2 hours ago
5
The year is 2125 and an AI-powered hologram of Elon Musk is CEO of The World, Inc. Nation states are defunct and “citizens” an outdated concept. Now people function more like non-voting shareholders of heavily armed corporations. Anyone who dares to criticise Lord Musk is sentenced to death in a burning Tesla.
This isn’t my poor attempt at science fiction (apart from some creative licence around the AI Musk and Tesla executions). Rather, it’s a simplified approximation of the world Curtis Yarvin, Silicon Valley’s favourite thinker, wants to usher in. Yarvin, whose “dark enlightenment” ideas have influenced the Trump administration and political kingmakers such as Peter Thiel, believes super-rich elites should have dictatorial powers; universities and the press shouldn’t hold any sway; and the hoi polloi should suck it all up.
Musk is not a straightforward disciple of Yarvin, but both believe governments should be treated as corporations and share disdain for liberal democracy and “woke” institutions. Both also have a raze-and-rebuild approach to the world. Indeed, long before Musk launched his Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), Yarvin devised Rage, a plan to “retire all government employees”. Yarvin, by the way, wasn’t impressed with Doge (he compared it to an orchestra of chimpanzees trying to perform Wagner) because it didn’t grab enough power.
I bring all this up because, as Musk vies for a larger role on the world stage, it’s imperative we’re clear about what he’s trying to achieve. The billionaire, who spent more than $290m (£210m) influencing the US election, is increasingly taking his political meddling worldwide: he inserted himself into Canadian politics earlier this year and helped boost Germany’s far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). Musk spent January posting about grooming gangs in the UK and turned his attention back to the country over the weekend, appearing via video at a far-right rally in London. Musk called for a “change of government” and said: “Violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.” A man who was born in South Africa but emigrated to the US by way of Canada wants Britons to be terrified of foreigners.
So what’s the end goal here? Is Musk being guided by a Yarvinesque ideology or is this just what happens when the industrial amounts of ketamine the billionaire is reported to have consumed interact with the world’s largest ego?
While a God complex may be at play, a politics of chaos appears to be Musk’s short-term goal. It feels increasingly as if the tech mogul is trying to stoke civil unrest and destabilise democracies worldwide so he can accumulate more power. In his new year address, Robert Habeck, Germany’s vice-chancellor at the time, came to a similar conclusion, calling Musk’s support for the AfD a “logical and systematic” play to weaken Europe. “A weak Europe is in the interest of those for whom regulation is an inappropriate limitation of their power,” Habeck said.
Keir Starmer’s weaknesses – his approval rating is dismal – certainly seem to have captured Musk’s interest. Musk may not have an ideology as developed as Yarvin’s, but it does feel as if he’s attempting to become de facto CEO of the world, with deputies around the globe. It’s not inconceivable that Musk could effect regime change in Britain. And I’m not sure the government is taking this threat seriously enough. At a time when pensioners are being arrested for waving “Palestine Action” placards, the response to Musk’s calls for people to “fight back or … die” at a protest where 26 police officers were injured could have been somewhat more forceful. Starmer should impose sanctions on Musk, not just wag his finger at him.
What’s really at issue here, however, is the system that produced Musk and enabled his meddling. A healthy democracy should have safeguards in place that ensure a handful of super-rich individuals can’t usurp the political process. Those safeguards were removed from the US in 2010 with the supreme court’s Citizens United ruling, which reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and in effect allowed corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited money on elections. Britain has nowhere near the amount of money sloshing through its politics as the US does, but an analysis last year found dark money is rife: almost £1 in every £10 donated to British parties and politicians came from unknown or dubious sources.
Musk is odious, but he is right that Britain is under threat: if we don’t fight to conserve democracy, it will die. However, the foreigners we should worry about are not desperate people on small boats, they’re billionaires with rocket ships.
