What do you think of when you hear the name Elon Musk? Electric cars and money? AI and politics? Probably not politics. At least, not prior to 2024. So, why has Musk been in all the headlines recently for precisely that?

• ‘Trump addresses Elon Musk’s growing political influence.’
• ‘Trump downplays talk of Elon Musk’s increasing influence in Republican politics.’
• ‘Elon Musk among billionaires set to donate to Reform UK.’

Power. 

Corruption. 

The makings of a dictator. 

This is what I think of when I hear the name Elon Musk. This and…

Fear.

Elon Musk, the 53-year-old South African-born businessman (pictured above, on the right), is the richest person in the world with a net worth of $343 billion.

As the CEO of Tesla Inc., the first auto manufacturer to produce one million electric cars, and the founder of Space X, the first rocket company to successfully launch a privately developed, fully liquid-fuelled rocket into orbit, something that all Musk’s entrepreneurial escapades have in common? The futuristic, almost sci-fi-like quality they have about them.

All of Musk’s ventures are seemingly undertaken with the aim of breaking records in some way, like X (formerly Twitter). Musk said that he wanted to ‘create a common digital town square for civilization’ and told the media that he was not buying Twitter (now X) to make more money, but to ‘help humanity.’

Who gets to define what ‘help’ actually is, though?…

As Lisa Jennings Young, the former head of content design at X said in a BBC interview, ‘I feel like we’re all living through a vast social experiment [on humanity], and no one really knows what the final result could be.’

The prime example of capitalism at its worst, in our pursuit for more we forget how much we already have. We forget that we don’t need artificial intelligence when we have human intelligence, as we don’t need driverless cars when we have people who can drive. And nor do we need to find a way to live on Mars when we can live on Earth (at least, for now, we can anyway)…

What we do need, however, is an answer to the question, ‘What are Musk’s intentions?’

Despite co-founding OpenAI, the company responsible for creating chat GPT, Musk stepped down in 2018 and went on to found his own AI company, xAI, in 2023. Why? Because he wanted majority equity.

‘The most promising option I can think of would be for OpenAI to attach to Tesla. It could significantly help to accelerate the building of a fully functioning self-driving solution’, Musk said.

Alas, ‘we couldn’t agree to terms with Elon because we felt it was against the mission for any individual to have absolute control* over OpenAI’, Ilya Sutskever, another founder of the tech company said in response to Musk’s suggestion.

And this is precisely the concern… ‘Absolute control.’

When one post from Musk about his dislike of a bill to fund the US government led to the sudden collapse of said bill, despite it having previously had bipartisan support, are you seeing the scarily similar parallels between Musk and a dictator yet?…

With hundreds of billions of dollars in his back pocket, the risk of bribery taking place is high, particularly when it comes to politics, within which Musk now has his foot in the door, having even been offered an official government position in the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which is tasked with restructuring the federal government of the United States.

It isn’t just US politics that Musk has been getting involved with, either, but also British politics…

Musk has expressed his support for far-right parties across the world, such as in Germany. A comment within which he claimed that only AfD could ‘save’ Germany, (AFD being the far-right, anti-immigrant party that has been classed as extremist by Germany’s domestic intelligence services), sparked outrage.

Elmar Brok, former chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, dismissed Musk’s comments as ‘world domination fantasies.’

It is very disturbing, the way in which X, which I use very intensively myself, is increasingly being used to spread the political positions and goals of Mr. Musk.

Another far-right politician to whom Musk has shown his support is Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

Meloni, pictured below, is reportedly planning to shift power from MPs to her own hands, in a reform called the “premierato”. She has also targeted minority groups such as the LGBTQ+ community that is, in her words, ‘attempting to impose its gender ideology’ on her country.

Musk’s capacity to wield political influence evidently stretches beyond U.S. borders…

Musk has become a prominent critic of Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and has backed Reform UK to form the next government, ‘We only have one more chance left to save the West and we can do great things together.’ Media reports suggest that Musk is set to make a large donation to Reform UK.

(Description of the above photo: Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK stands with his arms folded beside billionaire Elon Musk and Reform UK treasurer, Nick Candy. Behind them hangs a large portrait of President-elect Donald Trump, and in front of them, the prospect of a political revolution looms).

The worry is, what influence will such a wealthy individual wield over British politics, and, perhaps more worryingly, why does Elon want to wield such influence?

Estranged from his transgender daughter, Vivian Wilson (pictured above), Elon Musk has a personal vendetta against so-called ‘wokism.’

Musk claimed that he had been “tricked” into letting his daughter Vivian receive gender-affirming care (or to use Musk’s words, ‘child mutilation’) when she was 16. ‘So, my son … is dead. Killed by the woke mind virus.’

Wilson, on the other hand, said that her father, Musk, is a ‘narcissist’ who ‘relentlessly harassed her for her femininity and queerness.’

Is this why Musk has pledged to support Reform UK, the party that promised to ban what it called “transgender ideology” in schools within the first 100 days of government, and promised to replace the Equality Act while scrapping diversity, equality, and inclusion rules? Because Musk is hellbent on making, not just the US be governed by the right, but the whole world. Musk wants the whole world to subscribe to his archaic thinking, whatever the cost.

A threat to democracy?

Musk has made no secret of the fact that he is a Trump supporter, hence why he donated roughly $75m to the political action committee (PAC), an organisation he founded to support Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, and not for the first time…

Musk has been posting on X for several months with messages of support for the 45th, and soon-to-be 47th US President. This alone is problematic given that Musk is the CEO of X, and there will inevitably be bias in favour of Trump in terms of propaganda.

(NB: If Musk were to offer the same level of support and funding to Kamala Harris as he is offering to Trump, then the concerns would persist, for it’s not about Trump, it’s about democracy and the potential for it to get taken away. When the world’s richest man, a man who has a proven tendency to want to be in control, has formed such a close relationship with our soon-to-be president, alarm bells must surely start to ring)…

A threat to democracy is a concern that American Author Stephen King echoes, too…

Stephen King (pictured below, on the left), delivered a warning to his fans about the influence that Musk has over Trump. One person wrote in response to him, ‘This real life is eminently scarier than any of the books of yours that I’ve read.’

As Musk’s words amass millions of views and thousands of shares, they illustrate the ability of one of the world’s most influential people to spread fear, hate, and misinformation around the world, something which Musk manages to do quite well to his over 200 million followers.

Since acquiring Twitter, Musk has directed engineers to improve the visibility of his tweets, therefore meaning that the algorithm now boosts his tweets beyond that of other users. What’s more, Musk has also dismantled the Trust and Safety advisory group on X and stopped enforcing content moderation rules. Consequently, policies relating to issues such as the spreading of uncensored misinformation have been scrapped, thus contributing to, what the European Union is describing as, ‘a haven for disinformation and illegal content.’

In an interview for a BBC Panorama investigation that aired in 2023, Twitter insiders said that, in their view, X was going to ‘struggle to protect users from trolling, state-coordinated disinformation, and child sexual exploitation as a result.’

Musk’s response? ‘Sorry for turning Twitter from a nurturing paradise into a place that has trolls but… Trolls are kinda fun.’

What an arse hole.

A very rich and powerful arsehole, but an arsehole, all the same…

Power. 

Corruption. 

The makings of a dictator. 

(A.K.A. Elon Musk)…

---

When politics is man-made, a desperate attempt to stifle man’s failed attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible, why do we let our minds be corrupted by their minds?

---

Sitting by, ever the silent (see also: spineless) observer, we watch wars taking place, innocent civilians being killed in their masses, all because of a petty dispute over religion, or land, or some other division that doesn’t even exist when we are all one, a fact that we forget amid the chaos of the twenty-first century, where we buy into the illusion of ‘better than’ and ‘less than.’

Forgetting that human is human, we believe the lies that politicians feed us, consuming the illusion and lapping up distrust like we’re at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

It’s lie after lie after lie…

Peace will never be found in a society that places productivity and consumption above health and happiness.

Like a painting, society is the appearance of the truth, not the truth itself. While the painting itself isn’t real, (like life, the truth and the appearance of the truth are opposites), what it represents, however, is.

‘Art is a lie that tells the truth.’
Pablo Picasso.

In other words, while society might seem real to us, it is not the original copy, but a reproduction. With bits that have been added on and taken away, it is not the same. 

Society is not the truth.

To discover the truth of life then? One must look beyond the canvas of the body and the mind (and, most importantly, the ego), and instead focus their attention on the universe.

• Infinite.
• Loving.
• At one (with everything and everyone).

It is only by understanding the illusion of society that we can understand the reality of the universe. 

With no ulterior motive, no interpretation of the human race as literal (we are not in competition with each other. There is no race), and no notion of better than and less than, it is only by letting go of the ego that we can hold on to the soul.

The way that government ministers are selected is absurd. No other high-paying job in the world would allow someone with no prior knowledge of the subject to be put in a managerial position in the way that ministers are. Yet, as is the case with everything related to the government, it’s not so much one rule for us and another rule for them, as it’s lots of rules for us, and no rules for them…

As long as you did the Eton/Oxbridge tour you’re deemed fit to govern. The only requirement? A lack of spine.

Under Tory leadership (2010–2024), we had a total of sixteen people hold the position of housing minister, with some lasting only seven weeks in the role (Lee Rowley, 2022). Rowley went to university (Oxford, of course) to study Modern History. With no prior background in housing, the question is, ‘Why aren’t decisions being made by experts/people who actually know what they’re talking about?’

It’s not just a Tory issue, either, but a parliament-wide one, as we can see in our current government headed by Keir Starmer…

The current secretary of state for Health & Social Care, as of December 2024, is Labour’s Wes Streeting. Streeting studied History at the University of Cambridge. As for the secretary of state for Transportation, the role is filled by Heidi Alexander who studied Geography at Durham University.

With no qualifications or equivalent experience working in a directly related job to housing or transportation, where is the rationale for having the most important decisions about our country being made by people who have no idea about the subject matters?

We only have to look at the fake promises that governments make to get in power, only to go against them all when they secure the key to number ten, to see the impact that selecting ministers, seemingly out of thin air, has on politics.

Policies make no sense because the people who are setting them have no clue how to implement them…

Can you imagine waking up one day to be delivered the news that you are now responsible for making all the decisions in the UK regarding health, with the onus now being on you to ensure the delivery of care in the NHS, despite having never done anything even remotely like this before?… This is the position that Ministers find themselves in upon being elected. Completely out of their depth, this is why their proposals so often make zero sense, because there is no logic behind them. They’ll say what sounds good because all they’re focused on is winning the seat. Upon winning the seat though? ‘Time to blag it.’

And so, this is why our country is in such a shambles. Because our attitude is one of ‘it will be okay’, as opposed to what it should actually be, ‘we’ll make it okay.’

Alas, we need less blagging, and more acting on knowledge and experience.

It’s wrong and it shouldn’t happen, but unfortunately in our current climate, to say that politicians shouldn’t lie about their policies is the biggest juxtaposition. 

When democracy isn’t really democracy, but more so a case of ‘voting for the lesser of two evils’, and promises aren’t really promises, but more so a case of ‘make it and then break it’, like saying that babies shouldn’t cry, to say that politicians shouldn’t lie is, unfortunately, inevitable.

When power corrupts, the chance to be in power means that people will do anything to get to the top, at whatever cost… For, while they might not have any expertise in their field (at all), something that all politicians do have is a lack of morals.

Last week, after decades of fierce debate surrounding the complex topic of assisted dying, MPs voted on a bill, the Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Its broad aim is to allow adults aged 18 and over, who have mental capacity, are terminally ill, and are in the final six months of their life, to request assistance from a doctor to end their life. 

Three-quarters of the public are in favour of the bill, according to recent polling.

The bill was passed, albeit at a relatively tight margin (330 votes for versus 275 against), with people believing that a change in the law might ‘offer dignity and relief for terminally ill people at the end of their life.’ 40% of people, however, had their concerns, worrying that ‘vulnerable people might feel pressured to choose assisted dying.’

Although the bill passed, as the first step of many in a long parliamentary process, MPs who voted in favour of the bill reserve the right to change their minds later if safeguards aren’t strong enough. It is therefore paramount that concerns are addressed early on to prevent misconceptions from arising surrounding what the bill entails.

It is essential that loopholes are closed, and gaps are filled.

The topic of assisted dying has always been heavily debated because the worry is… Where does it end?

If we’re arguing that everyone should be granted the right to die, does this include people with mental health issues, people in prison, and people who are just going through a rough patch in their lives? Would they all be granted the right to resolve their temporary pain with a permanent solution?

The answer lies in the difference between assisted dying and assisted suicide…

Unlike the former, assisted dying, which is only approved in cases where a terminal illness is present, assisted suicide can be done in any context, whether an illness is present or not. This inevitably poses many issues, particularly for people who struggle with their mental health.

Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It cannot be reversed.

Will people start opting for painless but permanent death over painful but temporary recovery?

It is concerns such as these that point to the importance of why it’s so important that assisted dying, should it be legalised, is only done in strict, controlled environments; in a hospital setting where it is administered by a senior medical professional, witnessed by other medics, and agreed upon by the patient if they have the capacity, their family, and/or other medics, to eliminate the risk of euthanasia being misused.

Where there are strict rules in place and it’s a case of ‘when, not if’, (i.e. Death = imminent), the passing of the assisted dying bill will grant people dignity in their final moments.

The assisted dying bill is not about ending life, it’s about shortening death.

It is the job of a doctor to relieve the suffering of their patients. Therefore, in circumstances where there is no further treatment available, euthanasia is the only viable way to relieve that suffering.

We know this to be the case with animals, but why are we so opposed to it with humans?

At present, cats have greater rights when it comes to dying than humans…

We don’t leave animals to suffer. At the first sign of illness, we’re on the phone to our local veterinary surgery to request an appointment.

Filled with anxiety, we hope and pray that everything will be okay and that the vet will be able to prescribe them medication to help. Residing in the back of our mind, existing as a great big shadow that overpowers the hope we have of things working out, however, is the question of… ‘But what if there’s something more going on?…’

An incurable illness.

We’re sorry but there’s no treatment we can offer. There’s nothing more we can do.

In this situation, we weigh up our options (why aren’t humans granted options?) and realise that to go home with them would be to prolong their suffering where their quality of life would be non-existent. And whilst we love them and don’t want to say goodbye, to not do so would be for selfish reasons, we realise.

With the option to end their suffering only a ‘yes or a no’, ‘tick here’, ‘sign here’ away, ‘it’s the kindest thing you can do for them.’

And so, we make that decision, because they can’t make it for themselves. A soul-wrenching decision to make but one that we know, should we ever find ourselves in such a position, we would want to be made for us, for no living being deserves to have their suffering prolonged for longer than it needs to be. Unfortunately, however, far too many people are being made to suffer unnecessarily because of current laws, including my Grandad who passed away in January 2023.

Should assisted dying be legalised?

Although assisted dying is illegal in the UK, ‘passive euthanasia’, (intentionally letting a patient die by withholding life support), is happening all the time (albeit it’s not being named as such) … This is what happened to my Grandad who was admitted to the hospital following a stroke. After food and fluids were taken away, he was put on a syringe driver through which large doses of morphine were administered to speed up his death.

Unfortunately, though, despite the decision being made to withdraw all treatment to ‘speed up’ his death, it still took nearly a week for him to pass away. During this time, my memories of him were tainted after witnessing the strongest man I know (it’s been two years, and I still struggle to write about him in the past tense), in a hospital bed, his face white and his hands cold, being starved and dehydrated.

Deteriorating in front of our eyes, all we could do to alleviate his discomfort was dip a sponge in a glass of water and drip it into his parched, open mouth.

It was a week of hell for us and him, and the fact that it could’ve been prevented if we had better laws in place is infuriating. It’s infuriating that the law meant (and still means for other families) that doctors were forbidden to give my Grandad a painless injection, but they were allowed to subject him to a week of what was essentially torture (what else can you call keeping someone alive who can’t eat, drink, or speak if not torture)?…

To strip someone of their dignity in the final stages of their life is dehumanising, yet for some reason, we’re happy to do it to humans. We’re happy to prolong their suffering even when the outcome is inevitable…

‘As the right to life, the right to death.’

When the ultimate act of bodily autonomy is being able to have input into how and when we want to die, how can it possibly be right that vets are granted more power than doctors, and cats and dogs are granted more freedom than us?

To say that you don’t see colour is to tell a blatant lie when, as humans, we see the world in colour.

From opening our eyes in the morning to closing them at night, colour is one of the only constants in our lives. It’s something that we base our whole lives upon.

Without a watch, we can tell the time based on what colour the sky is.

Daylight vs darkness. 

Sunrise vs sunset.

We can determine whether it’s safe to go out (if you’re a woman. Men generally don’t have this concern because, as with race, privilege is also based on gender). We can determine what to wear if we do go out (is the sky grey, dulled by clouds, or is it yellow, lit up by the sun)?

Colour forms such a big part of our lives but, as with most things that are a constant (like our sense of smell, for example), we overlook its importance, forgetting the value that we attach to it.

Not only can colour determine our actions (to go out or not to go out/to take an umbrella or not to take an umbrella), but also, our thoughts.

We all have a favourite colour, choosing specific shades for our homes and cars and clothes based on what it is that we want to feel, since to colour we subconsciously attach meaning…

Red = Anger
Yellow = Optimism
White = Innocence
Black = Danger

but based on what?

Where do our subconscious beliefs come from?

To answer this question, we must first understand the basics behind colour psychology.

Colour psychology is the study of how different colours affect human mood and behaviour.

While our perception of colour often varies on an individual basis, one 2020 study, linked here, found that associations are often societal as opposed to purely personal (see below).

• 51% of respondents associated black with sadness
• 43% of people associated white with relief
• 68% associated red with love
• 39% linked green to contentment
• 52% felt that yellow means joy

Consequently, the study’s researchers suggested that colour-emotion associations appear to have universal qualities. Although this, in the majority of cases, is harmless (we use our perception of colour to interpret paintings, for example), it can also be harmful when division is created based on class (blue collar vs. white collar), gender (pink vs. blue), and/or race (black vs. white)…

*While I have been discussing colour in a general sense thus far, the real purpose of this blog post is to open up a (much-needed) conversation surrounding race.*

Where do our stereotypes of black vs white come from?

Consider the meaning and use of terms like blacklist or black sheep, for example. Black has become symbolic of the outcast/the ‘one to be avoided’, and it is for this reason that lighter skin tones are considered more desirable than darker skin tones.

Dating back to the slave trade of the 18th century where skin colour was often used as the basis for the division of labour (darker-skinned slaves typically had more physically demanding jobs, whereas lighter-skinned slaves were given more desirable positions), in the West, beauty standards are Eurocentric. Women who have lighter skin, straighter hair, and more European facial features are preferred over features that are considered more ‘historically’ African. Why? Because it’s easier to hate someone when they don’t look like you…

Alas, it’s not about ‘not seeing colour’, (as we have discussed, colour is not something that cannot be seen when it is everywhere). It is, however, about recognising privilege and the imbalance of power. It’s about recognising, if you’re white, that you are given a head start in life solely due to the colour of your skin.

As a white person, you do not have to worry when you leave the house that you will be attacked.

You do not have to worry about the way that you will be perceived when you walk down the street. ‘He looks like a criminal.’

As a white person, life is just life and not an obstacle course for which you have no instruction manual.

And this is precisely your privilege, to not have to say ‘It’s a privilege to be here’ when you’re in a ‘white’ space.

When you’ve worked twice as hard to get into the very same space that white people sleepwalk into, what does that even mean?

I’ll tell you what it means… It means that being white is still viewed as being ‘superior.’

To reiterate again, though, it’s not about not seeing colour, it’s about opening your eyes wide enough to see it better than all the [racist] people who came before…

It’s about opening your eyes wide enough to

Recognise…

your…

privilege.