Saturday, September 29, 2018

The roots of male rage


The roots of male rage, on show at the Kavanaugh hearing

Martha Nussbaum Washington Post


'This is hell': Sen. Graham calls Kavanaugh allegations 'despicable'



A wave is sweeping across our nation: a wave of fear-driven male rage. We see it not only in the hysterical outbursts from Republicans during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh (Kavanaughhimself, suddenly shrill, as well as committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham), but also more widely in the dark allegations of women “weaponizing the #MeToo movement,” as if masculinity itself were under attack. We are even told that good parents should tremble for the future of their sons when women can make claims against them. And, indeed, men are trembling. At the Kavanaugh hearings, as many remarked, Christine Blasey Ford’s acknowledged fear was matched and even surpassed by quivering in the voices and gestures of Republicans. What is going on?

American men do have genuine reasons for anxiety. The traditional jobs that many men have filled are disappearing, thanks to automation and outsourcing. The jobs that remain require, in most cases, higher education, which is increasingly difficult for non-affluent families to afford. We should indeed tremble for the future of both men and women in our country unless we address that problem, and related problems of declining health and well-being for working-class men.

But our public discussion does not stay focused on such genuine issues. Fear and anger have found ways to displace themselves onto other targets, above all women and their unprecedented outspokenness. Misogyny takes the place of serious deliberation.

Three emotions, all infused by fear, play a role in today’s misogyny. The most obvious is anger — at women making demands, speaking up, in general standing in the way of unearned male privilege. Women were once good mothers and good wives, props and supports for male ambition, the idea goes –but here they are asserting themselves in the workplace. Here they are daring to speak about their histories of sexual abuse at the hands of powerful men. It’s okay for women to charge strangers with rape, especially if the rapist is of inferior social status. But to dare to accuse the powerful is to assail a bastion of privilege to which men still cling.

Coupled with anger is envy. All over the world, women are seeing unprecedented success in higher education, holding a majority of university seats. In our nation many universities quietly practice affirmative action for males with inferior scores, to achieve a “gender balance” that is sometimes dictated by commitment to male sports teams, given Title IX’s mandate of proportional funding.

But men still feel that women are taking “their” places in college classes, in professional schools. A few years ago, top law schools endured an ugly envy wave, when a site that purported to give advice on law school admissions quickly became a porn site in which named female law students were woven into fictional and grossly false pornographic narratives by anonymous males, suggesting their utter unsuitability for the practice of law (despite their fine scores and grades).

Envy, propelled by fear, can be even more toxic than anger, because it involves the thought that other people enjoy the good things of life which the envier can’t hope to attain through hard work and emulation. Envy is the emotion of Aaron Burr in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton” (and in history), who longs despairingly to be “in the room where it happens.” Cheated of their automatic gender passport to being “in the room,” many men have become toxic enviers.

And then, beneath the hysteria, lurks a more primitive emotion: disgust at women’s animal bodies. Human beings are probably hard-wired to find signs of their mortality and animality disgusting, and to shrink from contamination by bodily fluids and blood. But in every culture something worse kicks in: the projection of these feared and loathed characteristics onto a vulnerable group or groups from whom the dominant group wishes to distance itself. In the United States, we observe this dynamic in racism, in homophobia and even in revulsion toward the bodies of people who are aging. But in every culture male disgust targets women, as emblems of bodily nature, symbolic animals by contrast to males, almost angels with pure minds.

Disgust for women’s bodily fluids is fully compatible with sexual desire. Indeed, it often singles out women seen as promiscuous, the repositories of many men’s fluids. As with the shunning of sex workers until the present day, as with the apparent defamation of Renate Dolphin in Kavanaugh’s infamous yearbook, men often crow with pride over intercourse with a woman imagined as sluttish and at the same time defame and marginalize her. As the great philosopher Adam Smith observed about post-coital disgust, “When we have dined, we order the covers to be removed.” Disgust for the female body is always tinged with anxiety, since the body symbolizes mortality. Disgust is often more deeply buried than envy and anger, but it compounds and intensifies the other negative emotions. Our president seems to be especially gripped by disgust: for women’s menstrual fluids, their bathroom breaks, the blood imagined streaming from their surgical incisions, even their flesh, if they are more than stick-thin.



How can women combat this onslaught of fear-driven rage? Ford gave an example: with courage, dignity and truth. I believe that if we have courage (and I myself did not have courage until 2015 to name the man who assaulted me in 1968), we will ultimately prevail and reshape our society.


Martha Nussbaum is a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago and author of “The Monarchy of Fear: A Philosopher Looks at Our Political Crisis.” 

Saturday, September 22, 2018

Stormy Daniels

Stormy Daniels’s memoir: Funny, vulgar, brash and believable


Stormy Daniels would like to set the record straight, and the first thing she wants you to know is that she didn’t want to be here. She hates public speaking. She kept the bad sex she had with Donald Trump a secret, even from her husband, and even after some of the people she loves most in the world begged her to come forward to save the republic. She’s not a gold digger or an attention seeker or a bimbo looking for her 15 minutes. And she’s definitely not a liar.

That is the current that runs through Daniels’s new book, “Full Disclosure,” which publishes Oct. 2. (The Washington Post obtained an early copy.) Daniels knows we’re all interested in the juicy bits about Trump, but she doesn’t get there until several chapters in, after detailing a dysfunctional childhood in Louisiana with an uninterested and then absent father and a mother who falls apart as a result. She is repeatedly raped at age 9 by a child molester, and when she finally tells a school counselor, her story isn’t believed. Her mother pretends it never happened, fearing that the assaults will be blamed on negligent parenting. Hers is a childhood marked by indifferent and sometimes callous adults, and she has to prove her basic worth again and again.

Daniels eventually finds solace in horseback riding, which helps her pull away from a life that felt inevitable, a theme she comes back to many times as she considers the absurdity of her current situation (“I should be living in a trailer back in Louisiana, with six kids and no teeth,” she writes in the book’s prologue, as she instead prepares to accept the keys to the city as West Hollywood proclaims Stormy Daniels Day). Her fixation on riding means she avoids drinking, drugs and sex, all parts of a normal teenage social life, but things that can short-circuit plans of escape for those lower on the socioeconomic rungs. “I would see yet another girl who lived around me suddenly pregnant and would say to myself silently, Can’t ride a horse if you’re pregnant.”

That focus also animates Daniels’s professional life, as she starts stripping in high school (focusing on consistent clients rather than gravitating to one-time big tippers), moves on to more-profitable stripping road shows and then tries the adult-film industry. She seeks to write and later direct adult films, and finds quick success.

She is ambitious and bright, and that comes through — she doesn’t just show us, she tells us, repeatedly mentioning that she graduated from a magnet high school, that she has a photographic memory and that she’s smarter than you think. She misses few opportunities to emphasize the loyalty of her fan base — even more so now, as so many people plead with her to save the world as we know it. She name-drops and self-promotes and says how good she is at the many things she does well. As she recalls conversations, she’s always the one shutting down her adversary with a perfect zinger (or what she thinks is a great zinger but a younger reader will interpret as a classic mom joke, if your mom cursed a lot, liked bad metal, and named her boobs Thunder and Lightning). She implies that she was somehow preordained for the prominent history-shaping role she currently occupies.
(St. Martin’s)

Reading Daniels’s book, I found myself alternately appreciating her crass and self-aware humor, and cringing at her shameless self-aggrandizement. It struck me, repeatedly, that she’s a bit like the female flipside of Trump: fixated on her greatness, unabashedly bragging about her achievements and a touch vain.

I suspect many readers will feel the same. I also suspect this says more about us than it does about Daniels.

It is her autobiography, after all, and unlike Trump, she doesn’t puff up her life story or pretend to be anything she’s not. She is simply a woman who doesn’t play by the feminine rulebook of crediting others, even when it’s not deserved, and shying away from anything that might resemble ambition, pride or self-promotion. Narcissism is unappealing no matter who it comes from, and it is potentially dangerous when a pathological narcissist has significant power over others as, say, the president of the United States. It is also over-diagnosed in women by armchair psychologists. As I found myself comparing Daniels to Trump, I also became shamefully aware that even the most feminist-minded among us often are viscerally repelled when we witness women who are unvarnished in their normal human self-interest.

Beyond the grounds for potential campaign finance violations, it’s this more profound examination of our subtler biases that Daniels has brought about. Her rags-to-riches story tacks a familiar course, but she got there via sex and brazen power-seeking — things women are not supposed to be quite so blatant about. Women like Daniels are rarely heroes, least of all when they take on powerful men. It is deep-seated, this assumption of deceitfulness and greed in women who are sexually forthcoming. Good women don’t do that, so the ones who do must be bad. Strippers pretend to like you, prostitutes pretend to enjoy sleeping with you, porn stars pretend that what they do on film is like the sex real people have. Never mind that they’re all being paid to uphold (mostly) men’s fantasies; there is disgust wrapped up with the desire, a sense in which men feel free to use their money to incentivize female behavior that pleases them, and then deem that same behavior inauthentic and the women who engage in it greedy liars. (If they’ll do that, what won’t they do?)

That Daniels is taking on a man who ascended to power on the fumes of conspiracy theories and who lies with a depth and frequency heretofore unseen in a president complicates this narrative. It forces all of us to take a look at the judgments we level at certain types of women, whether they’re Stormy Daniels or Hillary Clinton, whether they’re too sexy or too competitive or too ambitious. Daniels is one vehicle through which women are seeing in sharper focus just how much expectations of female deference still shape our paths and the possibilities for our lives.

Now that she’s wealthy and famous, Daniels’s story should be one of redemption, wherein Stormy goes from hooker with a heart of gold to soft, maternal and quiet (to be clear, Daniels never worked as a prostitute, but her detractors paint her as such). She should find true meaning in motherhood; she should take on the polite trappings of the middle class.

Instead, she writes that pregnancy sucked, she got really fat, and she demanded that her husband do porn, too, so that if they ever got divorced he couldn’t use her job against her in a custody battle. She conceals the Trump fling from him. He struggles with mental health issues, and their marriage falls apart under the glare of the public eye. She clearly adores her daughter but also very obviously loves her job, and is proud of the success she’s had in her industry. Yes, she was raped as a little girl, but she maintains that didn’t drive her to porn.

She is vulgar and candid in the way lovably brassy women always are, sharing the farcical and just-too-much, from descriptions of Trump’s genitals and personal grooming habits (Pert Plus up top, not enough attention down below) to an aside about shaving a part of her husband’s body that is unprintable in a family newspaper. For her, the most notable part of the Michael Cohen hearings, which Daniels went to watch, was that her tampon nearly overflowed: “I was wearing this light skirt, and that was what would be all over the front page the next day. STORMY DANIELS, SHOT IN THE ASS. Tragic.” (She makes it to the bathroom before tragedy strikes.)

There are not many women who can walk this line without making themselves the butt of the joke or being self-effacing enough to maintain likability. Daniels is having none of that, and in doing so, she loosens the straitjacket of acceptable femininity a touch more. She is not particularly self-deprecating. She likes making money and doesn’t feel even a bit bad that she capitalized on this crazy story to make a buck — especially since she initially chose to tell it, for free, to reputable venues, knowing that a reputation for honesty is more valuable than a tabloid payday. Her book is not exactly a gripping read or a remarkable piece of literature, but it’s blunt, funny and authentic. She is all the things women are not supposed to be. And yet you like her — not in spite of her rule-breaking but for it. Perhaps more important, when you read her story, you believe her.

Full Disclosure

By Stormy Daniels

St. Martin’s. 
270 pp. $27.99

Friday, September 21, 2018

King Henry's Henchman


King Henry’s Henchman

Diarmaid MacCulloch Literary review

Thomas Cromwell has lately been enjoying a renaissance. Prior to 2009, if people had heard of him at all, they most likely thought of the brutish and cynical fixer in Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons (memorably portrayed by Leo McKern in the 1966 film version). Or they might have remembered something from A-level history about an important, if rather grey figure in Tudor governmental reform and the dissolution of the monasteries. Hilary Mantel’s luminescent novel Wolf Hall, its 2012 sequel Bring Up the Bodies and the subsequent stage and screen adaptations have changed all that. Cromwell is now a household word, at least in middle-class households. Dinner table deployment of the name is more likely to evoke Thomas than Oliver, as the Civil War continues its slide down the scale of English historical consciousness and the Tudors maintain their seemingly unshakeable dominance.

Diarmaid MacCulloch’s hugely impressive new biography, meticulous and magisterial, thus meets a reading public with arms open to receive it. An initial thought, which MacCulloch himself articulates, is how remarkable it is that no really heavyweight scholarly biography has previously appeared. Anyone with insider knowledge of Tudor historiography knows who ought to have written one: Sir Geoffrey Elton (1921–94), the Cambridge Regius Professor of History who devoted a lifetime to studying the workings of Tudor government and Cromwell’s role in it in particular. Elton, a German-Jewish refugee coming to Britain in the 1930s, likely empathised with Cromwell as a fellow outsider scaling the heights of the Establishment. But as a historian of rigidly constitutionalist outlook, Elton did not really approve of biography as a genre. His professed interest was in Cromwell as the architect of a ‘Tudor revolution in government’, in which personalised ‘medieval’ rule was replaced with the embryonic institutions of a modern bureaucratic state.

MacCulloch, Elton’s one-time doctoral student, dedicates the book to his former mentor, but wisely spends little time jousting with Elton’s Cromwell. The ‘Tudor revolution’ thesis has in any case been thoroughly debunked by other independent-minded former students of Elton, such as David Starkey, who have demonstrated that the Tudor court was not simply a venue for royal flirtation and frivolity but the crucial political institution of the age. In an era of personal monarchy, when direct access to the sovereign was everything, how could it have been otherwise? Elton’s Cromwell was a fundamentally ‘secular’ figure, more concerned with governance than godliness, but Susan Brigden (another former student) argued some years ago that Cromwell was a convinced and consistent patron of Protestant reformers, a thread running likewise through MacCulloch’s account.

Indeed, Mantel seems to exercise greater intellectual influence over this biography than Elton. (MacCulloch has planted his flag some months before the likely publication of The Mirror and the Light, the final volume in Mantel’s Cromwell trilogy.) A leitmotif of Mantel’s novels is that Cromwell always remained in some sense Cardinal Wolsey’s man, loyal to the memory of the disgraced royal minister who had once been his gracious master – and, crucially, determined to visit revenge on the cardinal’s erstwhile enemies. MacCulloch explores this idea more thoroughly and seriously than any previous historian. This is not, I think, an instance of cashing in, but a rare and interesting example of how an exercise of historical imagination can act as a spur to serious scholarly investigation. It has not previously been noted, I think, just how much Cromwell’s unique role as Henry VIII’s ‘vicegerent’ for ecclesiastical affairs derived from Wolsey’s former position as papal legate.

This insight also helps MacCulloch make sense of an episode that has consistently puzzled historians: the fall and execution of Anne Boleyn in 1536, a sensational denouement that Cromwell himself, in conversation with the imperial ambassador, claimed to have achieved. Assuming, as most historians do, that Boleyn was not in fact guilty of incest and adultery, the likeliest explanation for her fall is that Cromwell engineered it. One of Boleyn’s biographers, the late Eric Ives, expertly showed how she and Cromwell had fallen out over the direction of foreign policy and over what should happen with the proceeds of monasteries then starting to be dissolved. Nonetheless, it seems an extreme, risk-laden solution to a temporary political crisis, as well as a spectacular own goal for the religious reform movement, which, in the teeth of Henry VIII’s often conservative instincts, Cromwell and Boleyn were jointly committed to furthering.

While conceding Cromwell and Boleyn to be common adherents of a loosely defined evangelicalism, MacCulloch finds little evidence of any prior co-operation in the cause of ‘the gospel’. Disagreements about alliances – Boleyn favoured a French one, Cromwell an imperial – were of long standing. And (as Mantel underlines) Boleyn was an inveterate hater of Wolsey and had done more than anyone to erode Henry’s confidence in him. Cromwell most likely received a nod from the king in 1536, but had his own reasons for bringing the queen down.

Debts to fiction only extend so far, of course. MacCulloch has done an extraordinary job scouring the archives for clues about Cromwell’s early life, convinced his later career can only be understood in light of it. His father, Walter, may or may not have been the violent bully portrayed in Wolf Hall, but he was a prosperous Putney yeoman and brewer, hovering just the wrong side of ‘gentle’ status. MacCulloch finds a local loyalty to Surrey and personal connections from childhood persisting throughout Cromwell’s life. Belatedly ennobled for service to Henry VIII, he took the title Baron Cromwell of Wimbledon – a kind of trolling of the high-and-mighty old aristocracy. At the same time, Cromwell was ‘an exceptionally cosmopolitan Englishman’. He served as a soldier in the Italian wars at the turn of the 16th century; one of many intriguing and original insights in the book is that Cromwell’s Italian expertise – linguistic, commercial, political – was a consistent key to his advancement. Englishmen with Italian connections, on both sides of the growing religious divide, pop up surprisingly frequently throughout the book.

In the conduct of public affairs in the 1530s, Cromwell seems ubiquitous and MacCulloch does more than any previous scholar (or even previous scholarship in aggregate) to track the range of his activities. There is a fascinating retelling of a familiar story: his role in dissolving monasteries. Cromwell was not, MacCulloch argues, ideologically wedded to complete appropriation of monastic assets; the Court of Augmentations – set up to handle the windfall, and the centrepiece of Elton’s ‘Tudor revolution’ – turns out not to have been his idea. Cromwell was, however, deeply concerned with the regulation of weirs and waterworks, a subject of possibly greater concern to some of the gentry. We learn of Cromwell’s adeptness in managing the governance of Wales, his much less sure hand (with future consequences) in attempting the same for Ireland and an apparent lack of interest in the affairs of Scotland. Another blind spot was the north of England, where Cromwell lacked connections and clientage: he was the target of vicious antipathy during the 1536–7 Pilgrimage of Grace.

MacCulloch’s Cromwell is an undeniably attractive individual, whose ‘catholicity of friendship’ facilitated good relations with religiously conservative figures (including Princess Mary), even as the Reformation divide widened. His moral centre (reform of religion aside) was love for his only and somewhat wilful son, Gregory. While Cromwell’s greatest political triumph was securing an official English Bible, his greatest personal triumph was Gregory’s marriage in 1537 to a sister of Jane Seymour, making Cromwell, in a sense, the king’s uncle. ‘Cromwell was preoccupied with the future of his dynasty at least as much as the King was with his,’ MacCulloch writes. Despite his spectacular fall in the wake of the Anne of Cleves debacle, Cromwell’s descendants were respected members of the English aristocracy into the later 17th century.

The dark side is Cromwell’s role in the violence meted out to the king’s enemies, most prominent among them Thomas More. Setting Cromwell against More is, of course, a very Mantelian game and, to his credit, MacCulloch for the most part doesn’t play it. There is frank recognition, for example, that Cromwell directed torture to be used against suspected traitors. It is also reasonable for MacCulloch to point out that Henry was the driving force behind the murderous coercion. Yet Cromwell was centrally involved and just about the best MacCulloch can say is that he doesn’t seem to have deliberately starved to death the Carthusian monks imprisoned in Newgate in 1537. More’s ‘relish’ for burning heretics, his ‘savage’ and ‘bitter’ polemics, are implicitly contrasted with Cromwell’s pained performance of unpleasant duties. A tendency to regard killing people for treason as less morally reprehensible than killing them for heresy is, we might reflect, itself the cultural legacy of Tudor propaganda.

Still, it is healthy and appropriate for biographers to empathise with their subjects and to make the most plausible case on their behalf. MacCulloch’s achievement in creating such a vibrant and rounded portrait is all the more remarkable in light of an evidential anomaly noted at the outset. We possess vast numbers of letters addressed to Cromwell, but very few written by him: ‘the man’s own voice is largely missing’. Historians are used to dealing with gaps in the archival record, but MacCulloch makes them a central and absorbing part of his story, speculating that copies of Cromwell’s outgoing mail were systematically destroyed by his household staff at the time of his arrest, and identifying moments when exchanges with particular correspondents, or on particular topics, seem suspiciously thin. He requires us to think about what we don’t know and why we might not know it.

At just over 550 pages of text, and with much detailed delineation of property arrangements, kinship networks and patronage connections, this is a book that will make demands on the general reader, and perhaps deter the casual one. The stout-hearted will be rewarded, however, not least by the dry wit and warm humanity peppering MacCulloch’s work. If this is not the definitive biography, I don’t know what that would look like.

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

conspiracy theories spread from the Internet’s darkest corners


How conspiracy theories spread from the Internet’s darkest corners

4 things to know about the QAnon conspiracy theory



During President Trump’s rally on July 31, several attendees held or wore signs with the letter “Q.” Here’s what the QAnon conspiracy theory is about. (
Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)




Travis View is a marketer, writer, and conspiracy theory researcher.September 18 at 10:54 AM

On July 7, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and frequent Fox News contributor, published a tweet that contained startling but inaccurately sourced statistics about the alleged growth of human trafficking arrests under the Trump administration. It stated there were 1,952 human trafficking arrests through all of 2016, but in the first half of 2018 authorities had already made an astounding 5,987 human trafficking arrests. Kirk’s tweet falsely claimed these figures came from the Justice Department.

Kirk deleted the tweet shortly after the true source of its figures was revealed: the notorious imageboard 8chan, home of the QAnon conspiracy “researchers” of the /qresearch/ board. The board’s “research,” which consisted of sloppily compiling information from nationwide news reports about human trafficking and child pornography arrests and charges, seeks to support a core belief of the QAnon conspiracy theory — that Trump is secretly battling a corrupt deep state and an evil cabal of pedophile Satan-worshiping elites. QAnon believers think if they can show that more human traffickers are being arrested, it will support the baseless notion that Trump is finally putting an end to long-protected trafficking rings used by these elites.

Though Kirk may not have realized it at first, he had bought into the collective fantasy of some of the Internet’s most outré Trump fans.A scene from a campaign rally for President Trump, right, with Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis, left, in Tampa. Signs were seen in the crowd referring to QAnon, a conspiracy theory. (The Washington Post)

People sometimes dismiss the “anons” — the term users of the chan message boards employ to describe themselves — as a group of amoral pranksters. 4chan anons, for example, gained notoriety for leading a campaign against the HEWILLNOTDIVIDE.US art project and its creators. The campaign led to the vandalization of the artwork and stalking of the artists. But 8chan’s success in spreading QAnon suggests that targeted harassment is merely one of the ways they can inflict real world damage. Namely, they represent a political force that can craft resonant narratives and push them through major social media networks into the mainstream. They sometimes half-jokingly refer to their community’s combination of intense focus and tech savviness in the pursuit of real-world impact as “weaponized autism.”

But it is more than a joke. It can drive national conversations.

On Jan. 19, users of 8chan’s /qresearch/ board were rallying fellow QAnon believers for a day-old digital canvassing campaign. The campaign’s participants, who were anonymous to everyone, including each other, had specific and ambitious goals. They wanted to make the hashtag #releasethememo trend on Twitter, with the ultimate goal of making the “Nunes memo” a major point of discussion in the mainstream media. This, they hoped, would lead to the public release of the memo.

One anon wrote, “NEW MISSION FROM Q - RELEASE THE MEMES, RELEASE THE KRAKEN.” Another post laid out a “BATTLE PLAN FOR #ReleaseTheMemo.” Tactics in this battle plan included concrete steps like, “Tweet all Republican members of the House Intel Committee with memes of #releasethememo.” They also offered a suggestion for increasing visibility of their tweets: “Anon heard changing your name lifts shadowbans. Worth a try.” (“Shadowbanning” is a reference Twitter’s practice of limiting the reach of certain Twitter accounts because of spammy or abusive behavior or quality filters. Twitter does not use this term, and the practice is often exaggerated by Twitter users who claim they are being “censored.”)

The anon who authored that “battle plan” included a link to a collection of memes to spread on social media generally, plus a separate zipped file that included the same memes formatted specifically for Twitter. The post also linked to online tools to track hashtag trends, enabling other anons to monitor the campaign’s progress. Hundreds of posts from other anons offered words of encouragement, speculation and updates on individual efforts. One of these posts said, “#releasethememo is starting to pick up again . . . seeing a lot in my feed and getting retweets.”

It was, in short, an well-organized and media-savvy operation. They had a specific goal, a message about government corruption, community-generated media assets and a focused media strategy. Everyone who participated was a motivated volunteer who simply wanted to get the message out. All of these efforts were inspired by the mysterious 8chan poster known as “Q,” whom they believe is a high-level government official close to Trump and releases information in cryptic messages known as “Q Drops.” QAnon believers thought the release of Nunes memo would finally expose the corruption of the “deep state” and possibly even destroy the mainstream media.

Did the campaign work? The overall #releasethememo campaign, of which 8chan anons played only a part, was wildly successful. An analysis by the social media intelligence group New Media Frontier found that #releasethememo campaign’s movement from social media to fringe media to mainstream media was “so swift that both the speed and the story itself became impossible to ignore.” The full extent of 8chan’s contribution is unknown, but the anons’ goals for the campaign (excepting the destruction of Q’s corrupt cabal enemies in the fictional QAnon world) were fully realized.

Charlie Kirk is not the only mainstream political figure who has promoted QAnon on social media. Roseanne Barr was one of the earliest mainstream figures to promote QAnon and is still the most famous. Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling promoteda video on his Facebook page explaining QAnon. The official Twitter account for the Hillsborough County, Fla., Republican Party tweeted a link to a YouTube video titled “Q Anon for Beginners” created by a popular QAnon decoder named “Praying Medic.” The since-deleted tweet read, “You may have heard rumors about QAnon, also known as Q, who is a mysterious anonymous inside leaker of deep state activities and counter activities by President Trump.” Trump himself even quote tweeted the QAnon-promoting Twitter account MAGAPILL on Nov. 25, 2017, less than a month after Q’s first post on 8chan. That tweet has not been deleted.

QAnon made its presence known in the physical world, as well. At Trump rallies in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, QAnon believers waved Q signs for the cameras and proudly wore Q T-shirts. This visible presence inspired numerous mainstream news outlets to publish QAnon “explainers.” This was a point of pride in the QAnon community. In a Q drop on Aug. 2, following the flurry of coverage about QAnon after the Tampa Trump rally, Q gloated, “Welcome to the mainstream. We knew this day would come.” In other words, even skeptical attention feeds back into the community’s media strategy.

While QAnon is 8chan’s most visible success, anons also run many smaller campaigns. These have less obvious connections to QAnon. For example, on Sept. 5 one anon on the /qresearch/ board posted an image of a woman exchanging money and another image of the same woman being escorted out of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. The anon suggested this was evidence she was a paid protester. Another anon combined the images, along with a third close-up image of the woman’s hands holding the money, and formatted the final combined image so it could be easily shared on mainstream social networks. The final product included the snappy hashtag #activismatwork. To signal the image was ready to promote into the mainstream social media world, the anon who created the image declared, “Ready to meme.”

The image, which promoted the unsubstantiated theory that the woman was a paid protester, quickly jumped on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and on many blogs and online political forums.


How far has QAnon spread? It is hard to say how many believe in the conspiracy theory, but a Washington Post poll of Floridians found 58 percent are familiar enough with QAnon to have an opinion about it. Though QAnon was rated unfavorably by those who were familiar with it, that is still a remarkable feat when you consider QAnon’s origin. Just try hatching a new political movement today and reaching 58 percent awareness in less than a year with no budget and little more than posts on an anonymous message board.

Through crowdsourced efforts, these anons collectively command remarkable power to spread a message on social media and beyond. As social media continues to shape the ways Americans consume news and discuss politics, the chans’ power stands to grow. The issues that motivate people to vote, write their congressmen, hold protests and argue online will be set by anonymous people with unknown agendas on platforms designed to keep less tech-savvy “normies” away.

This is not speculation: The fast spread of QAnon, despite the insanity of the conspiracy theory’s premise, shows that these shadowy parts of the Internet already have influence. Many anons would no doubt find the description of them as “influential” flattering. Influence is their goal, after all. People on 8chan’s /qresearch/ board believe the country’s agenda is being illegitimately set by a compromised mainstream media or an evil cabal, so they use the power of social media to wrestle some influence away from the institutions they sometimes call the “mockingbird media.”

In the abstract sense, there’s nothing wrong with grass-roots organizers flexing their muscle to get a message out. But in the case of the chans, that influence is being used to spread claims that are, at worst, far detached from reality — and at best, merely have no evidence. Bogus statistics, satanic panic and misleading memes are being piped from online fever swamps into mainstream discourse at an increasingly rapid rate. When this happens, very few social media users know the true origin of the memes they share or the talking points they absorb from pundits. So, perhaps it is time to start paying attention to the true source of many of the claims we see online.

Monday, September 10, 2018

A Spy Story


A Spy Story: Sergei Skripal Was a Little Fish. He Had a Big Enemy.

Michael Schwirtz reported from Moscow, and Ellen Barry NY Times

Family photos of the former Russian spy Sergei V. Skripal with his daughter, Yulia, in the late 1980s and his wife, Lyudmila, in 1972.



MOSCOW — Sergei V. Skripal was a little fish.

This is how British officials now describe Mr. Skripal, a Russian intelligence officer they recruited as a spy in the mid-1990s. When the Russians caught Mr. Skripal, they saw him that way, too, granting him a reduced sentence. So did the Americans: The intelligence chief who orchestrated his release to the West in 2010 had never heard of him when he was included in a spy swap with Moscow.

But Mr. Skripal was significant in the eyes of one man — Vladimir V. Putin, an intelligence officer of the same age and training.

The two men had dedicated their lives to an intelligence war between the Soviet Union and the West. When that war was suspended, both struggled to adapt.


One rose, and one fell. While Mr. Skripal was trying to reinvent himself, Mr. Putin and his allies, former intelligence officers, were gathering together the strands of the old Soviet system. Gaining power, Mr. Putin began settling scores, reserving special hatred for those who had betrayed the intelligence tribe when it was most vulnerable.
“A person who chooses this fate will regret it a thousand times,” President Vladimir V. Putin said of moles.Pool photo by Maxim Marmur


Six months ago, Mr. Skripal was found beside his daughter, Yulia, slumped on a bench in an English city, hallucinating and foaming at the mouth. His poisoning led to a Cold War-style confrontation between Russia and the West, with both sides expelling diplomats and wrangling over who tried to kill him and why.

Last Wednesday, British officials offered specifics, accusing Russia of sending two hit men to smear Mr. Skripal’s front door handle with a nerve agent, an accusation vigorously denied by Moscow. British intelligence chiefs claim they have identified the men as members of the same Russian military intelligence unit, the G.R.U., or Main Intelligence Directorate, where Mr. Skripal once worked.

It is unclear if Mr. Putin played a role in the poisoning of Mr. Skripal, who survived and has gone into hiding. But dozens of interviews conducted in Britain, Russia, Spain, Estonia, the United States and the Czech Republic, as well as a review of Russian court documents, show how their lives intersected at key moments.

In 2010, when Mr. Skripal and three other convicted spies were released to the West, Mr. Putin had been watching from the sidelines with mounting fury. Asked to comment on the freed spies, Mr. Putin publicly daydreamed about their death.


It hardly mattered that Mr. Skripal was a little fish.
‘Enrich Yourselves’A military orchestra festival last month in Red Square in Moscow. The collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed a drive for personal enrichment.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times


In the late 1990s, Sergei Skripal returned from Madrid, where he was posted undercover in the office of the Russian military attaché. Russia was in disarray. Coal miners, soldiers and doctors had not been paid in months. Workers took control of a St. Petersburg nuclear power plant, threatening to shut it down unless they received their back pay.

Mr. Skripal was good fun, though, happy in the company of other men. Oleg B. Ivanov, who worked with him in the Moscow regional governor’s office, recalled him as a man struggling to keep up with changes in the country, more “Death of a Salesman” than John le Carré. He lived in a shabby housing block in a field of identical housing blocks, drove a rattletrap Niva and told endless stories about his days as a paratrooper.

One thing didn’t fit: At restaurants, he insisted on paying for everyone. “That was something that set him apart,” Mr. Ivanov said. “I don’t know where this came from.” In their crowd there were many other former Soviet spies, who had devoted the first part of their life to qualifying as intelligence officers. Now it all seemed pointless.

“You have to understand, the Soviet Union collapsed,” Mr. Ivanov said. “All the Soviet ideology that underpinned our government also disappeared into history. There was a slogan at that time: Enrich yourselves.”

That was Mr. Skripal’s story, he said: Always looking for side hustles. “By his psychological type, he was a materialist,” Mr. Ivanov said. “He simply loved money.”“He simply loved money,” Oleg Ivanov said of Mr. Skripal, his former colleague.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times


And that, he said, explained his friend’s betrayal. In 2006, Mr. Ivanov was driving in his car when heard Mr. Skripal’s name on the news. Prosecutors said that, while posted in Spain, Mr. Skripal had entered into a business partnership with a Spanish intelligence agent, who “bumped” him to a recruiter from Britain’s foreign intelligence service. Mr. Skripal had been meeting his handler secretly since 1996, they said, passing on secrets in exchange for $100,000.

It was not a large amount, around $12,500 a year. Prosecutors asked for a sentence of 15 years, five less than the maximum, and the judge reduced it to 13, because Mr. Skripal was cooperative.

Mr. Ivanov found Mr. Skripal’s betrayal, if not especially honorable, at least comprehensible.

“It was a period of building up capital,” he said. “It was affecting everyone in the government, including structures like the G.R.U. He also came under the influence of needing to make money. The time came. The oath he gave to the Soviet Union — it seems to me, at least — you didn’t need to adhere to it anymore.”

Those were years of free-fall. Who could define loyalty?
‘Moscow Is Silent’Mr. Skripal, bottom left, at a Soviet military academy in 1975.


Vladimir V. Putin, another midcareer intelligence officer, was living through the same loss of status.

In 1990, he was sent home early from his post at K.G.B. headquarters in Dresden. His salary had not been paid in three months and he had nowhere to live — so many spies were returning that the government could not house them. He arrived home with nothing to show for his years abroad but some hard currency and a 20-year-old washing machine, a goodbye gift from a neighbor in East Germany.

The unraveling had felt personal for Mr. Putin, who was unable to protect all his German contacts from exposure. One day Mr. Putin pleaded with the Soviet military command to defend the K.G.B. headquarters, which was surrounded by German protesters eager to seize files. In a panic, they were stuffing them into a furnace.


“Moscow is silent,” an officer told him. He would recall that phrase again and again in the years that followed.

“I had the feeling then that the country was no more,” he said later.

His friend Sergei Roldugin said he had never seen Mr. Putin so emotional as when he spoke about those East German informants whose identities had been revealed. “He said it was equal to treason,” Mr. Roldugin told Mr. Putin’s biographer, Steven Lee Myers. “He was very upset, extremely.”

Scores of intelligence agents turned to the West at that time, as defectors or informants, and Mr. Putin cannot speak of them without a lip curl of disgust. They are “beasts” and “swine.” Treachery, he told one interviewer, is the one sin he is incapable of forgiving. It could also, he said darkly, be bad for your health. “Traitors always meet a bad end,” he once said. “As a rule they either die of heavy drinking or drug abuse.”

When he came to power, Mr. Putin went after traitors the same way he dealt with other ills of the chaotic 1990s, the oligarchs and crime bosses. His first years in office were marked by a barrage of spy convictions, some clearly meant as revenge.

The tone was set around the time of Mr. Putin’s first election as president in 2000 — the day before, in fact. That was when the Federal Security Service, which Mr. Putin had recently commanded, leaked the identity of a British MI6 officer who was a prodigious recruiter of Russian spies. It was a careful, meticulous leak, intended to savage the man’s career, a deliberately personal attack: The spy service also revealed the officer’s wife’s name and the fact that he had two daughters.

That officer, it was later revealed, was the man who had recruited Mr. Skripal.
A Family CollapsesA family photo showing Mr. Skripal with his wife, Lyudmila, and daughter, Yulia, at a school graduation in 2001.


After Mr. Skripal was convicted in 2006, he was “untouchable,” said Mr. Ivanov, his former colleague. The Skripal family, suddenly alone, kept their shame private. Ivan V. Fedoseyev, 76, their next-door neighbor, noticed that Mr. Skripal was gone and assumed he had left his wife, Lyudmila, for another woman. “It was embarrassing to ask about it,” he said.


Lyudmila ruminated bitterly about friends who had testified against her husband, said Viktoria Skripal, Mr. Skripal’s niece. She complained to Viktoria that plenty of their G.R.U. colleagues had decided to live in the West after the Soviet collapse. “Why has nobody called them traitors, she said,” Viktoria recalled.

By then, Mr. Putin’s Russia was in full flower. He had brought Russia’s businesstycoons to heel, and his own allies, mostly former intelligence officers from St. Petersburg, took the helm of Russia’s key industries. Mr. Putin’s friends took their place among the world’s superrich, buying up yachts and Mayfair mansions.

But Lyudmila Skripal was reduced to begging for money. She could no longer afford to send the monthly allotment that her husband needed in prison, for food and toiletries, so she asked that his mother’s pension, roughly $500 or $600 a month, be diverted to him, Viktoria Skripal said. In sheaves of legal appeals, she begged a long list of Russian military officials — the defense minister himself, finally — to restore her husband’s pension.

“I am forced to appeal to you for help due to the difficult situation that I, a pensioner, find myself in at the current time,” she wrote. For her efforts, over two years, she was awarded 33,148 rubles and 89 kopeks, which at the time was worth about $1,000.Viktoria Skripal, Mr. Skripal’s niece, said that his family suffered greatly while he was in prison.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times


She had stopped taking care of herself. The family’s apartment was falling apart, the walls warped and the linoleum stained, said Lilia Borisovna, who bought the apartment later. “The apartment was decaying,” she said.

So was Mrs. Skripal’s body. She was experiencing symptoms of endometrial cancer, as it metastasized, untreated, from her womb to other parts of her body. It was clear something serious was wrong, and Viktoria Skripal urged her to seek medical help. But Mrs. Skripal refused to see a doctor, she said, “until Sergei Viktorovich came home.”


Mr. Skripal was trying to get out of prison early and submitted a detailed appeal to a military court. In his trial, he had confessed to passing classified information to a British intelligence officer. But in his appeal, according to court papers, he said he had mistaken the officer for a businessman who “simply made him an offer to come work for his firm abroad after his retirement from diplomatic service.”

The appeals court did not buy it.

While the Skripals waited, their son, Sasha, was slipping into a deep hole. Much of his life had been built around his father’s G.R.U. contacts: His wife, Natalya, was the daughter of another colonel who lived in the same complex. His job had come through the G.R.U. network. After his father’s betrayal became public, it all slipped away from him.

Sasha abruptly quit his job, Mr. Ivanov said. His father-in-law told Moskovsky Komsomolets, a Russian newspaper, that Sasha was drinking heavily and that he recommended his daughter divorce him. Sasha was treated for kidney disease and died in 2017 at the age of 43.
A Trade Is ProposedThe Federal Security Service, the successor to the Soviet-era K.G.B., in Moscow. Mr. Putin once ran the agency.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times


Dialing the number of his Russian counterpart from his office in Langley, Va., Leon Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was not feeling optimistic.

Mr. Panetta had once met Mikhail Fradkov, the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service. They had dined together in Washington, and as the meal was wrapping up Mr. Panetta asked his companion what he thought was Russia’s biggest intelligence failure. America’s, he volunteered, was the case for invading Iraq.

Mr. Fradkov paused for a long time, then responded simply, “Penkovsky.”

Mr. Panetta was taken aback; the answer spoke volumes about the way the Russian system viewed moles. Oleg Penkovsky was a colonel in the G.R.U. who had spied for the C.I.A. and British intelligence during the 1950s and 1960s, providing information that guided the Kennedy administration during the Cuban missile crisis. He was apprehended by Soviet authorities and, it is believed, shot.


Now it was the summer of 2010, and Mr. Panetta was on the phone with Mr. Fradkov, hoping to set in motion a deal that would free another G.R.U. mole. Days earlier, the F.B.I. had executed Operation Ghost Stories, arresting 10 Russian sleeper agents, who had been operating in the United States for nearly a decade.

“These people are yours,” Mr. Panetta said he told Mr. Fradkov.

“I said, ‘Look, we’re going to prosecute them; it could be very embarrassing for you,’” Mr. Panetta recalled saying in an interview. “You’ve got three or four people who we want, and I propose that we make a trade.”

Normally, Mr. Panetta said, such an offer would have been met with denials and obfuscation. But it was the summer of 2010, and the two Cold War adversaries were enjoying a brief thaw.Military cadets in Red Square in Moscow last month.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times


Mr. Putin had stepped away from the presidency, installing a faithful deputy, Dmitri A. Medvedev. It was a scheme that allowed Mr. Putin, who became prime minister, to hold onto power without violating constitutional term limits, but also a test of cooperation with the West. Mr. Medvedev had built a rapport with Barack Obama during a trip to Washington, meeting for cheeseburgers at a hole-in-the-wall diner called Ray’s Hell Burger.

After the phone call with Mr. Panetta, the Russians agreed to a swap. Mr. Panetta gave Russia four names, including Mr. Skripal’s.

“I think it was our Russia people at the C.I.A. who came up with his name,” Mr. Panetta said. “And he was added to the list.”


On a hot July day, guards at Correctional Colony No. 5 in the Russian Republic of Mordovia came to Mr. Skripal’s cell and told him to gather his things. He was taken to Moscow’s Lefortovo prison, where he met briefly with his family before being loaded onto a small Yak plane belonging to Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations. With him were three other former prisoners. All were silent for the three-hour flight to Vienna.

The mood was much different aboard the United States government-chartered Vision Airlines 737 sent to retrieve the four men. After takeoff federal agents popped champagne bottles and poured whiskey to toast the men’s freedom, according to someone present on the flight. One former K.G.B. major gave a boisterous speech. They were free.
‘Have to Hide Their Whole Lives’Mr. Putin with Dmitri A. Medvedev last year. He was displeased by Russia’s thaw with the United States during Mr. Medvedev’s presidency.Yekaterina Shutnika/Sputnik


One man, however, was stewing.

“A person gives over his whole life for his homeland and then some bastard comes along and betrays such people,” Mr. Putin, practically snarling, said when asked to comment about the swap on live television. “How will he be able to look into the eyes of his children, the pig. Whatever they got in exchange for it, those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them. Believe me.”

Even if they didn’t die, he added, they would suffer. “They will have to hide their whole lives,” Mr. Putin said. “With no ability to speak with other people, with their loved ones.” Then he stiffened his back, squared his shoulders and spoke straight to the camera.

“You know,” he concluded, “a person who chooses this fate will regret it a thousand times.”

Did he know the names of the traitors who had betrayed their comrades, a journalist had asked him shortly after the swap. “Of course,” Mr. Putin said. Would he punish them? Wrong question, Mr. Putin replied mysteriously. “This can’t be decided at a press conference,” he said. “They live by their own rules, and these rules are well known by everyone in the intelligence services.”

Mr. Putin was becoming impatient with Mr. Medvedev’s cooperation with Mr. Obama.

In 2011, he erupted over the French-led bombing campaign in Libya, blaming Mr. Medvedev for yielding to American pressure and failing to use Russia’s veto power at the United Nations Security Council to stop it. His livid criticism of that campaign, which he likened to a “medieval call to a crusade,” presaged what happened next: He took back power in 2012, and set about undoing every element of Mr. Medvedev’s little thaw.


But Mr. Skripal and the other traitors, delivered into the hands of Western intelligence agencies, had already scattered.
Lonely in ExileSurveillance footage of Mr. Skripal in a convenience store the month before he was poisoned in Salisbury, England.via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


It was hard to miss Mr. Skripal in Salisbury. Matthew Dean, the head of Salisbury’s City Council, recalled spotting him one day in the Railway Social Club, a modest establishment with electronic poker machines and framed prints of racehorses. Mr. Dean is a pub owner, familiar with Salisbury’s categories of drinkers. This one did not belong.

“It was a Sunday afternoon, and he was drinking neat vodka,” Mr. Dean recalled. “He was extremely loud, and he was wearing a white track suit. I remember saying, ‘Good God, who is this person?’ And they told me he was their only Russian customer.”

Mr. Skripal tiptoed around the question of his past, at least at the beginning. In an English-as-a-second-language class at Wiltshire College, he introduced himself as the head of a construction company, recently arrived from Spain. Ivan Bombarov, a Bulgarian cabdriver who had friends in the same class, said they all smirked about his cover story.

“We in Bulgaria, we see a lot of mafia guys,” he said. “We was like, ‘Yeah, whatever.’”

Mr. Skripal’s solitude deepened after Lydumila died of cancer in 2012, two years and three months after the swap. In 2017, Sasha died, collapsing on a weekend trip to St. Petersburg. His last family member, Yulia, was back in Moscow with her boyfriend.

Last year, he struck up a conversation with a Russian émigré couple at a grocery store in London, and startled them by entreating them — perfect strangers — to come visit him in Salisbury. As he described the deaths of his wife and son, his eyes filled with tears, said the businessman, Valery Morozov.


“He missed Russia,” said Ross Cassidy, a burly former submariner who became one of his closest friends. Lisa Carey, another neighbor, observed the Russian on his daily rounds, walking to the Bargain Stop in his tracksuit to buy scratch tickets.

“He used to boast about being a spy, and we would all laugh at him,” she said. “We thought he was mental.”

He did have secrets, though. Mr. Skripal traveled regularly on classified assignments organized by MI6, offering briefings on the G.R.U. to European and American intelligence services. Such assignments may be devised as a way to keep a former spy busy, said Nigel West, a British intelligence historian. It is not unusual, he said, for defectors to feel bored and underappreciated, something he called “post-usefulness syndrome.”

“Case officers are very aware of it,” Mr. West said. “When the time comes, and they say ‘Don’t call me, I’ll call you,’ you may well say, ‘I’ve got something very interesting to do.’ That’s what tends to happen. Their status has been slightly exaggerated and enhanced, and they start swallowing their own bathwater.”

Contacts with fellow intelligence officers took him back to the old days. He made repeated visits to consult with the CNI, the spy service in Spain. He traveled to Estonia and the Czech Republic, among other places.

“Basically they were meetings of people from the same field who used to sit on opposite sides,” said a European intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to characterize Mr. Skripal’s 2012 visit to Prague. “They had lunch together. It lasted for hours. It was great fun.”

The British government, which helped arrange Mr. Skripal’s assignments, has said nothing about them, and British espionage experts shrug them off as unremarkable lectures. But it remains unclear what information Mr. Skripal was passing on. And Russian officials may have been more judgmental than their British colleagues suspected, said Aleksei A. Venediktov, editor in chief of the Moscow radio station Ekho Moskvy, which has reported extensively on the case.


“When you’re over there, you do not work against us, that’s the rule,” Mr. Venediktov said. “It’s not written anywhere, but it’s known. You were pardoned for your past and in the future, live on your pension, grow flowers, calm and quiet. These are the conditions. You do not use your military skills against Russia, against the Soviet Union. What did Skripal do? It’s confirmed, he violated that rule.”
Two Trips From Moscow

Yulia Skripal had something important to do in England.Yulia Skripal in May, after recovering from the poisoning.Dylan Martinez/Reuters


She had sold her father’s old apartment, together with the old furniture and the double-headed eagle, the symbol of Russia, that he hung on the wall. She bought herself a small place in western Moscow. But recently she had cleared out to make way for workers to start renovations.

The key change was a tiny room that Yulia wanted redecorated, so it could be used as a nursery, according to Diana Petik, whom Ms. Skripal hired to oversee the renovations. Yulia, she said, was planning to marry her long-term boyfriend and become a mother.

But there was one thing she felt she had to do first. Mr. Skripal could not safely travel to Russia for the wedding, so she wanted to at least have his blessing. This was her intention, Ms. Petik said, when she buckled herself into a seat on an Aeroflot flight bound for London on March 3.

A day earlier, according to British authorities, two Russian intelligence officers arrived in London aboard a different Aeroflot flight. They were inconspicuous, dressed like Russian provincials in parkas and tennis shoes.

In one of their bags was a specially made bottle, disguised as a vial of Nina Ricci’s Premier Jour perfume, loaded with a military grade nerve agent.
A bottle disguised as a vial of Nina Ricci’s Premier Jour perfume, loaded with a military grade nerve agent.London Metropolitan Police

As Yulia Skripal went through customs at Heathrow Airport and waited for her luggage, the two men, according to British investigators, were already in Salisbury, carrying out surveillance ahead of the attack.

The next afternoon, shortly after 4 p.m., a woman named Freya Church was leaving her job, at a gym called Snap Fitness, when she came across two figures slumped on a bench in the picturesque center of Salisbury. The woman was leaning against the man. The man was gazing up at the sky, as if he saw something there, making strange, jerky movements with his hands, she told the BBC.

By that time the two men were boarding a train at Salisbury station, the first leg of their escape back to Moscow.

News of the crime would begin to ripple outward, through the intelligence services of a dozen countries, through the United Nations Security Council and the global body tasked with banning the use of chemical weapons. For the agencies that oversee the army of spies that remained behind after the Cold War, it would throw into question every understood rule of engagement.

But for now, it was a finished job. A middle-aged G.R.U. officer facing an uncertain future had betrayed his tribe. In accordance with rules well known by everyone in Russia’s intelligence services, two assassins came to England and took care of a little fish.British investigators used security footage and flight records to track two Russian men who now stand accused of attempted murder in the March attack featuring the nerve agent Novichok.Sept. 5, 2018Image by British Metropolitan Police


Michael Schwirtz reported from Moscow, and Ellen Barry from Salisbury, England. Matthew Luxmoore contributed reporting from Yaroslavl, Russia, and Anna Schaverien from London.

Saturday, September 08, 2018

YouTube stars heading for burnout


The YouTube stars heading for burnout: ‘The most fun job imaginable became deeply bleak’

Why are so many YouTubers finding themselves stressed, lonely and exhausted?

Simon Parkin London Guardian

Matt Lees: ‘Human brains really aren’t designed to be interacting with hundreds of people every day.’ 


When Matt Lees became a full-time YouTuber, he felt as if he had won the lottery. As a young, ambitious writer, director and presenter, he was able to create low-budget, high-impact films that could reach a worldwide audience, in a way that would have been impossible without the blessing of television’s gatekeepers just a few years earlier. In February 2013, he had his first viral hit, an abridged version of Sony’s announcement of its PlayStation 4 video game console, dubbed with a cheerily acerbic commentary. Within days the video had been watched millions of times. “It hardly seems viral at all, by today’s standards,” Lees says, yet it was one of the most viewed videos on YouTube that month. The boost to Lees’ ego was nothing compared with the effect it had on his career. When YouTube’s algorithm notices this sort of success, it starts directing viewers to the uploader’s other videos, earning the channel more subscribers and, via the snippety advertisements that play before each one, higher income. Overnight, Lees had what seemed like the first shoots of a sustainable career.

Excitement soon gave way to anxiety. Even in 2013, Lees was aware that his success depended not so much on smash hits as on day-by-day reliability. “It’s not enough to simply create great things,” he says. “The audience expect consistency. They expect frequency. Without these, it’s incredibly easy to slip off the radar and lose favour with the algorithm that gave you your wings.” By the end of the year Lees had grown his channel from 1,000 subscribers to 90,000, and caught the attention of one of his influences, Charlie Brooker, who invited Lees to collaborate on writing a Channel 4 special. For a month Lees worked 20-hour days, dividing his time between the TV script work and, ever conscious that missing a day’s upload could cause his videos to tumble down the search rankings, his YouTube channel.

It’s toxic: the point at which you’re breaking down is the point at which the algorithm loves you the most

At the end of the month he was pale, gaunt and tired in a way that, he recalls, seemed “impervious to rest”. His work, he noticed, had become increasingly rushed and harsh in tone. Yet the angry, provocative quality of his videos seemed only to be making them more popular. “Divisive content is the king of online media today, and YouTube heavily boosts anything that riles people up,” he says. “It’s one of the most toxic things: the point at which you’re breaking down is the point at which the algorithm loves you the most.”

Lees began to feel a knock-on effect on his health. “Human brains really aren’t designed to be interacting with hundreds of people every day,” he says. “When you’ve got thousands of people giving you direct feedback on your work, you really get the sense that something in your mind just snaps. We just aren’t built to handle empathy and sympathy on that scale.” Lees developed a thyroid problem, and began to experience more frequent and persistent stretches of depression. “What started out as being the most fun job imaginable quickly slid into something that felt deeply bleak and lonely,” he says.

***

For years, YouTubers have believed that they are loved most by their audience when they project a chirpy, grateful image. But what happens when the mask slips? This year there has been a wave of videos by prominent YouTubers talking about their burnout, chronic fatigue and depression. “This is all I ever wanted,” said Elle Mills, a 20-year-old Filipino-Canadian YouTuber in a (monetised) video entitled Burnt Out At 19, posted in May. “And why the fuck am I so unfucking unhappy? It doesn’t make any sense. You know what I mean? Because, like, this is literally my fucking dream. And I’m fucking so un-fucking-happy.”

Mills had gained a lot of attention (and 3.6m views) for a slick and cleverly edited five-minute video she posted last November in which she came out as bisexual to her friends, family and followers (many of whom had been asking about her sexuality in the comments). She went on to be featured on the cover of Diva magazine, and won a Shorty award for “breakout YouTuber”. But six months later she posted the Burnt Out video, explaining how her schoolgirl ambition of becoming a YouTuber had led her to bigger and bigger audiences, but that “it’s not what I expected. I’m always stressed. My anxiety and depression keep getting worse. I’m waiting to hit my breaking point.”

The same month Rubén “El Rubius” Gundersen, a 28-year-old Spaniard who is currently the world’s third most popular YouTuber, with more than 30 million subscribers, talked about how he felt as if he was heading for a breakdown, and had, as a result, decided to take a break. They are the latest in a string of high-profile YouTubers, including Erik Phillips (better known as M3RKMUS1C, with 4 million subscribers) and Benjamin Vestergaard (Crainer, with 2.8 million), to have announced hiatuses from the channel, or described their struggles with exhaustion.

The anxieties are tied up with the relentless nature of their work. Tyler Blevins, AKA Ninja, makes an estimated $500,000 (£384,000) every month via live broadcasts of him playing the video game Fortnite on Twitch, a service for livestreaming video games that is owned by Amazon. Most of Blevins’ revenue comes from Twitch subscribers or viewers who provide one-off donations (often in the hope that he will thank them by name “on air”). Blevins recently took to Twitter to complain that he didn’t feel he could stop streaming. “Wanna know the struggles of streaming over other jobs?” he wrote, perhaps ill-advisedly for someone with such a stratospheric income. “I left for less than 48 hours and lost 40,000 subscribers on Twitch. I’ll be back today… grinding again.”

There was little sympathy on Twitter for the millionaire. But the pressure he described is felt at every level of success, from the titans of the content landscape all the way down to the people with channels with just a few thousand subscribers, all of whom feel they must be constantly creating, always available and responding to their fans. “Constant releases build audience loyalty,” says Austin Hourigan, who runs ShoddyCast, a YouTube channel with 1.2 million subscribers. “The more loyalty you build, the more likely your viewers are to come back, which gives you the closest thing to a financial safety net in what is otherwise a capricious space.”

When a YouTuber passes the 1 million subscribers mark, they are presented with a gold plaque to mark the event. Many of these plaques can be seen on shelves and walls in the background of presenters’ rooms. In this way, the size of viewership and quantity of uploads become the main markers of value.researcher Katherine Lo, ‘ Forlabour such as interacting with fans is ‘a major contributor to occupational stress. In many cases it can contribute to PTSD’.

Professional YouTubers speak in tones at once reverential and resentful of the power of “the Algorithm” (it’s seen as a near-sentient entity, not only by creators, but also by YouTube’s own engineers). Created by the high priests of Silicon Valley, who continually tweak its characteristics, this is the programming code on which the fate of every YouTuber depends. It decides which videos to pluck from the Niagara of content that splashes on to YouTube every hour (400 hours’ worth every 60 seconds, according to Google) to deliver as “recommended viewing” to the service’s billions of users.

Every time you log on to YouTube you are presented with videos chosen by the algorithm. The idea is that a clip particularly well suited to your tastes will inspire you to click the Subscribe button – which, hopefully, will bring you back to watch a new episode tomorrow. The viewer feels that YouTube understands what he or she likes, while advertisers are reassured that the video in front of which their five-second commercial will run will reach an appropriately targeted audience.

When your income is dependent on the number of people who watch your videos each week, this code can decide what, or even whether, you eat. And, 13 years into YouTube’s existence, many believe it has come to sit at the core of a growing mental health crisis among video creators.

In April this year there was a particularly extreme example, when 38-year-old Nasim Najafi Aghdam entered YouTube’s Californian campus and opened fire on employees with a 9mm pistol, wounding three before she killed herself. A video Aghdam uploaded prior to the attack suggested that it was driven by her belief that the company’s algorithm had passed over her videos; in March she posted on Instagram, “All my YouTube channels got filtered by YouTube so my videos hardly get views.”

Algorithm-led content curation makes creators feel disposable, challenging them to churn out videos in the knowledge that there are younger, fresher people waiting in the wings to replace them. For YouTubers who use their daily lives as raw material for their videos, there is added pressure, as the traditional barriers between personal and professional life are irreparably eroded.

At a recent party at a conference for YouTubers and streamers, Hourigan was standing with a group of YouTubers when he quipped: “I think every YouTube career should come with a coupon for a free therapist.” Everybody laughed, he recalls, but “in a sad way”.

“By the way,” he adds, “I’m medicated and have a therapist.”

***

Katherine Lo is a researcher into online communities at the University of California, Irvine. For her, it’s not simply the frequency and consistency of content creation that lead to burnout, but the specific nature of the work required to keep audiences engaged, which includes being active on social media, interacting with fans, and other roles beyond writing, presenting and editing. “This kind of labour is often invisible but very taxing and a major contributor to occupational stress,” Lo explains. “In many cases it can contribute to PTSD, especially when creators are subject to harassment, threats to their safety and privacy, or ongoing toxicity in their community.”

She recently developed a list of occupational factors that contribute to mental health risks for creators. It includes the exhaustion that comes from performing “familiarity” with the audience, the stress of reading comments, the financial anxiety associated with managing sponsorships and donations, and the pressure of managing reputation and professional ties in the YouTuber community, where recommendations are key to getting fans.Morton: ‘I have trouble with boundaries. I always feel like I should be working, or that subscribers are counting on me.’ She has taken one holiday in the last three years. 

Those who work on larger channels, which have enough money to employ a staff and spread the pressure, are not immune to these risks. Belinda Zoller joined the team behind the Extra Credits YouTube channel in 2016. The channel publishes weekly lessons in video game design and world history, using cheery animations. It has close to 1.6 million subscribers; Zoller works as a moderator, responding to comments. Moderation is one of the most gruelling jobs in the web’s emergent economy, and while Zoller does not work in front of the camera, her role puts her in the firing line for anonymous abuse and bad-faith interaction. Within months she was exhausted. “There is a lot of emotional labour involved in my work,” she says. “I empathise with the root of people’s concerns and criticisms, even if I disagree with some of them.”

Zoller views YouTube as her primary “office space” – a shift that, she says, has “very much negatively impacted my mental health”. No matter how much she enjoys helping to run a popular channel, the platform itself is steeped in negativity. Moderating comments in order to maintain a clean and safe online space is like weeding a garden: every time a root is pulled up, another three nose through the soil in its place. Zoller believes that, far from wanting to deal with the negativity, YouTube actively encourages it via the design of the algorithm. “People tend not to discuss content unless they have very strong opinions about it, and most of the time those strong opinions favour disagreement,” she explains. “So the algorithm favours clickbait and controversial content over meaningfully nuanced and positive content.”

For Lo, video-based social media platforms are catastrophically failing those who sustain their business. “YouTube fails to protect creators from the extremely common occupational hazards of being doxxed, stalked, harassed and threatened online,” she says. (Doxxing is the revealing of someone’s identity or other personal information.) “They claim no responsibility for the wellbeing of their creators or the communities they create.”

Asked about Lo’s comments, a spokeswoman for YouTube replies: “Harassment is abhorrent and wrong. YouTube has policies against harassment and bullying, as indicated in our community guidelines. We review flagged content quickly, and remove inappropriate videos according to our policies.” In order to avoid burnout, it encourages creators to “take breaks, enjoy weekends, nights and vacations just like any job”. “Of course,” the spokeswoman adds, “we always hope creators are discussing their struggles openly with others in the YouTube community.”

As part of its Creator Academy, a vast online “school” covering everything from how to “enhance your channel’s search and discovery potential” to how to “make deals with brands”, YouTube recently commissioned a series of videos designed to teach its partners how to avoid fatigue. (Few of the people I speak to who run YouTube channels are aware of the resource.) The video on burnout has been viewed just over 32,000 times. It’s written and presented by 34-year-old Kati Morton. A licensed therapist based in Los Angeles, Morton has been posting videos to YouTube for eight years. As such, she is well placed to understand both the problem and the potential solution.

In 2010, when she started her channel, Morton was working as a therapist with a private practice. YouTube was her way to reach a wider audience with tips and information that she believed could help them. Three years ago, her success on the platform enabled her to become a full-time YouTuber, but learning to personally manage the pressures she had warned about has been challenging. “I am no better than anyone else,” she says. “I’ve got tired, stressed about everything. It was a journey to get to the place where I felt able to tell my audience that I would be taking a vacation.”

That holiday, a two-week break last Christmas, was the first Morton had taken since going full-time in 2015. “Maybe I took a long weekend the summer before, for our anniversary?” she says. “No. Wait. I worked then, too.”


Every time Morton posts a new video she is expected to be in the comments, responding to questions and suggestions, before starting work on the next. “I have trouble with boundaries,” she says. “I always feel like I should be working, or that they’re counting on me.”

Like all YouTubers, Morton also feels the financial pressure of the system, which typically pays between £1.50 and £3 for every 1,000 views. “The reward for your work is liable to change at any time,” she says. “Your views can go down for a variety of reasons, and when that happens, you earn less.” For this reason, even with close to half a million subscribers, Morton feels unable to employ anyone to help her with the workload.

YouTube recommends that creators who are struggling “enlist support”. Morton argues that, for the majority, it is an impossible expense. “If I had someone supporting me it would make all the difference,” she says. “But I’d need my daily views to double before I’d feel comfortable doing that. Could you imagine having to fire someone because my views went down? That would be awful.”

You can become a superstar with one viral video. Without support, the potential to be burned by the exposure is great

For her, the solution comes back to the algorithm. “YouTube rewards people who produce daily,” she says. “They made the algorithm, so they have the power to remake it. If they set different criteria, it would help. We are human beings. We need some time for ourselves.”

Matt Lees is furious at what he sees as YouTube’s lacklustre approach to support and advice. “Encouraging creators to ‘take a break’ is pretty laughable from a system that actively promotes quantity over quality,” he says. “There’s no sense of responsibility for the culture that YouTube has created.” For Katherine Lo, the capacity to maintain a healthy work/life balance while being successful on YouTube and Twitch is a “barely possible” dream. “ They offer highly precarious work, where the promise of robust success – where one has a reliable, sustainable income – is only enjoyed by a small percentage of creators. Trying to reduce frequency of content and establish work/life balance merely adds even more risk.”

The demands of the YouTuber life suit younger creators – and the largest demographic on the site is those in their 20s (when once teenagers may have dreamed of becoming pop stars, now they dream of becoming YouTubers). Many find it possible to keep creating at a high enough rate, if only for a few years. “At that age you absolutely can,” Lees says. “You’ve got the energy and focus to work incredibly long hours, you’ve got very few responsibilities to take your attention away from work, and – perhaps most importantly – you’ve likely still got a solid social circle, friendships that aren’t difficult to maintain.” But, as every casualty of childhood stardom demonstrates, early success carries with it tremendous risk.

“The journey to creative stardom used to take more time – learning the ropes and developing a thick skin, and having a team of advisers and trusted friends,” says Chris O’Sullivan, from the UK charity the Mental Health Foundation. “Today, you can become a superstar online with one viral video – at any age or stage and from any location. Without support and guidance, the potential to be burned by the exposure is great.”

As time goes on, and life grows more complicated, the sense of isolation, anxiety and weariness is exacerbated.

“I spent my 20s working ceaselessly, feeling invincible and boundless,” Lees says. “And honestly, I was. Right up until the point where I wasn’t.”


Rosewood