The man in the iron Musk

I have to admit, I got something of a pasting last week on social media (especially Musk's vehicle Twitter X) for describing Elon as someone with "the potential to be a constitutional vandal".

So far in his position as shoulder parrot to Long John Trump, Mr Musk has planned and executed two detailed digital hacks of the Secret Bureaucracy that have usefully exposed malfeasance on a grand scale....but also occasioned - I might add - some acts of naked vengeance by the White House.

In turn, The Donald entered the White House with GOP control of both House and Senate, but at no time was either the Upper or Lower chamber informed about the techno-coup as perpetrated by Elon Musk. I know at least a dozen heavy hitters in DC - mature thinkers with respect for the Law - who are concerned about the total lack of involvement of Congress in the operation.

I take their point (and their side) because when one observes the biography of Musk's life to date, he comes across very obviously as a man who is long on contempt for the masses in general and women in particular, but very short indeed on actions that might befit a philanthrope.

Elon Musk is now the richest man on the planet. He has in the past proposed taking over both the FBI and NASA, and flying to Mars in order to create a colony there. The lack of an atmosphere on Mars doesn't bother him too much - he has plans to deal with the issue - but when it comes to populating the Red Planet, Earth's wealthyist man certainly has form.

Elon has thirteen children by five women - or possibly twelve by four, there's a legal wrangle in action on the question. Hands up all of you reading this post who think such a thing is normal. His father avers that Musk Jr "is a totally uncaring father who takes little or no interest in his family" - a judgement that was vilified by the Presstitutes, which is an odd perspective for the captive scriveners to adopt given that an equally valid observation would be to observe how ashamed of his son Dad must have been to say that to the media in the first place.

In truth, Musk's zero-contraception policy makes his sexual history a textbook example of Droit du seigneur syndrome, by which 'The Great Lord' spreads his seed far and wide - it being superior to any other man's more plebian sperm. Add this to ignoring Congress, colonising planets, buying giant State institutions, a wealth estimated at roughly $400 billion, designing expensive and pointless electric cars - and unwillingness to subject his power to electoral approval - well, are my doubts about him really that nit-picky?

No balanced human being needs $400 billion. At the risk of attracting accusations of being some sort of envious Commie, I'm afraid I do believe that - as the Good Book says - "The pursuit of money for its own sake is the root of all evil"....because the pursuit itself really adds to a desire for infinite power.

Is he, then, a philanthrope? The answer to this is an emphatic "NO". From 2020 to 2024, Mr Musk donated $13 billion to charity....that's just over 3% of his fortune. But 74% of that was given to...the Elon Musk Foundation. Just fancy that. Now we all know what the Gates Foundation is about: the power to mandate mRNA jabs, experiment on Third World citizens, cuddle up to Xin Ping and predict more pandemics to come on no scientific basis whatsoever.

Power attracts sociopaths, and sociopaths attract power. This is a golden rule...and giga-money is always the carrier.

But why should that make Elon Musk a sociopath? Maybe he's the exception that proves the rule, right?

Ok, let's dig a little deeper.

Here's something you may not know: not only does Musk want to produce lots of Muskettes, he's done much of it by IVF - in vitro fertilisation....through which his sperm is used, but he doesn't have to go through any of that messy semen-stains sexual intercourse business.

Does this suggest anything to you about a potential Howard Hughes dimension to EM? If not, maybe it should. Or how about this: In 2023, following Musk's takeover, it was reported that Twitter employees' company benefits subsidising the cost of fertility treatments and adoption had been cut by half.

Old Slog adage: "Those with double standards always want double helpings".

More double standards here: statement by Musk in the Oval Office a week ago with President Trump in attendance:

"If you asked the founders today, and said, what do you think of the way things have turned out? We have this unelected, fourth, unconstitutional branch of government, which is the bureaucracy, which has, in a lot of ways, currently, more power than any elected representative. And this is not something that people want, and it does not match the will of the people."

In short: a plea for free-speech democracy from a man who - on his TwitterX vehicle - only allows people full permisson to join in the debate if they have taken out a paid subscription to his fiefdom. Thus, free speech comes at a price.

But in the same moment, this guy has the gall to observe "We have this unelected, fourth, unconstitutional branch of government, which is the bureaucracy, which has, in a lot of ways, currently, more power than any elected representative". Yet Musk himself - as just one individual - has more power than any elected representative and has the Executive power to hack the entire bureaucracy without asking for any permission from the elected Congress put in place as a balance to Presidential power.

RIP Checks & Balances.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. As Idi Amin the infamous African dictator remarked, "I believes in one man, one vote...I am de one man, an' I got de one vote".

What the Trump/Musk double-act rightly points out is that far too many corporate, State and bureaucratic organisations demand prompt payment from us...but fail spectacularly to provide service for us. These payments might be management fees, taxes, subscriptions or whatever....the outcome is far too frequently the same: such entities see us as working for them, not them working for us.

This has been exacerbated by the internet, and online corporatocracy's cynical use of half-baked AI to both replace the empathy of human right-brain intervention in service issues while (where possible) hiding behind Bots to obviate reponsibility. What the new Administration's USAID hack revealed was a gross perversion of serving The People by taking vast taxation sums and giving them to Other People as part and parcel of a corrupt neocon foreign policy - an aggressive, interventionist diplomacy that was as existentially dangerous as it was utterly misguided.

I unreservedly applaud the White House policy of bringing that calumny to the attention of the citizenry...but using regrettable powers to fight unbridled power is habit-forming: two wrongs have never made a right, and never will do. Buccaneering is still piracy.

What alarms me about this use of righteousness to justify surprise-attack is that there are many dubious institutions in the US....and the Republic remains disturbingly divided. At its core, the division is between those who would self-identify as patriots, and those who call themselves progressive. Always lurking in the background in such situations is "the ends justify the means". At the end of that road lies the concentration camp.

It's early days yet, but the anti-USAID op was for me just as concerning as the Department of Defense's edict 5240.01 of October 2024, with all its creepy talk about "justified lethality" against the citizenry in incidents of alleged insurrection. Apologists have since tried to calm emotions about the proposal by writing stuff like "Contrary to claims online, DOD Directive 5240.01 does not grant any powers to the military it didn't already have". Frankly, I find blasé rationales like that even more concerning.

I am still of the view that 5240.01 is a litmus test of Trump objectives. Control of domestic social order is nothing to do with the Pentagon and its various spin-offs. The designers of the US Constitution divided power equally between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Their goal was to enable strong leadership when required, and minimise the possibility of a dictator in the White House.

What we have at the moment in the Oval Office, however, is an elected President who doesn't always weigh his utterances diligently, and a close confidant who would be King. What the USAID hack and the DOD lethality directive share is a very strong whiff of side-stepping, and thus isolating, Congress.

But the question still hovers in the air: is 'who would be King' an unfair assessment? And I suppose my response to that would be - given Musk's history of operating on the Grand Meta Horizon of Things - what is there about him that doesn't suggest megalomania? Solving the energy crisis, referring to himself as a Secret Service agent on his tax returns, flying to Mars, populating Mars, buying the FBI and using at-a-distance fertilisation of women to ensure maximal survival of his genes....no shrinking violet he.

At best, he is a fantasist. At worst, he wants to realise all his fantasies. I retain my view that the bloke is dangerous, and will continue to hold him to account...while continuing to applaud all legal moves by Trump to bring together the American People once more....inshAllah - God Willing - as we say in my adopted country.