In This Corner Oligarchy, In This Corner, The President

Christine Merser, June 7, 2025

I wrote the first piece on December 2, 2024… I put it forth today to give you some of the foundation of what the fight is around Musk VS DT… it’s not so simple, and it should be a warning of larger things. And, it’s not just about the U.S. China & Russia would love to welcome Musk asylum, who by the way, has all our data somewhere not in our basements.

The second article beneath it is about Musk, and I think is more important… written in March. cm

Oligarchy VS The President. So, Here We Are. America 2.5

by Christine Merser, December 2, 2024

I am still reeling from the election returns, four weeks later. Then the cabinet posts started rolling in, and, well, it was put my head in the oven, move to another country (no one wants us; stick that in your bank account), or try to come up with a plan different from the last decade where I think we can all agree the Democrats’ plan didn’t work, however well-intended. And, yet I still see the same approach. Educate the electorate and they will see our way to their future. Seriously?

I needed to take some time to figure out where we are, rather than continuing to try and plug up holes in the dike, which is crumbling. Here is where I am this minute, not to be confused with revisions based on the changing landscape I’m going to call USA 2.5.

I believe that DT is not going to be in power the way he thinks he will. I think his power will come at the benevolence of his corporate oligarchy and the willingness of the House to do whatever he says, which could change on a dime.

I say we are looking at an American Oligarchy 2.5.

American Oligarchy 2.5

I am looking at a new American oligarchy in place starting in a month. Not the kind that conjures images of shadowy figures in dark rooms making deals with a wink and a nod—nope, we’re talking about a full-blown, stars-and-stripes, capitalist-flavored version. With Donald Trump re-elected as President, it seems to me we’re heading into uncharted waters where we can see an emergence of oligarchs that are big, bold, and already loaded with power before DT serves them McDonalds and diet coke at a White House luncheon. Big business has always bought favorable legislation. Think the Gilded Age. The difference now, is they have more power than legislators, so it’s a balance shift. They have been building this power in the shadows for a long time, but we were so busy jumping up and down focused on Washington’s place on the chessboard, that we didn’t really see the oligarchs taking over access and outcome.

We’ve seen oligarchies before. Take Vladimir Putin’s version over in Russia, where the power players are billionaires who owe their fortunes and fiefdoms to him. One wrong move, and they’re out of the club faster than you can say “dacha.” Viktor Orban has a similar playbook, holding Hungary’s strings and making sure the folks on his payroll know who the real boss is. But America’s Oligarchy 2.5? We have something altogether different. Our oligarchy now comes with built-in empires, and they don’t need a handout from the President—they’re the ones holding the cards.

The American Oligarchs: Household Names, Bigger Power

For this exercise, I’m going with the Big Three; Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Musk (BZM). There are others though, with slightly less power, but let’s just focus on BZM for now. Picture this. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg. These aren’t just guys with private jets and secret lairs paying big dollars to curry favor on the hill; they’re the architects of the infrastructure we all rely on more than we’d like to admit. Amazon practically runs half of American households and a good chunk of the U.S. economy. (Amazon accounts for 10% of all US retail sales and 37.6% of the US e-commerce market share.) You can try to go a week without buying something off Prime, but good luck when your kid suddenly needs a blue costume for tomorrow’s school play. Zuckerberg controls what millions of people read, watch, and argue about every day. And then there’s Elon Musk, who doesn’t just own Twitter—oh no, he also holds the keys to the satellites that keep the modern world turning. Remember when Musk hinted that he could turn off satellite service in Ukraine? Or said no to the request that he offer it in Crimea? Yeah, that’s what you call power. Real, tangible, switch-it-off-if-I-want-to power. Don’t think he won’t tell DT he will turn off the satellites above the White House if he wants to.

I think that unlike in Russia or Hungary, where oligarchs depend on the top guy for their wealth and agency, the American version is now flipped. Trump will walk into the Oval Office with his usual bravado, but he can’t exactly tell Bezos to pack it in or order Musk to hand over Starlink. These guys built empires that don’t just cater to society—they are society, in many ways. And while Trump might try to cozy up to them, it’s clear who really calls the shots in this relationship.

In my opinion, DT thinks he’s in power, (he was never the sharpest guy on the block), but he’s not. Trump’s power is going to look a whole lot different when he’s sharing the stage with billionaires who have their own fanbases, followers, and influence that rivals his. The next four years won’t just be about government policies but will also feature a kind of high-stakes dance between the White House and these corporate titans.

First Up: Policy Will Be a Team Sport

Picture a White House Cabinet meeting that looks more like a Silicon Valley summit. Policies won’t just come from presidential advisors but will be influenced—heavily—by what works for the big players. Need an infrastructure bill passed? Better make sure it aligns with Amazon’s next big venture or SpaceX’s launch schedule. You think Trump’s famous for cutting deals now? Just wait until he’s negotiating not just with Congress but with the titans who’ve got their own satellite data and lobbying armies.

Media and Information Wars

Zuckerberg’s influence on news and media could shift the landscape of the next election cycle before the ink dries on Trump’s victory speech. With the oligarchs controlling the platforms where we get our information, the public narrative can swing from one extreme to the other faster than you can hit refresh on your timeline. Trump might get on the phone to pitch a new “unbiased” social media policy, only to have Zuck smile, nod, and then tweak an algorithm that nobody really understands anyway.

Public Opinion: The Real Gold Standard

It’s no longer just about what voters think of the President; it’s about how they view Musk’s latest tech stunt or Amazon’s worker policies. These oligarchs aren’t just playing behind the scenes; they’re front and center, sometimes tweeting wild things at 3 a.m. and setting the public discourse for the day. Trump knows how to work a crowd, but so do these guys. And, they own access to the crowd that is much stronger than his. And while he might be a master showman, even Trump can’t compete with a 24/7 digital feedback loop that shapes public opinion with just one viral moment.

The Power Dynamic: Trump vs. the Oligarchs

Here’s where I think it gets really interesting, and where I decided I would put a turkey in the oven instead of my head…. I think some things can be done to change the trajectory we are on. In a traditional oligarchy, the head honcho can rein in the wealthy elite. They play ball because they know who funds their yachts and summer homes. Or that legislature can be taken away. But the likes of Bezos and Musk? They’re playing a different game. Trump could threaten regulation or make bold claims about breaking up monopolies, but these oligarchs have assets that can’t be yanked out from under them so easily. Musk alone, with his space and AI ventures, holds sway over things that are bigger than politics—things that are global and, frankly, essential.

And here’s the kicker: while Trump’s platform might thrive on disruption and chaos, so do these billionaires. They didn’t get to where they are by playing it safe. If Trump throws a wrench into the works, they’re the type who might just pivot, adapt, and come out stronger. Their power isn’t just big—it’s adaptable, international, and tech-fueled in ways that make it nearly untouchable.

The Wild Card: Global Implications

Trump’s re-election doesn’t just ring bells in the U.S. It sends shockwaves through global politics. But here’s the thing: the American oligarchs are already global players. While Trump’s presidency could mean strained relationships with allies and bold moves on the international stage, don’t forget that Musk, Bezos, and their peers aren’t confined to one country’s politics. Their interests span continents, and their loyalties are tied to markets, not just nations. That alone makes this different from a Putin or Orban Oligarchy.

So, now we need to adjust the plan of attack. A mentor once told me not to think about what I just laid out; what is presently in play. Dig deeper. What happens next? And, ask the next question. “Where are BZM vulnerable?” would be his question. Who do they need? That should be the focus. Bezos needs ‘we the people’ to continue to use Amazon as much as we want to. With Zuckerberg, it lies in us continuing to get news, connection, and our entertainment from his platforms. Same with Musk on X, which he has already depleted.

You want to lobby congress or the senate? Forget the cabinet appointments which are already a done deal. Lobby the Hill make sure they control space. Satellites. Online platforms. That’s where we are really vulnerable. And, how the fuck (yes, fuck), did we pay for the Musk development of his satellites through contracts to him, but we don’t own them? He was a contractor. Are our destroyers owned by the builders? Can you imagine the nukes being controlled by the contractors who built them? Schumer, and all the rest of you, answer the question, and fix it now.

Saddle up for the ride in front of us. But we do need to see the landscape along the way more clearly. It’s been changing without us changing along with it. CM

Need to understand the difference between Oligarchy, Dictator and Fascist? While autocracy, dictatorship, and fascism can all involve one-person rule, they differ in methods and ideological underpinnings. Autocracy can be more benign or traditional, dictatorship often relies on overt force, and fascism is ideological, rooted in nationalism with a suppressive, militaristic approach. Oligarchy stands apart with its collective governance by an elite few, rather than one leader. - Ai

The Most Powerful Man in the World—Then and Now? Ted Turner & Now Elon Musk.

by Christine Merser, March 12, 2025

I’ve alluded to this before, but now it needs to take center stage…cm

When CNN first launched, I was at a luncheon where George Soros posed a question to the table, “Who is the most powerful man in the world?”

Everyone went around giving their answers—mostly Reagan, with a few other world leaders thrown in for variety. I don’t remember mine, but I know it wasn’t the right one.

Finally, someone asked George for his take. Without hesitation, he said, “That’s easy. It’s Ted Turner.”

His reasoning? Turner controlled CNN, the only global news network that could instantaneously decide what the world saw and cared about. He didn’t just report the news; he dictated what was news.

I remember reaching for the cookies in the middle of the table, partly because I was processing what he said, and the anxiety screamed for relief, but partly because I realized how stuck I’d been in my own narrow way of thinking, inside the boxes I put things in, and never considering looking for socks in the sweater drawer. Powerful men belonged in government or the military, right? Not media. Not news. Everything and everyone in their place.

But Soros wasn’t thinking inside the box the rest of us were. He understood something that was, frankly, terrifying: if you control what people see, you control what they think. And if you control what they think, you can steer history itself.

And that was with a news channel. Now, fast-forward to today, where Elon Musk controls something far more dangerous: Starlink.

Here’s the problem: If Turner had wanted to manipulate the news for personal gain, sure, he could have tried. But eventually, governments, competing networks, or the sheer force of public scrutiny would have caught up with him.

Musk? Not so much.

With Starlink, he has created a global satellite communication network that underpins everything from military operations to emergency response to, oh yeah, your ability to send a text. Governments rely on it. The U.S. military relies on it. Ukraine literally depends on it to fight Russia. And Musk alone gets to decide who has access.

We already saw how dangerous this is when Musk personally shut off Starlink access near Crimea, reportedly preventing a Ukrainian attack on Russian forces. This wasn’t some policy debate. It wasn’t an international agreement. It was one guy, making a unilateral decision about a war he wasn’t elected to influence.

That should terrify everyone.

The Flick of a Switch—and We’re Back in the Dark Ages.

Here’s what keeps me up at night.

If Musk decides to turn off Starlink, entire nations could go dark.

If he flips the switch, the U.S. military could be paralyzed.

If Starlink shuts down, you might not even be able to make a phone call.

Yes, your Apple phone. Yes, Verizon and AT&T. Starlink isn’t just for rural broadband—it’s integrated into our entire communications infrastructure.

Unlike Halliburton under Cheney, which profited from war but never had the ability to end one, Musk has something even scarier: a literal kill switch for global communication.

And somehow, we thought this was a good idea?

This is the part I still can’t wrap my head around.

Why would we pay a vendor to build something as vital as Starlink and then… not own it? Why didn’t the U.S. government—or at least NATO—ensure we had control over a system so critical to national security?

Instead, we’ve handed the entire thing over to a guy who tweets conspiracy theories at 2 a.m. and whose politics seem to shift depending on the last podcast he listened to.

And it’s not just a U.S. problem. Europe, you need your own satellites yesterday. The EU should be launching its own network right now, because if you think Musk is a reliable partner in geopolitics, you haven’t been paying attention.

Okay, so you’re reading this and thinking, Great. Now I have something else to panic about. Thanks a lot.

But I’m not just here to sound the alarm. I’m here to say we need a Plan B.

For governments, that means creating independent, government-controlled satellite networks. We need redundancy, and we need it fast.

And, for regulating Starlink. No single person—no matter how “genius”—should be able to unilaterally shut down global communications. This is a job for Rachel Maddow.

For us mortal citizens who feel we have no agency? We have to have an offline communication plan. If things go dark, where do you meet your family? How do you get information?

We need to Consider alternatives. If your internet, phone, and banking systems all rely on Musk playing nice, you might want to diversify your options.

Am I Becoming a Conspiracy Theorist?

I’ll admit it—I’ve always side-eyed conspiracy theorists. I work with someone who firmly believes the CIA killed JFK, and while she makes a compelling case, I’ve always been skeptical. But now?

Now, I’m starting to wonder if this is how it happens.

Because this isn’t some deep-state fever dream. This is happening, in real time, in plain sight. We have handed our digital lifelines to one man, and we are one bad mood away from seeing what happens when he decides to cut the cord.

If you haven’t watched Paradise on Hulu, do yourself a favor. Seeing this kind of scenario play out on screen makes it feel even more real than when I’m sitting here typing it.

But whether you believe me or not, here’s what I ask:

Talk about this.

Make sure people understand that Starlink isn’t just a nifty way to get WiFi in rural Montana. It’s the infrastructure for global communication and war. And right now, it’s controlled by one man with no oversight.

I wish I’d asked George Soros at that luncheon what the antidote was for this kind of situation. But since I didn’t, I guess I’ll have to figure it out—and get back to you.