How To Think About The Forbes Lists and Other Cons

Or, how to warp public sense about business

As this story was going to press I learned the happy news that BuzzFeed was finally shuttering. As you know, I sued BuzzFeed all the way to the Supreme Court—and lost. That means I’ll have been involved in shutting down Gawker, Huffington Post, and BuzzFeed. Not a bad start, I have to say. Can we do Forbes and New York Times next?

I walk around with a notebook and I often take notes. I find that when I write something down I remember it seemingly for forever. I keep a tally, too, of everything I’m asked and how often.

Among the many questions I get asked is what I make of the Forbes Lists. The answer is, “not much.” But that’s not exactly right. I think the existence of public lists is actually quite useful, albeit not for the reasons that most people think.

In an age of social networks the most powerful networks are the hidden ones. So I pay especial attention when I detect one of these hidden networks at play. You can observe their existence only indirectly and increasingly, they are being outed.

Whenever I see someone has their startups touted by Tech Crunch or Forbes, I know that they are a part of some op. In my personal investing I do the inverse of the Chinese-funded VC who seemingly looks only at which schools the people go to and not what they actually are.

Indeed there are a number of these cultural signals — Harvard, Stanford, or MIT — which I see as passé. My contention is that all three of those schools fell after the financial crisis made many aspects of the commanding heights Chinese (and Jewish/Israeli). Just as courts can fall, so too can colleges. Lots of institutions trade prestige for cash and then lie about having done that.

This is all around you if you know where to look but you’re not allowed to look there.

We’re not allowed to go there with indicted and alleged fraudster Charlie Javice’s ties to Israeli types like venture capitalist Michael Eisenberg.

Eisenberg was born in New York but became an Israeli though he purportedly has held onto his American citizenship. His key investments include Lemonade and WeWork, naturally. As you know we don't believe the official WeWork story. Not one jot.

Anyway here’s how Eisenberg recounts having met Charlie:

As the Omicron variant spread and many Aleph portfolio companies continued to raise rounds of funding over Zoom, Charlie Javice, founder and CEO of Frank, hopped the first flight to Israel so we could celebrate the acquisition of Frank face-to-face.

As the Aleph partners sat with Charlie for lunch to celebrate JP Morgan’s acquisition of Frank, we reminisced and chatted about our long relationship and the path to Charlie’s success.

…

I was introduced to 19-year-old Charlie Javice some 10 years ago by then Bloomberg reporter and now CNBC reporter Dominic Chu. Chu had interviewed Charlie when she was selected to be a Thiel Fellow but turned it down.

Chu and I had become friendly over the previous couple of years, and he called me one day and said, “I met a young woman who I think you ought to meet with and perhaps mentor. She is Jewish as well.” [Emphasis mine]

Ah yes, the meritocracy at work folks! Note the Chinese-Israeli connection at CNBC, what Marc Cohodes rightly calls “the Cartoon Network.” We’re not laughing, though, when we think about all the harm that was done by these actors.

Looking at it dispassionately it sure seems as if Javice’s startup Frank was a rather crude attempt to get Israelis paid by Chase Bank—and it nearly worked.

It’s hard to know what we’re allowed to say here so we should tread carefully. Can we ask whether the Thiel fellowship — which Javice won before rejecting — works for the Israelis (or the Russians) too? Or are we not allowed to talk about Vitalik Buterin and Vladimir Putin’s ties?

We can, at least, talk about the motive. Charlie Javice (UPenn), who appeared on the Forbes 2019 “30 Under 30” list, stood to gain over $45 million from the fraud, according to the Department of Justice.

There’s been a parade of people laughing about the 30 under 30 doing five to ten and yes, that’s funny but it’s also deeply sad to see young people used in the service of what are seemingly foreign intelligence networks. It certainly seems that Sam Bankman-Fried had all kinds of ops running around him. So, too, does it feel that way when we consider Elizabeth Holmes whose whole story has never really added up.

I’m not immune from this sort of thing either. I was targeted by Ryan Mac back when he worked for Forbes. Much of Mac’s story is false — I’ve never met Ajit Pai and don't support him for anything — but it didn’t matter. The purpose of the story was to limit my reach within the Trump White House. Why?

I knew Clearview was in trouble when my old cofounder, Hoan Ton-That, was featured in Forbes Australia. He was involved in phishing attempts earlier in his career — at least as recounted by Gawker. Ton-That’s father, whom he praises in that Forbes puff piece, was linked with Australian criminal gangs by the Australian courts.

What’s going on here? Well, it looks to me that Forbes has been captured by the Chinese.

In American society we are deeply materialistic. As we become more feudal a billionaire is a kind of knight or noble so what’s better than capturing the Forbes Magazine?

Deutsche Bank, Axel Springer, and multiple Chinese companies were involved in Forbes’s sale, as recounted in the Washington Post.

There are rumors certain black rappers and Armenian celebrities bribe Forbes to be listed as billionaires by them. Is that really all it takes?

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, much like Trump, lobbies Forbes (Chinese-owned) to estimate his wealth several billions higher, but it's unlikely this guy has ever really been in control of his holdings even before Mohammed bin Salman came to power. The question then is: is this an exception, or the rule?

Kanye was listed as the richest rapper by Forbes, but this supposed wealth plummeted in a month to below $1b in 2022. How exactly Forbes (Chinese-controlled) even comes up with these figures isn't audited by any other party. But maybe that’s true of Silicon Valley too? That the figures aren’t audited by any party…

Has any Chinese, Russian, or Arab oligarch ever really been in control of his holdings on paper? And what about Silicon Valley billionaires, or Wall Street billionaires — how much of that is Chinese and Russian cash that's been given to them to hold on to — or to use in ops within the United States?