We need to talk about Elon

We Need to Talk about Elon: Wow. I mean where to begin with this little over-privileged toad faced ringpiece. I could write a book on what an empathy free turd this piece of work is. I hope he gets to read this but if he did, I know his self-awareness would wash over him with the ferocity of the gentle lapping of a love-faced Jacob Reece Mogg on the vinegar stroke. Jacob Rees-Mogg (h)edging on a weak pound – sorry that’s an image no one needs to see. Pass the eye-bleach! Scary place no. 906. 

Anyway back to Musk! If you thought the low point was his idea of a Party rally being to make it resemble Nuremberg, think again. Let’s look at one example of what an absolute dicksplash this man is. He once had the opportunity to end world poverty. And he said “Nah, fuck’em” In late 2021, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) made a direct appeal to the world’s wealthiest individuals, including Musk, calling for a $6 billion donation to alleviate global hunger and set everyone in need on the path to a better life. WFP’s Executive Director, David Beasley, publicly stated that just a fraction of Musk’s vast fortune could help solve the issue. The $6 billion, according to Beasley, would be enough to provide life-saving food aid to 42 million people around the globe, combating hunger, malnutrition, and famine, and generating more welath through social value than the initial investment. 

At the time, Musk’s net worth was about $300 billion, and his wealth had nearly doubled in just a year, driven by the success of Tesla and SpaceX. Musk, who had previously publicly claimed that he would sell Tesla stock to fund charitable causes, was suddenly confronted with an opportunity to make a direct and measurable impact on global suffering. Yet, of course it wasn’t to be because after careful evaluation and assessing the opportunity it turns out that he's full of shit. In fact, he responded with a flippant comment that left many stunned: “If the WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6 billion will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it.” Musk’s response not only ignored the urgency of the crisis but also placed the onus on the World Food Programme to detail how such a donation would be spent, as if the problem of world hunger had not already been thoroughly studied and documented by organizations like the WFP for decades. I’m sure David Beasley was sitting at his desk reading the tweet and, like a vision on the road to Damascus, thought “Fucking hell! Solving hunger – why have we never thought of that, that man Musk is a bloody genius”. Most likely thought he thought, what a self-absorbed cockend this man is. 

Musk’s refusal to take action highlights a key issue with the modern global economy: the obscene concentration of wealth in the hands of a few billionaires. Billionaires like Musk often reap the benefits of exploitative capitalist systems, where their immense fortunes are built on the backs of workers, the environment, and sometimes even state-funded initiatives. Musk’s wealth, for example, is partly a result of government subsidies for Tesla, SpaceX, and his other ventures. In return, Musk’s personal gains have come at the cost of widespread inequality, with many of the workers who power his companies struggling with low wages, while Musk himself enjoys a level of wealth and power that places him as a man that is richer than some national governments. That someone as wealthy as Musk could have solved world hunger with a fraction of his wealth exposes the disparity between the power of the wealthy and the suffering of the global poor. The choice to hoard that wealth rather than use it for the common good reflects the fundamental flaws of capitalism, where profit motives are prioritised over human needs. 

The $6 billion challenge wasn’t just about solving hunger, it was about demonstrating whether the super-rich, who hold an unprecedented level of wealth and influence, have any responsibility to address systemic social injustices. Musk’s rhetoric also provides an interesting contrast to his actions. On the one hand, Musk frequently positions himself as a “philanthropist,” claiming that his wealth will be used to create a better future for humanity. He has spoken about his commitment to sustainability and space exploration as ways to benefit mankind. On the other hand, his actions suggest that he’s a morality free greedy bellend with a deep reluctance to part with his money. I’m from Yorkshire, we know what a tight cunt looks like. For instance, Musk has made headlines for his focus on space colonisation, with SpaceX working towards making life multi-planetary. While many support the vision of creating a human colony on Mars, I have to question the ethics of pouring billions into this speculative venture when the Earth is in dire need of resources to address issues like poverty, inequality, and environmental catastrophe. Musk’s reluctance to invest in solutions to the global crises facing humanity may be seen as a prioritisation of technological vanity projects and fantasy over reality. That said, I bet there’s few people who’d try to talk him out of fucking off to Mars at the earliest given opportunity. Tomorrow would be great, off you pop. In the words of the song from The Sound of Music, 'So long, farewell Auf Weidersehen, Goodbye!'  Although as Musical classics go he no doubt prefers 'Tomorrow blongs to me'

Then there’s Musk’s frequent dismissals of the welfare state and government intervention, and his opposition to programs like universal healthcare and higher taxes on the rich. These diametrically oppose any concept of philanthropy. Or do they?  I am minded of the Elders of Middlesbrough in the 1850’s. They built public works, huge parks, garden cities and had charitable trusts to help the poor. They wanted this to leave them a legacy of trusted men of the people who were God Fearing and law abiding. Yet in reality they presided as slum landlords over offensive levels of poverty in the communities of people who worked for them on piss poor wages and, oh, they spent a month a year on a jolly down to London to frequent the top brothels. I can see the similarities. Philanthropy has always being a way for the the risk to atone for all the shitty things they did to get rich.  Atonement, however, require a conscience and empathy.  Two qualities it is abundently clear that Musk doesn't possess.  

Musk is a product of the libertarian right. And like most libertarians he doesn’t really believe in liberty. He believes in the individual, which is quite handy really because he’s got no real friends. His ideology is based on a hands-off approach of Government and private wealth, almost, oh I don’t know, like 1930’s Germany, which I suppose explains the ‘Roman’ salute. Such views reflect an individualistic worldview that places the desires of the wealthy few over the collective good of society, particularly the marginalised and vulnerable populations who stand to benefit the most from redistributive policies. In spite of claims to the contrary until he was called out, it was clearly highly unlikely he was going to put his hand in his pocket to help people. Ironic that the one thing it appears to crave for is to be loved. This one action would have had him remembered as a hero in the history books instead of as a weapons grade twat. 

The missed opportunity to end world hunger is part of a larger conversation about the role of billionaires in a global economy that continues to deepen inequality. Musk’s refusal to consider the $6 billion challenge is a glaring example of how the ultra-wealthy, no matter how much they profess to care about innovation and progress, are still tethered to the logic of capitalism, which often refuses to place human well-being over private profit. This is not simply about holding him accountable for one missed opportunity but about challenging the broader system that enables such wealth to accumulate in the first place. Global poverty, hunger, and inequality are not the result of individual failings, but systemic issues rooted in the ways capitalist economies are structured. Musk’s refusal to make even a modest contribution to alleviating global hunger is a symptom of a deeper issue: the failure of billionaires and corporations to prioritise social responsibility over personal gain. He and all the dysfunctional fuckers who had the opportunity to make the world a better place without breaking a sweat should never be forgiven. 

I was looking for a collective noun to describe a group of billionaires. Answers of a postcard. The best I could come up with was a 'hoarding' of billionaires. Amassing more more than you can spend in a thousand lifetimes while humanity is struggling is a sickness.  I could have equally used ‘bunch of over-privileged selfish mentally unstable wankers’. I wonder if Bezos and Branson’s ears are burning. They should be. 

There’s a wider question about the social responsibilities of the ultra-rich. If Musk, with his immense wealth and resources, cannot make a meaningful contribution to solving global poverty, it underscores the need for systemic change, where wealth is more equitably distributed, and those with power and resources are held accountable for addressing the urgent needs of the planet. For a start the wankspanner could start paying his taxes. 

If he doesn't make it to Mars, one day he’ll be the richest man in the graveyard and he will be held in such esteem that in the coming green environmentally responsible world that will undoubtedly prevail over the whatever the fuck this is at the moment, his grave will be repurposed as a gender-neutral toilet. 

And then, in an ironic twist of fate, he would have finally solved world hunger when the custodians charge a pound a pop to use it.