Elon Musk and Peter Thiel represent a Silicon Valley rebellion against globalist control, positioning themselves as architects of an alternative ideology.
If it's not a party for and lead by the American founding stock families, it's a party maintained by treasonous foreigners. Musk, and especially Thiel, represent the pinnacle of globalist forces with their technology that seeks to transform the world into an AI surveillance state, unified by transhumanist brain chips. Very clearly these people are enemies to our folk who must be rejected.
We appear to have lost everyone and everything some time in the late 1800s - early 1900s. There is no political solution. The only option is to colldctivize with members of your respective folk and develop self sufficuent homestead beyond the technological system.
Right. Much people, or some, are doing that. Many other still inhabit the cities, as they can work better there, but indeed within their montruosities...
That's cute. Isn't "treasonous foreigners" an oxymoron? But always assuming that it isn't, how does one thole yesterday's meeting with Netanyahu with the nonpublication of Epstein's client list, the non-prosecution of hundreds of alleged statutory rapists, and even the alleged sudden non-existence of said client list?
Success in business almost never translates to success in politics. Musk and Theil are welded on to the military industrial complex, they are not agents of change , nor is Trump as you now admit , after pushing the theory that he was up until a month ago. Civilisational collapse is no respecter of persons, (or theories) it has it’s own inexorable logic.
Still civilizational collapse is caused by human beings, surely in a long time, and so it can be canged or transmuted throug human beings, the maximum myth of the are the avatars. Musk is a kind of alien avatar of our days...
The concept of the “Avatar” comes from the Hindu tradition in which it is linked to cosmic cycles of creation, maintenance and destruction. The rise and fall of civilisations is an insignificant cycle in these much larger cycles. It goes without saying the life of an individual human being is utterly insignificant. The conversations between Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita summarise this view of the powerlessness of men.
If you think a morally decrepit human being like Musk is an avatar, it is a sad reflection on your understanding of the term, which you perhaps got from it’s debased usage in computer gaming.
Mr Hussein Hopper. I lived in India two years and half,I was initiared in more than one tradition, and I was a yogi and a yoga teacher for many years, I translated some sanscrit texts, So take care when you make your self arrogant commentaries, evident from your biased reading and hermeneutic of my commentary,
Mr Dugin I unfortunately think you're wrong on how subversive this seemingly "right wing" tech bros are, when push comes to shove all their care about is their companies and extracting as much money as they can from people. Inifinite Indian immigrants on cheap labour with visas tied to the company, and free trade being 2 areas very recently they've clearly gone against MAGA and the interests of the domestic population. They're hyper capitalists, sometimes they can LARP as America First, but really they're just big business first
I wrote a book about a third party in the USA more than 10 years ago. Now I have come to the conclusion that we need to transition away from politics as the answer. Especially centralized power in Washington is dangerous. Individual rights must be respected above an artificial state or corporation. This requires a stronger universal moral code. Some call this a nonaggression principle. No force, fraud or coercion allowed except in true self defense. This would effectively outlaw enforced taxes, large militaries, intrusions into one’s personal life. It would require a high level of cooperation among people for common infrastructure, etc.
Honestly, I don’t think a third party is really an American thing. If the U.S. ever wanted a real multi-party system, it would need a complete refoundation from the ground up. The way the system is built, first-past-the-post voting, the Electoral College, winner-takes-all districts, it’s designed to reinforce the two-party setup. Any third party that emerges ends up being absorbed, neutralized, or used to shift the balance inside one of the two big blocks. That’s just how the machine works.
This is the American state’s political bicycle: it moves forward on two wheels, Democrats and Republicans, always in motion, always leaning a little one way or the other, but never tipping over completely. Third parties don’t last long; they’re more like temporary pressure valves, symptoms of something the system can’t fully digest. We’ve seen this again and again: from the Populists to Perot to whatever Andrew Yang is trying now. Either they get swallowed, or they fade.
So yeah, the idea that Musk, Thiel, or whoever could build a lasting third force misunderstands how deep the institutional reflexes of the American system really go. If you really wanted to change that, you’d have to tear down and rebuild the whole framework. And that’s not on the table, not legally, not culturally, not even imaginatively, right now.
I agree that a third party is not really workable in America. What they can do is tilt a close race by joining forces with one of the major parties. Like RFK did in the recent election by joining Trump. In exchange he was put in charge of the health agencies. Other third parties refuse to join one party or the other. They do not leverage their position to deliver some votes to one party in exchange for a position of power in the next government. Instead they hope to start a movement, but fade away or remain a tiny fringe party with no influence. Another option is for a strong leader to come along and change the dynamics within a party for better or worse. I feel that real change comes from outside the parties. Then the two parties have to react or become less relevant. Of course ultimately they listen to their biggest donors. That’s why I stopped voting. Money talks and I don’t have millions or billions or own a corporation. I focus on moving toward a voluntaryist world.
That is for the net decades just a bright utopia. Mas is still so much in survival mood, that they easily become agressors. To become saints, or very ethic persons, are not objectives of tthe majorith...
This might be a rebellion against globalist control, but would world division into technates really be a better option for humanity? I don't think so.
(See what Peter Thiel is bragging about. Anyone bragging about producing more deadly weapons is so clearly a psychopath...)
The only good alternative for humanity is BRICS, i.e. cooperation among sovereign nations.
We don't need billionaires. They have too much money and it got into their head. We will have to disposses them of their filthy wealth and create a more fair society with lesser gaps between classes. It can be don, I know it from Yugoslavia. Gaps between rich and ordinary people were never as huge as in the West. From what I can see, gaps in Russia and China are also not so huge.
Other “Third Parties” (Libertarian, Constitution, Green) already exist. The issue they all face is ballot access (something the two establishment parties conspired to make harder after Ron Paul and Ross Perot), debate access (the mainstream media can change the rules to disqualify or allow candidates at will), name recognition of candidates (Musk won’t be running), and money. Neither his fame nor money will solve three of those problems.
Much too early to administer the last rites to Mr. Musk's American Party. it's not even begun. Don't underestimate the depth of disgust the American electorate has for the rigged electoral process. The American Party likely won't prevail but it could play the role of spoiler for whomever incurs its wrath.
Nevertheless it doesn't really matter in the grander scheme of things. Politics is theater performed by stage managed puppets for us lemmings to make us think we have a voice in matters. We don't. Henry Kissinger in one of his rare moments he was not lying stated "the world is run by 3,000 to 5,000 individuals". And we don't even know their names.
Will the America party be a party for Americans, or just another party for the transnational moneylenders in power with either one of them, creating the money supply with each loan either in rubles in Russia or in USD in the USA, or soon with the CBDC of their central banks? I haven't seen Elon, Trump, Putin or Dugin take on that issue. While China keeps growing in wealth and strength because most of their banking system is state-controlled, and Germany remains subdued because their local not-for-profit Sparkassen make some 80 percent of their Euros. That is the religious question still unanswered.
Musk’s previous adventures were doomed to be failures, in practice they become an infinite resource of Finance Capita, why ? This the question Mr Dugin should have put to himself ! Musk isn’t a self made billionaire! Do some research Mr Dugin about Musk’s father and Mother , to start, then it would also be helpful to have some basic information about Finance Capital production and accumulation. Finally, Musk doesn’t own the billions that he is using to develop the most advanced, sophisticated psychological tools used by Finance Capital Investments for maximum Profit. We don’t live in a metaphysical dimension, we live in a material dimension in societies divided in classes where the ruling Elites don’t care a fig, don’t hold any compassionate feelings for the billions of People who are the real producers of any Nation Wealth. Let’s be honest for once! Musk, if ever gets to the helm of Power in America will be only at one condition: to serve the Zionist’s Dream of a World single government that will gradually reduce the world population to less than a billion; serving the privileged status of the “Chosen People” ! The Third World War is the Largest Financial Investment ever made by the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros, Gates etc. Musk is going to be another Harlequin, hypocrite, ruthless and faithfully executing the Zionists’ Satanic Masonic Programme.
I feel humbled that “someone” ,have paid attention to my suffered reflection. I hold no ambitions in my life, it’s a stage reached after long, hard struggle against my main enemy, namely my self! I have become selfless, love life and feel alive only through my search for the Truth, our common Truth. In the Universe, the little we know about it , nothing appears to be divine, everything moves to the speed of light only to its own end! We deliberately choose to ignore the only TRUTH, THAT’S THE REASON, WE ARE JUST ANIMALS! ANIMALS WITH A BRAIN WE HARDLY USE.
Love him or loathe him, Musk has tapped into something real. His war on wokeism isn’t a PR gimmick—it’s a calculated rebellion against a liberal orthodoxy that has become increasingly rigid, censorious, and out of touch. His AI, Grok, brands itself proudly anti-woke, and Musk himself has positioned his platforms (Twitter/X, Grok, and even Tesla’s cultural positioning) as a haven for free speech and techno-futurist nationalism.
Wishing El9n Musk the very best.. May the forces of good and righteousness be with him as he endeavours to lead his adopted nation out of its malaise, its usurpation … I wish him, his supporters every success, may they clean house, take out the trash, ridding the nation of the detritus and filth that has plagued it for so long… end the Dollarcracy, Corptocracy, Finocracy, just rid from U.S politics the incessant money grubbing and grifting… return the nation to wealth from endeavour, entrepreneurship, hard work… rebuild the American dream…. Then watch it go global cleaning out the nefarious actors that have inculcated Western politics… Just saying
This brief but rhetorically charged text is less a message of support than a political benediction cloaked in devotional language. What begins as a personal well-wish quickly unfolds into a sanctified invocation of Elon Musk as a redemptive figure. He is no longer simply a wealthy entrepreneur or public provocateur; here, he is imagined as a mythic leader chosen to deliver his “adopted nation” from moral, political, and economic decay. The author draws heavily on the language of cosmic struggle, invoking “the forces of good and righteousness” as if Musk’s mission were not just civic but spiritual. This moral dualism a world divided between purifiers and the impure immediately displaces politics from the domain of argument and reform into the realm of salvific battle.
What follows is a purification fantasy couched in the lexicon of housecleaning and waste disposal: Musk and his followers are encouraged to “clean house,” “take out the trash,” and rid the nation of “detritus and filth.” These terms are not metaphorical in the harmless sense; they carry historical resonance with authoritarian projects that envisioned political enemies not as opponents to be debated, but as contaminants to be removed. The danger lies in the vagueness of these terms. Who exactly is the trash? The liberal elite? Bureaucrats? Minorities? Dissidents? The lack of specificity is not a flaw it is the rhetorical point. By refusing to define its targets, the text allows readers to project their own enemies into the role of contaminant. This is a linguistic mechanism well-known in demagogic and totalitarian rhetoric, where enemies are always protean and abstract, thereby justifying ever-expanding acts of cleansing.
Despite its moral fervor, the political imagination on display is remarkably thin. It laments “Dollarcracy,” “Corptocracy,” and “Finocracy,” coining buzzwords that suggest structural critique but offering no substantive analysis. There is no engagement with how money functions in the American political system, how corporate influence is institutionalized through lobbying and deregulation, or how finance capitalism shapes labor markets and electoral processes. Instead, these terms serve as totemic evils to be ritually named and discarded. The critique is populist in tone but shallow in execution, offering catharsis in place of critique.
The vision of economic redemption offered in contrast is no less mythological. The writer yearns for a return to a version of the American dream built on “endeavour, entrepreneurship, and hard work.” Yet this vision is a foundational American myth, not a historical reality. It ignores the structural violence, racial exclusions, and class stratifications that have always defined access to wealth in the United States. It romanticizes capitalism without acknowledging its history of exploitation and dispossession, and it calls for a moral reboot of the economy without naming a single concrete reform.
This domestic fantasy then turns global. Once Musk “restores” the United States, the author predicts the model will “go global,” cleansing Western politics of its “nefarious actors.” This is a transference of the same purification fantasy onto a planetary scale. It echoes the logic of civilizational crusades, whereby the chosen nation once purified is called to liberate or purify others. Here, Musk is not only a national redeemer, but an imperial agent of righteousness. There is no suggestion of international cooperation, no engagement with other political cultures or systems only the extension of the American purification to the rest of the West. It is the geopolitical version of moral absolutism.
Finally, the sign-off “Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand” softens the tone, offering a gesture of cross-national solidarity. But this sentimental closure does not neutralize the ideological severity of what precedes it. The text, in effect, blesses an authoritarian, even purgative vision of politics. Its warmth is performative. Its rhetorical affability masks a deep hostility to democratic pluralism, to disagreement, and to the slow, difficult work of institutional reform. Goodwill in language does not absolve the underlying implications of a message that dreams of cleansing society through the will of a single, sanctified man.
What is ultimately on display is not a coherent political argument, nor a serious proposal, but a form of emotional projection. It longs for salvation, and it finds in Musk a cipher for that desire. Yet in transfiguring Musk into a messianic figure, the text abandons politics altogether. It replaces dialogue with devotion, systems with symbolism, and responsibility with the fantasy that someone else brilliant, rich, uncorrupted can cleanse the world for us. In doing so, it exemplifies the very malaise it seeks to overcome: the surrender of political agency to personality, the collapse of critique into blind faith.
This text presents a volatile mixture of political speculation, ideological branding, and personality cults around figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, yet it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions and imprecision. It opens with an absolutist claim “Ideology of ‘America’ party either will be Fourth Political Theory, or there will be none” which gestures toward Aleksandr Dugin’s esoteric political framework. But this invocation is shallow and ornamental, offering no real account of what that theory entails or how it could possibly integrate with American techno-capitalist populism. Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, rooted in anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-fascism, is profoundly metaphysical and steeped in traditionalism, Orthodox mysticism, and Eurasianism. To suggest that Musk who exemplifies the neoliberal techno-oligarch might be its vessel is not only conceptually incoherent but borders on ideological pastiche. What is offered is not political theory but a kind of cultural cosplay with no fidelity to its supposed intellectual origins.
This is compounded by the document’s internal contradictions. While it accurately critiques Trump for his indulgence of Netanyahu and embrace of neoconservatives like Lindsey Graham, it simultaneously casts him as the heroic prophet of a new anti-establishment order. The tension is never resolved. If Trump has betrayed the nationalist cause, as it claims, how does he remain its messiah? Likewise, the text condemns the so-called “Uniparty” a rhetorical amalgam of left and right globalists yet fails to reckon with the fact that figures like Musk and Thiel are themselves products and beneficiaries of that same globalized financial system. There is no analysis of how such contradictions might be resolved; they are merely ignored in favor of narrative cohesion.
The rhetorical structure of the piece trades clarity for mythology. Musk is mythologized not just as an innovator but as a visionary insurgent, misunderstood by the establishment and vindicated through sheer genius. This trope the embattled hero triumphant against the odds is repeated without question. His ventures are described as seemingly doomed, only to “win big,” as though entrepreneurial risk were proof of political or moral superiority. This is the cult of the entrepreneur transposed onto the national political stage: success in one domain is presumed to authorize ideological leadership in another. But technocratic success is not a substitute for political philosophy, and charisma is not coherence.
This substitution of narrative for logic is further emphasized by the deployment of scapegoats. The “degenerate elite,” the “Deep State,” the “insufferable liberals” these terms float without specificity, functioning not as descriptors but as triggers. Their purpose is not to clarify political antagonisms but to generate affective response. The “Uniparty” label collapses all institutional complexity into a single enemy, which is a classic maneuver of reactionary populism. But populism without a constructive theory of governance without affirmative principles is merely reactive. It destroys without building. The text flirts with this emptiness while trying to cover it with slogans: “Death to the Deep State!” or “anti-woke AI” as ideology.
Equally important is the compositional incoherence. The text reads less like an essay and more like a string of social media posts, loosely sewn together by tone rather than argument. There are no transitions, no development of ideas. One paragraph muses on Thiel’s role in shifting Silicon Valley to the right, the next jumps to Musk’s youth appeal, then back again to third-party pessimism. Assertions are flung out without evidence: Musk played a “pivotal” role in Trump’s election how? There is no citation. Thiel called the Uniparty the “party of the Antichrist” in what context? This is not analysis but repetition, and repetition without elaboration becomes dogma.
Beneath all this is a kind of ideological desperation, a longing for new order in the ruins of credibility. There is a hunger for rupture—something to break the deadlock of mainstream American politics. But that hunger is being fed through mythology rather than thought, personality rather than principle. The possibility of a third party in the United States something deeply constrained by electoral systems, media access, and structural power is waved off with little more than the vague assurance that “there’s a first time for everything.” But new parties do not emerge from wishful thinking; they require programmatic clarity, institutional scaffolding, and grassroots legitimacy.
Ultimately, this piece is a symptom rather than a diagnosis. It is not a proposal for what should be done but an affective expression of what is felt: disillusionment with the establishment, rage at cultural liberalism, a desire for someone anyone to seize the moment. But in place of rigor, it offers rhetorical volatility; in place of theory, branding; in place of critique, prophecy. What remains is a confused liturgy for techno-populist redemption with no clear theology, clinging to icons (Musk, Trump) whose own positions are riddled with the very contradictions it seeks to overcome.
If this is the ideological soil from which the so-called “America” party is to grow, then it is already infertile. And if the only options are “Fourth Political Theory or none,” then the answer, at least as presented here, is unmistakably none.
I wonder how many are cognisant of the Unabomber's thesis that all technocracies eventually become fascist dictatorships (I paraphrase, but essentially that is the claim).
The problem with the Musks, Thiels, and so on is that their only focus is on the Algorithm, and there is much more to the world than that, cue the Apocalypse tropes where the discarded ferals challenge the Bunkerists to a death match, and when the bullets run out, what then for Bunkers?
The so-called Collective West has discarded its concepts of fellowship and reverence, what does it have left?
Those who are attracted to the notion of the Fourth Political Theory need, in my singular opinion, to address this, and some of us in the South are already in possession. The West is Lost.
If it's not a party for and lead by the American founding stock families, it's a party maintained by treasonous foreigners. Musk, and especially Thiel, represent the pinnacle of globalist forces with their technology that seeks to transform the world into an AI surveillance state, unified by transhumanist brain chips. Very clearly these people are enemies to our folk who must be rejected.
Spot on.
Interesting view. Who is not controled by the infrahumanist oligarchic globalists?
We appear to have lost everyone and everything some time in the late 1800s - early 1900s. There is no political solution. The only option is to colldctivize with members of your respective folk and develop self sufficuent homestead beyond the technological system.
Right. Much people, or some, are doing that. Many other still inhabit the cities, as they can work better there, but indeed within their montruosities...
That's cute. Isn't "treasonous foreigners" an oxymoron? But always assuming that it isn't, how does one thole yesterday's meeting with Netanyahu with the nonpublication of Epstein's client list, the non-prosecution of hundreds of alleged statutory rapists, and even the alleged sudden non-existence of said client list?
Success in business almost never translates to success in politics. Musk and Theil are welded on to the military industrial complex, they are not agents of change , nor is Trump as you now admit , after pushing the theory that he was up until a month ago. Civilisational collapse is no respecter of persons, (or theories) it has it’s own inexorable logic.
Clearly all that amounted to bugger all based your comments and inane threats
Still civilizational collapse is caused by human beings, surely in a long time, and so it can be canged or transmuted throug human beings, the maximum myth of the are the avatars. Musk is a kind of alien avatar of our days...
The concept of the “Avatar” comes from the Hindu tradition in which it is linked to cosmic cycles of creation, maintenance and destruction. The rise and fall of civilisations is an insignificant cycle in these much larger cycles. It goes without saying the life of an individual human being is utterly insignificant. The conversations between Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita summarise this view of the powerlessness of men.
If you think a morally decrepit human being like Musk is an avatar, it is a sad reflection on your understanding of the term, which you perhaps got from it’s debased usage in computer gaming.
Mr Hussein Hopper. I lived in India two years and half,I was initiared in more than one tradition, and I was a yogi and a yoga teacher for many years, I translated some sanscrit texts, So take care when you make your self arrogant commentaries, evident from your biased reading and hermeneutic of my commentary,
Mr Dugin I unfortunately think you're wrong on how subversive this seemingly "right wing" tech bros are, when push comes to shove all their care about is their companies and extracting as much money as they can from people. Inifinite Indian immigrants on cheap labour with visas tied to the company, and free trade being 2 areas very recently they've clearly gone against MAGA and the interests of the domestic population. They're hyper capitalists, sometimes they can LARP as America First, but really they're just big business first
they're kinda the ultimate globalists, they wish to create a globalist AI controlled superstate
I wrote a book about a third party in the USA more than 10 years ago. Now I have come to the conclusion that we need to transition away from politics as the answer. Especially centralized power in Washington is dangerous. Individual rights must be respected above an artificial state or corporation. This requires a stronger universal moral code. Some call this a nonaggression principle. No force, fraud or coercion allowed except in true self defense. This would effectively outlaw enforced taxes, large militaries, intrusions into one’s personal life. It would require a high level of cooperation among people for common infrastructure, etc.
Honestly, I don’t think a third party is really an American thing. If the U.S. ever wanted a real multi-party system, it would need a complete refoundation from the ground up. The way the system is built, first-past-the-post voting, the Electoral College, winner-takes-all districts, it’s designed to reinforce the two-party setup. Any third party that emerges ends up being absorbed, neutralized, or used to shift the balance inside one of the two big blocks. That’s just how the machine works.
This is the American state’s political bicycle: it moves forward on two wheels, Democrats and Republicans, always in motion, always leaning a little one way or the other, but never tipping over completely. Third parties don’t last long; they’re more like temporary pressure valves, symptoms of something the system can’t fully digest. We’ve seen this again and again: from the Populists to Perot to whatever Andrew Yang is trying now. Either they get swallowed, or they fade.
So yeah, the idea that Musk, Thiel, or whoever could build a lasting third force misunderstands how deep the institutional reflexes of the American system really go. If you really wanted to change that, you’d have to tear down and rebuild the whole framework. And that’s not on the table, not legally, not culturally, not even imaginatively, right now.
I agree that a third party is not really workable in America. What they can do is tilt a close race by joining forces with one of the major parties. Like RFK did in the recent election by joining Trump. In exchange he was put in charge of the health agencies. Other third parties refuse to join one party or the other. They do not leverage their position to deliver some votes to one party in exchange for a position of power in the next government. Instead they hope to start a movement, but fade away or remain a tiny fringe party with no influence. Another option is for a strong leader to come along and change the dynamics within a party for better or worse. I feel that real change comes from outside the parties. Then the two parties have to react or become less relevant. Of course ultimately they listen to their biggest donors. That’s why I stopped voting. Money talks and I don’t have millions or billions or own a corporation. I focus on moving toward a voluntaryist world.
That is for the net decades just a bright utopia. Mas is still so much in survival mood, that they easily become agressors. To become saints, or very ethic persons, are not objectives of tthe majorith...
Agree
This might be a rebellion against globalist control, but would world division into technates really be a better option for humanity? I don't think so.
(See what Peter Thiel is bragging about. Anyone bragging about producing more deadly weapons is so clearly a psychopath...)
The only good alternative for humanity is BRICS, i.e. cooperation among sovereign nations.
We don't need billionaires. They have too much money and it got into their head. We will have to disposses them of their filthy wealth and create a more fair society with lesser gaps between classes. It can be don, I know it from Yugoslavia. Gaps between rich and ordinary people were never as huge as in the West. From what I can see, gaps in Russia and China are also not so huge.
They are all the same.all look for absolut control tjey are palentir parents yes on the west you don't need a female to give birth🤣🤣🤣
Other “Third Parties” (Libertarian, Constitution, Green) already exist. The issue they all face is ballot access (something the two establishment parties conspired to make harder after Ron Paul and Ross Perot), debate access (the mainstream media can change the rules to disqualify or allow candidates at will), name recognition of candidates (Musk won’t be running), and money. Neither his fame nor money will solve three of those problems.
Much too early to administer the last rites to Mr. Musk's American Party. it's not even begun. Don't underestimate the depth of disgust the American electorate has for the rigged electoral process. The American Party likely won't prevail but it could play the role of spoiler for whomever incurs its wrath.
Nevertheless it doesn't really matter in the grander scheme of things. Politics is theater performed by stage managed puppets for us lemmings to make us think we have a voice in matters. We don't. Henry Kissinger in one of his rare moments he was not lying stated "the world is run by 3,000 to 5,000 individuals". And we don't even know their names.
We might know their names if they were to publish the Epstein client list!
Shut up and talk about the jews controlling Russia, America, Australia, and Europe you charlatan Dugin.
Will the America party be a party for Americans, or just another party for the transnational moneylenders in power with either one of them, creating the money supply with each loan either in rubles in Russia or in USD in the USA, or soon with the CBDC of their central banks? I haven't seen Elon, Trump, Putin or Dugin take on that issue. While China keeps growing in wealth and strength because most of their banking system is state-controlled, and Germany remains subdued because their local not-for-profit Sparkassen make some 80 percent of their Euros. That is the religious question still unanswered.
Musk’s previous adventures were doomed to be failures, in practice they become an infinite resource of Finance Capita, why ? This the question Mr Dugin should have put to himself ! Musk isn’t a self made billionaire! Do some research Mr Dugin about Musk’s father and Mother , to start, then it would also be helpful to have some basic information about Finance Capital production and accumulation. Finally, Musk doesn’t own the billions that he is using to develop the most advanced, sophisticated psychological tools used by Finance Capital Investments for maximum Profit. We don’t live in a metaphysical dimension, we live in a material dimension in societies divided in classes where the ruling Elites don’t care a fig, don’t hold any compassionate feelings for the billions of People who are the real producers of any Nation Wealth. Let’s be honest for once! Musk, if ever gets to the helm of Power in America will be only at one condition: to serve the Zionist’s Dream of a World single government that will gradually reduce the world population to less than a billion; serving the privileged status of the “Chosen People” ! The Third World War is the Largest Financial Investment ever made by the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros, Gates etc. Musk is going to be another Harlequin, hypocrite, ruthless and faithfully executing the Zionists’ Satanic Masonic Programme.
I feel humbled that “someone” ,have paid attention to my suffered reflection. I hold no ambitions in my life, it’s a stage reached after long, hard struggle against my main enemy, namely my self! I have become selfless, love life and feel alive only through my search for the Truth, our common Truth. In the Universe, the little we know about it , nothing appears to be divine, everything moves to the speed of light only to its own end! We deliberately choose to ignore the only TRUTH, THAT’S THE REASON, WE ARE JUST ANIMALS! ANIMALS WITH A BRAIN WE HARDLY USE.
Love him or loathe him, Musk has tapped into something real. His war on wokeism isn’t a PR gimmick—it’s a calculated rebellion against a liberal orthodoxy that has become increasingly rigid, censorious, and out of touch. His AI, Grok, brands itself proudly anti-woke, and Musk himself has positioned his platforms (Twitter/X, Grok, and even Tesla’s cultural positioning) as a haven for free speech and techno-futurist nationalism.
What the west needs is a french style revolution with millions of beheadings.
Wishing El9n Musk the very best.. May the forces of good and righteousness be with him as he endeavours to lead his adopted nation out of its malaise, its usurpation … I wish him, his supporters every success, may they clean house, take out the trash, ridding the nation of the detritus and filth that has plagued it for so long… end the Dollarcracy, Corptocracy, Finocracy, just rid from U.S politics the incessant money grubbing and grifting… return the nation to wealth from endeavour, entrepreneurship, hard work… rebuild the American dream…. Then watch it go global cleaning out the nefarious actors that have inculcated Western politics… Just saying
Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand
This brief but rhetorically charged text is less a message of support than a political benediction cloaked in devotional language. What begins as a personal well-wish quickly unfolds into a sanctified invocation of Elon Musk as a redemptive figure. He is no longer simply a wealthy entrepreneur or public provocateur; here, he is imagined as a mythic leader chosen to deliver his “adopted nation” from moral, political, and economic decay. The author draws heavily on the language of cosmic struggle, invoking “the forces of good and righteousness” as if Musk’s mission were not just civic but spiritual. This moral dualism a world divided between purifiers and the impure immediately displaces politics from the domain of argument and reform into the realm of salvific battle.
What follows is a purification fantasy couched in the lexicon of housecleaning and waste disposal: Musk and his followers are encouraged to “clean house,” “take out the trash,” and rid the nation of “detritus and filth.” These terms are not metaphorical in the harmless sense; they carry historical resonance with authoritarian projects that envisioned political enemies not as opponents to be debated, but as contaminants to be removed. The danger lies in the vagueness of these terms. Who exactly is the trash? The liberal elite? Bureaucrats? Minorities? Dissidents? The lack of specificity is not a flaw it is the rhetorical point. By refusing to define its targets, the text allows readers to project their own enemies into the role of contaminant. This is a linguistic mechanism well-known in demagogic and totalitarian rhetoric, where enemies are always protean and abstract, thereby justifying ever-expanding acts of cleansing.
Despite its moral fervor, the political imagination on display is remarkably thin. It laments “Dollarcracy,” “Corptocracy,” and “Finocracy,” coining buzzwords that suggest structural critique but offering no substantive analysis. There is no engagement with how money functions in the American political system, how corporate influence is institutionalized through lobbying and deregulation, or how finance capitalism shapes labor markets and electoral processes. Instead, these terms serve as totemic evils to be ritually named and discarded. The critique is populist in tone but shallow in execution, offering catharsis in place of critique.
The vision of economic redemption offered in contrast is no less mythological. The writer yearns for a return to a version of the American dream built on “endeavour, entrepreneurship, and hard work.” Yet this vision is a foundational American myth, not a historical reality. It ignores the structural violence, racial exclusions, and class stratifications that have always defined access to wealth in the United States. It romanticizes capitalism without acknowledging its history of exploitation and dispossession, and it calls for a moral reboot of the economy without naming a single concrete reform.
This domestic fantasy then turns global. Once Musk “restores” the United States, the author predicts the model will “go global,” cleansing Western politics of its “nefarious actors.” This is a transference of the same purification fantasy onto a planetary scale. It echoes the logic of civilizational crusades, whereby the chosen nation once purified is called to liberate or purify others. Here, Musk is not only a national redeemer, but an imperial agent of righteousness. There is no suggestion of international cooperation, no engagement with other political cultures or systems only the extension of the American purification to the rest of the West. It is the geopolitical version of moral absolutism.
Finally, the sign-off “Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand” softens the tone, offering a gesture of cross-national solidarity. But this sentimental closure does not neutralize the ideological severity of what precedes it. The text, in effect, blesses an authoritarian, even purgative vision of politics. Its warmth is performative. Its rhetorical affability masks a deep hostility to democratic pluralism, to disagreement, and to the slow, difficult work of institutional reform. Goodwill in language does not absolve the underlying implications of a message that dreams of cleansing society through the will of a single, sanctified man.
What is ultimately on display is not a coherent political argument, nor a serious proposal, but a form of emotional projection. It longs for salvation, and it finds in Musk a cipher for that desire. Yet in transfiguring Musk into a messianic figure, the text abandons politics altogether. It replaces dialogue with devotion, systems with symbolism, and responsibility with the fantasy that someone else brilliant, rich, uncorrupted can cleanse the world for us. In doing so, it exemplifies the very malaise it seeks to overcome: the surrender of political agency to personality, the collapse of critique into blind faith.
This text presents a volatile mixture of political speculation, ideological branding, and personality cults around figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, yet it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions and imprecision. It opens with an absolutist claim “Ideology of ‘America’ party either will be Fourth Political Theory, or there will be none” which gestures toward Aleksandr Dugin’s esoteric political framework. But this invocation is shallow and ornamental, offering no real account of what that theory entails or how it could possibly integrate with American techno-capitalist populism. Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, rooted in anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-fascism, is profoundly metaphysical and steeped in traditionalism, Orthodox mysticism, and Eurasianism. To suggest that Musk who exemplifies the neoliberal techno-oligarch might be its vessel is not only conceptually incoherent but borders on ideological pastiche. What is offered is not political theory but a kind of cultural cosplay with no fidelity to its supposed intellectual origins.
This is compounded by the document’s internal contradictions. While it accurately critiques Trump for his indulgence of Netanyahu and embrace of neoconservatives like Lindsey Graham, it simultaneously casts him as the heroic prophet of a new anti-establishment order. The tension is never resolved. If Trump has betrayed the nationalist cause, as it claims, how does he remain its messiah? Likewise, the text condemns the so-called “Uniparty” a rhetorical amalgam of left and right globalists yet fails to reckon with the fact that figures like Musk and Thiel are themselves products and beneficiaries of that same globalized financial system. There is no analysis of how such contradictions might be resolved; they are merely ignored in favor of narrative cohesion.
The rhetorical structure of the piece trades clarity for mythology. Musk is mythologized not just as an innovator but as a visionary insurgent, misunderstood by the establishment and vindicated through sheer genius. This trope the embattled hero triumphant against the odds is repeated without question. His ventures are described as seemingly doomed, only to “win big,” as though entrepreneurial risk were proof of political or moral superiority. This is the cult of the entrepreneur transposed onto the national political stage: success in one domain is presumed to authorize ideological leadership in another. But technocratic success is not a substitute for political philosophy, and charisma is not coherence.
This substitution of narrative for logic is further emphasized by the deployment of scapegoats. The “degenerate elite,” the “Deep State,” the “insufferable liberals” these terms float without specificity, functioning not as descriptors but as triggers. Their purpose is not to clarify political antagonisms but to generate affective response. The “Uniparty” label collapses all institutional complexity into a single enemy, which is a classic maneuver of reactionary populism. But populism without a constructive theory of governance without affirmative principles is merely reactive. It destroys without building. The text flirts with this emptiness while trying to cover it with slogans: “Death to the Deep State!” or “anti-woke AI” as ideology.
Equally important is the compositional incoherence. The text reads less like an essay and more like a string of social media posts, loosely sewn together by tone rather than argument. There are no transitions, no development of ideas. One paragraph muses on Thiel’s role in shifting Silicon Valley to the right, the next jumps to Musk’s youth appeal, then back again to third-party pessimism. Assertions are flung out without evidence: Musk played a “pivotal” role in Trump’s election how? There is no citation. Thiel called the Uniparty the “party of the Antichrist” in what context? This is not analysis but repetition, and repetition without elaboration becomes dogma.
Beneath all this is a kind of ideological desperation, a longing for new order in the ruins of credibility. There is a hunger for rupture—something to break the deadlock of mainstream American politics. But that hunger is being fed through mythology rather than thought, personality rather than principle. The possibility of a third party in the United States something deeply constrained by electoral systems, media access, and structural power is waved off with little more than the vague assurance that “there’s a first time for everything.” But new parties do not emerge from wishful thinking; they require programmatic clarity, institutional scaffolding, and grassroots legitimacy.
Ultimately, this piece is a symptom rather than a diagnosis. It is not a proposal for what should be done but an affective expression of what is felt: disillusionment with the establishment, rage at cultural liberalism, a desire for someone anyone to seize the moment. But in place of rigor, it offers rhetorical volatility; in place of theory, branding; in place of critique, prophecy. What remains is a confused liturgy for techno-populist redemption with no clear theology, clinging to icons (Musk, Trump) whose own positions are riddled with the very contradictions it seeks to overcome.
If this is the ideological soil from which the so-called “America” party is to grow, then it is already infertile. And if the only options are “Fourth Political Theory or none,” then the answer, at least as presented here, is unmistakably none.
I note "technocracy".
I wonder how many are cognisant of the Unabomber's thesis that all technocracies eventually become fascist dictatorships (I paraphrase, but essentially that is the claim).
The problem with the Musks, Thiels, and so on is that their only focus is on the Algorithm, and there is much more to the world than that, cue the Apocalypse tropes where the discarded ferals challenge the Bunkerists to a death match, and when the bullets run out, what then for Bunkers?
The so-called Collective West has discarded its concepts of fellowship and reverence, what does it have left?
Those who are attracted to the notion of the Fourth Political Theory need, in my singular opinion, to address this, and some of us in the South are already in possession. The West is Lost.