I don't know. I honestly think the underlying agenda is simpler than that. Musk was already flirting with Europe's authoritarian-leaning parties before the whole DOGE fiasco. He played a key role in bringing non-establishment parties into the game, the kind of parties that may not have a lot of luck finding other means of funding themselves.
Truth be told, from a billionaire's perspective, having a friendly authoritarian ruler in power is much cheaper and easier to manage than bribing (I mean lobbying) a whole range of politicians with their own agendas. Ending democracy is... good business. I mean, until the "friendly" dictator turns on you, a lesson that the sociopathic economic elite keep forgetting.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
This is all Curtis Yarvin playbook. The model they like is one where there's a "CEO" of the government, a King in all but name, and they're kind of like the Board of Director "stakeholders."
Proof of Stake applied to government.
"Dark Enlightenment" seems about right for the level of mental gymnastics required to justify the self-serving mess this lot is currently up to.