Summary
Elon Musk labeled Britain a “tyrannical police state” on X, criticized Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s leadership, and questioned the imprisonment of far-right activist Tommy Robinson.
Musk’s comments coincide with his role as a key adviser to Trump, raising concerns in the U.K. about its relationship with the incoming administration.
Musk also criticized Starmer’s policies, including increased farm inheritance taxes, and boosted far-right content on X.
This follows similar clashes with other U.S. allies, including Germany and Australia, over their domestic policies.
Jesus Christ Russia have absolutely nailed this part of their geopolitical play.
They’ve basically got 2 members of, if not an entire, US government under their thumb, they’ve corrupted the EU to make one of their major contributors to leave (thinking the US is on their side, idiotically), and they’ve got good relations with the other superpower (china).
Annoyingly, it looks like the EU which is the most, even if not enough, “for the people” political establishment in our world today is going to get screwed over the next decade or so.
A dishonest man will always rule a kingdom of men bound by honesty
Are you kidding? America is easily the least honest place in the entire world. In a country of lying, scheming conmen grifters the most confident grifter is king.
No and this is a stupid idea that just exists to justify fascism. We have many books about abuse and arguing in good faith and philosophy for this reason.
Are you dumb or do you just see fascists everywhere? It’s pretty obvious that not having having handicaps like morality or legality gives you an advantage against those who are abide by them, just look at the world.
It’s not a justification it’s an observation
Well, this is back from Plato’s Republic days, sorry I thought we all were up to date on thousands of years old references. The argument is that democracy always fails to bad faith actors, and democracy always fails. Arguments against democracy are fascist at their core. Democracy itself can be defended from bad faith actors of course, so it’s a simplistic, stupid statement made by someone who is advocating for one thing only: anti-democracy, or fascism.
How? Please elaborate don’t just say of course
Oh, you need me to look up what arguing in good faith is, all the way back to Socrates? You want me to explain the history of our modern court system and how it is entirely based on Western philosophical reasoning which are based on Arabic, Indian, and Chinese philosophical reasonings via the Silk Road? That this idea that democracy will always have a dictator has been confronted by people for thousands of years so they can live in a government with both freedom and safety, and thus modern philosophical ideas about democracy spring from that.
Things like what ‘sophistry’ is. Or do you just want me to post a fallacy chart? Or maybe you just need to read book recommendations like “Stop Caretaking the Borderline or Narcissist.”
We give each other information in a way that is democratic- individually consensual. Each person must then be taught skills to learn bad faith advances. However, here in the US, we let people be taken advantage of by marketing and capitalism and we neglected this in schools. This is why we aren’t doing well and why Russian propaganda worked so well - it relies on heuristics that most people recognize once they get a philosophical education in fallacies.
If democracies always failed, then there would literally never be a stable democracy. That there are, indicates that the simplistic idea they will always fail to bad faith actors is incorrect.
I bet the Romans thought their empire and system was very stable, everything is stable if you choose the right timeframe. Our democracies may seem stable, for now…
Also history is not a good indicator because mass media and the internet changed the playing field in ways that are not comparable to any other period in history.
Okay, well it’s still fascist to advocate for anything other than a democracy.
That is so depressing