His last post on telegram must have hit a nerve:
> Nicholas J. Fuentes:
One of the most important things to understand right now is that Elon Musk has become a very important defense contractor which means that X is most likely being used as a tool of statecraft.> Nicholas J. Fuentes:When we see Elon Musk acquire Twitter for $46 billion, ostensibly for ideological reasons, when Jeff Bezos waves the white flag at his Washington Post on MSM credibility, when Zuckerberg withheld political giving in this cycle and traveled to Mar-a-Lago, you can be sure that the richest men in the world, controlling the most valuable and important American companies in the world are making power plays— interest-based decisions behind the scenes— which are inextricable bound up with government in general and the national security apparatus in particular.
On the contrary, these Silicon Valley billionaires did not "become based" after watching Joe Rogan or lifting weights. They hired style consultants and marketing firms to create a brand identity for their financial/political agenda.> Nicholas J. Fuentes:Here is the case-in-point. Look at the conspicuous involvement of Elon Musk and the national security apparatus in South America.
In recent years, the DoD and State Department have promulgated a new grandstrategy that they are calling the "New Monroe Doctrine" which seeks to repel Chinese influence in South and Central America since China became the biggest trading partner of most of those countries in the last decade.
Particularly problematic is the rise of Chinese investment in creating "dual use" infrastructure in South America which although commercial in nature, can be eventually converted into military infrastructure.
In 2023, Argentina was set to join BRICS+, the Chinese/Russian counter to the G7, along with Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. For Argentina to join Brazil in BRICS, the two largest economies in South America, would be a major diplomatic blow to the United States. Moreover, Argentina's immense and valuable lithium resources hang in the balance with its geopolitical alignment.
Of course Argentina's accession to BRICS+ was cancelled upon the election of Javier Milei, the bombastic "Austrian School" economist who conspicuously became a viral sensation on Musk's X shortly before the presidential election.
Recall that Tucker Carlson, who has his own intelligence connections, posted a long-form interview with Milei to X which garnered over a billion views... vastly larger than Argentina's population of 46 million.
Soon after Milei won the election, not only did he cancel Argentina's accession to BRICS, he gave control of Argentina's lithium and Parana River to the United States, and received Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA Director William Burns, and US SOUTHCOM Commander and architect of the New Monroe Doctrine Laura Richardson.
In Brazil, Musk's X was temporarily banned nationwide during a row with a judge over foreign interference in Brazil's elections on the platform, and in Venezuela, Musk stripped recently elected Nicholas Maduro's verification badge following his election.
Why does Elon seem to be so preoccupied with these governments in South America? It seems to track with the US national security apparatus and its interest in the most strategically important countries on that continent and their ideological alignment.> Nicholas J. Fuentes:My rough sketch of what Trump and Elon are up to on X is that American elites seem to be gearing up for the emerging great power confrontation with China, a process which has been greatly accelerated by the supply-chain crisis during the COVID recession, the War in Ukraine, growing naval imbalance with China in the Pacific, and the drift of middle powers away from the United States.
To that end— elites seem to recognize that the domestic unrest created by the culture war has become detrimental and that wokeism, in particular the DEI/ESG agenda, is holding back economic growth and creating a competency crisis.
Environmentalism and other concerns are holding back full exploitation of US energy resources which are required to power technologies like cryptocurrency and AI, and which also act as a geopolitical lever against petrostates like Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
Thus, the foreign policy establishment seems to be covertly backing this cultural shift away from Left-Wing wokeism and towards a libertarian "effective accelerationism."
In short— these guys like Joe Rogan, Sean Maguire, Marc Andreessen, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Elon Musk are NOT ideologically aligned. They are not conservative, traditional, Christian, Right-Wing, nationalist, or sympathetic to pro-White politics.
They are cosmopolitan liberals who have turned against the ideologically leftist elements of the Democratic machine which are holding back the economic power-base of the United States, specifically human capital and energy.
This is why they are feminist, pro-gay, soft pro-trans, pro-immigration, and quite clearly hostile to radical right wing politics.> Nicholas J. Fuentes:With that being said, is "effective acceleration" by technologist technocrats going to create more prosperity than the previous regime? It goes without saying that this is true.
Law and order and economic growth will probably increase. The pendulum will swing back towards "normalcy." And in the short term, radical right wingers will benefit from the thaw in political persecution, like on social media or banking.
However, in the long term there is still a considerable threat of tyranny if you are familiar with the suite of technologies that these venture capitalists are creating and their intelligence connections.
What Founders Fund, Y Combinator, Paypal Mafia, et al represent is the privatization of intelligence programs to circumvent constitutional protections against surveillance and control.
Was it preferable to privatize Twitter and have it "privately" controlled by a defense contractor who owns America's 5th Gen warfare satellites and the rockets which deliver them... or to nationalize Twitter and subject it to the First Amendment? See what I mean.
People have often said in response to all of these FACTS that "we" can't let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good," or some other similar sentiment. But these options don't exist on a continuum, they are discrete and mutually exclusive and gather inertia over time.
So it's not about being choosy or picky, it's about whether we support the takeover of a dying hostile elite with an energetic hostile elite. This is why I asked very important questions during the election such as "what kind of white guy from Ohio marries an Indian immigrant?"
The question is valid because it points towards Vance's true intentions, which most likely does not include anything resembling White Nationalism. That's not perfect and it's not good either.
