A Conspiracy of Capital
How Political Favor Became a Deal Variable
Yesterday I published an essay diagnosing Balaji Srinivasan’s Network State vision as spiritually empty dissolution of civilization—governance as consumer choice, democracy as thing you shop for, exit replacing democratic constraint.
This morning I listened to business reporter Rohan Goswami on the Prof G Markets podcast explain how Netflix might acquire Warner Bros Discovery. The segment’s framing was striking: the deal would close if Netflix could convince the Department of Justice and get the president behind it. That was described not as scandal but as straightforward M&A analysis—win over the right people in Washington, and the deal happens.
I had to stop the podcast. Rewind. Listen again.
This wasn’t investigative reporting exposing corruption. This was business analysis describing normal dealmaking. The casual treatment of regulatory approval as thing you purchase through political favor, stated as obvious fact about how media mergers work in 2025.
And suddenly the pattern I’d diagnosed theoretically yesterday was operating concretely in front of me this morning. Not in Singapore with Balaji’s bootcamps. Not in some hypothetical future. But in Manhattan boardrooms and Washington offices, right now, described by reporters as unremarkable business practice.
I’m writing this because the connections are clarifying as I watch them form. Because the dissolution isn’t coming—it’s here, operating in the discourse of how power talks about itself. Because the exit ideology I critiqued yesterday isn’t theoretical vision—it’s the language of dealmaking today. And because once you see the pattern, you can’t unsee it.
Let me walk you through what I heard this morning, because the mechanics matter. The structure reveals how capital coordinates through political relationships in ways that would have been scandalous a generation ago and are now described as normal dealmaking.
The context: two bidders competing to acquire Warner Bros Discovery. The Ellison family—second wealthiest in America after the Waltons—versus Netflix.
But this isn’t just a business deal. This is a battle for civilization. Not which billionaire wins regulatory approval—that’s how the reporter frames it. But whether democratic constraint on power still means anything, or whether governance has fully dissolved into auction for favor that capital can purchase.
If media ownership is determined by approval probability tied to presidential mood, editorial independence becomes a derivative of access.
Because notice what’s being evaluated in this deal, as the reporter describes it. Not which vision for journalism serves democracy. Not which ownership structure protects public interest. Not which buyer will maintain editorial independence or strengthen local news or preserve investigative capacity.
Which billionaire coalition has better access to Washington clearance. Which can more effectively win people over in the administration. Whether sovereign wealth funds or American tech capital proves better at managing regulatory risk.
Political favor here meaning the assessed probability that regulators will approve—a risk calculation based on perceived relationships in Washington rather than legal merits. This is how capital prices regulatory risk in 2025.
Civilization itself is nowhere in this analysis. But that’s what’s actually at stake.
According to Goswami’s reporting, the Ellison bid structure works like this: the family is putting up a relatively small percentage of their own money in the overall purchase price. The bulk comes from three sovereign wealth funds contributing roughly a quarter of the total, plus Apollo providing debt, plus Bank of America and Citi arranging financing, plus Jared Kushner’s Affinity fund backed by Saudi capital.
This coalition, Goswami reports, has been marketing to investors that they enjoy “preferred access to this administration” and are “this administration’s preferred bidder.” Political favor as competitive advantage, stated openly to investors as reason to believe Washington clearance will happen.
Then Trump posted publicly criticizing the Ellisons given how CBS treats him. Shortly after—Goswami emphasizes the timing—Kushner’s fund announced withdrawal. The official statement cited changed investment dynamics.
But as Goswami notes, nothing about the actual deal economics had changed. Same offer, same structure. The variable that shifted was Trump’s public signal about political favor.
According to the segment’s analysis, Warner Bros board pointed to Kushner’s exit as evidence the financing wasn’t solid and recommended shareholders reject the Ellison bid despite its higher price, accepting Netflix’s lower offer instead.
Why, according to this framing, would the board recommend accepting less money? Because Netflix, as described in the segment, has “done a great job in DC.” Because Netflix has won people over. Because Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos understands how to manage approval probability with the administration.
The analysis made clear: if Netflix can position itself favorably with regulators and the White House, the path clears for regulatory clearance.
To be clear: I’m not claiming this is literally what the board wrote in its minutes or what motivated every director’s vote. I’m observing how the segment framed their decision—as rational response to perceived regulatory risk shaped by Washington access. That framing itself is the diagnosis.
Now, formally, antitrust review has processes, statutory criteria, supposed independence. The FCC wouldn’t even review this particular deal given Warner Bros Discovery’s asset mix. And sometimes the law is the law—deals get blocked on their merits regardless of political favor, and approved despite political disfavor.
But what I’m diagnosing isn’t whether any particular deal follows formal process. What I’m diagnosing is how dealmakers talk about the process. What they market to investors. What boards evaluate as deal risk. What reporters describe as competitive advantage.
The scandal isn’t that politics ever touches deals; it’s that politics is now treated as the decisive input—and said out loud as if that’s just maturity.
The story isn’t that politics exists; it’s that politics is priced like a term sheet item—treated as a primary input alongside financing, leverage, and timing.
When analysis frames regulatory approval in terms of Washington access, when boards are described as evaluating bids based on perceived presidential support, when capital markets price political relationships as competitive advantage—that reveals something about institutional drift, regardless of whether formal processes technically still function.
The law may still be the law in some cases. But when elite dealmaking discourse increasingly treats political favor as determinative, when that’s described by reporters as normal strategy rather than corrupt deviation—we’re witnessing the normalization of something that should alarm us.
Yesterday I wrote about Balaji moving to Singapore, defending executions for drug trafficking, running bootcamps teaching governance-as-shopping. I diagnosed it as pathology—the confusion of preference satisfaction with meaning, consumer choice with freedom, exit with empowerment.
Some readers probably thought I was being hyperbolic. Surely it’s not that bad. Surely regulatory independence still means something. Surely democratic institutions still constrain the powerful regardless of wealth or political connection.
This morning’s podcast segment is my answer, delivered less than 24 hours later. A business reporter describing, as normal M&A analysis, that deals close when you secure favorable political relationships in Washington. That political underwriting matters. That winning people over in DC is competitive strategy.
This is what Balaji’s vision produces when operational. Capital coordinating through political relationships. Regulatory approval framed as thing you secure through cultivating favor. Exit weaponized as signal mechanism—Kushner withdrawing to communicate Trump disfavor. Sovereign wealth deploying strategically. Billionaire families optimizing through access.
Governance as thing you shop for. Democracy as auction for regulatory clearance.
Balaji chose Singapore—authoritarian efficiency over democratic constraint. The Ellisons, as described in the reporting, attempted to market Trump access as competitive advantage. Netflix is portrayed as making different choice—effective management of approval probability through DC relationship cultivation. All three treating governance not as constraint on power but as variable to optimize through strategic access.
And we’re told this is normal. This is how deals work. This is business.
The segment even notes that European regulators are probably unwilling to “risk angering the president or this administration by ruling against a merger that the US blesses.” Regulatory independence in Europe potentially subordinated to avoiding conflict with American presidential preference.
This is governance-as-shopping discourse fully operational. And reporters describe it as expected dealmaking analysis.
Notice what’s absent from this framing of the deal.
Any consideration of public interest in journalism. Any concern about democratic accountability of media ownership. Any discussion of whether concentrated media power under billionaire control serves society. Any attention to impact on workers whose jobs will be eliminated, communities whose local news will disappear, audiences whose information sources will be consolidated.
Any constraint on capital beyond Washington access and approval probability.
According to the segment’s framing, Warner Bros board rejected the Ellison bid not because sovereign wealth controlling American media poses national security questions. Not because the concentration would harm journalism or democracy. They rejected it because the coalition seemed unstable after Kushner’s exit signaled Trump disfavor.
That’s framed as the constraint that matters. Not public interest. Not democratic accountability. Not antitrust analysis independent of political preference. But: political favor. DC access. Presidential support.
What’s presented as business competition analysis is something else entirely: a revelation of how dealmaking discourse now frames regulatory approval—not as independent evaluation but as thing you win through cultivating access.
Meanwhile those without exit optionality—the journalists who’ll lose jobs, the communities that depend on local news, the citizens who need independent media—don’t enter the analysis. They’re just costs to be managed once the deal closes.
Let me connect the pattern, because this isn’t isolated. This is how power operates in 2025, revealed in 24 hours.
Yesterday: Balaji Srinivasan runs Network State bootcamps from Singapore, teaching governance-as-shopping, celebrating exit from democratic constraint.
This morning: The Ellison family, as described, coordinates sovereign wealth, bank debt, and access to Washington underwriting to compete for media empire, with Trump support marketed as competitive advantage.
This morning: Netflix framed as successfully managing approval probability in Washington, positioning itself for regulatory clearance through relationship management.
This morning: Jared Kushner’s fund described as serving signal function, exiting after Trump’s public criticism to communicate political favor has shifted.
This morning: Trump himself operating not as democratic leader constrained by public interest but as variable in deal analysis, with presidential favor treated as thing you cultivate and market.
This morning: European regulators described as likely deferring to American presidential preference rather than exercising independent judgment.
This morning: Financial reporter describing all of this as normal. Expected. How deals get analyzed in 2025.
This is what exit ideology produces when operational. Governance framed as thing you optimize for through managing regulatory risk. DC access as competitive advantage. Capital coordinating through relationship management. Democracy dissolved into variables to price and optimize around.
The network state already exists. Not in Singapore bootcamps but in Manhattan boardroom analysis and Washington favor-cultivation and sovereign wealth strategy. It’s operating. It’s normalized discourse. And we’re told it’s just smart dealmaking analysis.
I think about the journalists at Warner Bros who’ll lose their jobs regardless of which billionaire wins. I think about the communities that’ll lose local news when consolidation optimizes away “redundant” coverage. I think about the citizens who need independent media holding power accountable, not media owned by whichever billionaire coalition proved most effective at managing Washington clearance.
These are the people absent from the deal analysis. Because they’re not party to the favor-cultivation. They’re just costs to be managed once whoever secures presidential support closes the deal.
When Peter McCormack declares the system broken and withdraws his consent, when Trey Walsh announces it’s beyond repair and opt-out is only option, when Balaji sells jurisdiction-shopping as innovation—they speak from position of those who can exit. Those who have the wealth and mobility to shop for better governance when current governance constrains them.
This morning’s segment shows what this produces for everyone else. A world where media ownership gets framed around political favor. Where regulatory approval is analyzed as thing you win through DC access. Where sovereign wealth and presidential support are treated as decisive variables for who controls information. Where democratic constraint dissolves into competitive advantages for those who can afford effective positioning.
And we’re told this is just how deal analysis works now. This is normal. This is business.
Some of us refuse to accept this as normal.
Yesterday I wrote about civilization requiring that we stay in the room, work things out, remain subject to democratic constraint even when exit seems easier. About the immanent malaise of procedural economic exchange when everything reduces to optimization of revealed preferences. About social capital versus material capital, obligation versus consumer choice, staying versus shopping.
This morning I watched that analysis confirmed in completely different context. A business reporter casually framing regulatory approval around political favor. How DC access determines deal analysis. How presidential support matters in competitive evaluation. How this is all normal business discourse in 2025.
This is conspiracy of capital in the structural sense—not secret cabal meeting in smoke-filled rooms but open coordination of extremely wealthy actors using political favor and exit optionality to shape outcomes. The reporter describes it openly because it’s not hidden. It’s not even questioned. It’s just how deal analysis works now.
The battle for civilization is this: do we accept this discourse as how things work, or do we insist that democratic constraint still matters?
Do we want civilization where deal success gets framed around presidential favor? Where sovereign wealth or tech capital wins based on managing approval probability? Where who can most effectively cultivate Washington access determines media ownership?
Or do we want civilization built on democratic constraint on power regardless of wealth? On regulatory independence from political favor? On media serving public interest, not billionaire access to favorable analysis? On institutions that bind even the wealthy?
The battle isn’t between Ellisons and Netflix. It’s between those who accept the discourse of capital optimization through political favor as inevitable, and those who insist democracy means more than variables to price.
It’s between those who think managing approval probability should frame deal analysis, and those who think public interest should matter more than DC access.
It’s between those who treat securing Washington clearance as competitive strategy in analysis, and those who remember when independence meant something.
I choose civilization built on democratic constraint. I choose institutions that serve public interest over favor-based advantages. I choose regulatory independence over access-based analysis. I choose refusing to normalize the discourse reporters now describe as normal business practice.
Because once we accept that deal success gets framed around political favor rather than public interest analysis, once we treat DC access as standard competitive variable, once we analyze regulatory approval through favor-cultivation rather than independent evaluation—we’ve lost more than one media company.
We’ve lost the possibility of democratic governance itself.
This morning’s segment isn’t aberration. It’s revelation. This is how dealmaking discourse operates in 2025. Capital coordinating through political relationships. Governance framed as thing you optimize for through favor. Democracy as performance while actual power gets analyzed through access and presidential support.
Yesterday I diagnosed the pathology. This morning I watched it operate in discourse. Twenty-four hours from theoretical analysis to concrete confirmation. From Balaji’s Singapore to the Ellisons’ marketing of Trump favor to Netflix’s management of approval probability—all the same pattern, all the same dissolution, all framed as normal analysis.
A conspiracy of capital, operating openly in discourse, because we’ve forgotten what conspiracy means when the powerful coordinate their interests in plain sight and reporters frame it as smart competitive analysis.
Some of us still remember. Some of us refuse to forget what civilization requires: that even the wealthy remain subject to democratic constraint, that even the powerful must negotiate rather than cultivate favor, that even billionaires face institutions that can’t be won over with better DC access.
The machinery isn’t broken—it’s been optimized for those with favor-based advantages. The system isn’t beyond repair—it’s been reframed for those with capital to manage regulatory risk. And exit isn’t freedom—it’s abandonment of the democratic constraint that makes freedom possible.
I’m staying. I’m fighting. I’m refusing to accept as normal discourse what should outrage us.
Not because I’m certain we’ll win.
But because I know what we lose if we don’t fight.
And no amount of favor-based positioning, no sovereign wealth deployment, no Netflix cultivation of approval probability, no Ellison Trump marketing, no Kushner signaling, no reporter normalization of this discourse can change this truth:
Civilization requires democratic constraint on power. Not optimization for political favor. Not governance-as-shopping. Not capital coordination through relationship management.
Some of us still believe that matters.
And we’re watching in real time as that belief is tested by every business reporter who casually frames deal success around securing Washington favor rather than serving the public.
This is the battle for civilization. Not which billionaire wins. But whether democratic constraint survives the discourse that treats political favor as decisive.
The choice is ours.
I choose civilization. I choose constraint. I choose staying.
What do you choose?
Warning: despite being highly educated, well-read, published, I also feel a need to use vulgar language. If you are offended by what the upper-class elite consider vulgar, stop here, and proceed no further. I was born in Jamaica, NY, minutes away from that piece of shit called Trump, the DIC (dealer-in-chief). So, read on if you have balls or something equivalent.
Every day with Trump and his scumbag Administration is a fucking nightmare. Pam Bondi as attorney general is a mockery of anything to do with justice. This is not a rape of Lady Liberty, this is Lady Liberty being beat to shit. This is blasphemy of anything remotely bordering on that which is right.
And many among me cannot discuss this. They prefer to ruminate about their fraternity songs from 63 fucking years ago, as if they were magically 17 years old again. Siblings, nephews and nieces are quiet about what has happened in the US.
I have two descriptions of what this Trump Nation is. The first is from Oliver K. as sent to me via an Instagram post:
“Behold. The festering carcass of American rot shoved into an ill-fitting suit: the sleaze of a conman, the cowardice of a draft dodger, the gluttony of a parasite, the racism of a Klansman, the sexism of a back-alley creep, the ignorance of a bar-stool drunk, and the greed of a hedge-fund ghoul-all spray-painted orange and paraded like a prize hog at a county fair. Not a president. Not even a man. Just the diseased distillation of everything this country swears it isn't but has always been-arrogance dressed up as exceptionalism, stupidity passed off as common sense, cruelty sold as toughness, greed exalted as ambition, and corruption worshiped like gospel. It is America's shadow made flesh, a rotting pumpkin idol proving that when a nation kneels before money, power, and spite, it doesn't just lose its soul-it shits out this bloated obscenity and calls it a leader.” Oliver Kornetzke, 9/3/25
Whew, that's a lot of venting. But I prefer more of a detailed report of what we are seeing, hearing and what we are immersed in.
_________________________________________________________________________________
We are the Germans. We are the Germans!
- previously published as: I’m coming to your house to fuck you in the ass"
From the title, you may have guessed that we are living in Dystopian times, especially in the US. But let me say, in light of the societal upheavals, these years under the Trump reign of terror, have been of logarithmically dysphoric. Our very own fascist leader is a diabolic mixture of Russian narrative a la his love and admiration for Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, combined with his political role model, Hitler and his Nazi entourage of psychotics.
Our Don, who I believe should use the avatar of Tyrantosaurus Rex, is so self-consumed with his brilliance, his impeccable looks, his knowledge of eclectic matters such as the weather, that none of us will be surprised if Disneyland is renamed TrumpLand, and if the Lincoln Memorial is changed to the Trump-Lincoln Memorial. And yes, we’ll have to see which former Mt. Rushmore figure will be replaced with the most handsome and peace-achieving President of the United States (POTUS), Donald J. Trumpolini.
As a medical professional and educator, I suggest all medical students be required to devote at least one semester to examine the wide array of personality disorders all rolled up into one humanoid creature. We will start such a course with a description of malignant narcissism, then move on to sociopathic personality and its usual spectrum of psychopathy such as lack of empathy, mindset focused on revenge, belittlement of minorities, the handicapped, misogynist behavior, obsession with his growing collection of blonde bimbos, like his idiot Karoline Leavitt, incestuous fantasies, and, wait a minute, flagrant prevarication ‘like never before.” Perhaps it was Shakespeare envisioning this most unusual creature when he created the phrase “the paragon of all animals,” or was he misquoted and actually said, “the moron of mammals.”
How then, in the anals of mankind’s history (that’s not a typo, I did mean anals), did Americans, the citizens of a country of immigrants, end up with a majority voting this salesman from the gutters of Queens, NY, into the Oval Office?
How have we gone from Cool Hand Luke and “What we have here is a problem in communication.” to Con Man Trump and “What we have here is a total lack of integrity and morality.” But let us review for the record, before it is replaced with Trump’s version of history. What has this dreadful POTUS accomplished so far in a mere 12 months.
• Violation of the US Constitution: freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, due process, Emoluments Clause
• Gestapo tactics against immigrants and especially anyone looking different (e.g., Latinos, Somalis, Arabs, etc) leading to incarceration on the premise of criminality but where the percent criminality of those attacked, basically kidnapped is perhaps 3%.
• Hellfire missile attacks on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific without disclosure of criminality or flagrant threat to the US. Seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers by Trump declaring Maduro to be a terrorist threatening the US. (Be prepared for a land invasion as Trump goes after Venezuela’s oil reserves). And, BTW, the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier cost the American taxpayer $6-8 million dollars a day even when doing nothing. I would guesstimate the current belligerent actions in the Caribbean is costing us about $15 million per day.
• Trump pardoning a major drug dealing former president of Honduras (Juan Orlando Hernández) involving 400 tons of cocaine. That’s 800,000 pounds of cocaine. So much for Trump calling this a war against “narco-terrorists.” And of course, the Republican Congress stands by with their thumbs up their asses. The hypocrisy.
• Betrayal of the people of Ukraine and acquiescing to Putin in the “peace” agreement that will lead to the death and disappearance of the valiant Ukrainian population. This is a violation like non-other and is monumentally shameful in light of the Budapest Memorandum where our country pledged support of Ukraine and Russia pledged no acts of aggression. After Trump was not successful in his perfect phone call with President Zelensky, Trump has sold Ukraine, a sovereign country, to Putin. I wonder how many millions if not billions will be added to the coffers of Trump & sons with this Nobel Prize winning achievement.
• Genocide by proxy. Trump’s supplying Netanyahu with financial and military aid allowed another off-the-rail leader to murder over 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza. Two-thirds of these are women and children. As a Jew, God help us in this commission of genocide. Yes, a Nobel Prize split between Trump and Netanyahu. The hypocrisy. The immorality. The horror.
• Display of empathy by our Comrade-in-Chief. What a great role model for our children to not only show no sympathy for the family of Rob Reiner and his wife, but to instead say derogatory remarks about a dead man. You bet he’s consistent. Wasn’t John McCain as a POW a real loser? The paragon of animals is Rump.
• Pardoning those convicted of felonies in their attack on Capitol police and attempting to overthrow the US government. Yep, let’s get criminals off the streets, especially those poor slobs that weren’t given millions of dollars in inheritance by their father.
• I could go on for another two or three pages.
Alienate our allies, deny the Earth’s integrity, “drill baby drill,” “grab’em in the pussy,” keep classified documents alongside a toilet in case you run out of TP, cheat on your golf game, tear down the East Wing of the WH without approval of Congress, turn the White House into a multi-level marketing game show: Trump steaks, watches, coins, guitars. At least sell Trump toilet paper with a picture of you on each panel so I can clean my ass with your face. How fucking disgusting is this, our president. Dystopian, my ass. And this is why this snippet of an article has a subtitle, “I’m coming to your house to fuck you in the ass.” America, how do you like this experience?
We will not have Midterms. Trump & the GOP will do something to postpone or out"law" the Midterms. Our Ship of State is now called the USS Fascist. Somehow, someway, we have to toss the Captain and his crew overboard before they flounder the Ship and all is lost. Frankly, Scarlet, I don't know how we are going to accomplish this.
12/18/25
So what is your opinion on people who fight where they can but end up seeking asylum outside of the country because it becomes intolerably unsafe to remain? Because as a trans person actively involved in a group that is fighting the administration’s immigration policies I am very aware that, while I’m pretty safe in California for the moment, in the long term the administration has flat out said they want to remove me from society and, at best, put me in jail or a reeducation camp. And I know I won’t survive that. So my plan is to hang in as long as I can but leave when I feel I have to. So is that an acceptable course, or do you feel everyone needs to stay to the bitter end?