains. The bigger picture, which Carole and I had been discussing during those preceding months, was the way in which the Cambridge Analytica story opened a window onto a new constellation of international billionaires, corrupt politicians, and war profiteers who were apparently amassing enormous power. That story isn’t only about technology, data, and psychographic profiling; it’s also, at root, a story about the consequences of entrenched economic inequality, the privatization of essential public assets and government functions, including even national security, and the challenge to conventional foreign policy posed by the bargains being struck between international kleptocrats. And it tells us why, beyond being manipulated on social media, we should care about businesses like Cambridge Analytica—and why we should be concerned about what the Mueller investigation failed to expose.

*

In both Britain and America, there exists a class of billionaires who seek to become oligarchs and a corresponding class of government officials who want to become billionaires. Since 2008, when the financial markets’ development of complex and ill-regulated derivatives led to a credit crisis and crash that erased huge sums from the fortunes of the global ultra-rich—with Western tycoons like Rupert Murdoch and Sheldon Adelson, and Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska among the biggest losers—the world’s billionaires have been moving away from a commitment to free markets. Learning from the banking bailouts and the socialization of moral hazard, they have instead embraced an ambition to build lasting monopolies that enjoy both official and unofficial forms of state support.

Russia has pioneered this new form of “state capitalism,” in which the state absorbs risk for the companies of certain loyal oligarchs, allowing them to reap enormous profits. In exchange, these billionaires advance strategic objectives, not just through energy deals but also by investing in foreign companies that own sensitive technology or valuable data, or which provide important forms of economic leverage abroad. One recent example is the huge investment Oleg Deripaska’s Rusal made in a Kentucky aluminum plant, funding the economic revival of the area. Shortly before the announcement of the investment, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell had backed the successful effort to lift sanctions on Deripaska and his businesses. The investment increases Russia’s political leverage in the US, since if sanctions were to be reimposed on Deripaska now under another administration they would directly harm the people of Kentucky. Putin is happy for his oligarchs to invest outside Russia so long as they are serving Russian strategic interests. None of the accumulated profit is distributed back to the Russian people: it is generally held off-shore.

The United States has its own versions of the oligarchs, albeit ones who made their money legally rather than through the criminal enterprises for which many Russians have been indicted by American prosecutors or sanctioned by the federal government. As I’ve previously written, the oligarchs of Silicon Valley managed to establish their extraordinary monopolies—viewed by the state as a form of soft power as well as an essential national security asset in a world of cyber-conflict—only because that entire sector received huge injections of venture-capital funding from the military and intelligence agencies. In this case, too, the astronomical profits are largely untaxed and held off-shore. Other national security–related industries have sought a similar status under the Trump administration.

This international billionaire class is also establishing and using private intelligence and influence agencies like Cambridge Analytica to help them manipulate national and international politics. It’s well known that the Koch brothers have their own such agency (called i360), but other billionaires have firms whose names we don’t even know. That’s not to say there’s a grand conspiracy of global elites or coordinated centralization of power for mutual advantage. But what these messy conflicting interests do have in common is that they are all working against liberal-democratic institutions. The free-market dream of being liberated from government authority, once an article of faith for the billionaire class, has turned into the oligarchs’ dream of coopting, or even usurping, government authority in pursuit of profit.

At one time, it seemed inevitable that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation would expose much of this underworld to public scrutiny. It didn’t—though we do get glimpses of it in his report. Mueller tells us, for instance, that in January 2017, Kirill Dmitriev, the Stanford- and Harvard-educated head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, set up a phone call between Putin and Trump. He sent Putin in advance an optimistic report on negotiations with representatives of Trump’s transition team, indicating that business and investment opportunities had been discussed, as well as possibilities for joint counter-terrorism initiatives and other strategic objectives.

If these negotiations followed the usual Russian modus operandi, the business opportunities and strategic objectives would have been closely aligned. Russian and American oligarchs, supported by their respective states, would make billions of dollars in exchange for advancing an agenda that had been negotiated in secret. It’s striking that the ingenues on the Trump team—some of whom, such as Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr., had never been involved in politics before—seemed to approach negotiations viewing their skills and strategic insight as equal to those of the Russians. Back-door foreign policy, uninformed by government intelligence services, the State Department, or foreign service officers, can easily create national security vulnerabilities—if a Kentucky aluminum deal could compromise US interests we can only imagine the unintended consequences of deals involving cyber-powers, nuclear power, or other sensitive areas—yet these actors did not lack confidence.

Despite this account in the Mueller Report, we still don’t know many details of what was discussed ahead of the Trump–Putin phone call. But we do know the details of one joint Russian and American plan intended to supply power plants to Middle Eastern countries, to be funded by Saudi Arabia on the understanding that the venture would ultimately lead to the Saudis’ acquiring nuclear technology as a safeguard against a nuclear Iran. In his brief tenure as national security adviser, Lt. General Michael Flynn was the point man inside the Trump administration, aiming to negotiate an end to Russian sanctions so the Saudi project could proceed, but many other senior military and intelligence figures were on the masthead of the group, known as IP3/Ironbridge, that was pitching to the Saudis. A recent congressional report found that the plan, still alive though without the Russian partners, “virtually obliterated the lines normally separating government policymaking from corporate and foreign interests.”

Dmitriev’s own negotiations were with one of the most ambitious of America’s would-be oligarchs, Erik Prince. He is a private military contractor, formerly of Blackwater; his present company, the Frontier Services Group, has backing from the Chinese government and a Hong Kong billionaire named Johnson Ko, the company’s executive director. Prince’s meetings on behalf of the Trump team were arranged by a former Blackwater colleague who is now an adviser to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, George Nader. Nader, who is currently in federal custody in Virginia as an accused child sex trafficker, claims that Prince was sent as an emissary for Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, to the notorious Seychelles meeting with Dmitriev and Bin Zayed. The accounts given by Bannon and Prince, to Mueller’s team and in congressional hearings, have conflicted, but we know that Prince met with Bannon frequently during the transition period, and Bannon acted as Prince’s advocate in the White House when Prince was lobbying for his Frontier Services Group to take over military operations in Afghanistan (a scheme Prince was still promoting in a New York Times op-ed months later).

The special counsel’s investigation acknowledged the existence of these back-channel negotiations but failed to shed light on them, in part because vital elements of the testimony Mueller’s investigators heard were false, and various encrypted communications had been erased. But Mueller also interpreted his remit in the narrowest possible way: his principal areas of investigation were the Russian social media campaign during the election, and the DNC hackings and release of materials. There had been some expectation that a further area of inquiry would take on financial entanglements, and even potential RICO crimes. Some hoped that if Mueller’s investigation implicated Trump and Russian entities in racketeering, possibly even providing evidence that Trump was compromised by Russia, then the cooption of government by private actors, foreign and domestic, would be exposed.

In the event, Mueller’s main finding, a “sweeping and systematic” campaign of interference by Russia in the 2016 election, has simply reinforced the idea that the United States and Russia are combatants in a fairly traditional form of political warfare. Mueller’s report and testimony had no impact in exposing the multilateral business deals—here involving American, Russian, Saudi, Israeli, Qatari, and Emirati actors—that bypass national interests, official foreign policy, international regulations, electoral laws, and even ordinary market pressures.

*

By telling the story of Cambridge Analytica, The Great Hack takes us just a little further into this world. The company wasn’t set up by smart fashion students with pink hair or young crypto-grifters in bikinis, yet the film focuses disproportionate attention on the morally ambiguous, countercultural characters that moviemakers and audiences love to imagine at the heart of the cyber-world. It follows, in particular, a young former Cambridge Analytica employee named Brittany Kaiser. In the film, she claims to have been a human rights activist until she was drawn into the world of covert influence campaigns by the apparently seductive Etonian, Alexander Nix. Just how this former social-justice warrior managed to overlook the fact that her new employment was in part funded by corrupt leaders to sway elections in developing countries is not explained.

But Ann Marlowe, an expert on Libya who first met Kaiser in 2015, has pointed outthat Kaiser’s self-presentation is distorted. At one point in the film, Kaiser is pictured standing in front of a poster board advertising a conference on foreign investment in Libya, in 2012, wearing a red cloche hat and red lace dress, smiling politely next to three men in suits. In her voiceover, Kaiser says that after working on Obama’s Facebook team in 2008, she “spent several years working on human rights and international relations.” Marlowe looked into that claim and discovered that Kaiser had been working with the then prime minister of Libya, Ali Zeidan, who was at the time “presiding over its looting and political collapse.” The world Kaiser comes from is darker than she’s prepared to admit.

But Kaiser, and even Nix, were always the show-people for Cambridge Analytica, the circus-masters who distract us—with their eccentricities, their preposterous entitlement, and their moral insouciance—from the real powers that placed them in the public eye. The less TV-friendly conservative donors, hedge-fund managers, kleptocrats, and mercenaries who made people like Kaiser and Nix agents of the far right’s assault on liberal democracy are able to remain in the shadows.

Netflix

Brittany Kaiser in The Great Hack, 2019

The pertinent information, though, is that Cambridge Analytica was set up by Steve Bannon—who boasts on camera of devising the name—in 2015, with funding from his right-wing billionaire friend, Robert Mercer. The new firm was carved out of a larger company called SCL Group, which had held government contracts around the world for influence operations and unorthodox and covert election campaigns. From 2005 to 2015, the biggest investor in the SCL Group was a major donor to Britain’s Tory Party, Vincent Tchenguiz. Tchenguiz made an employee at his Consensus Business Group named Julian Wheatland a director of SCL. Wheatland appears in the movie plaintively lamenting the demise of Cambridge Analytica with all its talented young people. But he needn’t be too disconsolate. His boss continues to be a powerful and extremely connected figure in this sector.

Tchenguiz has invested in State of Mind Ventures, a venture capital fund headed by Pinchas Buchris, a former commander of Israeli military intelligence’s Unit 8200, which has been described as equivalent of the NSA. Tchenguiz also has stakes in Terrogence (part of the Verint Group, which describes itself as a world leader in “actionable intelligence,”), an Israeli agency known as Businesscope Business Intelligence, and the British company Quintel intelligence.

Among the big investors in this shady netherworld of intelligence-gathering and influence operations, there are naturally many overlaps. Tchenguiz’s interests and investments connect with those of Erik Prince, as the freelance journalist Wendy Siegelman has shown in her fine-grained mapping of the field on Medium. Both men have links to one of the best-known private intelligence companies, Black Cube, founded in Israel by another former military intelligence officer. Tchenguiz was involved in setting up Black Cube and was its first major client. (Black Cube first came to widespread public attention when The New Yorker reported that its operatives were working for the former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein in an apparent effort to frustrate the newspaper’s reporting of allegations of sexual assault made against him.) Though Black Cube denies it, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Chris Wiley has claimed the two companies did work together. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz has reported that Prince also considered investing in a joint venture with Tchenguiz and the Israeli financier Dorian Barak.

Siegelman has also tracked the development of a new company named Emerdata, since its emergence in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica bankruptcy. Julian Wheatland and Alexander Nix were both initially directors, though since they’re now under investigation for their Cambridge Analytica activities, they’ve both had to resign. Robert Mercer’s daughters, Rebekah (who has worked closely with Steve Bannon) and the less high-profile Jennifer, are the major investors, alongside Prince’s billionaire business partner, Johnson Ko. (The Mercer sisters have also acquired their father’s stake in Breitbart, the far-right media outlet Bannon built up.) Emerdata is thus essentially a reincarnation of Cambridge Analytica, possibly with even more funding.

From time to time, a scandal emerges that gives us a glimpse of this deeply interconnected, secretive realm of power wielded by the ultra-rich. The Miami Herald’s recent investigation of Jeffrey Epstein by Julie K. Brown revealed the existence of a company he was involved in named Carbyne. Ostensibly, Carbyne supplies tools for use by emergency services, such as geolocation devices and equipment for live video feeds, but much of this material doubles very effectively as surveillance technologies. The company was founded by the former Israeli general and politician Ehud Barak; its investors and board members are a who’s who of the private security world, and include Peter Thiel and his Palantir co-founder, Trae Stephens, Pinchas Buchris, Michael Chertoff, and, of course, Erik Prince.

*

The Great Hack is an important film, one that people need to see, but its account of the Cambridge Analytica operation scarcely touches the shady world of the billionaire oligarchs who are the real financial and political forces behind the scenes. Perhaps it’s too much to expect a Netflix documentary to accomplish what the special counsel, with all the resources of federal prosecutors and FBI investigators at his disposal, also failed to account for. Although Robert Mueller succeeded in indicting Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and others, he framed his investigation in such a way that the most significant aspects of what happened in 2016 were judged to be classified counterintelligence threats, about which the public may never learn. The erosion of norms of governance in Washington now means that, according to chairman Adam Schiff, even the House Intelligence Committee has had no counterintelligence briefings in a year and a half.

The public needs to ask questions about these violations of democratic accountability before government intelligence services are completely prevented from finding the answers. President Trump has repeatedly vilified the US intelligence community, and may still appoint a loyalist as Director of National Intelligence who would close down counterintelligence operations related to Trump family foreign involvements.

In Britain, in spite of election law violations by all three organizations supporting Brexit in the 2016 EU referendum and after extraordinarily large donations of money with questionable origins, there has been no public inquiry into the finances and incentives that lay behind this criminal activity. Although many senior civil servants, members of Parliament, and other public figures have called for an inquiry, Britain has had no Mueller. It does have Carole Cadwalladr and a handful of other investigative journalists looking into the peculiar trans-Atlantic alliances that are corroding from within a once-robust parliamentary democracy.

As for Boris Johnson, the wayward Etonian princeling, he was reportedly denied access to sensitive intelligence when he was foreign secretary, even though the two main agencies, MI6 and GCHQ, ordinarily report directly to that officeholder. In April 2018, Johnson was photographed at an airport without the foreign secretary’s customary security detail, in a hungover and disheveled state after partying all weekend in Italy with the British-based Russian oligarch Evgeny Lebedev. Since July 24, when Johnson became prime minister, the prospects of protecting liberal-democratic institutions on either side of the Atlantic have dimmed still further. For both Britons and Americans, the only hope of halting the stealthy advance of oligarchic power is in upcoming elections. But one thing The Great Hack andthe Mueller report show is that this path is narrowing all the time.


The Great Hack is streaming on Netflix

==========================================end of NYR article======

 

 

About broodjejaap

See ABOUT on TheConnectivist.wordpress.com
This entry was posted in authoritarianism, democracy, Demonstration, Liberal Democracy, participation democracy, populism, populist, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to What can we DO, 7. About Democracy, its enemies and champions

  1. theburningheart says:

    Governments are anonymous entities, with faces like the president in turn, who serve to oligarchy ends.
    Meanwhile people is to busy trying to stay afloat, to survive, with no idea how to change things, just hoping the rising waters, and that the strong current does not take them away.

    Yes great upheaval is coming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: