German fascism crisis escalates as Elon Musk publishes a devastating 600-word editorial explaining why he supports AfD
Sun 8:04 pm +00:00, 29 Dec 2024 5| Two weeks ago, Elon Musk stirred unusual hysteria about the prospects and future of German democracy by tweeting that “only the AfD can save Germany.” In the days since, Musk has repeated the sentiment, both because he believes it, but also because (one suspects) he likes to troll unreasonable ridiculous people. German biens pensants can’t help but lose their minds every time Musk tweets anything positive about the AfD, and so Musk will probably never stop poking them by doing precisely this. There are two reasons that they react in such absurd and self-defeating ways: 1) Musk’s tweets confront our political establishment with an outside view of the insane, benighted and insular politics they have imposed on the Federal Republic. This is very uncomfortable for an elite who larp as adult, serious and farsighted people, while advancing some of the craziest policies the West has ever seen. 2) Our political establishment are correspondingly anxious that none of their subjects get wind of what people like Musk think about German political lunacy, lest these subjects awaken to the depressing fact that they are governed by crazy people with totally crazy ideas removed from all real-world considerations. Some days ago, Musk submitted an editorial to Welt am Sonntag explaining his advocacy of the AfD at greater length. On the one hand, Welt editors surely felt compelled to print his newsworthy op-ed, not least because it looks like Mathias Döpfner, head of Axel Springer (which publishes Welt), solicited it . On the other hand, the prospect of printing Musk’s editorial inspired great anxiety among Welt staff, because nobody in legacy media is eager to let ordinary Germans in on the secret that many people outside of the Federal Republic find our entire political culture exceedingly stupid. Yesterday morning, Welt finally figured out how to square the circle. They published Musk’s text, headed by a bolded warning that his words “call out for refutation,” and followed by one of the dumbest rebuttals the world has ever seen – penned by none other than Welt chief editor Jan Philipp Burgard. Imagine being so terrified of the political opinions of a wealthy American industrialist with libertarian leanings, that you feel you can only print them surrounded by screeching disclaimers and flimsy schoolmarm refutations. Even this was not enough to assuage the outrage of many Welt reporters at the prospect of releasing this dangerous editorial infohazard into the wild. Welt opinion editor Eva Marie Kogel has even resigned in protest – that is how serious this is. So that you may judge for yourself the depths of Welt’s offence against German political propriety and representative democracy, I provide Musk’s editorial in full:
I hope we can all agree that nothing Musk says here is very remarkable. He is a battery salesman who wants to sell Germany more batteries, and beyond his support for the AfD, his direct political observations would not be out of place coming from a centre-right CDU or CSU politician. This is an extremely moderate thing to freak out about. This brings us to Burgard’s (or rather, Burgtard’s) rebuttal. Our valiant policeman of German political opinion at first confirms our initial impressions, conceding that “Musk is right when he sees our country in economic and cultural crisis,” and that “the failed migration, energy and social policies of the Merkel era and the traffic light coalition have put our prosperity at risk.” Indeed they have! While Burgtard believes that “Musk’s diagnosis is correct,” he argues that “his approach … that only the AfD can save Germany, is fatally wrong.” I find it hard to see how that can possibly be true, and I mean this objectively. The CDU won’t be able to reverse “failed migration, energy and social policies” if they govern with the Greens or the Social Democrats. The only chance to address any of these problems lies with ditching the cordon sanitaire and forming a government with the AfD. All of this is so extremely simple, that there are really only two options for the honest editorialiser: One can argue that Germany is doing just great and that mass migration is fantastic and the energy transition is going swimmingly, or one can propose forming a government right-of-centre government with the AfD. Burgtard continues to say Burgtarded things:
The AfD in a coalition with the CDU would be in no position to leave the European Union, so all of this is moot. Also too, though, the AfD are not opposed to the European single market, which is the sole source of all the benefits Burgtard adduces. The AfD are merely opposed to the bureaucratic behemoth that Brussels has become, which behemoth is actively strangling the German economy. AfD co-chair Alice Weidel has been very clear about this, for example in her Bloomberg interview from a few weeks ago:
What the AfD actually propose, then, are EU-level reforms that will open to all member states the option of leaving the EU itself while remaining within the single market. Should these reforms be realised, the AfD would support leaving the EU while maintaining all of its prior EU-associated trade relationships. Now, you can agree with Weidel’s arguments or not, you can find her proposals realisable or reasonable or not, but what is very tiresome and also unsettling, is the outright refusal to address them at all, in favour of simply attacking strawman AfD policy proposals. This is a pervasive problem: Establishment discourse always insists that the AfD is very bad, but when it comes time to explain why the AfD are very bad we get nothing but transparent lies and mischaracterisations about what the AfD stand for. Our betters want the AfD to be very bad in a way that it is not, and this raises profound questions about their real reasons for hating the AfD, and why they can never explain these reasons. Burgtard continues:
This is such a crayon argument, honestly it is insulting that Welt editors expect me to swallow it. Two things can be true at once: American and European interests can be diverging, which is something that even high-level advisers in Trump’s own circles acknowledge; and the United States can remain an important trade partner for Germany. There follows the usual tiresome nonsense about alleged Russia and Chinese sympathies within the AfD, thinly supported and disingenuous as always. Then Burgtard finally gropes his way to the problem of mass migration:
That is yet another lie. In their draft programme, the AfD demand primarily the deportation of illegal and criminal migrants, along with incentives to encourage voluntary repatriation. Then it gets more ridiculous:
Sometimes you read things that are so ridiculous you don’t know whether to laugh or hit yourself in the face. Is a leading centre-right German newspaper really and truly asking me to believe the CDU has suddenly “woken up” to the very problem that its leading lights created and that many of its members still enthusiastically deny even exists? Is that possible?
Aside from the fact that the CDU migration programme now hardly differs from the AfD migration programme, except insofar as it reads like it was written for children with very limited attention span and reading comprehension, the CDU again will have significant problems doing any of this in a coalition with left parties.
Specifically, one is allowed to call Björn Höcke a “fascist,” since a court ruled that calling Höcke a “fascist” falls within the bounds of freedom of expression. You will note that that does not remotely support the case that Björn Höcke is a fascist. Otherwise, Höcke repeated that obscure SA slogan unknowingly, as major German media have also done. These cheap Nazi smears are another dishonest tactic via which establishment mouthpieces hope to reject the AfD as a party without ever having to explain what, precisely, is wrong with them. Untold hundreds of activists in party apron organisations and NGOs have spent years scouring the speeches and publications of AfD politicians in search of minimally plausible parallels to big Nazi villains. The real problem with the AfD is not that they are “right-wing extremists” or that they advocate for crazy Nazi self-destructive economic policies. Not even their qualified Euroscepticism can explain this hysteria. No, the real problem with the AfD is that their growing parliamentary representation is extremely inconvenient for the traditional German party ecosystem. The larger they get, the harder it becomes for the establishment parties to form majority coalitions, and the more the CDU will be forced to govern with leftist parties, who will make it impossible for them to deliver to their voters. Right now, nobody has a solution to this problem, beyond an unending programme of freaking out about “the extreme right” in the weak hope of driving AfD supporters back into the arms of the Christian Democrats. “The criticism of US billionaire Musk’s editorial continues unabated,” screams tagesschau (via the Deutsche Presse-Agentur):
|










http://mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/women-bisexual-gay-never-straight-6777599
NOW! it’s obvious: “Emerald City” + the 3d Reich were simply oligarchs w/Rothschilds not caring Jewish (partners w/other renegades of heritage) but ego-creeps & rabbis like the partnership control heads-banking corruption-ANY-israel + their own favored role, though they bear no relation to any religion based on learning from history, which the Abrahamic religions are supposed to do the articles parse gay from pedophile (straights are pedophile–) the nytimes one has gays are more macho & women who replace the Seneca Falls Convention w/teaching https://boingboing.net/2017/10/14/skidmarks-for-everyone.html
http://nytimes.com/1993/07/16/us/report-suggests-homosexuality-is-linked-to-genes.html includes gays are more macho insulting threatening homophobes unable to wipe their asses are usually wrong & now understood why usually hypocritically gay
https://independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/women-are-never-straight-they-are-either-gay-or-bisexual-study-suggests-a6723276.html21/Women-are-either-bisexual-or-gay-but-never-straight.html
I might very well float to Christian but you are not supposed to kill Anne Frank again (she did not exist at war’s end) because the Jewish world is false flagged as much as all the other people in the world
https://independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/women-are-never-straight-they-are-either-gay-or-bisexual-study-suggests-a6723276.html21/Women-are-either-bisexual-or-gay-but-never-straight.html
it’s simply a sliding scale they’re not really “gay”
The Lone Mask again….false opposition and the PR face of globalist corporate power.
is supposed to be worth 13.6 billion. He is supposed to be the CEO of Tesla Motors. He is
supposed to be the founder of SpaceX. He is supposed to be the founder of Solar City. He is supposed
to be the inventor of Hyperloop. I for one don’t believe any of it. Elon Musk looks to me like a person
totally manufactured by Intelligence as the fake human front for all these fake projects. In this way he
is exactly like Mark Zuckerberg, another person I have outed as a probable manufactured entity. When
I wrote that paper on Zuckerberg, he was also alleged to be worth 13.6 billion. Coincidence? Nope.
Why do I think that? I think it because Musk’s entire Wikipedia page and bio reads like a red flag. It is
nothing but transparent BS from top to bottom. We’ll start with his family. His mother’s maiden name
is Haldeman. That is a prominent Jewish name. Elon is also a Jewish name, meaning “oak” in
Hebrew. Kimbal, Elon’s brother, also has a Jewish name. So why not just admit they are Jewish? I
don’t know. Maybe they plan on running him for Governor of California or something.
Although we will cover the other red flags, I want to skip ahead to the end, to lead with later red flags
that demand our early attention. I want to lead with them although they come later on the Wikipedia
page. Musk has claimed he is a big fan of Margaret Thatcher. What? Only fascists and plants are fans
of Margaret Thatcher. No real person of any intelligence and scruple is a fan of Margaret Thatcher.
Musk is sold as a progressive, but no progressive would claim to be a fan of Thatcher. It doesn’t fit his
profile at all, and we can only imagine it was worked into his bio as either a clue for people like me or
as part of some late promotion of Thatcher and fascism in general. Actually, I assume it is mainly
another plug for privatization. Musk’s entire bio is a long plug for privatization. Along with
deregulation, privatization is one of the two main planks of neo-fascism.
Musk has said he is “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”. Was Thatcher socially liberal? Not
according to Section 28, which made “promotion” of homosexuality illegal, and which stopped just
short of making homosexuality itself illegal again, as in the time of Oscar Wilde. I should think this
would be of some concern to Musk, since I don’t really buy either one of his marriages. But he doesn’t
have to be concerned with that, does he, since he lives in the US in 2015, not the UK in 1980. In the
US in 2015, homosexuality is being promoted like never before.
So why don’t I buy his marriages? Well, in answer to that, I send you to pictures of Musk with his
wives and girlfriends. Just Google something like “Musk with Riley”. While any normal heterosexual
guy would be getting all the sugar he could from these sweeties, glowing in the perfume, Musk always
looks highly uncomfortable.
The girls are often leaning away from him, as there. And look at his hand in his pocket. Discomfort
signs all over the place.
Or you can read this 2010 article at Marie Claire written by his alleged first wife Justine. You may
find it convincing, but I don’t. Just look at the lead photo for the article:
I draw your attention to the three tricycles and two bikes. This is to remind us that Musk is supposed to
have five sons by this woman. Not only do we get no photos of the children—which is perhaps
understandable—she doesn’t mention them once in the article, either by name or in any other way.
Mostly she just repeats the story of Musk’s rise to fame and fortune, with the occasional plug of her
own. Very strange. I would have to say it is the most impersonal article of its kind I have ever read.
No, beyond impersonal; it is chilly, almost chilling. It reads like it was put together by a committee,
and it may have been. I say that because if we do a people search on Elon Musk, we find no evidence
of these children in the computers. In fact, Intelius doesn’t even have an Elon Musk listed in
California. Only his father, Errol Musk. InstantCheckMate lists an Elon Musk related to Justine, but
the only other relation is a Jennifer. Since Justine’s middle initial is J., I assume Jennifer is also her. If
these five boys have birth certificates, they should be in the computers. They aren’t.
Then we have to read this:
Musk is a self-described American exceptionalist a n d nationalist, describing himself as
“nauseatingly pro-American”. According to Musk, the United States is “inarguably the greatest
country that has ever existed on Earth”, describing it as “the greatest force for good of any country
that’s ever been”. Musk believes outright that there “would not be democracy in the world if not
for the United States.”
Nauseating, yes. Believable, no. Again, no real person of any intelligence would be caught saying
that in the second decade of the 21st century. Even the American Nazi Party is more circumspect than
that. Musk has obviously been hired to read these lines provided him by the Pentagon or someplace
(except that even the Pentagon isn’t that jingoistic these days). Now that I think of it, this reads like
copy provided Musk by Henry Kissinger or the CFR. But even in that context, it is over the top. When
I read quotes like this, I have to imagine that clues have been inserted into Musk’s bio on purpose by
someone. I begin to think this is all part of some game: a nationwide contest to see if anyone can see
through this. If so, send me the prize.
Although I may be the first to propose Musk is an Intel creation, I am not the only one who has noticed
that he appears to be reading from neo-con or fascist cue-cards. PolicyMic and many other sites have
criticized Musk harshly for contributing to anti-science Republican candidates and groups like the
Longhorn PAC and the NRCC, confirming my analysis above by saying that
these political calculations betray Musk’s persona of a socially-conscious entrepreneur.
His many interviews also betray (or disprove) his created persona of a person with very high
intelligence and skills. Although he is sold as some sort of Tony Stark, he comes off as Ron Howard
with a bit more hair** and a foreign accent. I don’t see any spark there, and in my opinion he looks
like just another hired actor. Unfortunately, he’s not even a good actor, and if he hadn’t been born into
a rich family he would have had to work as a crisis actor, like Robbie Parker.
**Actually, it’s a toupee, as we can tell by the picture under my title. Musk is 24 there and his hair is very thin
in front, so we may assume his new look is augmented in some way. In that more recent photo, he obviously has
on a rug. It doesn’t really matter, of course, and I wouldn’t mention it except for the fact that I am showing Musk
is a fake in all ways.
Although Musk’s companies have received 5 billion in government subsidies, Musk says he isn’t in
favor of government subsidies for companies like his. Instead he has come out in favor of a carbon tax.
Obviously, he is just reading from the Teleprompter again there, and isn’t concerned with appearing to
be consistent. Fake people fronting fake companies don’t have to worry about appearing consistent. It
is all about stirring your mind into Musk, I mean Mush. The people behind Musk want all the
subsidies they can drink, but then they want to pretend they don’t lust for them like they do. They also
don’t want you to apply for any subsidies, because they don’t need the competition. They don’t want
you to be subsidized; they want you to be taxed.
So why do I think these companies are fake? We’ll start with Musk’s links to Mike Griffin. Griffin was
head of NASA from 2005 to 2009, but on Musk’s page we learn that Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel,
the venture capital arm of the CIA! That is probably the biggest red flag on the entire page.
Curiously, that information has been scrubbed off Griffin’s own page. What exactly is In-Q-Tel?
In-Q-Tel invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence
Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in
support of United States intelligence capability.
That is the key to unlocking this whole mystery, so I suggest you read it several times, to let it sink in.
I suggest that not only did In-Q-Tel “invest” in all of Musk’s companies, it actually created them, and
him. We know the CIA creates many front companies, since the mainstream admits it. But it is usually
assumed they do this to facilitate domestic covert operations of various sorts. But we have tripped over
much evidence companies are created for reasons even more fundamental to the American way. That
is to say, a significant part of the US infrastructure is an illusion—an illusion created to facilitate a
variety of treasury dips by the very wealthy. Actually, the mainstream press has already reported on a
small part of these thefts and grafts. See, for example, Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone reports on the big
banks, especially this 2013 report entitled “Everything is Rigged”. However, even Taibbi has not yet
seen that it is not only via rigging that the rich are becoming richer. It is also via manufacturing fake
companies, fake portfolios, and fake projects, by which the treasury can be milked and bilked of
billions of dollars of subsidies, grants, and other monies.
So if you thought my mention of Intelligence in paragraph one was just conspiracy theory, think again.
Musk has admitted ties to the CIA through Griffin, if nowhere else. You see, before he was hired to
head NASA, Griffin was working with Musk on SpaceX, trying to buy old ICBMs from Russia.
Again, could you ask for a bigger red flag? Griffin and Musk were in Russia in 2002 trying to buy
ICBMs! We are told one of the Russian engineers spat on Musk, which is about the only thing that
makes sense on the entire page. They could probably see he was a spook-baby.
Musk also has some parallels to Yuri Milner, the Russian billionaire who—we are told—is the money
for the Fundamental Physics Prize.* Like Milner, Musk went to the Wharton School of Business. He
also went to the University of Pennsylvania, which has come up in my previous papers. Both Ezra
Pound and Noam Chomsky were probably recruited from there.
from mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf