He sees himself as one ‘fly on the wall’he agrees, smiling, modestly. Writer and political scientist Giuliano da Empoli moves, almost silently, in the palaces and offices of the highest powers. His books are in great demand among the political elite, especially in Brussels. His bestseller The Kremlin Whisperer was awarded the Grand Prix du roman de l’Académie française.
He sees that power, according to the post-war worldview, is shifting sharply. “The pinnacle of power coincides not so much with action, but with rash action, the only thing that achieves the shock effect on which the ruler’s power is based,” he says in his last essay The hour of the wolvesin which he undermines belief in a world of international relations according to fixed rules.
NRC speaks to him a few days after the US launched a new National Security Strategy: an explicit reshaping of the world order, which is creating great unrest in Brussels. In the garden salon of his renowned Parisian publisher Gallimard, in worn-out brown lace-up boots, black turtleneck and dark blue blazer of soft cut: “The power of autocrats and techoliarchs is growing significantly, and there is no response from the ruling political class in Europe.” For the time being, he outlines, the inadequate response is feeding the “beasts of power.”
What characterizes those ‘hungry power wolves’, the autocrats of today?
“Looking at predators like President Donald Trump – or Brazil’s Jair Messias Bolsonaro, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman or Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele – we have difficulty interpreting them according to the standards of the political categories we know from recent decades.
“In essence, we are witnessing the return of classical figures: we see aspiring autocrats who have a very old view of power, as a solitary activity. Without major limitations, where traditional values and a radical dimension of masculinity are leading. But that old idea is based on a new, contemporary digital ecosystem, which precisely encourages very aggressive and solitary actions – and thus a monocratic [alleenheersend] concept of power – rewards. What I find interesting is that we have moved from an implicit to an explicit phase.”
What do you mean?
“For several years, the rise of these radical figures, fueled by very extreme and aggressive movements, was not the intention of the digital ecosystem. It was more a side effect of the business models. But for some time now there has been a very clear convergence between the political predators and the owners of the technological infrastructures.”
But haven’t powerful leaders – such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, who cunningly sparked the Cuban revolution using radio – always embraced new technologies as a means of propaganda?
“Certainly, but there are two sides to digital technologies. There is the side of the means of communication, which is promoted and used by these new leaders, who exploit its codes and focus on promoting content that generates engagement. It does not matter whether they are right or left, really fake, good or bad: what matters is that they generate something.
“The big difference with radio, television, film and other previous technologies is that digital media is primarily an intelligence tool. The traditional book does not read the reader while the reader reads. But digital media collect data and information about those who use them, thereby concentrating knowledge and power for the people who control them. So there is an apparent function and a real function: the main task is the intelligence function. The real power is therefore in the hands of the techies, with AI bosses at the top.”
Do they have the same ideas about power as the autocrats, such as Trump?
“The current power plan converges on the idea of strengthening the executive power, and thereby sweeping away all counter powers – from the opposition to parliament and the judiciary – or maneuvering them into a very subordinate position. According to Trump and the tech ligarchs, society can be governed much more effectively: through data and artificial intelligence.
“But in terms of ideology they don’t want the same thing. Trump – or take [de Britse radicaal-rechtse politicus] Nigel Farage, or the German AfD – espouses nationalist ideas. They want to restore borders, send immigrants away. Many tech magnates do not have that vision.”
Otherwise, Elon Musk regularly comes across as fascist.
“Musk seems, as you say, almost to be a fascist. But the majority are not. They are not only post-national, but also post-humanist. The project of the ‘tech creators’ goes beyond a mere entrepreneurial project. They stand for a different society. And there is a shocking disproportion between their power and their ability to acquire this power, and their philosophical, cultural, social and political vision, which is often very poor. They often give the impression that they are struggling to stand up a normal way to interact with another human being.
“But in a revolution you have to agree on an end goal: that is where Trump and the padroni of tech each other. They want a regime change à la Shakespeare, which in Henry VI [de trilogie van historische toneelstukken over de jonge Koning van Engeland] proposes a revolution. ‘What to do? We’ll kill all the lawyers.’ I think that is the common goal of the autocrats and tech oligarchs: to eliminate all political elites as we know them. A powerful plan with great appeal to our societies, which feel stuck, with problems that are always the same, without anything being solved.”
Who Controls Who: Is Trump Still Talking About Saying About The Zuckerbergs Of This World Or Is It The Other Way Around?
“We are now in a delicate phase of balance, where Trump is still the boss. Politics is also a physical game: you only have to see him together with the tech magnates… He is the powerful animal. But it is clear that the White House serves the interests of the tech industry – just look at the relationship with Europe. The tech sector, in turn, is committed to the political objectives of people like Trump. It is almost an alliance between equals.”
How sustainable is that balance?
“The power of the tech world will only increase. If Trump is replaced tomorrow by his Vice President JD Vance, the balance has already shifted: the tech giants would be in charge and JD Vance would serve them. Purely because he is less strong, less driven by power. He is also from a different generation. We are in a process of moving away from the model of liberal democracy.
“The problem is that, unlike politicians in a democracy, the tech elite wields enormous power without any accountability.”
Autocrats are, as you outline, timeless. Are we at a turning point in history due to technological developments?
“Because of my cultural background [laverend tussen Rome en Parijs] I tend to think in cycles and the rise and fall of civilizations. But today’s technologies – not just artificial intelligence, but also its combination with technologies such as life sciences, biotechnology, neuroscience and nanotechnology – indicate a rupture. That makes it even more important to understand who governs us and who will govern this transition.”
Europe is making an attempt to curb this. Although it can be called half-hearted to say the least. X was fined a few days ago for violating EU rules, and TikTok was spared.
“That fine, 120 million euros, is nothing more than a symbolic slap. The European Commission previously imposed billions in fines. It comes at a time of major European compensation for Big Tech. The EU is trying to fight its own battle, but is also showing great weakness.”
In its security strategy, the US outlines European subordination and the breaking up of European countries, to the shock of Brussels.
“Trump makes it explicit that he wants to make a transition from a Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. The monstrous expansion of the White House [een grootse balzaal] already showed that. Trump is certainly no Julius Caesar, or (Octavian) Augustus, but he is a plutocrat with the same imperialist outlook. In his view, Europe is part of the American empire, and must therefore be very explicitly made a vassal state.”
Brussels responded tepidly, and still speaks of ‘the most important ally’ when it comes to Washington. What do you think of the European response?
“The European reaction to the US power policy is downright shameful, one of complete subordination. This is to be expected from the Baltic states, which are under direct Russian threat. But from the Commission and the founders of Europe – think France – the reaction is one of absolute submission.”
You often find yourself in the wake of French President Emmanuel Macron. Does he not listen to you in this?
Looking seriously: “Not in this area. People act as if there is no threat, as if what Trump says is folklore… Europe is like the class of lawyers who have made a lifelong career by bending the rules. They have great difficulty being in the world of predators. Now that history is starting again, they don’t know which way to go.
“Like Trump, we must speak the language of power. Answers in terms of strength, not on technical issues such as continuing to discuss trade agreements while we are faced with a very strong political and ideological challenge. We are sinking to our knees. That is not only downright humiliating but also harms us. If you are humiliated politically, technical negotiations will also end badly. Because you are already a loser, you are in a weak position. Europe loses twice.”
Can we end on a positive note?
“If 27 countries disagree, more must be added coalitions of the willing come, as happened with the Ukraine issue. A few countries uniting and drawing a different line. Europe currently lacks strategic intelligence.”
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.
The journalistic principles of NRC