More than a few names are mentioned, such as Thomas Friedman and Sheryl Sandberg, but it also seems a disingenuous at times. His theory looks more coherent than it actually is once you begin to break it down. People can be too quick to believe in vague ideas about "the elites" who are against us.
People the author likes, like Noam Chomsky, aren't considered "thought leaders" who "develop their own singular lens to explain the world, and then proselytize that worldview to anyone within earshot” in an attempt to “change the world.” Even though Chomsky would definitely like to change the world, and is quite prolific.
Some of the criticism leveled at some of the people is valid but doesn't support his argument. Like when he mentions Fareed Zakaria's plagiarism, as far as I know it was limited in scope and not common throughout his writing. I'm ambivalent about Zakaria, but I'd rather talk about actual ideas than focus on that episode.
He constructs this "thought leader" strawman to attack, when he would better just directly addressing some of the core ideas presented by the thought leaders he doesn't like.
Maybe the article pulled it together by the end, but I couldn't keep reading when it was this sloppily presented. It's compelling, and there are even parts that appeal to my own biases, but it's too ambitious and falls apart.
Seems a little hand-wavey, no?