Why I Hate Elon Musk

Let’s get one thing out of the way: I don’t hate Apartheid Clyde out of any form of jealousy. It’s not because he’s wealthy, or famous, or “successful.” It’s because he’s the perfect embodiment of everything wrong with our world, gift-wrapped in a smug face and a broken social filter.

Apartheid Clyde is capitalism’s final boss. Not because he’s a genius–he’s not–but because he’s really good at taking credit for other people’s work while cosplaying as a messiah. He didn’t invent Tesla. He didn’t found SpaceX from scratch. What he did do was use inherited wealth to buy his way into tech projects already in motion, then spin a mythology around himself with the help of media and a small army of reply guys convinced he’s the second coming of Nikola Tesla, Tony Stark, and Jesus rolled into one.

Spoiler: he’s none of those things.

He’s a union-buster. A climate grifter. A serial breeder who thinks repopulating the Earth with his own genes is a noble cause. He preaches about saving humanity while exploiting workers and cozying up to dictators. He pretends to be a free speech absolutist while banning journalists on Twitter for criticizing him. He bought one of the most important online platforms just to turn it into his personal plaything–a megaphone for crypto scams, far-right rhetoric, and fragile billionaire egos.

He’s not a visionary. He’s a distraction.

Musk sells the illusion that billionaires will save us if we just let them run wild with our data, our money, and our futures. That if we tolerate their tantrums and bow to their brilliance, they’ll build us a utopia on Mars. Meanwhile, here on Earth, wages are stagnant, cities are burning, and the richest man alive is picking fights with disabled employees online.

I don’t hate him because he’s unusual. I hate him because he’s typical–a grotesque symptom of a system that rewards narcissism, hoarding, and unchecked power. A system that mistakes wealth for wisdom. A system that tells us the people breaking the planet are somehow going to be the ones to fix it.

He won’t save us. He can’t. He doesn’t even care to.

Why I and People Like Me Hate Trump

People hate Trump for all sorts of reasons and they’re all valid. Why do I hate him? Well, I’ll tell you.

I hate that he represents the worst combination of arrogance, ignorance, cruelty, and power. He’s the embodiment of everything wrong with American politics–corruption, racism, greed, and narcissism–and he’s turned politics into a grotesque reality show. I see him not only as a bad president but a symptom of a much deeper rot in our system: capitalism run amok, cultish nationalism, and the glorification of stupidity.

He brags about things he should be ashamed of. He lies like it’s breathing. He panders to white supremacists, demonizes immigrants, mocks the disabled, and dodges accountability at every turn. And somehow, he became president.

I hate him because he made it clear that cruelty isn’t a bug in the system–it’s a feature. He ripped children from their parents and bragged about it. He treated a pandemic like a PR problem and let hundreds of thousands die while pushing bleach as a cure. He spent years dog-whistling to fascists until the whistles became bullhorns, and then claimed no responsibility when his mob stormed the Capitol.

He doesn’t just represent conservative politics–he represents a cult of personality built on lies, resentment, and fear. He’s not just a symptom of decline, he accelerates it. He made it okay for the worst people to say the quiet part out loud–open racism, misogyny, transphobia, conspiracy theories–he gave it a platform and a suit.

He’s everything people warned us about in history books, except with a golf course and a gold toilet.

And the worst part? Millions cheer him on because of this, not in spite of it. That’s what really makes my blood boil.

Trump didn’t break America. He just held up a mirror, grinned, and asked if we wanted to make it worse.

“All Libertarians Are Scum”? Not So Fast

Recently, I told someone I was a libertarian socialist. Their response? “All libertarians are scum.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard that sort of reaction. And I get it–libertarian is a poisoned word in the U.S. For most Americans “libertarian” evokes the image of a smug tech bro hoarding Bitcoin, quoting Ayn Rand, and arguing that child labor laws are tyranny. That brand of libertarianism–individualist, capitalist–has dominated the label in the U.S. for decades.

But that’s not what libertarian socialism means.

Libertarian socialism is anti-authoritarian leftist tradition. It’s about dismantling both state and capitalist hierarchies. It stands opposed to top-down government and to concentrated private power. It believes freedom doesn’t mean “I get to exploit people without interference.” It means collective self-determination, mutual aid, and horizontal organization. It’s about organizing society around human needs and not profit.

If you’re familiar with anarchism, council communism, or even some strains of syndicalism, you’ve brushed shoulders with libertarian socialism. It’s the politics of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and the Zapatistas in Mexico–not Ayn Rand and Elon Musk.

The confusion stems from a linguistic hijacking. In much of the world–especially in Latin America and Europe–libertarian has long been associated with the left. The term was originally used by anarchists to distinguish themselves from authoritarian Marxists such as Stalin and Pol Pot. In fact, in 19th century France, libertaire was often a stand-in for anarchist, especially when anarchism was censored of criminalized.

But in the U.S., thanks for Cold War politics, capitalist rebranding, and a lot of Koch brothers’ money, “libertarian” came to mean something closer to “I think poor people should die faster.” The right-wing libertarians here have tried to claim the whole world, but that doesn’t mean they own it.

So when I say I’m a libertarian socialist, I’m not trying to split the difference between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, I’m saying I want a world without billionaires or bureaucrats. I’m saying we need both freedom and equality, not as competing values, but as inseparable ones.

Here’s the core idea:

You’re not free if you spend your life working for someone else just to survive.

You’re not free if your boss can dictate your every move because they control your livelihood.

You’re not free if the government props up corporations while criminalizing poverty.

Libertarian socialism rejects the false choice between “state control” and “corporate control.” We want neither. We want self-control. We want power in the hands of communities, workers, and individuals, not oligarchs and technocrats.

So no, not all libertarians are scum. Some of us are trying to burn down the same systems you are, just from a different angle.

A Movie Star and Reality Show Star President

What does it say about conservatives that their two idols are Reagan: a polished actor who turned smiling while gutting social programs into an art form. He kicked off the modern era of trickle-down economics, mass incarceration, union busting, and “government is the problem” rhetoric. He was the velvet glove over the iron fist of neoliberalism.

Then there’s Trump: A brash, gold-plated conman who ditched the velvet glove entirely and wrapped the fist in a red hat. He turned politics into a circus, embraced open corruption, and fed white grievance politics with a firehose.

So what does it say that these two are the main idols of conservatives and the Republican party?

It says they worship aesthetics over ethics. Reagan sold the dream while hollowing it out; Trump hawks the nightmare as a feature. Together, they represent the conservative id: nostalgia, hierarchy, wealth worship, and cruelty–first dressed in a cowboy hat, then in a golf cap.

Reagan and Trump are less political figures and more myths–icons of conservative longing. But the values they embody reveal a lot about the psychology of the American right.

Conservatives idolized Reagan for what he symbolized:

A return to tradition after the upheaval of the 60s and 70s–code for putting women, people of color, and the working class back in their place. He was patriotic, optimistic, and deeply hollow. He gutted the social safety net, helped catalyze the AIDS crisis through negligence, and kicked off the war on drugs that became a war on Black communities.

His trickle-down economics, which conservatives still cling to like a religion despite 40+ years of evidence that it doesn’t work was sucked up and hoarded.

Reagan is idolized not because he helped people, but because he helped the right people–corporations, the rich, and white suburbia–feel good about stepping on everyone else.

Then you have Trump. Where Reagan was the polished actor, Trump is the reality TV boss–all ego, rage, and spectacle. His rise didn’t replace Reaganism it revealed what was always beneath it:

Open authoritarianism instead of coded dog whistles.

Grievance politics centered on the loss of white, male, Christian dominance.

Blatant corruption celebrated as “winning” by his followers.

What do these two say about conservatives as a whole? They value dominance over democracy. Both reinforced hierarchies: racial, economic, gendered, and that’s the point. The conservative movement today isn’t about ideas, it’s about keeping their group on top.

They prioritize feelings over facts. Reagan made conservatives feel safe. Trump makes them feel powerful. The results don’t matter. It’s vibes all the way down.

They replace accountability. Reagan dodged responsibility for Iran-Contra. Trump dodges it for everything. In both cases, the base cheers the escape, not the truth.

They long for a mythical past. Reagan promised a return to a golden age that never existed. Trump promised the same only louder, meaner, and with more gold plating. Both feed the same nostalgia machine that keeps people looking backward instead of forward.

Worshiping Reagan and Trump isn’t about policy. It’s about identity, fantasy, and fear. One sold the myth with a smile. The other screamed it into a megaphone. Either way, it’s about clinging to a dying order and pretending it’s salvation.

They’re not ideologically consistent heroes, they’re mascots of the decline.

Why I Am Against Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians

I’ve been stating that I am a socialist. I am a member of various groups on Facebook and when I attack Trump, I am called a “socialist Democrat.” I am not a Democrat. Democrats are capitalists just like Republicans, but the public is uneducated and don’t know the distinction. I used to think I was Libertarian, but they’re just extreme Republicans. I thought I’d lay out why I am against the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians.

Republicans

Republicans are capitalism’s biggest defenders. Their pro-corporate, anti-worker policies directly clash with my goals. As someone who leans toward libertarian socialism, the GOP’s obsession with deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and union-busting infuriates me. Trump, especially is a major problem, and Republicans have embraced him fully. I think they have split off into two factions: Republicans and MAGA. MAGA is just Republicanism pushed to the extreme. MAGA is a natural enemy to what I’m against. On another note, Republicans push policies that promote population growth, and being an anti-natalist I am wholeheartedly against this. It completely goes against my ethics

Democrats

My opposition to Democrats comes from their failure to actually challenge capitalism and make meaningful change. While they talk about fairness, they ultimately uphold the same capitalist system I want to disrupt. They’ll tweak the edges, sure, but won’t challenge the core of the problem. They campaign on progressive ideas but rarely follow through in ways that matter. Medicare for All? Green New Deal? They talk big, but cave to corporate interests. They also take money from the same corporations and billionaires that Republicans do. They talk about progressivism but won’t truly take on the rich. Furthermore, even as Republicans become more extreme, Democrats often respond with weakness instead of fighting back aggressively. Their strategy of “let’s be reasonable” isn’t working.

Libertarians

Libertarians are more defenders of capitalism and they are against collective action. They worship the free market and want fewer regulations which make things worse for the working class and the environment. They reject collective solutions in favor of “personal responsibility,” which is useless when fighting systemic problems like wealth inequality or climate change. While I’m an anti-natalist and don’t give a shit if there are future generations, you’d think they’d give a little more of a shit about their future generations. I’ve said before that I used to worship Ayn Rand, but I learned the error of my ways. I saw through her selfish philosophy, but Libertarians never grew out of it. I especially hate their rejection of solidarity.

In summation: Republicans openly serve the rich, push corporate control, and embrace authoritarianism. Democrats pretend to care about change but protect capitalism and avoid real action. Libertarians worship the free market, reject collective solutions, and would let corporations run wild.

At the core, all three prioritize profit over people and resist the kind of radical change I believe is necessary.

Borders Are Peak Absurdity

Borders are one of the more absurd human constructs. They’re just imaginary lines that people violently enforce to keep others in or out, usually for the benefit of those in power. There’s no natural reason why one side of a river or a mountain should “belong” to one group of people and not another—it’s all about control, resources, and maintaining systems of power.

It’s wild how people will fight and die over borders, even though they only exist because some long-dead rulers or colonizers decided they should. It’s even wilder how most people just accept them as some kind of universal truth rather than a completely arbitrary system designed to divide and exploit.

Borders are peak human absurdity. We literally drew invisible lines on a planet that was just sitting here, existing just fine without them, and decided that stepping over those lines without permission is a crime. Then we built fences, walls, and armies to enforce those lines—often with deadly force.

It gets even more ridiculous when you look at history. Half the time, borders were drawn by some random guys in a room with no connection to the land or the people living there (looking at you, colonialism). Sometimes, entire countries were created or erased by the stroke of a pen, with no regard for the people actually living there. The Middle East? Carved up by Europeans who didn’t even live there. Africa? Sliced into pieces at a conference table in Berlin.

Even within so-called “stable” countries, borders shift. The U.S. stole half of Mexico. Poland has been shuffled around like a deck of cards. And yet, people act like today’s borders are sacred and eternal, as if they weren’t just violently imposed or changed a hundred years ago.

And don’t even get me started on how some borders are enforced for some people and not others. If you’re rich, borders barely exist—you can buy citizenship, get special visas, or just own enough property to move freely. But if you’re poor? Good luck. You could be running from war, climate disaster, or starvation, and still, some bureaucrat will tell you, “Sorry, wrong side of the line.”

At the end of the day, borders are just another tool to maintain inequality. They protect wealth, resources, and power, not people. They’re imaginary lines with real-world consequences, and the fact that we still take them seriously in 2025 is honestly embarrassing.

Little X

As Musk answered questions from the press, his son X Æ A-Xii proved to be a distraction by pulling faces, clinging onto his dad’s shoulders and interrupting him.

One clip shows X jr. picking his nose and wiping it on the Resolute desk, which was gifted to President Rutherford Hayes by Queen Victoria in 1880 and used by nearly every president since.

Elon’s kid wiping his boogers on the resolute desk is a sight I didn’t really need to see.

The most egregious aspect to Musk’s presser in the Oval Office is how he used his child to obfuscate when asked difficult questions by the press. He used his son to soften and distract from the impact of his hugely controversial policies.

ln Musk’s recent appearance at the White House — accompanied by his young son — is a blatant display of arrogance and entitlement.

Musk — an unelected billionaire — struts into the Oval Office as if he owns the place, bringing his child along as though it’s a casual family outing.

This isn’t a playground; it’s the epicenter of American democracy.

Musk’s actions epitomize the dangerous belief that immense wealth grants one the right to influence and control governmental affairs.

His nonchalant demeanor and apparent disregard for the sanctity of the White House underscore a troubling trend where money and power are perceived as tickets to unchecked authority.

US citizens are seemingly powerless to confront this overreach.

Allowing unelected individuals like Musk to wield such influence undermines the very foundation of democracy.

Musk even defies all of Trump’s rules. The dress code, and no kids allowed in the oval office or at work, proving once again that he is in charge and Trump is not. Musk and his 4-year-old son both interrupted Trump, and Trump looked very angry and turned away from the kid. At one point, X was seen picking his nose. He also “charmed” the room by politely excusing himself, saying, “Please forgive me, I need to pee.”

5 Reasons Trump is a Cunt

Trump, I think, is one of the most divisive Presidents we’ve ever had. I remember Bush being popular after 9/11 but immediately losing popularity after he decided to invade Iraq. Someone can correct me on that if I’m wrong, but that’s just how I remember it. I was in high school then and don’t remember much because I didn’t pay attention to the news like I should have. I didn’t start paying attention to the news until the 2016 elections when it started to seem like Trump had a good chance of winning.

Once Trump won I remember officially giving up on us as a species. I wasn’t fond of us before then, but that sealed the deal for me. We’re idiots and we deserve whatever catastrophic events come our way. Plague? Nuclear holocaust? Plague and then a nuclear holocaust? We deserve whatever nature or a foreign enemy tosses our way for the outcome of that election. It was a culmination of the stupidity of a culture that came together — a culture that’s too wrapped up in reality television, viral videos, and being famous just for being famous.

Someone online posed a question, not understanding how people can be so anti-Trump. I stay out of political arguments these days because they don’t do anything except lead to insults and broken friendships. Since I don’t care anything about this person’s friendship I decided to chime in with my reasons for not liking the moron:

1. He does not have the temperament for the job.

2. He is too vain for the job.

3. He can not tolerate a negative comment about what he says or does.

4. He immediately tries to discredit or attack anyone or organization that does such a thing. You can’t be in his position and throw a tantrum any time someone says something negative about you. That just comes with the territory of being president. People are going to make fun of you. If you didn’t want that to happen then you shouldn’t have signed up. I think he’s used to surrounding himself with “yes” men and since we’re not a nation of “yes” men he doesn’t know how to handle that so he lashes out.

5. I don’t like children. That includes 73-year-old children.

But what do I know? I’m just someone with an opinion and internet access. No one cares what any of us think anyway.