Revealed: Debate opponent of Mehdi Hasan organized violent far-right protests
The video debate session with Hasan, published to the 10 million-subscriber Jubilee channel, has already attracted scrutiny due to platforming a self-described 'fascist', Connor Estelle, who reportedly lost his job after he was identified by online researchers.
Unidentified until now was another of Hasan's opponents in the debate video, Richard Black. In conversation with Hasan, Black refused to condemn violence against police officers, claimed that the Los Angeles police department was directed by 'liberal Marxists' and described his own political position as being 'white nativist', adding that 'neocons, libertarians, all those mainstream people, [they] might as well be leftists to me'.
In March and April 2017, meanwhile, Black organized counter-protests – later referred to as the first and second 'battles of Berkeley' by the US far right – that pitted members of the Proud Boys and the Rise Above Movement against protesters who opposed a campus speech by the far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.
Those rallies helped herald an era of 'alt-right' street violence that culminated in incidents such as the Charlottesville riot in 2017 and the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
The Jubilee debate has gone viral, with many viewers praising Hasan's expert dismantling of his opponents' far-right views, and others criticizing Jubilee's platforming of far-right extremist opponents.
Devin Burghart, president and executive director of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights and an expert on extremist movements, offered 'three possible explanations' for Jubilee's decision to include far-right voices on the panel.
Burghart said: 'Either Jubilee producers were unbelievably negligent in the vetting of debaters, or they chose to stack the room with racists and fascists against a lone person of color in the hopes of capturing a viral moment to increase channel engagement … [or] they were trying to surreptitiously sound an alarm that many young Republicans are being drawn to fascism by having Mehdi systematically expose them during the debate.'
He added: 'None of those explanations speaks well of the company or the format, and highlights the peril of sharing a platform with disingenuous far-rightists seeking eyeballs.'
The video recording Hasan appeared in was an episode of Surrounded, a series published by Jubilee, a YouTube-only channel run by Jubilee Media.
The program's format sees one prominent individual with well-known beliefs debate against a room of people with opposing views, with the lone person making claims and the group taking turns challenging them individually, for up to 20 minutes per claim. The opposing group can vote out individual debaters by raising red flags when they feel that person is not representing their position well.
Black first appeared as a sole opponent to oppose Hasan's claim that 'Donald Trump is pro-crime'. He began by asking Hasan, a British American of Indian ancestry: 'What's your ethnic background, if you don't mind me asking?'
Then, referring back to an example Hasan had used with a previous debater of Trump pardoning January 6 protesters, Black said: 'I am happy that he released J6. In fact, so much so that I was prepared to protest if he didn't.'
When Hasan then asked if that meant he was OK with Trump being pro-crime, Black replied: 'Sure, because you know what? We're changing the definition of what crime is.'
When Hasan asked, 'You don't think stomping on police officers' heads is a crime?', Black said: 'It's no longer a relevant conversation any more.'
He added: 'Have you seen the US in the last four or five years, BLM protests? I myself have been involved in these protests.'
Black then claimed: 'I've seen egregious things, things that you couldn't even imagine being done to conservatives.'
He concluded: 'It's not about that. It's about tribal warfare. That's where we're at in the US.'
Jubilee provided links to social media accounts associated with each of Hasan's interlocutors. In Black's case, they linked to an Instagram account which, although bare bones, did feature the name 'Richie Black'.
The account indicated that he is located in Costa Mesa, California, and featured a headshot of Black and another man along with text and a link to another Instagram account belonging to Safari Journal Co.
That account in turn linked to a Safari Journal Co website, whose about page says: 'We mentor young Men and Women to elevate their understanding and grounding of the Nationalist Doctrine, Post-Industrial Revolution, the Mythic State, Cultural Homogeneity, American History and Health.'
The Guardian compared videos and images of Black from Instagram and his Jubilee appearance to news photography of the organizer of the 2017 protests in Berkeley, named as Rich Black in contemporary reports. The photos, eight years apart, appeared to depict the same person.
Black was reportedly the organizer of rallies in Berkeley's downtown to defend free speech in March and April 2017, which set a pattern of violent far-right protests in liberal cities, a pattern that would be repeated in subsequent years in Portland, Oregon; Charlottesville, Virginia; and Washington DC.
A 4 March 2017 rally, billed as 'March 4 Trump', was a response to a planned protest against a campus speech by the rightwing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, then an alt-right darling but who would soon fall from grace after appearing to relativize pedophilia in a podcast appearance.
Archived posts from Black's now-defunct Twitter/X account show him promoting the March event, and whipping up alt-right supporters with images of the event in progress.
Clashes there resulted in seven injuries and 10 arrests. The event saw Kyle Chapman, hitherto known as 'Based Stickman', become a Maga celebrity after he assaulted counter-protesters with a wooden signpost while dressed in makeshift riot gear.
That rally also attracted members of the Rise Above Movement, a southern California white supremacist group that was reported as having 'a singular purpose: physically attacking its ideological foes'.
Following the March rally, Black, described at the time by Time magazine in its reporting at that time as a 'libertarian grant writer from the Los Angeles area' who decided to organize a 'comeback' event in Berkeley where 'rightwingers could 'come and speak, from start to finish, without being physically shut down''.
The April event was even more violent, with opposing groups at first clashing in Berkeley's civic center park but then spreading into surrounding streets, and fighting with 'wooden poles, pepper spray, mace, explosives, bagels, milk, and fists'.
The following Monday, on a since-deleted Twitter/X account, Black reportedly posted a video of himself in which he said, 'I could not be more satisfied with the outcome of the event', claiming that attenders including those on the far-right had taken a 'stand against radicalism and domestic terrorism'.
The events also saw members of the neo-Nazi Rise Above Movement (RAM) charged over their alleged premeditated violence at both protests. A labyrinthine prosecution finally concluded last December when the one-time fugitive and RAM founder Rob Rundo was sentenced to two years of time served and two years of supervised release.
Jubilee has 10 million subscribers at the time of writing, and has had some 2.8bn views across its videos, according to the analytics platform Social Blade. This puts it just inside the top 400 channels by subscribers and 6,120th by views.
The channel was founded in 2010, over which time it has issued about 1,430 videos. But it enjoyed growth spurts and renewed media coverage during the last US election season, when episodes of Surrounded featuring mainstream political figures such as the senior Democrat Pete Buttigieg.
In the context of this renewed interest, the CEO and founder, Jason Y Lee, told Variety that the platform aimed to 'provoke understanding and create human connection', to show 'what discourse can and should look like', and to be 'the Disney of empathy'.
The Guardian contacted Lee for comment on this reporting, but received no response.
The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know.
If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods.
Secure Messaging in the Guardian app
The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.
If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'.
SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post
See our guide at theguardian.com/tips for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each.
In a January YouTube interview, the journalist Taylor Lorenz asked Lee if he was 'worried about getting played by the far right', given 'their ability to weaponize the attention economy and move the Overton window further to the right' by being platformed on Jubilee.
Lee said 'we actually do rounds of interviews' with potential panelists, and 'we'll talk to them about their ideology, their points of view and perspectives'.
Lee added: 'We don't want to favor one side or the other, but we are very careful in trying to make sure that we're not spreaders of misinformation or ideologies that might be hateful or bad.'
Meanwhile, it is not clear what Black has been doing between his initial burst of prominence and his Jubilee appearance.
Burghart, the extremism expert, said: 'It's not uncommon to see a figure engaged in street-level activism drop off the radar for a time and appear later in more mainstream settings.'
He added: 'It's a good reminder that monitoring the far-right needs to be a long-term project, keeping an eye on both the margins and the mainstream.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
18 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Death toll rises after attack on church in east Congo church
The death toll from an attack on a Catholic church in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo by Islamic State-backed rebels has risen to 34, officials said. The incident took place in the place of worship in Komanda, Ituri province. Advertisement Dieudonne Duranthabo, a civil society coordinator, said: 'The bodies of the victims are still at the scene of the tragedy, and volunteers are preparing how to bury them in a mass grave that we are preparing in a compound of the Catholic church.' At least five other people were killed in an earlier attack on the nearby village of Machongani, where a search is ongoing. 'They took several people into the bush; we do not know their destination or their number,' Lossa Dhekana, a civil society leader in Ituri, told reporters. Both attacks are believed to have been carried out by members of the Allied Democratic Force (ADF) armed with guns and machetes. Advertisement The military has confirmed at least 10 fatalities, while local media reports put the total death toll at more than 40. Mr Duranthabo said attackers stormed the church in Komanda town at around 1am. Several houses and shops were also burnt. Lt Jules Ngongo, a Congolese army spokesperson in Ituri province, confirmed 10 were killed in the church attack. Video footage from the scene shared online appeared to show burning structures and bodies on the floor of the church. Those who were able to identify some of the victims wailed while others stood in shock. Advertisement A UN-backed radio station said 43 people were killed, citing security sources. It said the attackers came from a stronghold around seven miles from the centre of Komanda and fled before security forces could arrive. Mr Duranthabo condemned the attack 'in a town where all the security officials are present'. He added: 'We demand military intervention as soon as possible, since we are told the enemy is still near our town.' Eastern Congo has suffered deadly attacks in recent years by armed groups, including the ADF and Rwanda-backed rebels. Advertisement The ADF, which has ties to the so-called Islamic State, operates in the borderland between Uganda and Congo and often targets civilians. The group killed dozens of people in Ituri earlier this month in what a United Nations spokesperson described as a bloodbath. The ADF was formed by disparate small groups in Uganda in the late 1990s following alleged discontent with President Yoweri Museveni. In 2002, following military assaults by Ugandan forces, the group moved its activities to neighbouring Congo and has since been responsible for the killings of thousands of civilians. In 2019, it pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Advertisement The Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC), which has long struggled against the rebel group, has been facing attacks since the renewed hostilities between the Rwanda-backed M23.
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Democrat frames Epstein files as winning issue while Republican admits White House 'misstep'
The Trump Administration's refusal to release any more files about Jeffery Epstein has dominated the news cycle in recent weeks, and both the President's political allies and adversaries are growing weary. Progressive Democrat Ro Khanna appeared on Meet The Press Sunday, when he told host Kristen Welker that he considered the issue of the Epstein filed a winning one for his party. 'This is about trust in government. When John F. Kennedy was president, trust in government was 60%. Today it's in the teens. Speaker Johnson and I came to Congress together. He was on the reform side too. He wanted to make government work,' Khanna noted. 'This is a perfect opportunity for him to say, "Look, the past is the past." Okay, I didn't love that he shut down government. Maybe on your show today he'll commit that when we come back, let's have a vote. Remind him of what were like, the conversations we had in our freshman class. This is about being a reform agent of transparency,' Khanna continued, doing his best to put additional pressure on the Republican Speaker. Voters as well are not happy with Trump's handing of the files, with only 16% of respondents to a recent Emerson College poll saying that they approve 'of the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.' Emerson College Polling director Spencer Kimball noted Thursday that the Epstein files issue was the one Trump fared the worst on. Khanna and libertarian-minded Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky teamed up earlier this month to introduce the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which would compel Attorney General Pam Bondi to publicly release all unclassified materials relating to Jeffery Epstein. The duo's resolution is receiving the the backing of a diverse set of members, including New York socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michigan 'Squad' member Rashida Tlaib, as well as Boebert of Colorado, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, and Greene of Georgia. Khanna noted during a media appearance last week that his resolution had the backing of all 212 of his Democratic colleagues in the House. Even if only the 10 GOP co-sponsors of the resolution were to support it, it would easily pass the House as just a simple majority is need, which is 218 votes out of 435. Speaker Mike Johnson had choice words for the uncanny duo's push to release the files during his own Meet The Press appearance Sunday. 'The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections. For example, in the way that it was drafted, they cite that they don't want child abuse, sex abuse information uncovered, but they cite the wrong provision of the Federal Code, and so it makes it unworkable,' Johnson told Welker. 'It requires the DOJ to release grand jury testimony. They are prohibited by law from doing so. So it is not the right approach. There is another approach out there. The House Republicans on the Rules Committee have a resolution that is well drafted, that is thoughtfully drafted by lawyers, that would make this workable. That's the approach, we have to protect the innocent. We'll do it at all cost,' Johnson added. Yet, even members of the President's own political party are calling the Administration's handling of the files a 'political mistake' and 'misstep.' Portrait of American financier Jeffrey Epstein (left) and real estate developer Donald Trump as they pose together at the Mar-a-Lago estate, Palm Beach, Florida, 1997 Eric Burlison, a Missouri Republican, told CNN's Manu Raju Sunday that part of the issue is 'that there were false expectations that are created, and that's a political mistake.' 'I think that saying that you're going to be able to deliver when you haven't even looked at all of the files, what's available, was probably a misstep,' Burlison told Raju.
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The key to understanding Trump? It's not what you think
Donald Trump embodies dealmaking as the essence of a particular form of entrepreneurship. Every deal begins with his needs and every deal feeds his wants. He thus appears to be like other super-rich people: seemingly bottomlessly greedy, chasing the next buck as if it is the last buck, even when they have met every criterion of satiation. But Trump is different, because his brand of greed harks back to an idea of leadership that is primarily about adversarial dealmaking, rather than about innovation or improved managerial techniques. Trump's entire career is built on deals, and his own narcissism is tied up with dealmaking. This is because of his early socialization into his father's real-estate dealings in and around New York. Real estate in the United States, unlike the money-making modes of super-rich individuals in other countries, relies on deals based on personal reputation, speculation on future asset values, and the ability to launder spotty career records. Profits and losses over time can be hard to identify and quantify precisely, as Trump's auditors and opponents have often confirmed, since profits, which depend on speculation and unknown future value, are by definition uncertain. Trump's incessant boasts about being an apex dealmaker cast light on almost every aspect of his approach to his presidential decision-making. Numerous observers have long cast doubt on Trump's image as a consummate dealmaker, pointing to his many failures in his long real-estate career, his abortive political and diplomatic deals, his backsliding and reversals, and his overblown claims about deals in progress. But these criticisms miss the point. Deals, whether in finance, real estate, or in any other part of the economy, are just one step in the process of reaching full-fledged, binding agreements subject to the force of law. They are a stage in the negotiation process that has no force until it is finalized as a contract. It is, at best, an agreement to agree, which can turn out to be premature, poorly conceived or unacceptable to one or other party. Put another way, it is an engagement, not a wedding. A deal allows a negotiator like Trump to claim victory and blame the other party or some other contextual variable if things do not work out. In fact, in the hands of someone like Trump, deals are ways to evade, postpone or subvert the efficient work of markets. Trump does not like markets, precisely because they are impersonal and invisible. Their results – for corporations, entrepreneurs, investors and shareholders – are subject to clear measures of success and failure. Because deals are personal, adversarial and incomplete, they are perfect grist for Trump's relentless publicity machine, and allow him to polish his brand, massage his ego and signal his prowess to opponents – without the regulations and measurable consequences of regular market risks. The downside risk for an aborted or interrupted deal is negligible, and the upside is guaranteed by the legal power of fully completed contracts. Trump has figured out to an exceptional degree that dealmaking does not need to be successful in order to massively increase his wealth. Whether or not true, his claims to successful deals are the key to his brand and profitmaking worldwide, either directly or through the business endeavors of his sons. These range from his latest Trump perfume and Trump mobile telephone services, his Maga accessories, Trump golf courses around the world, his real estate and resorts, and of course his highly profitable cryptocurrency holdings. In every case, his deals either lead to further deals, which service his branding machine, or they lead to direct increases in his personal and corporate wealth. Deals, successful or not, are Trump's magic means to amass money and feed his avarice. Avarice is a vice with a long history in Christian theology. It is widely defined as an excess of greed, an inordinate level of greed, an insatiable greed. It has been viewed by economic historians as a passion that must be curbed and replaced by calculated, moderated self-interest in order for the rationality of the modern market to function as a dominant economic principle. From this perspective, greed can have numerous objects – such as food, sex and power – whereas avarice is single-minded in its focus on money. Trump exemplifies this focus. Though he has to function in a world where avarice is meant to be regulated by the market mechanisms of price and competition, he has managed to successfully pursue his avarice with little obstacle. This driving desire defines Trump's 'egonomics' – the intimate connection between his narcissistic urges and his wish for increasing his stock of money. The governing principles of his economic policy have nothing to do with America getting its due, as his messaging about tariffs argues, or about restoring dignity to the working class, as he signals to his Maga base. Nor are they about power or prestige. The object of everything he does is money, and in the service of the boundlessness of money, which Trump has made the defining object of his desire. Other commodities are of interest to him only insofar as they serve his desire to acquire, hoard and increase his stock – of money. The first – and most soothing – theory is that Trump wants money to buy power – more of it, perhaps all of it. More power than China, than his generals, than Harvard. We all know power – via our parents, our teachers, our bosses, our police. It is a force we understand, a pull we recognize. If Trump only wants more of something that many people have, and even more want, he is legible, he is like us. But power for what? To do what? To get what? Perhaps he is chasing an unassailable place in history, both human and eternal. So then it is not just power he endlessly chases, but glory. For this we have some evidence in the clownish thesaurus of words that he uses to describe his achievements, his looks, his wit, his wisdom, his all-round superhumanity: best, most, only, incredible, ever, more. In this orgy of superlatives, he is always curled high up in the clouds, like a Maurice Sendak toddler. But since Trump, from his perspective, brooks no real competition in life, in politics, in real estate, or even in history, there can be no glory for him which is not tainted by the mediocrity of his competitors. And true glory usually requires some form of self-sacrifice, some sense of compassion, some ability to transcend oneself. Given his woeful deficits in these areas, the glory game cannot be the key to understanding Trump. And so we go to a more familiar space: the realm of prestige, status and stardom. This realm is wired into competitions, tournaments and casinos of every sort, where winning is well-defined, losing is for losers and there is usually only one survivor and one winner who takes all. The competition for status is as old as recorded human history and accompanies every human society that has had leaders and followers, more and less skilled competitors for food, shelter and sexual partners. It begins with simple rules for coming out on top and evolves over time into the most elaborate forms of status competition, often driven by males – including wartime exploits, trophy wives, palatial homes and bottomless conspicuous consumption. These tournaments of value can be observed in settings as disparate as auctions, horse races, philanthropic gifts and corporate mergers and acquisitions. There is widespread consensus among thinkers from many eras and regions that status is a limited good, which has its own economics of supply and demand, distinct from those of pecuniary gain. This insight looks, at first, like the key to Trump. But attractive as this argument may seem, it too is a red herring. Among Trump's own tactics, the one he loves to use most is tariffs. Trump's obstinate insistence on tariffs as the key to restoring American manufacturing, swelling the US treasury and reducing American consumer prices has flummoxed most mainstream economists. Tariffs are for Trump the ideal way to combine dealmaking, status-grabbing and his penchant for money as its own bottomless value. It is evident that Trump's understanding of the trade-offs of globalization is rudimentary and often internally contradictory. Indeed, he shows signs of believing that making deals of any sort requires only outsize confidence, charismatic force and bottomless access to financial backing. In fact, Trump's view of himself as an incomparable dealmaker (a claim at odds with his many entrepreneurial disasters) conceals his deep distaste of real markets – in which a large apparatus of binding promises, the tendency to stable price equilibria, and the connection of supply and demand through pricing – can frustrate his brand of deal-making, which is always oriented to maximizing his personal prestige. Trump's deep-seated desire to be the winner who takes all in the global prestige economy sheds some light on his weaponization of tariffs. We can catch a glimpse of this logic in a most unlikely context. It was captured in detail by one of the fathers of British social anthropology, Bronisław Malinowski, in his 1922 book on a unique trading system that he found in the Trobriand Islands of Oceania, on several trips there in the years between 1915 and 1917. This anthropological classic, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, casts new light on Trump's tariff mania. What Malinowski described is a system of trading across about 18 coral islands within a 175 sq mile (453 sq km) area, between 'big men', leaders of lineages who exchanged highly specific valuables (such as decorated shell necklaces and bracelets) and their counterparts in this network of islands. Called the kula system, it had a highly codified set of rules to hedge voyagers against oceanic weather dangers and hostile groups in other islands, some of whom were cannibals. The goods appropriate to kula exchange could never be hoarded, marketed or bartered like normal utilitarian goods. This was a strictly ceremonial system geared to enhancing the prestige of male elites, of moving these well-known objects in a circuit which could last for years. The diplomatic rituals of these exchanges were ensconced in an atmosphere of pretend hostility between the parties, often because other groups in these islands were real enemies, always poised for real warfare. Hanging on the knife-edge between trade and war, these exchange circuits were strictly distinguished from barter or money transactions (what we would today call market transactions). The kula system was a way of organizing exchange, averting war, signaling prestige and making allies through a tightly regulated flow of valuables outside market exchange circuits. Trump does not care about Malinowski, the Trobriand Islands, non-capitalist exchange systems or 'big man' politics in kinship-based polities. But his operating system belongs in this type of diplomatic world, one that requires nothing except a non-negotiable interest in winning deals. Trump's onslaught of tariffs, falling on everyone like nuclear ash, is meant to make him the king of the global prestige market, no matter the cost to diplomatic traditions, financial markets, customer capacities or fair balances of trade. Trump appears to be undistracted by any other economic priority outside the aim to be the apex dealmaker. The kula system is grounded in a non-monetary system of honor, prestige and reciprocity, which helps us understand Trump's tariff strategy but does not fit his narcissist drive to crush all his fellow players. Even the kula system is about relationships. Trump is strictly about winning deals. So we must beware of seeing the urge to dominate all prestige markets as Trump's bottom line. Trump's bottom line is money. Being an avaricious man, Trump worships money – both its power and its pomp – and he seeks it through his extensive networks of children, clients, tax lawyers and cronies, all devoted to the increase of his wealth. This pecuniary drive has a transcendent, epic and unquenchable force which cannot be explained by reference to the other things that money can buy. Even his quest for prestige through arm-twisting tariff deals is primarily about positioning himself to secure future deals in his individual capacity. His is a special brand of avarice. There is no better way to explore the ways in which Trump's various egonomic strategies come together than in the recent invention and propagation of cryptocurrency, which has spawned a shadow world of speculators, fraudsters, legal hucksters, elected and unelected lobbyists. Their usual victims are vulnerable citizens, low-level grifters, pensioners, badly informed investors and other natural prey. The entire industry lives in a gray economy, attached to mainstream markets, assets and regulators like the tiny remora fish that feast off sharks. It survives in a legal twilight zone, where its currency is accepted only by some businesses as legal tender, and where smart players use pump-and-dump tactics to make fast profits with short-lived 'coins' of various kinds. Whatever the utility of cryptocurrency in the real world of goods and services, it is mainly a tool for amassing wealth by gambling on its future convertibility to real money in specialized currency exchanges. Cryptocurrency puts Trump in the position of being a player and the owner of a casino-like system at the same time, so that he always wins, if not in one role, then in the other. The outrageous self-enrichment schemes of Trump and his family in the crypto industry, which have been carefully exposed in several media outlets recently, establish new frontiers for Trump's shameless violation of even the simplest norms about conflict of interest. The best example of these ventures is his memecoin, $Trump, which has made him and his close associates a fortune by selling access to Trump through a barely regulated crypto mechanism. By some estimates, Trump has gained several billions of dollars in his net worth through his crypto ventures, which combine nepotism, influence-peddling and dealmaking in a unique package. Through cryptocurrency, Trump has found the ultimate way to attach his core impulse – avarice – to the larger machinery of the markets. There is some truth to the argument that Trump wants more of everything he can get, including power, glory and prestige. But what he wants more than anything else is money, which is just a temporary token of more money, and more money for ever more. The unique instinct behind Trump's avarice, which sets him apart from other billionaires who continue to chase wealth, is that he has found a way to build his fortune through deals – whether deals that make him money by inflating the value of his brand, which can then make him more money through more deals, or through the enforceability of completed contracts. Through his dealmaking, Trump has managed to triumph over the market, making it work for him to amass greater and greater sums of money, whether his deals are seen through to fruition or not. We can summarize Trump's approach to markets by adapting a famous sentence, spoken by him, about how he grabs women: Trump grabs markets by the deal. Illustrations by Joao Fazenda
