I haven’t paid much attention to the American election this time because I found it too ridiculous, "hyperreal," and offensive to the brain. This is not to suggest that nothing is happening; two assassination attempts on Trump’s life within a few weeks is not ‘‘Nothing’’. But my general attitude toward it has become one of wishing we could skip all of the mini-arcs and pomp and reach the results. In the same way, watching the Eurovision Song Festival was painfully boring until the not-at-all-political voting began.
Fresh from dooming millions of British pensioners to freezing in their homes this winter, Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently went on a jaunt to Washington to lobby for World War III. Ever inventive in ways to humiliate our Nation, Starmer asked the Americans if it’d be ok for Britain to allow British missiles to be fired into Russia by Ukrainians, and the answer was ‘‘No!’’. The request was denied because Vladimir Putin had said that such a move would be tantamount to a declaration of war, leaving Starmer heading off to Europe to try his hand there.
Nevertheless, Russia increasingly finds itself in a situation where if it continues to tolerate attacks upon its territory, the population will call for retaliation; on the other hand, an attack on one NATO country will result in Article 5 being invoked and become an attack on them all. I recently asked people on Xitter how this situation could be rectified, and the most common response was that Putin is holding on for a Trump Presidency and negotiations to begin. This assumes that Trump will continue to get lucky regarding any would-be assassin’s accuracy.
As we enter autumn 2024, we find ourselves at the threshold of what, in internet parlance, are called “timelines” unfolding. In Western democracies, this is a novel state of affairs because we’re used to the political establishment merely shuffling between chairs and badges and the central narrative arc continuing regardless of how people vote. Take, for example, the recent election in Britain; the only significant change is that the politicians no longer smile when lying or conceal their contempt for us behind a dollop of posh-boy Eton smarm.
In July, billionaire tech entrepreneurs Ben Horowitz and Mark Andreesen, whose firm Andreessen Horowitz has a cool $42 Billion on the books, announced they would be gritting their teeth and endorsing Donald Trump with a generous donation. Needless to say, the mainstream media did not take the news particularly well.
Wired Magazine sniffed:
What potential national disaster—one that threatens to destroy the United States—keeps you awake at night? For some it might be the climate crisis, as record heat and storms show us that the clock is approaching midnight on saving the Earth. Others are distressed by the precarious state of our democracy. Still other citizens are haunted by issues of crime, immigration, race relations, or income inequality.
But if you are billionaire venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, apocalypse looms in another form: a proposed tax on unrealized capital gains that affects households worth more than $100 million.
In an article called ‘‘Why Silicon Valley Elites Have Trump Fever All Over Again’’, Vanity Fair fleshed out the Tech-Bro departure from the Democrats and towards Trump:
Consider Elon Musk: Two years ago, the Tesla CEO claimed that a second Trump term would involve “too much drama” and that Trump should “sail into the sunset” rather than run for reelection. Fast-forward to today, and Musk isn’t just posting incessantly about how Trump is the greatest thing since rocket fuel; he’s also reportedly pledged to donate $45 million a month to support Trump’s campaign (although a lot of people question his follow-through, and he appeared to dispute the report in a post on X, calling it “FAKE GNUS”). Brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, prominent cryptocurrency investors who became famous for their early involvement in Facebook, have also joined the pro-Trump chorus, motivated by Trump’s favorable stance on cryptocurrency regulation. David Sacks—a prominent venture capitalist and member of the podcast All-In, who previously supported Hillary Clinton—framed his endorsement partly in economic terms, stating, “We can’t afford another four years of Bidenomics.” Doug Leone, former managing partner at Sequoia Capital, cited a broad range of issues, expressing worry about “the general direction of our country, the state of our broken immigration system, the ballooning deficit, and the foreign policy missteps.
Many top players in Silicon Valley fear and dread the Democrats because, for them, it equates to more managerial bloat, more regulation, more DEI hiring, and new waves of taxation that could suffocate the entire industry. The liberal mainstream frames the Tech-Bros as soulless ghouls who are willing to sell America into Trumpian Fascism to save their bottom lines, and to be fair, there’s probably more than a grain of truth to that. However, it is a simple fact that whether a Luddite such as myself likes it or not, a world in which America falls behind in digital technology and Artificial Intelligence is a world in which American Power dwindles and fades.
Donald Trump, of course, has pledged to lavish every incentive possible upon the tech industry. Trump recently caught the ire of the Online Right when referring to needing immigrants because of AI. This left many people scratching their heads because AI is supposed to be putting everyone out of work. What Trump meant was that he would make America attractive and competitive to talent worldwide who would build the AI systems in the first place.
Another framing of this schism is that entrepreneurial capitalists are finally mounting a counter-attack on the ‘‘Woke’’ managerial leviathan that threatens to ruin them. If American prestige is the patient, then bureaucrats and regulatory bodies are the cholesterol clogging up its arteries. Trump has pledged to bring Elon Musk to repeat his Twitter cull as a government efficiency Tsar.
There are, then, two coalitions facing off against each other whose differences appear irreconcilable. One potential timeline features Harris winning the election and America continuing on its current trajectory of decreasing international prestige, power, and rampant bureaucratic arthritis slowly ossifying, desperately levying more taxes upon the productive segments of society to maintain itself.
The other features a rejuvenated MAGA with new allies in the form of tech billionaires. It’s worth pointing out that having super-rich liberals who aim to automate as many jobs as possible in America become prominent members of a movement of forgotten working-class whites makes for an odd coalition. Still, politics does, of course, make strange bedfellows.
Viewed from this perspective, one can see Vladimir Putin’s recent endorsement of Kamala Harris in a new light. After all, Trump may have promised to bring an end to the war in Ukraine on his first day in office, but he also represents a drive toward ‘‘Hyper-America.’’ In this scenario, the deep state and intelligence agencies are de-fanged, the woke mumbo-jumbo is shelved, and a new emphasis is placed on competence and future technologies. At the same time, waste and mismanagement are purged from the system.
The point here is that there are genuine "stakeholders." Each side has powerful factions and interests that stand to lose a great deal in the American election, depending on the outcome. One group that seems mainly indifferent is the Zionist Lobby, presumably and not unreasonably concluding that their highly questionable policies in the Middle East will proceed regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.
For the time being, the world sits in limbo, with presidents and prime ministers, billionaires and factory workers, HR department managers, and pen-pushers in NGOs unable to make concrete policies, decisions, and long-term strategies because, for once, an election does, in fact, seem to matter.
A Personal View.
As indifferent as I’ve so far been about the American election, there’s absolutely no question that a Trump victory would be more beneficial to me and others like me than a Harris victory. Keir Starmer’s Labour could well be restrained to some degree by a Trump White House. Conversely, an accelerationist alliance between an unhinged Labour Party and a loony toon Democrat Party would be nothing short of nightmare fuel. I’d also relish the opportunity to see an ‘‘Efficiency Commission’’ begin, or at least attempt to begin, sawing through the layers and layers of managerial blubber just for the chance to take notes and study the beast under genuine duress.
In the meantime, we must grit our teeth through the dumbest show on earth and await with trepidation to see which timeline unfolds after November 5th…
As you say, the only thing certain whatever the outcome is Israel first, probably even more so under Trump, which could escalate to Iran, maybe with Russia backing them.
That aside, every other issue, from the end of more European stock being needlessly slaughtered in Ukraine to Starmer looking more unhinged all benefits from a Trump win.
I think the range of people he's pulled in, Bobby Kennedy Jr, Tulsi, Vivek and even verbal support from the likes of Brett Weinstein, Douglas McGregor etc means there will have to be an even greater amount of election rigging to stop him now, unless the October surprise is another bullet.
Meanwhile, it has been confirmed that the Pentagon, over the objections of Blinken and Nod, has vetoed the plan to use American missiles to attack the interior of Russia, and also vetoed any plans to participate in the war Netanyahu is trying to stir up....